Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 164

< Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games
Latest comment: 1 year ago by Tintor2 in topic Tekken 5
Archive 160 ← Archive 162 Archive 163 Archive 164 Archive 165 Archive 166 → Archive 170

War of Rights AfD

Latest comment: 1 year ago6 comments4 people in discussion

Hey folks, I'd appreciate if any video game experts can take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/War of Rights. My understanding of WP:VG/RS is that a lot of video game sources out there aren't reliable for Wikipedia's purposes, but I'd love additional eyes on the sources being shared there so I can withdraw the AfD if applicable. Thanks! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:09, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

I am not sure if you are even supposed to be posting this. My understanding is that AfD's have strict voting rules, particularly with the issue of canvassing. AfD's are literally advertised at the top of this project page, along with GA/FA/article review nominations. It's really up to individual editors to choose whether they wish to participate in any given discussion, so it shouldn't need individual editors to purposely draw attention to an AfD unless it is necessary to provide context for another discussion, like an ANI thread or deletion review. Haleth (talk) 17:26, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
This is perfectly fine. It's a neutral request for experienced editors to give an opinion on the sources presented, as he (the nominator) is planning to withdraw IF they are reliable sources. -- ferret (talk) 17:27, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
Canvassing is only a targeted request towards certain users, although if you are uncertain an AfD should be done you can always just add a notability tag and move on. If you are at the point of doing an AfD you should hopefully be certain it's not notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:11, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
Specifically, a targeted request towards certain users with the goal of a specific result. This is simply a request, by the nominator, for experienced editors to help vet the sources that have been presented in the course of the AFD in regards to reliability. -- ferret (talk) 18:37, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
@Haleth: Ferret is right on the money above; I tried to make sure the message complied with all four green stipulations at WP:INAPPNOTE.
@Zxcvbnm: Before I nominated the article for deletion, I did several combinations of Google searches with relatively fruitless results... with hindsight, I was clearly not searching with the right terms. (Even the comprehensive Vice article didn't appear!)
Regardless, I came here as there are clearly more resources out there on the game than I found, and I'd love to get this project's opinions on whether enough of them qualify as significant and reliable sources that count towards the notability standard. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:47, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Video Games Publishers

Latest comment: 1 year ago18 comments6 people in discussion

A submission was declined on 23rd August 2022 for Numskull Games. This is quite a reputable publisher who has a close working partnership with Spike Chunsoft. Is there anyone out there who has experience with Video Games publisher pages? The sources used here do seem in-line with other Publisher articles on Wikipedia. (Rising Star Games, Wired Productions, Super Rare Games for example are all existing with similar sources cited.) Markflynn000 (talk) 09:54, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Other people will probably chime in but I wanted to stress that a reputable company can still absolutely fail Wikipedia's notability criteria for corporations, because trustworthiness and notability are two totally different things. I can run a neighborhood plumbing company that always does the job incredibly well, but if local newspapers have not mentioned me beyond my own advertising or passing trivial mentions, I would not merit a Wikipedia article, it would simply be WP:PROMO for my company. All I saw with the current sources is simple announcements without WP:SIGCOV. If others disagree, however, they are welcome to mention the sources I am missing. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:13, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
I think the confusion on my part is largely stemming from other publishers existing on the platform following almost the same criteria. Hence my post here to try and determine if there's something else the original page could use based on others experiences... Markflynn000 (talk) 10:49, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
Just because something is "there" doesn't mean it is notable or would stay on Wikipedia if given a WP:PROD or nominated for deletion. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Articles for Creation is just a way of confirming up front if it's acceptable rather than waiting for the inevitable AfD. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:08, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
I'm not saying it's impossible, but it doesn't really help that they're mostly just distributing and not developing or publishing most of their games. That's not going to lead to very good coverage, as there's probably not a ton to say about them. This aligns with the current status of the rejected draft, where you couldn't even really write in paragraph form because it's mostly just a listing of disparate factoids. It's just a bit under-developed. I'd look to some better examples for help. Look for WP:GA articles like Rare (company) or Monolith Soft for guidance, not the fringe examples you listed above. Sergecross73 msg me 11:20, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
"it doesn't really help that they're mostly just distributing and not developing or publishing most of their game"
Numskulls most recently fully published title (Final Vendetta) has a lot of coverage from big sources (Gaming Bible, The Mirror, The Star, NME, Nintendo Life) etc, from previews, to reviews, to features on its soundtrack. Could that help the pages chances? I was under the impression that I needed to try to keep the page company specific. I think the biggest level of confusion is stemming from some of our sources being deemed 'trivial' whereas by that nature every single games publisher on Wikipedia should not be using PR related news beats. Which in itself is where almost all games news originates from. Is it possible to have guidance on this?
It's not that I couldn't write in paragraph form... I wrote in that style based on the similar companies that I saw had approved pages... To me it made sense to look at what similar companies were doing rather than monoliths such as Rare and well, Monolith. I could also add sections dedicated to partnerships with Independent studios and Spike Chunsoft similar to how the Rare page is structured if you think it could be beneficial.
Appreciate the advice. Markflynn000 (talk) 11:55, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
I think the primary issue is, whether the sources are mainly about the game or the company developing or publishing it. Final Vendetta does not have an article yet, but it's undoubtedly notable and should have one. In those sources, the publisher is only mentioned in passing and the announcement is that the game is getting something like a boxed release. Sources that would indicate notability for the company would need to be predominantly about the company itself. I can't really find anything like that, since it's largely just "Numskull Games announces X" where the article is about what they announced. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:26, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
I feel like we are arguing semantics slightly.
Final Vendetta is a product of Numskull Games, its marketing, distribution and coverage is as a result of the efforts of Numskull Games. How can that be undoubtedly notable when the publisher is not? The game does not exist in its current state without the publisher.
As a games publisher press will be solely related to game launches (games press don’t often write about companies individually unless lets face it, they are bought or acquired, you will see in the draft that Numskull Games was mentioned as a company when it was created, in fact this article is actually referenced in Rising Star Games verified Wikipedia page too [3] in the references). Numskull Games in its current form can really only provide press for its game launches (such as with Final Vendetta, where it was digital and physical distributor), partnership announcements (like w/ Spike, Limited Run Games) etc. I can provide these for more titles & others if that will help the pages chances. Markflynn000 (talk) 13:05, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
In terms of the creative aspects of video games, the publisher has little input into them so we rarely give the publisher much attention. Hence just claiming they had a major role in marketing the game doesn't help. We need independent secondary sources that talk about the published more than a name drop as part of a game release. Publishers like Limited Run Games have that as there has been interest in their release model. Masem (t) 13:11, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
We aren't talking purely creative or marketing. We're talking physical production, adding the product to digital store fronts, selling it to wholesale and retailers. Can you explain how Final Vendetta is notable but the company isn't? Markflynn000 (talk) 13:38, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
Do you have any sources that go into depth about this distribution and marketing? It is assumed that distribution and marketing is always part of a game's release making the publisher's role trivial, and hence non notable. The cases of pubs like Limited Run, Devolover, or Annapurna all have in depth discussion of the unique roles in financial and development support, or marketing, or distribution. That is what you need for thus publisher. Masem (t) 13:45, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
I was going to touch on this point some too. Take Anonymous;Code for example. It's an interesting game with an interesting development history. But Numskull didn't make the game or make any decisions on it. They're merely distributing it in Europe. There's really little relevant there as far as notability or content goes for Numskull. And I think that's kind of a recurring situation... Sergecross73 msg me 13:38, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
@Sergecross73 You are credited in the edit history of this page. Can you explain what is different about this page that makes it suitable for approvable? It's genuinely very confusing at this point, given all the responses above. If someone is able to explain the distinction it'd really make this clearer. Seems random at the moment. Markflynn000 (talk) 14:04, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
If you're referring to this edit, I believe that was just me cleaning up after an editor who was spamming an unreliable source (Nintendo Soup) back in 2019. I don't think I was really checking the article over for notability when I did that. I'm not 100% certain that article would survive a deletion discussion if it got proper scrutiny, honestly. Like I said, I think you should focus less on trying to emulate these D- level articles that may not be safe themselves... Sergecross73 msg me 14:26, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
I think the likes of Atlus West are worth comparing to. They are known for their approach to localizations and the care they take over them. If Numbskull also have a reputation for things like that, and it can be sourced, that would be something to raise them above being just a publisher. - 13:44, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

A lot of people have already given good advice from other angles so I'll just put this off to the side. It appears that you have declared a connection to the company so it behooves me to point you to Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing#Articles about companies and organizations. Having a Wikipedia article is neither a badge of honor nor a promotional tool. Your COI declaration means that any text you add will be more scrutinized than most to root out any hint of self-promotion. If you still wish to continue, I would search for third-party sources (i.e. no self-published press releases or game website articles that are lightly edited press releases) that describe the unique role that Numskull Games plays in the development process that is not merely the routine business of game distribution. Routine mentions in articles that Company X published this do not establish notability unless they actually make note of some unusual and noteworthy aspect of the business. Finally, notability is not WP:INHERITED from notable products that the company has published/distributed, nor is it inherited from notable people involved in the company. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:49, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

  1. Numskull (or Numskull Designs) (2012): Designing, manufacturing and distributing licensed gaming, movie and music merchandise globally.
  2. Numskull Games (an offshoot / label of Numskull) (2019): Publishing, marketing and distributing unique video games digitally and physically.
  3. Quarter Arcades: Creates replica range of Arcade cabinets by renowned collectors.
  4. TUBBZ: Range of duck-related collectible products.
  5. Pin Kings: Premium hard enamel pins covering brands in pop culture.
  6. 4 other brands [3]
  • That would be contingent on the question of whether Rubber Road is itself notable. Axem Titanium (talk) 22:05, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
    Yes, neither are particularly more or less plausible in those terms - the deciding factor of which one(s) have the reliable source coverage to meet the WP:GNG/WP:CORPDEPTH. Sergecross73 msg me 17:26, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Review thread...I don't know, but there's a lot.

Latest comment: 1 year ago7 comments7 people in discussion

Following on from a suggestion made above, I've decided to create a review thread. Things have been...complicated in the world over the past several months, so it's not all surprising that there's been a bit of backlog building up. But I think it's best to set to and make sure we've all got some idea of what ones still need tackling.

FAC
GAN
PR
Article assessments

As per usual, there is a backlog at the Request board, pushing six to seven years now we're in 2022. My noms in the list above are Orta, Sacnoth and DQIX. I'm already reviewing Forza Horizon 3 GAN. ProtoDrake (talk) 15:49, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

A great deal of the request board should be purged. Many of the entries simply link to Mobygames or even archive.org searches, rather than presenting the exact sources that would represent in-depth coverage per the request board's instructions. If a game linked to mobygames for 6-7 years still hasn't been created, the bottom line is no one who reviews that board or works to create articles felt the sourcing was there. We certainly have plenty of people who regularly create stubs for older games, and yet these don't move. -- ferret (talk) 17:02, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
I tend to agree. There's really no realistic expectation that someone is going to come along and create an article for an inconsequential 20 year old edutainment game that scraped by the bare minimum of the GNG. I dont care if we delete it or not, but I don't think any real importance should be placed on it. Sergecross73 msg me 17:07, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
I think the requesters should at least explain to people what the game is and why they are significant. Simply putting down the name of the game and then adding a bunch of sources next to it is not enticing to anyone who is looking to create articles. I believed most editors have no intention of clearing that backlog anyway, especially when the requesters themselves don't even bother to explain why they should be created. OceanHok (talk) 16:15, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
Donkey Kong Country was promoted to FA just today, so it can be crossed off this list. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 18:07, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
I decided to assist with Dragon Quest IX, Crash Bandicoot: On the Run, and Trails (series).Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 21:14, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
  • What's the record for open FACs? Should I add one? czar 01:44, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Images in navboxes part 2

Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Seems like the other discussion on this was archived, but should other forms of images (in this case, non-logos) also be removed from navboxes like at Template:Sega Genesis? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 17:19, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, for the same reason. Why does every case of this involve the same editor? -- ferret (talk) 17:58, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and removed the images from the rest of the game hardware navboxes. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 10:38, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Feedback on the Antimatter Dimensions draft?

Latest comment: 1 year ago8 comments4 people in discussion

This is a draft I have been working on. Unfortunately there are not that many good resources on the game. Most of the relevant information is in the fan-made wiki.

I tried my best to describe the outline of the game. I did try to make sure most major parts were included. Unfortunately that's pretty much the only section of the game which appears to be documented. Most of the aspects of the game is community-based, and there is pretty much nothing online from any publishing, nevermind reputable ones.

I'm sure this article can be made better, but resources have completely stumped me.

This is the right talk page for asking about this, isn't it? If not please direct me to somewhere better. Tungster24 (talk) 18:44, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

@Tungster24 The most severe issue is that not a single reliable secondary source is in use. The custom google search at WP:VG/S may help you find something, but most likely the game is not notable and does not pass WP:GNG. (I've actually played it). -- ferret (talk) 18:47, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
I looked through all of the resources, and then looked at the ones in other languages with the equivalent of "Antimatter Dimensions" in their language.
The only thing I found was a single source talking about the very beginning part of the game. Well... if I find something relevant, I'll try to add it. Tungster24 (talk) 19:24, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
From the existing sources, and a general search for sources, the game seems non-notable. Wikipedia is not a promotional tool whether for yourself or others, so no matter how good a game is, it requires mentions in reliable sources that Wikipedia cannot provide on its own. That is the job of the game's creator and how well they can market it or otherwise make it better known. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:41, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
  • I Oppose this article creation. It looks like a neat game with a dedicated fan base. But until it is covered in third party reliable sources, we can't write an article about it. As Zxcvbnm said above, it's the job of the game's devs to promote their game, not us.--Coin945 (talk) 02:51, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
    You're right. Can I keep it as a draft? Tungster24 (talk) 12:38, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
    YOu could as a memento of your work, but unfortunaly it looks like it won't become a mainspace article anytime soon and will have to stay in Draft-land.--Coin945 (talk) 13:37, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
    Drafts are eventually deleted if left as-is. Per WP:STALE, you should also not keep a draft in your userspace if it has "no potential" for a viable article. You can always just save the WikiMarkup in a document somewhere on your computer in case it ever becomes notable and request deletion of the draft. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:43, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

How should we handle Seasonal updates?

Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments4 people in discussion

I'm currently reviewing Crash Bandicoot: On the Run!, there is a section dedicated to updates. Some of them are substantial, while others are just seasonal events. In this situation. How should we handle them? Depending on what we determine, we may need to update the MOS for these kinds of things.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 20:50, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Usually such things would count as WP:GAMECRUFT unless they are major updates that add significant things to the game. However, Wikipedia is not for exhaustive logs of software updates. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:46, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
A little bit of synthesis can also be acceptable in a case like this, along the lines of (for example, I haven't read much) "every month in 2021 saw a DLC update featuring new skins." ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:03, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
if secondary sources cover the seasonal content, then its fine for us to detail it as with Fortnite or Overwatch. but if it happens with no fanfare in the media, it should not be documented heavily and summarized as suggested above. Masem (t) 09:22, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

New Articles (August 22 to August 28)

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements
 A listing of all articles newly added to the Video Games Wikiproject (regardless of creation date). Generated by v3.13 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 14:33, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

August 22

August 23

August 24

August 25

August 26

August 27

August 28

PresN 14:33, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

The top 10 most cloned videogames

Latest comment: 1 year ago30 comments10 people in discussion

Some video games were so influential they spawned entirely new genres. Some of these genres have distinct names, others are called "____ clones", and others still are on Wikipedia with the suffix "(video game genre)". Generally the original developers created sequels/ports of the game which can live in a "(video game series)" or "(franchise)" article, but also if a core design mechanic became copied by numerous others devs there should be way to house them all under the same roof. I'm listing here the 10 articles in Most Clones Videogames article by Den of Geek so we can explore how these genres are represented on Wikipedia (which ones require their own articles?) and perhaps create some consistency: --Coin945 (talk) 19:00, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

  1. Space Invaders - Fixed shooter [redirect]
    fixed shooter (Q96146284) --Jean-Fred (talk) 17:15, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
  2. Pac-Man - Maze chase game or Dot eat game (Japanese name)
    List of maze video games Ben · Salvidrim! ✉
    maze chase (Q11322721) --Jean-Fred (talk) 17:15, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
  3. Qix - Line-drawing puzzle game OR Puzzle arcade game OR Qix (video game genre)
    Qix#Clones Ben · Salvidrim! ✉
  4. Tetris - Falling block puzzle game [redirect] or Tetris clone [redirect] or Tetris (video game genre)
    falling block puzzle game (Q10308060) --Jean-Fred (talk) 17:15, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
  5. Defender - Side-scrolling shooter [redirect]
    scrolling shooter (Q1037904) --Jean-Fred (talk) 17:15, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
  6. World Of WarCraft - MMORPG
  7. Commando - Run-and-gun shooter [redirect]
    run and gun (Q60480500) --Jean-Fred (talk) 17:15, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
  8. Kung-Fu Master - Side-scrolling beat 'em up [redirect]
    side-scrolling beat 'em up (Q2281709) --Jean-Fred (talk) 17:15, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
  9. Donkey Kong - Platform game
  10. Chess - Computer chess or Chess (video game genre) or Chess in video games
    Chess is not a video game genre, or a series of clones, it is just a real-world game that has several dozen digital versions. Computer Chess is not about a specific computer game adaptation of Chess, it is about the history and concept of the ability of computers to play the real-world game of Chess. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉
    Note: Currently we have List of chess software and Comparison of chess video games--Coin945 (talk) 19:48, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

(Please note: Lunar Lander (video game genre), Snake (video game genre), Monopoly (video game genre) and Olympic games (video game genre))

Coin945 (talk) 19:00, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

I would be very careful of using Den of Geek for an RS for this purpose. Also being from 2011, this doesn't b account for a lot of mobile games (eg Flappy Bird). --Masem (t) 19:05, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
It's not meant to be comprehensive, but an opportunity to look at some case studies. I analysed other media for the genres they spawned and potential article titles. Definitely think there's a place for Flappy Bird clone.--Coin945 (talk) 19:08, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
You need to be really careful with what you are prposing as genre names. Whike there are a lot if Tetris clones, the genre is properly tile-matching game. Masem (t) 19:13, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
I think that Tetris has been so influential that the 'genre' deserves its own article, rather than stuffing it into an article with other games like Bejeweled which operate very differently and don't have the exact same lineage. We actually already have Category:Falling block puzzle games for this genre.--Coin945 (talk) 19:24, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
You need to show sourcing exists, not that there are a lot of clones. Eg we can get away with GTA clones due to numerous sources discussing it like a genre. Or Soulslike for dark souls styled gameplay. Some you are proposing I am doubtful that sourcing exists for those terms in depth. Eg as discussed above Tetris in classified already as tile or falling brick game. Masem (t) 19:39, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
That being said, I'm absolutely willing to consider that there might be enough sigcov in RS'es and academic research to make Falling block puzzle game into its own standalone genre article, spun out from its "parent" genre Tile-matching video game. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 19:52, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
That or that we need to identify these categories like falling-brick, match-3, and merge style in sections on Tile-matching video game... but thats beyond the scope of this discussion ...though several possible categories Coin has identified could be added to broader genre articles in that same manner Masem (t) 20:34, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
  • I don't particularly think any of these are generally considered their own genre. They do happen legitimately sometimes, but I think most of those instances are already taken care of - Soulslike, Metroidvania, etc. I don't particularly think any of these need to be created, and suggestions like Chess or Monopoly as a genre are particularly confusing to me. They already fall under the banner of a digital board game. Sergecross73 msg me 19:58, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
    It could also be that many of these genres were created such a long time ago and have evolved over the years that it no longer feels like platformers are 'Kong-style games' as they were originally called [3], but just part of the platform game genre. This was a time when video game literature was still in its infancy and larger historical significance of game genres and broader trends in mechanics wouldn't have been as acknowledged. For comparison, Metroivanias became popular in the 2000s while Soulslikes began after the game's release in 2011.--Coin945 (talk) 20:15, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
References

References

  1. ^ a b Altice, Nathan (2015). "Chapter 2: Ports". I Am Error: The Nintendo Family Computer / Entertainment System Platform. MIT Press. pp. 53–80. ISBN 9780262028776.
  2. ^ "Gorilla Keeps on Climbing! Kong". Computer and Video Games. No. 26 (December 1983). 16 November 1983. pp. 40–1.
  3. ^ From the Platform game article: "Donkey Kong spawned a number of other games with a mix of running, jumping, and vertical traversal, a novel genre that did not match the style of games that came before it, leaving journalists and writers to offer their own terms.[1] [1]Computer and Video Games magazine, among others, referred to the genre as "Donkey Kong-type" or "Kong-style" games.[1][2]"
In the very short period after a games release there may be a number of pieces that call them X clones...but if such games continue to evolve but the term never comes up again then its probably not a recognized genre term. Eg. They may have been "tetris clones" but clearly other terms have been used. Note that I have no problem with pages like the list of Tetris variants. On which dozens of notable versions cane out, even though that is not a formal genre. Masem (t) 20:25, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
  • My stance on the video came concept of a 'clone' is ambivalent, but I don't think Den of Geek should be used as the only source, or the primary. I've used it once or twice for interviews, nothing more if I could help it. Besides, we already have a Video game clone article which can be expanded and sourced. I agree that it's a topic that merits discussion, just not splitting off into its own articles except when they go beyond the scope of clone such as Serge's examples above. --ProtoDrake (talk) 20:10, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Coincidentally, we currently have a move discussion over at Minesweeper (video game). We are really unsure whether to rename it to "Minesweeper (video game genre)", "Minesweeper game", "Minesweeper clone", etc. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:04, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
  • The point that our coverage of genres is all over the place is well taken, though this particular list is a little nonsensical in terms of defining genres—maze games existed before Pac-Man, MMORPGs predate WoW by 13 years (and were a natural extension of MUDs, which go back 13 years prior to that), and Chess isn't so much a genre as it is a game in and of itself. Also odd to talk about game clones and not mention the most famous ones by that name, Doom clone and GTA clone, and much more so roguelike, which is still the name of the Rogue (video game) clone genre. --PresN 13:08, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
  • I agree with the above that if we're going to start pages on "clones", there needs to be enough news coverage and preferably scholarly analysis to do it. Many games typify a genre for a time and other games are referred to as that (such as "Halo clones" and the attempts at "Halo killers" back in the 2000s before Call of Duty) but that doesn't mean that the game itself is standalone notable outside of its own existence to such a genre-defining degree we need an article. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 17:03, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
  • In case that would be of interest to anyone else − added to the list at the top links to the Wikidata items, when they exist. Jean-Fred (talk) 17:15, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Expected year in short description for upcoming videogames?

Latest comment: 1 year ago8 comments7 people in discussion

The manual of style states that the common short description for a game is "<year of release> video game" (WP:VG/SHORTDESC). What about upcoming games?

I would argue that since an upcoming game should be categorized with "Category:Upcoming video games scheduled for 2022" and not "Category:2022 video games", it would be coherent to avoid mentioning the expected year of release in the short description.

What do you think about it? ► LowLevel73 (talk) 07:57, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

I think there's always a level of uncertainty with the release date of an upcoming game. You can't communicate whether a date is 10% certain or 99% certain in the short description. I recommend just sticking with "upcoming video game", though personally I would've been fine with slightly more specific short descriptions. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:12, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
Seconded. Sergecross73 msg me 16:13, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
Agreed — and what's more a shortdesc like "2022 video game" might look like the game has already been released. Popcornfud (talk) 16:29, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
Agreed as well. Plus it cuts down on maintenance when half of them eventually slip to the following year. - X201 (talk) 15:23, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
I think that mentioning the expected year in the description would be useful to the reader, if the description manages to communicate some level of uncertainty, like the "scheduled for" in the category name does. What about:
  • Video game set for 2022
  • Video game planned for 2022
► LowLevel73 (talk) 13:53, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
Games get delayed all the time. It's not a defining characteristic. TarkusABtalk/contrib 15:33, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
I don't see any harm going with "Upcoming 2023 video game" as we already have a category for that exact thing. Omitting the year also makes it seem like it doesn't even have a release window. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:45, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

VG Banner - Cover art request tag

Latest comment: 1 year ago5 comments3 people in discussion

I've recently been going through the cover art request backlog and think that the cover tag on the banner could do with being updated. With the increasing number of digital only games and when the digital art is a better option than physical cover art (lack of logos, platform etc.), the wording could be more suitable and clear. I propose simply changing it to "A request for identifying art has been made to help better illustrate the article".

MOS:VG already touches on using alternative identifying art and Category:Video game articles requesting identifying art, which is populated by the tag, is already worded as such. Regarding the tag itself, it could be depreciated and replaced with a different tag to reduce future confusion but may be unnecessary if the wording and documentation is sufficiently clear.

Figured I'd post it here for more eyes before posting anything on the template talk page. CrimsonFox talk 17:57, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

If the need is necessary. Most people understand not everything is technically cover art. Not to get sidetracked.but a lot of these requesting cover/promotional artwork are for articles in their stub/start that haven't verified notability. I'm curious if we can have a BOT clear out the request until it verifies notability. Just a thought.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 18:26, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure about the need but I think being consistent with the terminology across the project is important. Regarding the notable articles, there's definitely some that are questionable but not as many as I thought there would be. Even so, I'd much prefer to have the list include articles without identifying art that may not be verified yet rather than rely on someone adding the tag back in later. CrimsonFox talk 19:07, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
I dont think it will be an issue. Maybe someone who has authorization to the template can update it.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 20:57, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
  Done - X201 (talk) 21:07, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Video game source

Latest comment: 1 year ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Hello! I noticed someone added information to the Splatoon 3 article using the source "tuppence magazine". I took a look at it and I"m not sure if it can be considered reliable. Heck, when I went to their about us page, there's literally a spelling error on it ("...then flash out your tyoe writer skills...", "tyoe" is meant to be type). I'd like to get other people's opinions on it as it doesn't look all that professional. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 15:30, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Unreliable. Can't find the source anywhere in WP:VG/Sources. No credentials or any sort of fact-checking reputation or policy listed anywhere on their pages. Sparkltalk 15:41, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
I would agree with you Blaze Wolf, I wouldn't consider this a reliable source, taking a quick look at the page. Their "content club" appears to be a glorified blog style self-submission. I would support adding the site to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources#Unreliable_sources, as websites have been added for much less. Skipple ☎ 15:44, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
Agree, unreliable. Appears to be spam (user who added it was "T.Editor10."...), as they have added specifically that website that several other pages as well. – Pbrks (t • c) 15:47, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
That username makes it seem like they're paid by that website. "T.Editor" could probably be interpreted as "Tuppence editor". ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 15:49, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Why is Ser Amantio di Nicolao removing all the video game articles from the "Video games developed in Japan" and "Taito games" categories?

Latest comment: 1 year ago15 comments6 people in discussion

I have a problem. Lately Ser Amantio di Nicolao is removing all the video game articles from the "Video games developed in Japan" and "Taito games" categories, and it really bugs me! If he keeps this up, pretty soon none of the video game articles will have any categories left. Can you please do something about the category remover? --Angeldeb82 (talk) 23:23, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Well, Category:Video games developed in Japan is looking pretty populated, so I doubt that's the case. Did you try...asking them what they were doing first? That should be step 1. Sergecross73 msg me 23:36, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
Ser Amantio di Nicolao better explains his reasoning sooner than later. These edits are extremely petty, if i'm being honest... Roberth Martinez (talk) 23:48, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
Probably need to properly @Ser Amantio di Nicolao: ping him then. It looks like he's removing articles based on being in subcats, but I'm not sure these are all diffusing categories. -- ferret (talk) 00:00, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
I believe these removals were based on whether or not the "Video games developed in [country]" categories were already present in the company categories in which a given game was included; the problem with this approach is that the companies were often categorized erroneously and, therefore, should not have been the basis for removing the "developed in [country]" categories from individual articles. For instance, Category:Taito games formerly was placed in the "Video games developed in Japan" category, even though not every game published by Taito was developed in Japan (for example, Qix) , so that category should never have been there. This is even more egregious for Category:Sierra Entertainment games, which had the "Video games developed in the US" category attached, even though Sierra didn't develop most of the games it published at all. I have gone through all of the big publisher categories and removed any "developed in [country]" categories in them to ensure that no more mass category removals from individuals articles happen; hopefully the ones removed earlier today can be restored. Phediuk (talk) 00:39, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
Angeldeb82, Sergecross73, KGRAMR: Ferret has hit the nail on the head - they're all in subcategories of the parent categories. And unless I've overlooked something, I saw no evidence that any of the subcategories are non-diffusing. That said, I'll hold off on doing any more for now as the edits have been questioned, but that's the reasoning. Should the categories be non-diffusing? --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 00:32, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
Can you restore the removals you did today? They were based on "developed in [x]" subcategories being present in publisher categories (an old oversight I've now corrected), which is going to lead to problems. Would be much appreciated; thank you. Phediuk (talk) 00:42, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
@Phediuk: Sure. It'll take a few minutes to set up, but it shouldn't take too long to undo. Or re-do the categories, rather - it'll be easier for me to re-add them than to undo the removal, if that makes sense. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 00:44, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
Sure, add them back in whichever way you'd prefer, as long as they're restored. Many thanks. Phediuk (talk) 00:51, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
@Ser Amantio di Nicolao: I think there's plenty of work to do in the WP:VG space for you category wise, but I might suggest as this is a fairly large and active project (Probably top 3, if not top 2, behind MILHIST), you might float the categories you're planning to work on so the project regulars can take a look and see if everything is in order. In this case it brought to light some inappropriate mixtures of publisher and developer regions. -- ferret (talk) 00:55, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
Agreed with ferret; there's plenty of room for improvement for the WP:VG categories, but in this case, the removals should just be restored. Phediuk (talk) 01:02, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

@Ferret: Sure, I can do that - and I'm always happy to assist on anything else that needs doing. Feel free to ask and let me know. @Phediuk: Lists are generated - I'm beginning the restoration now. Should have it done by the end of the night. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 01:03, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks for the prompt responses. Phediuk (talk) 01:16, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
@Phediuk: Sure - any time. I'm usually around, except when I'm not. (Parse that however you wish.) --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 01:28, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. I feel grateful that you're doing the restorations. Angeldeb82 (talk) 02:34, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Infobox video game or infobox online service?

