Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{shortcut|WT:VG}}
{{Talk header|WT:VG}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|

{{WikiProject Video games}}
{{to do}}<!--
}}
{{WPVG announcements}}
{{WPVG sidebar|shortcut=WT:VG|showarchives=yes}}<!--
Archive bot settings (Each parameter must be on its own line)
Archive bot settings (Each parameter must be on its own line)
-->{{User:MiszaBot/config
-->
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 250K
|maxarchivesize = 250K
|counter = 93
|counter = 177
|minthreadsleft = 4
|minthreadsleft = 4
|algo = old(12d)
|algo = old(14d)
|archive = Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive %(counter)d
|archive = Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive %(counter)d
}}<!--
Archive index bot settings
-->{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
|indexhere=no
|target=Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive index
|mask=Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive <#>
|mask=Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive Kirby
|mask=Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive Neopets
|mask=Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive RuneScape
|mask=Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive RuneScape/Archive <#>
|mask=Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive WikiProject Massively multiplayer online games
|mask=Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive WikiProject Massively multiplayer online games/Archive <#>
}}<!--
Archive box
-->{{archives
| box-width = 250px
| image = File:Nuvola filesystems folder games.png
| style = background-color: white; border-color: #aaa
| index = Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive index
| auto = short
| bot = MiszaBot II
| age = 12
| search = yes
}}
}}
[[Category:Project-Class video game articles]]
[[Category:NA-importance video game articles]]
{{Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sidebar}}

== OnLive and its status as a platform (yes, again) ==

Relevant previous discussions [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Archive_87#Is_OnLive_a_Computing_Platform.3F|Feb 2011]], [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Archive_86#Onlive_and_COI|Jan 2011]],[[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Archive_67#Would_we_consider_OnLive_a_.22platform.3F.22|March 2009]], [[Talk:OnLive#OnLive_Platform|July 2011]],[[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Archive_89#OnLive_.28again.29|August 2011]] and [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Archive_92|Febuary 2012]]

Today I was doing some minor clear up on the [[OnLive]] article and as the first sentence says "OnLive Is A Cloud Gaming Platform" I appended Platform next to "Cloud Gaming" in the infobox, only for it to be instantly reverted. Considering we have developers, publishers and gaming new sites that refer to OnLive as a platform, why on earth can we not call it a platform on Wikipedia? Heck {{url|http://www.eurogamer.net/|Eurogamer}} list it fourth in their list of Platforms and as illustrated in previous discussions I can provide citations for several developers and publishers calling it such.

Titles require specific development for OnLive, It has its own SDK, multiplayer is restricted to OnLive users with other OnLive users only, it enables games to be played on a wide range of devices including Android tablets, they have their own console, store front, social aspects, accessories and all sort of things that you would usually associate with a gaming platform yet there seems to be a continuing divide on if we can or cannot call it such. Heck as referenced above we have people reverting the word "Platform" from an infobox but leaving it in the article. The same issues seem to be occuring on individual title pages too, [[Borderlands_(video_game)|Borderlands]] states OnLive under platforms, where as it gets instantly reverted from other titles.

At the end of this discussion last time, the following comment was made:
'''It looks like something solid is forming regarding OnLive, Steam, Gaikai etc. Anyone care to create a passage of text for the guidelines?, that we can vote on and point to in future. - X201 (talk) 09:06, 13 February 2012 (UTC)'''Which seems not to have occurred in any form.

Can we please come up with some kind of consensus on what to do here, while there ARE similarities to Gaikai it is clearly grey label middleware, Steam is a distribution platform with social and multiplayer aspects which prides itself on providing "PC Gaming" (predominantly) and if I buy a retail version of a title I can play with owners who bought it via Steam and so forth. While OnLive is to my eyes (and multiple citable sources) a separate platform.

[[User:Adycarter|Adycarter]] ([[User talk:Adycarter|talk]]) 17:48, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

:"Platform" for our purposes of listing within the infobox has to be some piece of hardward; Onlive does not require that, and thus acts at the middleware like Steam. We don't list Steam in a list of platforms unless the game is exclusive to it for PC/Mac versions, as to avoid to giving issues of storefront/middleware favoritism. Hence, we have to treat Onlive as a storefront (even though they do offer a piece of hardware it is not required to use it). --[[User:Masem|M<font size="-3">ASEM</font>]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 17:57, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

::I think he means in the actual [[OnLive]] article: [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=OnLive&diff=485941255&oldid=485941205], not in game articles. —&nbsp;<small>&nbsp;[[user:Hellknowz|<font color="#B00">HELL</font>KNOWZ]]&nbsp;&nbsp;▎[[User talk:Hellknowz|TALK]]</small> 18:00, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

:::Pretty much yes. The OnLive article recognising it as a Platform is my desired outcome. The game article infoboxes are a whole other can of worms (and massively inconsistent as it is anyway) and as previous discussions covered considering the "Hardware for Infobox status" argument I can live with OnLive living in "Distribution Method" on most game articles for now. [[User:Adycarter|Adycarter]] ([[User talk:Adycarter|talk]]) 18:04, 6 April 2012 (UTC)


== Page for [[Elden Ring Shadow of the Erdtree]]? ==
:::In the OnLive article, "platform" is fine, understanding that the english word "platform" has a broad range of meanings, but includes the hardware platform and the software platform aspects. It's important that just because "platform" is used on the Onlive article to describe it, that point is not used to push OnLive as an entry in "platform" for the infobox template. --[[User:Masem|M<font size="-3">ASEM</font>]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 18:06, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
::::I am in agreement with Masem. There is not movement from my February position. - [[User:Hahnchen|hahnch]][[User:Hahnchen/E|<font color="green">e</font>]][[User:Hahnchen|n]] 20:44, 6 April 2012 (UTC)


Given Shadow of the Erdtree's treatment as a "game" at the Game Awards, I'd say it's more deserving than most of its own page due to its outsized notability. However, I want to be sure that consensus is there before I bother trying to potentially make it. [[User:Zxcvbnm|ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ]] ([[User talk:Zxcvbnm|ᴛ]]) 23:30, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
:I think we can get consensus on two things. One, OnLive is widely described as a platform, though what kind of platform is rarely if ever rigorously defined. And two, we are operating without a reliable source to define what constitutes a video game platform. It seems a consensus (or maybe just a status quo) was reached at some point to say that a video game platform is a computing platform that videogames run on, but that to me seems arbitrary and ripe for review. Can someone provide an RS for that definition or a rationale for why it cannot or should not be something else? [[User:ButOnMethItIs|ButOnMethItIs]] ([[User talk:ButOnMethItIs|talk]]) 01:21, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
:I am surprised it doesn't have a page yet. All three Skyrim DLCs have their own pages, so I don't see why Shadow of the Erdtree can't. [[User:QuicoleJR|QuicoleJR]] ([[User talk:QuicoleJR|talk]]) 23:35, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
:Shadow of the Erdtree was treated as DLC at the Game Awards - they made it clear all DLC, expansions, remakes, and remasters can qualify for any of the awards.
:Given that the only real in-depth coverage would be in reviews - nothing about new gameplay or development aspects - it doesn't make sense to have a separate article. [[User:Masem|M<span style="font-variant: small-caps">asem</span>]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 00:04, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
::Could there be discussion of the game's plotline? [[User:(Oinkers42)|(Oinkers42)]] ([[User talk:(Oinkers42)|talk]]) 00:22, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:::I'd say it depends entirely on coverage; we've got plenty of DLC articles I think we probably shouldn't have, and plenty I think justify themselves. (From the above mentions, I'm not sure that the Skyrim expansions really justify themselves, likewise ''[[The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt – Hearts of Stone]]'' and ''[[The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt – Blood and Wine]]'' basically have nothing there indicating separate notability. Versus ''[[BioShock 2: Minerva's Den]]'', which has the benefit of more development info, as well as an outsized influential legacy on other games, it wasn't "just" another DLC.) I would say that ''[[Elden Ring]]'' is pretty lean at 3400ish words, so there's not even potential page size issues to consider. I think it makes a lot more sense to build out the info in ''Elden Ring'' and ''then'' decide on a split. [[User:David Fuchs|<span style="color: #ad3e00;">Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs</span>]] <sup><small>[[User talk:David Fuchs|<span style="color: #ad3e00;">talk</span>]]</small></sup> 00:34, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
::::The other factor to keep in mind is that per [[WP:NOPAGE]], just because a piece of DLC may be notable due to reception, is there enough unique content that requires a separate article from the main game, or is the DLC better covered under a comprehensive article? For what's there for Erfdtree, one article seems the best solution, unless there is a massive amount of development information that hasn't been found yet (doubtful) [[User:Masem|M<span style="font-variant: small-caps">asem</span>]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 01:19, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
::::{{xt|"I think it makes a lot more sense to build out the info in Elden Ring and then decide on a split."}} I wish more people followed this guideline instead of assuming notability when starting these articles with barely any content. Gameplay for a DLC is not usually not going to be much different than the base game's even with a couple of new things introduced to it, which just leaves the development, plot, and reception sections. Those could easily be summarized in a paragraph or two within the base game's article, and if it does start to expand, ''then'' we'd could make the decision to split it. For some reason, we've always had this issue with the Souls games, with articles created on [[Stormveil Castle|locations]], [[Sif (Dark Souls)|bosses]], [[Ranni the Witch|NPCs]], and concepts like [[Bonfire (Dark Souls)|bonfires]] that usually just feature passing mentions cited from game reviews, some of which having merged by consensus and then brought back in almost the same exact state. ~ [[User:Dissident93|<b style="color: #660000;">''Dissident93''</b>]] <sup>([[User talk:Dissident93|<b style="color: #D18719;">''talk''</b>]])</sup> 14:51, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Yes, agreed, the ''Souls'' area has been a particularly bad area for unnecessary article spinouts. [[User:Sergecross73|<span style="color:green">Sergecross73</span>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<span style="color:teal">msg me</span>]] 18:08, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::I'd advise staying on focus to Erdtree for now; if any split-outs (Or the topic of how much should dictate a split-out as a whole) are under question, then I'd suggest forming a separate discussion for this, given this is outside the smaller scope of this discussion and would impact a lot of articles. ''[[Magneton (Pokémon)|Magneton]] Considerer:'' '''[[User:Pokelego999|Pokelego999]]''' ([[User Talk:Pokelego999|Talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Pokelego999|Contribs]]) 18:55, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Erdtree and other DLCs are no different here. I was simply bringing up the fact that the Souls series in particular has always had the problem of having spinoff articles created before they were expanded upon in the article of their respective games. ~ [[User:Dissident93|<b style="color: #660000;">''Dissident93''</b>]] <sup>([[User talk:Dissident93|<b style="color: #D18719;">''talk''</b>]])</sup> 23:01, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Exactly, it's a recurring issue in the subject area, spanning many years of discussions and some of the same overzealous editors. [[User:Sergecross73|<span style="color:green">Sergecross73</span>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<span style="color:teal">msg me</span>]] 23:25, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::Now [[Blighttown]] was just created. ~ [[User:Dissident93|<b style="color: #660000;">''Dissident93''</b>]] <sup>([[User talk:Dissident93|<b style="color: #D18719;">''talk''</b>]])</sup> 16:45, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::Bloated and [[WP:BOMBARD|bombarded]] to maximum levels to try to create the illusion of being a necessary split, I see. [[User:Sergecross73|<span style="color:green">Sergecross73</span>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<span style="color:teal">msg me</span>]] 20:26, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::There is consensus here that is largely against these Souls spinoff articles. Should we nominate all of them for deletion/merging? ~ [[User:Dissident93|<b style="color: #660000;">''Dissident93''</b>]] <sup>([[User talk:Dissident93|<b style="color: #D18719;">''talk''</b>]])</sup> 22:00, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::Unless there is at least one dedicted article to covering it (at bare minimum) , yes these should be merged. [[User:Masem|M<span style="font-variant: small-caps">asem</span>]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 22:13, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::From what I can tell, this seems to be a "consensus" of only two or three editors. I don't think that's enough for something that would impact several articles. I also don't think it would make sense to only discuss Souls spinouts when several other video games have something like this, whether it be levels, items, weapons, and more. I feel as if a larger discussion on spinout articles for video game elements in general (not just Souls) would be necessary, rather than singling out one franchise. Either way, I think a larger consensus would be needed than this discussion. <span style="border:#000000;border:2px solid #000000;padding:2px">'''λ''' [[User:NegativeMP1|<span style="color:#264e85">'''Negative'''</span>]][[User talk:NegativeMP1|<span style="color:#7d43b5">'''MP1'''</span>]]</span> 22:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Some of them were already merged in the past and brought back, so there is precedent for this sort of thing. And while [[WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS]] for other series, it's particularly a problem for the Souls games. ~ [[User:Dissident93|<b style="color: #660000;">''Dissident93''</b>]] <sup>([[User talk:Dissident93|<b style="color: #D18719;">''talk''</b>]])</sup> 22:38, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::I'd recommend nominating a couple of the worst offenders, and then proceeding from there depending on how that plays out. [[User:Sergecross73|<span style="color:green">Sergecross73</span>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<span style="color:teal">msg me</span>]] 22:45, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::Yeah, some of them are probably decent enough to keep but certainly not all/most. ~ [[User:Dissident93|<b style="color: #660000;">''Dissident93''</b>]] <sup>([[User talk:Dissident93|<b style="color: #D18719;">''talk''</b>]])</sup> 22:48, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:┌──────────────────────────────────────────┘<br/>Another new one today [[Northern Undead Asylum]]<span id="Masem:1735066253435:Wikipedia_talkFTTCLNWikiProject_Video_games" class="FTTCmt"> —&nbsp;[[User:Masem|M<span style="font-variant: small-caps">asem</span>]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 18:50, 24 December 2024 (UTC)</span>
::{{Ping|PrimalMustelid}} I could at least understand Blighttown as it received reception for its poor technical performance, but how is the tutorial level notable? ~ [[User:Dissident93|<b style="color: #660000;">''Dissident93''</b>]] <sup>([[User talk:Dissident93|<b style="color: #D18719;">''talk''</b>]])</sup> 20:43, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:::I'm only making two ''Dark Souls'' locations, both of which I've done based on significant sources. The Northern Undead Asylum is pretty significant in that unlike many other video game tutorials, this particular tutorial has been credited with carving a unique path by not hand-holding the player along the way and throwing a fairly challenging tutorial boss into the mix (at the time, definitely not your average tutorial). It, along with the Asylum Demon, have been credited with preparing players for the wider difficulty of the game, and first impressions are especially important in video games like this. [[User:PrimalMustelid|PrimalMustelid]] ([[User talk:PrimalMustelid|talk]]) 20:57, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Your "significant sources" for Northern Undead Asylum include a greatest bosses list, two strategy guides, and a top ten tutorial levels list by a generally unreliable source (Dualshockers). Even if the other sources are valid, there's no reason why this couldn't be a paragraph or two within the Dark Souls article. Seriously, what is with this series that compels people to try and justify as many spinoff articles as possible? ~ [[User:Dissident93|<b style="color: #660000;">''Dissident93''</b>]] <sup>([[User talk:Dissident93|<b style="color: #D18719;">''talk''</b>]])</sup> 21:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Those aren't what I consider "significant sources;" they're more supplements to the overall article. What I'd consider significant sources are those written by ''NME'' and ''Goomba Stomp Magazine'' primarily since they both wrote analyses for the Northern Undead Asylum, with ''Arcade Sushi'' communicating similar commentary on the significance of it as a tutorial level. I would consider the main problem with an attempted merge into the main ''Dark Souls'' articles to be that it's a bit difficult to insert into there. If this helps, there aren't any other individual fictional elements that can be spun off into their own articles because of the fact that they lack significant commentary in relation to specific game designs. I do think that a list article for locations in the ''Dark Souls'' series could potentially work as long as there's a development section and reception section for the technical and philosophical aspects of game design, but I'm not really interested in creating list articles at the moment. [[User:PrimalMustelid|PrimalMustelid]] ([[User talk:PrimalMustelid|talk]]) 21:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::I really don't think "Goomba Stomp Magazine" is a reliable source. Certainly not one to indicate notability... [[User:Sergecross73|<span style="color:green">Sergecross73</span>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<span style="color:teal">msg me</span>]] 22:50, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::How about this: in the video game sources page, there should be a consensus on whether Goomba Stomp Magazine can be considered a reliable source or not. If not, I will happily redirect or merge the article somewhere into the Dark Souls article (and maybe the locations list if it ever comes to fruition). I’ll leave the source evaluation up to you guys, although I can initiate the discussion if you guys want. [[User:PrimalMustelid|PrimalMustelid]] ([[User talk:PrimalMustelid|talk]]) 22:54, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Sure, but looking at their [https://goombastomp.com/about-2/ About Us] page, I think it'll be a short discussion... [[User:Sergecross73|<span style="color:green">Sergecross73</span>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<span style="color:teal">msg me</span>]] 22:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::That’s fine with me. If and once there is official consensus that it is not a reliable source, I will merge or redirect the article, no questions asked. [[User:PrimalMustelid|PrimalMustelid]] ([[User talk:PrimalMustelid|talk]]) 23:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::Discussion started [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources#Goomba Stomp Magazine]]. [[User:Sergecross73|<span style="color:green">Sergecross73</span>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<span style="color:teal">msg me</span>]] 23:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::Putting notability of the asylum aside, I honestly wasn’t aware that there was a discussion regarding Dark Souls element articles and may have put fuel to the flame by creating the Blighttown article. Bad timing on my part I suppose.
:::::::::::I suppose that the character articles are a matter of debate, but is having a few spinoff articles really that bad in practice? I can see a few articles like [[Anor Londo]] passing on the grounds that it has a good amount of significant coverage and therefore would fit awkwardly into the 2011 video game article. I also see someone argue that the bonfire article’s sources supposedly only have “passing mentions,” but a lot of sources in the reception section literally indicate otherwise from the title to the full text. Again, I don’t mind a merge of some of the Souls articles, but some articles have significant coverage to justify independent notability in my opinion. [[User:PrimalMustelid|PrimalMustelid]] ([[User talk:PrimalMustelid|talk]]) 02:41, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::Also, I decided to redirect the Northern Undead Asylum into the 2011 video game article. I’ll figure out what to do in a “merge” process, but it’ll probably entail being part of a “retrospective review” subsection of the overall game from after the 2018 remastered version release. [[User:PrimalMustelid|PrimalMustelid]] ([[User talk:PrimalMustelid|talk]]) 06:06, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::On that note, I would just like to mention that I've always been annoyed by the tendency to make a new article on an element of a game without adding ''any'' of that relevant content to the game's article. For example, we have an article on [[Shiori Fujisaki]] from Tokimeki Memorial, but neither the franchise page nor the individual game pages mention the character at all, leaving the article effectively orphaned except for a navbox that doesn't appear on mobile. [[User:QuicoleJR|QuicoleJR]] ([[User talk:QuicoleJR|talk]]) 12:27, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::Yeah, I'm always surprised by that. I personally always try to link to my article creations as much as I can (within the realms of being appropriate) to help the odds of people actually viewing/reading it. [[User:Sergecross73|<span style="color:green">Sergecross73</span>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<span style="color:teal">msg me</span>]] 17:19, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
:You haven't really advanced any argument for it. ''"more deserving than most of its own page due to its outsized notability"'' is just a long way of saying "[[WP:ITSNOTABLE]]". [[User:Sergecross73|<span style="color:green">Sergecross73</span>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<span style="color:teal">msg me</span>]] 01:39, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
::If it's something to the scale of ''[[Grand Theft Auto IV: The Lost and Damned]]'' and ''[[Grand Theft Auto: The Ballad of Gay Tony]]'', I don't see how a separate page for the ''Elden Ring'' expansion would hurt. ''[[Command & Conquer: Yuri's Revenge]]'' may be notable on its own, but idk if the ''[[Command & Conquer: Red Alert 3 – Uprising|Red Alert 3 – Uprising]]'' expandalone would be worth a separate article as it only mildly covered the game and not divulge much on its development and impact. [[User:Blakegripling ph|Blake Gripling]] ([[User talk:Blakegripling ph|talk]]) 03:44, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Looking at the lost and Damned, for example, shows a ton of unsourced gameplay content, very little development, and very little reception that I question it's need to be sepearate. [[User:Masem|M<span style="font-variant: small-caps">asem</span>]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 00:28, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
::::I'd honestly merge and/or redirect a lot of the listed titles unless some more substance can be found. As it stands they're not showing much independent notability of the subject. ''[[Magneton (Pokémon)|Magneton]] Considerer:'' '''[[User:Pokelego999|Pokelego999]]''' ([[User Talk:Pokelego999|Talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Pokelego999|Contribs]]) 14:55, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
::To be clear: the DLC passes GNG already, and this feels like you are implying that it's not notable (since you are citing an AfD argument after all). I was never trying to ask whether it was ''notable'', which is rather obvious on its face, but saying that its high degree of critical acclaim merited its own page.
::As for the in-universe articles, Souls simply happens to be a very critically acclaimed and analyzed series - it inspired an entire genre after all - with an outsized amount of notable things in their universe. Bonfires as a concept inspired a host of games to implement identical or similar game mechanics, even by testimony of their developers. I don't want to point fingers or anything or reignite the Pokemon test, but I don't see people griping this much about [[Galarian Corsola]] or [[Klefki]] despite them arguably being an order of magnitude less important in their respective games than [[Torrent]] or [[Bonfire (Dark Souls)|bonfires]]. [[User:Zxcvbnm|ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ]] ([[User talk:Zxcvbnm|ᴛ]]) 18:44, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:::I simply said you hadn't advanced an argument, because...you hadn't advanced an argument. [[User:Sergecross73|<span style="color:green">Sergecross73</span>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<span style="color:teal">msg me</span>]] 18:49, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Yeah. Subjects can pass notability but still be covered exclusively in other, larger articles. That's what [[Wikipedia:NOPAGE]] is all about. ''[[Magneton (Pokémon)|Magneton]] Considerer:'' '''[[User:Pokelego999|Pokelego999]]''' ([[User Talk:Pokelego999|Talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Pokelego999|Contribs]]) 18:59, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:I would not oppose to a spin-out article for the DLC, if it has a development section that is extensive enough. Right now I think we can develop the content in the main article first before considering a [[WP:SIZESPLIT]]. [[User:OceanHok|OceanHok]] ([[User talk:OceanHok|talk]]) 11:27, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
:I agree. @[[User:Zxcvbnm|Zxcvbnm]], I might have a crack at drafting too to help and see if in that process I can generate good sourcing. The [[WP:NOPAGE]] argument is a little funny to me because we're talking about a very well-covered, award-nominated expansion to one of the biggest games of the past decade. If we're honestly saying the copious amount of coverage out there in terms of its gameplay additions, potential development history, reviews and discourse around its award eligibility is not independently notable or preferable, I would honestly say that the vast majority of expansion articles in this WP should be merged immediately. [[User:Vrxces|VRXCES]] ([[User talk:Vrxces|talk]]) 03:29, 4 January 2025 (UTC)


