| Revision as of 05:06, 8 March 2014 editCzar (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators134,584 edits →Castlevania: Lords of Shadow diff: support← Previous edit | Revision as of 07:00, 8 March 2014 edit undoSven Manguard (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers46,502 edits →Castlevania: Lords of Shadow diff: re Sir LotharNext edit → | ||
| Line 437: | Line 437: | ||
| ::::::Believe me, I disagree with plenty about WP:VG's current standards (I think it should be okay to add as many reviews to a table as are available as long as it fits in a reasonable-length Reception section, for example), but I'm not about to challenge them on a ] basis. ] (]) 03:27, 8 March 2014 (UTC) | ::::::Believe me, I disagree with plenty about WP:VG's current standards (I think it should be okay to add as many reviews to a table as are available as long as it fits in a reasonable-length Reception section, for example), but I'm not about to challenge them on a ] basis. ] (]) 03:27, 8 March 2014 (UTC) | ||
| :::::::OK, I won't argue. Removed GR from table - ain't gonna provoke conflicts. As I see Hahnchen still hasn't read those pages ], ] and of course ]. ] (]) 04:51, 8 March 2014 (UTC) | :::::::OK, I won't argue. Removed GR from table - ain't gonna provoke conflicts. As I see Hahnchen still hasn't read those pages ], ] and of course ]. ] (]) 04:51, 8 March 2014 (UTC) | ||
| ::::::::I'm going to have to call you on that one, ]. What we have here is a standard editorial dispute-turned minor scuffle, and you're just as guilty of etiquette violations as he is. I recommend you leave a comment at the "GameRankings standard" section below, and then walk away. {{u|Hahnchen}} would probably best be served doing the same. What's needed, I feel, is for the two of you stay away from each other, and this discussion, for a few days. ] ] 07:00, 8 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| === GameRankings standard === | === GameRankings standard === | ||
| *I '''support''' making GR optional (i.e., based on the article's local consensus). I've never seen it differ significantly from the MC score and have always added it begrudgingly. <span style='font:1.1em"Avenir";padding:1px 3px;border:1px solid #909'><font color="#909">czar</font> ]</span> 05:06, 8 March 2014 (UTC) | *I '''support''' making GR optional (i.e., based on the article's local consensus). I've never seen it differ significantly from the MC score and have always added it begrudgingly. <span style='font:1.1em"Avenir";padding:1px 3px;border:1px solid #909'><font color="#909">czar</font> ]</span> 05:06, 8 March 2014 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 07:00, 8 March 2014
Shortcut
|
| |||||||
 Archives |
|
Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Project watchlist | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
We're editing 42% of all WP:VG articles
One of the biggest clean-ups in the history of WP:VG is starting.
User:TeleComNasSprVen had the idea of adding a tracking category to the Infobox template, to categorise all articles that contained infobox code for defunct fields. With additional technical gubbins by User:Technical 13, we now have a very large administration category that contains 0 articles.
Help is required in a number of ways.
- There is an AWB file available so that any AutoWikiBrowser users who want to help can get straight to work.
- I'm fairly new to RegEx, so anyone who can provide technical help to improve the above file is welcome to do so.
- Check the infobox on pages you watch for the following fields (picture format, aspect ratio, input, license, resolution, ratings, requirements, version, preceded by, followed by, latest release version, latest release date, latest preview version, latest preview date, website) and remove them.
- Bake a cake for when we cross the finish line sometime next year.
My main reason for taking part is to make life easier for new editors, templates are confusing for new editors, and having loads of redundant fields around only makes it harder for them to open an existing article when looking for a few pointers.
Please help if you can. The AWB code is available here. - X201 (talk) 16:36, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- I'm kinda wondering why some of these fields have been deprecated. Ratings, website seem moderately useful and informative, preceded/followed by is very useful for series Infoboxes... were these all discussed? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:44, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- Were all discussed and have been dead fields for between 1 and 3 years. - X201 (talk) 16:48, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- Pass. Why can't we have a bot do something like this? Editors shouldn't have to waste their time on monotonous tasks about parameters that are no longer seen anyway when they can be adding real value to articles. --Teancum (talk) 17:04, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- Because not all editors are good at creating article content. If the Gnomes find nothing to do that interests them, they wither and die. - X201 (talk) 19:17, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- A bot definitely could do this, though I would have the bot leave any of these old alone if they contain references or links, so that we can then filter the much smaller set to make sure if there's anything to keep worthwhile. --MASEM (t) 17:08, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- I agree a bot should be doing this once the rules have been properly vetted and debugged (there are still a couple minor issues according to X201). I wonder if any of the bot writers I know (Theopolisme—Hasteur—Legoktm—SigmaWP) could write up this bot for this and get it through WP:BAG since there seems to be a consensus here for that. Technical 13 (talk) 18:02, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- I could do this manually, I like such projects. If BAG will take a long time to clear, why not just do it manually - saves hassle in the end. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:09, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- I could also probably run an AWB routine for the simpler cases over the weekend (such as simply removing fields with no information to keep). ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:12, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- Most of them are simple removes, it just needs the human eye to spot the oddballs. - X201 (talk) 19:07, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- I could also probably run an AWB routine for the simpler cases over the weekend (such as simply removing fields with no information to keep). ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:12, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)*2 Definitely doable with a bot. Just enumerating the requirements so far
- For each transclusion of {{Infobox video game}}
- For each parameter in the template
- If the parameter is on a blacklist of "deprecated fields" fields
- If the field's "value" has a URL, reference, or internal wikilink, don't strip
- Else strip the parameter
- If the parameter is on a blacklist of "deprecated fields" fields
- Save the modified template with a summary that is distinctive, and gives a link to the consensus for removal. Hasteur (talk) 18:13, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- For each parameter in the template
- Thanks to User:X201 for his work. Someone who is familiar with the videogame infobox issues should look at the last hundred entries in Special:Contributions/X201 to see if those changes look correct. EdJohnston (talk) 18:14, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- @Hasteur: I don't think internal wikilinks need to be included; for example, see this edit which removed defunct parameters and plenty of wikilinks that didn't need to be kept. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:23, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- I could do this manually, I like such projects. If BAG will take a long time to clear, why not just do it manually - saves hassle in the end. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:09, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Re: "Do it with a bot". I've done about 400-500 articles with AWB while testing my RegEx code. I think a bot could do a large proportion of the fields, the problem I have with letting a bot loose on it is that users have come up with their own styles for actually laying out the field data, - especially in the requirements field, where I've had to rely on the fact that its usually the last item in the infobox and implement an open bit of RegEx to select everything between the field start and the end of the template. - and I'm fully expecting to find more. Plus I'm also finding totally made up fields like site, time limit and numerous others where people think that just adding something in the correct format will make it appear in the template.
I'm fully in favour of the human approach to this, checking as each edit is made and spotting anomalies. There is no urgent reason that means the job must be done in a week, I'm fully happy to do the whole 12,000 myself with AWB, I've done similar with large categories before, its not a problem for me. The main reason I posted here was to let everyone know what was happening and get a bit of help if anyone is interested in joining in. - X201 (talk) 19:06, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Just to let everyone know There is a new version of the AWB code on the template talk page. It contains a bug fix for the website field and Izno's template suggestions below. - X201 (talk) 15:12, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
- Do not remove deprecated parameters - In many cases, they contain accurate referenced material, which although decided that they are unsuitable for the infobox - may still be useful elsewhere. If not on Misplaced Pages, then on Wikidata. - hahnchen 16:19, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
- Well, I won't remove deprecated parameters in the future, I can't promise I'm going to go back and restore all the ones I already removed. :S — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 16:23, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
- The 600-ish articles that I've so far processed don't back up the claim that many contain accurate referenced material. On the rare occasion anything has had a reference in it, it's been the Ratings field. - X201 (talk) 16:33, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
- Lists of age ratings are exactly the type of thing that Wikidata can and should cover. - hahnchen 16:40, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
- They rarely have a reliable reference. That was one of the reasons the field was removed from the template. Is WikiData just being populated with whatever happens to be in Misplaced Pages when it makes a pass? Surely they would be better off doing a look-up to the actual source of the info, the ratings bodies? - X201 (talk) 16:46, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
- It's a lot easier to scrape Misplaced Pages than it is to scrape external sites. Each video game article already has a link to Wikidata so you know you're dealing with the correct subject. And a lot of system requirements information never needed sourcing because it was taken as read that the source was the game itself. Wikidata is still in its infancy, it'd be better to keep the information stored in deprecated infobox fields until that data is transferred across. - hahnchen 16:53, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
- Not sure if its possible, but a better solution would be to remove the deprecated fields from the Infobox, and put the ones that do have data in them into an invisible template at the bottom of the article. That way the template is cleaned of redundant code and Wikidata still has the info to mine at some point in the future. - X201 (talk) 16:59, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
- Agree. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 17:03, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
- That would work. - hahnchen 02:12, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
- Not sure if its possible, but a better solution would be to remove the deprecated fields from the Infobox, and put the ones that do have data in them into an invisible template at the bottom of the article. That way the template is cleaned of redundant code and Wikidata still has the info to mine at some point in the future. - X201 (talk) 16:59, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
- It's a lot easier to scrape Misplaced Pages than it is to scrape external sites. Each video game article already has a link to Wikidata so you know you're dealing with the correct subject. And a lot of system requirements information never needed sourcing because it was taken as read that the source was the game itself. Wikidata is still in its infancy, it'd be better to keep the information stored in deprecated infobox fields until that data is transferred across. - hahnchen 16:53, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
- They rarely have a reliable reference. That was one of the reasons the field was removed from the template. Is WikiData just being populated with whatever happens to be in Misplaced Pages when it makes a pass? Surely they would be better off doing a look-up to the actual source of the info, the ratings bodies? - X201 (talk) 16:46, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
- Lists of age ratings are exactly the type of thing that Wikidata can and should cover. - hahnchen 16:40, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
- The 600-ish articles that I've so far processed don't back up the claim that many contain accurate referenced material. On the rare occasion anything has had a reference in it, it's been the Ratings field. - X201 (talk) 16:33, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Anything else that could piggyback
Is there anything else that WP:VG could use this large a run to do other changes with, besides gen fixes? Running it over 12k articles is an excellent time to poke away at other things that could use a mass-tweak and which are otherwise banned as "solo" edits per WP:AWB#Rules of use #4. The example off the top of my head would be to change all instances of Infobox VG to Infobox video game. --Izno (talk) 21:46, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- Good thinking Batman. How about sorting the fields into the same order? - X201 (talk) 22:06, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- That would be nice, but there are some who would see that as controversial, which would fail rule #3. --Izno (talk) 00:55, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
- @Izno: Isn't bypassing template redirects part of AWB genfixes? I see it happen all the time. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 22:40, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- T:IVG isn't one of them apparently (though it's not the only template I have in mind)! We can add templates to Misplaced Pages:AutoWikiBrowser/Template redirects so long as we can show consensus. On that note, I'd probably say that the following are good ones to add: {{Video game reviews}}, {{Infobox video game}}, and {{System requirements}}, with their respective redirects. (I would expect T:System requirements not to be removed in an AWB run per AWB usage rule #3.) --Izno (talk) 00:55, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
- And I've gone ahead and added the above three. Are those replacements taking place? --Izno (talk) 18:52, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
- T:IVG isn't one of them apparently (though it's not the only template I have in mind)! We can add templates to Misplaced Pages:AutoWikiBrowser/Template redirects so long as we can show consensus. On that note, I'd probably say that the following are good ones to add: {{Video game reviews}}, {{Infobox video game}}, and {{System requirements}}, with their respective redirects. (I would expect T:System requirements not to be removed in an AWB run per AWB usage rule #3.) --Izno (talk) 00:55, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
- What about <!-- Deleted image removed: tags? - X201 (talk) 09:17, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
- That might be controversial, though it's a good suggestion. Who to bug about it? --Izno (talk) 18:52, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
How about converting all of the image field mark-up from the old px method to the ] method that allows user preferences to work? - X201 (talk) 09:29, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Consensus
Sorry I got a bit delayed with this. I'm ready to make the bot request for this and I just wanted to make sure everyone was OK with the plan and that we had a consensus for the changes to be made. The request will be; that in order to aid users in editing the infobox code, and at the same time preserve data, any populated defunct fields should be moved from the template on existing article pages, to a new hidden template at the bottom of the article, so that the data in those fields can be harvested later by WikiData. Any field that is blank can just be binned.
