Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 44

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 43 Archive 44

Contents

TopTenReviews is a shitty source for games reception data, and shouldn't be touched

I've been reverting back and forth between a User:Wikipedian06 and an anon at Ocarina of Time over the inclusion of a GameRankings style reviews collation site. Wikipedian06, even though originally vehemently arguing against listing any form of rankings at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Archive_34#Potential_issue_with_GameRankings.2FMetaCritic_--_add_language_to_guidelines.3F, is now firmly pro-ranking websites, having added them to GTA IV, and now at Ocarina of Time.

He insists on adding a link to TopTenReviews, I have removed it on multiple occasions because its an unreliable source which relies on user-reviews. Now, the website doesn't claim this, but if you look at the expert reviews, you'll find that it draws the final score from websites such as http://www.world-of-video-games.com. Reviews from World of Video Games, are user submitted, at http://www.world-of-video-games.com/contact.shtml, although I guess the site is no longer live. TopTenReviews takes into account all the reviews at http://www.world-of-video-games.com/n64/review/legend_of_zelda_o_of_time.shtml to generate their collated score for Ocarina, yet other aggregators take absolutely nothing from World of Video Games. That's because their reviews, start like such:

Hello, everyone! My name is Kenny Flynn and this is my first review of any game, so please be nice. - http://www.world-of-video-games.com/n64/reviews/legend_of_zelda_kenny.shtml

This is why TopTenReviews should not be cited in the reception section of articles, and it is why it should be removed from Template:VG Reviews. Any further thoughts, please discuss. - hahnchen 00:32, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

That"Hello, everyone! My name is Kenny Flynn and this is my first review of any game"is a user review is speculation.Any reviewer has written his "first" review.--43.244.132.168 (talk) 00:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Bullshit, the contact page I've linked to above is the submit reviews page. That's all that World of Video Games entails. And TopTenReviews wasn't added to Template:VG Reviews without any discussion or consensus, unlike the bulk of the sources which were discussed when the template was created. The games section on TopTenReviews does not have the same traffic as Game Rankings, and nor does it have the industry influence as Metacritic - http://news.google.co.uk/news?hl=en&um=1&tab=wn&q=metacritic&btnG=Search+News. The only argument for TopTenReviews, is that it includes absolutely every possible review going for the product, this isn't exactly a strength, as I've shown above. - hahnchen 01:22, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
While I agree that having what appear to be user reviews like those from World of Video Games is poor style, I've yet to see a database entry for a current-gen game (e.g. SMG, GTAIV) with any questionable reviews listed. Maybe the TTR editors simply weren't aware of the WoVG reviews, in which case we should notify them via the contact form. Also, just because those reviews look unprofessional doesn't mean that all the ones listed on Game Rankings are -- after all, the Cubed3 review that stirred up so much controversy last week due to a scoring system change was written by a 15-year-old (at the time of publication--check his birthdate and then the review's publication date)! Even Kenny Flynn's review is at least twice as long and detailed as A. V. Club's two-paragraph reviews! Simply put, anyone with a professional-looking website can apply to be listed on GR and MC.
TTR is clearly a notable aggregator, with more Google search results than Game Rankings, as well as a higher Alexa traffic ranking than Gamerankings and Metacritic. TTR is clearly reliable, as I haven't seen any questionable reviews listed for recent games, and it is also the only one that is not run by an editor who has a personal interest in video games (unlike Metacritic's Marc Doyle and Gamerankings' Lee Alonsi, both of whom are gamers with personal opinions and prone to data tweaking.) The last reason to support TTR's inclusion is that it's not a CNET-operated website, and exclusively referencing CNET websites here is not good practice per WP:NPOV. Wikipedian06 (talk) 01:51, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with the discussion but it dont like how much profanity it in this one discussion.Gears Of War 02:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Hahnchen has had a long history of using inappropriate language on this site. Wikipedian06 (talk) 02:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, my language is usually directed at situations and arguments, not people.[1]. - hahnchen 02:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Well the fact that you used profanity is the problem, young kids edit on Wikipedia also so why should they have to read your curses?Gears Of War 02:46, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not censored However, discussions are supposed to be civil, so swearing at a person is discouraged. --MASEM 02:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I dont exactly like seeing profanity being the first thing on my watchlist(I have also left him a message).Gears Of War 02:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
The influence that TTR has is nothing in comparison to Metacritic. Microsoft are culling their Xbox Live service based on Metacritic, Steam lists Metacritic, there's a whole load of Metacritic references in Google News, hardly any for TopTenReviews. The Google test is flawed because TopTenReviews has spammed every possible version of its domain into the Google index. And Alexa does not show TTR having any real lead other the CNET sites, especially when we look at its current and past performance. You have to take into account that 100% of Game Rankings traffic is going to games, and from Alexa, only 10% of TTR traffic is going to games. And what do you know of TTR's editorial process, what do you know of Metacritic's ranking system? - hahnchen 02:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
And I cannot believe that you're using review length as any indication of a review's quality. Edge and Famitsu have short reviews, it doesn't stop them from being infinitely more reliable, influential and better than Kenny Flynn's darling first effort and every other user review on TTR. - hahnchen 02:26, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
That is Metacritic, which even has the advantage of being the oldest of the three sites. Metacritic's Alexa traffic rank is currently 4,568, lower than TopTenReviews' 3,616 -- and yet, because Metacritic doesn't use separate subdomains for different media types, you don't know what fraction is actually going to games. In any case, we're not disputing whether Metacritic is notable, but rather why TopTenReviews is NOT notable -- and by a statistically significant margin. TTR has been cited by sources like Business Week and ABC and has been named a finalist in the American Business Awards. If we want to bring up non-notable aggregators, ones like Game Ratio and MobyRank are far less notable. Wikipedian06 (talk) 02:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Game Ratio or MobyRank shouldn't be mentioned, why did you add it to Grand Theft Auto IV[2]? Or are links and references only good when they disparage Ocarina? - hahnchen 01:03, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
hahnchen has a point, comparing review length is not a reliable method of determining reliability. And per WP:SET, "Search engines cannot: 1) Guarantee the results are reliable or "true" (search engines index whatever text people choose to put online, true or false). 2) Guarantee why something is mentioned a lot, and that it isn't due to marketing, reposting as an internet meme, spamming, or self-promotion, rather than importance. 3) Guarantee that the results reflects the uses you mean, rather than other uses."
While this doesn't prove or disprove the reliability of TTR, I do think it should not be included in articles and the Review template until this issue is resolved. (Guyinblack25 talk 03:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC))
I'm sensing some WP:COI issues here... --Izno (talk) 05:31, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
This whole debate is kinda curious... We're discussing whether TopTenReviews is a reliable source, yet it is not a source to begin with. TopTenReviews, GameRankings, Metacritic, and Wikipedia itself all have one thing in common: they are not sources, but aggregators of sources. Each source (like World of Video Games) should be assessed individually; there's nothing wrong with TopTenReviews in itself. If it appears that an aggregate score, wherever it comes from, is based on both reliable and unreliable sources, then I think it shouldn't be mentioned. Only the scores from reliable sources should. Kariteh (talk) 08:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

