Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 23:06, 14 June 2015

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks

AfDs

Luigi (3 participants)
Andreas Waldetoft (1 participant)
Comparison of OpenGL and Direct3D (1 participant)
Matt Firor (0 participants)
Portugal 1111: A Conquista de Soure (3 participants)
Ciberbit (1 participant)
Beamable (2 participants)
Iikka Keränen (2 participants; relisted)
Miika Huttunen (0 participants; relisted)
Harry M. Rubin (7 participants; relisted)

Merge discussions

Other discussions

No major discussions

Review Thread XIV: A Thread Reborn

This has not appeared for yonks, so here it is again as bright as ever. As usual, listed are all the pending Featured, Peer and Good Article reviews. The number of GAs is quite high at the moment. As usual, I draw people's attention to Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Requests, which is still suffering from backlog. Contributions welcome and gratefully received.

FAC

Fabula Nova Crystallis Final Fantasy - Nominated June 1, and has three Supports.

GANs

Begging thread

As the creator, I'm starting this. Here we go: I will trade someone's GA game review for a review of Megami Tensei or a comprehensive review for Fabula Nova Crystallis. --ProtoDrake (talk) 10:16, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@ProtoDrake: Will give you a review of either, your choice, in return for a GAN review of Dawn of Mana. --Pres N 20:46, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@PresN: Done. Will properly review in a day or two. --ProtoDrake (talk) 20:50, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

June 2015 TFAs

Coming up on June 7 is Flight Unlimited, while on June 20 is God of War: Betrayal! Congratulations to JimmyBlackwing and JDC808! --Pres N 15:50, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'm glad that Flight was allowed to hit the front page on its 20th anniversary. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 18:41, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! That's two God of War TFAs this year so far. Going to try and get God of War III in July and Ghost of Sparta in November. --JDC808 ♫ 18:48, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For a 3rd time...Sega article proposal

User:Tripple-ddd/sandbox This is supposed to replace Sega development studios, making it fuller with more sources.

User:Tripple-ddd/sandbox2 Full list of Sega titles, could split it into two if it's considered too big (one article for Sega systems, one for non-Sega systems). With the list of PC games, the current Sega PC article should also be merged/deleted.

User:Tripple-ddd/sandbox3 A revamped Arcade list, with purely video games developed and published by Sega. Other arcade machines, verion updates etc. are covered in other articles.

User:Tripple-ddd/sandbox5 So this is rewritten text for the current crop of Sega studios, also with sources...I won't replace any of them like I said before, just changing the content within them. Instead of six tough, there should be five (Amusement Vision and Smilebit merged)

User:Tripple-ddd/sandbox6 New list, purely for mobile, similar to Square Enix

So again, asking for opinions from @Dissident93:, @TheTimesAreAChanging:, @Lukeno94:.

I know Dissident, said that my articles are not in Manual of Style, referring to bad formatting. But that is still a rough suggestion that I can't make much out of, what are you exactly referring to? Maybe point to something from this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Text_formatting --Tripple-ddd (talk) 21:42, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Only going to assess the first one right now, but there are still various glaring typos (Japanese being written in lower case, "Deticated"), there are ref formatting errors and inconsistencies (see the references section whilst viewing the article), the tables are still all over the place, occasionally with row titles that make no sense ("titles" for the Consumer Research and Development Division table), a lot of sources that look unreliable (pointing at random Japanese Wikis), and there are still sentences that make no sense at all ("Once again headed Hiroshi Uemara (Manager), the department further developed more children's card arcade games."), and it still focuses far too heavily on personnel. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 01:44, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Lukeno94:

User:Tripple-ddd/sandbox: In addition to what Lukeno94 said, the tables are also confusing. I mean what does this mean to the average user?

User:Tripple-ddd/sandbox2: Again, get rid of all the published titles, it just bloats the article, and should be included as it's own (List of games published by Sega). It should also be listed in chronological order, not alphabetical.

User:Tripple-ddd/sandbox3: This is better, but it still has errors such as unused comma marks, and the intro needs to be redone (Remove the whole star system, it's trivial in my opinion).