==New Articles (December 2 to December 14)==
::I'm gonna have to go with ButOnMethItIs here. Unless we have a solid set of reliable sources as to the specifics of what we define as a platform there's no reason to keep up with the current borderline synthesis. I realize we need to draw a line somewhere, but if reliable sources recognize it as a platform and not a service (which seems to be what we categorize it as) then we need to follow the industry. --[[User:Teancum|Teancum]] ([[User talk:Teancum|talk]]) 02:23, 7 April 2012 (UTC)


{{main|Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements}}
:::This is a primary source but how does it factor into the discussion? http://support.onlive.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/178/~/onlive-app-available-platforms ... Here OnLive refers to it's offering repeatedly as a service, available on platforms that are more familiar to what we already use in infoboxes, i.e., operating systems. Also a quick google without verifying the results too indepth has 9 million hits for "Onlive platform", and 32 million for "Onlive service". While I understand some media outlets say platform, this idea of a platform-on-a-platform messes with my head. How do you unravel the inconsistent use of both "platform" and "service" between various RS's and the primary source itself? -- [[User:Ferret|ferret]] ([[User_talk:Ferret|talk]]) 02:34, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
::::If you click on "service", you'll see that they define the service as a "a groundbreaking on-demand video game platform". And there's no reason that services and platforms should be mutually exclusive or that platform-on-a-platform shouldn't be treated as a proper platform. But you do bring up an important point: our reliable sources are less reliable than any of us would like. If our reliable sources conflict or are too vague to be helpful, I think it becomes a matter of editor consensus. [[User:ButOnMethItIs|ButOnMethItIs]] ([[User talk:ButOnMethItIs|talk]]) 03:22, 7 April 2012 (UTC)


<small>A listing of all articles newly added to the Video Games Wikiproject (regardless of creation date). Generated by v3.20 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --'''[[User:PresN|<span style="color:green">Pres</span>]][[User talk:PresN|<span style="color:blue">N</span>]]''' 15:19, 16 December 2024 (UTC)</small>
:Wouldn't OnLine be comparable to [[Famicom Disk System]], [[Satellaview]], [[Steam]], [[PSN]], [[Virtual Console]], [[Nintendo Power (cartridge)]], etc., in that it's a distribution system on a platform? The platform is "Computer" (or Windows/Mac), the distribution system is OnLive. Just like [[Satellaview]] games are SNES games, distributed by Satellaview; they may be exclusive to a specific distribution system, but the platform is the required hardware to play. You cannot play games on OnLive without a computer; thus the platform is the computer, not OnLive. If OnLive was a platform, I could get OnLive and play games on it with no other equipment or software. <span style="13px Sylfaen;background-color:#000000;padding:0 3px 0 3px;">[[User:Salvidrim|<span class="smallcaps" style="font-variant:small-caps;"><span style="color:white">Salvidrim!</span></span>]]</span> 03:34, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
:::I direct you to [http://blog.onlive.com/2010/11/17/introducing-the-onlive-game-system/ this], which is a hard box. A computer is in fact '''''not''''' required, but is one of the many methods to do cloud gaming via the system. I also should publicly state I'm not pro-platform here, but the fact is OnLive is going to be the first of many cloud-based platforms in the future; it's just where things are headed. --[[User:Teancum|Teancum]] ([[User talk:Teancum|talk]]) 11:24, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
::The "platform" in that context also extends to iPads, Android devices, GoogleTV, certain TVs and BluRay players though, it may be a platform on a platform as someone above me stated, but the platform it runs on is a bit wider in scope that just one platform or "computers". [[User:Adycarter|Adycarter]] ([[User talk:Adycarter|talk]]) 10:58, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
:::I'll clarify a bit: what matters is not the hardware itself, but the OS. In the case of classic consoles, the hardware & OS are not distinguishable (a SNES & a SNES's OS are basically one entity). Thus, in the case of games being playable on one OS, on many physical pieces of hardware (iOS is an easy example), the OS is the platform. Same goes with, say, PSP, or GBA, where many versions of the hardware sport the same basic OS. We never differentiate a game as being playable on DS or DS Lite, because the OS (a DS's OS) is the same; same with PS3 & PS3 Slim. In the case of games being playable on different OS ('''not''' different games on different OS, as was common in the 80's), then the platform is Windows/Mac/Etc. As for OnLive, in light of the above, I would say it is a piece of distribution system software for computer games (where the platform still is the OS) AND a cloud-based home console platform; the two products are completely different both in how they work and what they are. <span style="13px Sylfaen;background-color:#000000;padding:0 3px 0 3px;">[[User:Salvidrim|<span class="smallcaps" style="font-variant:small-caps;"><span style="color:white">Salvidrim!</span></span>]]</span> 18:47, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
::::But the end result is the same? Classing it as two separate things would surely just over complicate this madness even further? Its apparent there is no actual set of rules around what counts as a platform as others have mentioned, I don't see why people can't realise that OnLive is just the first of many "Platforms on Multiple other Platforms" and come up with a sane consistent way for dealing with this and other future similar platforms. [[User:Adycarter|Adycarter]] ([[User talk:Adycarter|talk]]) 14:54, 8 April 2012 (UTC)


*'''Articles deleted/removed:''' [[Guren Island]], [[The Quest for Thelda]], [[VoxelStorm]], [[Arachnotron]], [[ArchVile]], [[Hell Knight]], [[Mancubus]], [[Pain Elemental]], [[Revenant (Doom)]], [[Weekday Warrior]], [[List of Cuphead speedrunning records]], [[Red Alert (video game)]], [[Chef RPG]], [[NoFrag]], [[Yoshi's Island series villains]], [[List of longest-running video game franchises]], [[Luigi Circuit]], [[WePlay Academy League]], [[WePlay Ultimate Fighting League]], [[Yalla Group (company)]], [[Atomas]], [[Kim Hyung Tae (video game artist)]], [[PLAY: The Games Festival]], [[Blast Monkeys]], [[FloodSim]]
:Why is this discussion still taking place? The platform-on-a-platform argument is correct, but pretty much every distribution method can be described that way. Xbox Live Indie Games is a platform-on-a-platform, so is Steam, so is iTunes. OnLive is unambiguously a service, so why not describe it as such? - [[User:Hahnchen|hahnch]][[User:Hahnchen/E|<font color="green">e</font>]][[User:Hahnchen|n]] 13:07, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
*'''Drafts deleted/removed:''' [[Draft:Godskin Noble]], [[Draft:Lego Cube]], [[Draft:Spilled!]], [[Draft:Zotac Zone]], [[Draft:Kevaniii]], [[Draft:Slap Happy Rhythm Busters]], [[Draft:MikeyCarry]], [[Draft:Thrack-The-Fox]], [[Draft:Country Clash RP]], [[Draft:Doom: The Dark Ages]], [[Draft:Squad Busters]], [[Draft:Cry, Xcry]], [[Draft:Wayward Compass]], [[Draft:Endless Wander]], [[Draft:Silent Hill: Townfall]], [[Draft:Spinfinty Interactive]], [[Draft:Super Pionero]], [[Draft:Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: The Last Ronin (video game)]]
::Because there are multiple reputable sources calling it a platform, other "platforms on a platform" also tend to be on one platform not a dozen and tend to be just a distribution method rather than something that games requiring porting to, featuring specific platform only multiplayer and friends lists along with specific hardware available just for it (Both the Microconsole and the OnLive Universal Wireless Controller). OnLive has its own hardware, its own OS/User layer, its own porting process, its own SDK, its own market place, its own multiplayer community and is called a "Platform" by multiple reputable gaming sites. [[User:Adycarter|Adycarter]] ([[User talk:Adycarter|talk]]) 14:54, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
*'''Articles redirected:''' [[Simon Minter]], [[Yoshimitsu]], [[Drawn to Life (video game series)]], [[GameRevolution]], [[Pokémon Trading Card Game Live]], [[Music of Doom (2016)]], [[Tetris Zone]], [[Joysound Dive]], [[Stardew Valley Guidebook]], [[Godzilla 2: War of the Monsters]], [[Command & Conquer: The Ultimate Collection]], [[Purple Francis]], [[Saint Seiya: Soldiers' Soul]]
:::So what? It is unambiguously a service, so why don't you describe it as such instead of repeating this discussion every month? - [[User:Hahnchen|hahnch]][[User:Hahnchen/E|<font color="green">e</font>]][[User:Hahnchen|n]] 15:38, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
*'''Articles moved to draft space:''' [[Draft:Hasbro Retro Arcade|Hasbro Retro Arcade]]
:::: Black Paint is unambiguously black, it doesn't stop it also getting called paint. I've got involved in this discussion once before, where no outcome was reached so I've raised it again, I'm hardly raising it every month. You say its a service, myself, others in this discussion and reliable sources disagree [[User:Adycarter|Adycarter]] ([[User talk:Adycarter|talk]]) 16:20, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
*'''Categories deleted/removed:''' [[:Category:Homebrew video games|Homebrew video games]], [[:Category:Hunting in video games|Hunting in video games]], [[:Category:Video games in East Asia|Video games in East Asia]], [[:Category:Physics-based puzzle video games|Physics-based puzzle video games]], [[:Category:Tactical video games|Tactical video games]], [[:Category:Action horror video games|Action horror video games]], [[:Category:Blizzard Entertainment antagonists|Blizzard Entertainment antagonists]], [[:Category:Capcom antagonists|Capcom antagonists]], [[:Category:Final Fantasy protagonists|Final Fantasy protagonists]], [[:Category:Fire Emblem protagonists|Fire Emblem protagonists]], [[:Category:Koei Tecmo protagonists|Koei Tecmo protagonists]], [[:Category:Konami antagonists|Konami antagonists]], [[:Category:Konami protagonists|Konami protagonists]], [[:Category:Mario (franchise) protagonists|Mario (franchise) protagonists]], [[:Category:Microsoft antagonists|Microsoft antagonists]], [[:Category:Microsoft protagonists|Microsoft protagonists]], [[:Category:Namco antagonists|Namco antagonists]], [[:Category:Namco protagonists|Namco protagonists]], [[:Category:Nintendo antagonists|Nintendo antagonists]], [[:Category:Nintendo protagonists|Nintendo protagonists]], [[:Category:Pokémon protagonists|Pokémon protagonists]], [[:Category:SNK antagonists|SNK antagonists]], [[:Category:SNK protagonists|SNK protagonists]], [[:Category:Sega antagonists|Sega antagonists]], [[:Category:Sega protagonists|Sega protagonists]], [[:Category:Sony Interactive Entertainment antagonists|Sony Interactive Entertainment antagonists]], [[:Category:Sony Interactive Entertainment protagonists|Sony Interactive Entertainment protagonists]], [[:Category:Square Enix antagonists|Square Enix antagonists]], [[:Category:Square Enix protagonists|Square Enix protagonists]], [[:Category:Team Fortress|Team Fortress]], [[:Category:The Legend of Zelda protagonists|The Legend of Zelda protagonists]], [[:Category:Transmedia storytelling|Transmedia storytelling]], [[:Category:Ubisoft antagonists|Ubisoft antagonists]], [[:Category:Ubisoft protagonists|Ubisoft protagonists]], [[:Category:Video game antagonists|Video game antagonists]], [[:Category:Video game protagonists|Video game protagonists]], [[:Category:Wikipedia categories named after video games|Wikipedia categories named after video games]], [[:Category:BattleTech games|BattleTech games]], [[:Category:Mario (franchise) locations|Mario (franchise) locations]], [[:Category:Asia-exclusive video games|Asia-exclusive video games]], [[:Category:Germany-exclusive video games|Germany-exclusive video games]], [[:Category:Point-and-click video games|Point-and-click video games]], [[:Category:Region-exclusive video game hardware|Region-exclusive video game hardware]], [[:Category:Russia-exclusive video games|Russia-exclusive video games]], [[:Category:Cancelled massively multiplayer online games|Cancelled massively multiplayer online games]], [[:Category:Falling-sand games|Falling-sand games]], [[:Category:History of video game consoles|History of video game consoles]]
:::::Do you disagree that it's a service? Why do you suggest on not-White Paint? I don't think that any reliable source disagrees that OnLive is a service. http://onlive.com, what is the big word next to the name? - [[User:Hahnchen|hahnch]][[User:Hahnchen/E|<font color="green">e</font>]][[User:Hahnchen|n]] 16:28, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
*'''New categories:''' [[:Category:Neal.fun games|Neal.fun games]] <small>— {{u|0x16w}}</small> <small>(newly tagged - originally created 9 months ago)</small>, [[:Category:Video games by developer|Video games by developer]] <small>— {{u|QuantumFoam66}}</small> <small>(newly tagged - originally created 1 month ago)</small>, [[:Category:Funsoft GmbH games|Funsoft GmbH games]] <small>— {{u|Mika1h}}</small>, [[:Category:Funsoft games|Funsoft games]] <small>— {{u|Mika1h}}</small>, [[:Category:Gears of War characters|Gears of War characters]] <small>— {{u|(Oinkers42)}}</small>, [[:Category:Mother (video game series) characters|Mother (video game series) characters]] <small>— {{u|Kung Fu Man}}</small>, [[:Category:Pac-Man characters|Pac-Man characters]] <small>— {{u|Kung Fu Man}}</small>, [[:Category:BattleTech video games|BattleTech video games]] <small>— {{u|QuantumFoam66}}</small>, [[:Category:Video games based on Starship Troopers|Video games based on Starship Troopers]] <small>— {{u|QuantumFoam66}}</small>, [[:Category:Video games designed by Chris Sawyer|Video games designed by Chris Sawyer]] <small>— {{u|Mika1h}}</small>, [[:Category:Esports competitions in Belgium|Esports competitions in Belgium]] <small>— {{u|Gray eyes}}</small> <small>(newly tagged - originally created 1 year ago)</small>, [[:Category:Esports competitions in France|Esports competitions in France]] <small>— {{u|Gray eyes}}</small> <small>(newly tagged - originally created 1 year ago)</small>, [[:Category:Esports competitions in Spain|Esports competitions in Spain]] <small>— {{u|Gray eyes}}</small> <small>(newly tagged - originally created 1 year ago)</small>, [[:Category:Video games about religion|Video games about religion]] <small>— {{u|NeoBatfreak}}</small> <small>(newly tagged - originally created 5 years ago)</small>, [[:Category:Video games developed in Sri Lanka|Video games developed in Sri Lanka]] <small>— {{u|Phediuk}}</small> <small>(newly tagged - originally created 3 years ago)</small>, [[:Category:Video games set in Sikh Empire|Video games set in Sikh Empire]] <small>— {{u|JazzyBsolarjatt}}</small> <small>(newly tagged - originally created 2 years ago)</small>, [[:Category:Coconut Island Games games|Coconut Island Games games]] <small>— {{u|Waxworker}}</small>, [[:Category:Video games with terraforming|Video games with terraforming]] <small>— {{u|Vitaly Zdanevich}}</small> <small>(newly tagged - originally created 15 days ago)</small>
::::::I don't disagree it is a service, I've never said I do. However the OnLive Gaming Service and the OnLive Desktop Service are both facets of the OnLive Platform, as stated above by the user ButOnMethItIs "If you click on "service", you'll see that they define the service as a "a groundbreaking on-demand video game platform". IMO the whole thing is a pile of confusion not helped by the fact everything, even the company shares the name "OnLive", All I want is some consistency about how I can refer to it in the main OnLive article and in the infoboxes of titles, as opposed to the current seemingly random approach that varies from title to title and half the time gets reverted seconds later. We can call it the "OnLive Turnip" for all I care, as long as we get something consistent that isn't reverted every 5 seconds. [[User:Adycarter|Adycarter]] ([[User talk:Adycarter|talk]]) 16:35, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
*'''New templates:''' {{tl|F1 Esports driver results legend}} <small>— {{u|Zwerg Nase}}</small> <small>(newly tagged - originally created 4 years ago)</small>, {{tl|2025 Call of Duty League standings}} <small>— {{u|Brandon Downes}}</small>


<div style="line-height:1.4em !important">
:Just to add more confusion to this, it was announced last night that [[Assault Heroes 2]] is coming to OnLive in the next couple of weeks, this game is only available on the 360 and has no PC version. (The XNA version has been ported to the OnLive SDK, as is the case with the upcoming [[FortressCraft]]) How do we deal with this in regards to the listing of platforms the game is on? We surely can't list "PC" because its not on the PC or if we are doing that do we have to list every platform the OnLive Platform/Service/Whatever is available on? These two are speculated to be the first of many games where there is no PC version but instead an OnLive version [[User:Adycarter|Adycarter]] ([[User talk:Adycarter|talk]]) 12:52, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
'''December 2'''
::I think the clarifying point we'll have to figure out is just what the OnLive SDK is. Everyone says it's an emulated Windows service, and that may be right, but I've never actually seen a reference of that. It could be very well that OnLive servers use a custom OS. Anyone know/have a source? *edit* OnLive's VP is quoted as calling it an "open PC platform" on [http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/121185/OnLive_Opens_SDK_Tools_To_Indie_Devs.php Gamasutra], but that could be simply hardware. *edit 2* Here's the OnLive Developer Conference (seven parts) on [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLkJfh__5So YouTube]. Kinda long, but it might be insightful. --[[User:Teancum|Teancum]] ([[User talk:Teancum|talk]]) 13:31, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
*{{Article status|Unassessed|User:Rotoryu/Hayauchi Super Igo|Rotoryu}} <small>(previously a draft: undrafted by original creator)</small>
:::Even if it is an emulated windows service though (which it could well be) that doesn't really address the issues caused by OnLive "exclusive" titles, even if its found to be Windows its not like the titles are *really* on the Windows / PC platform and labelling them as such would surely lead to confusion? I'll see if I can dig any sources up that are definitive either way. Thinking about it whatever the SDK is based onits probably similar to the way the [[Dreamcast]] OS was done, the article freely admits it was a customised [[Windows CE]] yet obviously the Dreamcast was a platform. [[User:Adycarter|Adycarter]] ([[User talk:Adycarter|talk]]) 13:42, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
*{{Article status|Start|Ananta (video game)|Armandaneshjoo}} <small>(newly tagged – originally created 1 year ago)</small>
::::I agree that the hardware and software OnLive uses for its backend is not relevant to whether or not OnLive is a platform in its own right. No one disputes that Amazon has a cloud platform and the two are very similar in this respect. Software that's available on Amazon's platform is generally described as being on a "web" or "SaaS" platform and I'm hopeful that a catch-all term might cover OnLive and all of its competitors. If that doesn't happen and we decide to list them individually, lists of platforms will get very crowded. [[User:ButOnMethItIs|ButOnMethItIs]] ([[User talk:ButOnMethItIs|talk]]) 15:45, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