We should not look into the websites' way to calculate aggregate score, because aggregate score in itself depends on the stance of the websites. The same game receives different numbers of reviews and different websites' reviews on TopTenReviews,GameRankings, and Metacritic. Even on the same aggregator website,games receive diffrent numbers of reviews and diffrent websites' reviews respectively. So aggregate score in itself is nonsense,and looking into how the aggregate score is calculated is also nonsense.the important thing is notability.TopTenReviews,GameRankings, and Metacritic are all enough notable, and helpful for wikipedia.--43.244.132.168 (talk) 09:20, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

We do not know whether TopTenReviews is more notable than GameRankings and Metacritic, and whether GameRankings and Metacritic are more notable than TopTenReviews, so they should be treated impartially. On GameRankings and Metacritic,old games have few reviews, so as for old games, GameRankings and Metacritic are not reliable. But on TopTenReviews, even old games have many reviews, so for gamers who like new games and old games equally, TopTenReviews is a important website.--133.2.9.162 (talk) 07:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, as I said, I've yet to find any potentially questionable sources listed on TTR for any games starting from the sixth (GCN/Xbox) generation. Unless you can prove me wrong, I think it's better to inform them about the N64 sources and have them fix it rather than ban the site entirely. Wikipedian06 (talk) 08:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Notability is absolutely not a litmus test for reliability. Many tabloids are notable; few are reliable. The fact that TTR posts anachronistic user reviews, with an apparent lack of fact-checking, does NOT lend credibility or utility to the site; if anything, the opposite. And since this is apparently the context in which the site is being used instead of MC and GR, I would say that it probably isn't reliable for Wikipedia. This is not a judgment against other potential aggregate sources, however. Just find one that is based on actual and then-current publications (e.g. magazines, for older games) instead of user contributions that are written retrospectively. (Well-sourced retrospection can be used to comment about a game's legacy, which is a slightly different subject than its critical reception.) Ham Pastrami (talk) 10:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I've yet to find any potentially questionable sources listed on TTR for any games starting from the sixth (GCN/Xbox) generation. Unless you can prove me wrong, I think it's better to inform them about the N64 sources and have them fix it rather than ban the site entirely.
While we're on the subject of reliability, let's inspect Metacritic's sources on Ocarina of Time (N64):
Gaming Maxx 100 - Leads to online Flash games portal
Hot Games 100 - Leads to online Flash games portal
AVault 100 - PAGE NOT FOUND
Electric Playground 100 - PAGE NOT FOUND
Nintendorks 100 - PAGE NOT FOUND
TotalGames.net 100 - PAGE NOT FOUND
Games Domain 100 - Redirects to Yahoo!
At least the WoVG pages actually lead somewhere. Wikipedian06 (talk) 11:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Metacritic missing reviews

