Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 145

Perspectives on Birdo
An editor is editing the article to remove suggestions that Birdo is transgender (which is found in multiple reliable sources), including removing from categorization. I would appreciate if editors could give their input on this matter. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 23:17, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * In seeing that this particular kind of discussion will not instigate political warring, I can give my own input without causing any problems.
 * I would say that it is appropriate to include as a notable aspect of the character. Birdo's gender has been a source of speculation, and for valid reasons. According to the article, in the character's first debut game, Birdo is "a male who believes she [sic] is female", but in most later titles, Nintendo has resorted to referring to the character as simply female. Even if the character had never officially been transgender to begin with, with numerous sources covering the topic, I think it should stay. To state that Birdo's gender officially is, had always been, and will always be female (i.e. by removing mentions of the speculations) would be to tell a different story. By the way, I don't support the LGBT lifestyle, but I also oppose banning such lifestyles.  Gamingforfun 3 6 5 06:07, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe don't air bigotry on Wikipedia. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 06:32, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * +1. -- Pres N  09:20, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed, this is no place for bigotry. TheAwesome  Hwyh  05:14, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I absolutely agree. Nobody should be particularly called out for anything other than theft, fraud, and assault. In fact, I think of them as normal people whose business is none of ours, and nobody ought to take their thoughts of something and use them maliciously. In my opinion, the only people that I do not find normal are snakes dressed up as humans who want to criminalize such a private personal act, so that above information should be included in the Birdo article for being notable. I am sorry for the ambiguity caused by that comment that could be seen as hinting discrimination. I simply had an impulse to explain because I feared that if some idiot reading what I wrote took that out of context to mean that I condemn opponents (I actually condemn no one at all ever since I only focus on the actions), they would smear me as a communist. Perhaps that was unnecessary and I needed to keep my cakehole shut.) Gamingforfun 3 6 5 03:19, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Actually getting back on topic, I think the so-called reliable sources need a massive check for legitimacy. I think it's fine to mention the controversy about the character, but it really feels like the writers were trawling for whatever nonsense they could to bolster the article's length in that section. It's mostly speculation, and the part about Birdo getting secret gender reassignment surgery appears ludicrous.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 03:59, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, the character should not be categorized as trans unless they are officially confirmed as such by Nintendo. I don't think it was ever clear, much less retconned.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 04:01, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I wholeheartedly disagree that Birdo should not be in the trans category when reliable sources are consistently referring to her as such. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 04:38, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, it should be noted that nothing in canon actually contradicts the notion that Birdo is transgender. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 04:45, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Instead of "we don't know they aren't", how about "we do know they are" as the criteria we use. Do we know for a fact the character is trans? No. There have been jokes about it, but jokes don't equal proof. If reliable sources cite fan speculation, it's still speculation.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 18:04, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The manual (p. 27) for Super Mario Bros. 2, the first game Birdo appeared in, reads: "Birdo – He thinks he is a girl and he spits eggs from his mouth. He'd rather be called "birdetta."" All later games address Birdo as female, as far as I am aware, so this is either official or retconned. Either way, this (often addressed) detail deserves its place in the article. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 18:38, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Some games do still reference the fact her gender's unclear. For instance, her trophy in Super Smash Bros. Brawl says "A pink creature of indeterminate gender that some say would rather be called Birdetta. A big ribbon on its head is its most distinguishing feature. In Super Mario Bros. 2, you can return fire on Birdo by jumping on the eggs shot from its mouth. Be careful not to get psyched out by fake-egg fireballs!" I also think the British versions of Mario Tennis Aces and Super Mario Party treat her as male. JOE BRO  64  19:27, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I definitely agree the controversy(?) should be mentioned. However, things like adding the character to a category of trans characters goes beyond that into outright stating it is a fact, when it's unclear at best.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 21:21, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * That Nintendo uses female pronouns is not a contradiction on her being trans. Further, as is noted, her gender has been officially discussed on multiple occasions. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 00:29, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Given the above primary sources, I don't think it's unclear at all. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:38, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The article itself says "The Japanese manual states the character's name is "Catherine", but she would rather be known as "Cathy." In later printings, mention of Birdo being male was omitted. Mention of this fact is further not included in most later games featuring the character." It can easily be chalked up to a localizer taking too many liberties with an otherwise female character because they thought it was funny. I see no definitive proof of anything here.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 07:31, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Mario Strikers Charged literally is an example of a later game calling Birdo male. As a side note, I do hate that the discussion about Birdo in this case revolves around whether she is trans and therefore, apparently, male. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 18:51, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah that's kinda throwing me for a loop too Bryn. With Poison there's back and forth whether she's trans or biologically female, but she's still regarded as female either way. However in that case we have actual dev statements for the back and forth, and here it's still a bit of speculation. That said I don't think it's an issue to have the category as those are intended to help with searching and there does seem to be some consensus at least with reception that she's regarded as such.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:32, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

I feel that any attempt to determine a single definitive truth of Birdo's gender is doomed to failure. There just isn't that sort of level of internal consistency within the Mario universe. Mario himself has been a carpenter, then a plumber, then not a plumber (as well as a doctor, tennis player, and so on). Bowser is both the evil villain who kidnaps the princess and a friend who goes karting with all the other characters. And yet we have Mario categorised as a fictional plumber and Bowser as a Mario enemy, even though they aren't universally presented that way. Similarly, the way that Nintendo have presented Birdo's gender identity has also been erratic and inconsistent, but that shouldn't stop us from categoriising according to a character trait which has been official in some incarnations of the character, and has been widely reported on. Lowercaserho (talk) 21:44, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Per the article: The European website for Mario Strikers Charged Football refers to Birdo as a male character. That could easily be a typo if the American website (or the game itself!) does not. Wikipedia is not in the business of picking out small errors from obscure sites and using them to prove things about characters, leave that to fan forums. It seems to me like you are presenting blatant speculation as obvious truth. It opens a Pandora's Box where everyone can categorize fictional characters as anything they want if the character's creator once made a random typo about them.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 23:55, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * A typo made in Super Smash Bros. Brawl, Super Mario Bros. 2, and Mario Strikers Football Charged (which, I might add, made a point of calling Birdo Yoshi's girlfriend and then clarifying that she may instead be his boyfriend). Honestly, it feels like you're trying to push a narrative more than anyone in this discussion thread. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 07:24, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm just going to link to Cherry picking here.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 21:08, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * "Cherry picking, suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position." That her being trans is not mentioned in every game does not at all mean that it's contradictory evidence or that it's being ignored. I gotta say, you took "I'm just going to link Cherry picking" literally - you didn't even go as far as to read the article. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 01:08, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Baldurs Gate 3 Logo
Hello, can someone add the logo https://baldursgate3.game/img/logo-bg.png to the Baldur's Gate III article? I can't upload files yet. Thanks. Baldurfan (talk) 21:35, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I've added it.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 00:52, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Baldurfan (talk) 22:46, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Pacman
Can someone inspect the last several edits, I don't have the time to see if programmersatwork.wordpress.com is RS< which the editor asserts it is. Article was getting some attention on Twitter, but per outing policies any info i have on that cant be done on Wiki. (edit some attention was about 20-50 people) Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊  03:23, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * , Programmers At Work has zero credentials and no staff writer is ever mentioned by name, so it shouldn't be used. I removed several unreliable sources from the article. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 07:59, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Indie / Independent video game RM
An RM discussion is open at Talk:Independent video game for several articles that have "indie game" or "independent video game" in the title. — HELL KNOWZ   ▎TALK 08:57, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Proposed merger
I've proposed a merger of Heavy Gear to Heavy Gear (video game), if this is of interest to anyone. Chetsford (talk) 16:28, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Merging AirAttack 2 (video game) with AirAttack 2
These two articles are for the same game, if someone wants to merge the disambiguated article with the base name it would be helpful.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 00:47, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * AFD does force us to preserve an article.  copies should be redirected to the first game's topic. The two copies are basically spam at this point. --Izno (talk) 01:00, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * In the AfD it was proven the 2nd game was independently notable. (See Sergecross's comment in it).ZXCVBNM (TALK) 05:43, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * An AFD rarely decides that material cannot be merged, only that the content could stand as its own article without being subject to the deletion mechanism. --Izno (talk) 14:32, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I don’t believe anyone is saying “force” or “can’t”, I think he’s just saying that keeping the article was the most recent consensus on the matter. (Though I haven’t been following the article for years now, so it’s possible there are other discussions that have happened since. But if not, then another discussion would probably be the best course forward.)  Sergecross73   msg me  14:53, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah I don't agree at all with merging.       - Bryn (talk)  (contributions) 17:57, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

The Last of Us Remastered merger discussion
Thought I'd let the project know. Discussion is here. JOE BRO  64  22:04, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

List of Digimon video games reassessment
I have nominated List of Digimon video games for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Namcokid47 (talk) 15:55, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

The Room name change
Can we move The Room (2010 video game) to "The Room Tribute" or "The Room: The Game" because those are the actual names it's officially and commonly known as. And have The Room (2012 video game) to just "The Room (video game)".Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 21:20, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, hi Mark. JOE BRO  64  21:36, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * ...back on topic, I support these moves. JOE BRO  64  21:37, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, The Room Tribute should be the article title. If the 2012 game becomes sub-primary topic, though, I'd recomend a hatnote with directions to the tribute game. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 21:45, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I would support this shuffling of titles. Also make sure to fix up the The Room (disambiguation) page... --M asem (t) 22:59, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * If there are no objections, could an admin make the move for us? It wont let me for some reason.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 17:54, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * All moved, hat note added on the 2012 game, and disambiug page adjusted. --M asem (t) 21:23, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Question about article title
I may be missing something but I believe that Digital distribution in video games would be better off at something like Digital distribution of video games. I am not experienced with move requests so if someone does agree that it should be moved could they please help set it in motion.--64.229.166.98 (talk) 21:52, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Draft: Defender's Quest
Can someone with article review privileges review Draft: Defender's Quest? It was initially rightfully rejected, I improved it with RS but it was rejected again (see the discussion at User talk:Chetsford.) He refuses to consider the WP:VG/S reliable sources for some reason so I would ask for someone more familiar with video games to review and sign off on it.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 08:44, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * From experience, that user is exceptionally hard on considering sources to be reliable and/or independent. Another reviewer would be more fair, I imagine. BOZ (talk) 14:16, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not just picky, it's completely incorrect. They are reliable sources with full editorial teams, and were agreed upon as such by a large amount of users. If someone is going to mark pages wrongly as rejected, they shouldn't have page review rights, I'd say.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 15:48, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Hard to disagree with you there; I suppose I was just trying to be nice. ;) But you are absolutely correct. BOZ (talk) 16:18, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree; reviewing the discussion, Chetsford's comments seem perfectly reasonable. Just because a source is reliable doesn't mean it indicates notability of the subject.--Martin IIIa (talk) 19:42, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * While that is true, he continued to argue against it even when I pointed out that they were reviews of the game, and therefore, significant mentions that satisfied notability. And then unilaterally closed the discussion, in an example of WP:OWN. It seems he is having a little power trip.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 16:16, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Closing the discussion at that point may have been inappropriate, but I'm not picking up any hint of WP:OWN, particularly as he says "Feel free to submit the article for a second opinion." There's still plenty of room to assume good faith.--Martin IIIa (talk) 19:01, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The problem is that "feel free to resubmit" is essentially dodging responsibility for causing all the issues in the first place. It's like if an Uber driver dropped you off halfway to your destination because they didn't like that part of town, and said "feel free to get a new cab". They still caused inconvenience.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 20:36, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm speechless. You think an editor should approve a draft of an article that fails to clearly meet notability requirements, simply because doing otherwise inconveniences the person who submitted the draft?--Martin IIIa (talk) 19:17, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * We don't have Defender's Quest article o_O? from VG/RS and probably more before I got bored looking through search results. —  HELL KNOWZ   ▎TALK 16:53, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Well we do now :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 22:00, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Brawl Stars - Brawlers table
Hello.

Over the past few months, some users have added a list of brawlers and their gameplay stats (health, attack, etc.) underneath the gameplay section. I came across it and ultimately removed it as it violates WP:VGSCOPE, also known as WP:GAMECRUFT. This isn't the first time I've done this; I've removed the similar content years ago, though it was back when the article was bombarded with disruptive editing that it had to be protected (nowadays it's under pending changes).

On 29 May 2019, have added a similar table again (alongside with an expanded statistics) - in which I reverted it citing the same guideline; Bigeyemanigm reverted my revert and was reverted again by another user (as Bigeyemanigm wasn't autoconfirmed at the time).

On 30 June 2019, added his own version of the disputed table. Almost a month later, for the third time I have removed it again and this is where we are now; a user named came over to my talk page and asked me why I have removed it, before reverting my revert. At this point I realized the slow edit warring we're getting into, so I self-revert.

So... yeah... can anyone give an neutral opinion of what to think of this? I think it should be removed because it's considered to be beyond the scope of information for a wiki that aims to cover all topics. Gun23man readded the table because it "is useful".

theinstantmatrix (talk) 23:24, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It’s pretty much the exact definition of WP:GAMECRUFT. It’s not even close. Absolutely should not be in the article. Sergecross73   msg me  01:32, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree that this is not content suitable for Wikipedia. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 18:14, 23 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Disagree so what if a new player goes on Wikipedia and knows zilch about Brawlers their attack, super, etc so that is why it’s useful.Gun23man (☎️) 08:12, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Then they go to a site for that purpose. Take a look at WP:NOT, specifically WP:GAMEGUIDE to reasoning why the information isn't suitable for the article.  Cr im so nF ox  talk 08:27, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, and it’d be useful if Pizza Hut had a directory of phone numbers so I could call my local PizzaHut, but it doesn’t, because Wikipedia isn’t a phone directory, it’s an encyclopedia. Same concept here. If people want game help they can use Gamefaqs or Youtube or any number of places on the internet. Sergecross73   msg me  12:04, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed, game guide material like this is simply not under Wikipedia's purview. There are plenty of sites on the net where this information can and should go.--Martin IIIa (talk) 19:28, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare
There is still no information about remastered version (expect natutally unsourced lead). Eurohunter (talk) 17:55, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Call of Duty: Modern Warfare Remastered? TarkusAB talk / contrib 14:27, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * If this is just a remastered with no special changes, then we should not have a separate article but a redirect would be fine. A remaster needs to be of the extent of the RE2 remaster to reasonably justify a separate article. --M asem (t) 14:34, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It does have have a pretty substantial development section, for what it’s worth. I wouldn’t particularly support a merge. Sergecross73   msg me  17:40, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Leded do not need to have citations, see WP:CITELEAD (unless you have quotations, then that's required). --M asem (t) 14:35, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes but we had no information with references further in the text (information in the lead can't exist withouth further reference in the text with sources). Eurohunter (talk) 10:09, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I think the user meant that Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare doesn't cover it's direct remaster, but of course it doesn't because that has an entire dedicated article (A GA, no less): Call of Duty: Modern Warfare Remastered. I do not think they are talking about the upcoming reboot of the Modern Warfare arc, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare (2019 video game) (Which shouldn't be merged anywhere either) -- ferret (talk) 15:49, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, and perhaps the user was not aware of the remaster article. Either way, I think it's fair that the original article should have a paragraph about the remaster. Although their post was very short, and it's not clear if they are simply wondering why there is no information in the original article, or if they are asking for someone to add it. TarkusAB talk / contrib 16:17, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I added short 'Legacy' section that the covers the release of the sequels, remaster and reboot. Might need some expansion still but the lead is no longer unsourced. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 17:19, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Now lead follows further text so it's okey now. Eurohunter (talk) 10:09, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Project Sakura Wars development team
So, as many of us know, Project Sakura Wars is being developed by Sega's CS2 R&D division, which is also known as Sonic Team. However, I discovered in a interview with Kenji Matsubara published on Dengeki Online this past May, the game doesn't mention Sonic Team anywhere. Given that and unless someone objects, I think we should remove the Sonic Team mentions from that article unless the game confirms that it was developed by Sonic Team. Thoughts? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:52, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not surprised it doesn't mention development team names. It doesn't go into that aspect of the production at all, nor does it feature comments from the actual production staff. It's about fan demand,, the most famous external staff members, the series' dormancy, and its announcement reaction. It's an executive speaking in very broad terms about the project, and not going into any specifics about production. I don't think it's wise to remove an entire development team based on an interview that wasn't about them in the first place.
 * It would be sensible to keep what's there now in terms of its production department, but still link it to that department's article. After all, Sega CS2 R&D is technically referred to most often as Sonic Team. If you're opposed to using "Sonic Team", just use something like "Sega CS2 R&D", which is part of the wider "Sega Games". I don't think we should make that kind of change until we get open and definitive confirmation from Sega about an internal change. Don't rely on lack of information as a source. I've made that mistake when using Japanese sources before. --ProtoDrake (talk) 06:57, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe I'm not opposed to reinstating Sonic Team after all. I'll go ahead and restore it. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:17, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

How to handle this situation
Defiant Development, an Aussie studio behind Hand of Fate and its sequel is shutting down, while they were in the midst of developing a 3rd game.