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I'm currently looking through articles related to Club Penguin, and I noticed the article's infobox looking a bit different. Instead of using infobox video game, it uses infobox video game online service. I brought this up because I'm working on a draft for Club Penguin Rewritten, and I'm wondering which infobox is best to use for not only the draft, but also for the Club Penguin article. I am also curious about any thoughts on the draft, particularly the lead section; I'm not sure about the MOS:VG formatting for fangames. Sparkltalk 21:25, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Should this lead provide detailed information, quoting people?

Latest comment: 1 year ago21 comments6 people in discussion

I'm working on improving Return to Monkey Island and a good percentage of the lead clarifies a misunderstanding about the game, quoting the developers from an interview and even adding an even longer quotation in an associated reference.

I think that it would be important for the article to report the clarification, but I also feel that quoting people in the lead is a bit excessive. It is my understanding that the lead should serve as a quick introduction/summary without going too much into details and I've not seen many leads, especially short ones, quoting people.

My question is: are quotes generally acceptable in the lead? Would it be better to simplify the text removing the quotes? Would you move the details elsewhere and, if so, in which section?

Thank you! ► LowLevel73 (talk) 12:54, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Quotes can be used in Ledes but they must be immediately cited unlike other lede material. That said if you are talking about the "final game" stuff and clarification, that is really too fine a detail for the lede. Maybe a few people got confused but tats far better in talking the announcement for the game. It is likely more important that this is the new third chronological game in the series and not necessary holding to the Curse and latter game canon. Masem (t) 13:26, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
Hello. I am the anonymous user who added the direct quotes to the lede of the article. The third section of the lede is currently dedicated to clarifying a series of misunderstandings and speculations that were spread by certain newspapers but disproven by the developers themselves in interviews, namely that Return to Monkey Island would be the third chronological game, that sequels to Monkey Island 2 would be out of canon, and that Return to Monkey Island would be the "conclusion" of the entire series and/or of the "first trilogy". All these speculations have been declared false by Ron Gilbert and David Grossman, and the official website and Steam entry of Return to Monkey Island have recently changed the words "exciting conclusion of the Monkey Island series" to "new chapter in the Monkey Island series". The quotes can be reworded as prose, if this is more appropriate for the lede. 37.163.43.189 (talk) 14:29, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
i think its probably important to document that, and direct quotes are probably more appropriate here...its just not something I would expect to see in the lede. The final "state" of the fame relative to the series should be stated, but not these misunderstandings. Masem (t) 14:33, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
Agreed. Should definitely be in the article, but in the body, not the lead. Sergecross73 msg me 14:37, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
Thank you! From your words I gather that the temporary misunderstanding about the "conclusion of the series" wouldn't even deserve a place in the lead section, even if it was an official statement and even if more than one reliable source found the topic interesting and wrote about it; have I understood correctly?
Finally, I'm trying to grasp the "philosophy" of editing: are there guidelines or essays that specifically address how an editor should approach and handle the evolving reports of an upcoming piece of work (video game, movie, etc.)?
I addressed the "conclusion of the series" topic in the article because it came from an official statement and because sources reported it, but maybe it would have been better to not address the topic at all and just wait for the game to be released? ► LowLevel73 (talk) 14:37, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
that philosophy of editing is just something that comes with experience. we have tried to make our MOS streamlined so that if you follow its basics you will have a good starting article, but each game can be different. Masem (t) 14:42, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
oh and in the lede, you should still say, using Grossman's final say in the matter, where the game sits relative to other games, just dont worry about the mistaken claims that were refuted by Grossman. Masem (t) 14:43, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
Thank you, I think I'm starting to understand how to approach the lead issue. I'll sum it up what I gather from this discussion.
  • In the lead, I think that it's possible to provide to the reader a sourced and factual statement about where the game sits relative to the others but... it needs to be a generic statement. The developers have not provided clear and detailed information on this topic and, for us, trying to combine the "pieces of the puzzle" would be speculation and WP:OR.
  • It's better to move the information about the misunderstanding from the lead to another section.
Regarding MOS:VG, it's a great resource and I've used it extensively to make sure that my edits were compatible with it. Unfortunately, it doesn't provide guidance about how cautious editors should be when handling information about upcoming games. I hope that my understanding of this aspect will improve with experience. :) ► LowLevel73 (talk) 15:56, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

In my opinion, the lede of Monkey Island 2: LeChuck's Revenge should also not mention Return to Monkey Island as "taking place immediatly after" its plot, as it is still unclear how the plot of RtMI unfolds. The directors have ascertained that it starts after the end of MI2 but at the same time it is not a sequel to it and all the sequels to MI2 remain in the canon. This could mean that the plot of RtMI starts at the end of MI2, in what could be a flashback part, but then continues after MI3, MI4 and MI5 (which would explain the presence of Murray and possibly Morgan LeFlay).--37.163.43.189 (talk) 15:08, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

i have reworked the lead of mi2 to reflect thgat Return is meant to address the c!iffhanger, but nit implied to start at the same point mi2 ended...just that Cyrse was far far afiekd in time Masem (t) 16:38, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
In this interview Gilbert confirms that Return does start at the amusement park from Revenge's end, even if it does take "lots of weird twists and turns" afterwards. --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 16:41, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
Another: "this game really does pick up where Monkey Island 2 ended. But how it all weaves into the whole world… that’s something that’s been a lot of fun to figure out, and I don’t think we’re ready to really talk about the details yet." --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 16:46, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
the key problem word is "immediately". its definitely read to take the slate of where everyone was (eg guy brush still a child, everyone at the amusement park) but could be a few hours or a day later. Masem (t) 16:55, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this helps to get a more precise understanding of when the story starts, but (emphasis is mine):

"One of the things that was very important to me about this was that I did want the game to start right at the end of Monkey Island 2, when you walk into that amusement park. I wanted the game to start there." (Source)

► LowLevel73 (talk) 17:15, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
Ron Gilbert has never said that RtMI "won't follow the canon" of the "previous sequels" to MI2 (as currently reported in the MI2 article's lede), quite the contrary. According to what has been declared, the new game both starts after the end of MI2 *and* comprehends all the other games as canon, thus continues the series in sequence. This is all we know for now. Based on the quotes reported by LaukkuTheGreit we could deduce that part of the plot takes place after MI2 and the other parts of the plot take place either after MI5 or across the entire series. What is clear is that Gilbert has used some narrative technique to weave the plots of all the series' chapters together, but we still have insufficient information to give credit to any theories in the articles. Therefore, in my opinion it would be better to exclude any reference to RtMI in the MI2 article's lede.--37.163.43.189 (talk) 17:26, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
I hold that no mention of Return in the lead is going too far. Even if conceding points regarding "immediately after" and unspecified further chronology (as an aside, if we want something more specific than Masem's current wording, something like "picks up where Revenge left off" would work - note the use of "where" not "when" - and leaving further continuation unstated), it is highly expected[4][5][6][7] to address Revenge's infamous ending and that's a major relation. Just state the relation without straying from known citations. --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 18:43, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
I think the best thing to do is to avoid any attempt to explain what the developers meant and how the two games will be connected; the information currently available is simply too vague. I fear that attempting to elaborate would increase the chance of WP:CRYSTALBALL and lead to unnecessary work, considering that RtMI will be released in about two weeks and editors will get solid information from reviews and other sources.
Instead, my suggestion is to simplify, for example mentioning that the two games are connected by the ending of MI2, without giving details about what exactly this connection is or implies. Another way to reduce the risk of falling into speculation is to quote exactly what Ron Gilbert said, which is that RtMI will start "right at the end" of MI2. In my opinion, no further details would be necessary. ► LowLevel73 (talk) 22:13, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
This was precisely the spirit of the simplifications I made to the lede here. However, a user has reverted them, despite the current revision makes some statements which are not supported by the given sources, namely that MI3 would take place "well after the open ending" of MI2, that "further sequels were developed by other creative teams, who had to deal with the game's ambiguous ending on their own" (only MI3 tried to explain the luna park and child-Guybrush thing), and even the claim that "Return may not follow the canon" is unclear and not reported in the sources.--37.163.43.189 (talk) 22:38, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
I'm sure that you made that edit in good faith, but I'm afraid that its execution was problematic, because you also removed key content about MI2 from the lead: production, commercial results and how it connects to MI3. A few suggestions to avoid reverts by editors that monitor the quality of the articles:
  • Removal of a substantial quantity of sourced content is always a delicate decision. If existing content conforms to Wikipedia guidelines, you shouldn't delete it without a very good reason. Instead, try to integrate what you would like to add with what the article already states. See WP:REMOVAL.
  • Since the removal of existing content is a delicate affair, it's likely that an unexplained edit that removes sourced content will be challenged or simply reverted. Instead of deleting content directly, it would be better to propose the removal to other editors in the article talk page. See WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS.
  • Edits that remove content should always provide an explanation in the edit summary. In your edit in MI2, you didn't explain why erasing the statements about game production, commercial results and connection with MI3 was an improvement to the article.
  • If you have already discussed the removal of content with other editors and consensus has been reached, you can make the edit and link the discussion in the edit summary. In this way, other editors can check that the removal of content is not the arbitrary action of a random user.
  • Try not to mix unrelated modifications in a large single edit. Instead, separate them thematically in more than one edit. In this way, if only part of your edits are problematic, other editors can fix or revert only the problematic edits.
You have also removed from the RtMI article sourced information that was there to provide different point of views on a topic. Again, I have assumed good intentions because you have also contributed in positive ways. Nonetheless I invite you to adopt a more cautious approach to editing, especially when it comes to removal of content. ► LowLevel73 (talk) 00:25, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
Continuing 37.163.43.189. The removal of the following part <The development team for Monkey Island 2 was largely the same as for The Secret of Monkey Island. The project was led by Ron Gilbert, who was again joined by Tim Schafer and Dave Grossman. The game was a critical success, but a commercial disappointment.> was an unintentional mistake due to the fact that I had to copy and paste the paragraph due to a connection problem. All the rest was modified to match the lede of the MI6 article, nas the sources currently used do not support what is stated (based on a quick read). 37.163.138.215 (talk) 08:29, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Video Game console Generation sales table clutter

Latest comment: 1 year ago21 comments8 people in discussion

In History of video game consoles#Console sales and Home video game console generations#Sales comparison, both have similar tables that I consider difficult to read for the average reader. To resolve the issue, I decided to make this version of the table. I didn't want to step on anyone's toes on this and thought I propose the change here first. Sometimes the most efficient table isn't the most liked.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 22:54, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

  console currently being manufactured and sold on the market.
Sales rank Generation
First
(1972–1980) 		Second
(1976–1992) 		Third
(1983–2003) 		Fourth
(1987–2004) 		Fifth
(1993–2006) 		Sixth
(1998–2013) 		Seventh
(2005–2017) 		Eighth
(2012–present) 		Ninth
(2020–present)
1 Color TV-Game series
3 million 		Atari 2600
30 million 		NES
61.91 million 		Super NES
49.1 million 		PlayStation
102.49 million 		PlayStation 2
>155 million 		Wii
101.63 million 		PlayStation 4
108.9 million 		PlayStation 5
17.3 million
2 Telstar
1 million 		Intellivision
3 million 		Master System
10–13 million 		Genesis
33.75 million 		Nintendo 64
32.93 million 		Xbox
>24 million 		PlayStation 3
>87.4 million 		Switch
103.54 million 		Xbox Series X/S
est. 12 million
3 Odyssey
330,000 		ColecoVision
2+ million 		Atari 7800
1 million 		TurboGrafx-16
10 million 		Sega Saturn
9.26 million 		GameCube
21.74 million 		Xbox 360
>84 million 		Xbox One
est. 46.9 million
4 Home Pong
150,000 		Odyssey 2
2 million 		Videopac+ G7400
NA 		CD-i
570,000 		Atari Jaguar
250,000 		Dreamcast
9.13 million
good here ( though the Xbox one numbers went up a bit with recent news related to acts blizzard buyout, though still an estimate). Masem (t) 23:04, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
  • It might just be me, but with the added small text naming each manufacturer, this feels even more difficult to follow. I don't really see the point in classifying "Sales rank", even in the existing tables; most generations only have four consoles anyway, so it's not too difficult for the reader to look at the sales figures and work out the rank themselves—especially when we have tables like this and this which are even easier to parse. In any case, listing by manufacturer instead of sales rank seems much more efficient to me. – Rhain ☔ 23:35, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
    I agree, I'd nix the far-left column, but otherwise it looks fine. The ranking is implied by the order. Listing by manufacturer might be tricky because not every manufacturer appears in each column. Also, Switch numbers look low here, 111 per nintendo.jp[8] Andre🚐 23:43, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
    You can see an example of listing by manufacturer here. – Rhain ☔ 23:44, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
    I think that's the "confusing" one. It is definitely harder to read but if everyone prefers that one, I'm not against it. This one is simpler though. One thing I like about the by-manufacturer one is that Switch spans 2 generations, which seems accurate. All of the numbers across both of the articles linked probably need to be updated, for 8th and 9th gen. Andre🚐 23:47, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
    given where these are used, could not the manufacturer be cut from each cell? the console link still provides that. Masem (t) 00:16, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
    That would probably alleviate my main concern (though I still prefer the existing tables). – Rhain ☔ 00:23, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
  • The small dates size should be bumped up to 85% per MOS:FONTSIZE. – Pbrks (t • c) 00:25, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
  • I don't think the parentheses are doing anything in either the current or proposed tables. We're here to see the sales. They don't need to be displayed as an aside. Axem Titanium (talk) 07:25, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

@Masem:, @Axem Titanium:, @Rhain: and @Andrevan:, I made the changes that I believe are reasonable. i also removed the line-height, as it really made things smaller than they needed to be. I'm hesitant to remove the left column. You never want to imply the order of the table, and that's what causes unnecessary things like color-coding cells. The goal should be easy to understand for new readers and those familiar. As far as Nintendo Switch, being the 8th and 9th generation. History of video game consoles and Home video game console generations reflect that the 9th generation has PS5 and Xbox Series X/S. The table can't contradict the rest of the article.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 16:40, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