Is everyone OK with the above? Any other tasks need adding that can be completed at the same time? - X201 (talk) 11:30, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
February 2014's TFL
Coming up on the main page this Monday is not a Featured Article but a Featured List. That's right, we have List of voice actors in the Grand Theft Auto series being one of two FLs shown on there this week. Get some Hot Coffee ready for when it happens. GamerPro64 02:12, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Popular pages tool update
As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).
Web tools, to replace the ones at tools:~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at toollabs:popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.
If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot (talk) (for Mr.Z-man) 05:32, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Assistance at Fallout: New Vegas and Fallout (series)
There is a bit of an edit war brewing here regarding the status of past Fallout 1 & 2 developers working on the New Vegas, any assistance would be appreciated as I'm having difficulty getting any headway here. Яehevkor ✉ 17:34, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Link to discussion: Talk:Fallout_(series)#Minor_edit_war czar ♔ 22:16, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Famitsu Schedule/Community pages
VG articles aren't something I edit for various reasons but as I need sources for game sections of Anime/Manga articles some cross over does occur.
In looking for a reliable source for Japanese release dates I naturally took to the Famitsu site. Rather wonderfully they have a schedule for releases on the site that goes back to 1987 at least. However some digging reveals this may actually be automated by scraping the data for all games and then generating a schedule based on those results. The links for each game take you to the community area of the site (/cominy in the urls) which naturally caught my attention.
The question is, can we ignore the user reviews and take the release dates, maker and Famitsu score (listed in a info box) as reliable? For example here is the page for a random entry - Dragon Quest II : japanese translated. Famitsu's own score is multiplied by 2.5 to get a score of 100 for comparison to user reviews, but the original score is separate from this display. There doesn't seem to be any way for users to submit data or corrections, so I'm not convinced the release data is community edited or corrected and the community features seem limited to user reviews and tags which we can of course ignore. I don't see a problem in using it, but it has enough potential impact that I'm not going to make the call myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dandy Sephy (talk • contribs) 18:43, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Any updates on testing WP:FLOW?
I was wondering if there were any updates on volunteering WP:VG to test Misplaced Pages:Flow in our Project's Talk Pages? I discovered this archived conversation about it, but it hasn't been commented on since October and has since been archived. I would love to help test the new system since our project is larger than WikiProject Breakfast and WikiProject Hampshire, which are currently the only English Misplaced Pages WikiProjects involved, but they may not be good for testing the scalability of Flow.
Just wanted to know if there had been any progress on getting involved with the project? I very badly want it to work well, as I really hate the current Talk page system :P --Nicereddy (talk) 20:33, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- You'll be interested in three Archive 102 sections, in order: (1) Flow invitation to kick-the-tires, (2) Are we ready to Flow here? News and a request for confirmation, and (3) An update on Flow. czar ♔ 22:01, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- Flow just flat out isn't ready. I'm fine with beta testing software, but Flow isn't near feature complete. There's no search. - hahnchen 17:03, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Video games notable for speedrunning
The article seems to be in a bit of a state. I think interested editors would be valuable in creating a "standard" for what gets included and expanding what is. - `New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 05:25, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- I hate to say it, but I'm not sure much of any of what's there has demonstrated notability. I mean, there are few to no reliable sources anywhere. Tezero (talk) 05:43, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- Perhaps, though there is some coverage I saw with a quick search of "speed run" in the reliable sources custom search engine. It might be better to delete/redirect this and focus instead on improving Awesome Games Done Quick and Speedrun. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 05:56, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- Given the expansion of Lets Play-style videos, I think this list is not really appropriate anymore, and whatever is there should be merged to the speedrun article instead, with that article mentioning notable speedran-games. --MASEM (t) 06:05, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- Perhaps, though there is some coverage I saw with a quick search of "speed run" in the reliable sources custom search engine. It might be better to delete/redirect this and focus instead on improving Awesome Games Done Quick and Speedrun. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 05:56, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Proteus FAC
I have nominated Proteus (video game) for WP:Featured Article. The candidacy page can be found here. Thanks, Samwalton9 (talk) 09:42, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
YouTube series up for deletion
Hi guys,
I don't like to canvas, but I've nominated I Misteri dell'Area 51, an Italian language YouTube machinima series for deletion. It uses Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas for its material, and I guess that's why somebody thinks it should be included in the {{Grand Theft Auto}} template. The article has no reliable sources and with six videos in total, I don't think it is notable in the slightest. --Soetermans. T / C 13:06, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- It's not really canvassing to let the project know that you AfD'd something; in fact, I think that's what you're supposed to do. Thanks for letting us know!Sorry, this is too late for that AfD, but thanks anyway and let the project(s) of future AfD's know in the future! Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 02:00, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Help with Twin Galaxies AFD
- The AFD ib question has been heavly vandalized in the past few minutes. It has been blanked and replaced with Twin Galaxies is dead (several times) Ruddy Ruddy etc. Can someone please keep an eye of this and revert this obvious vandalism. I have tried but it keeps changing before I am finished correcting the previous issues.--174.93.163.194 (talk) 17:39, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- I gave it another shot and fixed it for now, however since there are several IP addresses and and a person calling themselves Twingalaxiesisdead involved in this I doubt that this will be over so soon so I would still request that someone keep and eye on the page as I will be away for several hours soon so I can't keep an eye on it for much longer.--174.93.163.194 (talk) 17:47, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- Vandalism was limited to a single IP and that named account, both have been blocked. --MASEM (t) 17:49, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks. Hopefully this will bring this issue to a quick end.--174.93.163.194 (talk) 17:50, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, I briefly considered semi-protection but that requires exceptional levels of abuse at AfD. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:10, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks. Hopefully this will bring this issue to a quick end.--174.93.163.194 (talk) 17:50, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- Vandalism was limited to a single IP and that named account, both have been blocked. --MASEM (t) 17:49, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- I gave it another shot and fixed it for now, however since there are several IP addresses and and a person calling themselves Twingalaxiesisdead involved in this I doubt that this will be over so soon so I would still request that someone keep and eye on the page as I will be away for several hours soon so I can't keep an eye on it for much longer.--174.93.163.194 (talk) 17:47, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- User:Twingalaxiesisdead should be indef username blocked. - hahnchen 23:08, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Pokémon Channel copyedit
The backlog at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests is incredibly long and it will probably take months for the article to get copyedited. Is there another way I can get input on its wording before then? Would anyone in WP:VG like to take a look at the article before I FAC it? Tezero (talk) 19:07, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
History of Video Game consoles, Eighth Gen
Hey guys, a poll has recently been opened here. Feel free to add input. Thanks, MrAdaptive343 (talk) 16:09, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Flappy Bird GA
Hey all, just saw that Flappy Bird made it to GA, but while the game isn't very complicated I don't think the article is up to GA standard. It's a mess of single-sentence paragraphs and single-paragraph sections. Does anyone else have an opinion on it? I'd take it to GAR but that process is such a mess that I'd rather get other opinions here instead. --PresN 22:16, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
- That's what I thought, too. I was thinking about straight-failing it when it was at GAN, but since it had just been nominated I didn't want to be a jerk and slam it back right away, plus Big the Cat was (and is) on the backlog and I didn't want anyone to quick-fail it out of spite. Tezero (talk) 22:19, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
- Agreed. The article really isn't up to GA standard right now; the lead doesn't summarise all points for another reason. Samwalton9 (talk) 22:25, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
- Really? I was the reviewer and I didn't see any problems with it, I read through the prose carefully to make sure everything was kosher. If needed I can re-review it. -Newyorkadam (talk) 22:33, 25 February 2014 (UTC)Newyorkadam
- The article is definitely not GA class. I would personally rate it at C class. The lead is too short, and the "prose" reads more like thinly veiled Trivia lists. It's all jumbled and there isn't much substantial content. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 22:43, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
- I was about to being this up here but we can't all be first. But yeah I can agree that this article is not GA material. GamerPro64 22:58, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
- I don't believe Flappy Bird will stay GA forever. It will be demoted from GA soon.