Prior to this week, it is hard to prove the studio notable. Hand of Fate certainly is, as well as its sequel (based on checking Metacritic for what reviews are there for it, just that no one has made up the page yet), but this didn't extend to the studio enough. So it would be nice to at least somewhere describe the studio, what other non-notable games it made, the game it was working on, and their closure, but its hard to justify a separate page for Defiant without other notability beyond their closure. And with only two games (there's a board game too, but I don't think that is notable beyond the games) there's no justification for a franchise page. So I don't where to document the developer, and looking for ideas. --M asem (t) 19:56, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * As Hand of Fate (1) is currently the only article that partially covers the topic, the closure should be mentioned in that article's development section adjacent to the release of the sequel, mentioning that a third game was in development but cancelled when the studio closed. Similar could be done when an article for the second game is eventually created. I would avoid creating an article for the studio as it hasn't seen much notability, the only things we can source through secondary sources is the founding year (2010), one of the founders (Morgan Jaffit), and the dissolution date (2019-07-23). That is, of course, unless we find some more sources that justify a small-but-stable article. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 20:23, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Like this then? I have also dropped redirects to that section. --M asem (t) 20:31, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, this looks good, as long as there is no better place for it. I did believe from the context in your question that the game cancelled was in fact a third Hand of Fate game. The cancelled game does not appear to be much related with Hand of Fate, so it wouldn't qualify it as their "third game" (it would have at least been their eighth). Aside from that, I'm scrambling for pre-2019 sources on the studio that might suffice for an article. You can check/contribute to the draft in my sandbox if you feel like it. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 21:49, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Article created, and I copied a portion of your description of The World In My Attic to it. According to the closure statement, the company is "in caretaker mode". Should we consider it as defunct (as of 2019-07-23)? Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 19:31, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that. I just couldn't easily find enough in news to really support much more but I didn't really dive deep enough. --M asem (t) 16:54, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

List of Rainbow Six Siege operators
Hey y'all, I just came over here to try and discuss the possibility of the creation of a list article titled List of Rainbow Six Siege operators in conjunction to the creation of specific Rainbow Six Siege operators such as Caveira and Hibana. While discussing the articles for the operators, I was pointed to the idea of creating the aforementioned list article. That in itself seems like a good idea and is almost certain it would pass WP:GNG, though a problem came up when discussing the creation of Hibana's article.

Basically, I have an idea to create further pages for 3 or 4 more operators, being Ash, Doc, Tachanka, and maybe Blitz, while the other 40ish operators would only get brief sections in a list article. The difference between these three or four operators is pretty much to do with WP:SUSTAINED, where they could get articles because of their popularity, appearances in-game and in other media, and how famous/infamous they are. This could also be an issue that gets into WP:FANCRUFT, where although the articles may be well-written, they could just be seen as fan-created content.

I'm basically asking what are the limits to how many separate operator articles there can be while a list article exists so it doesn't go into WP:FANCRUFT and can simply be seen as notable content? Micro (Talk) 02:29, 29 July 2019 (UTC)


 * My gut says that you should only spin out those characters if you can also support a "concept and creation" (aka development) section, even if you have a reception section in mind. Otherwise, they can be listed in the table, keeping their in-universe/gameplay aspects to the same length as the others but then having the extra para or two about their reception. --M asem  (t) 13:48, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not too sure if there would be enough sources for a "concept and creation" bit, though the two already existing articles have post-development (bug fixing, balancing, etc) bits in them as well as a good reception bit. I'll keep your ideas for the list in-mind, maybe keeping each operator to maybe 3 or 4 paragraphs. Micro (Talk) 00:39, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I personally think it should be called List of Rainbow Six Siege characters both per WP:CONSISTENCY and WP:INUNIVERSE. Most likely none of the operators will be individually notable as it's an online shooter and not a singleplayer game, but a list could be feasible. Edit: Looking at the current standalone articles for the operators, I'm still not convinced they would withstand an AfD.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 19:38, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * List of Rainbow Six Siege characters makes sense, I'll try to do that. I think I can see what you're getting at with the "online shooter" bit, but it makes no real sense as plenty of articles on Overwatch characters exist (including D.Va, Genji, Hanzo, Tracer, and Widowmaker) and they have pretty much as much story as Rainbow Six Siege characters do, though the operators have their plot or stories told through in-game text in their bio instead of animated shorts. I'm not sure how to properly reference/source something from in-game text into an article though, I only know that I am allowed to as it's plot and story based. Micro (Talk) 00:39, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You can look at existing game articles like Chrono Trigger for examples of sourcing ingame text. I would caution against assuming that since Overwatch has character articles, individual articles from Siege would also be notable. Overwatch has had an unusually high amount of popularity and reception from secondary sources, while Siege is more of a niche game. When I look at Caveira (Rainbow Six Siege), the Reception section is rather small and contains almost no commentary, which is a bad sign in terms of proving notability. When most of the sources are just patch notes and the like, it does not mean the characters are individually important or notable.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 04:06, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up on Chrono Trigger, I'll see if that helps. Just a note, R6 is only a couple months younger than Overwatch and it is still going strong (40 million in their player base i think), so it's not really a niche game. The reception bit is on me, there's probably a lot more commentary, but I didn't want to try to overload it. Might try to get a couple more if that helps. Micro (Talk) 04:13, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The size of the game is kind of irrelevant; more popular games tend to get more press, but it's not a sure thing. What I think Zxcvbnm is getting at is that Rainbow Six Siege might not support a lot of standalone articles, or it might be better (given we're a general-purpose encyclopedia) to not dive in too deeply into characters with limited potential for a good article. Or, to put it another way: I think focusing on fewer, better articles is almost always a better idea than more numerous but weaker articles. In other words: you should probably demonstrate that the characters specifically of Rainbow Siege are notable enough for their own article before you think about writing standalone articles on even more niche aspects. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 04:21, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * "Niche" doesn't always refer to size of the playerbase, but also how mainstream it is, which influences the amount of discussion it gets in the press. Often there's a big wall where players are very familiar with a game, but everyone else has no clue what you're talking about. Since Wikipedia is for general audiences, unlike Wikia/Fandom, that is a problem if a character is largely known only to fans. "Morgan Park of PC Gamer listed her in the "Viable, but not essential" category" is commentary that no one besides fans will ever care about, because whether she is viable only matters to players. I think it's important to have commentary that a general audience will find relevant to demonstrate they are notable, like "this character demonstrated the importance of kindness and sharing. They made me sell my house, give the money to charity and become a monk".

ZXCVBNM (TALK) 04:25, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah ok, I understand. I'll try to find some good sources that can be easily understood by someone who knows nothing about Rainbow Six Siege. I think I can get a couple more, but yea. It should be doable. Micro (Talk) 05:39, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Just to give an example that I think is viable, Characters of Overwatch encyclopedicly captures the essences of the playable characters, focusing briefly on gameplay and backstory, but where appropriate, more on dev and reception. There are probably hundreds more RS articles we could pull on gameplay strategies and the like, but the OW articles only go into them when they are necessary to understand reception or development changes (eg like Mercy). --M asem (t) 04:58, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * That seems like a pretty good article, I'll try to base my draft of the R6 characters on that. It might not have as much content, but it is pretty much a case of translating the article from OW to R6. Micro (Talk) 05:39, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Cover images
When using images for a game that was first released for a specific console do we avoid using the console's logo? I mean, I'm kinda confused as God of War (2018 video game) is lacking the PS4 logo even though the article is quite well written. I thought we only do that for games released for multiple consoles at the same time like Tekken 6.Tintor2 (talk) 16:05, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Personally I don't think there's any reason to leave a ton of chrome up for any non-free image, including video game covers. For a PS4-exclusive game that is basically wasted space with a non free logo; it's not telling you anything novel about the content, so there's no real justification per NFCC. There's some stuff you can't easily get rid of and thus should leave rather than mangling the image, but I don't see a compelling reason for the "leave console logos in unless it's a multi-platform" stance. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 16:37, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yea, if we can get an image that looks right without the console logo, then it makes no sense to try to find an image with one just to satisfy that. This doesn't mean stripping out, like, the PS2 banner off PS2 box art to make it logoless - the size would look funny, but if there is an official version without the PS2 branding, hey great. (Eg stripping the header off God of War II would leave a funny aspect ratio). --M asem (t) 17:34, 28 July 2019 (UTC)


 * The third God of War (PS3) has the logo and it's FA so I'm kind of confused with the handling of these images. Was there a discussion involving this?Tintor2 (talk) 17:59, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think there was any extra thought into the process of deciding the cover. For more modern games, the cover illustration can be revealed before the game releases, so the banner might not appear. That could be a reason why some covers have the banner and some don't.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 18:07, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Basically this. The cover art (just the art itself) for God of War (2018) was released before an image with the PS4 banner and logos. This was also somewhat of a conscientious decision on my part as the main contributor for the God of War articles. I had thought about replacing the cover art with one with the PS4 banner and logos, but without the banner and logos, it's cleaner, and as this game is the first in this new era for the franchise, I thought this could be kind of an aesthetic way to show that here. I had also noticed some other PS4-exclusives were going logoless as well (e.g., Horizon Zero Dawn and Uncharted 4: A Thief's End). -- JDC808  ♫  21:08, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I see it as making sense unless the removal of the logo would negatively affect the image in question. For example, if we tried that with the box art for Super Mario World we would need to remove most of Yoshi’s foot which would be a clear negative.--64.229.166.98 (talk) 19:43, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * But I hate Yoshi's foot. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 20:09, 28 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I see. Thanks for the responses. Still, wouldn't the final banner further fit the idea of the manual of style? I mean, whenever I asked about images, it involved using the most descriptive images so I wonder if the console and rating logos might help common readers get a faster idea to what console is the game from.Tintor2 (talk) 23:47, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Compared to the one with the PS4 Banner, the bannerless version is slightly shorter. The cover with the PS4 banner actually provides more. But its such a small difference. In my humble opinion, there is also the ESBR or PEGI rating that I find beneficial to have on the cover more than the banner itself.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 00:54, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Speaking of the ratings, and I don't know if this has ever been discussed without looking through the archives, but why is there not a parameter for the rating of the game in the infobox? To the point of this discussion, since this is not a one-off thing, as evidenced by the two examples I provided previously, perhaps we need to come to a consensus on whether or not exclusive games should have cover art with banner/logos and implement that into the MOS. -- JDC808  ♫  09:01, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I think my immediate response would be that ratings are like prices—generally irrelevant for our purposes. Ratings are rarely the subject of critical commentary, and as such probably shouldn't be encouraged by a field, since if it hasn't been coined already I'm ready to dub Fuchs' Law: "If there is an infobox field people will attempt to fill it regardless of appropriateness." In an article like Turok: Dinosaur Hunter the rating (and price) are actually part of the relevant encyclopedic discussion, but that's not that common and it still doesn't really make sense to include it in the infobox (since it's not that important.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 14:03, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * There's also multiple ratings systems in place (some which change with time), and that's just a field that would become effectively useless. We are also following how the movie project does not use ratings for similar reasons. If the rating is of an issue, it can be discussed in text. --M asem (t) 14:25, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Backyard Wrestling: Don't Try This at Home
Should the roster table be removed from the article? The moment I saw that, I thought WP:GAMECRUFT would be applicable. Therefore, I have decided to ask for more opinions here. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:43, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Total gamecruft. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:13, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * FWIW: the game is kind of notable for having some actual character licenses (such as Sabu), but should be in prose. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:17, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Well some of the characters are based on real people. I would replace the table with written prose that mentions the notable people who were cast for the game. TarkusAB talk / contrib 16:52, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Fighting games have some sort of grandfather clause in regards to roster lists in their articles. Personally I don't think they should, but it seems so widespread I've just assumed that WP:VG members were also OK with them. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 23:20, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * "Basically yes," I would say. You do not even have to ask whether to remove it, although as others pointed out, it is better to cite some of the people in the prose format instead. Gamingforfun 3 6 5 00:19, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

PC coverage for The King of Fighters XIV
So in the latest days I tried improving the reception section of The King of Fighters XIV, by expanding it with one paragraph focused on its presentation. However, I failed to bring decent coverage to the PC port of the game. For some reason, I only found two critics commenting on the title. The PC version was released next year of the original so there are so notable additons like the patches that improved its visuals. However, I can't other PC reviews so I wonder if somebody around here has access to few more critics commenting on the PC port. Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 22:56, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Edge magazine?
Hello, wondering if anyone here has access to Edge magazine issue 333? Apparently it's got a blurb about Islanders on page 120 and I'd like to include it in the article if possible but I'd prefer to avoid paying just to see the review. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 06:34, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

A few GAs out there
Anyone out there willing to do some GA reviews? It looks like they're starting to stack up. If anyone is interested in looking at Archer Maclean's Mercury for me? I'm also trying to do more GA reviews.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 20:11, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I've decided to review the article you mentioned.--ProtoDrake (talk) 08:50, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

See Also sections
Requesting input at Talk:The Ninja Warriors (1994 video game) TarkusAB talk / contrib 10:16, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Citing GDC talks?
Hello! Apologies in advance if this is a silly question, but is there a citation template you can use when citing publicly availible GDC talks? Im working on The Haunted Island and the main dev gave a great talk I want to use for the article (obviously only for uncontroversial facts as its a primary source) but I'm not really sure how to cite it. Its avalible here and on GDC's YouTube channel over here. TheAwesome Hwyh  18:16, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * In terms of citation templates I'd probably use Template:Cite conference or Template:Cite AV media. Sam Walton (talk) 18:21, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Alright, I'll probably go with the AV media one, thanks. TheAwesome  Hwyh  18:22, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'm using the conference one since it seems to fit better and the AV media one doesn't really have a way to specify its a conference archive. TheAwesome  Hwyh  18:26, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Another option would be to create your own citation by combining information from both templates :) Sam Walton (talk) 18:29, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * How would one do that? That seems like the best option. TheAwesome  Hwyh  18:30, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah, I think you just mean using, thanks.  TheAwesome  Hwyh  18:35, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Or forgoing the template system entirely and just writing the citation information directly in the  tags! Sam Walton (talk) 18:37, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * An even better idea! TheAwesome  Hwyh  18:38, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Just a bit of wary here: if/when you take to GA/FA, you are expected to have a consistent citation style. As long as you codify yours to look like the other citation templates, you should be fine. --M asem (t) 18:42, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yep, I had it mimic it as closely as possible. TheAwesome  Hwyh  18:50, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * cite conference is for citing a conference's printed material, if that is available. If you are citing GDC directly (as in, a video you watched of a presentation), you should use cite AV media. --Izno (talk) 19:27, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Also worth pointing out that if you're repeatedly citing timecode and aren't actually quoting the passages in a quote= element of a template, an easier and faster option is just using the same ref call and then appending a rp superscript with the time index right after it. Cuts down on duplicating refs or requiring a separate notes/refs section split. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 20:02, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Because its in the news...
Right now, the bulk of discussion related to violence and video games is in Video game controversies, but just scanning the lead and TOC, you would not think that.

I opened a question on the talk page but haven't gotten feedback, so I'd like to open it up here. I think we need a separate page for Violence and video games. This would likely be more historical and less on the psychological studies, though we'd need to link to some of these to understand the concerns about this. This is not to remove all mentions of violence from the controversy page, but finding some may to make it a clear subject that is one of the fundamental controversies around video games, and giving the topic its own weight where we can cover each of the major moral panics around it.