If you want to keep the rank, which personally I don't think is necessary, I think you should at least render the plain digit "1" and not "1st place." I'm confused by what you mean about the unnecessary color-coding of cells, since the cells are already color-coded, which I agree is not really necessary or useful as done - I assume the green means "current" which is fine I guess, but the generations could already tell that info, and IMHO I don't care for the color coding of the gold/silver/bronze, I think it'd look better and easier on the eyes if that column was all the same color. Also, what's the source for the figures. As mentioned, Switch passed 111 million[9][10], PS4 was above that number as well, around 116-117.[11] Since the Switch is still on the market, it has a shot at surpassing the PS4. Both are on [12]. Personally, since Nintendo is keeping the Switch on the market, I think it should be counted as both 8th and 9th generation, in those articles as well as the tables. Andre🚐 16:53, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
The colored cells of Sales ranking were a compromise and I have no attachment to them. I removed the color coding and changed the rankings to just "1/2/3/4". So once again, the table reflects the content of the article. So long as the article reflects that Nintendo Switch is not 9th generation then the table will continue to reflect that. So it's not relevant to this topic how Nintendo Switch is recognized as.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 17:58, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for doing that. Looks much better IMHO. And yes I know the chart is based on the article, but this is WT:CVG so if both should be updated, it's fair game to suggest. And don't forget about updating the numbers and adding a source to the table. Thanks! Andre🚐 18:00, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
It's not fair game on this thread, you'll have to make your own topic about it if you want the change to reflect across the articles and table. And the reason why I'm hesitant to talk about it further is because its been discussed multiple times, and it usually leads back to the status quo. So for now, for this thread, I rather just focus on we can approve the layout of the table (content in them will again, vary based on what the article reflects).Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 18:09, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
That is fair. Andre🚐 18:10, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
That table above... where is Wii U? MilkyDefer 04:04, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
Good call. It should be added. Andre🚐 04:27, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
I would add in the 3DO, too. Seeing the Atari Jaguar listed as 4th in worldwide sales is rather odd; it didn't even make it to 5th place. Martin IIIa (talk) 16:42, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
Looks like an improvement, but I don't think anything will change the fact that I simply prefer the current tables more. (BTW, I didn't get this ping (and I doubt Axem or Andrevan did either) since there was no new signature on this diff, per WP:MENTION.) – Rhain ☔ 09:24, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
So, is anyone against the layout itself? if not, we can implement it as quickly as possible, any updates or fixes can be made.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 21:06, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Newer Super Mario Bros Wii

Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments4 people in discussion
Creator CU blocked. -- ferret (talk) 21:45, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello, i was the person who remade the Newer Super Mario bros wii article. As of now, it has been Marked for deletion, and i wonder if you guys can help me fix the article so it can exist on wikipedia? TheSecondComing10 (talk) 18:48, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

It looks like they were right to mark it for deletion. It doesn't appear to meet Wikipedia's standards for having an article. Considering you are calling people "freaks" in the discussion, I imagine you should probably brush up on a number of areas of Wikipedia policy instead. Sergecross73 msg me 19:11, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Despite the personal attacks, I have done several articles on obscure fan mods, so I made a check for sources... but there is literally nothing there to go on. There was a bit more coverage in reliable sources about the DS version, but even in that case, it fails WP:SUSTAINED with only a flurry of announcement coverage but no actual reviews or anything. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:31, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Assistance with merging

Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hello! After seeing a sock that was blocked (Who I thought had already been identified as a sock but that's besides the point) I decided to check the master's contribs to see if there might be anything still lingering around. While I didn't find anything that should be deleted from the master (Besides maybe a few redirects), I discovered that there was consensus found to merge Wii Menu into Wii System Software. I would like some assistance in merging this article since apparently the consensus was found a little over a month ago. Also, I noticed that in the top... bar (I dunno what it's called) on this talk page, there's nothing for "Articles that need merging". Maybe this should be something that should be added so articles don't get stuck in merge limbo because no one wants to undertake the task of merging (or they just don't know it needs to be merged). ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 16:41, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

@Blaze Wolf:, sure I can give you a hand. I'm sure there are some things that are going to need a trim, but I'll start by copy / pasting, and organizing and we can go from there. Skipple ☎ 19:42, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
@Skipple: Alright sounds good! I know there might be some redirects that will need to be cleaned up (since I recall having a page merged into Wii Menu via a merge discusssion) but we'll cross that bridge when we come to it. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 19:45, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

New Articles (August 29 to September 4)

Latest comment: 1 year ago5 comments4 people in discussion
Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements
 A listing of all articles newly added to the Video Games Wikiproject (regardless of creation date). Generated by v3.13 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 14:41, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

August 29

August 30

August 31

  • None

September 1

September 2

September 3

September 4

  • None

Lots of categories this week! I'm a little leery of Lavos - I have the book that's the sole source for development, and that whole section is just the author's speculation, which doesn't leave much out-of-game information. --PresN 14:41, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

I added a more direct development source, hopefully that allays concerns about speculation, although I am sure there is probably more out there. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:09, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
I saw that CLub Penguin Rewritten had been deleted an recreated and I was about to go and request it to be deleted but I saw that it was accepted by ZXCVBNM via AFC so I guess the original version must've been promotional or hadn't demonstrated the subject's notability. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 19:07, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
It pains me to say it, with my namesake and all, but I agree that Lavos is looking pretty iffy... Sergecross73 msg me 19:56, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

List of PC games with force feedback support and Category:Games with force feedback support

Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments2 people in discussion

I noticed this category being added to quite a few articles recently, apparently based on their inclusion on the list. The list is entirely unsourced and based solely on user-set attributes on MobyGames. Should we keep lists like this? Do we have comparable "List of games with [mundane feature]" articles? It seems unlikely that sources would cover force feedback support for most of these games. IceWelder [✉] 12:13, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely not a defining feature as scoped. should be removed. Masem (t) 12:25, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
Right. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of PC games with force feedback support. IceWelder [✉] 16:27, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
One down, one to go. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 September 10#Category:Games with force feedback support. IceWelder [✉] 18:22, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Proposed new CSD

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments1 person in discussion

This is a notice that there is a proposal for a new speedy deletion criterion for formerly untitled/upcoming media at WT:CSD § Formerly untitled/upcoming media, which may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Thanks. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:29, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

We haven't gotten much feedback on this, so I'd appreciate it if more editors would weigh in. Thanks! InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:55, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Spelling within video games articles - variety of English

Latest comment: 1 year ago9 comments6 people in discussion

I would like some input regarding variety of English used in video game articles.

The underlying principle is Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Strong_national_ties_to_a_topic. That is, whether a video game has a strong connection to a particular English-speaking country. This can be seen in three ways: where the developer of the game is from, where is the game setting (if set in real life), and the vocabulary used in the game.

This creates conflicts in some game. For example, the first Forza Horizon game, made by UK-based Playground Games, is set in Colorado. The talk page of that article states the article is using British English. I am not sure if that is appropriate. (Similar issue arises in the third game, which is set in Australia. The fourth Horizon game does set in UK, so British English should definitely be used there.)

I recently switch the PowerWash Simulator article from American English to British English, as the game is made by a British company. The game itself uses British English (uses the British spelling "tyre"). I am not sure if that establishes strong tie to a English speaking country. SYSS Mouse (talk) 03:31, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Developer country if English-speaking, but it really doesn't matter. TarkusABtalk/contrib 04:34, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

I am not completely sure on Wikipedia official policy. But my first instinct feels like the developer/author/creator is more important than the setting. There are a few hypothetical examples why I think the setting may not always be the best idea. There could be multiple settings in one game. If There were an overview article of the Horizon series, which there could sensibly be, with a section on every game, I wouldn't feel it right for each section to have different regional spelling due to the game setting, and it would feel slightly odd, but not as bad, if the section of the overview article used a different spelling to the main article of a game. Games in the same series are more than likely to have the same developer, although not always. Also if a game were set in Medieval England, no one would suggest the article use Medieval English. It would feel right to me to use the same regional spelling as the game uses in its in game menus, instruction manual/packaging, or promotional material. Although I'm not sure if the packaging or game may differ or not from USA, UK, Australia, does each country have an identical game or tailor made and slightly different to each nation?  Carlwev  09:54, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

  • As a note, be careful about changing varieties of English within an article. WP:RETAIN says that we use the style set by the first major author, if one was clearly set, otherwise whenever the first variety was established. A long-developed article should not be switched between the English variants without getting talk page consensus support. --Masem (t) 12:13, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
Using different regional spelling in each section due to the game setting would violate consistency principle so that is out of the question. Since many current games are sold digitally there may not be manual and/or packaging to speak of therefore I suggested using in-game vocabulary approach. SYSS Mouse (talk) 12:53, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Do not rely on developer's nationality. Past discussions within this project was that "Developer's nationality" does not represent a STRONGTIE. The video game industry is incredibly international, and has only become more so. The easy examples I like to bring up are: Lara Croft, a character who undoubtly would be seen as British and STRONGTIED, is now developed by US studios. Watch Dogs, for the first two games, was set in the US but developed by a Canadian developer. Using the developer's nationality in either case makes no sense. Look for thematic or cultural ties instead, otherwise, stick the the first used per RETAIN. -- ferret (talk) 13:28, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
    This is how I view this as well. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:08, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
One thing to add or for discussion: within a series of video games which were all exclusively or nearly all made by the same developer (so something like a Dark Souls or Monster Hunter, and not something like a Call of Duty or GTA), I do think there should be some thought as to consistency of the choice of English and date formats to be all the same for all entries, particularly if one is looking to make them all GAs/FAs and the entire group of articles as a GL/FL. --Masem (t) 18:26, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Also agree with this. Consistency is surprisingly often overlooked with that, as I've fixed several articles that had DMY with American English and vice versa. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 17:14, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

New Articles (September 5 to September 11)

Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments3 people in discussion
Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements
 A listing of all articles newly added to the Video Games Wikiproject (regardless of creation date). Generated by v3.13 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 14:34, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

September 5

September 6

September 7

September 8

September 9

September 10

September 11

PresN 14:34, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Another Question on Streaming Platforms

Latest comment: 1 year ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Hi all,

I know there’s been several topics about streaming platforms such as Stadia and Luna. Just to confirm, it was agreed upon to include these platforms in platform lists, correct? Dug through some archived topics and seemed the general consensus was games running on them require enough changes compared to something like OnLive that they’re ok to include in platform lists in infoboxes. Additionally, if they do get listed, do they simply get listed as “Stadia” and “Luna?” Guess this is similar to the Windows vs Microsoft Windows thing, I’ve just seen some pages where, for example, it’s listed as “Amazon Luna” and some where it’s just “Luna.” Wondering what the correct version to use here is, guessing it would just be “Luna.” VenFlyer98 (talk) 22:56, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Stadia is technically only Stadia, but I believe Amazon Luna is the full name there. Masem (t) 23:01, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
Makes sense, seems to be the case looking at the Luna and Stadia articles. Just saw a few infoboxes with just "Luna" so was curious. VenFlyer98 (talk) 01:02, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
There is still no hard consensus on accepting Luna as a proper platform. Does anybody still oppose it or would the passive non-resistance to it be considered consensus? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 17:11, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
I would personally agree that they are platforms, since a game being playable on Luna, for example, does not imply it is otherwise playable on PC despite Luna being usable from a PC. Luna is also usable on non-PCs as well. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:06, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Yakuza / Like a Dragon move discussion

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There's a discussion at Yakuza (franchise) regarding whether the page should be titled Yakuza or Like a Dragon. Discussion here. JOEBRO64 02:32, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

VisualBoyAdvance

Latest comment: 1 year ago11 comments6 people in discussion

Hey! I'd like to hear you guys' opinion on the article VisualBoyAdvance. I'm a bit perplexced as to how it's notable considering it's just a free Emulator. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 15:49, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

The answer is that it's not actually notable. Anyone can make an article, and the approval process is totally voluntary. I would say it is a candidate for AfD, I can't really think of a relevant merge or redirect target. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:07, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
I believe the article cites many technical sources, but nothing that would really suggest notability for the topic. I have found a few brief passing mentions in articles from reliable sources (here and here, for example), but nothing substantial that hints at the topic meeting notability guidelines. As much as I have enjoyed VBA, I am afraid there is no evidence of notability. :-) ► LowLevel73 (talk) 17:16, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
It's at AFD now. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 17:22, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
Regardless of the outcome of the AFD discussion, I just read the article and can understand why it arouses suspicion: it makes zero effort to explain to the reader why the app is notable (from a WP point of view) or simply significant enough to merit a Wikipedia article (from a general point of view). It feels like a product details page. ► LowLevel73 (talk) 22:09, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
Emulators are one of those weird places where, partially due to the dubious legality of the sourced ROMs, etc, they don't generate a lot of coverage, even if they are quite popular. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 22:40, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
I can understand the general issue with emulators, but I have to say that in this specific case there is/was a glimpse of serious coverage to mention and the article doesn't/didn't mention it at all. ► LowLevel73 (talk) 23:24, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
Yeah it really feels like emulators live in a weird press coverage space where it's legitimately hard to establish notability for, even if it really seems like it should be notable. It doesn't help that emulators are a media player and not media itself, which is what usually gets more coverage. Axem Titanium (talk) 05:45, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
The thing is that emulators are made in a pretty low-key way. The people who make them don't want companies getting trigger-happy with their cease and desists so it's not like there is a marketing blitz for emulators, they spread by word of mouth or just people searching for one. This word of mouth is rarely enough to trickle up to the gaming press in more than just scattered mentions. Not to mention usually "emulation" in general is mentioned to avoid giving the impression of promoting copyright infringement by giving people exact tools. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:30, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
What I found interesting is that the low-key way that you mention affects every topic related to an emulator, including topics that outside the emulation niche would not be risky/controversial at all. During the AFD, for example, a book came out explaining how the debugging tools of the emulator made it an environment that contributed to the development of GBA games. The topic of game development would not be controversial per se, but the mere fact that a suite of development tools is associated with the emulation sphere makes press coverage difficult. It makes me wonder in what other cases a source-based notability can't form for reasons related to potentially unlawful activities. ► LowLevel73 (talk) 14:44, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
I would list VisualBoyAdvance as one of the most famous emulators and I grew up with it myself (spent many hours with it as a kid). I'm sad we don't have the sources to form an article about it. This technically has nothing to do with its legal status or that it's free software, though. Just the lack of coverage. That being said, other extremely famous emulators also have pretty weak articles, like Mupen64 and ZSNES. I would love it if we could improve the sourcing on these. Weirdly, an emulator I had never even heard of, NESticle, seems to have a much better-looking set of sources. A large-scale cleanup project might be interesting here. Perhaps merging some of these into lists would also be an option, if that isn't synthesis. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:45, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Linking to magazine scans

Latest comment: 1 year ago24 comments13 people in discussion

I assumed there was an established consensus on this considering many GA and FA articles link to external magazine scans, but some of the discussions I've read in the archives concerning this practice seem to be polarized. Speaking for myself, I believe it's important for both editors and readers to be able to readily check these sources, and I don't think linking to scans of issues from 20+ years ago is endangering Wikipedia. Still, I can't argue with this being considered a violation of copyright. Nintendo (of course) has been stringent about scans of their magazines, but otherwise I feel most of the other older publications should be fine. Anyone want to weigh in? LBWP (talk) 08:57, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