IX|(C"<)23:08, 25 February 2014 (UTC)- Newyorkadam, the thing about the prose isn't that it's poorly written; it's the way it's organized and laid out on the page. Tezero (talk) 00:02, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
- As it happens, this article's quick communal reassessment encouraged me to look back at my own GAs. Turns out Mew (Pokémon) was in disrepair, with numerous short paragraphs and questionable organization, until I fixed it just now. Tezero (talk) 00:15, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
- I wouldn't have passed it either, to be honest. Development is totally inadequate, the sections are unbalanced so much as to be ridiculous, the lead does not even come close to meeting MOS:LEAD... and that's just skimming without getting into sources or section prose. Red Phoenix 05:19, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
- As it happens, this article's quick communal reassessment encouraged me to look back at my own GAs. Turns out Mew (Pokémon) was in disrepair, with numerous short paragraphs and questionable organization, until I fixed it just now. Tezero (talk) 00:15, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
- Newyorkadam, the thing about the prose isn't that it's poorly written; it's the way it's organized and laid out on the page. Tezero (talk) 00:02, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
- I don't believe Flappy Bird will stay GA forever. It will be demoted from GA soon.
- I was about to being this up here but we can't all be first. But yeah I can agree that this article is not GA material. GamerPro64 22:58, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
- Agreed. The article really isn't up to GA standard right now; the lead doesn't summarise all points for another reason. Samwalton9 (talk) 22:25, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
This is my response as nominator. I knew this would either pass for its conciseness and verifiability or fail on brevity. There is not really anything lacking on "Development", by one man in two days. The lead is short in the context that it is a short article, to avoid repeating too soon. And I'm sorry if this nomination looks like a waste of your time The Almightey Drill (talk) 17:05, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
- It's not discouraged on principle for a short article to get a short intro. (I think Voyager (video game) leans too far in the opposite direction.) However, Flappy Bird's intro isn't comprehensive; there's nothing in it in the way of Development, Legacy, or Nguyen's reasons for taking the game down. I do see that the intro's been improved, but it's not there yet. Tezero (talk) 17:12, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Just another person chiming in saying that, if you compare it against other recent GA's, it falls pretty short. (No offense, but this is another reason why I don't really bother with making any of my projects to GA status - find two like-minded editors, and you can deem just about anything with sources and no typos to be one.) Sergecross73 msg me 17:24, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
- I just read it and I, for one, thought it was pretty good. He touches on most aspects and where information is lacking, well, it's possible there just isn't any more to say about it. For example, perhaps the developer didn't actually say anything more about its development. While I didn't promote it to Good, I do think it's pretty good. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 17:31, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
- I've tackled two sources of concern - the lead, and the development. They're not much longer, but improved by taking in your suggestions. The Almightey Drill (talk) 18:55, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
- I think the main remaining problem is the Reception section. It's a few tiny paragraphs about individual reviews. While it seems comprehensive, it'd look and flow better as a couple of paragraphs about individual issues of the game, such as its addictiveness and difficulty. Tezero (talk) 18:59, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
- Advice heeded, I'll get my teeth into that The Almightey Drill (talk) 19:04, 26 February 2014 (UTC) I've done it now. Quite short but less of a swamp of unsorted quotes The Almightey Drill (talk) 19:16, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
- I think the main remaining problem is the Reception section. It's a few tiny paragraphs about individual reviews. While it seems comprehensive, it'd look and flow better as a couple of paragraphs about individual issues of the game, such as its addictiveness and difficulty. Tezero (talk) 18:59, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
- I've tackled two sources of concern - the lead, and the development. They're not much longer, but improved by taking in your suggestions. The Almightey Drill (talk) 18:55, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
The article should be demoted for now. It shouldn't be rated GA if it is still in the process of getting there. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 19:20, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
- See here's the thing. I appreciate the very good work in the last few days to improve the article, but there is more to be done. It's almost a B at it's present state, but it can't stay GA with such a brief Development and Reception section. A game like this should probably have a video game review chart, my opinion. Also, there have been several in depth looks at the gameplay of the Flappy Bird and why it's so addictive, but the mentions of this information is sparse. Really explain to us what the appeal is, it's one of the most interesting aspects. As for Development, this was based on an older game, what do we know about that? Can we see a screenshot in the development section if there is one? What specifically was borrowed? Dig into this, and you will have something GA worthy. Keep going! :) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:30, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
- There is a screenshot. I didn't see it at first, either. Tezero (talk) 02:49, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks, but I did mean of the game that Flappy bird is based on, to see what the source material for Flappy looked like. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:24, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
- Ah. Agreed. Tezero (talk) 04:56, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
- Per this http://www.thechocolatelabapps.com/how-to-make-flappy-bird/ (Source 14) in the article, the only "element" from his former game was the bird itself, and he only says that he "drew" the bird, never that this was ever in a stage of digital development. I've corrected the lead The Almightey Drill (talk) 20:58, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
- Ah. Agreed. Tezero (talk) 04:56, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks, but I did mean of the game that Flappy bird is based on, to see what the source material for Flappy looked like. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:24, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
- There is a screenshot. I didn't see it at first, either. Tezero (talk) 02:49, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
So is Flappy Bird staying a GA or not? Tezero (talk) 07:28, 1 March 2014 (UTC)\
- Compare this revision to the current one.
IX|(C"<)17:15, 1 March 2014 (UTC)- I know it's improved, but that doesn't mean it's up to the task yet. Reception is still really short, for example, considering that there are a few reviews. And the screenshot's way too small. Tezero (talk) 17:50, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
- I think it needs a new full GA review, especially considering the article has changed so much. Samwalton9 (talk) 17:34, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Game Arts RS?
I was wondering if this site http://www.gamearts.co.jp/ is considered reliable. It looks professional.Lucia Black (talk) 23:12, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
- That's the developer's official website. It's a primary source, so it'd be reliable in certain circumstances. Red Phoenix 23:41, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
- Ok nevermind, that helps alot. wasn't so sure.Lucia Black (talk) 23:46, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
EGM 39
Hey all—I'm trying to squeeze one final source for Menacer, but I can't get my hands on it: Electronic Gaming Monthly #39. I don't think it's necessary for the article, but I wanted to take a peek since it supposedly has some coverage. Does anyone have a copy or know someone who might have a copy? I tried all the usual leads. czar ♔ 19:20, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
- Have you checked to see if it's on EGM's official app? I'm not sure how much is on there because I don't tend to use EGM for much, but it's worth a look if you have an iPhone or iPad. Red Phoenix 20:42, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
- The app's iPad-only, so I can't check it. (It's a free app, if someone else can check for me?) As far as I can tell, it only has the issues from the new EGM incarnation and not from the 90s print-only mag. czar ♔ 07:15, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Psi 5 Trading Company
I'm working on a draft for an article on the early Accolade game Psi 5 Trading Company. But I have a problem: no one can agree on its correct name. In all the online sources, I've seen it referred to as Psi 5 Trading Company, Psi-5 Trading Company, PsiΨ5 Trading Company, Psi5 Trading Company and PSI-5 Trading Company. No one use seems predominant. The use on the game cover is ambiguous (it's hard to tell if there is a space between Psi and 5 or not), but then the game's manual uses Psi-5. And some other game covers use the Psi-5 variant as well. Some versions of the game's splash screens use the PsiΨ5 usage. The German Misplaced Pages uses PSI-5. Any idea how I should name this article? And, second question, should I list all the variations on the game's title in the article? (see draft) — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 20:26, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
- I'd go with "Psi-5", as it seems like a good "average" of those names and conforms to Misplaced Pages's standards about naming (e.g. "Korn" instead of "KoЯn", "Daughtry" instead of "DAUGHTRY", "AC/DC" instead of "AC☇DC"). Tezero (talk) 21:22, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
- Great, thanks. I'm still on the fence about listing all the variants in the article or not. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 15:24, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
RfC: Should Halo be described as a military science fiction franchise?
There is currently an RfC going on as to whether the Halo franchise should be classed as "military science fiction" or not. Comments are requested and needed on this issue. --ProtoDrake (talk) 21:32, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Request for additional eyes at Kantai Collection
May I request a few extra eyes watching Kantai Collection? I've seen multiple occasions within the past month of IP editors from Japan blanking all negative criticism from the "reception" section and only permitting positive information regarding the game. Thanks. --benlisquareT•C•E 12:51, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
- Have you thought of requesting semi-protection? Tezero (talk) 13:45, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
- Probably not necessary at this point, since the edits are considerably few in number. If, however, these edits become more frequent, then of course RFPP would be the most suitable action to take. I'll wait for a bit and see how things turn out; hopefully the page remains calm and we won't have to take any drastic action. --benlisquareT•C•E 14:00, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Twitch Plays Pokemon
I and another editor have concerns that the Twitch Plays Pokémon article currently has a lot of out-of-scope information. I and the other editor have attempted to remove what we see as the out-of scope information. Another editor disagrees and has reverted both of us.