I'm just seeing if this idea makes sense before embarking on that route. --M asem (t) 16:50, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Makes sense to me. As you point out, the current article is basically constructed as "violence and video games... and then this other stuff too". From a quality standpoint you can probably also write a less timely and more rigorously researched history out of the violence and video games stuff as well (we're twenty years out from Columbine and nearly thirty from all the early 90s handwringing.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 20:02, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree that a dedicated article on this topic is warranted. I think we'd need to be very careful to draw the distinction between "video games cause people to become violent", for which there is virtually no scientific support, and "video games may be part of a constellation of factors common in violent shootings". Situating this in the context of the gun lobby's efforts to paint games as a bogeyman, gun manufacturers' extensive efforts to market guns in games, and the use of games as training/recruitment tools for the US army, terror groups, and white nationalists is critical. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:30, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * +1. I think we just need to make sure the article isn't biased for/against video games cause violence. JOE BRO  64  20:35, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * That's why I 'm thinking if we simply focus on the history of how claims of violences and video games comes up as a starting point (with various key points, like the 1993 congressional hearings, Columbine, attempts to pass laws to limit sales of violent video games, etc.) and not try to ascribe the various studies, that would be neutral. --M asem (t) 20:41, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * There should be reviews of the research and books on the subject at this point. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 21:16, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * That's the part where I'd want to make sure we're only including MEDRS sources, outside of any studies that have triggered other actions. --M asem (t) 21:20, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Why are European releases disappearing?
I'm noticing it has become very hard to verify a European release date anymore. IGN and GameSpot used to give out the North American, European and even Australian release date if they were different. Does anyone know a place where I can give find European release dates anymore? It's especially annoying when the release date is replaced with "Out Now".Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 22:15, 9 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Aren't they typically worldwide now? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:25, 9 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I haven't been working on any modern video game. most of what i have been working on was before 2013.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 22:42, 9 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Guess we'll need grab archives then?Tintor2 (talk) 23:01, 9 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, I'm having trouble finding a few. For example: IGN has Mercury Meltdown as "canceled" even though the game released in 3 different platforms (and have reviews for the game). The only one that was allegedly canceled was the iPhone version. Is archives currently the only solution for this?Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 23:09, 9 August 2019 (UTC)


 * IGN removed all of the release dates but the first from games' pages; you have to find an archive- note that they also changed the url format from "http://www.ign.com/games/game-name/plat-111" to just "http://www.ign.com/games/game-name/", so you should search the internet archive by going to "web.archive.org/*/http://www.ign.com/games/game-name/*" to find the old per-platform pages. GameSpot is technically not reliable because it's the same user-generated database as gameFAQs (or it was, don't know if it ever changed) so I can't help you there beyond archives. I've used AllGame, mainly for 90s games, and it has a bunch of non-US and variant release dates, but the urls were just ids, not game names, so you have to go through archives of the per-platform browse pages like to find things so it's suuuuper slow. Your best bet, if you get lucky, is to just hit Eurogamer- looks like  has the psp release date in Europe. -- Pres  N  01:31, 10 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Are you looking at like, websites' game databases? Try to find articles about the release date announcements, and check Eurogamer for Europe-specific information.--Alexandra IDVtalk 00:44, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Star Wars: Tiny Death Star
This editor is removing chunks of content from the article, no explanation given, it really doesn't helps any one when the editor refuses to explain himself. Can someone have a word with the guy, thanks. Govvy (talk) 17:37, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Stuff like this? This is game guide material which we purposely do not include (see WP:NOT). That the game has unlockables can be mentioned, but if there's no significant coverage of them, they are not appropriate to list out. --M asem (t) 17:38, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I hardly considered contentious material, seems okay to me, :/ I really don't like the lack of etiquette by some users. Govvy (talk) 17:53, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * His reason for removing is sound, and in fact the entire gameplay section is WP:OR and needs references. However, I agree that he showed bad manners, in the original lack of edit summary and the re-revert that was also unexplained.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 21:35, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I also think both of you showed assumption of bad faith behavior on his talk page. Your initial comment there was phrased like a threat ("are you going to start...") and he responded in kind. I would urge you to WP:AGF in the future.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 21:42, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * As a note, since it's not on their user page but I know- primarily edits in FRwiki, so there may be translation issues when communicating in English. -- Pres  N  01:44, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, hello user:PresN, this assertion is obvious, and for me sure Govvy could have find this alone (there is a link to my french wiki page on my personnal page here), and also find what kind of contributions i do there, in my personnal page in french where i listed what i wrote there, then assume good faith, looking what kind of edit i do here. --Archimëa (talk) 08:50, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Pretty Rhythm
I'm still in the process of expanding Pretty Rhythm but it looks like the game section is getting long after I included the list of playable songs. Should I make a separate page for the game while keeping the original page to stand for the franchise?

And while I'm also on the topic, are a list of songs available for a rhythm game border on WP:GAMECRUFT? I notice pages for Project Diva and Dance Dance Revolution include song lists but not pages like Persona 4: Dancing All Night. lullabying (talk) 18:09, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

GIF request for puyo puyo?
Is anyone here available and willing to make a gif for Puyo Puyo gameplay section? I don't understand the images currently used or what it's trying to convey. I would personally prefer from the original MSX2 version if it's possible but I won't complain if a more modern version is used such as Puyo Puyo Tetris.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 20:20, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Jill Valentine
I'd like to thank everyone for their tacit support during this discussion, and I definitely agree that the overwhelming problem with Jill Valentine has been a "lack of eyes". Many of you here might vaguely recognize my username, since I basically spent the last 6 months of 2018 contacting any user who had interacted with Jill's article on any level, on the advice of the closer of FAC3. So whether you commented at one of Jill's previous FAC's, were a GA reviewer, or even left a brief comment at one of the two peer reviews, I ended up messaging you in an attempt to gauge consensus.

Since then, I've worked with an experienced FA writer with the aim of renominating Jill's article at FAC in the near future, and would appreciate any and all feedback to that effect. Can you see anything which could be done to improve the prose quality, specifically in relation to the FA criteria? But I'm also open to this discussion expanding into a frank and honest conversation about the history of this article, because it has been a complete mess. More eyes are definitely needed. There is also this issue, which I feel is still pertinent to the article. So I'd appreciate feedback on any of these topics. Regards, Homeostasis07 (talk) 23:53, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * A minor thing I noticed – the article mixes British and American spelling. For example, it uses:
 * armour, which is British (American: armor),
 * criticize, which is American (British: criticise),
 * both -ization, which is American, and -isation, which is British
 * likeable, which is British (American: likable)
 * I think a tag of Use British English or Use American English should be added after this is fixed. Pbrks (talk) 05:07, 6 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the feedback I swore I caught all the ~ised/~ized type discrepancies a long time ago. I guess either I missed a few, or they were added some time later. I've fixed all these now, and also took this opportunity to re-write several paragraphs of the article (using another FA – Lightning (Final Fantasy) – as a guide). And just in case anyone has any intentions of coming along at FAC5 saying they weren't aware of this discussion:                        Respond, don't respond. This is more to cover my own back than anything else. Homeostasis07 (talk · contributions) 18:23, 9 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I did make prose-related comments at one of the reviews, but I'm afraid I'm not a subject matter expert, so I don't know that I can contribute very much. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:29, 9 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the ping. I think you have done a great job with the article! While looking up the character, I noticed that she was recently added to Capcom's mobile card game Teppen so that may be worth adding to the article. I have a question about this sentence from the lead (However, others have argued she is weakened as a protagonist by attributes which undermined her role as a heroine and were critical of some of her overtly sexualized costumes.). What is meant by "attributes which undermined her role as a heroine"? I am assuming it is referencing the content in the latter half of the "Reception and legacy" section's third paragraph, but I wanted to clarify that point. Also, the article mentions Jill and Chris are two playable characters from the first game, but I do not see anything about how choosing Jill is pretty much the game's version of an easy mode. Unlike Chris, Jill has a lock-pick, more firepower, and a larger inventory. Apologies if this information is already in the article and I am overlooking it, but I think the distinction is an important one. I hope that helps. Aoba47 (talk) 02:12, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this additional feedback, Aoba47. I'll [hopefully] have time to rectify this sometime tomorrow. Homeostasis07 (talk · contributions) 02:25, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Take as much time as you need. Just trying to help as much as I can. Aoba47 (talk) 02:30, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay. I saw your point about Teppen (which I've redirected to an appropriate target page), then I remembered an IP edited the article long ago to add Tara Platt as the voice of Jill in Pachislot Biohazard—basically a Japanese arcade/gambling machine, and an alternate version of the original game. I couldn't find a reliable source confirming that back then, but I found several now, so took this as an opportunity to add that info as well as a few other things I found along the way.And I have to admit, I've probably been a bit too reticent to alter certain parts of the article until now... including that sentence you quoted from the lead, which I've now altered. In a sense, I've used our collaboration as an excuse to ignore all rules and be as bold as I can with the article—while still staying true to the sources, and re-writing specifically with the FA criteria in my mind, which is probably what I should have been doing from the start. If any of the pinged users disagree with me taking that approach, feel free to take this opportunity to discuss. Regarding your final point – "how choosing Jill is pretty much the game's version of an easy mode." – I think it was Bridies who said pretty much the same thing (forgive me if I'm wrong. As you can see, I've discussed the article with a lot of users over the past year). I do agree with incorporating this fact into the article, though, but the problem has been that I've been unable to find a reliable source confirming it. I know it's true from playing the game – I'd much rather play any version of RE as Jill than Chris – but I need the initial source to start the process. Such a ref could then be used as the basis for a larger point: how RE is easier if you play along as Jill because she's more intelligent/capable than Chris, which could be augmented/expanded using several of the academic references currently found in "Reception and legacy". It might be a red herring, or even a white whale, at this point... because I've searched for such a source without success. So if anyone reading this can find a source along those lines, please link it. Homeostasis07 (talk · contributions) 01:24, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the response. This Kotaku source mentions how Jill is the game's easy mode here: "If you want an easier experience your first time, you'll want to go with Jill." The writer also explicitly mentions the differences between Jill and Chris here: "Jill has more inventory slots than Chris and carries a lockpick, which gains her early entry to rooms with substantial amounts of additional health and ammo. Chris can't carry as many items, but he can take more damage, run faster, and aim more accurately." It is a popular source rather than an academic one, and it does not necessarily tie into any points of the character's reception unfortunately. I was actually thinking about Jill being the game's easy mode as part of the criticism against how she is represented as a woman (i.e. the female character being the easy mode and the male character having the more difficult one); however, that is pure speculation on my part. I am not saying you have to include the source or the information, but I thought that I should point it out. Aoba47 (talk) 01:19, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry once again for the late response. I saw this reply and immediately read that Kotaku source, and then started re-reading the references in 'Reception and legacy' with an aim of expanding on it. Then I realised we disagree on how the article could be interpreted, so I've decided to just include it as-is, with no additionally commentary—which is probably for the best (another user could come along and claim any editorialising as original research and/or undue weight). Let me know what you think, or feel free to re-write as you see fit. Thanks again. Homeostasis07 (talk · contribs) 00:32, 16 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the late comment. I had no idea what to comment until I gave a big look. One of the things I wonder if Capcom could have provided further coverage about the making of the character. I mean, while Jill's Nemesis outfit is discussed, there could be more mention of her 5 look even if her role was limited in that game. Considering the character was created by Shinji Mikami who happens to have a free image, maybe we could replace the cosplayer with Mikami's due to his importance in regards to Jill. FAs sure are challenging articles so it must be hard to find the information that covers everything she has done. I mean Lightning (Final Fantasy) managed to become FA but she only appeared in three big games and some crossovers while Jill seems to have more games. I would recommend you not to take so much pressure in editing this article if possible. If enough coverage is provided, I would suggest asking for a skilled copyeditor for doble nomination as that was how a user named 1989 managed to turn the big article Naruto Uzumaki into FA if I remember well.Tintor2 (talk) 02:37, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Apologies for jumping in, but I just wanted to clarify that the cosplayer image shows one of the models for the character so she is not just a generic cosplayer. I will leave whether or not Mikami's image is a better fit up to other editors, but I wanted to clear up that point. Aoba47 (talk) 02:52, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing me toward Naruto Uzumaki. It's a fascinating article, and I see it makes extensive use of multiple sources I haven't combed yet, and which I ordinarilly wouldn't bother with. But if Naruto's article can pass FA using them, I see no reason why I can't utilize them for Jill's. So I'll spend the next few days going through the archives of each of those sources. The main difference between Jill and Lightning's articles [currently] is the time between the creation of both characters: Jill first appeared in 1996 (not many gamer websites back then), versus Lightning, who appeared in 2009 (no shortage of online commentary for anything game-related at that point; most of Jill's commentary had to be sourced from late 90's/early 00's magazines). So hopefully going through Naruto's article will help resolve that. Plus, I'm also aware that Final Fantasy is absolutely epic in scope, with multiple worlds (universes, even); Lightning's storyline concluded with her killing a meniacal, soul-devouring "god", and re-casting the reality of an entire universe. RE, contains dialogue like "Aw man, I hate snow!" / "Well, snow hates you". So you have to keep that difference in mind when comparing both articles. ;) Homeostasis07 (talk · contributions) 01:24, 12 August 2019 (UTC)


 * My concerns were addressed long ago, so I just offer my moral support now. Sergecross73   msg me  02:48, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. ;) Homeostasis07 (talk · contribs) 00:32, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Sega-16.com
It seems that at last, Sega-16.com has been officially recognized by Sega. Here's a proof of it: https://www.facebook.com/Sega16dotcom/photos/a.793824947319273/2333720999996319/?type=3&permPage=1 Roberth Martinez (talk) 23:09, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * What does that mean? GamerPro64  02:25, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It doesn't mean anything. They got a "Sega Seal of Quality" which is just "to celebrate and honour our most dedicated community members". I'm not sure if Roberth is implying that it would boost their reliability as a source (it doesn't). TarkusAB talk / contrib 02:39, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, I thought it was cool to show everybody their years of effort and a really nice gesture of respect from Sega towards their fans. Roberth Martinez (talk) 04:56, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Where's my Sega Seal of Quality? TarkusAB talk / contrib 10:50, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It is a nice gesture...but I don’t see it affecting Wikipedia in any capacity really... Sergecross73   msg me  11:23, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Go Vacation FAC (again)
Hello! Go Vacation has been nominated as a FAC for a few weeks now and hasn't gotten any prose review. Could someone check it out for me? Thanks, TheAwesome  Hwyh  16:58, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Here is the FAC. TheAwesome  Hwyh  17:46, 17 August 2019 (UTC)


 * God of War (2018 video game) could also use some attention. I'll have a look at Go Vacation soon. -- JDC808  ♫  18:33, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I had a look at it and did a review. Great article! TheAwesome  Hwyh  04:48, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Merging Gyromite and Stack-Up into R.O.B.
Doing some research, I feel that these two articles do not do much in the way to be a necessary separate aspect. A lot of the coverage I'm finding talks about them as a trio rather than individually. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 11:14, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to agree but just curious what research makes you feel that? TarkusAB talk / contrib 17:14, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Just did some Google searches for reliable and situational sources, checked out some print sources (what I could find anyway), and a lot of them seem to talk more about them as a whole than as three individual units, and the ones that don't only mention them as blurbs. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 17:17, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd support a merge then. TarkusAB talk / contrib 17:31, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah Gyromite. I have fond memories playing this two player. One person was the (doctor?) and the other controlled the pistons instead of using R.O.B. Nothing more fun than almost squishing the other player repeatedly. As much as I have a personal attachment though I could find much independent coverage for Gyromite either. Didn't bother to check Stack-Up as my memory of it was that it wasn't very popular. Support merge --Teancum (talk) 21:23, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Kindly take a look at Czech adventures Belegost (video game) and Léto s Oskarem?
Hi! I've just done a major edit to these articles, and was wondering if you'd be able to take a look at them and help refine my work?

The sources need a bit of a clean-up certainly, but it's the prose and makeup of the article I'm most looking at.

I believe that there are enough sources to justify the articles' existence, and that they are an important part of Czech video gaming history.