User:Tripple-ddd/sandbox5: What's the purpose of this? Another list of the same games?

User:Tripple-ddd/sandbox6: This article could probably just be merged with sandbox2. If you really want to have this as it's own article, then make it more like the List of Square Enix mobile games article you mentioned. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 05:29, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Lukeno94: 1. Well I fixed the nationality capitilization, and added the missing word from that sentence. I don't know what you mean by ref inconsistencies and errors, how should they be implemented better? How can they implemented differently? (can someone edit someone elses sandbox? if that works, why don't you that, and show me directly what you want) I don't know what you by the tables, since the "titles" row, doesn't even exist anymore. The Japanese wikis are still the only reliable source for that content, and there is little reason for distrusting it. The information is from job ads, magazine information and interviews, as well as analyzing credits. Alot of which is unaccessible now and is in japanese. That is still better than the current crop of Sega Studio articles which have no sources AT ALL.

@Dissident93: 2. How are the tables confusing, at most I could see them being redundant...what you are linking in particular just lists the studios, and how they changed. The studios would then have links which are the articles in the fifth sandbox.

3. Why get rid of published titles? Especially the Japanese published games are linked with developed ones, as I said before. Why don't you think an article For List of Sega video games (Sega systems) and List of Sega video games (non Sega systems) is better?

3. I only see one unused comma mark. Question: do all of you talk about errors that are visible or also ones that only can be seen if you edit the source? Why does the introduction need to be redone? What would you suggest? How is the star system trivial? Do you want to bloat out the article with all the update version like the current one? Why not let the reader immediately see which games are stand-alone and which got updates?

4. The purpose of the fourth sandbox is to show the content I plan to revise the current crop of Sega Studios with. I explained this.

5. Well first you say that the previous article is bloated but now you say all the mobile games should be there too which is what would result of what you are against. Overall yes, I probably agree that making an article which contains fully informative tables, as well as a chronological order is better. There are some things that "should" happen, but as it is I see little wrong with the current sandboxes going live without major overhaul. This Sega development studios article has pretty much no sources, and the articles linked within them do neither, really how is anything not an improvement?

And unrelated to the articles in discussion, could you also explain why you consider this article article worse than my sandboxes? As I stated that one has clear errors, or do you mean that just because of a fuller table?

And why have you removed the financial information on the Sega Sammy Holdings page, when Disney has it? And about the company history, do you think the reasons of the merger (the first couple of sentences), are still appropriate to include and should be rewritten or does the current info need to be rewritten? --Tripple-ddd (talk) 11:32, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are at least two obvious ref errors - that's what the red text means in the references section when you're viewing the page. Some of the refs have no formatting whatsoever (they're just bare URLs), others appear to be missing things like publishers. Yes, we can edit your sandbox, but I'm still failing to see how this particular version is ever going to be an improvement over the current one without a total rewrite from the ground up (which reminds me that I really should start my own version). Wikis that can be edited by anyone/almost anyone are never reliable sources, and if they're the only source for something, then the information has to be removed, it's that simple. You can use the sources they cite, but not the Wikis themselves; and citing another wiki is not actually any better than having no citation at all (particularly ones that are in both a foreign language and character set, where most of us cannot translate them, and online translators struggle - so we have no idea whether they're making things up or not.) If you can't see the "titles" column/row in the "Consumer Research and Development Division" table, then I can't help you... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:07, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still under the general impression that this is too big of an undertaking for such an neweditor, and that Triple ddd should slow down a bit and learn how Wikipedia works a little more before taking on these massive changes. That's not something I can enforce unless it somehow elevates into disruptive editing, but I think that's the best route to take. Otherwise, there's just going to continue to be opposition at every turn, and lots of these arguments popping up. Triple ddd, please try to find a smaller project/article to work on to familiarize yourself with things a little more, and then in the future, try to take this on, using what you've learned in the meantime to make a better approach. Sergecross73 msg me 12:56, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's worth noting here that, having completely failed to get their way in a discussion, Tripple-ddd did this piece of blatant vandalism, converting the article into nonsense. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:16, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is a textbook example of disruptive editing. Absolutely not acceptable. Tripple-ddd, any more of that and you're going to receive a block. Do not make edits just to "make a point". Sergecross73 msg me 13:29, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