If you're linking to an established library such as the Internet Archive it should be fine, but I don't know what our standards should be overall. Linking to a scan on, say, imgur, would seem very odd. I agree that linking to scans is extremely valuable and I would love it if we could always do this. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:05, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
The Internet Archive isn't fine. It can host copyright material, and hence linking to it breaches WP rules. The Internet Archive only takes stuff down when publishers complain e.g the recent removal of Retro Gamer scans. In short linking to scans is not worth the risk, because someone somewhere owns the copyright, even if the magazine/publisher is defunct.- X201 (talk) 09:29, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with the WP policy that says that we can't even link to copyrighted things. Which one is that? That seems overbroad to me. Axem Titanium (talk) 10:10, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
WP:COPYLINK is the relevant policy. It describes this exact issue, but the issue is more about whether digital libraries are legal, which is something the jury is still out on. It does explicitly allow the Wayback Machine, which doesn't even hold physical copies of the texts. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 10:16, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
You can also link to Google Books if they have the scans. Google specifically won its case related to how GBooks was created and its limits on access, whereas the Internet Archive's ability to "check out" books is under current legal fire, and that there can be user contributed works that do not go through the copyright check process, it is a big iffy thing to link to. You can 100% use IA for "research", we don't care if you saw page 50 in a 1990 magazine from the print version or a digitized version as long as you have validated it and provide sufficient citation details that identify the work specifically for WP:V purposes. --Masem (t) 12:25, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
I think the core of the question is whether it's acceptable to link to the digitized version within the reference itself, not how a researcher is obtaining the information they are referencing. Skipple ☎ 12:39, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure Masem is answering that question. He's giving background info as to why it is a and isn't okay to link to various websites. Sergecross73 msg me 12:43, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Wouldn't a news / media article be equally "copyrighted" whether it was published online or on paper? Both seem equivalent in the eyes of the law. If we can, for referencing, link to an archived version of one, we should be able to do the same for the other. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 17:58, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
    • Yeah I'm not seeing how linking to a scanned book/magazine is legally distinct from linking to a news article published online. They're both copyrighted to the same extent under the law. In the absence of a finalized legal ruling on the matter of IA, I think maximizing readers' ability to verify cited sources is more important than the other considerations. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:09, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
The news article is on the website of the copyright owner, they have published it and are OK with links to it. Magazine scans are copies and they are an unauthorised publishing of copyright material on unauthorised third party sites. - X201 (talk) 20:38, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
Besides considering the costs of linking to copyright violations, I would like to question the supposed benefits. I've lost count of how many times I've run across a questionable claim cited to an online source, checked the link to discover the source very clearly says the complete opposite of the claim, and took a look at the article history to find that false claim has been cited to that source for ten years or longer. That suggests to me that even when a source is linked, Wikipedia users for the most part don't bother to check it. Martin IIIa (talk) 22:06, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
I agree that verifibility is important for offline materials, but to actually check them is hard. It was a common practice of AGF to trust the editors who use book or newspaper or magazine sources but you see, someone has abused that trust. Even if the legal barriers are cleared, we actually lack a proper platform to host them. We have Internet Archive that archives websites, but I don't know any place that hosts printed materials as organized as IA. MilkyDefer >In memory of Her Majesty. 14:34, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
@Martin IIIa: That sounds like an argument in favor of linking to the source text as often as possible. Without it, no one could have disputed the false claim and it would have remained forever. That's clearly worse than a questionable claim staying up for only ten years. Like we were taught in elementary school, it's important to "show your work" so other editors have the capability to see where a claim came from and how you arrived at the wording you did (or more easily prove it false, if that's the problem). Axem Titanium (talk) 19:55, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Completely wrong, because in the absence of a link I just look up the source myself, even when I don't have a hard copy. Your argument is based on the assumption that a significant contingent of editors are both studious enough to carefully read through sources whenever there's a link present, yet too lazy and/or incompetent to perform a simple internet search or access a hard copy when a link is absent. My long experience on Wikipedia has not shown me any indication that there is even one such editor. Martin IIIa (talk) 12:53, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Reminder that we're talking about old magazine scans here. Those might not always be archived digitally in a way that is easily searchable. While the Internet Archive is relatively easy to find, a scan saved on a random image hosting website may as well not exist if it isn't linked. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 07:50, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
I agree, Mable. If you (Martin) have such a dim view of Wikipedia editors, why cite your sources at all? In your view, they're all fraudulent anyway and you'd prefer a [citation needed] so you can personally look it up and add the source yourself. Forgive me but I don't think that's a scalable solution. Axem Titanium (talk) 03:01, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
When writing an article, and giving a piece of information, if the information was in a specific edition of a magazine, would one not use Template:Cite magazine and give the relevant info, magazine name, publisher, writer, page number, date etc etc. It is the magazine that remains the source, a scan of it is just an easier and quicker way of viewing it for a regular person. A person wanting to check can choose to look up a physical copy or a scanned copy online themselves, I imagine online archives tell you what edition and date each scan is, or they wouldn't be very good archives. When I have been writing articles I have found scanned images of books and maps online for books I myself have not owned or seen the physical copy, I have cited the source as the physical book or map itself and sometimes added a link to the online scan in the same source template under URL, magazine citing seems to have something similar, unless I am mistaken, here Template:Cite_magazine#URL. (Most of the time I have done this is not for games, it was for history of places using old books/maps that are out of copyright anyway).
My two questions are, Is the whole issue one of convenience? We want people to find and the cited info with one click rather than looking for it themselves. Anything online is usually much easier to find than a physical book/magazine in shop or library, especially if it is not new edition. I have not read every discussion page, but I have never heard someone suggest citing physical books is not a good idea because it is tricky for another reader to locate a physical book as opposed to online sources. Although if in the instance someone cites a physical magazine they have a copy of, which has no scans online, another person could waste their time searching online for it in the belief the editor cited an online copy and they are just unable to locate it, which would be frustrating. Could we not cite the physical magazine, just with a little side note *also viewable online (here), I thought that's what the URL parameter was, well, at least for old books anyway.
A magazine scan somewhere else online outside Wikipedia, a potential copyright issue is that host website's issue not Wikipedia's. If Wikipedia simply has a link to a scan is that somehow illegal/unethical/bad for Wikipedia just linking to it, but not having the scan itself on our pages? Are simply having useful links to other sites which could maybe/maybe not have copyright issues, simply against Wikipedia policies? Is there a middle ground where an article states a piece of information, then in the source it cites the magazine edition, and the exact sentence in the magazine which states the same facts? (I have seen some articles quote exact sentences people have spoken in recorded interviews), is quoting something word for word in a source so the reader knows exactly who printed what, in itself a copyright problem?
I can see both sides of the argument. I guess the issue is some old magazines are going to be close to impossible for readers to locate a physical copy to check themselves. The facilities to check and see online do exist. It seems a little odd to not point readers toward them. Although as I said before Googling something is usually easier than travelling to the library or archive centre if one exists. And another question is, if all information should be ideally citable and verifiable, if the only realistic way of verifying a piece of information is via a questionable copyright page, that we cannot directly link to, can we even use it as a source in the first place? I know the idea is we are citing the magazine not the scan, but still.  Carlwev  08:06, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
Actually, US copyright law is pretty clear here: linking to copyrighted material can be legally a problem, not just hosting it. It's why copyright holders DMCA google search results. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:33, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
The problem is that US copyright law is not clear on this as with most issues surrounding IP rights. What the Copyright Act says indirectly is that knowingly linking to material that is infringing someone else's copyrighted work can impose liability, i.e. contributory copyright infringement. (And DMCA is a completely separate process that is in fact the opposite - it limits the liability of service providers hosting potential copyrighted content.) So, yes, if you want to go with the "better safe than sorry" route, then it's a bad idea. But it has never been tested in courts whether an educational website providing a citation/link to a non-free copyrighted work hosted by a service that acts as a library is in fact illegal. So no one here can say for sure one way or the other. —  HELLKNOWZ ∣ TALK 19:10, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia's entire focus on free use is partially to avoid any of those problems, and hence why WP:COPYVIOEL exists. This is settled insofar as Wikipedia's stance on this, and there's no point relitigating it here. Masem and others above have stated the facts plainly, and we still have people pushing back on it for no discernible reason. If people take issue with policy, they should bring it up on that page, not here. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 20:14, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
Axem, you seem to have misread my post (I don't know where you got that I "have such a dim view of Wikipedia editors" or think that all sources are fraudulent), and both you and Mable have missed my point. Whether or not links make it easier to check sources is irrelevant; editors who don't know how to find sources on their own aren't using existing links to check sources. Protesting that magazine scans are harder to find is like buying a pack of walnuts for someone who's allergic to nuts, and arguing "But it's healthier for you than pecan pie!" They're not going to eat either one, so what's the difference? Martin IIIa (talk) 00:58, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
That sounds like a dim view of editors to me. If even one reader/editor can use a reference I added to verify a statement, that's good enough for me. After all, it only takes one editor to read the ref, possibly notice something is wrong, and fix it! I wouldn't expect all editors to know how to find sources or check existing links, but I should hope that at least some do and those are the people who we put robust references in for. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:24, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
Axem, you really need to read people's posts before replying to them. I still haven't stated or even suggested any view of editors, much less a dim one. I also never said that there are editors who are unwilling or unable to find links yet are both willing and able to undertake the far more taxing responsibility of checking sources for accuracy and editing the attached content accordingly. That's your wishful thinking, not mine.
Since you obviously didn't read a word of my post before posting your reply, I will be ignoring any further posts from you on this thread. Martin IIIa (talk) 22:42, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Nintendo 64 competitors

Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion

We seem to have hit a stalemate at Talk:Nintendo 64#Competition. Input from additional editors would be appreciated. Martin IIIa (talk) 01:02, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I can't contribute to that discussion in the way it's currently conducted, because I know almost nothing about consoles and the discussion is based mainly on editors' personal knowledge and their ability to interpret sources or making inferences. So I'll reply only here.
My personal suggestion would be to start searching for sources that support or refute the claim "N64 competed in these markets with these other consoles..." in a more explicit way, with no need to infer or deduct for the reader. If no such sources can be found, then the statement needs to be modified or removed.
If searching for reliable sources takes some time, then I would simply acknowledge that the statement has been disputed or is controversial and add a good old "citation needed" template to give everyone time to assess its verifiability. :-) ► LowLevel73 (talk) 17:51, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
Sounds good. To be honest I don't have time to do that sort of research at the moment, but I'll throw it on my "to do" list. Martin IIIa (talk) 22:44, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Fatal Frame genre question

Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Hi. Something I noticed with both Fatal Frame: Mask of the Lunar Eclipse and Fatal Frame: Maiden of Black Water included photography game as part of its genre. As far as I know, the Fatal Frame series sits squarely in survival horror and I haven't seen "photography game" cited as a co-genre in any developer comments or independent commentary, but I don't want to start an edit conflict over this as the series does heavily incorporate photography. Opinions on including it as a genre? ProtoDrake (talk) 18:18, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree that it is a hybrid photography/horror game. Here is a WP:RS confirming this, so hopefully it won't be a further issue. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:49, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
[13] [14] Indeed there are sources, though you can probably find 50 sources calling it "survival horror" for each source calling it "photography game". If you are talking about the lead sentence, I think just survival horror is fine as it is the primary genre and it avoids multigenre wordiness, but the photo genre should be mentioned elsewhere in the article. TarkusABtalk/contrib 16:37, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

game8.co

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello! I've come here to ask if game8.co is a reliable source. I'm not able to check it myself for reasons I will not state here (or anywhere publicly), however I noticed an IP add it in this edit. Based on the name it doesn't really sound that reliable but I'm not gonna judge a source by just the name. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 15:18, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Smells awry to me. If as it claims that Game8 is "one of Japan's top gaming guide and walkthrough sites", why is the site almost entirely in English (except for the logo)? MilkyDefer >In memory of Her Majesty. 15:30, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

FACs review request

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Is it possible to get more eyes on Lumines: Puzzle Fusion FAC?Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 01:34, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

New Articles (September 12 to September 18)

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements
 A listing of all articles newly added to the Video Games Wikiproject (regardless of creation date). Generated by v3.13 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 02:40, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

September 12

September 13

September 14

September 15

September 16

September 17

September 18

PresN 02:40, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Fanbyte lays off almost all staff, pivoting to guides

Latest comment: 1 year ago11 comments6 people in discussion

Via Kotaku and managing editor. If you have Fanbyte cited on any of your articles, I recommend archiving them. I wouldn't trust that they'll stay up indefinitely. Axem Titanium (talk) 04:46, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm not able to get the External links search to work, even though I'm certain that I've cited them before. Anyone able to troubleshoot? Axem Titanium (talk) 04:47, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
Works for me. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:LinkSearch?target=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.fanbyte.com%2F Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 04:54, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
Just been through and archived that list CrimsonFox talk 11:02, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
I've scraped the URLs for the majority of the articles in the gaming section, apart from guides, which are available here ( 1 2 3 ) if anyone is interested. I was trying to archive them using the outlinks option but wasn't having much luck so maybe someone else can use them CrimsonFox talk 16:58, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for that − saved all outlinks using https://web.archive.org/save/ − looks like it worked :) Jean-Fred (talk) 09:32, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
Hmmm no − it only saved 70 outlinks it seems. Jean-Fred (talk) 09:33, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
Yes, I tried that too. There are thousands of URLs in those pages, but the Wayback Machine only saves some of them. Does Wikipedia have a way to assign a job to InternetArchiveBot? Is Wikipedia:Bot requests relevant, here? ► LowLevel73 (talk) 11:51, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
Normally yes, but the bot is down right now due a "critical bug". I will find a way to archive everything once it is back up. IceWelder [✉] 12:28, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
Thanks everyone. I'm not super familiar with all these fancy new tools. Axem Titanium (talk) 05:38, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
Looks like the site has been crawled, all the URLs in the list have got snapshots now. CrimsonFox talk 10:43, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Issue with lead of visual novel article