I am seeking feedback on the issue. Please leave your comments at Talk:Twitch Plays Pokémon#Parentheticals. --Izno (talk) 14:12, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Gamespot unreliable?
I was recently told that gamespot is considered unreliable. I dont remember this, but i just wanted to verify if this is true just incase i start going on a massive removal campaign.Lucia Black (talk) 01:05, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
- If GameSpot is unreliable, many of WP:VG's GAs and FAs will instantly go to shit. Tezero (talk) 01:26, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
- God help us all if we decide GameSpot is unreliable. Many of the articles I've worked on recently rely a lot on either them or IGN for references. --Nicereddy (talk) 01:35, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
- Who told you this Lucia? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:36, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
- GameSpot's database is considered unreliable because it's shared with GameFAQs and is user-contributed. Staff-contributed features are okay, though. Red Phoenix 01:44, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
- Hey all. It's been awhile since I last posted on WPVG, but I noticed this conversation and I thought that I should point something out. GameSpot's database has not always been user contributed, and it should be considered a reliable source as long as you use an archived version from before GameFAQs and GameSpot merged their databases. I don't know when the merge took place, but it was probably in the last year or two. Archives from before that should be fine. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:37, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
- GameSpot's database is considered unreliable because it's shared with GameFAQs and is user-contributed. Staff-contributed features are okay, though. Red Phoenix 01:44, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
- Who told you this Lucia? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:36, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
- God help us all if we decide GameSpot is unreliable. Many of the articles I've worked on recently rely a lot on either them or IGN for references. --Nicereddy (talk) 01:35, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
I think this was about GS for release dates in specific: WTVG 101: Release dates sourced GameSpot and RSN 106: GameFAQs and Gamespot shared database. So where we left off was that GS is not reliable for release dates and it should be used situationally for articles based on the reputation of the author. Eh? czar ♔ 01:47, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, this is correct. Their articles in general are fine, but they're database entries (release dates) and user blogs are unusable. Sergecross73 msg me 02:12, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
- I'm currently working on Cardcaptor Sakura can anyone help me verify what is considered database and what isn't? I'm not familiar with gamespot.Lucia Black (talk) 02:21, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
- I'd be more than happy to confirm individual links if you wanna post a list on my talk page. Generally, for Gamespot: authored reviews are fine, game info pages aren't. I'd also be willing to help finding sources if the only release info you can find is from Gamespot, lemme know on my talk page for which games you need a reliable source. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 02:53, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah, basically, don't use the release dates/developer/publisher info pages and check the authors before you use them. If the names more like "John Smith", it's probably usuable. If it's more like "FallOutBoyFan2377", then it's probably non-staff and unusable. Sergecross73 msg me 03:03, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
- I'd be more than happy to confirm individual links if you wanna post a list on my talk page. Generally, for Gamespot: authored reviews are fine, game info pages aren't. I'd also be willing to help finding sources if the only release info you can find is from Gamespot, lemme know on my talk page for which games you need a reliable source. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 02:53, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
- I'm currently working on Cardcaptor Sakura can anyone help me verify what is considered database and what isn't? I'm not familiar with gamespot.Lucia Black (talk) 02:21, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Mass removal of GameStats references
I wanted to get wider input on this before doing anything. ASOTMKX removed about 150 links to GameStats pages a few hours ago. I don't see any previous discussion, and it seemed like a pretty big swath of changes to make all at once. Some of the articles with the links contained archived links, and some contained multiple uses of the reference, which a bot went back and repaired afterward. I personally think a better solution would be to undo all the changes, and try to get archived pages for the links that don't already have them. I haven't undone any of the edits yet. —Torchiest edits 13:08, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
- I noticed their edits too, but I don't have any problems with these edits because I don't see the purpose in having GameStat mentioned any longer. GameSpy or a magazine of yesteryear might've had impact on a game's reception when it came out, but since GameStats was pretty much the same as Metacritic and GameRankings (that is a video game review score aggregate site) it didn't have any substantial impact on the reception of games. --Soetermans. T / C 13:37, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
- Same as Soetermans. Its a ranking site so no massive loss. But if they're breaking named references they should take more care, or stop. - X201 (talk) 14:06, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
- I don't think I understand the logic in removing GameStats references. Are they now considered unreliable or something? If they were acceptable at the time, then they were an indicator of average reception. There is absolutely no reason to remove old references simply because the site is defunct. If that were the case, we'd be removing half our references. So if Metacritic or GameRankings closes down, we will go around and remove all those entries? Then why are we adding them to begin with? We should be archiving the urls instead of deleting them. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 14:26, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
- Gamestats was just an aggregrate review site, so it was not offering anything new in criticism or the like. Further, its use on VG was far far less than that of MC or GR, and in both of those cases, we have good ideas of what's going on behind the scenes with their aggregation system (for better or worse) so we want articles to have these. If it were the case MC or GR were going down, I am sure we'd make an effort to archive their pages due to their widespread use and importance, compared to the small number of cases GameStats has been used. --MASEM (t) 14:33, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
- Here's a question: did GameStats aggregate reviews that Metacritic or GameRankings currently exclude? For instance, say that a game came out in the first year that Gamestats was in operation and the site aggregated reviews that came out the same year. Would Metacritic or GameRankings, which came out a number of years later, create aggregate rankings that included those older reviews? Put another way, is GameStats a subset of Metacritic or GameRankings, or a completely different set? -Thunderforge (talk) 17:15, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
- I've noticed in some cases if I need Famitsu scores, that would be the only place to look. Annnd its gone. . « Ryūkotsusei » 21:24, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah that's no good. While I might be able to agree that the VGR template shouldn't support the aggregator scores anymore, ASOTMKX should not be unilaterally engaging in mass-removal of links to those sites. If there's a consensus to pull the fields from the template, then someone can AWB them away, but removing references is unquestionably bad. This may merit a trouting. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 18:56, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
- Also, something about this edit and this edit suggests that he might be doing this in a semi-automated fashion (that and he goes in bursts of about 1.5 articles/minute). —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 19:06, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah that's no good. While I might be able to agree that the VGR template shouldn't support the aggregator scores anymore, ASOTMKX should not be unilaterally engaging in mass-removal of links to those sites. If there's a consensus to pull the fields from the template, then someone can AWB them away, but removing references is unquestionably bad. This may merit a trouting. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 18:56, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
- I've noticed in some cases if I need Famitsu scores, that would be the only place to look. Annnd its gone. . « Ryūkotsusei » 21:24, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
- Here's a question: did GameStats aggregate reviews that Metacritic or GameRankings currently exclude? For instance, say that a game came out in the first year that Gamestats was in operation and the site aggregated reviews that came out the same year. Would Metacritic or GameRankings, which came out a number of years later, create aggregate rankings that included those older reviews? Put another way, is GameStats a subset of Metacritic or GameRankings, or a completely different set? -Thunderforge (talk) 17:15, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
- Gamestats was just an aggregrate review site, so it was not offering anything new in criticism or the like. Further, its use on VG was far far less than that of MC or GR, and in both of those cases, we have good ideas of what's going on behind the scenes with their aggregation system (for better or worse) so we want articles to have these. If it were the case MC or GR were going down, I am sure we'd make an effort to archive their pages due to their widespread use and importance, compared to the small number of cases GameStats has been used. --MASEM (t) 14:33, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Remove GameStats, Game Ratio and GameTab from Template:Video game reviews aggregators
I first proposed this in 2009. None of these aggregators have any kind of relevance or importance in the video game industry. Metacritic is the standard, and Gamerankings is our fall back. GameStats is so irrelevant that we're just removing the links without any archiving. GameTab is so irrelevant that we didn't even notice it go down. - hahnchen 14:49, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Invitation to Participate in a User Study - Final Reminder
Would you be interested in participating in a user study of a new tool to support editor involvement in WikiProjects? We are a team at the University of Washington studying methods for finding collaborators within WikiProjects, and we are looking for volunteers to evaluate a new visual exploration tool for Misplaced Pages. Given your interest in this Wikiproject, we would welcome your participation in our study. To participate, you will be given access to our new visualization tool and will interact with us via Google Hangout so that we can solicit your thoughts about the tool. To use Google Hangout, you will need a laptop/desktop, a web camera, and a speaker for video communication during the study. We will provide you with an Amazon gift card in appreciation of your time and participation. For more information about this study, please visit our wiki page (http://meta.wikimedia.org/Research:Finding_a_Collaborator). If you would like to participate in our user study, please send me a message at Wkmaster (talk) 18:27, 28 February 2014 (UTC).