Now, let's take a look at Metacritic's own rules:
The counted list of Metacritic publications is available here.
All five publications below are on the "allowed list" and yet conveniently exempted from OoT's page:
Nintendo Power (Magazine): 9.5 out of 10
Computer & Video Games (Magazine): 9.0 out of 10
Games Master UK (Magazine): 97%
netjak: 9.5 out of 10
RPG Fan: 95%
How about we remove all reviews from GTAIV's page** that are under 100 instead?
(**I hardly care about GTAIV; just using as an example) Wikipedian06 (talk) 11:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
All that stuff there regarding Metacritic's rules and ranking algorithm's is original research. You could go through every review on Metacritic and check which sources are missing, I'm sure there will be loads, but that doesn't alter the fact that Metacritic is well established as the industry standard, and Top Ten Reviews aren't. - hahnchen 00:21, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Similarly, your analysis of TTR appearing to allow user reviews is also original research. You shouldn't apply double standards here. Besides, as I said above, having links to "unprofessional" reviews that actually go somewhere looks far more professional than a bunch of 404s and redirects to spam sites. Wikipedian06 (talk) 01:41, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Pointing out that they aggregate user reviews is less of a jump than dictating which sources an aggregator should be using. You'll also note how any original research I might do, never goes into the article. - hahnchen 21:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I must say aggregate scores of the three aggregator websites are less reliable than user voting because they uses different numbers of reviews and different websites' reviews for each game while user voting is statistically correct. For calculating fair scores they should use the same numbers of reviews and the same websites' reviews. The important part of aggregator website is that we can get many reviews easily, not the aggregate score because aggregate score is crap as I mentioned above.If we consider whether a review is reliable or not,why don't we consider whether aggregate score is reliable or not?,and it is obviously not.So if TopTenReviews is going to be removed, why don't we give up using aggregate score for wikipedia?furthermore,Metacritic seems less reliable than TopTenReviews--43.244.132.168 (talk) 11:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The user votes on Metacritic aren't counted in the metascores. Wikipedian06 (talk) 11:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I know it,I just said user voting is more reliable than metascores--43.244.132.168 (talk) 12:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
  • TopTenReviews even though it has a similar Alexa rank to GameRankings and Metacritic, has way less influence in the games industry, just try googling for articles. And just going from your own experiences, how often is a TopTenReview score quoted for a game, against Metascores and GameRanking averages?
Their sources for games such as Ocarina of Time have been shown to come from user reviews, which we do not take into account. I mentioned above, at #Giant_Bomb_as_reliable_source.3F, that it wasn't just reliability which was the issue with sources, but influence. The TTReview score for Ocarina has none of those. - hahnchen 01:03, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
http://www.toptenreviews.com/news-releases.html Looks like plenty of TTR citations from well-known third party sources. Wikipedian06 (talk) 01:37, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
And pretty much all of them are irrelevant. The only citations in its entire history related to video games, are three which regard video game rental services. Compare that with Metacritic and GameRankings. I cannot believe that anyone could argue that TTR is anywhere near reliable in the case of Ocarina, given its use of user reviews. And in the case of Ocarina, given its status as a featured article, the onus of discussion is placed on the person adding the disputed material, not the one removing it. - hahnchen 09:49, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Let's get this straight: are you trying to push for TTR's exclusion from the OoT article or from ALL gaming articles?
No, I'm not disputing that TTR has potentially questionable reviews for OoT. However, has any similar issue been found for a sixth generation or later game? If not, would it be acceptable to cite TTR as an alternative to CNET-operated aggregators on articles for sixth and seventh generation games?
Wikipedian06 (talk) 05:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

On Metacritic, some of the reviews of oot do not work.Metacritic is less reliable than TopTenReviews. This is why Metacritic should not be cited in the reception section of articles, and it is why it should be removed from Template:VG Reviews. --43.244.132.168 (talk) 05:45, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