'''December 3'''
::::Agreed. Everywhere I've looked OnLive personnel describe it as a PC, but they seem very set on not saying it's a Windows-based platform. Regardless they did specify it's rack-mount PC hardware running multiple virtual instances of machines on one physical platform, that much I can confirm from their developer's conference. The [[Computing platform]] article that is linked to in our infoboxes specifically states "A computing platform includes a hardware architecture and a software framework (including application frameworks), where the combination allows software, particularly application software, to run." Cloud computing is certainly a part of that. The hardware is present on both ends, with the servers running the software and streaming data to the user. By comparison [[Steam (software)|Steam]] (since that's what everyone draws for comparison) is a service that allows you to download the game to run on a given platform (Windows, Mac), and thus is only a service. --[[User:Teancum|Teancum]] ([[User talk:Teancum|talk]]) 17:55, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
*{{Article status|Start|Atlyss|Reconrabbit}} <small>(previously a draft: undrafted by original creator)</small>
*{{Article status|Stub|Garfield: Lasagna World Tour|Cakelot1}} <small>(newly tagged – originally created 2 years ago)</small>


'''December 4'''
:::::I don't think the infoboxes would become massively cluttered if we do deem OnLive to be a platform, the other services are very much designed as middleware or for demos only, as opposed to including all of the other platform facets mentioned above (SDK, Hardware, Features, Exclusive Titles etc etc) Gaikai for example freely states it is simply using the PC versions on a PC in a data centre with no code modifications where as we know full well OnLive is using a different code base and specific hardware. As mentioned earlier several game articles already merrily have OnLive as a platform in the infobox there just seems to be a lack of consensus around its state and I'm hoping to negate future revert wars by forming a solid rule or at based some degree of consensus around it. Also that explantion of why Steam isn't a platform and OnLive is has to be the best way of putting it I've seen, thank you. Further more I just noticed that the [[Bastion (video game)]] article lists Google Chrome in the infobox as a platform, considering that title is also on OnLive it seems strange to me that Google Chrome can merrily be there as a platform yet historically OnLive cannot. [[User:Adycarter|Adycarter]] ([[User talk:Adycarter|talk]]) 10:54, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
*{{Article status|Stub|Zero Divide 2|Sceeegt}} <small>(was previously a redirect – un-redirected 1 month ago)</small>
*{{Article status|Stub|Johnny Hotshot|Angeldeb82}} <small>(newly tagged – originally created 11 months ago)</small>
*{{Article status|Stub|Johnny Impossible|Angeldeb82}} <small>(newly tagged – originally created 11 months ago)</small>
*{{Article status|Stub|Johnny Kung Fu|Angeldeb82}} <small>(newly tagged – originally created 11 months ago)</small>


'''December 5'''
::::::I would put forth another example (albeit a bit silly): OnLive's processing hardware is off in some set of offices somewhere in the world, while the player uses their device merely as a monitor, speakers and a gamepad. This is no different than the Xbox 360 in my living room hooked up to my TV, surround sound and with a wireless gamepad. I could, theoretically, store the 360 miles away and run cables back to my house, hooking them up to my TV, stereo and gamepad. The Xbox 360 is still a console, even though the processing power isn't local. It's the same with OnLive -- players use whatever peripheral as their monitor, speakers and gamepad, but said peripheral does not power the game. --[[User:Teancum|Teancum]] ([[User talk:Teancum|talk]]) 10:48, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
*{{Article status|Stub|Legend of Zord|Ervuss}} <small>(newly tagged – originally created 12 months ago)</small>
:::::::Okay, this topic seems to be winding down and showing a degree of consensus towards "Yes its a platform", I'm going to start amending relevant infoboxes [[User:Adycarter|Adycarter]] ([[User talk:Adycarter|talk]]) 12:51, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
*{{Article status|List|List of Brian Blessed performances|03ElecBerg}} <small>(newly tagged – originally created 5 years ago)</small>
::::::::Too bold, too soon. [[User:ButOnMethItIs|ButOnMethItIs]] ([[User talk:ButOnMethItIs|talk]]) 13:16, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::Perhaps, but it already is on half of them and has been for ages [[User:Adycarter|Adycarter]] ([[User talk:Adycarter|talk]]) 13:20, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
::::::::::That does not mean that you should go and add it to more of them. And since ''you'' started this discussion, I think we can all agree that you are not qualified to judge consensus. So stop implementing what you think is consensus, let the discussion run for a few more days and then let someone impartial judge whether there is consensus or not. Regards '''[[User:SoWhy|<span style="color: #7A2F2F; font-variant:small-caps">So</span>]][[User talk:SoWhy|<span style="color: #474F84; font-variant:small-caps">Why</span>]]''' 13:25, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::::Fine, I'll stop, Wikipedia doesn't exactly make it easy to know what you are and aren't supposed to do though :/ Last time (as mentioned above) someone was supposed to be coming up with some form of rules or whatever and nothing happened, the conversation died and the talk got archived so I figured I'd run with what we've got so far. Obviously thats not the right plan [[User:Adycarter|Adycarter]] ([[User talk:Adycarter|talk]]) 13:29, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
::::::::::::Actually, it does. It's called "[[WP:UCS|common sense]]": Someone actively involved in a discussion on one side cannot impartially determine which side "won" and thus cannot determine consensus correctly. That means that you can argue for a certain outcome but the task of judging whether you were able to sway consensus to this outcome falls to someone not involved. If the discussion is in threat of being archived without consensus being determined, you can always request a neutral third-party to judge consensus, for example at [[WP:AN]]. Regards '''[[User:SoWhy|<span style="color: #7A2F2F; font-variant:small-caps">So</span>]][[User talk:SoWhy|<span style="color: #474F84; font-variant:small-caps">Why</span>]]''' 13:40, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
::::::::::::: Perhaps naively I didn't realise these discussions had to be "won", Its listed on some titles, it gets insta-reverted from others, I was told this was the right place to try and get "back up" on if I was acting correctly, people seemed to agree so I figured I was good to edit further pages without the hope of revert wars. I've clearly totally underestimated the amount of bureaucracy required. I'll sit back now and let whatever is supposed to occur next happen [[User:Adycarter|Adycarter]] ([[User talk:Adycarter|talk]]) 13:46, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::::::: They don't, which is why I used quotation marks. But I think you can agree with me that you, as the one arguing for this change, cannot also be the one impartially judging whether there is consensus to implement this change? Regards '''[[User:SoWhy|<span style="color: #7A2F2F; font-variant:small-caps">So</span>]][[User talk:SoWhy|<span style="color: #474F84; font-variant:small-caps">Why</span>]]''' 13:55, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
::::::::::::::: I grasp that yeah, I just didn't feel I was arguing for a change as much as I was asking for some kind of agreement, if it wasn't on any infoboxes it would be one thing, but as it was under platform on some, distribution method on others and such all I was trying to do was get a consensus on where it should be and some back up that it *should* be for those articles someone seems to defend vehemently and not want it on. From my POV it wasn't an argument for change or a discussion to "win" just me looking for some clarification, I think I say as much above "<sub>All I want is some consistency about how I can refer to it in the main OnLive article and in the infoboxes of titles, as opposed to the current seemingly random approach that varies from title to title and half the time gets reverted seconds later. We can call it the "OnLive Turnip" for all I care, as long as we get something consistent that isn't reverted every 5 seconds.</sub> " thats really all I was here looking for [[User:Adycarter|Adycarter]] ([[User talk:Adycarter|talk]]) 13:59, 15 April 2012 (UTC)


'''December 6'''
:On the subject at hand: I don't think OnLive qualifies as a platform in the sense it's used in the infoboxes. Above discussion shows imho a mix-up of the term "platform" as in "what you use to play the game on" and "platform" as in "what you use to get the game". Onlive, despite using a somewhat different method, belongs in the second category, as does Steam or the Xbob marketplace for example. I think one of the reasons for this confusion is that we list "Microsoft Windows" as a platform in the infobox while the correct way would be to list "[[PC]]" (maybe in the form of "[[PC]] (Microsoft Windows)"). Based on that, I'd propose that we list OnLive, like Steam or similar, in a field called "distribution method" and keep the "platform"-field for the actual hardware platform the game is run on (which would include changing Windows to PC (Windows)). Regards '''[[User:SoWhy|<span style="color: #7A2F2F; font-variant:small-caps">So</span>]][[User talk:SoWhy|<span style="color: #474F84; font-variant:small-caps">Why</span>]]''' 13:50, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
*{{Article status|C|Capcom Fighting Collection 2|RebelYasha}} <small>(newly tagged – originally created 3 months ago)</small>
::Your definition of platform that excludes OnLive is not only arbitrary, but without reliable sources and maybe even consensus. It seems that all it has going for it is that it's worked so far. Can we not use a different definition? Should we not? That's the direction this discussion needs to go in. [[User:ButOnMethItIs|ButOnMethItIs]] ([[User talk:ButOnMethItIs|talk]]) 14:09, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
*{{Article status|C|Fighter Pilot (1983 video game)|Zoq-Fot-Pik}} <small>(newly tagged – originally created 24 days ago)</small>
:::No, it's not arbitrary - I have taken it from our own article [[computing platform#Hardware examples]]. We'd just need to agree to adopt this definition as the one to use in the infobox. That also corresponds to the definition of [[wikt:platform|platform]] as "a particular environment for running other software". Regards '''[[User:SoWhy|<span style="color: #7A2F2F; font-variant:small-caps">So</span>]][[User talk:SoWhy|<span style="color: #474F84; font-variant:small-caps">Why</span>]]''' 17:00, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
*{{Article status|Stub|Glorkian Warrior: The Trials of Glork|Angeldeb82}} <small>(newly tagged – originally created 3 months ago)</small>
::::Why should we adopt that definition? Is it backed by reliable sources? Is it consistent with the way "platform" is used in the industry? As for [[wikt:platform|platform]], a definition that includes environments as platforms a la X Windows would make OnLive a platform. [[User:ButOnMethItIs|ButOnMethItIs]] ([[User talk:ButOnMethItIs|talk]]) 17:21, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
*{{Article status|Start|Nightmare Kart|EnzoTC}} <small>(newly tagged – originally created 5 months ago)</small>
:::::I'd like to reiterate that this isn't a distributor. A distributor is a software-only application. OnLive runs its own dedicated hardware, to which a given player's monitor/speakers/controller are hooked up. Steam merely serves as a storefront, while OnLive powers the games, thus fitting the definition of a [[computing platform|platform]]: "A computing platform includes a hardware architecture and a software framework (including application frameworks), where the combination allows software, particularly application software, to run." --[[User:Teancum|Teancum]] ([[User talk:Teancum|talk]]) 22:11, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
*{{Article status|Start|Racket Club|Kurt Jansson}} <small>(was previously a redirect – un-redirected 3 months ago)</small>
::::::OnLive is a service that allows you to access PC games on other platforms. It's like the example above where you run your Xbox cables 3 miles across town. It's still an Xbox. You build the games for PC, and then you hook into OnLive in order to grant access through their service. You can wrangle the word platform to mean anything, it can mean Steam or the App Store, but we've limited the infobox field essentially to operating systems and virtual machines. OnLive is neither. On platforms, you can build and run anything you want, and it might require homebrew channels or breaching your warranty, but you have complete freedom. OnLive is not like that, it has significantly more constraints borne purely out of commercial agreements. You can't build anything unless they let you. You can't run anything unless they let you. - [[User:Hahnchen|hahnch]][[User:Hahnchen/E|<font color="green">e</font>]][[User:Hahnchen|n]] 23:25, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
*{{Article status|Stub|Real World Golf|Angeldeb82}} <small>(was previously a redirect – un-redirected 3 years ago)</small>
:::::::Show me somewhere reliable that says OnLive doesn't run a platform-specific operating system. I have never, ever seen it say it runs Windows. It runs PC hardware, but everything I've ever seen emphasizes more that it's custom. Unless you can prove via a reliable source that says it runs someone else's OS then there's no proof. --[[User:Teancum|Teancum]] ([[User talk:Teancum|talk]]) 00:25, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
*{{Article status|Start|Rugby Challenge 4|Tamariki}} <small>(newly tagged – originally created 4 months ago)</small>
:::::::You seem awfully certain that OnLive isn't a platform considering that you can't say with much certainty what a platform is. See my comments above. [[User:ButOnMethItIs|ButOnMethItIs]] ([[User talk:ButOnMethItIs|talk]]) 00:35, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
*{{Article status|C|Xbox Wireless Controller|Calerusnak}} <small>(newly tagged – originally created 10 years ago)</small>
::::::::I said a platform was an Operating System (ie Windows) or Virtual Machine (ie Java). I don't have a copy of the OnLive SDK, so I can't tell for certain whether its Windows. Only that it's an SDK and not an NDK. - [[User:Hahnchen|hahnch]][[User:Hahnchen/E|<font color="green">e</font>]][[User:Hahnchen|n]] 18:33, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::Who else says that a platform is an OS or VM such that it would exclude OnLive? If you have neither a reliable source nor a clear consensus on what a platform is in this context, don't you think you're having the wrong conversation? [[User:ButOnMethItIs|ButOnMethItIs]] ([[User talk:ButOnMethItIs|talk]]) 20:38, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
::::::::::This is what Wikipedia has done. It's not me coming up with a radical new definition of platform, but stating what we currently do. This is what we currently do. That is the context. - [[User:Hahnchen|hahnch]][[User:Hahnchen/E|<font color="green">e</font>]][[User:Hahnchen|n]] 21:58, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::::So OnLive isn't a platform because it's not included in our definition of a platform, but we don't actually have a definition of what a platform is, we just have "what we currently do". Is that about right? And from what I can gather, "what we currently do" involves everyone pretending they know what a platform is, lord knows how, and arguing and sometimes editing accordingly. [[User:ButOnMethItIs|ButOnMethItIs]] ([[User talk:ButOnMethItIs|talk]]) 23:02, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


'''December 7'''
I see edits adding this to Platform in infobox of VG articles, citing this talk as "concluded" in favor of such. This is a really long and rambling section and I haven't followed every edit. Has such a concensus been reached? -- [[User:Ferret|ferret]] ([[User_talk:Ferret|talk]]) 15:31, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
*{{Article status|C|Moida Mansion|Vrxces}}
::No that was my bad and I've been told to stop. [[User:Adycarter|Adycarter]] ([[User talk:Adycarter|talk]]) 15:32, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
*{{Article status|Start|Combat Lynx|Zoq-Fot-Pik}} <small>(newly tagged – originally created 3 months ago)</small>
*{{Article status|Stub|Dance Dance Revolution World|LABcrabs}} <small>(newly tagged – originally created 5 months ago)</small>
*{{Article status|Start|DarkwebSTREAMER|Jack4576}} <small>(newly tagged – originally created 1 year ago)</small>
*{{Article status|Start|LifeAfter|Mcx8202229}} <small>(newly tagged – originally created 6 months ago)</small>
*{{Article status|Start|Royce Pierreson|TBoz2011}} <small>(newly tagged – originally created 7 years ago)</small>


'''December 8'''
Just put OnLive in the distribution field. I said this last time, saying it again. - [[User:Hahnchen|hahnch]][[User:Hahnchen/E|<font color="green">e</font>]][[User:Hahnchen|n]] 23:25, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
*{{Article status|Unassessed|The Rise of the Golden Idol|Vrxces}} <small>(was previously a redirect)</small>
:That's a reasonable idea. The previous discussions on infobox decided to use only the method of delivery, e.g. online, dvd, cartridge. Therefore, should we include OnLive, we would say among the lines of "cloud" or something and not mention the specific company that does it. That said, we need consensus that "online" and "cloud" (or something) warrant separate values. —&nbsp;<small>&nbsp;[[user:Hellknowz|<font color="#B00">HELL</font>KNOWZ]]&nbsp;&nbsp;▎[[User talk:Hellknowz|TALK]]</small> 08:16, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
*{{Article status|Unassessed|User:Toptier5stars/Touhou Mystia's Izakaya|Toptier5stars}} <small>(previously a draft)</small>
::I think though that much as there's talk above of "twisting" the definition of platform there is a danger of twisting the definition of distribution method here. Surely the point is to be informative and encyclopaedic and as such relegating the fact that hundreds of titles are available way beyond a "PC" and in multiple cases were completely rewritten for OnLive (RockStar made a gesture based LA Noire for OnLive to offer on Tablets, far beyond the touch overlay used on other titles) to a simple comment of "Cloud" in the Distribution method doesn't seem all that informative. I appreciate OnLive might not meet whatever the current definition of Platform is, but as commented above perhaps that definition needs reviewing and enforcing consistently (such as the fact Google Chrome is showing as Platform on Bastion) [[User:Adycarter|Adycarter]] ([[User talk:Adycarter|talk]]) 09:33, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
::::I'm not saying to put "Cloud" in the distribution field. I'm saying to put "OnLive" in the distribution field. Regarding LA Noire's tablet support, you can build a Windows executable with WiiMote support, it's still a Windows executable. - [[User:Hahnchen|hahnch]][[User:Hahnchen/E|<font color="green">e</font>]][[User:Hahnchen|n]] 18:33, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
:::Well, Chrome shouldn't be listed in {{para|platform}} until consensus forms. It's not a fact, rather an exception lacking discussion. It's been a year since a pretty overwhelming consensus not to list OnLive as computing platform. I guess we can pose the same question again, or indeed simply ask what {{para|platform}} should list. —&nbsp;<small>&nbsp;[[user:Hellknowz|<font color="#B00">HELL</font>KNOWZ]]&nbsp;&nbsp;▎[[User talk:Hellknowz|TALK]]</small> 09:59, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
:::::Chrome is an OS. It unambiguously meets the platform infobox criteria. Even when on top of another OS, it has it's own native code and sandbox where it does its thing. - [[User:Hahnchen|hahnch]][[User:Hahnchen/E|<font color="green">e</font>]][[User:Hahnchen|n]] 18:33, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
::::::I meant [[Google Chrome]] browser, not [[Google Chrome OS]], as currently in [[Bastion (video game)|Bastion]]'s article. Of course, the OS is a platform. —&nbsp;<small>&nbsp;[[user:Hellknowz|<font color="#B00">HELL</font>KNOWZ]]&nbsp;&nbsp;▎[[User talk:Hellknowz|TALK]]</small> 21:57, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
::::Considering that most of the reverts state "OnLive is PC Only" or similar its not really surprising that consensus was against it last time, and probably will be again there seems to be a general lack of understanding regarding it but that's a whole other story. It would be nice to see a consistent and policed infobox though, the present ones are so incredibly varied from title to title [[User:Adycarter|Adycarter]] ([[User talk:Adycarter|talk]]) 10:04, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
:::::As varied as the games they're designed for.. a heavily policed infobox would work fairly well for 80% (figure courtesy of the [[Institute for Studies]]) of games but the rest would left in the cold. '''<FONT COLOR="red">Я</FONT>ehevkor''' <big>[[User talk:Rehevkor|<FONT COLOR="black">✉</FONT>]]</big> 10:18, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
:::::Well, I don't see any other solution for you than asking "what should {{para|platform}} contain?" without a bias to OnLive per se. If the reason to oppose is "general lack of understanding" then an accompanying argument should educate everyone fairly, such as prominence of other methods besides computing platforms. The you have consensus, and we don't have to judge the issue on things like current usage and reverts, which are heavily subjective. —&nbsp;<small>&nbsp;[[user:Hellknowz|<font color="#B00">HELL</font>KNOWZ]]&nbsp;&nbsp;▎[[User talk:Hellknowz|TALK]]</small> 10:51, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