Gamezone spam
Sockpuppet investigation started at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/24.60.143.188. I've recently been seeing Gamezone pop up in reception sections of recent games, they're an WP:VG/RS, but not a particularly prominent gaming website. Taking a look at page histories, it looks like we have a sock campaign to promote the site. It doesn't look too widespread, but you can see the behaviour in accounts such as Special:Contributions/Wizcheeson, Special:Contributions/Wakawikiwaka & Special:Contributions/Leetlbeetl. Block/warn/revert away. - hahnchen 22:05, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
- Wait. Should we revert this, even though its a reliable source? Would seem counter-productive in doing on. GamerPro64 22:28, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
- Depends. I submitted the SPI to get the socks blocked. If they were legitimate edits, there's no need to hide behind a sock wall. Edits like add nothing to the article, but some others might be useful. We might value the message that this behaviour is unacceptable over the value of the edits. I've not reverted any, wouldn't oppose it though. - hahnchen 22:39, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/24.60.143.188 - 20 socks blocked. No confirmation on the IP though. - hahnchen 15:30, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
- This isn't gonna be a popular opinion, but who cares? In a way, my editing career here has for several years been a promotion of the Sonic series (and to a lesser extent some other games): I like the games and want people to learn more about them. If these IPs are adding constructive information, why does it matter that it's all from one site and they appear to be the same person? The info looks to be formatted correctly (aside from the somewhat familiar "GZ") and the IPs don't seem to be using their status as multiple entities to effect a consensus. I guess I don't see the problem. Tezero (talk) 15:49, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
- Agreed - until it's unconstructive I don't see a need to revert the edits. The sockpuppetry is a different matter. --Teancum (talk) 16:05, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
- Well, even that I don't mind. They're just a bunch of edits to add GameZone reviews. It doesn't look like the ringmaster is using the accounts to feign communal agreement on a controversial issue or anything; hell, all of the edits have been in mainspace and none have been vandalism. Why not let them continue? Tezero (talk) 18:07, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
- These were single purpose accounts using socks to evade WP:COI oversight. I spotted the behaviour because I came across one too many Reception sections quoting Gamezone, and my first thought was, why does anyone care what Gamezone have to say? And it turns out that we don't, their prevalence on Misplaced Pages is artificial. - hahnchen 19:33, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Well, why do we care what IGN, GameSpot, Game Informer, Destructoid, or GameSpy have to say? GameZone's an established reviewing agency as well. As long as GameZone isn't being quoted to the point of drowning out the other sources or making redundant points, I don't see the problem. Tezero (talk) 20:13, 1 March 2014 (UTC)Never mind; I thought you were going after GameZone rather than the editors. Nevertheless, the edits don't look problematic to me and I don't see any reason to assume that the users are going to head into non-encyclopedic promotion of GameZone. If that happened, I would support blocking them. Tezero (talk) 20:18, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
- These were single purpose accounts using socks to evade WP:COI oversight. I spotted the behaviour because I came across one too many Reception sections quoting Gamezone, and my first thought was, why does anyone care what Gamezone have to say? And it turns out that we don't, their prevalence on Misplaced Pages is artificial. - hahnchen 19:33, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
- Well, even that I don't mind. They're just a bunch of edits to add GameZone reviews. It doesn't look like the ringmaster is using the accounts to feign communal agreement on a controversial issue or anything; hell, all of the edits have been in mainspace and none have been vandalism. Why not let them continue? Tezero (talk) 18:07, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
- Agreed - until it's unconstructive I don't see a need to revert the edits. The sockpuppetry is a different matter. --Teancum (talk) 16:05, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
- This isn't gonna be a popular opinion, but who cares? In a way, my editing career here has for several years been a promotion of the Sonic series (and to a lesser extent some other games): I like the games and want people to learn more about them. If these IPs are adding constructive information, why does it matter that it's all from one site and they appear to be the same person? The info looks to be formatted correctly (aside from the somewhat familiar "GZ") and the IPs don't seem to be using their status as multiple entities to effect a consensus. I guess I don't see the problem. Tezero (talk) 15:49, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/24.60.143.188 - 20 socks blocked. No confirmation on the IP though. - hahnchen 15:30, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
- Depends. I submitted the SPI to get the socks blocked. If they were legitimate edits, there's no need to hide behind a sock wall. Edits like add nothing to the article, but some others might be useful. We might value the message that this behaviour is unacceptable over the value of the edits. I've not reverted any, wouldn't oppose it though. - hahnchen 22:39, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Ongoing spam behaviour since 2010
This isn't the first time that Gamezone have been caught spamming Misplaced Pages, in the sockpuppet investigation I initiated above, I noted that User:SisterSister00 exhibited the same behaviour in 2011. I just came across Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/DarkBlade4658/Archive, in that case, the sock admitted to being Michael Splechta - editor at Gamezone. Despite blocking 20 socks in the most recent investigation, spamming persists, every single big release has a GameZone quote and the only people adding these quotes are single purpose accounts. I've not initiated another checkuser yet, because I'm sure more accounts will come out of the woodwork once Titanfall hits. - hahnchen 17:09, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
- Not if I can help it czar ♔ 18:59, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Stubs Checked
After almost 2 years, the increasingly-inaccurately named 2012 Stubcheck is now finally done! At least 15000 stubs were skimmed through since April 2012, resulting in thousands of classification changes to Start, C, Redirect, and Disambiguation. Thanks to all who helped out over the years! --PresN 03:21, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
- Wish I had had time to do more, especially I was helped in the creation of it. The least I can do now if give it a more appropriate title. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 03:53, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
- I think the articles listed here were meant to be reassessed as Start but that was never done? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 04:02, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
- No, we never went with that, as far as I know, and instead manually changed the ratings. --PresN 04:59, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
- That someone followed through with this is amazing. Good work. I think it'd be more productive in future to have a bot do some of this work, if a page is at a certain size, and contains no stub templates - then it should automatically be marked as start. This might result in errors, but is probably worth it in terms of time saved. - hahnchen 14:29, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
- @PresN: Yea, but the ones that were put on the list by MuZemike were never actually changed as far as I can see... ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:41, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
- No, we never went with that, as far as I know, and instead manually changed the ratings. --PresN 04:59, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
- I think the articles listed here were meant to be reassessed as Start but that was never done? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 04:02, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
How exactly do we even determine the ratings? Stubs are pretty obvious and it takes a review for GA and FA, but what about all the in-betweens? Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 13:20, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Categories for deletion/merging
Category:Fictional American Jews in video games and Category:Fictional Hispanic and Latino American people in video games are both proposed for merging which would result in their deletion. If you have an opinion on this, pro or con, please make your voice heard at Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 February 28. Liz 23:42, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
The Forest draft article opinions wanted
I've created a draft article for upcoming game The Forest and am considering moving it to article space. My concern, though, is that it's entirely based on news articles which discuss screenshots, trailers, or are interviews. The coverage would suggest the game is notable but the in-depth coverage isn't really there right now; should I publish or not? Samwalton9 (talk) 14:24, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
- I think the sources' reliability push it into the okay zone. Tezero (talk) 16:42, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
- I think the Firefly Online pushback was a fluke. My personal litmus test is whether I can get 1500 B of original prose on the topic. With the addition of a sentence or two, I think it'd be fine in the mainspace. (And if not, I'd have your back.) czar ♔ 01:35, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
- On second look, the prose could use some cleanup and concision. If the text is shortened to omit needless words, it might come up too short. This said, if you trim the excessive words and add a few more sentences and it's over 1500 B, I think it'll be fine. Also no harm in leaving it in draftspace for now. czar ♔ 01:38, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
March 2014's TFA
Coming up on the main page tomorrow, March 5th, Terra Nova: Strike Force Centauri from the sadly defunct Looking Glass Studios will be on there for all to see. GamerPro64 00:14, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
VG external links templates
Hi everybody,
This has come up once before, but I'll try once more: should we or shouldn't we keep using the templates intended for use in the external links section? I'm talking about these three two:
{{MobyGames}}. WP:VG/RS says: Game synopses, credits and aggregate review scores. Relies on user-submitted content. While it demands reliable sources for all contributions and all contributed information undergoes scrutiny by experienced users before publication, its info has been shown to be often erroneous and the sources provided by contributors are not publicly displayed.- {{GameFAQs}}. WP:VG/RS says: Walkthroughs, cheats and release dates. Relies on user-submitted content with no apparent editorial oversight.
- {{StrategyWiki}}. WP:VG/RS says: Wiki websites such as StrategyWiki and Bulbapedia can be openly edited by anyone, and they do not have sufficient fact checking or editorial oversight in place.
The last two are essentially gameguide websites, that we link in a template form no less. At the same time, other gameguide websites (and fansites and the like) are discouraged (see WP:VG/EL).
- WP:VGSCOPE on External links: (...) Other sources that do not qualify as reliable sources may be used if they are not on the list of sites to be avoided. We've established that they are in fact not reliable, so why are they still around?
- WP:ELNO No. 12: Open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors (...) Even if there is stability and that there are a substantial number of editors working on StategyWiki, the template links one game, not to the entire wiki. Besides, how do we even know that the information presented is helpful at all?
- WP:VG/EL further states: If the page contains substantial information that is relevant but not necessarily encyclopedic in nature, a video game's page at MobyGames, Allgame or the Internet Movie Database may be added on a case by case basis. Considering that MobyGames and GameFAQs aren't considered reliable and StrategyWiki works as a gameguide website, I don't see how the information on those websites is relevant. --Soetermans. T / C 14:45, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
- I don't care about the last two, but MobyGames has valuable content, even if it's not perfect. For example, they often have numerous screenshots, something Misplaced Pages seems to hate. There is no standard stating that external sites we link to need to be infallible. I don't think every game article needs to link to MobyGames, but if it has additional information, I think it's a boon. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 15:26, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
- The problem I'm having is that the entirety of WP:VG/EL seems to be conflating policy about external links used as reliable sources and policy about external links used as external links. This is problematic to me. Example: Whether a site is self published should not mean that the site is banned or strongly discouraged from being used in an external links section, only that it should be used cautiously as a citation, and nothing more. Quite frankly, that section looks like scope creep and additionally appears to be at odds with the sitewide guideline of WP:EL. I would nominate the entire section for deletion....
- On the point of ELNO, that seems like an article by article use problem. As it is, the template is actually useful because we can point to references to an a particular external web site trivially.
- On the point of "Other sources that do not qualify as reliable sources may be used if they are not on the list of sites to be avoided", I'm not even sure you read the cited sentence. That plainly states that I am permitted to link to an external web site of a particular quality (with caution). The templates exist because I am permitted to do such. QED. --Izno (talk) 00:23, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
- @User:Frecklefoot, thanks for your input. Concerning screenshots, a dedicated wiki usually has those too, not to mention the internet itself... I'm not too familiar with MobyGames, is there something else that really makes it worthwhile to keep using it? And you said you don't care about GameFAQs and StrategyWiki, does that mean you don't have an opinion on them or that you could see them go?