This argument is totally irrelevant. If a link is dead, it means the site of the reviews changed the location of the review and the aggregator didn't update its link. It has nothing to do with reliability. A simple Google or Internet Archive search will retrieve all of these reviews. Kariteh (talk) 07:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
For example, on n-philes.com,the page of oot does not have a review article.[3]. Verifiability is the most important thing when considering a source is reliable or not.--43.244.132.168 (talk) 08:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
The Internet Archive is your friend: [4]. These reviews are clearly verifiable, even if one has to think fourth-dimensionally to see them. Kariteh (talk) 08:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Can we use The Internet Archive-searched page as a reference for wikipedia? I do not know about it.--43.244.132.168 (talk) 08:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
We can; the archives are unmodified so they're reliable, and there's even a parameter for citing archives in the template:cite web. Kariteh (talk) 08:58, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I am well aware of Archive. Some cached reviews turn up; others don't. In any case, having a bunch of 404's and spam site redirects without any explanation is simply unprofessional--IMO, Metacritic should either (1) remove the dead sites, (2) store cached copies of said reviews for verification purposes, or (3) add a footnote explaining what's going on. Wikipedian06 (talk) 20:12, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm only just coming in to this now, but as far as I can see, the argument is not about the significance of Metacritic (that's well established), or how they can improve, but the significance of TopTenReviews. What reviews Metacritic references shouldn't be an issue - it is often referenced by a wide range of media sources. TopTenReviews is not. That should be the end of the discussion. As per Hahnchen above. Fin©™ 21:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, not anymore. If Metacritic has issues like 404s and spam redirects, we may need to reconsider its reliability for the Video Games wikiproject. After all, Metacritic is used for a wide range of media, and most of the outside references are about its movies, not its games. Wikipedian06 (talk) 22:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
"most of the outside references are about its movies, not its games." - that's completely incorrect. Both EA and Microsoft have recently used Metacritic ratings to change their business practices (EA with a focus on quality, MS to delist underperforming XBLA games). Metacritic is referenced constantly in the gaming press (I could find more, but I'm not bothered). If you think its reliability is in question, branch a discussion away from this, which is only about TopTenReviews. Fin©™ 22:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
There are plenty of references to TopTenReviews, too. For example, GamingNexus.com published an article about TTR and rankings of game rental companies. Wikipedian06 (talk) 05:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
There are not plenty. Of the press mention list on TTR the only articles pertaining to games, were the rankings of games rental services, not the games themselves. Whereas for Metacritic, you have references to Microsoft's Live Arcade game listing policy, numerous mentions from industry executives and analysts. - hahnchen 22:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
no, if Metacritic is as reliable as or less reliable than TopTenReviews , and TopTenReviews is removed from Template:VG Reviews,Metacritic should be removed too. we do not need to make a new section about it because the issues are about aggregators' reliability and should not be separated. Metacritic seems unprofessional and unreliable--133.2.9.161 (talk) 05:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I think we need to approach this from a different angle. We need to question why we including review links and aggregate review links in our reception section; I think answering that clearly will make sense of what needs to be done.
In the former case of single review links, we want to link to review sources that are generally "reliable" in that there is some editorial control on the review, that their past body of review work has generally been considered the best, and there's no easy evidence of biasing. This is generally why we don't permit user blog reviews, and generally are looking at the major gaming sites and key print magazines for these. This doesn't mean that, say, the New York Times isn't worthwhile - the newspaper as a whole is as reliable as these sites if not more, but it just isn't the best comprehensive coverage of video games. The other point is that we don't fill the reception section with every video game review we can find; we want to hit the major sites, and then make sure that if there are extremes from reliable sources, they are covered as well as to source what problems or pluses were in the game. Thus, a typical article today should probably have between 5 to 7 single review points to paint the larger picture.