'''December 9'''
:Based on what I've read so far it appears to me that OnLive does in fact meet the definition of a "platform". The infobox links the "platform" parameter to the article "[[computing platform]]". That article definition is as follows: "[a] computing platform includes a hardware architecture and a software framework (including application frameworks), where the combination allows software, particularly application software, to run." OnLive is a unique "hardware architecture and a software framework" on which applications can run. Games that run on OnLive are specifically designed to be compatible with the hardware and software; OnLive does not just run the retail version of PC games on remote Windows computers. Specifically, OnLive runs a proprietary [[Hypervisor|virtual machine manager]] called Olives to manage the various operating systems (Windows- and Linux-based) that it runs on its custom servers ([http://semiaccurate.com/2012/04/03/onlives-new-dekstop-offering-does-clouds-right/ see here]). Am I wrong to assume OnLive meets the criteria of a "computing platform"? If it does then it should be listed as a platform in the infoboxes. – [[User:Zntrip|Zntrip]] 17:44, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
*{{Article status|C|Inspector Gadget Racing|Vrxces}}
::The difference is that application cannot run on OnLive if the supporting OS doesn't run. So if Microsoft decides to forbid using Windows, close to all Windows-based games won't run on OnLive at its present form. OnLive cannot be used as a stand-alone, whereas computing platform can. That's the main difference. —&nbsp;<small>&nbsp;[[user:Hellknowz|<font color="#B00">HELL</font>KNOWZ]]&nbsp;&nbsp;▎[[User talk:Hellknowz|TALK]]</small> 17:57, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
*{{Article status|Start|Batman: Arkham City (comic book)|JHunterJ}} <small>(newly tagged – originally created 13 years ago)</small>
:::Might I ask you to consider the OnLive [http://www.onlive.com/game-system Micro-Console]--[[Special:Contributions/71.235.9.161|71.235.9.161]] ([[User talk:71.235.9.161|talk]]) 18:33, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
*{{Article status|Start|Batman: Arkham Unhinged|Frankiethebunny}} <small>(newly tagged – originally created 12 years ago)</small>
:::An operating system is not the same as a computing platform. I assume that almost all platforms incorporate proprietary software, operating systems or otherwise. The PlayStation 3 probably incorporates non-Sony proprietary software that it could not do without, so how is that different from OnLive? – [[User:Zntrip|Zntrip]] 18:09, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
::::Because, if you remove OnLive from equation and the changes they made, then (in this example) there is still PC hardware and Windows OS underneath, which supports the games. You can (roughly speaking) play the game without OnLive. OnLive does not natively support the games, it acts as an intermediately that brings its own adjustments. I wouldn't call my laptop a platform even if I was playing a game remotely on my friend's PC (laptop - hardware, remote viewer - software), even if he had to apply a special patch to get it working. —&nbsp;<small>&nbsp;[[user:Hellknowz|<font color="#B00">HELL</font>KNOWZ]]&nbsp;&nbsp;▎[[User talk:Hellknowz|TALK]]</small> 18:26, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
:::::You have yet to provide a reliable source that it runs under someone else's operating system. --[[User:Teancum|Teancum]] ([[User talk:Teancum|talk]]) 20:19, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
:::A hypervisor is unsuitable for the platform field. You do not build apps and executables for a hypervisor, you build it for the OS. - [[User:Hahnchen|hahnch]][[User:Hahnchen/E|<font color="green">e</font>]][[User:Hahnchen|n]] 18:33, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
::::OnLive uses a hypervisor, but it isn't in itself a hypervisor. OnLive is also not a cloud PC and it isn't just Windows running remotely. It uses unique software and hardware configurations and is therefor a unique computing platform. Is this last sentence not true? – [[User:Zntrip|Zntrip]] 19:06, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
:::::My PC uses unique hardware and software configurations. This doesn't make it a platform. The way we've used the platform field in the infobox has been for Operating Systems (like iOS) and Virtual Machines (like Java). I may hook an Windows executable into a variety of SDKs, but its still a Windows executable. - [[User:Hahnchen|hahnch]][[User:Hahnchen/E|<font color="green">e</font>]][[User:Hahnchen|n]] 21:58, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
OnLive is a service, this is indisputable. OnLive is not defined by its operating system or it's back end or it's SDK. What OnLive offers is a service, it allows you to access games and apps running remotely on any device. I've been asked for a reliable sourcing stating that it isn't an operating system. This is ridiculous. Proponents for the platform designation should have a reliable source stating that it is an operating system. OnLive could completely alter their back end and business model, they could start offering Atari Lynx games run on Atari Lynxes synced up to a webcam. Those Atari Lynx games would be available on OnLive. The Atari Lynx is still the platform. To put OnLive as the platform would be misleading, OnLive is merely distributing the game (or access to the game depending on how you see it), it belongs in the distribution column. Just write "OnLive" in the distribution column, I'm not sure why this is so difficult. I said this last time. - [[User:Hahnchen|hahnch]][[User:Hahnchen/E|<font color="green">e</font>]][[User:Hahnchen|n]] 21:58, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
::Here's what is still confusing me: if a game's platform isn't OnLive, what is it? Would we list "server" or whatever OS the game is running on (which is unknown to the end user)? All computing devices obviously have different hardware and software settings, but to what extent do those differences constitute different platforms? At the end of the day all video game platforms are computers. Also, if virtual machines are included in the platform parameter, then OnLive should be included because it uses a proprietary hypervisor (which is a type of virtual machine) called Olives (see my first comment in the section). – [[User:Zntrip|Zntrip]] 07:54, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
:::If we some day get an exclusive Onlive-title things get even weirder. Should the platform field then be blank? That would mean that the game isn't running on any platform. But that's of course not possible. So something has to be listed in the platform field (and PC may be confusing if there isn't an actual PC version available to buy. And we also don't know if the servers Onlive uses can be called a PC.) --[[Special:Contributions/141.84.69.20|141.84.69.20]] ([[User talk:141.84.69.20|talk]]) 08:04, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
:::Um sorry: I of course meant Microsoft Windows and not PC --[[Special:Contributions/141.84.69.20|141.84.69.20]] ([[User talk:141.84.69.20|talk]]) 08:11, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
::::In OnLive's case, the virtual machine sits on top of Olives. But why does this matter? They can change the back end however they want. Just put "OnLive" in the distribution field. - [[User:Hahnchen|hahnch]][[User:Hahnchen/E|<font color="green">e</font>]][[User:Hahnchen|n]] 18:35, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
:::::So if a game is distributed through OnLive, what is the computing platform? – [[User:Zntrip|Zntrip]] 22:59, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
::::::Assume it's Windows, but you can't tell unless you have the SDK documentation. But they could change it next week. - [[User:Hahnchen|hahnch]][[User:Hahnchen/E|<font color="green">e</font>]][[User:Hahnchen|n]] 23:23, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
:::::::And that's '''exactly''' why that doesn't work. Making assumptions. I'm not sure what the issue is here. Having done more research it fits Wikipedia's definition of a [[computing platform]]. It's not a distributor, either. A distributor is only a storefront. OnLive powers the games, regardless of operating system. --[[User:Teancum|Teancum]] ([[User talk:Teancum|talk]]) 00:28, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
::::::::You needn't have done that research, because the Wikipedia article states that it includes things like software frameworks, such as Steam. We don't list Steam in the platform field, because our criteria in the infobox is stricter than that - we've generally limited it to operating systems and virtual machines. A distributor is not just a store front, cloud streaming is a form of distribution. - [[User:Hahnchen|hahnch]][[User:Hahnchen/E|<font color="green">e</font>]][[User:Hahnchen|n]] 19:35, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
::::::[http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xnb3tu_steve-perlman-explains-why-consoles-will-die-out_videogames This interview] is particularly informative. In his answer to the first question, OnLive CEO Steve Perlman states that for some older games OnLive constructs custom virtual machines to run them in. In that case, I don't see how it would be practical to list the platform as anything other than "OnLive". – [[User:Zntrip|Zntrip]] 05:43, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
:::::::That video explicitly states that they run the original Deus Ex in a virtualised Windows 98 environment. The Deus Ex executable is a Windows executable. I would place OnLive in the distribution field. - [[User:Hahnchen|hahnch]][[User:Hahnchen/E|<font color="green">e</font>]][[User:Hahnchen|n]] 19:35, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
::::::::A virtualized Windows 98 environment is not the same as Windows 98. OnLive builds custom virtual machines for older games. – [[User:Zntrip|Zntrip]] 21:54, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::No, it is the same. Nothing has changed regarding Deus Ex, it sits on a Windows 98 machine, which sits on top of some hypervisor. If I run Android apps on [[BlueStacks]], it's still an Android app, regardless of where it is and what bells and whistles have been placed around it. - [[User:Hahnchen|hahnch]][[User:Hahnchen/E|<font color="green">e</font>]][[User:Hahnchen|n]] 00:39, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::And on that note (that a VM is irrelevant) consider that games like [[The Simpsons Arcade Game]] are simply the arcade ROMs with an emulator wrapper around them--effectively the same thing. The fact remains that it runs on platform-specific hardware. The virtual machine that runs it doesn't change anything. --[[User:Teancum|Teancum]] ([[User talk:Teancum|talk]]) 00:15, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
::::::::::I was going to raise this in a further discussion. What caught my eye wasn't The Simpsons, but Virtual Console games which fall into the same bucket. I think we should move that into the distribution field too. The platform field should be developer focused - what was this app built for? The distribution field should be for end users - how can I access this? I was going to start a separate conversation once this one had finished. - [[User:Hahnchen|hahnch]][[User:Hahnchen/E|<font color="green">e</font>]][[User:Hahnchen|n]] 00:39, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


'''December 10'''
=== Normalizing to avoid marketing===
*{{Article status|Stub|Block Blast!|Winterjunpei}}
After a lot of thought there is probably some rationale to include games-via-cloud (eg OnLive) and games-via-browser (eg Bastion on Chrome) in the platform field. What I ''don't'' think we should be doing is naming specific services unless they are uniquely offered by one specific service (due to exclusive rights, software requirements, etc.). So, Bastion would be available on Xbox 360 (via XBLA), PC (via Steam), and browser (via Google Chrome); this is as opposed to saying that it is X360, PC, and Google Chrome.
*{{Article status|Stub|Echelon: Wind Warriors|Timur9008}}


'''December 11'''
Basically, what I think I'm saying is that for the "platform" field in the infobox, it should take the form <code><platform> [<service>]</code>, where:
*{{Article status|Stub|Dawnwalker|HxD}} <small>(previously a draft)</small>
* "platform" is any of the standard game console hardware platforms; or for personal computer games, the name of the operating system (eg Microsoft Windows, Mac OS X, Linux); or for mobile games, the name of the operating system (eg iOS, Android); or "browser" (for web-browser based games) and "cloud" (for cloud/streaming games).
*{{Article status|Stub|Rebel Wolves|Yeahimaboss413}} <small>(newly tagged – originally created 1 year ago)</small>
* "service" should be used ''only'' if the game on that platform is offered through a specific singular service and no other - and this should be an assurance that ''only'' that service will ever offer the game (eg FortressCraft, if I understand that situation accurately, would list OnLive; on the other hand, Batman: AC would not since (as best I can tell) both Gaikai and OnLive offer it.) The service shouldn't be added just because that service got the game a month ahead of another, for example.
*{{Article status|Start|Star Legions|BOZ}} <small>(was previously a redirect)</small>
*{{Article status|Stub|Paper Trail (video game)|Jlwoodwa}}


'''December 12'''
We can't normalize away specific hardware like the Xbox 360 and the like, but we can normalize when there's more ambiguity in how the game is played at the end to avoid giving any specific service vendor more priority than others. No, we can't get away from the situation like Steam where games that use Steamworks are required to played via the Steam client even if you can buy the titles from other services; the service is still "Steam"), but with the platforms like Onlive, Gaikai, and Chrome, we can do some steps. --[[User:Masem|M<font size="-3">ASEM</font>]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 17:00, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
*{{Article status|Stub|Muppet Pinball Mayhem|Vrxces}}
*{{Article status|Start|Shadow Labyrinth|NegativeMP1}}
*{{Article status|Start|Fortnite Ballistic|NegativeMP1}} <small>(was previously a redirect)</small>


'''December 13'''
:How would one write OnLive -- "cloud (OnLive)" or separately as "OnLive"? What about multiple cloud gaming platforms -- just "cloud"? Are you saying we list "PC (Steam)", even if available from Desura or somewhere, because of Steamworks? What about when Steam is offered on both PC and Mac, how would that be written? —&nbsp;<small>&nbsp;[[user:Hellknowz|<font color="#B00">HELL</font>KNOWZ]]&nbsp;&nbsp;▎[[User talk:Hellknowz|TALK]]</small> 20:19, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
*{{Article status|Start|Intergalactic: The Heretic Prophet|RodRabelo7}} <small>(was previously a redirect)</small>
*{{Article status|C|Karl Hörnell|Zxcvbnm}}
*{{Article status|Stub|Movistar KOI|Gogus}}
*{{Article status|Stub|The Campaign Trail (Web Game)|Lgndvykk}}
*{{Article status|Start|The Witcher IV|OxMx}} <small>(was previously a redirect)</small>
*{{Article status|Start|Your Shape: Fitness Evolved 2012|MKsLifeInANutshell}} <small>(previously a draft – moved out 9 months ago: accepted [[Wikipedia:Articles for creation|AfC]] submission)</small>


'''December 14'''
: At the moment Gaikai only offers demo versions of games. But that may change later this year. --[[Special:Contributions/141.84.69.20|141.84.69.20]] ([[User talk:141.84.69.20|talk]]) 20:53, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
*{{Article status|Start|Fungus (video game)|Zxcvbnm}}
::Steam goes in the distribution field. XBLA could as well, although I'd probably just omit it. I would put OnLive and Gaikai in the distribution field. Chrome is an OS, it runs its own native code, it's not just some SDK. - [[User:Hahnchen|hahnch]][[User:Hahnchen/E|<font color="green">e</font>]][[User:Hahnchen|n]] 21:58, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
*{{Article status|Stub|MechWarrior 5: Clans|Rockstone35}} <small>(previously a draft – moved out 15 days ago: undrafted by original creator)</small>
:::The above example for ''Bastion'' is [[Google Chrome]] browser, not [[Google Chrome OS]]. —&nbsp;<small>&nbsp;[[user:Hellknowz|<font color="#B00">HELL</font>KNOWZ]]&nbsp;&nbsp;▎[[User talk:Hellknowz|TALK]]</small> 07:50, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
*{{Article status|Start|Split Fiction|OceanHok}} <small>(was previously a redirect)</small>
::::There's no difference. The browser runs its own native code within a sandbox. - [[User:Hahnchen|hahnch]][[User:Hahnchen/E|<font color="green">e</font>]][[User:Hahnchen|n]] 18:28, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
</div>
----
Skipped a week, so here's a double-update! --'''[[User:PresN|<span style="color:green">Pres</span>]][[User talk:PresN|<span style="color:blue">N</span>]]''' 15:19, 16 December 2024 (UTC)


:Seeing an article like [[Fortnite Ballistic]] makes me think it's possible to do an article on OG Fortnite. Not the game mode, like the concept and culture surrounding Fortnite as it was back in the day, and its many comebacks since. [[User:Panini!|<span style="color:#F40">Panini!</span>]] <span style="color:#F40">•</span> [[User talk:Panini!|🥪]] 00:15, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:If a game is only available via cloud gaming through Onlive, it would be written as "Cloud (OnLive)". If multiple cloud platforms exist, then "Cloud" is all that is said (to avoid store favoritism).
::Seriously, no. You need development (beyond basic release info) and a good reception separate from the main mode, and since OG is just the battle royale mode on a different island, just like Reload, it makes no sense for a separate article. [[User:Masem|M<span style="font-variant: small-caps">asem</span>]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 00:25, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:If the game is a PC game that requires Steamworks - which means that you generally are getting a code to plug into Steam to activate the game regardless of which vendor you use - it is "Microsoft Windows (Steam)". Similarly, Battlefield 3 would be "Microsoft Windows (Origin)" since it requires Origin to run and is activated the same way, even though multiple vendors sell the game to be activated on the series. On the other hand, something like the Witcher 2 which has the CD Projekt DRM-free version and the Steam version, would just be "Microsoft Windows"; there's probably lots of indie titles from the various Indie Bundles that also work this same way with a steam code and a DRM-free version from a different service, and in such cases we give no favoritism in the infobox to one service or another. I compare this to how you can buy XBLA games from Amazon but you are basically getting the activation code to dl the game from the XBL service, ergo that would still be "Xbox 360 (XBLA)" for platform.
:::No, what I mean is ''all'' of the OG Fortnite stuff. For example, a history of how Fortnite has evolved in comparison to "back in the day", its garnered criticism from new additions and gameplay alteration, and why that resulted in various "OG" stunts. The concept of "OG Fortnite" and their many attempts to capitalize on nostalgia, and how it just keeps working. Fortnite: OG, Fortnite Relead, and this new OG game mode all in one article, for example.
:The Bastion in Chrome OS would be the case where the platform is "Browser game (Google Chrome)" since it (presently) the only browser that supports it. --[[User:Masem|M<font size="-3">ASEM</font>]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 19:50, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
:::Although from a quick search there doesn't seem to be too much sourcing that connects this stuff together into one concept. But it ''was'' a good idea, ya bully. [[User:Panini!|<span style="color:#F40">Panini!</span>]] <span style="color:#F40">•</span> [[User talk:Panini!|🥪]] 00:41, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:: Assault Heroes 2 is now available on Onlive. What shall we now add on it's infobox? "Cloud(Onlive)" in the distribution field, or just add "Cloud" or "Onlive"? And what do we do in the platform field? Presumably it's running on Windows, so we could add that but on the other hand we don't know that for sure (and again: it might be confusing to add it if people have no way to really play it on any of their windows devices natively without using Onlive). --[[Special:Contributions/141.84.69.20|141.84.69.20]] ([[User talk:141.84.69.20|talk]]) 08:27, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
:::This was about to get bot archived so I'm typing some text in the vain hope of a resolution [[User:Adycarter|Adycarter]] ([[User talk:Adycarter|talk]]) 23:00, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
::::You can add <pre><nowiki><!-- [[User:DoNotArchiveUntil]] 00:00 1 January 2200 (UTC) --></nowiki> </pre>At the top of the discussion to prevent archiving, or to add a set extension to a specific date. - [[User:X201|X201]] ([[User talk:X201|talk]]) 15:12, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