I hope to continue my work to improve the articles on Czech adventure and text based gaming, so any improvements would be great confidence booster. :)

Thank you for your time.--Coin945 (talk) 05:51, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Units shipped vs units sold
Hey there. As a longtime editor and reader of Wikipedia, I have frequently read about video games, even if I havent edited much articles about them. However, over all the years Ive always struggled to understand something. I was never able to distinguish between units shipped and units sold when it comes to console sales. I think that that has been poorly and not clearly defined. I hope this question isn't inappropriate, but whats the difference between the two and how can we better define it for readers so they can better understand a concept that is possibly too vague to otherwise distinguish to them without being told the difference? Thanks for helping me out here. DrewieStewie (talk) 05:51, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Shipped means the amount that has been delivered to retailers and sold is number that has been purchased by customers. For example, if Company X sent 2 million copies of their new product to stores 2 million has been shipped and if the stores sold 1.8 million of the original 2 million to consumers 1.8 million was sold.--64.229.166.98 (talk) 06:14, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Ahh, okay. Thanks for clarification. DrewieStewie (talk) 07:35, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation term for video gaming specific topics
I could have sworn there was some discussion somewhere on this but can't find it. If we have a video gaming term, in this case, specifically Raid (gaming) should that be at "(gaming)" or "(video gaming)" (eg like mod (video gaming)). I feel if the term is strictly related to video gaming, it should be at (video gaming), as to not confuse it with a general gaming term that applies to tabletop and possibly video games. --M asem (t) 15:52, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:NCVGDAB #8? No idea what discussion this was based on. I remember at least a few for various naming things. — HELL KNOWZ   ▎TALK 16:02, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, as Hellknowz says, NCVGDAB#8 is the guidance. Raid should be at (video gaming). As a contrasting example, Health (gaming) and Magic (gaming) exist in games that are not video games (like pen-and-paper, collectible card games, board games, LARP even) but I can't think of an example of a "raid" as the concept is explained in the article, existing outside video games. At least there are no such examples in the article. Ben · Salvidrim!   &#9993;  16:20, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Skimming over the article I'm not convinced there's enough for a standalone article instead of a paragraph in the glossary. All of the sources are either not independent (battle.net), not reliable (Dictionary, Raph's Website, RipTen blog) , or not significant (Gamasutra passing mention, Dummies book glossary, BBC passing mention) Ben · Salvidrim!   &#9993;  16:26, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Article title for Bracken Tor
Which article title should be used for Bracken Tor? The current one, or Bracken Tor: The Time of Tooth and Claw? Oornery (talk) 19:27, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Bracken Tor, which is more concise, not ambiguous, and does not lack precision. Ben · Salvidrim!   &#9993;  21:06, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, maybe ambiguous with the namesake hill but I added a hatnote so it should be fine. Ben · Salvidrim!   &#9993;  21:36, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Help needed at Insomniac Games
Today, it was announced that Sony in in final negotiations to acquire Insomniac Games, but this deal, importantly is not complete. Unfortunately most of the news reports outright stated that Sony acquired the studio even though the press release is clear it is not dne yet. Unfortunately we have a number of IP And new editors trying to keep trying to assert the acquisition has happened to the point of edit warring. We need eyes on this until the deal closes. --M asem (t) 03:19, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The source I added clearly says the acquirision has been finalised and the studio has been brought by Sony. TheDeviantPro (talk) 04:04, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The THR source is wrong, even when they link to the Sony official PR, which states that "SIE has entered into definitive agreements to acquire Insomniac Games, Inc." and "Upon completion of the acquisition, Insomniac Games will join the global development operation of Sony Interactive Entertainment Worldwide Studios ("SIE WWS")." This was at 3pm ET today, so its very unlikely that in the few hours left they finished the deal. This is a result of really sloppy reporting from the news sources. Is the deal likely to happen? Sure, but we can't state factually it is complete. --M asem  (t) 04:09, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * And I just see you undo again with a link to the Twitter message reported at the same time of their press release. Since Twitter only has 140 charactgers, we have to take the details out of the press release.  The deal is clearly not done yet per the press release. It is wrong right now to say Insomniac is a Sony studio. --M asem  (t) 04:13, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Stop it, Insomniac and PlayStation on twitter has confirmed that the acquisition has been finalised and that they are joining Sony. So the sources are not wrong, you are. TheDeviantPro (talk) 04:16, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * If the deal wasn't finalised then Sony or Insomniac wouldn't confirmed that Insomniac was joining Sony on their twitter, no? Yet they already have confirmed that they are joining Sony. A deal doesn't need to take several hours, a deal could take several minutes to finalised. You're just assuming it's going to hours to finalised the deal when sources already stated that the deal is done. TheDeviantPro (talk) 04:27, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Companies announce plans to acquire another all the time, but then things don't work out. They clearly wanted to announce this at Gamescom to capture attention there, but their press release clearly states things are not yet done. It is compeletely wrong to reporting this as completed given the differences in the sources and the core primary source saying its not complete. --M asem  (t) 04:40, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * And to re-iterate, Twitter is a terrible source for verification for something like this. 140 char is not enough to explain the nature of negotiations. --M asem (t) 04:43, 20 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Both tweets also make perfectly clear by their tensing that the studio is actively in the process of joining, not that it has joined yet. An acquisition is more than a verbal agreement, it still has to be filed in its jurisdiction and the exchange of shares has to take place. Or as the press release puts it:
 * Lordtobi ( &#9993; ) 05:39, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Lordtobi ( &#9993; ) 05:39, 20 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Insomniac Employees Startled to Learn Sony Didn’t Already Own Insomniac Ben · Salvidrim!   &#9993;  14:45, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I actually thought they were owned by Sony, but if they weren't Microsoft would've bought them to make Nuts & Bolts 2: Ratchet & Clank. JOE BRO  64  16:24, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Why is this a big deal? Plenty of things have been more wrong on Wikipedia for longer. Seems like a lot of effort to stem the so-called tide of IP editors in this interim time than to let it be and save yourself the headache, knowing it'll be true soon enough. And in the off chance that the "deal" goes off the rails, we can just fix it then. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:39, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It's a big deal because it's the truth. I don't know why anybody would argue against Masem and Lordtobi's efforts here; it's pretty clear that they're doing the right thing. If the deal hasn't been finalised, why would we state otherwise? "It'll be true soon enough" is exactly why this is "a big deal"—because "soon enough" ≠ right now, and we work with the latter. – Rhain  ☔ 12:52, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Fire Emblem good topic
As it stands, the Fire Emblem Good Topic has a Start-class article in it. I'm presently playing Three Houses and thus want to avoid articles about it or else I'd try and handle it myself, but alas. Is anyone able to help improve Three Houses? - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 11:57, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * FWIW all Three Houses needs to become a GA is a decent reception section. It looks complete for the most part. JOE BRO  64  12:07, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I have mild concerns about the plot section, but I have no way to confirm it because not reading that lmao. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 12:12, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The plot section is way too long, WP:VG/PLOT recommends it shouldn't go above 700 words; that plot section clocks in at 1600 words.--Megaman en m (talk) 20:36, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * True, but if my understanding is correct Fire Emblem games are usually pretty plot driven and have different endings based on player choices, so I don't think it could be meaningfully condensed into <700 words. JOE BRO  64  20:39, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I put the FA-class article on Zero Escape: Virtue's Last Reward as a counter-argument. This is a story-driven visual novel game with multiple endings that takes about 28 hours to beat. Despite the story being very complicated, the writers have still meaningfully condensed it to a mere 720 words. Granted, Three Houses seems to take about 41 hours to beat. But a similarly long game, Final Fantasy XII, also managed to bring the story down to about 800 words. The trick is that the most important details are the starting conditions of the story and the end. We don't need to describe every step that is taken to reach the story's conclusion. Remove everything (especially proper nouns) that is not strictly necessary to understand the basics of the story. At any rate, it would never pass FA with a 1600-words-long plot section; its length would be problematic for GA as well. (These playtime hours are taken from howlongtobeat.com)--Megaman en m (talk) 20:57, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Note that the general topic was discussed previously at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Video_games, where I'd think there would at least have been consensus to expand the recommended count of words up some, but it was closed as no consensus (rather than a Solomonic 800 word guideline in the middle or the like). I personally was in favor of going up to 900 characters as the target since 40 hour plotty games are more comparable to an entire season of a TV show than a single 2 hour movie, but so it goes.

That said, while I think the guideline target word count should be higher, I'd disagree about most Fire Emblem games being hugely plot-driven and thus qualifying for an "exception." Virtue's Last Reward is a better example of something that would need/want an exception to whatever the limit is, so I'd argue the current article is not a good example of why shortening is A-OK; any attempt to compress that plot into 720 words is going to be leaving a lot of relevant info on the floor, so visual novels like VLR are the kind of game that could quite reasonably "deserve" a 1600 word plot explanation or the like. (And the fact it was compressed anyway just means that the plot section is currently lacking.) SnowFire (talk) 14:43, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

New article on Violence and Video Games created
I've established enough of a framework to start Violence and video games as a separate from the Video game controversies article. This should not be too hard to help fill out but I am pretty sure I will need to grab some books too for a proper review of the topic. Happy for any help on this. --M asem (t) 20:09, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Looks good. I was shocked to hear we didn't already have an article on this, when we had ones on religion and nudity. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:20, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Video game article requests backlog clearing
Is anyone interested in helping clear the backlog at WP:VG/R? I've been doing articles here and there but it's certainly an imposing task. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 20:38, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Requests suffers from the same problem that was noted earlier - a great many article requests that are so obscure that almost no one even cares about them including random, poorly rated shovelware that someone just pulled off a list of games from that system or something. Perhaps from now on we could institute a policy requiring a rationale justifying why the article should be made. That would reduce the workload somewhat.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 00:37, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * That kind of exists tho, requests are posted alongside at least a few RS'es showing topic likely meets threshold for inclusion Ben · Salvidrim!   &#9993;  00:46, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I think having more activity would help to reduce the build up. That said, it might be worthwhile to have people who volunteer to assess if an article lacks the necessary sources. The process is a bit difficult for some; for example, the Are You Afraid of the Dark? game does have sources, but almost all of them are print sources that require a decent amount of scouring. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 01:31, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * There are many "technically notable" but highly obscure games that are dumped onto the page en masse in quantities that can never be addressed. I would restrict each requestee to a few provably notable requests per month, and also require a summary of why they think the page should be created. Obviously importance is subjective, but it's also diverting time away from editing objectively important articles.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 17:13, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Question for James Bond games.
We have James Bond in video games but is there a List article of the games? I was trying to work out how many games there are for on the for the playstation's. Govvy (talk) 20:27, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't see a list but a list would seem to be helpful. It does look like they are all included in that timeline as well as the navbox template. --M asem (t) 22:35, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * hmm, k, maybe I can work out the PS ones, maybe someone with more impetuous than I could do a cool list article in the future. Cheers. Govvy (talk) 16:44, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * There is Category:James Bond video games.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 17:15, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

SNES Classic Good Topic
I'm wondering if anyone is interested in creating such a thing. At a glance, if we were to do only games on the US SNES Classic, it's only six games away (not counting the actual system). Contra III, Super Castlevania IV, Kirby Super Star, Kirby's Dream Course, and Street Fighter II Turbo: Hyper Fighting. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 13:47, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I've been planning on taking on Kirby Super Star at some point. I call dibs. <small style="color:red">JOE BRO  64  14:11, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Someone made a mock-up of the topic box a while back. I updated it. It's actually 8 games away (plus the SNES Classic article and not including 5 Japanese exclusives). I'd be most interested in tackling either Star Fox 2, Star Fox 1, Castlevania, Contra, or GnG. Who else would be interested in taking an article? TarkusAB talk / contrib 14:30, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

I'll tackle Super Castlevania IV and Super Ghouls 'n Ghosts, though if I get too busy I'll let y'all know. I have sources for the articles here. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 14:32, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Cool. I'm most interested in Contra III so that leaves:
 * Star Fox
 * Star Fox 2
 * Street Fighter II′ Turbo: Hyper Fighting
 * Kirby's Dream Course
 * Super NES Classic Edition
 * If anyone is interested in bring one of those to GA. Star Fox 2 would be interesting I'm sure. TarkusAB talk / contrib 14:44, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I think we should look into featuring all of the articles if possible. I thought Super Soccer might have issues, but I looked it up and there are a lot of foreign language magazine reviews for it. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 14:54, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed. It would probably be challenged if we tried to make it a Good Topic without the JP games. I've added them to the box TarkusAB talk / contrib 15:05, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I think we'd be fine to remove Panel de Pon and Super Street Fighter II, as neither games actually have an article, merely related games. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 15:12, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Super SFII has an article does it not? I'm not familiar with all the different versions of SFII. Would want some more input on Panel de Pon, not sure how similar it is to Tetris Attack. TarkusAB talk / contrib 15:35, 15 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I believe the original mock-up you're probably referring to was mine (User:Salvidrim!/SNESC-GT):


 * I really think if we do a SNES Classic/Mini Good Topic we need to include all titles, not just North American ones. Ben · Salvidrim!   &#9993;  15:33, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * That makes sense yeah. I think we should try and get Super Soccer set up, as if it fails then the whole thing falls apart. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 15:50, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I would love to tackle Kirby's Dream Course (in order to explain everything about it + its origins as Special Tee Shot) but i'm busy with other stuff. I will tackle one of their related articles someday but just right now, I can't... Roberth Martinez (talk) 18:30, 15 August 2019 (UTC)


 * More topics, if useful: User:Czar/topics/Classic (feel free to edit/move) czar  03:04, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't know how much I will contribute (or if at all), but I just want to say that this is really a good initiative. Lots of iconic, important games from that era that really deserve to have GA/FA-level coverage.--Alexandra IDVtalk 11:38, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks! NES Classic and Mega Drive Mini sound like fun ones to do too. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 11:41, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

The NES Classic Topic seems interesting but a lot more work. Will have to look into it once the SNES Classic GT is finished. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 22:17, 17 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I'll gladly do Panel de Pon when I get the chance. Namcokid47 (talk) 19:18, 19 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Quick question: anyone know where to find sources for the European and Japanese release dates of Super Star? I found the American one easily, but NWR, Nintendo Life, and Jeuxvideo didn't have 'em (which is odd, considering they had them for Mario All-Stars which came out three years earlier). <small style="color:red">JOE BRO  64  13:06, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I can check my EU magazine archives for an EU date. Famitsu should have the JP release date. I can't verify atm due to firewall restrictions. TarkusAB talk / contrib 14:00, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Just found the JP date. <small style="color:red">JOE BRO  64  14:25, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * And the EU one. I'm set. <small style="color:red">JOE BRO  64  14:27, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Grand. I was scanning '96 and '97 EU magazines but I didn't find anything on dates. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 16:48, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Not to be a downer, but while improving some articles is great and should be done regardless, this seems like a borderline thread to hold a featured topic together... there's lots of video game compilations out there, it usually isn't a core feature tying the games together barring very, very rare cases (The Orange Box and its games, maybe). Take a look at Template:Sega video game compilations for example; if hypothetically a bunch of articles on Sega games were improved, that doesn't seem like there should instantly be 12 featured topics for each compilation, largely including the same articles in each topic. The SNES Classic was a big deal, but was it THAT big a deal as to be a legit "topic"? SnowFire (talk) 16:29, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yup. <small style="color:red">JOE BRO  64  16:31, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll have to agree with Joebro here. Not only is it a platform of sorts, it is also a very rare example of an SNES game collection. I don't know that I can think of any such thing. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 17:02, 21 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Another question: anybody gotta copy of GamePro #98? It's got a review of Super Star and I'm getting ready to write the reception section, only problem is that neither RetroCDN nor Internet Archive have it and RetroMags put it in some weird file format my computer won't open because it can't understand it. <small style="color:red">JOE BRO  64  23:53, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It's a CBZ file. Should be able to open it with a CBR reader Mr. DC comics dude. TarkusAB talk / contrib 00:59, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm a fool. <small style="color:red">JOE BRO  64  01:09, 23 August 2019 (UTC)


 * --> Discussion moved to Talk:Super_NES_Classic_Edition TarkusAB talk / contrib 22:21, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Articles from several game magazines
Hello guys, I tried asking at WP:RX, but to no avail, and was given an advice to ask here as well.

I'm looking for these magazine articles to improve my articles about the respective games in Russian Wikipedia.



Thank you for any help. Coolak (talk) 12:28, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Never heard of this franchise, sounds exciting! Here's some Winx Club: Join the Club sources. can you make an article in English Wikipedia too?:


 * https://www.playstation.com/en-us/games/winx-club-join-the-club-psp/
 * https://au.ign.com/articles/2007/05/08/winx-club-join-the-club-review
 * https://au.ign.com/articles/2006/05/10/e3-2006-winx-club-join-the-club-announced
 * https://www.kidzworld.com/article/8068-winx-club-join-the-club-psp-video-game-review
 * https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/psp/933075-winx-club-join-the-club/critic
 * https://www.gamekult.com/jeux/winx-club-join-the-club-77680.html
 * https://www.gamezone.com/reviews/winx_club_join_the_club_psp_review/
 * https://www.komputerswiat.pl/gamezilla/aktualnosci/dwie-nowe-gry-z-serii-winx-club-w-planie-wydawniczym-firmy-cenega/t7l7rlc?utm_source=www.komputerswiat.pl_viasg_komputerswiat&utm_medium=referal&utm_campaign=leo_automatic&srcc=ucs&utm_v=2
 * https://www.gamezone.com/news/konami_ships_winx_club_join_the_club/
 * https://www.gamezone.com/originals/e3-06-winx-hits-psp/
 * https://www.gamezone.com/games/winx-club-3/
 * https://www.gry-online.pl/gry/winx-club-join-the-club/zf22b9
 * https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winx_Club:_Join_the_Club
 * https://web.archive.org/web/20091020022052/http://www.gameshark.com/reviews/2666/Winx-Club-Join-the-Club-Review.htm
 * https://web.archive.org/web/20190315105554/https://www.ign.com/articles/2007/05/08/winx-club-join-the-club-review
 * https://web.archive.org/web/20090904062626/http://gamernode.com/PSP/Reviews/2944-Winx-Club-Join-the-Club-Review/index.html
 * https://web.archive.org/web/20101124010800/http://gamechronicles.com/reviews/psp/winxclub/join.htm
 * https://www.gameindustry.com/reviews/game-review/winx-stinkx/
 * https://web.archive.org/web/20100712203430/http://psp.gamezone.com/reviews/item/winx_club_join_the_club_psp_review
 * https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winx_Club:_Join_the_Club
 * https://web.archive.org/web/20131110153432/http://www.ign.com/articles/2006/05/10/e3-2006-winx-club-join-the-club-announced
 * https://web.archive.org/web/20171205154020/http://gamewise.co/games/42004/Winx-Club-Join-the-Club/Releases
 * https://web.archive.org/web/20171218140347/http://www.gamezone.com/reviews/winx_club_join_the_club_psp_review
 * https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/multserial-klub-vinks-formirovanie-demograficheskih-ustanovok-i-gendernyh-stereotipov-u-detey-v-vozraste-7-12-let-po-materialam-kontent
 * https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/multfilm-kak-mehanizm-konstruirovaniya-u-detey-doshkolnogo-vozrasta-egalitarnyh-gendernyh-predstavleniy-na-materiale-multseriala-vinks
 * https://kbsu.ru/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/t1n4_2011.pdf#page=108
 * https://web.archive.org/web/20160421185648/http://www.psillustrated.com/psillustrated/soft_rev.php/3567/winx-join-the-club-psp.html
 * http://www.gamechronicles.com/reviews/psp/winxclub/join.htm
 * https://web.archive.org/web/20100109021957/http://www.lawrence.com/news/2007/may/27/review_winx_join_club_psp/
 * https://web.archive.org/web/20170628223226/http://www.cheatcodesgalore.com/psp/games/Winx_Club_Join_The_Club/
 * https://web.archive.org/web/20150909025340/http://www.gamerankings.com/psp/933075-winx-club-join-the-club/index.html
 * https://web.archive.org/web/20170614132612/http://www.metacritic.com/game/psp/winx-club-join-the-club
 * https://web.archive.org/web/20170216095819/http://www.mobygames.com/game/psp/winx-club-join-the-club/mobyrank
 * https://web.archive.org/web/20171206074216/http://www.gameindustry.com/reviews/game-review/winx-stinkx/
 * https://web.archive.org/web/20091020022052/http://www.gameshark.com/reviews/2666/Winx-Club-Join-the-Club-Review.htm
 * https://web.archive.org/web/20171221204440/https://www.everyeye.it/articoli/recensione-winx-club-join-the-club-6049.html
 * https://web.archive.org/web/20171225234106/http://www.playstationportable.de/spiel/374-winx-club-willkommen-im-club.html
 * https://web.archive.org/web/20170215143352/http://www.ign.com/articles/2007/05/08/winx-club-join-the-club-review
 * https://web.archive.org/web/20171218174550/http://www.gamernode.com/winx-club-join-the-club-review/
 * https://www.nexgam.de/psp-sony/winx-club-willkommen-im-club-sony-psp.html
 * https://vgtimes.ru/games/winx-club-join-the-club/