Now, why do we provide aggregrate review links? Well, to the above point, since we are not providing every review under the sun, as a tertiary source, we should point to where an interested reader can find more reviews of similar source quality. This means we don't want tons of blogs or the like (we would never, for example, link to GameFAQS' or Amazon's user reviews). Thus, when we project-wise select which aggregriates to use, we consider what their general makeup is. At this point, this is what separates MC and GR from TTR. MC is generally better (there's a few "blog" type review sites) than GR, but both have a better ratio of reliable sourcing reviews compared to TTR. The other big plus that these sites immediate get that TTR does not have is that they include print journals, which are often ignored (not necessarily a negative, just a fact) for modern games, but are important data points. As to another point, just like we don't need to include every single review source, we don't need to include every aggregriate point, and thus if we are limiting ourselves, MC would be highest priority, followed by GR. TTR is just not the greatest site to include when there are these other two resources available that are better overall. Only in the case if neither MC or GR have a game should the fallback be TTR. --MASEM 05:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, as I said, I haven't found any potentially questionable reviews listed on TTR for sixth generation games and beyond. Why don't we use TTR, but on articles for sixth generation and later games only? I agree that WoVR reviews shouldn't be included, but why penalize the entire website for one problem source? There are 346 N64 games in TTR's database; what about the other 34,000+ that we can use? Wikipedian06 (talk) 05:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Also, you think Metacritic's 404's and spam redirects make it look professional? What about all those missing reviews that should be on OoT's page per the site's own rules, but aren't? Coincidentally, they all happen to be lower-scoring ones, too. Maybe the sourced review sites themselves aren't biased, but Metacritic's editor is? How can Wikipedia rely on a source whose editor may be tweaking the data to his heart's content?
At the very least, I know TTR isn't biased because the site founder has no personal interest in video games. The WoVR inclusion was simply an oversight--it was added to all N64 games for which reviews were available. Wikipedian06 (talk) 06:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Em, how do you know the founder has no personal interest in video games? Fin©™ 12:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
All I can say about the lack of OoT reviews is that anything on MC published before 2001 (the year the site came into being) is probably going to be lacking certain print and long-dead sources, simply because collecting information about past events is more difficult about what happens now. There's absolutely nothing wrong with 404 or spam links as long as the original "See original review" link was originally where it was supposed to go, but either because the site disappeared or they reorganized material (improperly) is nothing that MC should be expected to fix. But you're missing the larger point. In general, MC is the best snapshot we have for capturing the aggregate score - it certainly hasn't shown day to day biasing that GR (see what happened when Super Mario Galaxy came out and suddenly there were changes in numbers to keep OoT on top) and captures most of the key top gaming sites and print journals. It may be missing a few, I would not be surprised that GR and TTR are too. That's ok - we just want to make sure that the aggregate is the best snapshot across as many types of sources as possible to be helpful to the reviewer. --MASEM 12:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
If a notable review is missing, just add it to the table above the aggregate scores. The template is made to support both aggregate and individual scores. Kariteh (talk) 13:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Regarding whether TTR should be used for recent reviews, if their recent reviews do not cite user reviews, then I would not be for a blanket ban. I would consider the source less notable and influential than the CNet aggregators. I cannot think of a single game which would be served better with a TTR link over a Metacritic one. I do not think there is a need for both, it is the CNet aggregators which have become the de-facto industry standard. - hahnchen 22:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Notability/Relevance of Template:VG Reviews Sites