==Street Fighter fighting style==
===Attempt at a summary===
After researching about Street Fighter, I started this [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ryu_(Street_Fighter)#Summing_up_fighting_style_in_infobox section] in order to see if we should change the infobox of the Street Fighter characters since Capcom and Capcom USA give different names to what style they use: [[Ansatsuken]] or [[Shotokan]]. If a bigger expert in the series knows it, please join. Cheers.[[User:Tintor2|Tintor2]] ([[User talk:Tintor2|talk]]) 21:49, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
So this went round in circles for a bit, then this fell dead, just like every other time.
If we can't agree its a platform (because seemingly as proven above we don't know how Wikipedia deemed anything a Platform) can we agree it goes in the distribution method field? If so can someone get a bot to do it? Last time I tried to make changes to a multitude of articles I was told to use a bot, which I don't have. Assumption would be we place "OnLive" in the distribution method because "Cloud" is even less useful in most of these cases. Of course this is going to look weird for those Xbox 360 games OnLive has in regards to the Platform still only listing Xbox but nevermind... [[User:Adycarter|Adycarter]] ([[User talk:Adycarter|talk]]) 18:02, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
:I think there was at least some agreement on listing "Cloud (OnLive)" as a platform. This seems reasonable to me. – [[User:Zntrip|Zntrip]] 18:49, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
::I'm now listing services games are available on in the distribution field. Such as XLIG in [[Weapon of Choice (video game)]]. Would do the same with OnLive. - [[User:Hahnchen|hahnch]][[User:Hahnchen/E|<font color="green">e</font>]][[User:Hahnchen|n]] 21:19, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
::That seems sensible to me [[User:Adycarter|Adycarter]] ([[User talk:Adycarter|talk]]) 07:39, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
:::Yeah, I think there wasn't a clear consensus on its status as a platform, but all parties seemed to concede it would be appropriate to list it as a distributor. --[[User:Teancum|Teancum]] ([[User talk:Teancum|talk]]) 21:32, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
::::I for one am very much opposed to putting OnLive as a distributor in the infobox. If the idea is that OnLive is merely a storefront like Steam, why not list Steam, [[Gamestop]], Wal-Mart, and Amazon.com as well? What, exactly, is the difference as far as distribution goes? If you're thinking that Steam qualifies while Gamestop does not because Steam is required to authenticate a game license, that authentication is minimally related to distribution. The correct field for that would be DRM (a surprisingly unpopular proposal) and even requirements would be a better fit under that rationale. And while I'm not crazy about "XBLA" or "Xbox Live Indie Games", at least they tend to have a monopoly and tight integration with the platform (a platform which is increasingly indistinguishable from the distribution channel, I might add).
::::Whatever the case, I'd like to see a well organized discussion and !vote before anyone takes action. I would not like to see a repeat of the above mess. [[User:ButOnMethItIs|ButOnMethItIs]] ([[User talk:ButOnMethItIs|talk]]) 01:28, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
:::::If thats your feeling then how exactly would we deal with FortressCraft, Tec3000 and Assault Heroes 2 for example? They are available on the Xbox and on OnLive, no PC versions exist? Cloud(OnLive) is clearly a distribution method at the very least. [[User:Adycarter|Adycarter]] ([[User talk:Adycarter|talk]]) 07:37, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
::::::Firstly I need to point out that there's a difference between distribution method and distributor. I see now that no one was actually suggesting that OnLive, Inc acts as a distributor, but some of my above objection applies to OnLive being listed as a distribution method as well. As per the template documentation, the correct label would be "cloud computing" (one of the "only values possible", no less) and that's exactly what I would put in those articles. I can think of precisely one good reason to append "(OnLive)" to that label: it would clarify that it is not the Xbox 360 version that is distributed via cloud but rather the OnLive platform version. But if OnLive's status as a platform is hotly contested, then it stands to reason that this rationale should be hotly contested. Do you have a different reason? [[User:ButOnMethItIs|ButOnMethItIs]] ([[User talk:ButOnMethItIs|talk]]) 13:40, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
:::::::If you simply list "Cloud Computing" under distribution method then how exactly would we deal with FortressCraft, Tec3000 and Assault Heroes 2 for example? They are available on the Xbox and on OnLive only. If OnLive isn't a platform and it isn't a distribution method and all we're going to list anywhere is cloud computing then it just seems a bit strange to me, its akin to just listing "Consoles" or "DVDs" on titles instead of what they're actually available on. Seems a bit encyclopaedic/uninformative to me. [[User:Adycarter|Adycarter]] ([[User talk:Adycarter|talk]]) 07:56, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
::::::::I think "Cloud computing" is too vague for a distribution method. Gaikai and OnLive have significant differences between the two, but they're both cloud. I would keep the distribution field for specific services that the developer has to alter the game for, so I'd place Steam in there if it were Steamworks enabled. But if it's just a generic download through Steam, then I would just note "download". - [[User:Hahnchen|hahnch]][[User:Hahnchen/E|<font color="green">e</font>]][[User:Hahnchen|n]] 21:41, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::As we've already established every title has to be altered for OnLive, different SDK, 'platform' specific features and adding touch input etc etc, so what do we do? With regards to Gaikai its still only "distributing" demos so thats surely as irrelevant as listing magazine cover discs? [[User:Adycarter|Adycarter]] ([[User talk:Adycarter|talk]]) 21:59, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
::::::::::I was just pointing out my rationale as to place OnLive, Steam, Gaikai and other such services in the distribution field. That's the "different reason" that Meth asks. The whole point was that these services are not necessarily platforms, but aren't just straight distribution channels. - [[User:Hahnchen|hahnch]][[User:Hahnchen/E|<font color="green">e</font>]][[User:Hahnchen|n]] 12:00, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::::Which I concur with, I was just pre-empting the inevitable "they just sell things like anyone else" claim which keeps coming back up. As we both seem to agree that they aren't perhaps platforms but are worth more than just a generic "cloud" distribtuion method list I feel this is probably the sanest approach to be taking and the one we need to probably get a !VOTE going on if thats indeed the correct process [[User:Adycarter|Adycarter]] ([[User talk:Adycarter|talk]]) 12:47, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
::I don't actually see any agreement on that. [[User:ButOnMethItIs|ButOnMethItIs]] ([[User talk:ButOnMethItIs|talk]]) 01:28, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
:::ButOnMethItIs: your general premise that "OnLive is merely a storefront like Steam" is false. It is both a platform and a distributor and is therefore a unique case (hence the protracted discussion). If you read through the comments you will find that many points were raised and that the consensus appears to be "Cloud (OnLive)" ''at the very least''. However, the definition of "platform" for the purposes of a video game infobox have greatly been relaxed and I see no reason to preclude listing just "OnLive" since I am increasingly seeing "Facebook", "Adobe Flash", "HTML5", and "Google Chrome" listed. – [[User:Zntrip|Zntrip]] 03:56, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
::::The ""Facebook", "Adobe Flash", "HTML5", and "Google Chrome"" stuff is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, just because its in another article doesn't mean its the accepted norm. - [[User:X201|X201]] ([[User talk:X201|talk]]) 08:08, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
::::That's not MY premise. That's a view that's been expressed by many editors, none of which are me, in many discussions over the past few years. As to consensus above, I found none when discussions were ongoing and I find none now. I think you're confused and that you should re-read everything more carefully. Personally, I wouldn't start adding OnLive or similar items to the infobox without consensus, given the history of reversion. [[User:ButOnMethItIs|ButOnMethItIs]] ([[User talk:ButOnMethItIs|talk]]) 10:11, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
:::::X201: My argument was that the definition of "platform" is being relaxed and that list was just a few examples. I'm simply pointing to a developing norm of including things other than consumer-end hardware for "platform". That has nothing to do with WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and please remember that [[Wikipedia:Essays are not policy|essays are not policy]]. – [[User:Zntrip|Zntrip]] 21:11, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
:::::ButOnMethItIs: I apologize, I did misunderstand the point you were making about distribution. I think you are right about this discussion dragging on long enough and perhaps it would be best to take a vote. We could contact editors who have made posts in the section (although voting would be open to everyone, of course) to be inclusive. What would the options be? It appears that at least four were presented in the above discussion: (1) doing nothing (i.e. status quo, whatever that may be); (2) listing "OnLive (cloud)", "Cloud (OnLive), or some other variation as a distribution method; (3) listing "OnLive (cloud)", "Cloud (OnLive), or some other variation as a platform; or (4) listing "OnLive" as a platform. – [[User:Zntrip|Zntrip]] 00:58, 24 May 2012 (UTC)


== Psygnosis/SCE Studio Liverpool ==
== [[Draft:Next Nintendo Console]] ==


Just a note to inform people here that I've split [[Psygnosis]] back out from [[SCE Studio Liverpool]]. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">-- [[User:Trevj#top|Trevj]]</span> ([[User talk:Trevj#top|talk]]) 15:30, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
I would appreciate some assistance in creating this draft and bringing it up to a respectable standard. [[User:Fantastic Mr. Fox|Fantastic Mr. Fox]] ([[User talk:Fantastic Mr. Fox|talk]]) 10:49, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
{{Discussion moved to|Talk:SCE Studio Liverpool#Split of Psygnosis}} <span style="white-space:nowrap;">-- [[User:Trevj#top|Trevj]]</span> ([[User talk:Trevj#top|talk]]) 23:52, 11 May 2012 (UTC)


:There's already a much more developed draft in existence. See [[Draft:Unnamed Nintendo console]]. I'd recommend working on that instead, though either way, you're not going to be able to move it out of the draft space and publish it until it's actually announced/revealed/named. [[User:Sergecross73|<span style="color:green">Sergecross73</span>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<span style="color:teal">msg me</span>]] 12:43, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
::Even with that, when Nintendo makes the announcement, the bulk of that info will be immediately outdated by the actual details Nintendo provides and the new sources that report that. The only aspects that even in the current Switch article that would be kept would be when word of the next console was being announced, none of the rumors detailed of its specs and features. Either of these draft articles are immediately going to be out of date when that announcement comes so it seems like doing a lot of work for no gain at this point. [[User:Masem|M<span style="font-variant: small-caps">asem</span>]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 13:04, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Agreed, that's the very reason why I haven't personally contributed hardly anything to the draft myself. I specifically recall trimming 90% of that sort of content from the 3DS and Vita articles after they were announced and released back in the day. But still, if either were ever to actually get published, it'd certainly be the longer, better sourced one. [[User:Sergecross73|<span style="color:green">Sergecross73</span>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<span style="color:teal">msg me</span>]] 13:16, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
::Cheers, I was not aware of the other draft. [[User:Fantastic Mr. Fox|Fantastic Mr. Fox]] ([[User talk:Fantastic Mr. Fox|talk]]) 21:50, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:::No worries. That's the tricky part of doing drafts for unnamed things - you never know under what name someone may have made one. [[User:Sergecross73|<span style="color:green">Sergecross73</span>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<span style="color:teal">msg me</span>]] 22:31, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Any tools that could be used to check for this sort of thing besides manually trying to find them? ~ [[User:Dissident93|<b style="color: #660000;">''Dissident93''</b>]] <sup>([[User talk:Dissident93|<b style="color: #D18719;">''talk''</b>]])</sup> 00:34, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::If there are, I'd like to know. Though then again, half the hassle is ''others'' not being aware of the draft too. I always hate the thought of working on a draft for months, only to be away from Wikipedia when something is announced, and people rushing together a junky stub instead of publishing the long-term draft... [[User:Sergecross73|<span style="color:green">Sergecross73</span>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<span style="color:teal">msg me</span>]] 00:47, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::I suppose you could do a wildcard search through draft space for "Nintendo" or something.. '''[[User:Lee Vilenski|<span style="color:green">Lee Vilenski</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Lee Vilenski|talk]] • [[Special:Contribs/Lee Vilenski|contribs]])</sup>''' 09:09, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::If there was an announcement regarding the official unveiling date, it would probably then be the time to move it into the main space and link it in the [[Nintendo Switch]] page infobox so that anybody looking to get bragging rights moves the established article instead of making a new one. [[User talk:Fantastic Mr. Fox|<span style="background:Crimson;font-family:'Helvetica';color:#E9E6DF;font-weight:bold;font-variant-caps:small-caps;font-size:100%;">Fantastic Mr. Fox</span>]] 18:16, 24 December 2024 (UTC)


== Someone help the old guy clean up some stuff ==


While reassessing Stub articles, I've come across a few things that probably need the attention of someone more active and more familiar with the processes.
*'''This discussion needs input from everyone at [[WP:VG]].''' It's becoming... well, have a read yourself. :-s - [[User:X201|X201]] ([[User talk:X201|talk]]) 10:33, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
* [[MBCGame StarCraft League]] - no sources cited, so no notability established. Should probably be merged with [[StarCraft in esports]]
*I second this. Could one or two other people active here ''please'' take a look at this. You don't need to be interested in the topic or the outcome of the discussion. We have a really disruptive editor trying to run roughshod and this situation needs to be resolved. I don't want to go through the hassle of an administrative proceeding with this guy, and further input on the situation (even if you guys actually disagree with X201 and myself) could help make that unnecessary. [[User:Indrian|Indrian]] ([[User talk:Indrian|talk]]) 14:05, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
* [[:File:Hoshiuta heroines.jpg]] - removed from [[Hoshiuta]] as it was redundant with the cover image (i.e., conveys the exact same information and thus is an excess non-free image). It is now an orphan file and should probably be deleted.
* [[Last Epoch]] - too many non-free images. I removed most and those are now orphan files
** [[:File:Last Epoch Loot - Item Tooltip.png]]
** [[:File:Eleventh-Hour-Games.png]]
** [[:File:Last Epoch KeyArt.png]]
** [[:File:Last-Epoch-Harbingers-of-Ruin-1-1.jpg]]


It's been over a decade since I've initiated a merge, FfD and many other administrative processes, and I don't remember the details. As I'm also on very sporadically, I honestly don't think I could properly watch over them. Is someone available to help with these? ([[User:Guyinblack25|Guyinblack25]] <sup>[[User talk:Guyinblack25|talk]]</sup> 01:06, 22 December 2024 (UTC))
*{{Qmark}} Err, are you guys familiar with [[WP:CANVASS]]. Please retract your influential statement about me being a {{xt|really disruptive editor trying to run roughshod}}. In the interests of neutrality, the other relevant WikiProjects also require notifying. If you're unwilling to do this in a non-influential manner, I could do so myself by using the {{tl|Pls}} template. Thanks. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">-- [[User:Trevj#top|Trevj]]</span> ([[User talk:Trevj#top|talk]]) 14:18, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
:::Trevj, you have taken Indrian's comment and then attributed it to both of us. I can't see how '''my''' comment breaches [[WP:CANVASS]], which is the implication of your post. Obviously you didn't know that I was creating the RFC at the same time, but the insinuation of bias is not welcome. - [[User:X201|X201]] ([[User talk:X201|talk]]) 15:03, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
**Your disruptive behavior is self-evident. Even if your views on the policy disputes are found to be correct, the manner in which you have engaged in this discussion has not been constructive. I stand by that statement unequivocally. [[User:Indrian|Indrian]] ([[User talk:Indrian|talk]]) 14:22, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
**{{ec}} This is the most relevant WikiProject and there's no issue with asking the opinions of people here. [[WP:NPA|personal attacks]] still should be avoided. <span style="13px Sylfaen;background-color:#000000;padding:0 3px 0 3px;">[[User:Salvidrim|<span class="smallcaps" style="font-variant:small-caps;"><span style="color:white">Salvidrim!</span></span>]]</span> 14:23, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
***Labeling an editor disruptive is not a personal attack if the editor's behavior is at the heart of the current controversy and the primary reason that additional eyes are needed on this issue (yours would certainly be appreciated, again regardless of whether you agree with my position or not). While others may categorize his behavior differently upon examining the record and are entitled to that opinion, I think there is enough evidence there to look into the matter. [[User:Indrian|Indrian]] ([[User talk:Indrian|talk]]) 14:28, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
****I didn't particularily mean that there has been personal attacks, I simply wanted to remind everyone involved to avoid them. I haven't looked into the subject itself, but from an overview of the discussion, it seems a fairly coherent and civil content dispute. I don't think it is fair to call either side "intentionally disruptive" here. <span style="13px Sylfaen;background-color:#000000;padding:0 3px 0 3px;">[[User:Salvidrim|<span class="smallcaps" style="font-variant:small-caps;"><span style="color:white">Salvidrim!</span></span>]]</span> 14:47, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
*****I will agree that the discussion has been pretty civil, though I would characterize it as a policy dispute not a content dispute because no one is advocating the elimination of content, only debating its placement. The disruption comes in the form of actions (undertaking the initial split without discussion and then claiming this was a valid revert of an edit made three years ago, adding an unjustified notability tag, since removed, perhaps in violation of [[WP:POINT]], and then undertaking a targeted redirect that in a vacuum may appear harmless, but which directly touches on the earlier discussion and appears to be pushing a viewpoint that the [admittedly small] current consensus has already rejected, therefore raising [[WP:OWN]] concerns). A few more eyes on the underlying issues and a firm consensus either way would end this quickly and without any permanently damaged feelings. [[User:Indrian|Indrian]] ([[User talk:Indrian|talk]]) 14:53, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
*****:{{xt|without any permanently damaged feelings}} '''Support'''. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">-- [[User:Trevj#top|Trevj]]</span> ([[User talk:Trevj#top|talk]]) 15:26, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
I've added the discussion to the RFC list for Companies and Media. - [[User:X201|X201]] ([[User talk:X201|talk]]) 14:35, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
:Thanks. I've amended with what I consider to be a more neutral statement.[http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Economy,_trade,_and_companies&diff=prev&oldid=492533120][http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:SCE_Studio_Liverpool&diff=prev&oldid=492533143][http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Media,_the_arts,_and_architecture&diff=prev&oldid=492534282] Please amend further if necessary. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">-- [[User:Trevj#top|Trevj]]</span> ([[User talk:Trevj#top|talk]]) 15:26, 14 May 2012 (UTC) Hmmm... Not sure the bot will take the amendment. If not, then what do we do? <span style="white-space:nowrap;">-- [[User:Trevj#top|Trevj]]</span> ([[User talk:Trevj#top|talk]]) 15:33, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
::The edit notice says that any user changes will be over written, and to alter the RFC on the talk page. I presume it checks back to get the latest version. - [[User:X201|X201]] ([[User talk:X201|talk]]) 15:40, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


:The orphan images will get cleaned up automatically after 7 days. -- [[User:Ferret|ferret]] ([[User_talk:Ferret|talk]]) 02:07, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
== [[Nathan Hale (Resistance)]] and [[Joseph Capelli]] ==
::Hey @[[User:Guyinblack25|Guyinblack25]]. I'm not very active. So someone else here will have to do the honors. Looks like the images are on Commons. The [[Last Epoch]]'s editor [[User:Judd cobler|Judd cobler]] may be an [https://www.linkedin.com/in/juddcobler/ employee]. So we got a probable [[wp:coi]]. However, assuming the article's subject is notable, then perhaps Judd Cobler can contact the [[commons:Volunteer_Response_Team|Commons VRT]] so we can use the relevant images. [[User talk:Ryūkotsusei|<span style="font-size:120%;font-family:Old English Text MT;color:#666666">«&nbsp;Ryūkotsusei&nbsp;»</span>]] 17:43, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Ah, I see what you mean. That explains the state the article was in; they at the least didn't know how to edit an encyclopedic article. It looks like it has since been cleaned up to a better state. The images have been tagged as missing evidence of permission, so looks like they will be dealt with soon. ([[User:Guyinblack25|Guyinblack25]] <sup>[[User talk:Guyinblack25|talk]]</sup> 04:47, 28 December 2024 (UTC))


Came across an article that should probably be merged with its series ([[JumpStart]]) or deleted: [[JumpStart Adventures 6th Grade: Mission Earthquest]]. It has been tagged for not citing sources since 2015. I did a good faith search for sources: general google search, Google News, Google Scholar, Google Books, Google Newspaper, and JSTOR. Only found a MobyGames page, a review on a defunct Mac website (Mac Reactor) and a mention in an issue of MicroTimes magazine, which I cannot find a digital copy of the issue. So it clearly doesn't meet [[Wikipedia:Notability]]. ([[User:Guyinblack25|Guyinblack25]] <sup>[[User talk:Guyinblack25|talk]]</sup> 04:42, 28 December 2024 (UTC))
I'd just like to bring attention to the above two pages. They've been created in the past couple of weeks. I suspect them to be [[WP:License|unattributed]] copy-and-paste of some Wikia articles or another. Seeing as they're mostly plot, they should probably be merged or be cleaned up (brought into line with [[WP:VG/GL]]). Anyone want to poke them? --[[User:Izno|Izno]] ([[User talk:Izno|talk]]) 02:50, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
:I !vote redirection. I would be shocked if there's anything worth merging. They certainly wouldn't survive an AfD, so I think any clean up effort would be wasted. [[User:ButOnMethItIs|ButOnMethItIs]] ([[User talk:ButOnMethItIs|talk]]) 03:16, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


==''[[Famitsu]]'' has removed the video games calendar search from its website!==
Sad news. When I try to look up the GBA calendar search under "2004/4", all of a sudden I get a 404 error shown [https://www.famitsu.com/schedule/calendar/gba/2004/4/-/? here]. In face, all the video games that Famitsu had from NES to the Nintendo Switch have been completely erased from history along with their calendar schedules from their website! I suppose that means we won't have to look up any Japanese video games for their ''Famitsu'' scores anymore. Now what? --[[User:Angeldeb82|Angeldeb82]] ([[User talk:Angeldeb82|talk]]) 00:03, 24 December 2024 (UTC)


== Happy Holidays From the Wikiproject Video Games Family ==


[[File:Wikiproject video games Christmas card.png|Our Christmas cards get cheesier every year...|frameless|center|700px]]
== [[Realm of the Mad God]] ==


Our Christmas cards get cheesier every year... happy holidays everyone! Glad to be a part of this great project. [[User:Panini!|<span style="color:#F40">Panini!</span>]] <span style="color:#F40">•</span> [[User talk:Panini!|🥪]] 23:53, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
I would like this article to be upgraded to at least Start in the portal. It has an infobox, a logo and a lot of information about the game. Could someone please review it? [[User:Shaun9876|Shaun9876]] ([[User talk:Shaun9876|talk]]) 18:35, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
:For future reference, article assessment requests can be lodged at [[WP:VG/A/R]]. :) <span style="13px Sylfaen;background-color:#000000;padding:0 3px 0 3px;">[[User:Salvidrim|<span class="smallcaps" style="font-variant:small-caps;"><span style="color:white">Salvidrim!</span></span>]]</span> 18:46, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks
[[User:Shaun9876|Shaun9876]] ([[User talk:Shaun9876|talk]]) 19:37, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