- @User:Izno, I appreciate your input and respect your opinion, but I have some trouble with the tone of your response. "I am permitted..."? Misplaced Pages is a collaborative effort so that should be "we are permitted". And understand I am trying to come to consensus, I'm not dictating the rules here, I'm asking whether or not these links and templates are useful. "I'm not even sure you read the cited sentence." I don't find very friendly. I assume you didn't mean to come of that way, but remember you could've said whatever you wanted to say in lots of different ways. "I disagree because...", or "I think what that says means..." or even "I think you misunderstood", which still doesn't say I didn't read it.
- Anyway, back to the discussion: I'm not disputing that we could like to websites that offer "substantial information that is relevant but not necessarily encyclopedic in nature", such as dedicated wikis, developer blogs or ARGs. But the link should relevant, and I have yet to be convinced that these three actually are relevant. StrategyWiki works solely as a gameguide, which there are hundreds, if not thousands of websites that do the same, and we don't allow those to function as ELs either. GameFAQs functions as a gameguide and a forum, but we've already established that as it is user generated it is not reliable. Forums as ELs aren't allowed either, even when they are official. MobyGames is a video game database, but is also user generated. --Soetermans. T / C 11:17, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
- @Soetermans: First off, I don't think Izno was being particularly hostile. And his use of "I" versus "we" is just semantics. Of course this is a wiki and we're all contributing. When I say, "I wrote this article," I mean, "I started this article and the community helped bring it to where it is now".
- Now, that aside, I find MobyGames particularly useful in some cases because it has screenshots with accompanying text explaining what I'm seeing (e.g. "Opening video with Ziknorf talking to Wamboom", "Tactical screen of a battle between The Kingdom of Zimloff and the forces of Beelnord"). It bridges a huge hole in Misplaced Pages: most articles about video games--very visual subjects--have few to no screenshots. This is not because editors aren't willing to contribute them, but because of our incredibly restrictive policy about image use. But I'm not going to go down that rabbit hole. The Internet at large, as you state, may have numerous screenshots of gameplay and other information. But I prefer MobyGames rather than just Google Images, for example, because it is moderated and usually pretty reliable (but not perfect, as I stated earlier). And their moderation is pretty good. I contributed information about one game to it (because I was the Lead Programmer on it), but they required evidence that what I was contributing was correct; they didn't just take my word for it. That seems pretty responsible to me, and what we strive for here on Misplaced Pages too. FWIW, the discussion of whether or not to link to MobyGames comes up every so often here on the project, and the consensus is always to allow links to it, but makes sure it has additional information (or content, like screenshots) that's useful.
- As for the other two sites, I don't have an opinion. Sorry, mea culpa, I wasn't clear. I don't normally refer to them or use them. I really don't care whether we allow links to them or not. In general, I don't think they should be banned, but I don't think we should link to every single entry they have either. If they're used extensively, then having templates for them is useful. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 13:58, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
- That part was and still is meant for Izno. I appreciate your effort to help out, but I didn't say they were hostile at all, I said I had some trouble with their tone. Maybe you don't agree, but if someone suggest I didn't read a sentence I don't think that's fair to me or helpful in a discussion. Maybe I should've switched the two bits around, because that's what bugged me the most.
- Thanks for elaborating on MobyGames. You've made a good point and you're right, in that case it is worth keeping. I'll strike out MobyGames. --Soetermans. T / C 14:16, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Video game series leads: include country/state/city of origin or not?
User:69.165.246.181 recently did an edit defining the Halo series as an "American multi-billion dollar military science fiction video game franchise". I reverted the edit as I felt, and still feel, that such an addition is not needed, at least for a video game article. The user has just contacted me, asking why I did the revert. I responded, citing multiple video game series that did not have such an addition, but I also found and cited for balance's sake video game articles which did. That has got me thinking: what should be the general rule about this? Or if there is one, can someone enlighten me? Should we include the franchise's state/country/city of origin as part of the article's lead or not? --ProtoDrake (talk) 22:57, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
- First: is it notably American? Secondly: it can cause confusion: was the game made in America? By Americans? For Americans? Does it happen in America? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 22:59, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
- In response: it doesn't seem to be notably American, and there was no definition beyond what I copied and pasted for people to see. --ProtoDrake (talk) 23:02, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
- Unlike films or TV Shows, Video games don't have nationalities, but their developers do. The example is better stated as "Hallo is a multi-million dollar first person shooter video game franchise developed by American studio Bungie." (Yes, note we place more weight on the gameplay genre over the thematic one). --MASEM (t) 23:07, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)I agree with Salvidrim. Unlike film articles, which do state the country in the lead, that is done based on the location of the production studio, if there is one studio. Otherwise, the country is not included. But in the case of video games, I think it is harder to classify. Would all Nintendo developed games be Japanese, when they have strong claims in North America and Europe? Or, with Assassin's Creed. Would that be Canadian when it also has a strong global reach? I think if anything, if it were to be adopted, we should look to the Film project and follow their classification, and adapt it to by developer. But that still introduces the issues Salvidrim stated. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:13, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
- I don't think games are as nationalized as films. Film's are identified by their famous directors and cast and crew, games by and large are not, and a lot of games are international projects, either by location or talent. Mentioning the studio nationality I don't see as a bad thing but for body prose, in the lead it is far less notable that it requires mentioning. DWB (talk) / Comment on Dishonored's FA nom! 00:15, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
- In response: it doesn't seem to be notably American, and there was no definition beyond what I copied and pasted for people to see. --ProtoDrake (talk) 23:02, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
While I largely agree with this discussion, I do believe an exception would be mentioning if a role-playing video game is "Japanese" or "Western". That goes beyond just "location", its literally a difference in genre, game development philosophy, etc. It definitely seems noteworthy to state that, for instances, a Tales game is a "JRPG". "American FPS" isn't really terminology that's typically used/articulated, but something like Japanese role-playing game, is. Sergecross73 msg me 00:42, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
- I think the Japanese label really only applies when talking JRPGs because that's how that genre has come to be known. For example, Mario is not a "Japanese platform game", it's just a "platform game". That is, the way to read "JRPG is not as a "Japanese" "role playing game" but a "Japanese-style role playing game", though we do add that the developers need to be from Japan too (Anachronox may be a JPRG at its core, but we don't call it as such, for example). --MASEM (t) 01:10, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
- I agree, it's really the only exception I'm arguing for. Sergecross73 msg me 01:20, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
- I completely agree with you, Sergecross. MrAdaptive343 (talk) 02:06, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah, thinking about it, I also agree with Sergecross' point. --ProtoDrake (talk) 08:50, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
- I completely agree with you, Sergecross. MrAdaptive343 (talk) 02:06, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
- I agree, it's really the only exception I'm arguing for. Sergecross73 msg me 01:20, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
I think it should be called American. Microsoft is an American company. Besides it's not just a video game, it's a franchise that spawned out of a video game and as PD pointed out some video game franchises have nationality attached to them such as hitman, so we should not be selective. 69.165.246.181 (talk) 21:01, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
I agree with the majority opinion that the dev/publishing company can be mentioned as American/whatever, but the franchise itself shouldn't be- Halo is an international franchise that isn't set in America. I also agree with the JRPG exception (reluctantly) - both western and JRPGs are covered at role-playing video game, and the line gets a little blurry sometimes. (I guess we have history of Eastern role-playing video games as well). I wish we collectively had a better term for RPGs with a linear, story-driven gameplay than "Japanese" RPGs, since they're more and more cropping up in western releases, even as JRPGs borrow ideas from western RPGs. --PresN 22:19, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
- Hey, by all means, if a better term exists/arises, I'm all for using it. I don't have a particular love for the term JRPG, in fact, sometimes, it has a negative connotation for being unoriginal or unpopular in current days. But right now, it seems to be the only appropriate term. I support using it because that's what its called, not because I feel the need to delineate all subjects by their origin country or something. Sergecross73 msg me 02:43, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
- No, yeah, I didn't mean "I wish Misplaced Pages had a better term" I meant "I wish the video game community at large had a better term". It is what we've got, though. At least we've stopped also calling them "console" RPGs- that got really confusing, really fast. --PresN 05:14, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Pokémon Channel
I'm thinking of just taking the article to FAC in a few days if no copyediting is done per my request at the appropriate page. (I don't mean this as a threat or passive-aggressively; I'm just impatient.) Is this a discouraged behavior? Tezero (talk) 00:32, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
- There's no requirement that you get a copy-edit prior to FAC, it just tends to cut down on the long lists of grammar issues reviewers bring up, and makes it less likely that someone will oppose over poor prose. I've gone both ways, especially if I'm impatient to get the review started. --PresN 00:42, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
- I know it's not a requirement; I've gone through several FACs before. It does help, though. Maybe I'll just run through the prose myself. Tezero (talk) 02:21, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
- I'll just do it now and see how it goes. At the very least, if this FAC fails, it'll probably be over more quickly than it'd take to get a thorough copyedit in the first place. #yolo Tezero (talk) 18:45, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
- I know it's not a requirement; I've gone through several FACs before. It does help, though. Maybe I'll just run through the prose myself. Tezero (talk) 02:21, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Template layout and double asterisks
Hi guys,