Having a quick browse through the template, there seems to be a large number of nn review sites for games (The Cincinnati Enquirer), review sites of dubious notability (reviewers without wiki articles) and non-en sites (Jeux Video, Meristation). Is there any existing consensus as to what constitutes a notable review site? The few discussions I've found are short-lived, without consensus. Thanks! Fin©™ 22:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd keep the Cincinnati Enquirer on the basis that it is (or at least appears to be, I'm in the UK so I've not got a clue whether its the equivalent of the Telegraph of the Daily Star) a reputable newspaper, and in my experience is rather rare in that it reviews video games. -- Sabre (talk) 22:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
WTH? Since when does a source have to be WP:Notable for us to cite it? Anomie⚔ 22:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
What Anomie said. If the sources meet WP:V/WP:RS we can use them, regardless of the status of their article. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 23:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Wouldn't this lead to articles that are overflowing with reviews from minor websites, fan websites and blogs? You have to draw the line somewhere. Fin©™ 10:32, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Well... explain how these minor websites, fansites, or blogs meet WP:V? Has anyone reliable asserted their reliability as a source? If not, then no. If yes, then yes, we can use them, which is a good thing. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 10:40, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Ok, bad example. Take The Irish Times, a notable, verifiable newspaper of record in Ireland. They most certainly aren't a notable games reviewer though - should they still be included in a review table, and in the reception text? Fin©™ 10:44, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Good point. No, they don't have to be, and if their review is a one line "Age of DHMO is the best video game ever", then they shouldn't be. But if they do a high quality, IGN-esque (dodges tomatoes of those who dislike IGN) review, then there's no reason why they shouldn't be included. Thing is, I doubt they will. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 10:52, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Cool so! They won't, the Times doesn't even have game reviews, I was just making a point =) Fin©™ 11:16, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Yep, and a good point it was. I think we both get what the other is trying to say now. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 11:17, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it's necessary that sites aren't notable, it is just that when we provide reviews of modern games, there as some sites over others that should be stated, and only these should be listed. That doesn't prevent people from using, say, the Cincinnati Enquirer in the table if it is appropriate, though in the "rev1" keyword portion. However, with that many parameters, it encourages people to try to fill them all in, when really, we should only have the GR/MC cumulative rating, any appropriate paper magazine (PC World, OXM, OPM, EGM, Nintendo Power, Famitsu, Edge, etc) and from 4 to 6 reviews from web sources that are used in the reception section to explain the critical response in more detail, or failing that, from well-established top-tier game sites (1UP, IGN, Gamespot, Gamespy, Eurogamer, etc.) --MASEM 00:14, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I think non-English publications such Famitsu or Jeux Video are relevant when the game was first published in a non-English country (Japan, France, etc.). If the game was first published in an English country, there's no reason to use non-English reviews IMO. Kariteh (talk) 07:21, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
That's actually setting up for a double standard. A lot of games are published in Japan, but the bulk of the reviews on it are from English sources because of the ease of reading them for a casual editor. Under what you said though, they should technically be ignored because it was clearly not a US game from the getgo. Any review of any sort should be valid if it comes from a verifiable source, despite the language.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, what? I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Kariteh (talk) 13:48, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
My point is a source like Famitsu is no less relevant when a game is American made opposed to Japan: it gives a different culture's reception on it. Excluding it as irrelevant entirely is the equivalent of saying we should exclude EGM's reviews on any Japanese games. I do however agree with the person below, that some care should be exercised, especially in the case where the foreign publication is just a variant of a US magazine, such as the OPM example.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:00, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Good point! Kariteh (talk) 14:33, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I think non-en reviews shouldn't be included, unless they are notable for some reason (the unusually high score for Haze from Famitsu, for example). If it's decided any review of any language is ok for inclusion (as long as it's verifiable), what's to stop all regional variations of magazines being included (OPM:UK, OPM:FR, OPM:DE, OPM:ES, OPM:IT, etc)? Fin©™ 13:52, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I disagree; the simple fact that a (reliable) review comes from a different country is already a sign of importance. If a British review praises the graphics of a British game and a Japanese review also praises them, then I think both reviews should be mentioned. If you have too much reviews at hand they don't even have to be mentioned individually; you could just say "The graphics were praised by both British and Japanese critics", for instance. As for regional variations of magazines, I think they should be counted as a single entity since they're published by the same corporations. If one of them happen to say something notably different than the rest of them, it can be mentioned individually though. Kariteh (talk) 14:33, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
(ec) I'll guess you mean wikt:notable rather than WP:Notable (since the word "notable" on Wikipedia usually refers to WP:Notable, I try to always either use "[[wikt:notable]]" for the common definition or use a synonym such as "relevant"). I don't think there's any need for a slippery slope argument, just common sense is needed. Since this is the English Language Wikipedia, we generally reference English language sources. But if there is something relevant to the topic that needs to be sourced to a non-English source, such as your Haze example, we go ahead. Anomie⚔ 14:36, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not really talking about non-en reviews being included in Reception sections if notable, I think that already happens when appropriate. I mean their inclusion in the review table - shouldn't only oft used, notable, relevant, verifiable and (maybe) en-language be included? Fin©™ 15:21, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Concerning the review table, personally I think it's just a matter of space. If the non-English reviews can be included in the table without stretching it too much vertically (if the game is old or obscure, etc.), then why not put them? But generally there are already plenty of English reviews to put in the table, so I agree we shouldn't include everything in these cases. By the way, it might not be directly related to this discussion, but Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias has some very interesting explanations about regional bias. Kariteh (talk) 15:30, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
That page about bias is fair interesting alright! Back on topic, there's two problems with adding a large number of reviewers to the table - 1) the fact that the reviewer is in the table means people are more inclined to include that review score, leading to bloated tables on gamepages (GTA IV fell victim to this, and the table was culled), 2) there already exists a method to add reviewers not already included in the template to individual tables. If non-en reviews are to be added on a case-by-case basis, doesn't it make sense not to include them in the table, but rather have them added individually to the articles that require it? Fin©™ 15:43, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I have proposed at the talk page of Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources that we demonstrate the reliability of all of the sources listed; those with question marks are candidates for removal barring we cannot prove they meet the criteria of WP:RS. I suggest once this list is pruned/reinforced, we then sync the publications over to the reviews template, axing some of the less notable sources. I also suggest we keep out non-video gaming websites and newspapers to keep the list slim. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 14:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I should point out that using non-English review scores may be fine, but actually citing the text of a non-English review poses a problem. Either the text is quoted directly, in which case it's non-English and not useful to most readers, or someone is doing a translation plus paraphrase which can't be verified by most editors. It's almost better to cite an English website where someone has looked at the (for example) Japanese reviews and themselves paraphrased or summarized them. --Slordak (talk) 17:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