:Yeah me too with my first good article nomination passed and been contributing to as many as hundred articles with most of them relating to video games. [[User:NatwonTSG2|<span style="color:#206932">''NatwonTSG''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:NatwonTSG2|<span style="color:#692049">TALK</span>]]</sup> 02:28, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
== Cast lists ==
:Looks awesome! [[User:Aaron Liu|<span class="skin-invert" style="color:#0645ad">Aaron Liu</span>]] ([[User talk:Aaron Liu#top|talk]]) 14:50, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
:Happy Holidays! [[User:Sergecross73|<span style="color:green">Sergecross73</span>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<span style="color:teal">msg me</span>]] 17:37, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
:Happy Holidays everyone! :D [[User:Timur9008|Timur9008]] ([[User talk:Timur9008|talk]]) 17:45, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
:Happy holidays! ''[[Magneton (Pokémon)|Magneton]] Considerer:'' '''[[User:Pokelego999|Pokelego999]]''' ([[User Talk:Pokelego999|Talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Pokelego999|Contribs]]) 18:19, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
:Happy holidays! It's been a pretty good year. [[User:QuicoleJR|QuicoleJR]] ([[User talk:QuicoleJR|talk]]) 19:51, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
:Happy Holidays to all that read this! I can only hope things get better for all of us. [[User:Captain Galaxy|<span style="font-family:Impact;color: #ffb93c">Captain</span>]][[User talk:Captain Galaxy|<span style="font-family:Impact;color: #b06ad4">Galaxy</span>]] 20:46, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
:Happy holidays everyone, and thanks for the productive year. Shout outs to @[[User:Pokelego999|Pokelego999]] for their work on Pokémon-related topics, @[[User:Kung Fu Man|Kung Fu Man]] for their character work, @[[User:NegativeMP1|NegativeMP1]] for their help this year, and @[[User:Panini!|Panini!]] for their awesome work and spirit. Everyone who was a part of this project did an awesome job this year! [[User:Fathoms Below|<span style="color:light blue;"><span style="font-size:110%">''Fathoms Below''</span></span>]] [[User talk:Fathoms Below|<span style="color:brown;"><span style="font-size:85%;">(talk)</span></span>]] 20:17, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
:Happy holidays! [[User:Zxcvbnm|ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ]] ([[User talk:Zxcvbnm|ᴛ]]) 18:54, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
:Happy Holidays everybody. [[User:(Oinkers42)|(Oinkers42)]] ([[User talk:(Oinkers42)|talk]]) 19:10, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
:Happy Holidays to all, from my holiday apartment in Milan. --[[User:ProtoDrake|ProtoDrake]] ([[User talk:ProtoDrake|talk]]) 10:00, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
:Happy Holi- oh my God. (and a Happy New Year!) [[User:TrademarkedTWOrantula|<span style="color: darkgreen"><span style="font-family: Georgia">TWOrantula</span></span>]]<sup><small>TM</small></sup> <small>([[User talk:TrademarkedTWOrantula|enter the web]])</small> 21:24, 30 December 2024 (UTC)


==Discussion at [[:Talk:Game Science#RfC on controversy and game's launch|Talk:Game Science §&nbsp;RfC on controversy and game's launch]]==
I've started a discussion about updating/changing/clarifying the Cast List part of the Inappropriate Content section of the Article Guidelines.
[[File:Symbol watching blue lashes high contrast.svg|25px|link=|alt=]]&nbsp;You are invited to join the discussion at [[:Talk:Game Science#RfC on controversy and game's launch|Talk:Game Science §&nbsp;RfC on controversy and game's launch]]. [[User:Aaron Liu|<span class="skin-invert" style="color:#0645ad">Aaron Liu</span>]] ([[User talk:Aaron Liu#top|talk]]) 14:50, 26 December 2024 (UTC)<!-- [[Template:Please see]] -->


== Good article reassessment for [[Anarchy Online]] ==
[[Anarchy Online]] has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the [[Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Anarchy Online/1|reassessment page]]. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. [[User:Z1720|Z1720]] ([[User talk:Z1720|talk]]) 23:51, 26 December 2024 (UTC)


== Greg Martin (artist) ==
[[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines#Cast lists|The discussion is here]] - [[User:X201|X201]] ([[User talk:X201|talk]]) 10:09, 19 May 2012 (UTC)


[[Greg Martin (artist)]] was created today and I'm unsure if it meets [[WP:ARTIST]]. The existing sourcing is bad, but I did find [https://www.ign.com/articles/2014/01/06/sonic-the-hedgehog-and-pac-man-box-artist-passes-away IGN] and [https://www.engadget.com/2014-01-06-sonic-the-hedgehog-box-art-illustrator-greg-martin-passes-away.html Engadget]. I don't know if I'd consider them "substantial" sources, which is why I'm wondering if ARTIST would apply. Thoughts? [[User:Woodroar|Woodroar]] ([[User talk:Woodroar|talk]]) 00:21, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
== Pokemon question ==


:He is an artist though? [[User:Charliephere|Charliephere]] ([[User talk:Charliephere|talk]]) 00:37, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
Hi, I've recently posted a question at WikiProject Pokemon but I haven't received any feedback. If anyone here is familiar with the Pokemon series and might be able to shed a little light on the issue I've identified, please comment [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pokémon#Score errors|here]]. Thanks in advance. -[[User:Thibbs|Thibbs]] ([[User talk:Thibbs|talk]]) 20:10, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
::That's not what he's asking. Did you actually read [[WP:ARTIST]]? [[User:Sergecross73|<span style="color:green">Sergecross73</span>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<span style="color:teal">msg me</span>]] 00:42, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
:Doesn't seem notable to me. There should be something else besides reports of his death. --[[User:Mika1h|Mika1h]] ([[User talk:Mika1h|talk]]) 01:14, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
:I don't really think NARTIST alies here. I think NARTIST only really applies if someone significantly contributed or is mostly responsible for a really, really important work. I don't think the cover art for Sonic the Hedgehog counts as a really, really important work. I And even if he met an SNG, I don't think an article should exist if there is literally zero significant sources forethat subject to work off of besides a few sentences. I cond Mika1h's comment. <span style="border:#000000;border:2px solid #000000;padding:2px">'''λ''' [[User:NegativeMP1|<span style="color:#264e85">'''Negative'''</span>]][[User talk:NegativeMP1|<span style="color:#7d43b5">'''MP1'''</span>]]</span> 01:17, 27 December 2024 (UTC)


Thank you all for the advice! The article is now at AfD: [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greg Martin (artist)]]. [[User:Woodroar|Woodroar]] ([[User talk:Woodroar|talk]]) 19:50, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
== VGratings template up for deletion ==


== Problem with [[: Category:Video games by theme]] (should be topic, not theme) ==
The VGratings template is up for deletion. See - [[Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion#May_23]] apparently similar ones for film and TV have been deleted and the video game one is next in the firing line. Don't know what the rational for deletion of the others was. - [[User:X201|X201]] ([[User talk:X201|talk]]) 12:30, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


See analysis at [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Games#"Theme"_category_problem_started_by_Category:Games_by_genre_or_theme]] (posted there as the issue affects few more WikiProject-related cats). TL;DR [[: Category:Video games by theme]] should be renamed to [[: Category:Video games by topic]]. Please comment there, not here. TIA. <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]&#124;[[User talk:Piotrus|<span style="color:#7CFC00;background:#006400;"> reply here</span>]]</sub> 04:18, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
'''Additional:''' In 2009 WP:FILM moved to excluded ratings from their infobox for reasons such as systemic bias etc. Rather than have indiscriminate listing of ratings, they now focus on ratings in prose if they have been controversial or note worthy. So despite my inital shock, I agree with that idea, it would mean deleting the ratings field on the infobox, making the infobox shorter :) and push towards prose for exceptional ratings. - [[User:X201|X201]] ([[User talk:X201|talk]]) 12:37, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


== ''[[Hotline Miami]]'' FAC at risk of archival ==
== Where do I find sources on old and rare games? ==


Hello everyone, I hope y'all are having a good day. Earlier this month, I [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hotline Miami/archive1|nominated]] ''[[Hotline Miami]]'' at FAC after working on it for quite a while, and so far it's only gotten one support and might be archived within the next few days due to inactivity. If anyone would be interesting in reviewing the article and leaving comments, that would be greatly appreciated. I'm also open to review exchanges if requested. <span style="border:#000000;border:2px solid #000000;padding:2px">'''λ''' [[User:NegativeMP1|<span style="color:#264e85">'''Negative'''</span>]][[User talk:NegativeMP1|<span style="color:#7d43b5">'''MP1'''</span>]]</span> 22:05, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
Hi there! I'm looking up information for ''[[3D Tetris]]'', a game for the Virtual Boy that received relatively little attention. I found one review in the ''LA Times'' through ProQuest, as well as reviews on various fan site of questionable notability. I'm looking for a wider variety of sources, though. Does anyone know where I can find reliable databases of old video game magazines, reviews, and the like? Perhaps there is a research database to that effect. Or where I might find information about them in reliable sources? Some textbooks do mention the Virtual Boy, although I'm not finding a lot on this game in particular. ''3D Tetris'' is not impossible to find - the Virtual Boy was a relatively important console and wasn't released all that long ago. Thanks in advance for your help. [[User:CaseyPenk|CaseyPenk]] ([[User talk:CaseyPenk|talk]]) 09:00, 24 May 2012 (UTC)


== Input needed in discussion at [[Talk:Gran Turismo (series)#Lead section]] ==
:The search at [[WP:VG/RL]] brings up one hit for Tetris 3D in Next Generation Magazine. Its a start. - [[User:X201|X201]] ([[User talk:X201|talk]]) 09:28, 24 May 2012 (UTC)


There is an ongoing discussion at [[Talk:Gran Turismo (series)#Lead section]] regarding which of the two proposed lead sections would be better. Input in the discussion would be appreciated. [[User:Carfan568|Carfan568]] ([[User talk:Carfan568|talk]]) 17:49, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
::Thank you SO, SO much. Already I found [http://web.archive.org/web/20001019235716/http://www.gameinformer.com/reviews/review_detail.cfm?ITEM_ID=5274 a review from Game Informer], which is more notable than most of the current sources combined. [[User:CaseyPenk|CaseyPenk]] ([[User talk:CaseyPenk|talk]]) 09:38, 24 May 2012 (UTC)


== Nomination of [[Characters of God of War]] for featured list removal ==
I've just had another thought. I think there is a (very) brief mention of Tetris 3D in this month's GamesTM, in the Retro collector section, if someone could have a look for CaseyPenk. Would do it myself, but haven't got access to my copy at the moment. - [[User:X201|X201]] ([[User talk:X201|talk]]) 11:30, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
I have nominated [[Characters of God of War]] for featured list removal. Please [[Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/Characters of God of War/archive1|'''join the discussion''']] on whether this article meets the [[Wikipedia:What is a featured list?|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 [[Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates|here]].<!-- Template:FLRCMessage --> 🍕[[User:Boneless Pizza!|<span style="background:orange;border-radius:9999px;padding:1px 8px;color:white;"><span style="font-weight:bold">B</span>P!</span>]]🍕 ([[User talk:Boneless Pizza!|🔔]]) 05:37, 31 December 2024 (UTC)


== Your Wikiproject Video Games New Years Resolution ==
*Can you work with non-English sources? -[[User:Thibbs|Thibbs]] ([[User talk:Thibbs|talk]]) 12:35, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
[[File:Panini Celebrates the New Year.png|thumb|right|This suit cost me three grand. Feel the satin and weep. Happy new year!]]
I'm aware that I recently did a "non-productive post" above (as my haters call them) but I thought this would be fun. After all, who ''doesn't'' love an icebreaker? I don't!


What's your Wikipedia-related resolution for 2025? '''What new projects, achievements, or goals do you want to get done in the new year?''' Then we can look back and see both the people who conquered their goals and the people we should leave behind for 2026.
::I'd really appreciate if someone could do that, X. And if you're talking to me, Thibbs, I can translate. I know a bit of Japanese, which I'd imagine in the most useful in this case. [[User:CaseyPenk|CaseyPenk]] ([[User talk:CaseyPenk|talk]]) 14:17, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
:::OK I can send a few scans your way too then. -[[User:Thibbs|Thibbs]] ([[User talk:Thibbs|talk]]) 15:03, 24 May 2012 (UTC)


* 2024 was a pretty lame work year for me. I'm going to get [[Mario]] to GA in 2025, I promise. I'm certain one year is enough cushion for me to actually do something. [[User:Panini!|<span style="color:#F40">Panini!</span>]] <span style="color:#F40">•</span> [[User talk:Panini!|🥪]] 04:04, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Sounds great. Not sure how you want to pass them along, but you can email me at --MyUsername--@gmail.com if you want. [[User:CaseyPenk|CaseyPenk]] ([[User talk:CaseyPenk|talk]]) 16:06, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
* I'm hoping to finally get ''[[Super Kirby Clash]]'' to GA this year. [[User:QuicoleJR|QuicoleJR]] ([[User talk:QuicoleJR|talk]]) 04:19, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
* Outside real-world stuff, finish bringing the ''[[Fatal Frame]]/Project Zero'' series and its entries to GA status (don't think I'll try for a GT as my last two GTs were very neatly stalled by the sudden creation of an article with insisted inclusion) --[[User:ProtoDrake|ProtoDrake]] ([[User talk:ProtoDrake|talk]]) 07:53, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
* I don't have nearly as much time as I had during the pandemic. But I'd like to take a couple more articles to GA or FA. Areas I'm still interested in: historic games, historic game developers/studios, and anything related to the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Video_game_characters]] task force. [[Kim Kitsuragi]] is next on my docket. I'd also like to keep encouraging other peoples' good work, and continue discussions about how to adapt to the collapse of quality video game journalism. [[User:Shooterwalker|Shooterwalker]] ([[User talk:Shooterwalker|talk]]) 18:12, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
* Keep expanding the quality coverage of [[WP:POKEMON]], both by removing and merging superfluous content, and by improving the quality of pre-existing articles and bringing them to Good and Featured status. Hoping to get at least one or two more of the species lists up to FL this year, though I'll hopefully complete more than that. ''[[Magneton (Pokémon)|Magneton]] Considerer:'' '''[[User:Pokelego999|Pokelego999]]''' ([[User Talk:Pokelego999|Talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Pokelego999|Contribs]]) 00:37, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
* The music world hasn't been holding my interest lately, so I'm planning on continuing to focus on WP:VG related stuff. I plan on splitting my time between more retro stuff (90s [[Sega]] stuff like the [[Sega Saturn]] games) and new stuff (like everything [[Nintendo Switch 2]] once that's finally revealed.) [[User:Sergecross73|<span style="color:green">Sergecross73</span>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<span style="color:teal">msg me</span>]] 16:40, 3 January 2025 (UTC)


== Sonic 4 and images ==
== Gameplay of Pokemon ==


I was relieved to see such as strong consensus at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gameplay of Pokémon]]. It's not that we can't find sources, but that it duplicates the same types of content you'd see at [[Pokémon (video game series)]]. With that said, I wanted to check if anyone felt similarly about [[Gameplay of World of Warcraft]] or [[Gameplay of Dragon Quest]]. [[User:Shooterwalker|Shooterwalker]] ([[User talk:Shooterwalker|talk]]) 18:17, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Okay, so images are one of the few areas on Wikipedia I'm not that knowledgeable about, (which I'm fine with, it typically doesn't interest me) but I'm tired with arguing with the user there, so I figured I'd bring it up here.


:I'm generally against any of these gameplay/reception/awards type article spin outs. These two examples are much better written and sourced than the ''Pokemon'' was, but I'm still not certain a separate article is required... [[User:Sergecross73|<span style="color:green">Sergecross73</span>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<span style="color:teal">msg me</span>]] 19:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
So the issue is the main infobox picture at ''[[Sonic 4]]''. A month or so ago, [[User:Zagurzem]] kept on switching in a logo that was merely the "Sonic the Hedgehog" in text, which I felt was a bad choice, considering the image prior to it already contained the same logo, but also contained an image of Sonic as well. There was no reason to "downgrade" to a picture that captured less of what the game was about. He eventually stopped this, but a week ago, another user added a different, second image to the infobox, and now Zagurzem is proposing using all three images. (See [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Sonic_the_Hedgehog_4&oldid=494185093 here] for what it looks like as of writing this.)
::At first blush looking at the above, I'd lean towards saying "no" to standalone articles. From base principles it's highly unlikely the ''gameplay'' of a game is notable ''independent'' of the coverage of the game itself (or a lot of the coverage leans into [[WP:ROUTINE]]-type stuff) but also I don't see where the level of coverage makes sense for a general encyclopedia. I don't need a blow-by-blow of all the quest types in ''WoW'', for example. [[User:David Fuchs|<span style="color: #ad3e00;">Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs</span>]] <sup><small>[[User talk:David Fuchs|<span style="color: #ad3e00;">talk</span>]]</small></sup> 19:57, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Agreed. I was surprised someone felt the need for the ''Dragon Quest'' spinout too. They're fine games, but they're pretty straightforward, [[wiktionary:meat and potatoes|"meat and potatoes"]] type games. [[User:Sergecross73|<span style="color:green">Sergecross73</span>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<span style="color:teal">msg me</span>]] 20:31, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Looks like someone wrote it in 2010 and it hasn't gotten much more than 50 edits of any kind in the 15 years since. --'''[[User:PresN|<span style="color:green">Pres</span>]][[User talk:PresN|<span style="color:blue">N</span>]]''' 20:36, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:I do believe those are probably better off merged/redirected back to the target. I'm not seeing much in the way of a valid split-out rationale for these that would indicate their gameplay is standalone notable. ''[[Magneton (Pokémon)|Magneton]] Considerer:'' '''[[User:Pokelego999|Pokelego999]]''' ([[User Talk:Pokelego999|Talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Pokelego999|Contribs]]) 00:55, 3 January 2025 (UTC)


It kind of echoes my feelings on [[Development of Mother 3]]. So much of it is redundant to what's already present at [[Mother 3]], and it feels like it'd be better served being merged back into it, or have the EarthBound 64 stuff expanded upon. - [[User:Cukie Gherkin|Cukie Gherkin]] ([[User talk:Cukie Gherkin|talk]]) 20:06, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Again, I'm not real familiar with image policy, but I know it's a "keep it to a minimum" type things, which makes me think that three in the infobox alone is excessive. When I try to remove them, he always answers with things like "No, please, give it a shot" or "I think you'll see it my way eventually" rather than giving a real rationale or quoting policy or anything. So I was looking for input/help. Thoughts? [[User:Sergecross73|<font color="green">Sergecross73</font>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<font color="teal">msg me</font>]] 18:14, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
:Personally, I am very fond of these types of articles and the amount of depth they lend to angles on these works. "Gameplay of" articles do tend to be terrible to source tho, and the "Gameplay of ''Pokémon''" article never reached the quality I would hope for it. "Gameplay of ''Dragon Quest''" is particularly odd to me, as it hardly explains mechanics unique to the series and it's pretty short. At least ''Pokémon'' has a swath of fairly unique mechanics that I believe would be really useful to describe in-depth. Perhaps it'd be more of a Wikibooks kind of deal tho, if that project ever worked out. ~[[User:Maplestrip|<span style="color:#005080">Maplestrip/Mable</span>]] ([[User talk:Maplestrip|<span style="color:#700090">chat</span>]]) 09:43, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:Very excessive as it is, just one image image should be sufficient. I don't claim to be an expert on images, but [[WP:NFCC#8]] specifies that they must significantly increase understanding, a single image does does (for identification of the game), any further images would fail #8 by default unless they had coverage explaining why they are otherwise significant. Also the rationales for most of those images is extremely weak, most are just "yes", "no" or "n.a."... '''<FONT COLOR="red">Я</FONT>ehevkor''' <big>[[User talk:Rehevkor|<FONT COLOR="black">✉</FONT>]]</big> 18:44, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
::...And that's why I most strongly objected to the one that is strictly the "Sonic the Hedgehog 4" text logo, as it's the worst as far as helping identify the game... [[User:Sergecross73|<font color="green">Sergecross73</font>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<font color="teal">msg me</font>]] 18:54, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
::There's on two options as I see it -- 1) Post the text-based logo, or 2) Post the newest logo, and caption it with "Promotional art for ''Sonic 4: Episode II''". As of now it's not clear. I'd go with the Ep II logo, personally as the background has been removed and thus will work fine on all themes used by Wikipedia. --[[User:Teancum|Teancum]] ([[User talk:Teancum|talk]]) 19:00, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
:::I'd be fine with that; I only object to using all three, or using ''just'' the text based one. [[User:Sergecross73|<font color="green">Sergecross73</font>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<font color="teal">msg me</font>]] 19:04, 24 May 2012 (UTC)


*I'll defend [[Gameplay of Overwatch]] as save for a few areas, I've made sure it is sourced to reliable secondary sources talking about these gameplay elements to a reasonable depth (of course, most of the that came from the period while there was attention with the Overwatch League and helping viewers understand rules); it also helps alleviate size issues. I consider it compariable to [[Magic: The Gathering rules]] which due to similar attention via tourneys has had its rules/gameplay evaluated in depth. For those reasons, I think [[Gameplay of World of Warcraft]] is a reasonably fair split from the main WoW article (which covers more of how big and significant it is to the industry) and just needs a bit more sourcing to make it better. But key on these is the use of secondary sources to show that the gameplay or rules have been discussed beyond simple coverage of the whole game itself. The Pokemon gameplay article had problems with very little sourcing along those lines (though you'd think that should be possible with how big the franchise is). The Dragon Quest case, that seems rather more difficult given the niche of JRPGs. (Common features of JRPGs and CRPGs in general, however, are absolutely fair game in the genre articles). [[User:Masem|M<span style="font-variant: small-caps">asem</span>]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 14:00, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:I support using the stylized text logo only. It's the only logo representative of the '''game as a whole'''. The other two logos only represent portions of the game, and would thus be appropriate for the pages [[Sonic the Hedgehog 4: Episode I]] and [[Sonic the Hedgehog 4: Episode II]], if they existed, but not for representing the game as a whole. The question you face, if you want to include either the Episode I or the Episode II logo, is why that particular one? I see that as a fair use issue as well; the Episode I logo is not essential to illustrating the game, and is thus of questionable fair use. Ultimately, I think the stylized text logo communicates the necessary components that a logo should communicate (that is, the artistic style of the subject and the name of the subject). If you want to illustrate the characters there's leeway for character artwork later in the article. [[User:CaseyPenk|CaseyPenk]] ([[User talk:CaseyPenk|talk]]) 23:28, 24 May 2012 (UTC)


=== Live service games ===
:Given that the images of SOnic and Tails vary little from their appearance on their respect character pages, they are extremely redundant here and fail NFCC#8, NFCC#3a. The text based logo is all that is needed. --[[User:Masem|M<font size="-3">ASEM</font>]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 23:49, 24 May 2012 (UTC)


I decided to take [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gameplay of Dragon Quest]] to AFD based on what appears to be a consensus here. The problem is that "X series" and "Gameplay of X series" have the same scope, just with more [[WP:GAMEGUIDE]] detail. Masem brought up some points about splitting the gameplay from the Blizzard games, and while I disagree, I think it's worth discussing. I disagree that "Gameplay of WoW" is any less of a redundant fork. But I do see how these games are actually multiple releases and updates over several years. Despite World of Warcraft not being a game series, its history is longer than many game series, with more [[:Category:World of Warcraft expansion packs]] than many series. And yet it doesn't have a "series" article separate from the original release.