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Coin945 (talk • contribs) 13:08, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

, thank you, but I already know about all existing sources on those games. All of these Winx Club games already have Good articles in Ru-Wiki. And no, sorry, currently I don't plan on writing English articles about them. But it's not hard to do google translate on them and polish the output for those who are interested. The only thing I want at this point is to find the remaining articles that are not on the internet, so that I can include the most complete list of opinions in the articles. Coolak (talk) 13:28, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Removing importance from the WikiProject Video games talk page banner
I feel that it would be best to remove the importance assessment, as I do not think it adds anything. It seems more like something people interact with just to suggest that a subject is more important than it may actually be. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 20:37, 21 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I'd be in favor of removing importance entirely, but hiding it from display in the talk page banner is a good first step. WP:MILHIST does just fine without importance ratings.  The benefit from these is questionable at best even if it didn't cost any editor effort whatsoever.  SnowFire (talk) 21:38, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I think it's an interesting internal metric to see, at-a-glance, low-quality top/high articles which would be most critically deserving our volunteer time. In an ideal world, all our Top articles would be B+, our High C+, our Mid Start+ and Low can be stubs. We're not that far off, we have 41 sub-B Tops, 126 sub-C Highs, 76 sub-Start Mids. Ben · Salvidrim!   &#9993;  22:21, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thia is actually what sparked my recent interest in the Generation articles. They're marked as top importance but the quality wasn't there yet. It was good to have somewhere to start when I was figuring out what I wanted to work on so I definitely see value in the ratings.  Cr im so nF ox  talk 15:32, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I think it is still useful when coupled with article class. As long as the importance is assessed right, it can help figure out what articles should be considered "high priority to work on" (despite having no deadline) for newer editors. --M asem  (t) 00:02, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd need more of a rationale than just what you "feel" to judge the merits of removing it. Hard proof that it is doing harm to Wikipedia maybe? Otherwise, I don't see the point of removing something that in most cases does make sense.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 00:32, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * As with Masem, I find them useful as an at-a-glance organizational tool. If you don't think it adds anything, that's your prerogative, but I'd need to see harm to justify removal. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 16:52, 22 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I also think it's got use, and that there aren't any real problems with it. I would be against removing it.--Alexandra IDVtalk 16:56, 22 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Support: Importance parameter doesn't add anything useful about the subject's actual importance to Video games. Might as well start a consensus somewhere. Jalen D. Folf   (talk)  17:33, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose: I understand the arguments to remove it, but it guided at least one person to improve articles (per above) and there's no harm in keeping. TarkusAB talk / contrib 17:50, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose: I personally don't care about or update these things, but it doesn't hurt anything if kept. ~ <b style="color: #660000;">Dissident93</b> (<b style="color: #D18719;">talk</b>) 19:53, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose: I fail to see the point in removing them. No harm in keeping it. Namcokid47 (talk) 16:19, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support / Comment. Sorry, I apparently made this a little stronger than it needs to be.  While I do agree with complete removal, the original proposal was merely hiding it, which I think is also reasonable and might be a decent compromise. Looking up: the burden of proof is being reversed here.  There needs to be some actual reason to keep doing this.  There might be no valid removal reason for a "favorite color" field, it wouldn't do any harm to have one, but there's no valid use case either, so a favorite color field should be removed.  What's being described above sounds like a solely "academic" interest among editors thing, but let's face it, we're talking about a mild benefit for ~10 people that to make requires literally thousands of edits across thousands of talk pages by thousands of people.  No, it's not a big deal, but there IS a tiny cost that adds up, and I've certainly seen the occasional needless talk page conversation where somebody walks in and edits their favorite game to "High" importance and there's a needless discussion about no, that's not what this is for.  (Example discussion.)  Note that hiding importance will probably reduce the number of drive-by anons who edit this inside-baseball field without understanding what it's for even if it's kept.  I mentioned it before, but the military history project is a good example that an importance field can be a productivity drain, not a boon: there's no point starting nationalistic edit wars over whether a major battle within a failed rebellion is Low or Mid importance.  And the MILHIST project doesn't have any problem with prioritizing articles for improvement and finding plenty of ways to have drives to bring quality up for relevant articles.  It's a reasonable goal but importance isn't the only or the best way to do it.  SnowFire (talk) 17:25, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose all other wikiprojects have them. I dont see the harm of keeping them.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 13:09, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * No, not all. Ben · Salvidrim!   &#9993;  22:16, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I see you're right. But i think Video Games does have a reasonable importance scale and i dont see a need to remove it. I think its fine to have.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 23:45, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * If not removed, it can instead be hidden from the template by default, as described above by SnowFire. The template also sorts eligible pages into categories by importance, and as such, the categories themselves can also be hidden. Jalen D. Folf   (talk)  01:26, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * As with others who stated. I personally find them useful even at a glance and i believe do serve a purpose. It just doesn't seem that way because the majority seem to be "low".Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 01:36, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Can you be more specific about how exactly you "find them useful?", especially "at a glance?" What exactly is the use here, in the sense of changed behavior after seeing the importance?  The one use I can sort of see, which matters for maybe 5 editors at most, are people who are willing to do any sort of cleanup and aren't picky, but want to do high-impact clean-up, and thus go trawling this list of High-Class C articles, say.  (Although even this is a highly...  questionable... list...  lots of stuff that is Not Really High Importance here like Doomguy).  But this certainly isn't the kind of thing that happens "at a glance", and it wouldn't even be impacted by at least hiding the importance value.  SnowFire (talk) 18:57, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * "At-a-glance" is how I use User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Video game to quickly assess that we have 40 sub-B Tops, 128 sub-C Highs, 79 sub-Start Mids which would be most critically deserving of volunteer time. Of course you're right that there's a portion that have been mislabelled, you're welcome to help by reevaluating them! Ben · Salvidrim!   &#9993;  19:19, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I pay attention to importance scale when i look at the talkpage. For me, in my humble opinion, it is more accessible to me to look at the articles i'm interested in and realize its something other than "Low". Its not so easy finding articles by importance, so i think it would be aproblem to hide it. i know there must be some sort of link that helps you find it. But its not available right away on the WP's front page.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 19:16, 27 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Neutral on hiding, oppose removing - I don't mind the value and its category being hidden from project banners on talk pages but I strongly support its continued use as a hidden internal metric, being amongst those of us who use User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Video game as an aid to assess articles most critically deserving of volunteer time. Ben · Salvidrim!   &#9993;  19:22, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I reckon I support keeping it given the arguments made, though hiding the value from casual browsing might be of some benefit. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 19:33, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support hiding per SnowFire. This is an internal tool for WPVG, not for driveby anons to edit war over. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:24, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Do we have evidence of edit warring? I've never really seen editors fight over the importance, probably as it is a talk page thing, not a main space. --M asem  (t) 19:20, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Requesting copyedit for Deactivators
I am requesting a copyedit for Deactivators since there was an issue brought up at its Featured Article Candidacy. If anyone is interested in taking care of the task, it would be very helpful. As well as anyone willing to review the article. GamerPro64 02:39, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

KOF reorganization
After expanding most SNK characters as much as I could, I wonder if List of The King of Fighters characters needs to be rearranged. I mean, for the ones who don't know, KOF is a spinoff series to many franchises including Fatal Fury, Art of Fighting, Ikari Warriors, etc. Seeing how Kingdom Hearts' characters are organized do you think the list should be reorganized between original characters and characters that come from other series?Tintor2 (talk) 20:55, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Helpful tips for writing story summaries?
I've been actively avoiding any article involving plot summaries because I'm absolutely terrible at them. Are there any helpful tips that anyone can share?Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 19:39, 28 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Could you give an specific situation? I try writting them like formal letters but I don't know what else should I say in this situation.Tintor2 (talk) 20:32, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Your best bet is to just do it. I'm bad at plot summaries too, but I've gotten better mainly by trying and failing, and using the advice and criticism I received to do better next time. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 20:57, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Input requested at WT:VG/RS
Can anyone provide their opinions as to whether these sources are reliable or not? It would be much appreciated. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 20:59, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Idea: Article for Improvement
Hello all! I recently had an idea for this project that I think could help improve our most important articles. What if we were to run a monthly "Article for Improvement" thing? Basically, one of the top importance articles that needs enhancement would be chosen as the article for improvement of the month, and people would be encouraged to help improve that article. It would be similar to Today's articles for improvement except the article for improvement would be only related to video games, and it would run monthly instead of weekly. I have a (very) rough draft of what it might look like at User:TheAwesomeHwyh/VG Article for Improvement, and I encourage y'all to make modifications to it, and to give constructive criticism! TheAwesome Hwyh  20:11, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * We had one. WP:WikiProject Video games/Collaboration of the month. --Izno (talk) 20:50, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Interesting. Maybe it would help if there was like, a newsletter you could sign up for which would inform you what the article of the month is? That could help with inactivity. TheAwesome  Hwyh  20:59, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Not to be too down on the idea, but historically the problem has not been lack of articles to improve, or lack of awareness of a possible article to improve. What killed Collab of the month (before: collab of the week), and it died a couple years before the plug was pulled, was that every cycle a bunch of people saw the article that was auto-chosen, shrugged, and didn't engage. Solving that engagement problem is the issue that slowly killed all of these types of collaboration drives wikipedia-wide, and the only solution found so far is ad-hoc posts on this talk page where at least one person (the poster) is actually motivated to work on it, and their enthusiasm pulls in others. Replicating that monthly will be hard. -- Pres N  21:23, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Hmm, what if the article was voted on, then? That way it would always be an article people are interested in. TheAwesome  Hwyh  21:28, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * You’re free to try, but as others have said, things like this generally don’t catch on. We’re a pretty active WikiProject, but most of us have so many of our own pet projects going that there’s not much interest in taking on projects we’re not already invested in. We tend to spend more time with conflict-resolution-consensus-building and GA Review begging than we do looking for things to work on. Sergecross73   msg me  21:36, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe; WikiProject Video games/Collaboration of the month/History reminds me that it was originally voted on from 2004-2007, and then bot-picked from 2009-2011 (weekly) and 2011-2012 (monthly), but I don't recall what was the idea behind the switch when it was restarted. -- Pres N  21:38, 27 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Wasn't there an option in Wikipedia that allowed us to see the most popular articles? If so, maybe editors would agree to work together as it might indicate they know that article. I had planned to edit some Yakuza articles since they became quite popular recently but I still decided not to edit them because I barely started the series. For example, there is a character named Goro Majima who is popular for his role in 0, Kiwami and Kiwami 2 to the point Sega said he was more popular than the actual main character, Kazuma Kiryu. However, Majima doesn't have an article. I have often talked with Abryn about this and I understand why many users wouldn't like to edit that since some of these games take some time.Tintor2 (talk) 21:45, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Alright all, I've WP:BOLDly moved it from userspace to WikiProject Video games/Article for Improvement, and the voting bit to WikiProject Video games/Article for Improvement voting, lets see how this works out. TheAwesome  Hwyh  22:16, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Community tech bot publishes monthly lists for registered projects; ours is at WikiProject Video games/Popular pages. To see what other pages exist or add new projects, see User:Community Tech bot/Popular pages config.json. -- Pres  N  03:27, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Interesting but what is Attack on Titan doing there? Same with John Wick. Guess there are some games in development.Tintor2 (talk) 00:19, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Attack on Titan is tagged for WPVG because it has a Video games subsection (and no dedicated video games article, though that's not always a hard rule). Same for John Wick. -- Pres N  01:37, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Gaming's #MeToo moment?
In what the BBC are describing as 'gaming's #MeToo' moment it looks like a number of accusations are being made about harassment and predatory behaviour by several notable game developers. We need to keep a closer eye on some bios and their related studios & games - Alexis Kennedy, Jeremy Soule, and Alec Holowka have been mentioned explicitly so far, and looks like we could be seeing more. Sam Walton (talk) 22:12, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Alec's page is locked. But I already added the news that his team cut ties with him. GamerPro64  22:23, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * And now GG is rearing its head. . --M asem (t) 00:03, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * As a reminder to everyone, since it doesn't come up much in the video games space, the relevant guideline here is WP:BLPCRIME, which (along with associated bluelinks) says that for (non-convicted) accusations of crimes to go on articles about living people that are not public figures (and indie devs and video game composers aren't, really), you need multiple RSs reporting them, and they should of course be worded neutrally. Notably, per WP:BLPTALK, you shouldn't even talk about the accusations on the talk page without multiple RSs reporting on it (and sourced right there), which is something drive-by editors find confusing and offensive. -- Pres N  01:45, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I would also suggest not rushing to include them until there's an impact on the person's career (as there has been with Holowka now), as the fact a career's tanked by an accusation is factually relevant. Just stay brief and neutral on the accusation per BLPCRIME. --M asem (t) 02:36, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * i've added a relevant section to Sexism in video games, but named no names outside named commentators. diff. --M asem (t) 06:24, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * No offence Masem, but what has been added reads like the worst kind of speculation, Crystal Ball and synth. I would suggest you self revert and look at writing what can actually be cited to sources as it just reads very poorly. Koncorde (talk) 06:29, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I disagree, thought I did re-check the BBC and attributed and took out of wikivioce that it was Anita stating this may be the #metoo moment. But everything else is stuff that has happened, not speculation. --M asem  (t) 06:36, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I dont intend to stay in this topic too much. All i want to say is: lets make sure all criticism is constructive, no destructive.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 06:40, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * If it is sourced, it doesn't read like it, if it has happened, why are we speculating? It is very poorly written at present. You might not think so, but I am telling you that it is poorly phrased and unclear with references to things that don't follow the sources until much later, or that seem to be synthesising a point from one or two articles to create an editorial.
 * "some commentators wondered in the months that followed whether the video game industry would have a similar "#MeToo moment"
 * Did they? Who? Keza McDonald? Then we should talk about Keza McDonalds article.
 * "given the history of known incidents in the industry."'
 * Woah woah woah, what "history"? That must have a source explicit and needs to have a clear line of attack and attribution. Blatant speculation.
 * "While there were some public reports from companies releasing employees on claims of improper behavior against co-workers in their workplace"
 * Have there? What reports? Where are the sources? What companies? What people? Only co-workers? And "releasing" or "firing"?
 * "such events were isolated to individuals of little renown."
 * I am not even sure what the relevance would be of this, but even Keza McDonalds article refers to IGN sacking its Editor In Chief.
 * "In August 2019,"
 * Okay
 * "prior to PAX West,"
 * Significance? Relevance?
 * "a number of women came forward to make accusations towards different men within the industry related to sexual harassment and other inappropriate activities."
 * Ideally a direct source this claim is required.
 * "Their reports spurred other women and non-binary people to come forward"
 * Who is "their"? "Spurred" is a loaded word, editorialising. It is also unclear where the line in the sand is between those who started and those who were "spurred on". They all seem to have been "spurred" by Lawheads accusation (based on the one source discussing it) which then resulted in more accusations. The way this is currently written it looks like a wave of women synchronised their release of accusations, or the harassment all took place at the same time and your comment about it happening just prior to PAX West suggests a coincidence or conspiracy of some sort due to the lack of actual context. Following which, lots of other people also made further accusations. However the sources do not present the events that way.
 * "including some whose reports of sexual harassment had been generally overlooked by the industry."
 * Overlooked? Is that in the source? And overlooked by who? Are you saying their employer overlooked their reports? Or that their reports were overlooked in the media? Or something else? I can't help feeling that people who haven't mentioned anything prior to August 2019 can be "overlooked" without somehow making it clear through attribution what is meant.
 * "A number of other women and men supported those women,"
 * Not found in the sources, also not sure what the point is?
 * "creating a "Times Up" group to encourage other women to speak up about events in their past."
 * The movement already existed? Surely this is just reinvigorating a quiet hashtag?
 * "Anita Sarkeesian stated that this may be the expected #MeToo moment for the industry."
 * Clear attribution. Probably the only sentence I can get behind. Koncorde (talk) 07:13, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * A couple of those are valid points (eg relevance of PAX and "Spurred", but everything else is like asking for an immediate direct source or inline attribution on established facts which is not appropriate. There are two sourced articles around Jan 2018 that should be read together along withe the additional commentary by the key persons to establish the history (that ties in with what is already present in the article), and for the current events, similarly two articles that read together provide all the required sourcing for these. For example your issue about the "overlooked by the industry" is right there in the Verge source "At the same time, others, like Mina Vanir, have brought up older accusations that previously received comparatively little attention." Paraphrased, obviously. I do not see this as any type of "attack" statement on the industry in general - there's plenty of factual aspects here summarized by the articles - and where there is some attack, namely Wu's statement that the industry hasn't supported those, that's attributed. Key is not to actually name specific individuals at the center of this. --M asem (t) 15:30, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * If I can't tell where you are sourcing the statements from, or it flows in ways that create more questions than it answers (or just postulates things) then I am telling you that it is written badly. You can hand wave if you like, but it is a poorly written piece of text with poor attribution and unclear sourcing. There is nothing wrong with using the same source to attribute each element and clarifying the context and I am offering you the chance to do so before I refactor it into something more encyclopedic because it currently reads like a synthetic newsy piece. Koncorde (talk) 16:36, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * With only four sentences in one paragraph and two citations within that, that is relative easy to find - this is why there is zero requirement for a 1:1 sentence-to-citation sourcing requirement outside of attributed opinions and quotes. But I repeat those citations where necessary to make it clearer, something I don't think is necessary. --M asem (t) 17:27, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Two paragraphs, quite wordy for what they are actually trying to express, written like a junior editor of not very professional news organisation. I expect better and I don't recall seeing you having ever jumbled something so badly, or defending it... Koncorde (talk) 17:41, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thoughts on the Alexis Kennedy accusation? There's really only the one source reporting on it, so I initially added a single sentence about the accusation. Should we wait for more reporting/impact, per PresN above? Sam Walton (talk) 08:28, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd wait. GameRev isn't a AAA source to me, and there's no additional stories at present. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 15:15, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Gamasutra also has this. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 15:28, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Speaking of Gamasutra, Nathalie Lawhead probably needs some eyes on it for the coming weeks if this blows up. Regards So  Why  15:47, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , can't we pre-emptively protect the page? There was one edit that was already struck for RD2 yesterday, and we can probably expect more of this stuff. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 15:56, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Nope, WP:NO-PREEMPT explicitly forbids preemptive protection. And a single edit is not sufficient to warrant protection anyway. But if more happens, then yes. That's why it should be watchlisted, currently it only has 4 watchers. If a couple of editors from this project have it watchlisted, any vandalism should get handled easily. Regards So  Why  16:10, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I've never seen a way of seeing exactly how many watchers a page has if it's less than n number. Where'd you get that figure from? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 18:49, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * "Page information" on the left bar now shows numbers <30, or at least it does for me. -- Pres N  20:00, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It always did for admins afaik. "Normal" users only see watchers >30, probably to avoid vandals from finding unwatched pages. Regards So  Why  07:03, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * At some point it didn't show it for admins either, but it's been years since I checked so it's probably not a new thing. -- Pres N  16:26, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * GAmesIndustry.biz which also addresses Kennedy's seeking out legal protection for defamation and that some projects with his Weather Factory funding have pulled out due to these. --M asem (t) 17:43, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Reinstated now that we have 3 reliable sources, a response from Kennedy, and impact on related projects. Sam Walton (talk) 19:13, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * If anyone has any interest, I am likely to purge chunks of the Sexism in video gaming and rebuild it more coherently. However I am not sure if even the title of the article is correct. Should it be changed to "Sexism in the video game industry"? This would be Similar to the Sexism in the technology industry which I believe we should likely try to mirror structurally to some extent (and probably shares some underlying elements? Anyway, I will start a discussion over on that Talk Page at some point today or tomorrow before I start if people have anything to contribute. Koncorde (talk) 16:41, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * "Sexism among video gamers" and "sexism in the video game industry" are probably two different topics, one about the players and one about the companies making them. Regards So  Why  16:46, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but should it be one topic covering both? The opening line states "experienced by people who play and create video games". The current naming however seems to suggest only sexism in the "gaming" element (which would suggest in the act of playing the game) and most content reflects that. However the recent addition by Masem (edited by myself) is particular to the harassment of people in the industry (relating to the MeToo). If it keeps its original name, the new content is in the wrong place. Or we change its name to something more broad, and accept that harassment within gaming is itself part of the "industry" (for instance, eSports)? Koncorde (talk) 17:02, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * "Sexism among video gamers" as a topic is best covered under Video game culture (where there looks like there's some section there for better expansion? As there, we're likely less to be talking named individuals but the player base in general. If that is done, I agree moving the current Sexism in video games to Sexism in the video game industry, with a brief mention/pointer to Video game culture would be best. --M asem (t) 19:43, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * There are actually three distinct topics here: 1) sexism in the video game industry, 2) sexism among/between video game players, and 3) sexism within video games themselves as works, currently covered at Gender representation in video games. If we go the multiple article route, I would turn Sexism in video gaming into a disambiguation page with links to all three. That said, the three concepts are intrinsically linked and feed into/ouroboros each other and Sexism in video gaming could become an overview page about their links. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:07, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * On a related note, should we be including information about the accusations on the accusers' articles too? I've been working to expand Meg Jayanth today and wondering if a brief mention is warranted or not. It doesn't seem like there's much to say beyond 'Jayanth made this accusation', so I'm not sure. Sam Walton (talk) 18:16, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * If it is appropriate to include on the accused page, then it should be considered appropriate on the accuser's page - so that there's a 1:1. But I would also say that its not required, particularly if it might be trying to fit awkward information into an article that doesn't have anything else like that. Such should never be included if the accused is unknown, or the accusations haven't reached the right level for inclusion on the accused person's page. --M asem  (t) 19:39, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