C-Class articles

Just a heads up. There's a big debate over the inclusion of a C-Class rating to the assessment scheme over at Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment. A proper discussion will be commencing soon, so I thought I'd alert the project. --.:Alex:. 10:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Start and B class aren't enough to show the difference between Stub and A/GA/FA? xD --Izno (talk) 10:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I can't wait until the D class article debate starts; lulz. Or better yet, rename Start to D, and Stub to F; that'll show 'em.--十八 10:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
One of the options being discussed is precisely to rename Start class to C class, since the word "start" can mislead people into thinking only recent articles should be in that class. Kariteh (talk) 11:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Considering the biggest gap in our assessed articles is between Start and B, I wouldn't mind differentiating those articles which are basically a full plot summary (start) from those that have some "real" information but otherwise need massive cleanup (C). Nifboy (talk) 05:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

For the longest time I thought "start" was first and then you'd upgrade to "stub" class, since "start" connotates beginning, whiel "stub" connotates, you know, a stub. hbdragon88 (talk) 03:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

My list run

I got very bored, and decided to convert several lists to be similar to the F-Zero/Castlevania titles lists. Any input/opinions/comments/contributions?

  1. List of Pokémon video games
  2. List of Wario video games
  3. List of The Legend of Zelda titles
  4. List of Metroid titles
  5. And I plan to do the same to List of Kirby video games, List of Donkey Kong games, and List of Mega Man games - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I can think of some other lists that would be possible. As a question though, is it preferable to produce "List of.." articles or "... (series)" articles? When sould one be used instead of the other? Which is more appropriate? Many thanks, Gazimoff WriteRead 18:45, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I would say that "List of Y games" is appropriate when it is strictly just a list, as the examples above are given, and there's little more about the series beyond the game list. "Y (series)" should be to discuss the overall series (including history, develop, gameplay commonalities, etc.) in more depth. --MASEM 19:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Template:FFtitlebox should be used instead of the direct wikicode, so that editing is easier for newcomers. Kariteh (talk) 20:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Also isnt List of Y "titles" preferred over List of Y games? Salavat (talk) 01:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Depends. "Titles" implies that there is more media beyond just the video games in the list (see List of Castlevania titles). I can see cases where you would want the video games separate from other forms of media (say List of Naruto video games should be separate from List of Naruto manga volumes, List of Naruto episodes, etc.). Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 02:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't seem to be standardized. List of Final Fantasy media uses "media" instead of "titles". Also, should "games" be used instead of "video games" when possible? Kariteh (talk) 09:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Any suggestions for standardizing it. "Media" seems to be a more descriptive word. Like in the FF and KH lists, they include the games, soundtracks, manga, companion books, etc. I used "titles" for the Castlevania list because it was mostly games, but included compilations and the upcoming movie. If it extends beyond video games in any capacity, should we use "media"? (Guyinblack25 talk 14:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC))
I think the disparity between "titles" and "media" is that the former excludes soundtracks, manga, companion books, etc., with the movie in List of Castlevania titles being the exception. If you want to use "media", then you're including everything concerning that game/franchise that you're focusing on: manga, soundtracks, strategy guides, everything (per List of Kingdom Hearts media). Ultimately, it comes down to a case-to-case basis, as there's times where a "media" list would be inappropriate, say in the case of the Naruto or Bleach lists where video games are not the primary part of the franchise. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 00:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Phasing out usage of CVG?

I notice that "CVG" is still around quite a bit these days, and although its usage has been greatly reduced, I'm wondering if we should really start to try to phase out it's usage, particularly on templates and redirects. I believe the interchangable use of CVG alongside VG is confusing (particularly to newer editors), and we should at least try to phase out its usage for the {{WikiProject Video games}} template. This page shows an absurd amount of pages that redirect from CVG names. I can completely understand having the redirects to main project pages like assessment and deletion discussions, as they likely still used, but are links such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer and video games/Peer review/Yoshi really necessary? Can we not get rid of them to consolidate resources and not have a whole sea of redirects? There are even some redundant pages lurking in there. --.:Alex:. 18:48, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Redirects are cheap and basically not worth looking into for any duration of time (for instance, this CVG/PR redirect is linked to from this very inactive page, and fixing it is entirely too much work for too little benefit). I change the template name to {{vgproj}} whenever I do assessments, though, due to how my assessment script works (it doesn't recognize any other template name, {{cvgproj}} being the most common). Nifboy (talk) 04:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
This sounds like trying to find a needle in a hay stack. I don't doubt there are some redirects being used inappropriately, but short of checking each one individually, I don't know how to deal with finding them. This sounds like it'll be a long-term issue that may best be dealt with by addressing it as we find them; something members are just going to have to keep in the back of their minds as they edit. I'm sure by 2010, CVG will have been phased out complete, I just hope we're still going by VG then. :-p (Guyinblack25 talk 17:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC))

No link to "Reliable sources" sub-page

IIRC this Wikiproject has a "Reliable sources" sub-page - but no link to it. Why not? Philcha (talk) 23:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

It's there, but it's kind of buried. See the side-menu, under "Manual Style" there's a link called "Sources". I agree that it's not very easy to seek out for something that would otherwise be quite helpful. Randomran (talk) 23:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, i wouldn't say it's been very helpful, as I've had to justify every source on that page; but hopefully the RS criteria rationales will be added and improved so we can just point to it for defense of sources. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 14:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The "fringes" of our scope: do we include these sorts of articles?