TLDR: "Gameplay of X series" is redundant with "X series", but long-running live service games might have several expansions/updates without having a separate series article. Is there a way to rename / move these article titles to improve their scope and viability? [[User:Shooterwalker|Shooterwalker]] ([[User talk:Shooterwalker|talk]]) 17:49, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Really? Text best illustrates a platformer video game like this? *Sigh* this is why I stay away from image stuff in general I guess... [[User:Sergecross73|<font color="green">Sergecross73</font>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<font color="teal">msg me</font>]] 01:53, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
:This is for the infobox image (cover or logo). A screenshot of the game is fine but that's not the point of contention. --[[User:Masem|M<font size="-3">ASEM</font>]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 01:57, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
::They're all logos though. Look [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sonic_4_Logo.png here], at the image that was originally used for the articles existence up until the last few weeks. It's description is "Xbox Live logo", and while it's from "Episodes 1", it doesn't specifically mention episode 1 anywhere, and it shares the art style of both games. I don't understand how this isn't the better option. It's a logo that not only contains all of the text option, but character art as well. [[User:Sergecross73|<font color="green">Sergecross73</font>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<font color="teal">msg me</font>]] 02:45, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
:::I'm almost positive that File:Sonic_4_Logo.png is a derivative work of the Episode I logo, meaning that a fan created it. I don't think it's anything that Sega actually released, because that logo in that form is never used alone in the actual game. As [[User:Masem]] points out above, you can illustrate the characters on their own later in the article if you feel artwork or screenshots are necessary within specific sections. The infobox is the most basic, irreducible element of the page in that it strictly conveys the core information about the game. There's no need to concatenate the character imagery with the stylized logo-text, because the stylized text logo itself is just as descriptive and uses a smaller portion of the original, copyrighted work. In any case, I think we need to focus on the core of the discussion. I'm not thinking about "should we illustrate Sonic and Tails in the Sonic 4 article?" I'm thinking, "should we illustrate Sonic and Tails in the Sonic 4 '''infobox'''?" And I don't see the need to do the latter. [[User:CaseyPenk|CaseyPenk]] ([[User talk:CaseyPenk|talk]]) 05:19, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
::::Also, I think the specific policy to which User:Masem was referring does apply here. [[WP:NFCC|'''''"Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding."''''']] I don't see the inclusion of the character artwork as essential. [[User:CaseyPenk|CaseyPenk]] ([[User talk:CaseyPenk|talk]]) 05:23, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
:::::{{edit conflict}} At the risk of shifting the topic, I'm not sure the article as-is is constructed in a useful way. Every section has both an ''Ep I'' and ''Ep II'' sub-section, which suggests to me that it may be better if it were either split or re-factored significantly. If it were split, then using one logo for one game's article and the other for the other (assuming the ''Ep II'' logo is actually real RE CaseyPenk's comment) would solve the problem pretty easily. This would probably be fine since it isn't far off the size required for a size-only split anyway. However, it seems to me that re-organising the article may be a better way forward, at least for now. I'd suggest that a shift to a generalised portion for each section with additional ''Ep I'' and ''Ep II'' sub-sections would be more appropriate; I'm not sure how this would apply to plot or reception, but it certainly could be easily applied to gameplay (any ''Ep I'' or ''Ep II'' specific elements get their own sub-section, with the universal bit as the super-section - this seems to be more or less how it's organised anyway, with ''Ep I'' mostly representing generalised gameplay). Anyway, I digress.


==New Articles (December 29 to January 1)==
:::::Assuming the article is left as one, I think the ''only'' applicable infobox logo is probably the text-only one since the ''Ep I'' logo doesn't represent ''Ep II'' at all, and nor does the inverse. I'm not sure how his would fit with the non-free files policy, but the episode logos could always be included in the prose somewhere.


{{main|Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements}}
:::::There's also another thing to think about - I'm not sure the text logo is copyright-eligible; it is only stylised text after all, so {{tl|pd-textlogo}} may apply (see [[Threshold of originality]]). If that were the case, then copyright issues would be significantly simplified.


<small>A listing of all articles newly added to the Video Games Wikiproject (regardless of creation date). Generated by v3.20 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --'''[[User:PresN|<span style="color:green">Pres</span>]][[User talk:PresN|<span style="color:blue">N</span>]]''' 20:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC)</small>
:::::<font face="sans-serif">'''[[user:Alphathon|<font color="#900">Alphathon</font>]]'''&nbsp;<span title="Representation in the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA)" class="IPA">/'æɫfə.θɒn/</span>&nbsp;<small><sup>([[user talk:Alphathon|<font color="#900">talk</font>]])</sup></small></font> 13:16, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
::::::I am in favor of splitting the article, but when I raised it on the article's talk page, the only person who chimed in was someone who said splitting was against precedent for episodic games. (I've never worked on any myself, so I wasn't sure.) Then the game was leaked, and released, and it was enough work just to keep the article cleaned up, let alone splitting and whatnot. [[User:Sergecross73|<font color="green">Sergecross73</font>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<font color="teal">msg me</font>]] 14:32, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Sergecross, I am so sorry about all of this. After reading your long message to me, I now understand my mistakes.


*'''Articles deleted/removed:''' [[Evernight Games]], [[Battle Frontier]], [[Battle Subway]], [[Battle Tower]], [[Gigantamax]], [[Hidden Machine]], [[Pokemon gym]], [[Pokémon League]], [[Polaris (2024 video game)]], [[Special attack (Pokémon)]], [[Technical Machine]], [[Paul Steed]]
We should just use the logo that was used in the first place in order to not cause any more trouble. I see that there was some controversy regarding the non-free usage of the images that I wanted to use. Before I uploaded the images, I read the policy and thought I was in the clear, but I guess I wasn't. Am I going to go to jail or something???
*'''Drafts deleted/removed:''' [[Draft:Plasma Interactive]], [[Draft:Twentyone]], [[Draft:Amber (developer)]], [[Draft:Lost in Cult]], [[Draft:RADAL]]
*'''Articles redirected:''' [[Amuze]], [[Pokémon Home]], [[Sky (video game)]], [[Tekken Hybrid]], [[Cossacks (video games series)]], [[List of downloadable songs for the Lips series]]
*'''New categories:''' [[:Category:EZ Web games|EZ Web games]] <small>— {{u|TrademarkedTWOrantula}}</small>, [[:Category:I-mode games|I-mode games]] <small>— {{u|TrademarkedTWOrantula}}</small>, [[:Category:Science fiction role-playing video games|Science fiction role-playing video games]] <small>— {{u|AHI-3000}}</small>, [[:Category:Video games about fairies|Video games about fairies]] <small>— {{u|AHI-3000}}</small>, [[:Category:Video games about the Yakuza|Video games about the Yakuza]] <small>— {{u|Mika1h}}</small>, [[:Category:Vodafone games|Vodafone games]] <small>— {{u|TrademarkedTWOrantula}}</small>
*'''New templates:''' {{tl|MPL Philippines}} <small>— {{u|WIZ*ONEI}}</small> <small>(newly tagged - originally created 6 months ago)</small>


<div style="line-height:1.4em !important">
I meant well when I was editing the Sonic pages. I just wanted information that was accurate because I have been a fan of Sonic since I was seven. I am not the most experienced person with Wikipedia, but I am learning more thanks to you guys helping me.
'''December 29'''
*{{Article status|Stub|Atomic Betty (video game)|Timur9008}} <small>(was previously a redirect)</small>
*{{Article status|C|Go Home Annie|Kiksam}} <small>(previously a draft: accepted [[Wikipedia:Articles for creation|AfC]] submission)</small>
*{{Article status|Start|Highway 2000 (video game)|Mika1h}}
*{{Article status|Start|My Little Pony: A Maretime Bay Adventure|AmericanBaath}} <small>(was previously a redirect – un-redirected 5 months ago)</small>
*{{Article status|B|What the Car?|Vrxces}}


'''December 30'''
I will continue editing Wikipedia, but I will most likely refrain from uploading images from now on.
*{{Article status|Start|Sher Machado|Skyshifter}}
*{{Article status|C|Vostu|Sondesol}} <small>(newly tagged – originally created 17 years ago)</small>


'''December 31'''
I hope you guys understand. [[User:Zagurzem]] <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|undated]] comment added 12:55, 25 May 2012 (UTC).</span><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
*None
:You're not going to jail, the worst that happens is that they delete the images. [[User:Sergecross73|<font color="green">Sergecross73</font>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<font color="teal">msg me</font>]] 14:32, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


'''January 1'''
:Zagurzem, now isn't the time to stop uploading images. Every single one of us here has made mistakes on WP at some point. WP tends to operate on a version of the old medical model of "see one", "do one", "kill one", "teach one". - [[User:X201|X201]] ([[User talk:X201|talk]]) 15:09, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
*{{Article status|Stub|Chō (Tsuki Amano song)|Michellesusanto}} <small>(newly tagged – originally created 14 years ago)</small>
On the other hand, Sergecross' idea to "post the newest logo, and caption it with "Promotional art for ''Sonic 4: Episode II''" is a pretty good idea as well. That way, it is kept up to date with the latest installment. And if/when an Episode III comes out, we can replace it with that logo. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Zagurzem|Zagurzem]] ([[User talk:Zagurzem|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Zagurzem|contribs]]) 13:35, 25 May 2012 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
*{{Article status|Start|Miniatures (video game)|ThanatosApprentice}} <small>(previously a draft: undrafted by original creator)</small>
*{{Article status|Start|Sorry We're Closed|Vrxces}}
*{{Article status|Start|Space Fishermen|MimirIsSmart}}
*{{Article status|Start|Talon Warburton|174.231.54.74}} <small>(was previously a redirect)</small>
</div>
----
The 1.0 bot fell down for a while due to some template/category changes, and I'm not going to be home for the next normal run day, so rather than make some mega-post on the 13th I'll cut it in half and post some of it now. --'''[[User:PresN|<span style="color:green">Pres</span>]][[User talk:PresN|<span style="color:blue">N</span>]]''' 20:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC)


== Good article reassessment for [[Deus Ex (video game)]] ==
::I'm liking all the compromise I'm seeing. As long as we're up-front about the fact that we're including the logo for one particular episode, I think it will work effectively. I subscribe to [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Inclusionism inclusionism] and would support splitting the main article into, well, "episodic" articles if you will. There is certainly enough information for each to have its own page, and the segmentation has already developed cleanly between the episodes as [[User:Alphathon]] pointed out above.
[[Deus Ex (video game)]] has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the [[Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Deus Ex (video game)/1|reassessment page]]. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. [[User:Z1720|Z1720]] ([[User talk:Z1720|talk]]) 23:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::[[User:Zagurzem]], let me reiterate what other have been saying - don't let this discourage you. You've clearly already learned some valuable lessons that will serve you well. I remember, several years ago, being embarrassed at my lack of experience and I made some rather significant mistakes - moving entire scores of pages to new categories without consensus, for example. The problems were easy enough to fix, though, and the world didn't end (at least not yet). You haven't done anything egregious, so keep doing what you're doing. I'm personally happy to see someone already engaged in these intricate discussions, for being a relatively new user. Keep at it, and feel free to [[User talk:CaseyPenk|ask me]] if you have any questions. [[User:CaseyPenk|CaseyPenk]] ([[User talk:CaseyPenk|talk]]) 17:04, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


== Featured List Removal for a relevant article ==
== Sony POV discussion ==


Hi everyone! As I was reading the [[Sony]] article I came across some patterns that I found very troubling - first, a lack of objective information and historical context; second, an overwhelmingly negative and critical approach found in most sections. I started a discussion located at [[Talk:Sony#POV problems]]. Whether you share my concerns or see the issue differently, please provide your input and chip in with some constructive edits to the main article. I appreciate any help. Thank you. [[User:CaseyPenk|CaseyPenk]] ([[User talk:CaseyPenk|talk]]) 16:58, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


I have nominated [[List of major Super Smash Bros. Ultimate tournaments]] for featured list removal. Please [[Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of major Super Smash Bros. Ultimate tournaments/archive1|'''join the discussion''']] on whether this article meets the [[Wikipedia:What is a featured list?|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 [[Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates|here]].<!-- Template:FLRCMessage --> [[User:Witsako|Witsako]] ([[User talk:Witsako|talk]]) 23:18, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
== Remake in vidéo game ==
This page [[List of video game remakes]] is completely wrong. And is similar at the categorie:vidéo game remakes where there is, the same, a lot of games who aren't remake but simply "[[Porting]]" or re edition. [[User:LatinoSeuropa|LatinoSeuropa]] ([[User talk:LatinoSeuropa|talk]]) 19:17, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
:The page states "This list includes updated versions of original games and remastered ports", I'm not sure what the confusion is about? <span style="13px Sylfaen;background-color:#000000;padding:0 3px 0 3px;">[[User:Salvidrim|<span class="smallcaps" style="font-variant:small-caps;"><span style="color:white">Salvidrim!</span></span>]]</span> 19:50, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
::The page is now at AFD on the grounds that 90% of the content is wrong.--[[Special:Contributions/174.93.169.157|174.93.169.157]] ([[User talk:174.93.169.157|talk]]) 01:41, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 03:29, 4 January 2025