New Articles (August 23 to August 30)
Generated by v3.0 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. -- Pres N  02:39, 31 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Articles deleted: Portal:Final Fantasy, Genius Move (video game), KatGames, List of Red vs. Blue special episodes, Players' Bill of Rights, Draft:Pavlov vr, Draft:Shoot The Violence, GridStream Productions, Draft:Diep.io, StrongSide (video game player), Draft:BOX BOY! + BOX GIRL!, Draft:Baldi's Basics in Education and Learning, Podtacular
 * Articles redirected: Black Element Software, Centauri Production, 2K Play, 2K Sports, Pretty Rhythm (TV series), Yomei Kensaku Sābisu X-Day, Franklin Clinton
 * Categories deleted: Pokémon RPGs, Open world racing video games, Final Fantasy portal
 * New categories: Pokémon Mystery Dungeon, Pokémon Rumble, Pokémon fangames, Pokémon spin-off games, Video games by character, HTC Vive, Futurama video games, Contra (series), Contra (series) media, Upcoming video games related to anime and manga
 * New templates: Alcachofa Soft by

<div style="line-height:1.4em !important"> August 23

August 24

August 25

August 26

August 27

August 28

August 29

August 30

Like a phoenix (or a zombie), the weekly New Article Report has been reborn! Again! Long-time readers may recall that the shambling corpse of the finally fell apart last October, and since it was responsible for the Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Video game articles by quality log I used as a source, this weekly report died a sudden death. The bot was propped up enough to keep building WikiProject tables, but not enough to do assessment logs. The New Article Report was resurrected a few months later, using the enwp10 database at wmflabs, but that too died soon after. Since then it has slumbered, a lone python file unrun. At long last, however, the prophesied version 3 of the WP 1.0 bot has arisen (though not the database), and so too has the New Article Report, freshly updated to handle the changes to the logs! Unfortunately there's no backfill of the missing months, so we start anew from August 23.

Since it's been a while, a reminder of how this works: These are all of the "new" articles, as well as other interesting changes, from the past week (8 days this time). I'll try to post every Friday-ish. New is defined as newly tagged on the talk page, as that's when the assessment log picks it up, so sometimes the article may be actually a bit older. The "page creator" is the editor who made the first ever edit to that page in the history: it's an outstanding issue that people aren't credited if they make an article on top of a former redirect, so, sorry. To that point, though: bug reports and feature requests are very much appreciated! I do try to fix them/add them, when I'm not busy rewriting half of it because the data source died... -- Pres N  02:39, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd wondered where this went! Glad to see it's back up and running. Always interesting to see what's new on WPVG, and fun to be notified from time to time. I didn't realize I'd created so many articles this week as part of my project to expand Spanish game coverage. And congratulations to ADeveria on the Mr. Driller GA! JimmyBlackwing (talk) 02:58, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Gah, that was Namcokid47, and it also wasn't new, they moved the page while expanding it from a start and the logs read it as a creation. Sorry! -- Pres N  03:29, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Uh, probably a bug, but The Room (video game) has been around a long while. Not seeing how that's been listed. --M asem (t) 04:24, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
 * a-ha, I see its from the template just being added to talk page. --M asem (t) 04:25, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Dating sim terminology disconnect
I've noticed that while Western game journalists overwhelmingly use "dating sim" to refer to any game that revolves around romance, Wikipedia's page on dating sims is solely about the "traditional" dating sim. I'm thinking that either dating sim should be reorganized, or it should be moved to Romance simulation game as a broader article, of which dating sim would be a section.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 14:27, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I’d just expand the dating sim article. I don’t believe the term “Romance Sim” is used nearly as often, and the existing dating sim article, like many of these genre articles, is pretty underdeveloped and less than 7K in size. Sergecross73   msg me  14:34, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Alright, I started by gutting the intro, which was unsourced WP:OR, and adding sources. Getting the entirety of The National Girlfriend: The Not-So-Innocent Story of Japan's Puppy Love Video Game Phenomenon would probably help massively in expanding the article though. I was only able to get a snippet in the preview.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 15:16, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
 * This situation is likely close to the situation around roguelike (in that we have the media that classified games like Binding of Isaac and FTL as rogulikes, much to the angst of the purists). As suggested, just expand the article and if you can discuss the disconnect issue from reliable sources, include that too. --M asem (t) 16:13, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

WT:VG/RS
Here's a discussion about using other sites. In the past, it has always been left inconclusive but perhaps we can now have a definitive consensus. Reaching a consensus on these would help greatly on how we handle mobile phone games moving forward.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 20:28, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Suggestion to cover some more video games.
These black and white games and the populous game series deserve more attention. I suggest to add these PC- and Nintendo game articles under wikiproject video games. --Starscreams6667 (talk) 08:39, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
 * They already are under WP:VG. Anyway, why not follow WP:BOLD and fix whatever needs improvement? Most people have their own pet projects, so the fastest way to improve Wikipedia is to do it yourself.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 12:18, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Is this notable enough for a stand alone article?
Naruto:_Ultimate_Ninja? There are some sources out there but I am not sure if they are sufficiently reliable to merit a stand alone article? Thoughts? --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:06, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Probably not. I'm coming up with only one reliable source for a review. A Google search comes up with little.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 12:23, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

First monthly video game Article for Improvement!
Hello! This post is to inform everyone that Gabe Newell is this months video game article for improvement! This is the first of (hopefully) many articles. You can vote on the next article of the month here. Gabe Newell was chosen as no one besides me voted, so I'm also making this post to inform people that they can vote on what they want to see become next months article for improvement. TheAwesome Hwyh  02:31, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Using Eurogamer reviews
There appears to be a movement or opinion appearing that Eurogamer shouldn't be used in Reception sections any more after ditching its numbered scoring system. I've used it in GAs that passed without any problem using its new scoring system when it's given a score to something. I've encountered this with Fire Emblem: Three Houses. Unless it already has been, I think this needs to be raised before there are any large-scale disputes.

I would argue that it still has merit as it's a major European-focused website that gives reviews on titles in a review scene that seems to focus far more on North American reactions. Where possible and relevant, I feel a game's Reception should encompass the international scene. --ProtoDrake (talk) 19:57, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't see why assigning a numerical score should be the bar for whether content from a review should be included. Where has it been decided this should be the case? Sam Walton (talk) 20:01, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't see either. There was an old discussion (which I brought up, but had forgotten about until I looked for it), where it seems there was a decision to include the new scoring system, including a "no score" equivalent for when they didn't give a ranking under their new system. But I think there needs to be a wider understanding for non-standard scoring systems, and Eurogamer's become the most prominent mainstream example. --ProtoDrake (talk) 20:08, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Are you talking about using it in the video game review template or in the text? Either way, I fail to see why it should be precluded from either. I used it in SpellForce 3 using the new "Recommended" score it used and heard no complaints at GAN. Regards So  Why  20:11, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I was talking in both, but the instance above is it being removed from the table seemingly because of a non-standard score. I had intended to expand the reception section for Three Houses, but life got in the way. --ProtoDrake (talk) 20:30, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Reception sections are more than just score-tracking, and even if one is using a scored review, it is expected in a good reception article to include commentary from that review. Otherwise, one is flooding the reception table with unused scores, which is inappropriate. The review score table is meant to augment a good reception section, which will include sources like Eurogamer, Kotaku, Ars Technica, and other major works (like the rare times newspapers cover a game) that otherwise aren't going to be in the table. --M asem (t) 20:12, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I think there's strong consensus to continue to use unscored reviews in prose if they come from reliable sources and provide thoughtful critique. Including them in a review template is a matter of preference; I don't feel strongly either way. Axem Titanium (talk) 06:13, 1 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I think the discussions were just to not use it in review tables, once they decided to not award actually scores anymore. They’re still definitely fair game for review section prose for sure. Sergecross73   msg me  02:38, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Mercury Hg GA review?
Abryn recently told me he wouldn't be able to continue with the GA review of Mercury Hg. I wanted to ask if anyone was willing to review it for me. I don't think there are many problems with the article. I'd greatly appreciate it. On an adjacent subject: If Mercury Hg does end up becoming a GA, that means that the Mercury series would be able to be considered a GA topic, but should Mercury (element) be included as part of the topic? The series is about the literal mercury element and named after it. But I dont have a lot of experience in making Good/Featured topics.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 04:50, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * As director of Featured Topics, I can bluntly say the element Mercury should not be part of the topic. Also, is there an article for the entire series? If not, that will lead into some problems. GamerPro64  04:56, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * There are only three games. Archer Maclean's Mercury, Mercury Meltdown, and Mercury Hg. I'm not sure I can make a series article just for those three. Can I make an article for it? In the past I was told there should be around 4 or 5 titles within a series to consider making an article for it.05:04, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The rule of thumb is 3+ titles for a series page, but the actual rule is that you need to have sources that discuss the series as a whole, not just individual games. -- Pres N  05:16, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * That's a shame. I didn't think I needed a series article to get these into a featured/good topic. All the sources that I was able to find only talk about the Mercury series casually and briefly.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 05:21, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I mean, I said I wasn't doing it today, I'll be doing it tomorrow. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 05:34, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * also dawg i'ma girl - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 05:36, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * OH I was going to apologize for the confusion. now its a double-apology.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 05:39, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It's ok lol. Today was just an emotional recovery day. I'll be back to it tomorrow with a review. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 05:41, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Eyes on Overwatch pages
Rumor bombs dropping that the Switch version will be announced during today's Nintendo Direct (3pm PT). I haven't seen anything and I am not going to add anything until confirmed, but just in case, a page to watch today. --M asem (t) 14:38, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * https://kotaku.com/overwatch-comes-to-switch-next-month-1837868458 Ben · Salvidrim!   &#9993;  14:57, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Blood Gulch deletion discussion
Could use opinions from WPVG members. Deletion debate is here. <small style="color:red">JOE BRO  64  22:19, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Forgive me if this seems like an attempted WP:CANVAS, is there a particular rationale for leaving a special message for this article in particular? It feels to me like "I want it to be deleted and need more support".ZXCVBNM (TALK) 00:42, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd actually intended to post this when I initiated the nom but it slipped my mind. Regardless, I am not trying to CANVASS anyone (and I reviewed the guideline before posting here to make sure I wouldn't come across as doing so). I felt we needed more input from WPVG members because they're more familiar with the subject matter. I also notified the Halo WikiProject as well. <small style="color:red">JOE BRO  64  00:49, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * As someone who would probably lean towards merging, yeah it seems like the debate is adequately addressed, with 6 for keep and 4 for delete/merge. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 01:25, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It’s not convassing to neutrally ask for input from a relevant WikiProject. That said, it’s generally not necessary either, since so many of the regulars here have WP:VG/D on their watchlist. Sergecross73   msg me  02:18, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Unreal Tournament
Specifically this one: Unreal Tournament (upcoming video game)