_{@Sergecross73: he may not get that notification. I've seen reports that corrections don't work, you need to get the name correct at the first attempt.} - X201 (talk) 14:21, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up, I didn't know that one. The conversation has moved to his talk page, and I've said it to him there too, so he should be aware, but that's still good to know going forward... Sergecross73 msg me 14:35, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note to all: for notifications to work, the edit that you link to their (correct) user page must also be an edit in which you sign (~~~~). So if you mess up their name, and make another edit to change it, you need to sign again in that second edit. --Pres N 14:54, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

After all this time, Tripple-ddd continues to make the same mistakes over and over again, with basically every editor here having to fix, revert, or just remove the info he keeps adding onto these articles. I've been patient with him this entire time, but I think he's getting close to being a disruptive editor and should be handled accordingly. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:57, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth noting there is an(other) edit war involving this user at Sonic Team, which is getting pretty lame, and some of it seems to have been very similar to their ridiculous claims about Sega Sports. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 00:42, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What? The reasoning behind Sega Sports and Sonic Team edits are completly different...Sega Sports is about the existence of it, and Sonic Team is just an argument about some styling and content. Making the same mistakes over and over? So far all I have done in live editing is the Sega Sammy page (which I still didn't get an answer about the removal of financial data), Sega itself (which in the end went well, with multiple rewriting the content that I intented to add) and now Sonic Team. I just want some answers to my questions. But I guess with the cryptic messages that Dissident is leaving about leads to maybe a hint what I'm doing wrong with editing? Is it because I do everything with Visual Editor that my text sometimes ends up looking messed up when editing the source? Is that the whole problem the entire time?--Tripple-ddd (talk) 09:24, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All I know is there is constant opposition and complaints about your edits, which is why I wish you'd slow down a bit, and familiarize yourself with how the website works. Sergecross73 msg me 12:11, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not trying to be cryptic or make this difficult for you. You've been told by me and other editors on what mistakes you continue to make, I.E. bad formatting, spelling errors, arguing very literally statements such as what is Sega Sports, etc. And I wouldn't personally use Visual Editor, but that's just me. As for the Sega Sammy financial info, you're only argument in keeping it lies in how some other articles have it. Most other large game company articles need to be rewritten as well, and would probably have their financial info removed too. Nobody else seems to be against the revert, either. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:13, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just want clearer communication, and I'm not the only thinking this, as BlusterBlaster who also edited the Sega article had a had time figuring out what Luken94 or what you are trying to say. It took this edit to understand one facet of what I'm doing bad, why you coudn't told me this directly, I do not know. I understand bad spelling and grammatical errors, and I appreciate everyone smoothing out writing, but removal of information (that is not irrational and is clearly trying to add something), needs more justification, explanation and perhaps suggestion than what you are giving. Also an argument that get's a counter argument is expected to have a response. And it's wrong to hold one of the most visited sites on Wikipedia as a standard? (Disney).--Tripple-ddd (talk) 20:50, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I should not have to teach you how to use Wikipedia. You've been told by many users what you continue to do wrong, if you don't understand by know, how else can we help? If any of the edits I did are controversial, then another user has the right to revert whatever I changed, but none of them have thus far (for these Sega related articles). And just because the Disney article has something you like, doesn't mean every article should. I haven't taken a look at that page yet, but it could be just as wrong, but nobody has gotten around to fixing it yet. I don't have anything personal against you, but you really should not be trying to rewrite all these major articles at your current state. Some of the sources you use, should not have been. (Mobygames for example), and some of the sentences you put are either too trivial to remain in the article, or badly written enough that I couldn't figure a way to rewrite it to make sense. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 01:18, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm personally tired of telling you to write articles according to what third party, reliable sources say, and to avoid original research. Too many of our your arguments have problems one way or another with those 2 areas... Sergecross73 msg me 02:43, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gamecruft