Latest comment: 1 year ago15 comments9 people in discussion

I noticed several statements in the lead of the Visual novel article which essentially State that visual novels are not video games. These statements are Visual novels are often associated with and used in video games, but are not always labeled as such themselves and The more famous visual novels are also often adapted into light novels, manga or anime and are sometimes succeeded or complimented by actual video games, such as RPGs or action games. . Considering visual novels are labeled as video games and are listed as such at List of video game genres I believe these statements should be removed or at least heavily rewritten. Does anyone else agree? 67.70.24.37 (talk) 19:12, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree it should be modified. The source used does literally call VNs a game genre ("Visual novels (or sound novels, as they’re sometimes called) are a popular game genre in Japan."), so the interpretation of that source appears to be totally incorrect. The idea that VNs are not games has never been based in any sort of reliable source or interpretation and are solely down to a "this isn't a real game, you don't shoot stuff!" bias that is thankfully dying out (unless you are playing Kojima's visual novels, in which case, yes you do). ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:48, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
Seconded. Sergecross73 msg me 19:57, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
I's definitely specify "visual novel" as a game genre since they solely exist in the gaming medium (we don't have visual novel movies or visual novel books), and they seemingly have been since before Sakura Wars which is explicitly a hybrid of TRPG, social sim and visual novel. --ProtoDrake (talk) 20:22, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
Visual novel writers/developers not considering their own work as a "video game" is an interesting and important aspect of the genre/medium. Some note like this is probably worthy of inclusion in the lede. But you're right that the current text is confusing. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:59, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
If they don't consider it a video game, it's probably because they were misinformed somehow. Interactive fiction has been around for a while, is considered one of the first types of video games ever created, and visual novels are a sub-type of it with more visuals and music. There may be the odd visual novel or interactive fiction writer who despises other types of video games, but this does not really have anything to do with what critics and scholars consider their software to be. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:00, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
Its likely in the same vein that some interactive fiction writers do not consider their work video games. Masem (t) 12:11, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
Some examples? From what I know, they usually call their work either "novel game" (ノベルゲーム), or something like "xxxxxxxxxx ADV", where the "xxxx" part is the main theme of the game. MilkyDefer >In memory of Her Majesty. 14:25, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
I really don’t believe it matters what the developers believe if the vast majority of reliable sources say otherwise. We don’t, for example, refuse to call Super Smash Bros. a fighting game because series creator Masahiro Sakurai don’t consider it one https://www.eventhubs.com/news/2013/jun/21/sakurai-says-smash-bros-isnt-fighting-game-completely-different-label-talks-game-development-fighting-genre-and-value-unpredictability/. Based on that I don’t believe the personal views of the developers should have much weight here.--67.70.24.37 (talk) 18:20, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
It's also not true for all VN creators. Christine Love clearly considers herself a game designer, as does Aevee Bee. I have noticed more IP editors over the past few months that persistently repeat some variation of "VNs are not video games" across a number of pages, so there may be some coordinated offwiki editing or one really persistent guy doing this a lot. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:06, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
Comment I'd like to note that in the VN scene there is a specific term for visual novels with no interactive elements, which is often called a Kinetic Novel. If a VN isn't labeled as a Kinetic Novel, it's typically assumed that there is interactivity of some kind. Mbrickn (talk) 16:28, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
It should be clarified that the majority of reliable sources would not distinguish between visual novels and kinetic novels. I wouldn't be surprised if the RS where it is stated are a form of WP:CITOGENESIS because it doesn't appear in anything other than the most recent sources. Like "HD-2D", it is just a marketing tagline created by KineticNovel, not a genre of its own. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:06, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
I don't think the Kinetic Novel thing is valid as a distinction. There's visual novels and visual novel-type elements where player choice is either minimised or non-existent. Stella Deus: The Gate of Eternity and the entire Trauma Center series uses visual novel-style story sections, and they don't have choices. How about saying in the lead something like "Visual Novel is a commonly-recognised subgenre of video games", clarifying later in the lead and text (if proven through third-party sources) that some creators or studios do not apply the term to their work. Incidentally, that Kinetic subsection shouldn't include Higurashi as that's called a Visual or Sound novel in its article, not a Kinetic novel. --ProtoDrake (talk) 18:32, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
That's beside the overall observation that the article itself isn't in a good state, with a lot of uncited information. --ProtoDrake (talk) 18:35, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
That is probably due to the complex relationship between "visual novels", "bishoujo games" (aka "galgame"), "erotic games" ("eroge"), sometimes even "adventure games" and "computer games". To be honest, even the definition of these terms are different between enwp, jawp and zhwp. You may need to check these related articles for sources, Japanese sources may help. MilkyDefer 06:51, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Move discussion needs input

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Talk:Square Enix Europe#Requested move 14 September 2022 has been relisted with no !votes. Before it closes as "no consensus", please consider contributing. Regards, IceWelder [✉] 18:46, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Is Frosk worth an article?

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Is Indiana "Froskurinn" Black worth making an article considering she got fired from G4? Dwanyewest (talk) 19:24, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

May be notable enough to warrant an article. There's a few decent sources with coverage of her [15] [16] [17] [18] [19]. – Pbrks (t • c) 20:04, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Citing video game dialogues and credits

Latest comment: 1 year ago8 comments4 people in discussion

In an article about a recently released game, the citation of a line spoken by a character is used to explain when the events of the game occur in relation to the other games in the series. I assume that the dialogue would lead the player to infer that the events of the game occur after the events of all the other games. Am I correct to consider this type of source WP:OR or, more generally, not acceptable?

Also, are video game credits generally considered an acceptable source when it comes to the names of the people who worked on the game? ► LowLevel73 (talk) 17:59, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

There's a couple of moving parts here. First, dialogue spoken by a character is not automatically true. Within the fiction, the character may be lying or simply uninformed/incorrect about the true state of their world, so you'd want to do some additional digging to establish if this is the case. If it passes muster, it would count as a WP:PRIMARY source, with all the caveats that entails, and you'd still prefer a secondary source if possible. Second, it's become common practice over the past few years that you don't generally need to cite the work itself for facts about the plot and setting of the work, unless the fact is obscure, non-obvious, or runs contrary to the ordinary understanding of the work due to some late plot twist (see Sagan standard). If you could describe the situation you have in mind, we would be able to give more specific guidance on where it falls on the OR/not-OR line.
As for credits, I'm not thrilled by the current state of crediting on VG articles. It's still implicitly understood that credits in the infobox are cited to the game credits themselves, even without a citation template, but that leaves a lot of verifiability to be desired, especially for obscure games without easy access to a Youtube video of the credits as they appear in game. But yes, the in-game credits are presumed to be an acceptable source for the names of people who worked on a game. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:55, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Beyond that, using the credits as a primary source doesn't give any indication that those credits are worth mentioning. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 20:57, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Very good point, @David Fuchs. I have observed at least some correlation between the habit of citing the credits and adding information that doesn't really improve the article. For example, listing people who worked in the project but that are not mentioned in other (secondary, reliable) sources has felt to me more an excuse to include them in the article than an attempt to improve it. ► LowLevel73 (talk) 06:17, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply, @Axem Titanium. I can't describe the specific situation very well, because I'm still playing the game and I want to avoid spoilers, but this is the diff I was thinking of. It uses in-game information to infer that the primary narrative is set after the previous installment of the series (Tales of Monkey Island). Regardless of how correct the statement is, I think that this is not a good way to support it, because it is based on a deduction made by the editor. ► LowLevel73 (talk) 21:21, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
That edit veers strongly into OR or SYNTH because it's not immediately obvious how the quoted dialogue supports the statement. You'd need to know exactly what 6 "wins" Guybrush is referring to in order to understand how that establishes that Return is a sequel to Tales. A secondary source on a game website that unpacks that line and connects individual events in prior games to those 6 wins would be sufficient. The dialogue snippet by itself is not. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:43, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for confirming my doubts about this kind of citation, @Axem Titanium. In this particular case, whether the game can be defined a sequel of the previous game is (by-design) an ambiguous topic that is still under discussion. In this case, I believe that secondary sources are strictly necessary to provide different points of view and that a subjective deduction made by one person qualifies as WP:OR. ► LowLevel73 (talk) 06:29, 22 September 2022 (UTC)


I have noticed some videogame featured articles use many in game dialogues/narration/monologues as sources/references. I remember when Legacy of Kain: Soul Reaver became a featured article on or near its tenth birthday in 2009. I noticed that game's article has 62 refs, and 15 of which, almost a quarter, are in game dialogue between the player character and other characters, or narration/monologue by the player character. This is a story heavy series, and the highest in game dialogue refs I have noticed among the video game featured articles. (In this instance, like someone said above, it is revealed or heavily implied, in a later game, that one of these characters is probably lying about things they state within this game, which could complicate things) Other featured video game articles that have character dialogue as sources are several from the Final Fantasy series and Zelda Series. like Final Fantasy XIII-2, about one sixth of refs, and The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time, lower still. I believe there are many more that do not use in game dialogue as sources compared to those that do. Like many said above there may be times to avoid it, and watch out for lying/mistaken characters, but I often attempt to mimic featured articles to an extent when writing or improving articles, and if some featured articles are getting passed using that method in the correct way, I would definitely consider it an option, especially for the plot section of the article. Like some said above, it may be better if backed up with secondary sources, if they can be found, which may not always be the case.  Carlwev  22:43, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Can NME be considered a reliable source for video games?

Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Their website is mainly focused on music but in 2020 they have added a gaming section. They are not mentioned in WP:VG/S. Searching for reviews of RtMI, I've found this article. Both its emphatic title and the fact that they have been reviewing video games for only two years prompted me to ask here for an opinion on their reliability when it comes to video games. ► LowLevel73 (talk) 08:46, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, they've been a RS in the music industry for a very long time, and there's no reason that wouldn't apply to simply another entertainment industry like video games. Sergecross73 msg me 10:45, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
WP:VG/S generally lists sources specifically discussed by the project, and generally specific to video games. NME is already established as a reliable source in general so typically isn't something we'd explicitly list. Go forth and edit. -- ferret (talk) 22:20, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Yet again I am asking for infoboxes to allow for the listings of artists etc. to have "lead" attached to them

Latest comment: 1 year ago16 comments6 people in discussion

The Deltarune page before I edited it shows the problem with the infoboxes just having "Artists" etc. - people assume it is meant to list everyone who worked on a game. We need an option to have the infobox read "Lead Artists" etc. The confusion created by just having "Artists" etc. is not hypothetical. Eldomtom2 (talk) 09:12, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

According to Template:Infobox video game, it mentions that the team is supposed to be listed as "popular", so I think that changing the text and parameter to "Lead Artists" is a bit redundant and will look awkward as a result ("Lead developer(s)", "Lead artist(s)", etc."). The template lists quite well on who and how many should be included. If an artist listed on the Deltarune page has no coverage and is not a main artist, then they should be generally removed as to avoid clutter. Sparkltalk 13:09, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
...I was expecting a huge mess of names in the infobox. There were two names. The sky is not falling. Axem Titanium (talk) 16:50, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
You bring up the same argument you presented the last two times. What makes you think that the outcome will be different the third time around? It is rather obvious that we do not list every single credit and instead only present the most significant credits, both for personnel and for companies. Introducing these prefixes would only bload the infobox labels. I also would argue that no one checks Ghost of Tsushima and goes "I see, this game only had one artist." IceWelder [✉] 17:09, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
I have presented direct proof that it is not obvious. Deltarune is one of those cases where it will be unclear to the uninformed reader whether or not the infobox lists everyone. --Eldomtom2 (talk) 21:28, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
@Eldomtom2: In the edit you've shown, you're trying to list "Kanotynes" as an artist, but the article only credits Kanotyne's art as a source of inspiration. The Infobox is designed to give credit to those who were directly involved in the game. Unless Kanotynes was involved in the production, it wouldn't make sense to add them in. Adding Kanotynes into the infobox is hurtful to the article.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 20:03, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
I am doing the oppposite. I removed Kanotynes from the infobox. --Eldomtom2 (talk) 20:17, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
OK, I deeply apologize for misunderstanding your edit. If that's the case, then the infobox is still doing its job. Whoever decided to add Kanotynes, was not understanding the purpose of the infobox. Or give undue credit to Kanotynes. There is still no need for a "Lead Artist" section.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 20:29, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Why? What is the argument for not having it?--Eldomtom2 (talk) 23:11, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Is this a good time for me to yet again ask that we remove credits entirely from the infobox? :) -- ferret (talk) 23:13, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
@Eldomtom2: my reason for not supporting to change to "Lead Artists" or "Lead Writer" is because it's not broken. And the burden of proof that it is broken is up to the one who wants to change it. This example doesn't provide any proof that the info box provides more problems. You've shown a weird example of someone miscrediting Kanotynes as an involved artist. I'm willing to change my mind once you do have a valid example where it's necessary to list "Lead Artist". But I'll be waiting for that day, but you have to do better than this. In my honest opinion, it's not worth bringing up again.23:35, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
I have demonstrated a clear case where the lack of an option to change the listing to "Lead Artist" has caused confusion. You appear to be discounting this for no explained reason.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 11:52, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
@Eldomtom2: You showed an edit where someone discredited someone as an involved artist. That has nothing to do with how the infobox is organized, and everything to do with the person adding them not doing proper research. You saw the edit, and you interpreted on behalf of an editor why they did what they did. This is my last response to this topic until you provide new and more substantial evidence. I wish you the best in this pursuit.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 12:02, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
You are ignoring that similar issues occurred with the composer credit. --Eldomtom2 (talk) 13:00, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Changing the field's display label won't solve anything. When they see templatedata or edit directly, the field parameter will still be just "artist" and they will still do it. The word "Lead" is left out for spacing reasons, and for the most part, there's little issue with this. The editors who focus on maintaining credits understand how they should be and despite having a huge watchlist of some 4000 video games, I rarely see any back and forth of new comers messing it up. (Actually what I usually find is artists and composers trying to add themselves, SELFPROMO). -- ferret (talk) 13:27, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
You seem to live in some bizarre fantasy world where people do not notice mistakes outside the edit screen. Further, I am not arguing that solely editors will be confused.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 17:45, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Historically important independent developers absent from Essential Articles#People

Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I couldn't help but notice that the People section of the Essential Articles doesn't have any historically significant indie game developers listed.

I think some historically significant indie developers should be add to the list.

I would have at least expected some of the subjects of Indie Game: The Movie (Edmund McMillen, Tommy Refenes, Phil Fish, Jonathan Blow) to be on the list.

The indie game scene didn't really exist 20 years ago, but now it's huge, and yet there are no famous and influential indie developers on the list. This strikes me as very odd, and not reflective of the last decade of independent game development. Neuroxic (talk) 15:24, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

I forget this page even exists. It's manually maintained. Feel free to add? -- ferret (talk) 15:49, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
I thought pages like these just served as examples. Missing data isn't a big deal in them, but feel free to add some names. Please don't put too much stock into what is listed as "importance" on talk pages, though! It's all just subjective! ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 07:52, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Rewrite of gameplay section on Need for Speed World

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello! I'm currently working on rewriting the gameplay section of the article for Need for Speed World (linked above). I made the first changed here and I already got some feedback from Discord (tho I only remember that one of the points of feedback I was given was to avoid "thing" which I will revise my edit to try and avoid that). I'm looking for more suggestions as to how I can improve the edit and the gameplay section (or the article as a whole). ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 14:55, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

  • World "took on" the gameplay...I don't think thats proper English.
  • Too much detail on the fictional map based on previous maps. Unless verified by reliable sources.
  • Any comparisons to any other games should be verified.

I'm not sure how to organize the changes. Maybe mention the original gameplay first in one paragraph and then dedicate a second paragraph to the new updates.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 15:06, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Discussion on quality of sources

Latest comment: 1 year ago44 comments15 people in discussion

At the recent AFD for a Pokemon character, there was a consensus that there wasn't significant coverage in reliable sources to support an article. The consensus was strong and rightly decided. But given the low quality / high quantity coverage, it relates to previous discussions at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources talk page. A combination of WP:REFBOMB and WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs, yes, but there are situations where the topic is covered in direct detail.

If I could parse the coverage:

I believe this is a recurring discussion, and I've seen a few different solutions proposed.

  1. Case by case. Our policies and guidelines are fine, and borderline cases will inevitably require discussion.
  2. Determining reliable sources. Some sources need to be deprecated as they are no longer reliable.
  3. Determining appropriate sources for notability. Some sources are technically reliable, but churn out so much that they are not useful for assessing notability.
  4. Determining appropriate types of journalism. Certain types of journalism, such as reviews, are reliable. But certain types of journalism, like those that focus on twitter reactions, are not.[33]
  5. Something else. Another solution that I haven't thought of.