I noticed that on editing video game templates we've yet to establish a commonly agreed way to list games, in case of DLC, subseries or compilations. I've seen that some editors prefer using the double asterisks method to list DLC (see {{BioShock series}} and {{Elder Scrolls}}. On {{Metal Gear}} and {{Lego games}} however, they are used differently. MGSV consists of two entries: Ground Zeroes and The Phantom Pain, but they are then shown in brackets. Yesterday I edited the Lego template and removed those asterisks for this reason, but that was undone by @User:Izno. I think that most readers will understand that if we list Harry Potter: Years 1 - 4 followed by (Years 5 - 7) that Harry Potter: Years 5 - 7 is meant. But would that be the same case if we show Batman and its sequel Batman 2: DC Super Heroes as Batman (DC Super Heroes)? --Soetermans. T / C 10:43, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
- Or Lego The Hobbit, sure, it's part of the Lord of the Rings franchise, but the game is based upon The Hobbit film and not just a sequel to the Lego Lord of the Rings video game. --Soetermans. T / C 14:20, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
The Da Vinci Code (video game)
Hi all. I would really appreciate it if someone could take a quick look at the reception section in The Da Vinci Code (video game) article. This is how it existed after I did an overhaul of the article a few months back. And this is how it exists now. The number of reviews in the review table has jumped from 12 to 28! Now, I was under the impression that the recommended number of reviews was around 5-10. Certainly by looking at some VG FAs, I don't see any with more than 10 or so. The 16 new reviews have been added in the last 24 hours, and I'm somewhat loath to simply remove them, but 28 reviews seems ridiculous, and the table has also been collapsed, which I think is a really bad idea for people who only scan pages, as it's easily missed. I'm going to leave a note on the article talk page in a few moments, so if someone could comment there one way or the other, that'd be great, as it would avoid two people just arguing back and forth. Thanks. Bertaut (talk) 01:18, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
- Without even looking, that's far too many. A key point is that every review listed in the table should be discussed to some degree in the text about the reception; if it is included and only used in the table, that's a bad use of the review. You can include other reviews in the prose that aren't in the table, that's fine (we have the aggregators for the big listing), and this is even preferred since the table should not be a crutch to a properly written prose section. There never should be a need to collapse the review table for a single game. --MASEM (t) 01:29, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
- And now looking, yes, cut the crap out. Stick to: IGN, GameSpot, GameSpy, Eurogamer, Edge, Game Informer, OPMUS, OXMUS, and PC Gamer (the last three for platform specific), since the platform differences in scores are negligable. --MASEM (t) 01:34, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
- Okay. That's pretty much what I thought. I've left a note on the talk page, so I'll give the user a chance to respond before I delete anything, for the sake of diplomacy. Cheers Masem. It seems strange to be talking to you about something other than images and fair use :) Bertaut (talk) 01:38, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
- This issue has already come up about this user. Judging by the recent edit history and articles like Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events, The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, Terminator Salvation and Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines, the advice given at that time was not heeded. I also note that since Bertaut has added a comment on the talk page of The Da Vinci Code, more scores have been added to the table. Sociallyacceptable (talk) 04:32, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
- Okay. That's pretty much what I thought. I've left a note on the talk page, so I'll give the user a chance to respond before I delete anything, for the sake of diplomacy. Cheers Masem. It seems strange to be talking to you about something other than images and fair use :) Bertaut (talk) 01:38, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
- And now looking, yes, cut the crap out. Stick to: IGN, GameSpot, GameSpy, Eurogamer, Edge, Game Informer, OPMUS, OXMUS, and PC Gamer (the last three for platform specific), since the platform differences in scores are negligable. --MASEM (t) 01:34, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
- Notifiying User:Angeldeb82, you really should comment on this. - hahnchen 16:30, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
- I see. But I want other things too, like Nintendo Power, GameTrailers, GameZone, Game Revolution, Allgame and 1UP.com. As for non-videogame publications, like The A.V. Club, Detroit Free Press, The New York Times, Entertainment Weekly, The Cincinnati Enquirer and The Sydney Morning Herald, do you think these are okay? --Angeldeb82 (talk) 17:28, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
- They're fine in the actual text of the reception section, but the reviews table should never be that big- as said above, it should be 5 to 10 reviewers. I usually shoot for 7. If you're only doing 5-10, then you have to pick the 5-10 most relevant- the biggest names, the ones with outlier scores, ones that give you platforms not otherwise covered, etc. Masem's list is a good one to start at, and then you can swap out reviewers- like GameSpy for 1UP.com. But no, it's not really cool to have a table of 20 reviewers. --PresN 17:53, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
- To restate - the review table should not be a place to slot in reviews - instead, the reviews should be selected to allow the reader to see at a glance how the review scores break down from a representative selection of sources. For 90% of games, the score variance is going to be small, so the list I put above is generally the best and highest-reliable sources. However, there will be rare cases, like Space Giraffe where there is a huge variance from reliable sources, and that is what the table should highlight, possibly opting to omit a source like IGN or Eurogamer which may have an unremarkable mid-point score in favor of one of the less-common but reliable sources that put the score at the extreme. Now I do note that DaVince Code's scores have variance, but most are middling scores. So definitely trimming can be done to capture the distribution with maybe 7-8 entries in addition to aggregators. --MASEM (t) 18:00, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages is not Metacritic. It is not an exhaustive list of all coverage, but an overview. Because the reviews table at The Da Vinci Code (video game) is so ungainly, it is hidden, so that I didn't even spot it the first time around. - hahnchen 18:03, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
- So does that mean that I can't use GamePro too? --Angeldeb82 (talk) 18:34, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
- They're fine in the actual text of the reception section, but the reviews table should never be that big- as said above, it should be 5 to 10 reviewers. I usually shoot for 7. If you're only doing 5-10, then you have to pick the 5-10 most relevant- the biggest names, the ones with outlier scores, ones that give you platforms not otherwise covered, etc. Masem's list is a good one to start at, and then you can swap out reviewers- like GameSpy for 1UP.com. But no, it's not really cool to have a table of 20 reviewers. --PresN 17:53, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
- I see. But I want other things too, like Nintendo Power, GameTrailers, GameZone, Game Revolution, Allgame and 1UP.com. As for non-videogame publications, like The A.V. Club, Detroit Free Press, The New York Times, Entertainment Weekly, The Cincinnati Enquirer and The Sydney Morning Herald, do you think these are okay? --Angeldeb82 (talk) 17:28, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
- Okay, I think I've trimmed down the reviews on the chart to 14. Do you think this one is okay? --Angeldeb82 (talk) 18:44, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
In GA standard, the gameplay and plot section should be provided refs?
"Cite the plot, cite the gameplay, even if it is to primary sources.". And Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Niemti. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:07, 7 March 2014 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
If do not compare with other video games, the two sections usually don't need any refs, because "the source is the game itself, and GA do not need in-line citation"?--Darkness607 (talk) 13:06, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
- I don't know about the specific criteria for GA, but external references are always a good thing. Usually there's websites and player's guides and all kinds of other stuff dealing with the gameplay, so shouldn't be that hard. If it's an in-game thing like the Pokedex, there's websites and sometimes books that have the entire thing right there. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 13:17, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
- Reviews normally provide most of the gameplay analysis. Plot is commonly sourced to the game, its manual, or other official primary materials. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:02, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
- Gameplay definitely has to be sourced. With Plot, it's more or less up to you. Tezero (talk) 14:41, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
- I generally try to source gameplay with recent previews of the game, general gameplay impressions, accurate interviews with the people behind the game, and reviews if that is necessary. For plots, I don't tend to bother except when it's something rather large like an RPG or (one I haven't worked on much) Asura's Wrath, in which case a few book, quote and external references references are very handy. --ProtoDrake (talk) 14:45, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
- Gameplay definitely has to be sourced. With Plot, it's more or less up to you. Tezero (talk) 14:41, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
- Reviews normally provide most of the gameplay analysis. Plot is commonly sourced to the game, its manual, or other official primary materials. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:02, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
- Gameplay sections absolutely require references, there's no exemption for that. Unsourced plots are acceptable for any fiction work, but sourcing is good if you can. --MASEM (t) 15:18, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
- I'm sure it's a coincidence that Niemti was blocked on March 5 for complaining that citations should not be necessary in plot sections and a completely new user with no Misplaced Pages experience registers on March 7, goes straight to WT:VG and asks about exactly the same thing. Cite the plot, cite the gameplay, even if it is to primary sources. - hahnchen 15:57, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
- Niemti was blocked because he's topic banned from the GA process, yet took it upon himself to jump into a GA review and extensively argue with the reviewer. Lets do try not to feed his persecution complex by pretending he was blocked for his opinions on editing. --PresN 16:09, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
- Here-here, for all our sakes. --ProtoDrake (talk) 16:22, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
- Niemti was blocked because he's topic banned from the GA process, yet took it upon himself to jump into a GA review and extensively argue with the reviewer. Lets do try not to feed his persecution complex by pretending he was blocked for his opinions on editing. --PresN 16:09, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Castlevania: Lords of Shadow diff
Guys, any comments ? I've added recently GameRankings reception, Hahnchen considered it as "bloat". Sir Lothar (talk) 21:09, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
- Adding GR isn't bloat at all for the table at its present size, and actually should be used alongside MC to show another way aggregators break it down. --MASEM (t) 21:25, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
- Agree; it's a rather small table even with GR. Tezero (talk) 21:34, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
- Why don't you add Official PlayStation Magazine or PC Gamer or Kotaku? At least those would be introducing new opinions from reliable sources. Metacritic is the industry standard. In the discussion above, editors are implored to stick with the industry standards, the most influential opinions. So why is it that we keep on pandering to GameRankings, CBS's secondary aggregator.