Given Shadow of the Erdtree's treatment as a "game" at the Game Awards, I'd say it's more deserving than most of its own page due to its outsized notability. However, I want to be sure that consensus is there before I bother trying to potentially make it. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ () 23:30, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am surprised it doesn't have a page yet. All three Skyrim DLCs have their own pages, so I don't see why Shadow of the Erdtree can't. QuicoleJR (talk) 23:35, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Shadow of the Erdtree was treated as DLC at the Game Awards - they made it clear all DLC, expansions, remakes, and remasters can qualify for any of the awards.
Given that the only real in-depth coverage would be in reviews - nothing about new gameplay or development aspects - it doesn't make sense to have a separate article. Masem (t) 00:04, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could there be discussion of the game's plotline? (Oinkers42) (talk) 00:22, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say it depends entirely on coverage; we've got plenty of DLC articles I think we probably shouldn't have, and plenty I think justify themselves. (From the above mentions, I'm not sure that the Skyrim expansions really justify themselves, likewise The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt – Hearts of Stone and The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt – Blood and Wine basically have nothing there indicating separate notability. Versus BioShock 2: Minerva's Den, which has the benefit of more development info, as well as an outsized influential legacy on other games, it wasn't "just" another DLC.) I would say that Elden Ring is pretty lean at 3400ish words, so there's not even potential page size issues to consider. I think it makes a lot more sense to build out the info in Elden Ring and then decide on a split. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 00:34, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The other factor to keep in mind is that per WP:NOPAGE, just because a piece of DLC may be notable due to reception, is there enough unique content that requires a separate article from the main game, or is the DLC better covered under a comprehensive article? For what's there for Erfdtree, one article seems the best solution, unless there is a massive amount of development information that hasn't been found yet (doubtful) Masem (t) 01:19, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"I think it makes a lot more sense to build out the info in Elden Ring and then decide on a split." I wish more people followed this guideline instead of assuming notability when starting these articles with barely any content. Gameplay for a DLC is not usually not going to be much different than the base game's even with a couple of new things introduced to it, which just leaves the development, plot, and reception sections. Those could easily be summarized in a paragraph or two within the base game's article, and if it does start to expand, then we'd could make the decision to split it. For some reason, we've always had this issue with the Souls games, with articles created on locations, bosses, NPCs, and concepts like bonfires that usually just feature passing mentions cited from game reviews, some of which having merged by consensus and then brought back in almost the same exact state. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 14:51, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, agreed, the Souls area has been a particularly bad area for unnecessary article spinouts. Sergecross73 msg me 18:08, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd advise staying on focus to Erdtree for now; if any split-outs (Or the topic of how much should dictate a split-out as a whole) are under question, then I'd suggest forming a separate discussion for this, given this is outside the smaller scope of this discussion and would impact a lot of articles. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 18:55, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Erdtree and other DLCs are no different here. I was simply bringing up the fact that the Souls series in particular has always had the problem of having spinoff articles created before they were expanded upon in the article of their respective games. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 23:01, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, it's a recurring issue in the subject area, spanning many years of discussions and some of the same overzealous editors. Sergecross73 msg me 23:25, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now Blighttown was just created. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 16:45, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bloated and bombarded to maximum levels to try to create the illusion of being a necessary split, I see. Sergecross73 msg me 20:26, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is consensus here that is largely against these Souls spinoff articles. Should we nominate all of them for deletion/merging? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 22:00, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unless there is at least one dedicted article to covering it (at bare minimum) , yes these should be merged. Masem (t) 22:13, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From what I can tell, this seems to be a "consensus" of only two or three editors. I don't think that's enough for something that would impact several articles. I also don't think it would make sense to only discuss Souls spinouts when several other video games have something like this, whether it be levels, items, weapons, and more. I feel as if a larger discussion on spinout articles for video game elements in general (not just Souls) would be necessary, rather than singling out one franchise. Either way, I think a larger consensus would be needed than this discussion. λ NegativeMP1 22:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some of them were already merged in the past and brought back, so there is precedent for this sort of thing. And while WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS for other series, it's particularly a problem for the Souls games. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 22:38, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd recommend nominating a couple of the worst offenders, and then proceeding from there depending on how that plays out. Sergecross73 msg me 22:45, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, some of them are probably decent enough to keep but certainly not all/most. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 22:48, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
┌──────────────────────────────────────────┘
Another new one today Northern Undead Asylum — Masem (t) 18:50, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PrimalMustelid: I could at least understand Blighttown as it received reception for its poor technical performance, but how is the tutorial level notable? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:43, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm only making two Dark Souls locations, both of which I've done based on significant sources. The Northern Undead Asylum is pretty significant in that unlike many other video game tutorials, this particular tutorial has been credited with carving a unique path by not hand-holding the player along the way and throwing a fairly challenging tutorial boss into the mix (at the time, definitely not your average tutorial). It, along with the Asylum Demon, have been credited with preparing players for the wider difficulty of the game, and first impressions are especially important in video games like this. PrimalMustelid (talk) 20:57, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your "significant sources" for Northern Undead Asylum include a greatest bosses list, two strategy guides, and a top ten tutorial levels list by a generally unreliable source (Dualshockers). Even if the other sources are valid, there's no reason why this couldn't be a paragraph or two within the Dark Souls article. Seriously, what is with this series that compels people to try and justify as many spinoff articles as possible? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those aren't what I consider "significant sources;" they're more supplements to the overall article. What I'd consider significant sources are those written by NME and Goomba Stomp Magazine primarily since they both wrote analyses for the Northern Undead Asylum, with Arcade Sushi communicating similar commentary on the significance of it as a tutorial level. I would consider the main problem with an attempted merge into the main Dark Souls articles to be that it's a bit difficult to insert into there. If this helps, there aren't any other individual fictional elements that can be spun off into their own articles because of the fact that they lack significant commentary in relation to specific game designs. I do think that a list article for locations in the Dark Souls series could potentially work as long as there's a development section and reception section for the technical and philosophical aspects of game design, but I'm not really interested in creating list articles at the moment. PrimalMustelid (talk) 21:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't think "Goomba Stomp Magazine" is a reliable source. Certainly not one to indicate notability... Sergecross73 msg me 22:50, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How about this: in the video game sources page, there should be a consensus on whether Goomba Stomp Magazine can be considered a reliable source or not. If not, I will happily redirect or merge the article somewhere into the Dark Souls article (and maybe the locations list if it ever comes to fruition). I’ll leave the source evaluation up to you guys, although I can initiate the discussion if you guys want. PrimalMustelid (talk) 22:54, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but looking at their About Us page, I think it'll be a short discussion... Sergecross73 msg me 22:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That’s fine with me. If and once there is official consensus that it is not a reliable source, I will merge or redirect the article, no questions asked. PrimalMustelid (talk) 23:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion started Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources#Goomba Stomp Magazine. Sergecross73 msg me 23:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Putting notability of the asylum aside, I honestly wasn’t aware that there was a discussion regarding Dark Souls element articles and may have put fuel to the flame by creating the Blighttown article. Bad timing on my part I suppose.
I suppose that the character articles are a matter of debate, but is having a few spinoff articles really that bad in practice? I can see a few articles like Anor Londo passing on the grounds that it has a good amount of significant coverage and therefore would fit awkwardly into the 2011 video game article. I also see someone argue that the bonfire article’s sources supposedly only have “passing mentions,” but a lot of sources in the reception section literally indicate otherwise from the title to the full text. Again, I don’t mind a merge of some of the Souls articles, but some articles have significant coverage to justify independent notability in my opinion. PrimalMustelid (talk) 02:41, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I decided to redirect the Northern Undead Asylum into the 2011 video game article. I’ll figure out what to do in a “merge” process, but it’ll probably entail being part of a “retrospective review” subsection of the overall game from after the 2018 remastered version release. PrimalMustelid (talk) 06:06, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On that note, I would just like to mention that I've always been annoyed by the tendency to make a new article on an element of a game without adding any of that relevant content to the game's article. For example, we have an article on Shiori Fujisaki from Tokimeki Memorial, but neither the franchise page nor the individual game pages mention the character at all, leaving the article effectively orphaned except for a navbox that doesn't appear on mobile. QuicoleJR (talk) 12:27, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm always surprised by that. I personally always try to link to my article creations as much as I can (within the realms of being appropriate) to help the odds of people actually viewing/reading it. Sergecross73 msg me 17:19, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't really advanced any argument for it. "more deserving than most of its own page due to its outsized notability" is just a long way of saying "WP:ITSNOTABLE". Sergecross73 msg me 01:39, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it's something to the scale of Grand Theft Auto IV: The Lost and Damned and Grand Theft Auto: The Ballad of Gay Tony, I don't see how a separate page for the Elden Ring expansion would hurt. Command & Conquer: Yuri's Revenge may be notable on its own, but idk if the Red Alert 3 – Uprising expandalone would be worth a separate article as it only mildly covered the game and not divulge much on its development and impact. Blake Gripling (talk) 03:44, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the lost and Damned, for example, shows a ton of unsourced gameplay content, very little development, and very little reception that I question it's need to be sepearate. Masem (t) 00:28, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd honestly merge and/or redirect a lot of the listed titles unless some more substance can be found. As it stands they're not showing much independent notability of the subject. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 14:55, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear: the DLC passes GNG already, and this feels like you are implying that it's not notable (since you are citing an AfD argument after all). I was never trying to ask whether it was notable, which is rather obvious on its face, but saying that its high degree of critical acclaim merited its own page.
As for the in-universe articles, Souls simply happens to be a very critically acclaimed and analyzed series - it inspired an entire genre after all - with an outsized amount of notable things in their universe. Bonfires as a concept inspired a host of games to implement identical or similar game mechanics, even by testimony of their developers. I don't want to point fingers or anything or reignite the Pokemon test, but I don't see people griping this much about Galarian Corsola or Klefki despite them arguably being an order of magnitude less important in their respective games than Torrent or bonfires. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ () 18:44, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I simply said you hadn't advanced an argument, because...you hadn't advanced an argument. Sergecross73 msg me 18:49, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. Subjects can pass notability but still be covered exclusively in other, larger articles. That's what Wikipedia:NOPAGE is all about. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 18:59, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would not oppose to a spin-out article for the DLC, if it has a development section that is extensive enough. Right now I think we can develop the content in the main article first before considering a WP:SIZESPLIT. OceanHok (talk) 11:27, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. @Zxcvbnm, I might have a crack at drafting too to help and see if in that process I can generate good sourcing. The WP:NOPAGE argument is a little funny to me because we're talking about a very well-covered, award-nominated expansion to one of the biggest games of the past decade. If we're honestly saying the copious amount of coverage out there in terms of its gameplay additions, potential development history, reviews and discourse around its award eligibility is not independently notable or preferable, I would honestly say that the vast majority of expansion articles in this WP should be merged immediately. VRXCES (talk) 03:29, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New Articles (December 2 to December 14)

[edit]
 A listing of all articles newly added to the Video Games Wikiproject (regardless of creation date). Generated by v3.20 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 15:19, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

December 2

December 3

December 4

December 5

December 6

December 7

December 8

December 9

December 10

December 11

December 12

December 13

December 14


Skipped a week, so here's a double-update! --PresN 15:19, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing an article like Fortnite Ballistic makes me think it's possible to do an article on OG Fortnite. Not the game mode, like the concept and culture surrounding Fortnite as it was back in the day, and its many comebacks since. Panini! 🥪 00:15, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, no. You need development (beyond basic release info) and a good reception separate from the main mode, and since OG is just the battle royale mode on a different island, just like Reload, it makes no sense for a separate article. Masem (t) 00:25, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, what I mean is all of the OG Fortnite stuff. For example, a history of how Fortnite has evolved in comparison to "back in the day", its garnered criticism from new additions and gameplay alteration, and why that resulted in various "OG" stunts. The concept of "OG Fortnite" and their many attempts to capitalize on nostalgia, and how it just keeps working. Fortnite: OG, Fortnite Relead, and this new OG game mode all in one article, for example.
Although from a quick search there doesn't seem to be too much sourcing that connects this stuff together into one concept. But it was a good idea, ya bully. Panini! 🥪 00:41, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Street Fighter fighting style

[edit]

After researching about Street Fighter, I started this section in order to see if we should change the infobox of the Street Fighter characters since Capcom and Capcom USA give different names to what style they use: Ansatsuken or Shotokan. If a bigger expert in the series knows it, please join. Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 21:49, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate some assistance in creating this draft and bringing it up to a respectable standard. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 10:49, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's already a much more developed draft in existence. See Draft:Unnamed Nintendo console. I'd recommend working on that instead, though either way, you're not going to be able to move it out of the draft space and publish it until it's actually announced/revealed/named. Sergecross73 msg me 12:43, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even with that, when Nintendo makes the announcement, the bulk of that info will be immediately outdated by the actual details Nintendo provides and the new sources that report that. The only aspects that even in the current Switch article that would be kept would be when word of the next console was being announced, none of the rumors detailed of its specs and features. Either of these draft articles are immediately going to be out of date when that announcement comes so it seems like doing a lot of work for no gain at this point. Masem (t) 13:04, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, that's the very reason why I haven't personally contributed hardly anything to the draft myself. I specifically recall trimming 90% of that sort of content from the 3DS and Vita articles after they were announced and released back in the day. But still, if either were ever to actually get published, it'd certainly be the longer, better sourced one. Sergecross73 msg me 13:16, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers, I was not aware of the other draft. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 21:50, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. That's the tricky part of doing drafts for unnamed things - you never know under what name someone may have made one. Sergecross73 msg me 22:31, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Any tools that could be used to check for this sort of thing besides manually trying to find them? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 00:34, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If there are, I'd like to know. Though then again, half the hassle is others not being aware of the draft too. I always hate the thought of working on a draft for months, only to be away from Wikipedia when something is announced, and people rushing together a junky stub instead of publishing the long-term draft... Sergecross73 msg me 00:47, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose you could do a wildcard search through draft space for "Nintendo" or something.. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 09:09, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If there was an announcement regarding the official unveiling date, it would probably then be the time to move it into the main space and link it in the Nintendo Switch page infobox so that anybody looking to get bragging rights moves the established article instead of making a new one. Fantastic Mr. Fox 18:16, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Someone help the old guy clean up some stuff

[edit]

While reassessing Stub articles, I've come across a few things that probably need the attention of someone more active and more familiar with the processes.

It's been over a decade since I've initiated a merge, FfD and many other administrative processes, and I don't remember the details. As I'm also on very sporadically, I honestly don't think I could properly watch over them. Is someone available to help with these? (Guyinblack25 talk 01:06, 22 December 2024 (UTC))[reply]

The orphan images will get cleaned up automatically after 7 days. -- ferret (talk) 02:07, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @Guyinblack25. I'm not very active. So someone else here will have to do the honors. Looks like the images are on Commons. The Last Epoch's editor Judd cobler may be an employee. So we got a probable wp:coi. However, assuming the article's subject is notable, then perhaps Judd Cobler can contact the Commons VRT so we can use the relevant images. « Ryūkotsusei » 17:43, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see what you mean. That explains the state the article was in; they at the least didn't know how to edit an encyclopedic article. It looks like it has since been cleaned up to a better state. The images have been tagged as missing evidence of permission, so looks like they will be dealt with soon. (Guyinblack25 talk 04:47, 28 December 2024 (UTC))[reply]

Came across an article that should probably be merged with its series (JumpStart) or deleted: JumpStart Adventures 6th Grade: Mission Earthquest. It has been tagged for not citing sources since 2015. I did a good faith search for sources: general google search, Google News, Google Scholar, Google Books, Google Newspaper, and JSTOR. Only found a MobyGames page, a review on a defunct Mac website (Mac Reactor) and a mention in an issue of MicroTimes magazine, which I cannot find a digital copy of the issue. So it clearly doesn't meet Wikipedia:Notability. (Guyinblack25 talk 04:42, 28 December 2024 (UTC))[reply]

Famitsu has removed the video games calendar search from its website!

[edit]

Sad news. When I try to look up the GBA calendar search under "2004/4", all of a sudden I get a 404 error shown here. In face, all the video games that Famitsu had from NES to the Nintendo Switch have been completely erased from history along with their calendar schedules from their website! I suppose that means we won't have to look up any Japanese video games for their Famitsu scores anymore. Now what? --Angeldeb82 (talk) 00:03, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Holidays From the Wikiproject Video Games Family

[edit]
Our Christmas cards get cheesier every year...
Our Christmas cards get cheesier every year...

Our Christmas cards get cheesier every year... happy holidays everyone! Glad to be a part of this great project. Panini! 🥪 23:53, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah me too with my first good article nomination passed and been contributing to as many as hundred articles with most of them relating to video games. NatwonTSGTALK 02:28, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks awesome! Aaron Liu (talk) 14:50, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Happy Holidays! Sergecross73 msg me 17:37, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Happy Holidays everyone! :D Timur9008 (talk) 17:45, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Happy holidays! Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 18:19, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Happy holidays! It's been a pretty good year. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:51, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Happy Holidays to all that read this! I can only hope things get better for all of us. CaptainGalaxy 20:46, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Happy holidays everyone, and thanks for the productive year. Shout outs to @Pokelego999 for their work on Pokémon-related topics, @Kung Fu Man for their character work, @NegativeMP1 for their help this year, and @Panini! for their awesome work and spirit. Everyone who was a part of this project did an awesome job this year! Fathoms Below (talk) 20:17, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Happy holidays! ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ () 18:54, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Happy Holidays everybody. (Oinkers42) (talk) 19:10, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Happy Holidays to all, from my holiday apartment in Milan. --ProtoDrake (talk) 10:00, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Happy Holi- oh my God. (and a Happy New Year!) TWOrantulaTM (enter the web) 21:24, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Game Science § RfC on controversy and game's launch. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:50, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Anarchy Online

[edit]

Anarchy Online has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 23:51, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Martin (artist)

[edit]

Greg Martin (artist) was created today and I'm unsure if it meets WP:ARTIST. The existing sourcing is bad, but I did find IGN and Engadget. I don't know if I'd consider them "substantial" sources, which is why I'm wondering if ARTIST would apply. Thoughts? Woodroar (talk) 00:21, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He is an artist though? Charliephere (talk) 00:37, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what he's asking. Did you actually read WP:ARTIST? Sergecross73 msg me 00:42, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't seem notable to me. There should be something else besides reports of his death. --Mika1h (talk) 01:14, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really think NARTIST alies here. I think NARTIST only really applies if someone significantly contributed or is mostly responsible for a really, really important work. I don't think the cover art for Sonic the Hedgehog counts as a really, really important work. I And even if he met an SNG, I don't think an article should exist if there is literally zero significant sources forethat subject to work off of besides a few sentences. I cond Mika1h's comment. λ NegativeMP1 01:17, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all for the advice! The article is now at AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greg Martin (artist). Woodroar (talk) 19:50, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with Category:Video games by theme (should be topic, not theme)

[edit]

See analysis at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Games#"Theme"_category_problem_started_by_Category:Games_by_genre_or_theme (posted there as the issue affects few more WikiProject-related cats). TL;DR Category:Video games by theme should be renamed to Category:Video games by topic. Please comment there, not here. TIA. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:18, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hotline Miami FAC at risk of archival

[edit]

Hello everyone, I hope y'all are having a good day. Earlier this month, I nominated Hotline Miami at FAC after working on it for quite a while, and so far it's only gotten one support and might be archived within the next few days due to inactivity. If anyone would be interesting in reviewing the article and leaving comments, that would be greatly appreciated. I'm also open to review exchanges if requested. λ NegativeMP1 22:05, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Input needed in discussion at Talk:Gran Turismo (series)#Lead section

[edit]

There is an ongoing discussion at Talk:Gran Turismo (series)#Lead section regarding which of the two proposed lead sections would be better. Input in the discussion would be appreciated. Carfan568 (talk) 17:49, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

I have nominated Characters of God of War for featured list removal. 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. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 05:37, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your Wikiproject Video Games New Years Resolution

[edit]
This suit cost me three grand. Feel the satin and weep. Happy new year!

I'm aware that I recently did a "non-productive post" above (as my haters call them) but I thought this would be fun. After all, who doesn't love an icebreaker? I don't!

What's your Wikipedia-related resolution for 2025? What new projects, achievements, or goals do you want to get done in the new year? Then we can look back and see both the people who conquered their goals and the people we should leave behind for 2026.

Gameplay of Pokemon

[edit]

I was relieved to see such as strong consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gameplay of Pokémon. It's not that we can't find sources, but that it duplicates the same types of content you'd see at Pokémon (video game series). With that said, I wanted to check if anyone felt similarly about Gameplay of World of Warcraft or Gameplay of Dragon Quest. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:17, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm generally against any of these gameplay/reception/awards type article spin outs. These two examples are much better written and sourced than the Pokemon was, but I'm still not certain a separate article is required... Sergecross73 msg me 19:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
At first blush looking at the above, I'd lean towards saying "no" to standalone articles. From base principles it's highly unlikely the gameplay of a game is notable independent of the coverage of the game itself (or a lot of the coverage leans into WP:ROUTINE-type stuff) but also I don't see where the level of coverage makes sense for a general encyclopedia. I don't need a blow-by-blow of all the quest types in WoW, for example. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 19:57, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I was surprised someone felt the need for the Dragon Quest spinout too. They're fine games, but they're pretty straightforward, "meat and potatoes" type games. Sergecross73 msg me 20:31, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like someone wrote it in 2010 and it hasn't gotten much more than 50 edits of any kind in the 15 years since. --PresN 20:36, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do believe those are probably better off merged/redirected back to the target. I'm not seeing much in the way of a valid split-out rationale for these that would indicate their gameplay is standalone notable. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 00:55, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It kind of echoes my feelings on Development of Mother 3. So much of it is redundant to what's already present at Mother 3, and it feels like it'd be better served being merged back into it, or have the EarthBound 64 stuff expanded upon. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 20:06, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I am very fond of these types of articles and the amount of depth they lend to angles on these works. "Gameplay of" articles do tend to be terrible to source tho, and the "Gameplay of Pokémon" article never reached the quality I would hope for it. "Gameplay of Dragon Quest" is particularly odd to me, as it hardly explains mechanics unique to the series and it's pretty short. At least Pokémon has a swath of fairly unique mechanics that I believe would be really useful to describe in-depth. Perhaps it'd be more of a Wikibooks kind of deal tho, if that project ever worked out. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:43, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll defend Gameplay of Overwatch as save for a few areas, I've made sure it is sourced to reliable secondary sources talking about these gameplay elements to a reasonable depth (of course, most of the that came from the period while there was attention with the Overwatch League and helping viewers understand rules); it also helps alleviate size issues. I consider it compariable to Magic: The Gathering rules which due to similar attention via tourneys has had its rules/gameplay evaluated in depth. For those reasons, I think Gameplay of World of Warcraft is a reasonably fair split from the main WoW article (which covers more of how big and significant it is to the industry) and just needs a bit more sourcing to make it better. But key on these is the use of secondary sources to show that the gameplay or rules have been discussed beyond simple coverage of the whole game itself. The Pokemon gameplay article had problems with very little sourcing along those lines (though you'd think that should be possible with how big the franchise is). The Dragon Quest case, that seems rather more difficult given the niche of JRPGs. (Common features of JRPGs and CRPGs in general, however, are absolutely fair game in the genre articles). Masem (t) 14:00, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Live service games

[edit]

I decided to take Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gameplay of Dragon Quest to AFD based on what appears to be a consensus here. The problem is that "X series" and "Gameplay of X series" have the same scope, just with more WP:GAMEGUIDE detail. Masem brought up some points about splitting the gameplay from the Blizzard games, and while I disagree, I think it's worth discussing. I disagree that "Gameplay of WoW" is any less of a redundant fork. But I do see how these games are actually multiple releases and updates over several years. Despite World of Warcraft not being a game series, its history is longer than many game series, with more Category:World of Warcraft expansion packs than many series. And yet it doesn't have a "series" article separate from the original release.

TLDR: "Gameplay of X series" is redundant with "X series", but long-running live service games might have several expansions/updates without having a separate series article. Is there a way to rename / move these article titles to improve their scope and viability? Shooterwalker (talk) 17:49, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New Articles (December 29 to January 1)

[edit]
 A listing of all articles newly added to the Video Games Wikiproject (regardless of creation date). Generated by v3.20 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 20:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

December 29

December 30

December 31

  • None

January 1


The 1.0 bot fell down for a while due to some template/category changes, and I'm not going to be home for the next normal run day, so rather than make some mega-post on the 13th I'll cut it in half and post some of it now. --PresN 20:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Deus Ex (video game)

[edit]

Deus Ex (video game) has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 23:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Featured List Removal for a relevant article

[edit]

I have nominated List of major Super Smash Bros. Ultimate tournaments for featured list removal. 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. Witsako (talk) 23:18, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]