If anyone fancies a bit of hack and slash on a list of game items, take a trip to Dynasty Warriors: Gundam 3. Special offer: also comes with a free cast list as long as your arm. - X201 (talk) 14:28, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Colons in video game titles

I think this needs standardisation. It seems like there has been a recent trend in not including colons for certain video game titles. As an example, the Assassin's Creed series: Assassin's Creed#Release_history. A bunch of articles titles have colons and others don't. I've seen this with other video game articles as well. --The1337gamer (talk) 22:38, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think that standardization is needed. Assassin's Creed IV: Black Flag (with colon) and Assassin's Creed Unity (without colon) are their actual name, as well as their commonly used name. This shouldn't be changed because of standardization. AdrianGamer (talk) 03:07, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't something that we can standardize unless we can get the video games industry as a whole to standardize. No one uses them consistently- even games where it's "title (line break) subtitle", it's a coinflip whether the company uses a colon or a dash or nothing when they put it in text. it's aggravating, but there's not really anything we can do about it. --Pres N 03:25, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it started beforehand, but it seems this whole colon issue started with Star Trek Into Darkness where J.J. Abrams intentionally left out the colon. Since then, it seems that video games have adapted this concept of not using a colon (e.g. Killzone Shadow Fall, Infamous Second Son, etc.). It's not an issue of standardization, it's developers intentionally leaving off the colon for whatever reasons. --JDC808 ♫ 03:39, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's been around for years beforehand. Colons, dashes, nothing- games have mixed and matched, not being consistent with each other, within a series, or in unfortunate scenarios switching between them at will in various promotional materials. --Pres N 05:29, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, well it's become more apparent since then (at least to me). --JDC808 ♫ 05:37, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But that's not true. Black Flag doesn't have a colon in officially. None of the Assassin's Creed games have colons on the game cover and official website. What makes Brotherhood and Revelations (colon on articles) different from Unity and Syndicate (no colon on articles)? --The1337gamer (talk) 10:08, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If that is true for Black Flag (and the other Assassin Creed games), then those articles need to be changed accordingly. A lot of game covers usually don't have a colon because there's a line break, which usually indicates a colon, but a line break on the cover does not always mean there's a colon. The game manual or the copyright info on the back of the cover will confirm if there's a colon or not. Also, when the game is in the system, it'll show up either with or without a colon. What X201 said below me are other indicators to determine if there is or is not a colon. --JDC808 ♫ 18:57, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A good source for name formatting info are annual reports, investor relations releases and trademark applications, as these avoid the demented styling of the advertising dept. and have to display names in plain typed text. - X201 (talk) 10:32, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Small question

For a game that has personnel added over time, I.E. Terra Battle adding composers/artists from Kickstarter stretch goals, do we add the year the game was released (so it would be 2014 on everybody's article worklist) or the year their contribution was added (so 2015 for all the extra composers). MMOs do the second option don't they? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:19, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Task force cleanup pt. 5

Consensus from prior discussions was to deprecate all inactive task forces. I wanted to run the next and hopefully final inactive batch past WTVG just to make sure there were no final objections: PlayStation, Xbox, Atari, MUD, Strategy, Adventure. – czar 04:57, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Annual E3 reminder

With E3 next week, we can expect around 50 new games to be announced (if not already teased/announced already). As in the past, we should discourage new articles on these games unless there is sufficient information beyond the announcement to be written; redirects to existing articles are fine of course, and discussing a sequel or related game in a previous game or existing series article is fine too. --MASEM (t) 22:57, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh boy. E3 again. Let's see if there's going to be more gaffes this year from video game websites. Looking at you, IGN. GamerPro64 23:23, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is someone going to be compiling a report of all the announcements like last year? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 23:43, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On Wikipedia or just in general? Pretty sure most game websties these days gives a detailed recap of everything announced. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 23:57, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm talking about summaries like 2014's Xbox E3 Show or Nintendo E3 presser. I probably won't be able to watch the shows live, or I'd volunteer. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 00:47, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck enforcing things - I already see all sorts of super short stubs popping up with all these pre-E3 announcements. This time of year, I find it to be such an uphill battle that I just roll with it... Sergecross73 msg me 01:51, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The other thing I'm a bit worried about is an uptake of vandalism on certain articles. I recall that the Animal Crossing: New Leaf article got shafted around E3 2012 when no release date for the game was announced then. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 02:07, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ThomasO1989 - Yeah, I remember that. As always, feel free to alert me on my talk page of stuff like that, I'll gladly look into it and protect it if necessary. I do try to be especially proactive with the vandalism and misinformation going on around E3 at least... Sergecross73 msg me 12:43, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing to help here if I can. I plan on watching the Square Enix livestream (it's happening in the afternoon in my timezone), if that's of any help. --ProtoDrake (talk) 13:47, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RfD notification