I was sitting here thinking to myself, Epic has halted development on the game, but its still available for download (for free). Should we call this upcoming then? We can't slap a year on it since it was never officially released and Unreal Tournament exists. Kinda stuck here. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 14:34, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I would just move it to the year of its first publicly available release, at this point. Minimizes confusion. --M asem (t) 14:37, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * That or Unreal Tournament (Unreal Engine 4) TarkusAB talk / contrib 14:39, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I personally support Unreal Tournament (cancelled video game) because it was never officially released to the public, and is effectively cancelled. While people can download it, it's effectively the same as downloading a tech demo, which exist for games that were otherwise cancelled. It can always be moved back to the upcoming disambiguation if development is restarted.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 03:04, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

ALternative for Famitsu reviews?
I was just wondering if Japan has another review site out there other than Famitsu. Trying to prove a series is notable.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 06:09, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * There are two other websites that post reviews on games; 4Gamer.net. and Game Watch Impress. The latter goes back quite a way. You could also explore Dengeki Online for information, as they can post retrospective reviews on older titles. --ProtoDrake (talk) 06:42, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. I'll look into those two.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 07:06, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Until Dawn plot sourcing section
The good article nomination for Until Dawn is seeking sources for the plot section, so if anyone is able to provide any such thing, that would be greatly appreciated. (I'm not touching that one to avoid major spoilers) - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 15:58, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I left a comment that WP:VG/PLOT does not ask for plot refs for straightforward summaries, just to let the reviewer know, but I'm confused if you were planning on helping out on that nomination? There's like 20 things to do, and the nominator is awol, so I don't think the plot refs are going to be what stops it unless a replacement nom is stepping up. -- Pres N  16:14, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh I fixed everything else. I just meant I didn't want to read the plot. Thanks for your input! - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 16:48, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Unnecessary N-Gage disambiguation
I made a discussion to remove the N-Gage disambiguation. If anyone wants to weight in on the topic, you can find it here: Talk:N-Gage.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 12:38, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles: Echoes of Time
Asking for opinions, should the characters section be removed as WP:GAMECRUFT+WP:OR? Not able to find any references to source that part. I also feel like the story part needs a cut, but not sure how to do it properly. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 13:00, 8 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I think its closer to gamecruft. Maybe it doesn't need to be removed, but condensed into paragraphs giving a brief summary of the core characters only. Shadow Hearts and Final Fantasy II come to mind.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 13:05, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

New Articles (August 31 to September 6)
Generated by v3.1 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. -- Pres N  22:45, 6 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Articles deleted: Draft:SP21 computer game, Warm Gun, YaHero, Exit Games, Games with Raytracing, King's Quest I: Quest for the Crown (AGD Interactive), TribalWar, Draft:SP-21 Game, Draft:Spec Ops: Covert Assault, Draft:Splatoon:Inkling, Draft:Bomber Crew, Draft:Call of Duty (film), Draft:Kindergarten (Video game), Kingory, Draft:Ludosity AB, Draft:Unnamed PewDiePie Game, Draft:Mystic Wand (Video Game), Draft:Awakening of Heroes (video game), Draft:Cobra's Arc (video game), Cronous, Faizullah Arain, Sho Online
 * Articles redirected: Toi8, AdHoc Studio, Altar Games, Women Wise, Zuxxez Entertainment, Final Fantasy XIV: Shadowbringers, GunBound Revolution, Ivory Tower (company), Nadeo, RedLynx
 * Categories deleted: The Nightmare Before Christmas video games, Video games directed by Hideki Konno
 * New categories: Hugo (franchise), Cancelled N-Gage games, Finji games, Video games directed by Ed Boon, Video games directed by Michel Ancel, Video games directed by Tetsuya Nomura, Video games related to anime and manga, Video games scored by Christophe Héral, Video games scored by David Bergeaud, Video games scored by Josh Mancell, Video games scored by Michael Bross, Video games scored by Stewart Copeland, Video games about shapeshifting, Geometry Wars
 * New templates: Dynamite Entertainment by

<div style="line-height:1.4em !important"> August 31

September 1

September 2

September 3

September 4

September 5

September 6

Big week for article creation! -- Pres N  22:45, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Changelog: If an article is un-redirected during the report dates, that user is automatically credited as the "creator", not the potentially ancient original page creator. Can still be flaky for some corner cases.


 * - I know similar article title debates have cropped up before, but I dunno about using the "full" name of some of those Final Fantasy characters that very rarely comes up in-game, and are relegated to instruction manuals and the like. Yes, it's "natural" disambiguation, but it's also a little surprising.  Fang especially - her full name is mentioned very rarely, and results in the article not starting with the word "Fang".  If it has to be Fang (Final Fantasy XIII), so be it.  Garnet certainly doesn't need the regnal number (drop the XVI), and would also probably be fine as just Garnet (Final Fantasy IX) IMO.  Vivi's the most harmless case, but I'd still be in favor of just plain Vivi.  Just my two cents though.  SnowFire (talk) 17:01, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I honestly don't care either way, though as someone who had not played FFXIII, I recognize her pretty well with Oerba Yun Fang and have seen articles refer to her as more than just Fang. Plus, I figure that in that case it helps for disambiguation issues. Garnet though I am less concerned with staying at its current title. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 17:09, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/El Tesoro de Isla Alcachofa
Kindly offer your two cents to this AFD. :)--Coin945 (talk) 23:27, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Eyes going to be needed at Nicalis
Kotaku indepth report about abusive conditions at Nicalis. I am not yet sure if it should be added although McMillan has stated he has cut ties with Nicalis for future publishing, so watching to see how this develops. --M asem (t) 16:35, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation titles if Ghostbusters: The Video Game was split?
I've been working through the first two Ghostbusters films articles and while I'm not really intending to go outside of them because it's a lot of work, I am interested in Ghostbusters: The Video Game because it's technically the third film if the third film wasn't being made. I'm reading the article and it's a mess. It seems like is trying to cover three different games all in one article with the same name. There's a last-gen version, a last-last-gen version (plus Wii), and a Nintendo DS version which share the same basic story but have different art styles, receptions, development teams, monsters, etc, etc. It seems to be that they should be broken off so that they can be properly discussed, but I cannot think of appropriate disambiguation terms for them. Or am I wrong? I think it's very difficult to salvage the article in its current state. Potentially they could stay in the same article if it is determined that Terminal Velocity was the primary developer and the rest are ports. Whenever I see the game discussed it does seem to be done so as Terminal Velocity's game and the development seems to back that up. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 17:16, 8 September 2019 (UTC)


 * The DS version should be split off as we did with Over the Hedge (DS game) (though that should be at "Nintendo DS game"), as that version was vastly different from the other platforms. Same here. In the Wii version, it was the same gameplay and story, but using more cartoonish characters, so it should be kept with the rest of the platform. (And same with the remaster, it's not otherwise changing the game drastically). --M asem (t) 17:25, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Not sure who accepted Over the Hedge (DS game) as a GA, but it has a lot of questionable sourcing from Grll Gamer (seriously?), Deeko, Cheat Code Central (I have just removed CCC as it is unreliable per WP:VG/RS) and DS Advanced. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 17:35, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It was made a GA in 2007. Things have changed significantly since then. May need a GAR. --M asem (t) 17:37, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Just saw it. Not sure there is a GA potential here, there is a little development info to be found, which is usually a make or break it moment for video games GA from what I have understood. Also needs to move to Over the Hedge (Nintendo DS) for a consistency with Bomberman (Nintendo DS), Transformers: War for Cybertron (Nintendo DS), Call of Duty: World at War (Nintendo DS), Drawn to Life: The Next Chapter (Nintendo DS). Jovanmilic97 (talk) 17:43, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Looks like passed it as a GA back then, so pinging him here just in case. I've started the GAR process for it. --M asem  (t) 18:04, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't those articles be located at the disambiguation "Nintendo DS video game"? To the layperson, it's not immediately obvious what a "Nintendo DS" actually is.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 05:03, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Disambiguation doesn't need to be perfect, just reasonably precise, given that it is unlikely that a person searching for this game would get to the page directly. --M asem (t) 05:11, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * There is a related (old, possibly unfinished?) discussion at WT:NCVG. --Izno (talk) 22:13, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Just follow WP:NCVGDAB - X201 (talk) 15:02, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * How about Ghostbusters (Nintendo DS video game)? I don't think the subtitle is necessary because it's the only Ghostbusters game for the DS (and I'd wager it falls under WP:COMMONNAME if most sources just call the game Ghostbusters). As for the article content, I'd handle it in a way like Sonic the Hedgehog (8-bit video game). <small style="color:red">JOE BRO  64  23:28, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I think Ghostbusters (Nintendo DS) is sufficient. Per Masem, dab does not need to be perfect since no one searches it directly. "Nintendo DS" is the name of the console. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:35, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

New Articles (September 7 to September 10)
Generated by v3.2 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. -- Pres N  02:37, 14 September 2019 (UTC)


 * New categories: Mario music, SpongeBob SquarePants video games, Video games about werewolves
 * New templates: Mercury games by

<div style="line-height:1.4em !important"> September 7

September 8

September 9

September 10
 * (none)

Bit of an odd week- the 1.0 bot is undergoing active development, and seems to be hiccuping on some projects for the last few days. Hopefully fixed soon! And no new articles at all on the 10th, just categories and redirects. Script changelog:
 * Fixed a bug around noting "un-redirection" edits as page creations for pages with lengthy histories
 * Catch page moves/un-redirections that happen the day before the report range (previously manually fixed)
 * Catch page moves that don't have the mw-redirect tag in the comment (e.g. "USER moved X to Y without leaving a redirect") (previously manually fixed)
 * Catch pages that are created in the range and then redirected/deleted where only the creation is listed in the logs (previously manually fixed)

-- Pres N  02:37, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

The Longest Journey name dispute
Over at The Longest Journey, IP user 83.226.234.81 has edited the game's Bokmål translation in the lead to read Den lengste reisa—previously, it was Den lengste reisen. I did some digging to see if the editor was correcting a mistake, but Den lengste reisen is indeed the game's name on Norwegian Wikipedia. Google gave me similar results from Norwegian game sites and the like. I then reverted, but was met with an unexplained re-revert. I don't plan to revert again because Wikipedia conflicts exhaust me, but I believe the editor is either making a good-faith mistake or subtly vandalizing the article (I couldn't guess at the moment), so I wanted to bring it up here. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 17:43, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , "reisen" is Bokmal, "reisa" is Nynorsk. The Bokmal version can be found in good Norwegian-language sources and the official website's code, whereas the Nynorsk version has never been used in the context of this game. The IP user is Swedish which might have them confused. However, I'm questioning the relevance of the native-language title of the game which is usually referred to by its English title, even by its Norwegian developer. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 17:56, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation! That makes sense. As for whether to keep the translation there or not, I have no opinion. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:15, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Here is an image of the Norwegian cover for context, in case the user returns to edit war on this. For now, I removed the name from the article (and the two sequels) as it does not appear necessary. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 19:31, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Dbaza's Diabetes Education for Kids
Pinging this AFD with the relevant Wikiproject. :)--Coin945 (talk) 01:03, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You don’t really need to do this. Most of the regulars follow WP:VG/D. Sergecross73   msg me  02:27, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Arcade cabinets of KOF
Anons have been adding that every The King of Fighters main game have been played first also in arcade cabinets from English regions. I tried searching and found nothing. I thought SNK simply released the games on home consoles due to issues in early 2000s. Any ideas?Tintor2 (talk) 17:24, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Which games specifically? SNK produced MVS carts for their cabs in the early 2000s, see . TarkusAB talk / contrib 13:24, 16 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Well, the latest ones more specifically.Tintor2 (talk) 16:28, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You're still being vague. Search for the game titles in KLOV. TarkusAB talk / contrib 16:57, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Request for merge discussion comment
I'm looking at merging Online gaming in China into Video gaming in China. Merge discussion at Talk:Video gaming in China. Don't expect this to be controversal, but just in case.... --M asem (t) 16:29, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Nintendo for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Nintendo is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Nintendo until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 06:23, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Chronology Considerations Concerning Contra
Considering the fact that each canonical installment within the long-running Contra series has an overall connecting story that connects each installment by various in-story year dates, I am asking for assistance, discussion, and voting approval regarding my desire to add a Template:Contra chronology to highlight the official timeline. Citing that the long-running Metal Gear series has a chronology template for example, shouldn't Contra also have one as well?

With respectful regards, the root of this discussion came about from some brief interaction with the primary contributor of the Contra III: The Alien Wars article. My apologies if this is not the right page for going about such a matter. I also must mention that I sadly lack clear understanding how to properly use the template. (LonerXL (talk) 19:56, 20 September 2019 (UTC))
 * I think we’re trying to move away from those sorts of timelines if I remember right. Sergecross73   msg me  21:29, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * We still have a few that I've been of a mind to TFD. --Izno (talk) 03:29, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not entirely sure what purpose this would serve? They don't really add anything to the article from what I've seen, and like what Sergecross brought up I think we're stepping away from that sort of thing (although I could be wrong). Namcokid  47  (Contribs) 16:08, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Really, if we're going to cover the timeline, it should be something of discussion in sources like the Zelda series which has had several detailed evaluations of what the timeline is. I've not heard anything of the lines for Contra. --M asem  (t) 16:46, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Contra also isn’t a series that’s very plot-centric, compared to something like Metal Gear where that series has the story as a core part of the game. Namcokid  47  (Contribs) 19:09, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Mainstream media top 50 games of 21st century.
Guardian's top 50 games of the 21st century. Handy ref code below.

--M asem (t) 15:40, 19 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Top 50 games in the first 20 years of a century. Oof. That's somewhere in the realm of premature, or badly named, or both. --Izno (talk) 17:25, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I know this is nitpicky, but the 21st century only started in 2001. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 17:40, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 20th century does say a fun thing on that point. The 20th (twentieth) century was a century that began on January 1, 1901[1] and ended on December 31, 2000.[2] It was the tenth and final century of the 2nd millennium. It is distinct from the century known as the 1900s which began on January 1, 1900 and ended on December 31, 1999. --Izno (talk) 18:38, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * And badly compiled too. A Top 50 list of games that were released this century without any mention of Warcraft III? Really? Regards So  Why  18:00, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * They apparently also did one for books, and I'm just like, whattttt. --Izno (talk) 20:28, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the 22nd century. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 20:52, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Should we be allowing this list to be used as a source? None of the information in this listicle is useful to be sourced here, as we have more in-depth sources for all of them. However, is this a notable accolade of sorts? Should the reception/legacy sections of all these 50 articles list this one? ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 12:31, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

New Articles (September 11 to September 24)
Generated by v3.3 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. -- Pres N  05:53, 24 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Articles deleted: Draft:3DJuegos, Draft:Alex in: Pawn Shop Pawns, Draft:Blaze of battle, Chernarus, Draft:Chilly Willy, Draft:Cube Runner, DICE Los Angeles (version 2), Draft:Doodle Maths, Draft:Eggggg, Draft:Feralheart, Draft:Glorien, Draft:Granny Smith (video game), Draft:Gregor Bigalke, Draft:Hitman HD Enhanced Collection, Draft:List of Godot games, Draft:Outsidexbox, Portal:Pokémon, Draft:Romance of the Three Kingdoms XIV, Draft:Runaway City, Draft:Satisfactory, Draft:Sheep Studios, Draft:Shin Ryu ga Gotoku, Draft:Slimeranchercreator, Draft:TV Tennis Electrotennis, Television Tennis by Executive Games, Portal:The Legend of Zelda, V-Rally (disambiguation), V Rally (disambiguation)
 * Articles redirected: Jade (game engine), Nintendo Life
 * Categories deleted: EverQuest games and expansions, Publications about Nintendo, Tomb Raider games, Video games set in fictional populated places
 * Templates deleted: CrossHair
 * New categories: 20th Century Fox video games, Animated series based on Nintendo video games, Apple Arcade games, Beauty and the Beast video games, Cancelled Sharp X68000 games, Gaelic games video games, Jazz Jackrabbit, Mario Kart, Mario Party, Puzzle League, Sony Pictures video games, Star Wars: The Force Awakens video games, Video game characters designed by Akira Toriyama, Video games based on Catwoman, Video games based on literature, Video games based on the Joker, Video games based on works by Alan Moore, Video games based on works by American comic book writers, Video games based on works by American writers, Video games based on works by Andrew Adamson, Video games based on works by Bill Finger, Video games based on works by Bob Kane, Video games based on works by British writers, Video games based on works by Canadian comic book writers, Video games based on works by Canadian writers, Video games based on works by Chris Sanders, Video games based on works by Christopher Nolan, Video games based on works by Dan Aykroyd, Video games based on works by David S. Goyer, Video games based on works by English writers, Video games based on works by George Lucas, Video games based on works by Ian Fleming, Video games based on works by J.K. Rowling, Video games based on works by J. R. R. Tolkien, Video games based on works by Jack Kirby, Video games based on works by James Cameron, Video games based on works by John Lasseter, Video games based on works by Joss Whedon, Video games based on works by Linda Woolverton, Video games based on works by Mark Steven Johnson, Video games based on works by Matt Groening, Video games based on works by Michael France, Video games based on works by New Zealand writers, Video games based on works by Peter Jackson, Video games based on works by Sam Raimi, Video games based on works by Seth MacFarlane, Video games based on works by Stan Lee, Video games based on works by Steve Ditko, Video games based on works by Todd McFarlane, Video games based on works by William Steig, Video games based on works by comic book writers, Video games based on works by writer
 * New templates: Embracer Group by