- '"Metacritic" video game' on Google News - 9 pages of hits
- '"GameRankings" video game' on Google News - 0 hits
- 'GameRankings' on Google News - 6 hits
- It's Metacritic ratings which developer bonuses rely on, it's Metacritic that is quoted in corporate earnings reports, it's Metacritic that sits on the Steam product pages, it's Metacritic that reliable sources complain about as a shorthand for review aggregation. I wrote about about how Gamezone spam gives undue weight to Gamezone's point of view. Yet we do the same thing on almost every video games article when we place GameRankings alongside Metacritic. Metacritic is a reliable source, it is the industry standard, we should trust it to do its job - we don't need to hold the readers hand and show what is almost exactly the same score from another source. In almost all cases of a game released today, Gamerankings is redundant. - hahnchen 23:04, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
- Metacritic is certainly the most important for the industry, but a key factor that everyone knows about MC is that they weight scores depending on sources. Gameranking may not have the weird of being a source, but it is much more obvious they do not employ any weighting in their score balancing () while MC does have some unknown factors. As such MC is important as the industry metric, but GR's better as the balanced average (it's also part of gamespot's network so it doesn't have the GameZone issue. This is why both should be used. --MASEM (t) 23:10, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
- (Edit conflict) GR introduces more opinions from sources (in that it tends to contain reviews Metacritic doesn't, and vice versa), if the user cares to click, and calculates its scores differently, as Masem mentioned. It's not as widespread as Metacritic, but by that logic we should never link to RPGFan, Destructoid, or Official Dreamcast Magazine as long as there are a couple of reviews by IGN and GameSpot. Tezero (talk) 23:14, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
- How does it not have the Gamezone issue? Gamezone is a reliable source, but whose opinion is over-expressed in our articles, same with GameRankings. That GameRankings does not weight results, or contains sources which Metacritic omits is irrelevant, because the industry has decided on a standard, while the use of GameRankings is just down to the OR whims of Wikipedians. The aggregate score is there to show the critical consensus, and the critical consensus is Metacritic. I'm not against using GameRankings if there is somehow a disparity between the two, there are games pre-Metacritic for which GameRankings is the only option. But for every game coming out now, GameRankings is bloat, you might not add much to each article, but you're doing so across the entire encyclopedia. - hahnchen 23:20, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
- GameRankings is providing no opinion on the reviews, just a summary of scores and because it catalogs scores differently, provides a different way for a reader to look at other reviews for the game. GZ is providing opinion, so whether we include it should be based on whether their review offers anything new (and certainly not on it being forced into the article by a COI editor). --MASEM (t) 23:36, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
- GameRankings is providing an opinion, it has an inclusion criteria. It's decision not to weight those scores is an opinion. We give GameRankings significantly higher weight than the rest of the world does, we shouldn't. - hahnchen 23:41, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
- GR has a very straightforward, mostly fair objective means to include reviews, see the link above. They are not subjectively selecting sites, though they do want to make sure they are dealing with professional sites and not blogs. However, they aren't excluding sites that otherwise meet their requirements. That's objective for our purposes. --MASEM (t) 23:49, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
- GameRankings is providing an opinion, it has an inclusion criteria. It's decision not to weight those scores is an opinion. We give GameRankings significantly higher weight than the rest of the world does, we shouldn't. - hahnchen 23:41, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
- GameRankings is providing no opinion on the reviews, just a summary of scores and because it catalogs scores differently, provides a different way for a reader to look at other reviews for the game. GZ is providing opinion, so whether we include it should be based on whether their review offers anything new (and certainly not on it being forced into the article by a COI editor). --MASEM (t) 23:36, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
- As for "by that logic we should never link to RPGFan, Destructoid, or Official Dreamcast Magazine", we wouldn't use those if they did not add any specialist knowledge or unique opinion to the article. If RPGFan said the same thing as IGN aside from a few words every time, we would never use it, it would be redundant. I asked at the beginning, "Why don't you add Official PlayStation Magazine or PC Gamer or Kotaku?", because at least those would be original. - hahnchen 23:26, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
- How does it not have the Gamezone issue? Gamezone is a reliable source, but whose opinion is over-expressed in our articles, same with GameRankings. That GameRankings does not weight results, or contains sources which Metacritic omits is irrelevant, because the industry has decided on a standard, while the use of GameRankings is just down to the OR whims of Wikipedians. The aggregate score is there to show the critical consensus, and the critical consensus is Metacritic. I'm not against using GameRankings if there is somehow a disparity between the two, there are games pre-Metacritic for which GameRankings is the only option. But for every game coming out now, GameRankings is bloat, you might not add much to each article, but you're doing so across the entire encyclopedia. - hahnchen 23:20, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
- (Edit conflict) GR introduces more opinions from sources (in that it tends to contain reviews Metacritic doesn't, and vice versa), if the user cares to click, and calculates its scores differently, as Masem mentioned. It's not as widespread as Metacritic, but by that logic we should never link to RPGFan, Destructoid, or Official Dreamcast Magazine as long as there are a couple of reviews by IGN and GameSpot. Tezero (talk) 23:14, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
- Metacritic is certainly the most important for the industry, but a key factor that everyone knows about MC is that they weight scores depending on sources. Gameranking may not have the weird of being a source, but it is much more obvious they do not employ any weighting in their score balancing () while MC does have some unknown factors. As such MC is important as the industry metric, but GR's better as the balanced average (it's also part of gamespot's network so it doesn't have the GameZone issue. This is why both should be used. --MASEM (t) 23:10, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
- Why don't you just add new sources and let others add GameRankings? It doesn't hurt the articles one bit. It's not a commercial site either. My two cents. --Soetermans. T / C 23:53, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
- Despite having written the reception section and cleaned up the article, I'm told by User:Sir Lothar to start working on articles. This is despite Lothar's only contribution to the article being the addition of GameRankings to the template. There's a 0.71% difference in the PlayStation 3 score, and a 0.31% difference in the Xbox 360 score. Undue weight given to an opinion which is largely the same as the Metacritic standard. Why should I let others add Gamezone spam, any other table bloat or any other instances of undue weight? My argument for Metacritic is that it is the industry standard, the argument for including GameRankings too is ILIKEIT. - hahnchen 00:02, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
- The point is that using both MC and GR is a standard for most VG articles, and thus the addition of it to a table that is not bursting at the seams is not hurting anything. If GR was not a standard across most VG articles, yes, that would be possibly pointy, but really, this isn't harming anything. --MASEM (t) 00:09, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
- The argument that I am making, is that ILIKEIT is a poor standard and one that should be changed. GR should not be standard, giving it undue weight across the entire encyclopedia is damaging, in the way that undue weight is damaging anywhere on the encyclopedia. This Misplaced Pages standard was set, when? 2007? Maybe before Metacritic had established itself as the industry standard. I removed GameRankings from Lords of Shadow 2 because the critical consensus had already been provided by the industry standard, an industry standard that is not being challenged. I'm challenging tradition, the argument "it's traditional" is not much of a counter-argument.- hahnchen 00:18, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
- That's fair to challenge the tradition - I'd start a separate subsection to call for removing GR links. But it is standard tradition to include them so until you can should consensus is against them, it's not harmful to add the link. Remember, MC is criticized at times for bias, this is why a site like GR which does not bias scores at all is also useful to show what an unbiased score aggregiation is compared to MC (and the industry metric) --MASEM (t) 01:17, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
- Believe me, I disagree with plenty about WP:VG's current standards (I think it should be okay to add as many reviews to a table as are available as long as it fits in a reasonable-length Reception section, for example), but I'm not about to challenge them on a pointy basis. Tezero (talk) 03:27, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
- OK, I won't argue. Removed GR from table - ain't gonna provoke conflicts. As I see Hahnchen still hasn't read those pages WP:CIV, WP:AFG and of course WP:EQ. Sir Lothar (talk) 04:51, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
- I'm going to have to call you on that one, Sir Lothar. What we have here is a standard editorial dispute-turned minor scuffle, and you're just as guilty of etiquette violations as he is. I recommend you leave a comment at the "GameRankings standard" section below, and then walk away. Hahnchen would probably best be served doing the same. What's needed, I feel, is for the two of you stay away from each other, and this discussion, for a few days. Sᴠᴇɴ Mᴀɴɢᴜᴀʀᴅ Wha? 07:00, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
- OK, I won't argue. Removed GR from table - ain't gonna provoke conflicts. As I see Hahnchen still hasn't read those pages WP:CIV, WP:AFG and of course WP:EQ. Sir Lothar (talk) 04:51, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
- Believe me, I disagree with plenty about WP:VG's current standards (I think it should be okay to add as many reviews to a table as are available as long as it fits in a reasonable-length Reception section, for example), but I'm not about to challenge them on a pointy basis. Tezero (talk) 03:27, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
- That's fair to challenge the tradition - I'd start a separate subsection to call for removing GR links. But it is standard tradition to include them so until you can should consensus is against them, it's not harmful to add the link. Remember, MC is criticized at times for bias, this is why a site like GR which does not bias scores at all is also useful to show what an unbiased score aggregiation is compared to MC (and the industry metric) --MASEM (t) 01:17, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
- The argument that I am making, is that ILIKEIT is a poor standard and one that should be changed. GR should not be standard, giving it undue weight across the entire encyclopedia is damaging, in the way that undue weight is damaging anywhere on the encyclopedia. This Misplaced Pages standard was set, when? 2007? Maybe before Metacritic had established itself as the industry standard. I removed GameRankings from Lords of Shadow 2 because the critical consensus had already been provided by the industry standard, an industry standard that is not being challenged. I'm challenging tradition, the argument "it's traditional" is not much of a counter-argument.- hahnchen 00:18, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
- The point is that using both MC and GR is a standard for most VG articles, and thus the addition of it to a table that is not bursting at the seams is not hurting anything. If GR was not a standard across most VG articles, yes, that would be possibly pointy, but really, this isn't harming anything. --MASEM (t) 00:09, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
- Despite having written the reception section and cleaned up the article, I'm told by User:Sir Lothar to start working on articles. This is despite Lothar's only contribution to the article being the addition of GameRankings to the template. There's a 0.71% difference in the PlayStation 3 score, and a 0.31% difference in the Xbox 360 score. Undue weight given to an opinion which is largely the same as the Metacritic standard. Why should I let others add Gamezone spam, any other table bloat or any other instances of undue weight? My argument for Metacritic is that it is the industry standard, the argument for including GameRankings too is ILIKEIT. - hahnchen 00:02, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
GameRankings standard
- I support making GR optional (i.e., based on the article's local consensus). I've never seen it differ significantly from the MC score and have always added it begrudgingly. czar ♔ 05:06, 8 March 2014 (UTC)