Atsushi Seimiya has been nominated at Redirects for discussion. Your input at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 June 10#Atsushi Seimiya would be appreciated. And while you're there, there's Wort, wort, wort! right below it. --BDD (talk) 13:09, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stella Deus help needed

Hi there, all. I'm preparing a rewrite for Stella Deus: The Gate of Eternity and have encountered a serious problem: I can't find a story synopsis anywhere beyond the bare-bones setting given in the publicity blurb and what little is there one the page at present. Can anyone help give me a synopsis of what happens? Or direct me to a link where the English script is archived, or even a translation of the Japanese script so I can make a rough setup? If anyone could that, it would be most helpful. I've got everything else about the article all wrapped up and ready to write in my sandbox. --ProtoDrake (talk) 19:42, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This and that review talks a fair bit about the plot. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:49, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I played this back in the day. I don't recall the story, but I'll read it over and help some like I do the Tales games articles. Sergecross73 msg me 20:05, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you hugely, Sergecross73. --ProtoDrake (talk) 20:10, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question regarding page name

With the recent Virtual Console release of the original mother as EarthBound Beginnings I think it is worth considering moving Mother (video game series) back to Earthbound (series) since two of the three games in the series now use Earthbound. Granted there was a successful request to move it to the current title last October but I believe that this new announcement could change things considerably.--67.68.31.244 (talk) 22:45, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also talk:EarthBound Beginnings currently redirects to talk:Mother (video game) can someone please fix that as the Mother talk page has all previous discussions and it should be at the new title.--67.68.31.244 (talk) 23:05, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 23:05, 14 June 2015 edit 67.68.31.244 (talk) →‎Question regarding page name ← Previous edit		Revision as of 23:06, 14 June 2015 edit undo 67.68.31.244 (talk) →‎Question regarding page name Next edit →
Line 179:		Line 179:

	With the recent Virtual Console release of the original mother as [[EarthBound Beginnings]] I think it is worth considering moving [[Mother (video game series)]] back to [[Earthbound (series)]] since two of the three games in the series now use Earthbound. Granted there was a successful request to move it to the current title last October but I believe that this new announcement could change things considerably.--[[Special:Contributions/67.68.31.244\|67.68.31.244]] ([[User talk:67.68.31.244\|talk]]) 22:45, 14 June 2015 (UTC)		With the recent Virtual Console release of the original mother as [[EarthBound Beginnings]] I think it is worth considering moving [[Mother (video game series)]] back to [[Earthbound (series)]] since two of the three games in the series now use Earthbound. Granted there was a successful request to move it to the current title last October but I believe that this new announcement could change things considerably.--[[Special:Contributions/67.68.31.244\|67.68.31.244]] ([[User talk:67.68.31.244\|talk]]) 22:45, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
	::Also [[talk:~~Earthbound~~ Beginnings]] currently redirects to [[talk:Mother (video game)]] can someone please fix that as the Mother talk page has all previous discussions and it should be at the new title.--[[Special:Contributions/67.68.31.244\|67.68.31.244]] ([[User talk:67.68.31.244\|talk]]) 23:05, 14 June 2015 (UTC)		::Also [[talk:EarthBound Beginnings]] currently redirects to [[talk:Mother (video game)]] can someone please fix that as the Mother talk page has all previous discussions and it should be at the new title.--[[Special:Contributions/67.68.31.244\|67.68.31.244]] ([[User talk:67.68.31.244\|talk]]) 23:05, 14 June 2015 (UTC)