Going to ping all the AFD participants. Let's take our time with this, and a straw poll is a good place to start. @Zxcvbnm: @Sergecross73: @Rorshacma: @Alyo: @DecafPotato: @(Oinkers42): @Ferret: @Czar: @Piotrus: Shooterwalker (talk) 17:09, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

(Self) Comment: I truly believe that #4 is the most precise way to handle it. Some sources are more guilty of "churnalism" than others, but it's a recurring problem across all sources, and is becoming more common as social media drives traffic and thus advertising. We should strive to preserve quality game reviews from as many reliable sources as possible, while eliminating the clickbait. (Conversely, approach #2 could do a lot of damage, removing sources that are otherwise generally reliable.) That said, I think approach #4 might be hard to define and I'm interested if anyone knows where to draw the line. If we can't figure that out, then approach #3 would at least help us at AFD. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:14, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Yes, I meant to start a similar discussion like this due to Czar's suggestion at that AFD. Over and over again, we have editors who propose these garbage "TheGamer/Gamerant/ComicBookResource articles about nothing as their stance for why a game character is notable, and over and over again it's thrown out at AFD as not enough. Czar recommended making some sort of note about those sources not being good about establishing notability. I fully support this. Its readily apparent that there is a consensus in the community, we may as well document it so we can avoid these same arguments that just end up closing the same way every time. Sergecross73 msg me 17:16, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
That said, I don't think we can do anything on the Wikipedia level about how editors interpret "signification coverage" and "trivial mention". Those concepts are a bit bigger than just us. I believe there will always be people that have very lax standards for the concept, and that's technically their prerogative (as is everyone else's to shut them down at AFD too.) Sergecross73 msg me 17:19, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
I wouldn't be so bold as to try to rewrite core policies on Wikipedia. But this Wikiproject has led the way before. When I joined Wikipedia, WP:VGSCOPE was already being applied very consistently, so I WP:BOLDLY turned it into policy[34] at WP:NOT, and it's stood there for ten years now. When there is a consistent practice around something, the consensus tends to hold. I believe we could start at one of the video game specific guidelines. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:29, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
If we are talking about the usual cadre of video game sources (eg Polygon, Eurogamer, etc.) its likely Option 4, because nearly every one of our RSes for VGs engage in the equivalent of shitposting/clickbaiting, some more so than others. We have to be aware when the writer is being a journalist vs being a critic vs being silly (like with Kotaku's "Chaos Chaos Chaos" of that FF game). So its not just "but this has articles in Polygon!" if the Polygon article is clearly not serious journalism. Masem (t) 17:16, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
I agree with the others in that #4 is the right way to go. Certain types of journalism are unreliable, specifically ones that don't offer any sort of indepth analysis on the part of the journalist. This is usually the case with listicles, where it's like "this character had a cool beard, so I'm ranking him #4 of top 20 fighting game characters", and stuff based on user generated content elsewhere, like "this game got a ton of Steam reviews saying it's good, so it could be good, check it out!" ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:21, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
That's my assessment as well. Thing is, it's really obvious to see that this[35] is good coverage, and this[36] is not. But how would you articulate the difference, if we were to give editors a proper guideline? Shooterwalker (talk) 17:21, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
It's a skill of art that comes with using these sources for so long. For example, a lot of the recent coverage for Trombone Champ has been borderline between serious and humorous (eg this Polygon take is on that line). If all there was articles of that Polygon quality, I'd be really hesitant to call that good coverage for the GNG. Fortunately for that topic, there's also been serious coverage (including CNN) so it's clear of the GNG issues. But can I express why I know that that Polygon article is iffy? Not in any easily summarized statement. Masem (t) 17:26, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
I would personally articulate the difference as: "Reliable sources try to do a serious, objective analysis of the subject from firsthand experience". Something talking about rumors other people started is not firsthand experience. Talking about it in a fannish way is not even attempting to be objective or serious. I added the "try to" because it's not always 100% serious and definitely never totally objective, but it makes an attempt to retain those norms. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:30, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
There have been articles that are clearly opinion, clearly written as a "fanboy" but still try to perform good criticism, that I consider viable. But that's again, skill of art to recognize the difference between usable criticism , and someone just fangushing and not trying to give good criticism. But in terms of this discussion, identifying Option 4 as a way to verbalize this to editors still makes sense - just because you pulled a source from one of our WP:VG/S reliable ones, doesn't make it immediately usable, as is the case with all RSes. Masem (t) 17:38, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Using that Trombone Champ Polygon article as an example, my position would be that it's coverage from a reliable source that doesn't confer notability. Think of all the human interest stories that newspapers run. The subject of that story is not necessarily notable, even if multiple reliable outlets cover it. A Polygon article on Trombone Champ memes would be the video game/internet equivalent of a human interest story. Could it be included and cited in the Trombone Champ article? Sure. Does it establish Trombone Champ as notable on its own? No. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:03, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
I personally think this way Axem articulated is essentially my view of it. When it comes to establishing notability, that does largely depending on the type of journalism or writing being doing—and this is largely covered as a broad philosophy by option 4 in conjunction with, as mentioned, WP:TRIVIAL and a seasoning of case-by-case. However, pieces that do not count toward notability are not necessarily unsuitable for inclusion in an article. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 21:12, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
I think this is something that was discussed over the declined Draft:Bidoof, with the consensus being that the "non-serious journalism" doesn't constitute "real" reception, and thus would barely contribute to notability, instead being more of a "supplement" DecafPotato (talk) 18:13, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Hmm, I'm a little unsure what the question here is, because many of these options aren't exactly mutually exclusive? I can easily think of situations that would fall under any of 2/3/4, and even within 2/3/4 there will be borderline cases that require discussion (option 1). Or for that matter, we can categorize sources as generally reliable, but then recognize that they put out certain types of pieces that should not be used to justify notability (option 2 -> 3/4). At present I think current WP policy allows us to ignore churnalism/social media-bait, but perhaps your suggesting we more formally define "churnalism"? I know you're obviously using an extreme/funny example re: this vs this, but surely current practice wouldn't actually treat them the same way just because they both are pub'd at kotaku.com. Alyo (chat·edits) 17:43, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Those are my thoughts exactly. These approaches aren't mutually exclusive, and I believe they already describe current practice. My hope is to document what that practice is, especially in that last example. I believe there are things that are almost always reliable (reviews) and things that are almost always not (joke posts), but it gets murky in the middle (reactions to trends on social media). Is there a line that we can draw that would at least eliminate the worst offenders? Shooterwalker (talk) 17:52, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Ahh I see. That should indeed for worth doing, even if just as a WPVG essay. There are a lot of relevant policies about sourcing, but it would help to have them brought together in one place with examples from VG sites. Alyo (chat·edits) 17:56, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Just so I'm clear, we are attempting to create guidelines for determining notability from sources for a video game related article, correct? Not necessarily content within the article. Skipple ☎ 18:00, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
I think it's more about the sources themselves. But it does relate to notability and is prompted in part by the mentioned AFD. At this point the discussion is very broad, and I'm looking to see if someone can turn the consensus at the AFD into a broader guideline, because many of the comments at AFD are referring to this as a pattern. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:08, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
I think #3 and #4 are good picks. Some sources could be used for some low-caliber news and reception of the general community, but using sources like The Gamer and Screen Rant to assess notability or provide actual criticism is not a good idea. DecafPotato (talk) 18:07, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
  • For the sake of the straw poll and while minding that a wider forum would be needed for any wider change, options two and four. This is really a discussion about Valnet, a content mill that runs TheGamer, Game Rant, Screen Rant, and CBR. Their content is consistently low-quality takes on fandom, mostly commentary and items designed to be shared. They are not suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia and any WP:VG/RS discussions should be revisited (option two). Look at each of the channels in the logo wall I linked to see the consistency. There are already a plethora of higher quality (and that's not saying much) sources for editors to use on any number of video game-related topics. If you're able to distill the essence of this type of low-quality content (churnalism by any other name), such that a checklist could be codified in a wider forum and applied as a content standard to identify "articles" like the example in option four, then sounds good to me and I'd recommend Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Examples of trivial coverage as a model. But deprecating Valnet coverage is an easier place to start. czar 18:13, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
    "This is really a discussion about Valnet, a content mill that runs TheGamer, Game Rant, Screen Rant, and CBR." I disagree, there are reliable articles from those sites and unreliable articles from totally unrelated sites like Kotaku. Banning those sites entirely would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater, and indicate a huge double standard with regards to almost every other gaming journalism site. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:35, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
    Reliability is a trait of the publisher, not their individual articles. Either the publication has a reputation for accuracy, fact-checking, and journalistic integrity or it does not. That TheGamer might occasionally run a decent article shouldn't be our concern but whether the publication's output as a whole represents claims we can cite as an encyclopedia. And Kotaku's own status has also been raised for re-evaluation on more than one occasion. That these sources wouldn't pass muster at FAC should indicate the problem. We aren't having the same conversations about Polygon. This encyclopedia is a record of reliable, secondary sources, only as good as that standard of sourcing. czar 00:12, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
    Thanks for pointing this out. Seems like Valnet content is a major root of this problem... Sergecross73 msg me 00:21, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
    I'd 100% support a ban on Valnet. The issue I think is that we almost need a new category of sourcing. Sources that may be ok for factoids, but because of their sheer churnalism, are absolutely garbage for determining notability. -- ferret (talk) 01:38, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
    Yeah, nothing of value would be lost. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:29, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
    I think we already do have a relevant category, situational sources. One can just put a note there that said source cannot be used to demonstrate notability. Although to eliminate the double standard I absolutely think Kotaku articles after a certain date should qualify, as I have brought up before but was shot down. I do however diametrically oppose a "total ban" or marking them as unreliable. Whether they would pass muster at FAC is a ridiculous standard to put on every single article on Wikipedia. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:32, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
    I'd support that too. "Situational" as in okay for factoids, but not for notability. Kinda like how we treat WP:PRIMARY sources really. Sergecross73 msg me 14:27, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
    I would agree adding them to "situational". First, I haven't seen any reason to doubt what they report when they are in reporting mode. And while much of these publications are hot air, they do have occasional good bits of news that I can't find sourceable to other places. Masem (t) 14:55, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
    I would also support situational but not a total ban or wholesale unreliable. Specify that it doesn't demonstrate notability. I would hate to lose the occasional solid interviews or other decent reporting that this family of sites sometimes do. I agree with Zxcvbnm's earlier remark that it feels very baby and bathwater to do a total ban. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 18:39, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
    WPVG abuses "situational" designation and the fact that we're having this conversation about these sources even after they've been designated as "situational" shows that it does not work. The designation of "situational" should be deprecated from WP:VG/RS, and if I recall correctly, we had some agreement to this regard some years ago on its talk page. Because, with few exceptions, all sources are situational (see the lede of WP:RSP)—context always matters, especially when the link itself is being used as a primary source rather than a secondary source for dispassionate statements of fact. We don't need to designate "situational" at all if the same applies to all sources—it only leads us to make excuses for low-quality publications that shouldn't have our endorsement at all and subsequent confusion among editors who aren't able to discern what "situational" means (case in point, the AfDs that led to this discussion).
    I.e., in the example of an interview, as long as the content isn't straight-up fabricated, WP has allowed editors to cite interviews and other primary sources—no matter its originating publication (blog, zine, etc.)—for limited citation (WP:SPSAS) and that would not change in this case.
    re: Kotaku, the reason I'm bearish is because "after a certain date" isn't the problem. Kotaku started as a Gawker blog and arguably never grew out of it like some other Gawker publications. Setting up a "situational" designation then both "before" and "after" certain dates indicates how far we're contorting to make up for the fact that the outlet isn't consistently reliable for statements of fact, which is the whole point of source reliability designation.
    czar 20:39, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
    We understand you think that, but it doesn't line up with actual Wikipedia policy. WP:QUESTIONABLE states that an unreliable source must have "a poor reputation for checking the facts or with no editorial oversight". Just because something is a "content mill" does not mean it is not factual. I can understand the "notability shouldn't be solely based on the output of fannish articles". But you still have editors checking the accuracy of said fannish articles.
    "Situational" doesn't imply others must be trusted 100% of the time, just that a certain larger subset of articles are problematic. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:00, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
    No offense, but I think you've been the primary editor against our "situational" designation. You seem to largely be on the same page as us here, so please don't let that hangup get in the way of a consensus... Sergecross73 msg me 21:03, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
  • At the very least, I think there are certain "types" of sources that are almost always shot down at AFDs as not conferring notability, that would be easy to define in a guideline as not being viable, such as in the Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Examples of trivial coverage example Czar mentioned above - things like listicles, or articles comprised of reposts of twitter reaction. While there are always going to be some sources that will require a case-by-case analysis, I think just gathering all of the obvious low-hanging fruit examples into a guideline specifying that they are not viable for establishing notability would certainly help streamline many AFD discussions. It would be a much easier case of just pointing to that guideline in the discussion instead of being forced to respond to the dozen of "top ten" lists that keep getting thrown into the discussion as attempts to show evidence of notability. Rorshacma (talk) 18:23, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
    Sometimes, however, articles of twitter reactions are potentially useful, such as how several devs came out in support of Rockstar over the GTA6 leaks. Same with Trombone Champ, of sorts, of journalists using twitter examples of why it is a funny game. Masem (t) 05:23, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
    I agree. Sometimes the audience reaction is noteworthy. I think we here tend to turn our noses up at user reception, but RSes can observe and comment on it thoughtfully and we'd be fools to discount it automatically. Axem Titanium (talk) 05:38, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
    Again, I think a lot of this is skill of art to know when lines are crossed. Its fortunate that in our main body of RSes that at worst 1-2% of their articles are of this type. When it comes to Valnet stuff, that likely is closer to 25% or higher. Masem (t) 13:11, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Consensus in principle

  • Based on the above, the great news is we have a WP:CONSENSUS in principle, but the details will be difficult. Certain things that seem to be widely agreed:
  • The Valnet properties (TheGamer, Game Rant, Screen Rant, CBR...) are the source of many of the content mill problems.
  • It's not strictly about the publisher. Valnet does produce content that is technically reliable, and vice versa, our best sources can sometimes be content mills.
  • There is Wikipedia precedent for writing guidelines that define "trivial" versus "significant coverage", at Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Examples_of_trivial_coverage.
  • This project has its own precedents:
    • We've been fairly silent about notability, but we have drawn nuanced guidelines around a source's reliability ("situational").
    • We also formed a consensus that gameguide style coverage (e.g.: lists of items) is outside of WP:VGSCOPE, and this became policy at WP:NOT.
  • The consensus in principle has been easy. The practical guideline will take more effort and discussion, but it's completely doable. I understand the temptation of some editors to just throw entire sources out entirely, but I believe that will cost us a lot of valuable coverage, and disrupt a lot of good and even featured content. I believe we can push through if a few editors want to help with that process. One of the best ways we can help is to start pulling up other AFDs (similar to above) and seeing if we can identify certain patterns. I personally learned a lot even just organizing the sources from the Serena AFD, and I'm confident we can figure this out, as a community project. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:39, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
    I don't think it needs to be complicated I think it's as simple as moving all the Valnet sources to "situational" and have the explanation/notes say that it's fine for general details but not for establishing notability. Sergecross73 msg me 00:04, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
    Yes. That much I'd support. (I would still like to figure out some additional guidelines on trivial coverage and general churnalism / content farms, but that can be a longer / later discussion.) Shooterwalker (talk) 02:45, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
    It doesn't feel like it'd need that much discussion? Stuff like churnalism is really analogous to WP:ROUTINE and to some degree it's a "know it when I see it" type thing. It shouldn't be hard to say "yes/no this is not a quality source" based off a quick look. Especially since at an AfD or something it's not like VG Wikiproject's style guide is going to have much weight (unless you turned it into an official guideline which would be a mess.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 03:09, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
    Consensus always follows practice, and I think there's a reason why most of us "know it when we see it". I think it's swirling around between other guidelines that we cite, such as WP:ROUTINE / WP:DUE / WP:GAMESOURCES, let alone widely understood essays like WP:REFBOMB or WP:COATRACK. As I noted above, WP:VGSCOPE carried weight at AFD for years, and was applied so consistently that WP:GAMEGUIDE became policy. So I think there is value to analyzing our practices here, and documenting it somewhere, if only in the style guide. Shooterwalker (talk) 04:21, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
    That might be a simple approach. Something along the lines of "these sources are known to often produce churnalism-level coverage that's borderline reliable and not sufficient for demonstrating notability". Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:00, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
    I went ahead and added something at WP:GAMESOURCES just for the Valnet properties. Seems like the most obvious place to start. I intend to stick to this issue in the long run. There are better sources that sometimes drift into the content farm problem, and need to be used with care and guidance. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:41, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Emulators of Nintendo Switch

Latest comment: 1 year ago7 comments5 people in discussion

A couple days ago, BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4 moved the article on Yuzu (emulator) to Emulators of Nintendo Switch, in order to make it a "co-article" on Yuzu and the non-notable Ryujinx. Draft:Ryujinx had been declined multiple times for not meeting the GNG. (I believe there were one or more AfDs as well, but I'm unable to find them.) That draft, which was filled with sketchy and unreliable sources, was then merged into the new Emulators of Nintendo Switch article.