<div style="line-height:1.4em !important"> September 11–24 The 1.0 bot popped back up! And... listed everything since the last day it ran (September 10) as being on the 24th. So, to avoid having a suuuper long post this Friday, this is everything from the 11th through the 24th in one post, and I'll do the rest of the week on the regular day. Oh, and yes, Namcokid47 did get Space Invaders Virtual Collection from creation to GA in the time period- actually within a day! -- Pres N  05:53, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Does the bot differentiate between actually new articles and articles that were recently tagged for our WP? E.g, the article for Apple was created by the IP listed, but eighteen years ago. It was just recently tagged as a VG-related article. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 06:40, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The bot only lists new tags, not new creations, it's just that almost all new tags are recently created articles. Every so often we get something crazy like Apple. -- Pres N  12:38, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yea, when I expanded Ustwo a few days ago from scraps of refs that Czar had left there a couple years back, I added the vgproj template, so that was the trigger to be on this list. --M asem (t) 13:33, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I've reverted Apple. It's super edge for the group. At best we can say 'it enabled mobile gaming', but then, it did a lot more with everything else related to mobile. We might as well add Facebook for the same purpose at that point. --Izno (talk) 13:35, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * And that's why I don't exclude new tags on old articles- sometimes its useful to see that it was tagged after so long (and sometimes its legit- a VA last time did their first video game, and so got tagged after years). I do have a feature request to denote "old articles" in the list to make it obvious when that happens, though. -- Pres N  13:38, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Category:Animated series based on Nintendo video games seems like overcategorization/missing on WP:CATDEFINE. --Izno (talk) 13:35, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * We already have Category:Works based on Nintendo video games and of course animated series cats, so would agree. --M asem (t) 13:46, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Takayuki Yagami
I've just created the article Takayuki Yagami due to me finding a lot of real world information about him. However, there is stuff that's bothering me like why the infobox image is that big or whether or not we should use the year of release of the game since Judgment was first released in Japan in 2018 as Judge Eyes while the worldwide release was in 2019. Also, any help with copyedits would be awesome. Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 16:41, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I think the image size is fine. If you are worried about the infobox being longer than the lead section, you can always just put to force the first heading to appear below it. Also, Kazuma Kiryu's page is listed as him first appearing in Yakuza (2005), so I think what you've got now is fine. Eddiehimself (talk) 14:46, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Apple Arcade as a platform
Apple Arcade was detailed last week and some games have already been confirmed (such as Exit the Gungeon and Cricket Through the Ages from Devolver Digital). What should we list as the platform for these games? Apple Arcade is merely a service that will be available for iOS, iPadOS, macOS, and tvOS, but it feels an awful lot like original research to put all four (or three sans iPadOS) in for every game that releases there. Similarly, we would have to align the release dates of launch titles with those of Apple Arcade for the individual platforms (iOS will be on Thursday, macOS only in October), which, again, looks like OR. Lordtobi ( &#9993; ) 16:09, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Its a subscription service (does not appear to be a streaming service), so that basically means, they are iOS and/or macOS, period. We don't distinguish in the infobox between iOS/iPadOS/tvOS. If the game is specific for one of those three for some reason, that should be described in the prose, but not infobox. --M asem  (t) 16:26, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * But we do separate out iOS from macOS so in the example, you would have both release dates. --M asem (t) 16:27, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * +1, Apple Arcade is not a platform. List the actual platform a game is released for. If Apple Arcade doesn't launch for macOS until October, it's not OR to say that applicable games were not released for macOS until October. -- Pres N  16:28, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Does that mean that would automatically assume that every game released on Apple Arcade will release on the four aforementioned OSes? Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 17:15, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * No, I would not unless there is something in the marketing lit that says all games will come to both sets of platforms. If the marketing DOES say this, then yes, you can presume both and then mark the exceptions as they come up, otherwise, wait and see. --M asem (t) 17:19, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It should belong as a category though, right? Category:Apple Arcade games ~ <b style="color: #660000;">Dissident93</b> (<b style="color: #D18719;">talk</b>) 16:29, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's a fair enough category. I'm not sure as a list since if it is a subscription service that usually means "rotating games" and thus a list would be more NOT#CATALOG violating. But a category is fine. --M asem (t) 16:31, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, since it differs from Stadia. ~ <b style="color: #660000;">Dissident93</b> (<b style="color: #D18719;">talk</b>) 16:32, 16 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Additional question: Do tvOS and watchOS qualify as iOS branches just as iPadOS does? If so, should we not list them, or stil list them seperately as they require compatibility steps to be taken? Whatever the outcome, at least iPadOS's situation should be add to our guidelines somewhere. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 17:01, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, both start from the iOS base so they are iOS broadly. --M asem (t) 18:10, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Question if we have such an article
Do we have any article related to "video games" and "political/activist causes"?

For example, today there was the announcement of the UN's "Playing for the Planet Alliance", which includes 9 vg companies that are going to find ways to make playing video games more environmentally friendly. I don't think a narrow topic like "Video games and the environment" would be effective, but as a section of causes which video games have been used or are trying to participate in would be useful.

I'm not talking about games that are aimed to necessarily be a specific political message or the like (that can get messy) but general activities and approach towards political and other causes. --M asem (t) 18:52, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I think Breakaway (2010 video game) fits into this category? --Izno (talk) 22:09, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * That would definitely fit. Also from what I'm reading Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games and sequels would fit to some degree --M asem (t) 22:12, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Zoo Tycoon   TarkusAB talk / contrib 23:12, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I had a previous idea of video games and charitable activities (which would have included things like Extra Life, GDQ, and others), but this would be more encompassing. That's where I'm having problems how one could even frame this. --M asem (t) 00:23, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

--Coin945 (talk) 03:30, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * https://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2017/07/23/538617205/screen-saviors-can-activism-focused-games-change-our-behavior
 * https://www.theversed.com/71367/original-digital-heroism-do-video-games-play-a-role-in-activism/#.JvlcIGUIw1
 * http://www.irma-international.org/viewtitle/20131/
 * https://www.forbes.com/sites/mattperez/2017/12/19/podcast-can-games-be-used-for-social-and-political-activism/#394fd6eb1b79
 * Maybe Video games and activism may be possible? Maybe each section (like "Environmental", "Physical Health", "Mental Health", "Gender and Sexual Identity", "Charity") with each section allowing for broader statements, and then lists of games as noted by third-party RSes that would fall as games specifically developed to address that specific area? We'd want to be careful to distinguish games that are meant to deliver a message that may seem to be activism-related from games that are meant to actually help educate or draw attention to that area. eg That Dragon, Cancer is not a game that I would say falls into that, it's a message-driving game. Whereas Depression Quest is a game meant to help educate players on mental health concerns ( yes, aware of that potential minefield). --M asem (t) 05:50, 24 September 2019 (UTC)


 * This sounds like a good idea for a page. Like other forms of fictional media, Video Games have a long history of promoting political/activist causes, whether intentionally or not. You could have examples from things like DOOM and its backlash for being so graphically violent, to a section about the GamerGate movement and its opposition and even bring it up-to-date with how Wolfenstein: Youngblood promotes environmental activism by portraying the Nazis as having sped up Global Warming with their relentless industrialization. Eddiehimself (talk) 14:54, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * We have pages already on video games and controversies. We don't need more of those (but it would be important to link back and forth, in that some see this type of activism as trying to counter the stigma of video games). We do not really have positive attempts to present video games, which is generally broadly what I'm talking about. --M asem (t) 18:09, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Something less POV than just Benefits of video games? It's currently a weird redirect. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:32, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * We have Video game controversies (which itself is under an identity crisis) In that we have a weird section called "Positive effects of video games" but which are all related to mental/physical health aspects, meaning it is better under Video game-related health problems (which probably should be renamed "Impacts on health from video games" or something like that, keeping in mind we have a wholly separate Video game addiction article on that facet). But in terms of that benefit, that me fits in this health related areas.
 * On my original point, I'm not so sure these are "benefits" I'm talking to. They are planned approaches to support certain types of activism, that might give other benefits, if that makes sense. Eg: Charity game sales are purposely done so some money goes to a worthwhile charity. That facet can be seen by players as a benefit of buying the game that way, but the sale is purposely set up to support that, and from that angle it is less a benefit and more a purpose. And that's where I think this article I'm speaking of lies, is those purposeful steps to help. --M asem  (t) 19:04, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Universe of The Legend of Zelda
Does anyone think Universe of The Legend of Zelda has any potential? I was thinking about nominating it for deletion, but it feels like a well-written article on Hyrule should be possible. The current structure of the article is pretty much TNT fodder. TTN (talk) 11:49, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * If you took the Timeline of the Zelda games which is currently a section on the main series page, and added it to that, trim a lot of the cruft from it, and so on, there's something valid in there, I agree. It just needs a lot of stuff trimmed; we don't need a list of all the monsters across all games, though there are clearly a few common ones that can be sourced. --M asem (t) 15:23, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It used to be Hyrule but was moved to increase scope (IMO a poor decision) and a lot of cruft was added. I personally think the cruft should be removed or split off (possibly the Races section into a List of races in The Legend of Zelda), and then the article moved back to Hyrule. It's just really hard to go about that now that the article's scope is so huge and therefore there is resistance to removing content.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 18:48, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * That page used to exist in some form and was merged here from memory. We shouldn't split out cruft, we should delete it outright unless we can identify sourcing to match the content. I suspect many of the reoccurring elements on this page have reception out there, but in lieu of that identification it should be stripped down to simple one-sentence descriptions of each element, at most. --Izno (talk) 18:58, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I wish that it could be deleted via WP:TNT and all the fancrufty redirects would be deleted, but the Hyrule section was once a legitimate article and shouldn't be lost along with all the attribution.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 18:53, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

I think the question is if there’s significant coverage of Hyrule and other locations, enemies, iconography, etc. in TLOZ series beyond their regular coverage in the video games and other franchise releases. My guess is there isn't much in that vein beyond "Top 20 Video Game Locations"-type stuff, and given that Hyrule and most locations change dramatically from game to game there's a lot that's not applicable (so reception of how great running around Hyrule is in the latest Zelda game doesn't really translate to notability for Hyrule as a standalone concept.) I don't really think there's much gained by linking away to the Master Sword that cannot or should not be covered in a article that discusses the item, for instance. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 19:02, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Just remembered that for some TV shows we have articles "Mythology of ... " which include Mythology of Fringe, Mythology of Lost, etc. A Mythology of The Legend of Zelda would be a better way to capture what's already in there (with significant trimming), plug Hyrule and the Master Sword, touch on parts of Zelda that have standalone articles like Triforce (WHICH NEEDS MASSIVE TRIMMING OMG), and so on. realize "Universe" is a popular term due to the MCU, but this is a more common approach out there. But it should be build up from what sources there are, cutting out excessive in-universe coverage. --M asem (t) 19:12, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Just a historical footnote, the naming of this article predates the term "MCU" and parallels the naming of Universe of Kingdom Hearts, which was so-named because "World of Kingdom Hearts" (after World of Final Fantasy VIII) didn't make sense considering the subject matter. This article could just as easily been called "World of The Legend of Zelda" at the time. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:29, 26 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Just my 2¢: if we're gonna blow it up, we could: (1) refocus the article as Locations in The Legend of Zelda (Hyrule, gerography, Termina, Lorule, etc.); (2) Characters of The Legend of Zelda can include Races; (3) Triforce is already standlone and Master Sword could be spun off (if enough sigcov), or covered more briefly under The Legend of Zelda (franchise). Ben · Salvidrim!   &#9993;
 * I don't see how races can possibly be included in the characters article without going over the size limit for Wikipedia articles. Also, characters are a subset of races, so it would be confusing. Races in The Legend of Zelda series should simply be recreated, albeit with heavy pruning and addition of reliable sources. (It will also require a move to remove the "series" from the title). The original merge was not merited.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 17:52, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Request for comment on Jet Set Radio
There's a debate about copyediting on the Jet Set Radio page here if anyone would like to contribute. Popcornduff (talk) 14:05, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

I prefer we have this conversation here instead. The conversation on the talkpage doesn't give a clear understanding of the situation, and it's long-winded. So if Popcornduff doesn't mind, I'm going to summarize as neutral as I can so we can get the best input.

The disagreement is based on how the information is presented. In particular, how the section starts off. Popcornduff changed the prose to have the sentence start with Date-first. because he didn't like the word "titled" in early renditions. I strongly disagree with starting the Mobile version section as "On [date], the company released this game". I don't think it's cohesive and leaves the section open-ended (not clear how many 2D versions, and sort of in this "waiting for more 2D mobile versions to release". In addition, it has a reporting tone, then an encyclopedia.

Popcornduff disagrees with me and their concerns are making the paragraph as concise as possible by reducing the number of words used. Popcornduff also believes my rendition adds unnecessary word-count and it's acceptable to start the paragraph with "On [date], etc".

I don't think it's bad all the time, but I also think it's situational. In this situation, I do not see it as good. I like to add that I'm willing to make compromises, but my main concern is not to start the section of the "Mobile versions" with "On June 22, 2001..." and make sure it's cohesive as possible, not just concise.

I apologize in advance if I misrepresented Popcornduff's perspective/concerns and I welcome Popcornduff to clarify his opinions.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 01:32, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I fail to see why the mobile phone spin-off needs to be a separate sentence, when it can easily just be merged with the GBA paragraph. Not to mention that the sentence isn't even worded properly, I would suggest something along the lines of "A mobile phone spin-off, Typing Jet, was released in Japan on July 22, 2001, where the player had to evade police." or something like that. Namcokid  47  (Contribs) 03:17, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I was debating whether i was considering "Typing Jet" a spin-off or not. If it is, then maybe this is a non-issue and move it to "Legacy" instead and just call the "Mobile versions" into "Gameboy advance version".Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 04:12, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * To clarify a few points:
 * The debate is only really over the Typing Jet information (ie the first sentence in my version).
 * I don't object if the paragraphs are merged into a single paragraph. That's fine. That was never the debate.
 * As ever, I follow the basic writing principle of deleting anything that doesn't need to be there. My version of the Typing Jet info is 69 words long; Blue Pumpkin's is 96. Same info, fewer words.
 * As far as I can tell, Blue Pumpkin basically wants to add a topic sentence to summarise the coming paragraph. That's useful sometimes (for example when introducing a long paragraph in a reception section that covers a certain topic). In this case, we only have two brief things to cover, so it's just chaff.
 * Of course, none of this matters and we should all get on with our lives. But hey, if anyone else wants to chime in, go for it. Popcornduff (talk) 14:05, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Twin-Galaxies / Billy Mitchell controversy - anyone covering this?
Two things I wanted to bring up for discussion, if they haven't already been discussed somewhere else and I just missed it:

First, is anyone working on collecting sources and information regarding the ongoing controversy surrounding Twin Galaxies and the cozy relationship between Billy Mitchell and Walter Day? Following Mitchell's downfall last year (which itself has been documented), there's more controversy emerging about how Twin Galaxies itself was run under Day's leadership. This includes allegations that they deliberately ignored legitimate high score submissions for Pac-Man and other games because they weren't submitted by Billy Mitchell. This seems like a big enough topic to warrant some new attention here on Wikipedia. I noted that Twin Galaxies is full-protected (even I can't edit it though I'm signed in) and hasn't had any substantive updates since July of this year. I don't claim to have good information on this myself, but I'm trusting that people in this project will know how and where to start gathering it. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 23:53, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, the page isn't protected. I had some sort of glitch loading it earlier. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 00:09, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * As someone who is watching over the Mitchell article due to being requested to look into some disputes...no, generally this isn’t really being discussed at the Mitchell article at least. I just protected the article again because most edits are are misguided or vandalism by IPs. Very little is going into constructively building the article. Sergecross73   msg me  00:27, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * There's definitely been some recent discussion of Mitchell as he has express intent to sue Guinness for removing his record. But I have NOT seen anything related to that relationship between Day and Mitchell that is not directly tied to the high-score issue. If this is something brewing on forums we cannot include it (BLP and all that). --M asem (t) 00:56, 28 September 2019 (UTC)