I was looking over some stuff on the legal side of video games and I was wondering how much of it comes under our scope. I realise that many of us will not be able to write about many of these aspects, but should they be in our scope? For instance, Jack Thompson, an American lawyer who has campaigned against violent video games such as GTA with varying degrees of success, is not listed under our scope (his article's currently GA, although a look into its edit history shows that Mr. Thompson dubbed a lot of its content as inaccurate a few years back). However, the Byron Review, a review conducted on behalf of the British Government that looks into the rating systems of the BBFC and PEGI, along with various other video game and online content issues, is listed as within our scope. Do we add these sorts of articles to our scope or not, leaving them only to those WikiProjects dealing with legal articles? This probably is coming from the fact we don't appear to define our scope anywhere beyond what can be obviously deduced from our WikiProject name. -- Sabre (talk) 17:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd say most articles like that are within our scope (per our project page: "topics related to video games"), though I'd say the importance of such article are up for debate. Articles like Jack Thompson, Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Nintendo Co., Ltd., and ESRB re-rating of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion are about things that go on behind the scenes of video games and directly impact the industry. They are also arguably more encyclopedic in scope than our normal video game articles. (Guyinblack25 talk 17:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC))

90 minute cut scenes...what the bloody hell?! The reason why MGS4 might change reviews forever(EGM is screwed)

Whoa dudes this is haarious and kinda disturbing news. So I'm chilling out wtaching Xplay, and they start talkin about MGS4, now I'm happy cause I'm gonna get a look at an awesome up-coming game. So they're talkin then the mention a 90 mnute cut scene in the middle of MGS4. So I'm like o my f----- God. So they say that there are some other iffy thing goin on with the game. So they keep talkin and they say the MGS4 publishers told EGM and other reviewers to not mention the cutscenes and other problems in their reviews. So bottom line, EGM gave the game a un-straight forward review(which sucks). So now Xplay brings some dude on stage to discuss this. And he says that the publisher has the right to say dont mention this...and yet the reviewer can say screw you I'm doin what I want. So now MGS4 may be getting some un-straight forward reviews. I thought this news it would be a awesome addition to the MGS4 article because will anybody else follow the way of MG's publisher. Sorry for the long message but this is wierd and disturbing news.Gears Of War 22:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh wait it is already in the article well at least you know now see here for more info.Gears Of War 22:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Question

from WikiProject Video games

Link I don't want to start fighting again but please GAMEFAQs, GAMESTOP, TOYSRUS. are not sources they seem to be I also thought they were sources until I went to SSBB (Super Smash Brother Brwal) page and they were all yelling at me for adding GAMEFAQs, GAMESTOP, TOYSRUS as sources.--Lbrun12415 20:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow, be quiet. After you continuously vandalized my statement, I have decided to be done with you. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Are Gamefaqs, GAMESTOP, TOYSRUS sources ?--Lbrun12415 20:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

When it comes to release dates for games that aren't out yet, they're not reputable. GameFAQs is a user-submission site, just like Wikipedia (such sites are never used as sources if there's better alternatives). Vendors like GameStop and TRU always use "best guess" release dates until companies actually give actual confirmed ones. If the game is already out, they could probably be used, but it's best to get a better source at that point anyways, since there would be a lot more sites, including more reputable ones, who give the same data. WP:VG/DATE has more information on all this. Arrowned (talk) 21:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
GameSpot are usually fairly good at detailing information about release dates, if that's what you're after. The SSSB information that you were looking for can be found here. Gazimoff WriteRead 19:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

GH Taskforce or even an Activision one

Since we wont be making a Activision task force anytime soon, why dont we try out a Guitar Hero taskforce. You guys have got to admit, that over the last month the Guitar Hero world has grown hugely and is just getting bigger. With the announcement of World Tour and then Mettalica(that was actually released), and On Tour AND Aerosmith, GH is ready for it's own taskforce. And if not, dont forget about making a even huger task force (Activision Task Force). What do you guys think. And pretty much the only problem should be the fact that not alot of the Guitar Hero game articles are at GA or FA status...that could present us with a problem, so whats you guys thoughts.Gears Of War 23:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay I take that back, almost every article in the series is FL or FA of GA, so there should be no problem we just need someone to lead it.Gears Of War 23:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Good Lord, GoW, we don't need task forces for every single series or company you can think up. Taskforces are only useful to help coordinate members- if no one else is actively using them, they're just wastes of space. Proposals like this need to be thought out first- and the fact that you said that none of the articles were GA+ and then immediately retracted it to say that they all were makes it very clear that you've put no thought or time into the idea, and probably won't do too much with the project after it's made, either. --PresN (talk) 01:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Task forces are set up because there's already a good momentum for editing a particular topic and to organize that momentum. They're not created in the hope of generating more momentum; task forces and wikiprojects which have been set up for that purpose have always failed to get any decent activity. Kariteh (talk) 07:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Oh sorry, just a suggestion.Gears Of War 22:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I say no. The primary task of a task force is to clean up a large amount of related articles through a collaborative effort so that they can become of GA or FA/FL quality. Seeing as how this has already been achieved sans a task force, there's no need.--十八 00:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

archive

This page is 231 kilobytes long.--Lbrun12415 03:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Any thread older than 7 days is automatically archived. Unless we want to put it down to 5 days or something.--十八 03:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Well anything that works that page does seem very long.--Lbrun12415 04:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
It gets long because people argue on it. ;) Not unnecessarily, sometimes, but this is just because of the fact it is centralized. --Izno (talk) 05:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)