I attempted the undo the move, but couldn't for some reason. (I'm assuming because there's a redirect?) However, maybe I'm wrong and this might be a good way to incorporate the (admittedly, trivial) sourcing about Ryujinx into an article. Thoughts? Woodroar (talk) 04:07, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

I've already incorporated the trivial reliable sourcing on Ryujinx into the current article, and have combed over the merged content in an effort to clean it up and remove some irrelevant detail and unreliable sources. I plan to continue doing this, the current text does still contain some questionable sources and possibly undue material, but I believe that can be fixed. I don't feel that Ryujinx is notable enough for its own page, but it did have enough reliable sources to verify its existence and role in the progress of Switch emulation, and it appeared to me that including information about it in the Yuzu article would enrich the content and provide additional context for the topic.
The main motive for the move to make the article about Switch emulation generally was because much of the media coverage of Switch emulation, such as the coverage of Metroid Dread running on the emulators and the recent news of Denuvo's development of anti-emulation DRM, is not specific to Yuzu, and while I felt that it should be mentioned, it felt inappropriate to do so while the page's topic remained Yuzu. As such I thought it might be best to refactor the article in order to comply with WP:TOPIC and avoid WP:COATRACK. I felt it would be easier to enact the change rather than try to explain it to others, I was confident in my ability to do so with competence, and since it didn't seem like many other people were watching or editing the page, I decided to just go ahead and do this.
The fact that a fair amount of media coverage on emulation does not give much direct publicity to the emulators themselves, for the naturally understandable reason that they are in a legal grey area and it would not look good to appear to be driving readers to pirate video games, as well as various other factors, does seem to be a problem for our coverage of these emulators, as there has been dispute both on this WikiProject page and relevant AfD discussions about the quality and relevance of sources that mention them. I think it may be appropriate to quote a comment by Axem Titanium from the recent and ongoing AfD concerning VisualBoyAdvance which may put the matter in perspective somewhat:
We're talking about an emulator, which is a piece of software that is used as the vehicle to engage with the media you're actually interested in. The closest comparison I can think of is a DVD player. Naturally there will be far more sources discussing the DVD format (and also movies which are printed onto DVDs) rather than the DVD player itself. For a particular model of DVD player, the only sources that are solely about the DVD player itself, and not couched in the context of the media it plays, would be product reviews for that DVD player. And since VBA isn't a commercial product and it's in a legal grey area, we're unlikely to find those either. I contend that the above mentions of VBA are not trivial, even if the mentions are short, because (by analogy) it's rare to even consider the DVD player when reviewing a DVD movie. VBA was crucial to the existence of Twitch Plays Pokemon.[37][38] It helped turn hobbyist game hackers into full-fledged developers.[39] It's on the shortlist of emulators of note for outlets like BusinessInsider and PC World.[40][41] These would be considered trivial mentions in other contexts but I think we need to expand our conception of what is significant coverage when it comes to certain topics that (I feel) are notable but don't attract traditional coverage for various reasons.
Considering this trend of dispute about if certain emulators are or aren't notable, I think it perhaps may be appropriate to establish some new guidelines for what, in the context of a console emulator, constitutes WP:SIGCOV.
Anyway, TL;DR about the Switch emulation article; I think it's fine, I think merging Ryujinx to it is fine, I believe both emulators, taken as a single topic, meet WP:V; it just may need some more cleanup. However I respect if the consensus is against me on this. ostensibly singular userpage (inquire within) 04:32, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
I have listed the move at WP:RM, as regardless of the reason, it is out of scope for the Yuzu article and should be done in a draft or something. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:37, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
I have reverted the changes, and will not further contest the move-back to Yuzu (emulator). Per WP:BRD, once the page has been moved back, I will properly file an RM seeking consensus for the expanded scope revisions to be reinstated. Probably not tonight; I'll hold off and think about it before I do anything else.
Clearly I was wrong to assume that this would be an uncontroversial alteration, and I apologize for having assumed as much. I will keep this instance in mind in the future before making any further similarly sweeping changes to articles. ostensibly singular userpage (inquire within) 05:39, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
The problem is the fact that they should not be done in an article about a single emulator. That's like trying to move Abraham Lincoln to "List of US Presidents". You are far better off making a totally separate draft. If the Yuzu article is then declared non-notable, it should become a redirect or deleted. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:57, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
@BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4 Could you please fix your signature per WP:CUSTOMSIG/P's 1st, 5th and 6th bullets? -- ferret (talk) 14:15, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Sorry about that; have tried to fix it. Hopefully this'll do. ostensibly singular silvia ASH (inquire within) 07:47, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

New Articles (September 19 to September 25)

Latest comment: 1 year ago8 comments6 people in discussion
Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements
 A listing of all articles newly added to the Video Games Wikiproject (regardless of creation date). Generated by v3.13 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 13:38, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

September 19

September 20

September 21

September 22

September 23

September 24

September 25

PresN 13:38, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Wasn't Emulators of Nintendo Switch a redirect for a few hours? ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 13:55, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Kind of. Yuzu (emulator) was redirected to Emulators of Nintendo Switch, which was reverted. But now Emulators of Nintendo Switch is a standalone article. There are issues, which I've just mentioned at Talk:Emulators of Nintendo Switch#Sourcing issues, but I think there's enough there to justify an article. Woodroar (talk) 13:59, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
I'm not following it outside of it popping up on my watchlist, but I think they're discussing how to handle that situation a few sections above. Sergecross73 msg me 14:00, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
I remembered seeing Atri: My Dear Moments being created through my watchlist in zhwp (a Wikidata sitelink addition). It was not on this list. MilkyDefer 14:22, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, there's an outstanding bug in my script where it drops articles if they get moved right after creation that I've never gotten around to tracking down. Added. --PresN 15:27, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Maybe a Shovel Knight series article can exist, but that one is so bare-bones that it essentially just duplicates information already in the article on the first game. I don't think the draft should have been accepted in the current state. Also questioning the creation of Trails of Cold Steel: Northern War when there is barely any information available on that show yet.--AlexandraIDV 14:58, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Kingdom Come Delieverance

Latest comment: 1 year ago9 comments5 people in discussion

I was told I should probably post here about the currently ongoing discussion. The information on the article, especially information related to the controversies shows signs of severe POV issues. It is also outdated, and should be updated with better information in light the since consolidated academic and journalistic consensus on the Gamergate hate-movement. 46.97.170.32 (talk) 08:30, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Looking at the discussion, the policy of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS should be noted. Unless reliable sources connect GamerGate to something within the game, it is ultimately WP:SYNTH/WP:OR to connect it yourself. If they do, you are welcome to cite the source and write about it. But just writing something massive about how one of the gamedevs supported GamerGate without a connection to the game would be WP:UNDUE. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:38, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
Plenty of things that were covered by reliable sources have been ommited for arbitrary reasons. You can read about it in the talk history. You also cannot ignore the POV violation and similar issues the other users have pointed out. 46.97.170.32 (talk) 10:47, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
@ZXC, the discussion is currently centered on adding a number of academic papers that explicitly address the claim of historical accuracy in KCD, which I believe would alleviate your concerns about SYNTH/RGW. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:14, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
N.b.: The link is Talk:Kingdom Come: Deliverance#Whitewashing?. My opinion: I do think the current article is under-reporting how some journalists connected the alt-right views of the director and the supposed popularity of the game with the alt-right medieval ethnostate cosplay crowd, with how the game doesn't have non-white people in it. I also think that its a red herring to go around looking for ethnography studies of 15th century Hungary to "prove" anything- the article shouldn't be trying to work out if the devs were right to not have non-white NPCs or if the journalists were right about why they weren't included, it should instead report that the journalists made that connection. Going beyond that is, as Zxcvbnm notes, trying to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. --PresN 13:47, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
On that point, this article was removed via discussion a few years ago and at least some of the support for removal came from Gamergate-related accounts. It fits your criterion of "journalists made that connection" and I don't believe including it runs afoul of RGW. Do you think it would be appropriate to open a discussion for reinclusion? Axem Titanium (talk) 18:14, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
That discussion was 4 years ago, so consensus may change. My vote would be the same as then (to include the kotaku article). If you open a new discussion, it would be helpful to propose a precise wording that should be supported by the kotaku article. I think "remove side" was successful in part, because proposed wording was, well, not ideal (unlike in other previous revisions). Pavlor (talk) 20:05, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
The Kotaku article is clearly an op-ed and not a news post, so heavy caution is advised. Kotaku is a situational source - at best - and this is one of those cases that skew into an author's personal views and not fact based reporting. It makes a lot of very bold and wide-reaching claims without evidence, such as insinuating the game's entire popularity is due to "conservative politics". It alleges that because the game is "a mess", the sole reason people have bought it is the story. It states that "the winning formula on Steam" is to make "the male characters [...] stereotypically gruff and confident" without evidence. And ultimately it doesn't link the game directly to Gamergate, saying that while one of its visible creators is a member, "The game itself, however, is largely free of overtly racist or sexist rhetoric," besides simply having white men as characters. So I question the connection here, beyond the simple fact that its director is linked to hate in his personal doings. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:27, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
Kotaku is a reliable secondary source. Wikipedia reports what reliable sources say. 46.97.170.32 (talk) 08:47, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Help needed for Da Capo 4

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

During a scan of 2022 in video games I noticed a problem with Da Capo 4. I tried to fix that but I soon noticed a even bigger problem in the game's article.

The article should have covered a total of four different games, but somehow the article mixed them up into one, and the release dates are totally wrong.

Original ver. Adult ver.
Main game Da Capo 4
(PC: May 2019; PS4 & Switch: Dec. 2019)		 Da Capo 4 Plus Harmony
(PC: Aug. 2021)
Fandisc Da Capo 4 Fortunate Departures
(PC: Feb. 2020; PS4 & Switch: Oct. 2022)		 Da Capo 4 Sweet Harmony
(PC: Apr. 2022)

The current leading section claims that "... is set to release for the Nintendo Switch and PlayStation 4 on October 27, 2022." which is simply not true, and conflicts with the release section below. D.C.4 has already been released on PS4 and Switch back in 2019, it is D.C.4 F.D. that is set to release in October. The article has mixed them all up and I simply can't correct it. MilkyDefer 09:20, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Duplication of list scope for PC games

Latest comment: 1 year ago12 comments7 people in discussion

As we have a list of PC games I feel we should not also have all the other "sublists" like Index of Windows games, List of Windows 3.x games, Index of DOS games and List of Linux games. Every game on those sublists would be on the PC games list, and vice-versa. Also, the platforms can be filtered in the PC games list by the "operating system" column. It just creates unnecessary duplication in my opinion. I think we should either (a) delete the PC games list and transfer any missing entries from that onto the appropriate sublist, or (b) delete all the sublists and transfer any missing entries from those onto the PC games list. It seems unnecessary to have both approaches. Also (for Windows), what's an "index" in contrast to a list? It would imply to me that it only has entries where a Wikipedia article exists, but that's not how it's being used. Kidburla (talk) 09:39, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Alternate idea: they should all be deleted. This seems like WP:OLIST, particularly the over-extensive list section. Such high-maintenance lists with thousands upon thousands of games that have to constantly be updated are better off as categories. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:42, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
Agreed. There's logic to why we have things like List of GameCube games where the platform was closed and there was no way to self-publish, but on the PC, that's routine for the service. As such, there's no way to maintain a controlled list and should be deleted. Masem (t) 13:15, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
chants Delete Delete Delete Beyond the OLIST issues, these lists are simply horribly maintained and out of date. They don't get nearly the attention of the smaller console platforms (which themselves are now beginning to suffer from size and volume issues as those platforms open) -- ferret (talk) 16:56, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
Okay, seems a clear consensus to delete then. I could raise AfD discussions for List of PC games, Index of Windows games, List of Linux games and List of Macintosh games on the basis that they allow self publishing and so could never be complete. Should we also be looking to delete List of Windows 3.x games and Index of DOS games at the same time? I was not sure about those two as they are essentially closed platforms at this point. Also do you think it should be one bundle for all lists or raise a separate bundle for each list? (Just asking because of my inexperience with AfD.) Kidburla (talk) 22:11, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
DOS is pretty much defunct, so I don't think there's an issue with it. Windows 3.x suffers from a similar issue as a hypothetical "List of Windows 95 games" in that they are technically compatible with future operating systems without the use of an emulator, so I'm not too sure about t hat one. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:39, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
Take them out back and put em' down. Just the thought of these lists existing is stressing me out. Panini! • 🥪 23:53, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't think these lists are reasonable. We actually have 4 FLs for "games-by-console" lists; the newest console to get a solid, complete list is the 1996 Nintendo 64, while the longest of the four is the 1988 Sega Genesis with an overwhelming 878 games. And these are lists where every single release had to be physically produced and licensed from the console manufacturer; any and all PC games lists are almost definitionally incomplete and by a lot, even with thousands of items. Even the DOS list (which is a bit more self-contained than the Windows or PC lists) is 2400+ games in 27 lists, with 0 references, and is probably undercounting by thousands. At what point is a category of games unlistable? --PresN 00:27, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
Nominate them together, because there's not much of an argument to keep one of the lists but not the others. They all suffer the same problem. TarkusABtalk/contrib 01:30, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
In the same vein, I really think we need to take a knife to list of games on nominally closed platforms (eg PS5, Xbox, Switch) that have open-publishing allowances, as to cut out every random title, including notable indie ones, that get published there. From what I've read, the physical release process is still something that is under control of each console developer (even for games from like Limited Run) but digital releases lack the same rigor. But at the same time, we likely can anticipate that disc-based releases for even AAA titles may be going the way of the dodo soon. I don't know how to draw a good and fair line on those, but we seriously need that to start trimming those lists of non-notable games. --Masem (t) 04:48, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
There's already some pretty fair restrictions at List of Nintendo Switch games and yet that list is still pretty long. TarkusABtalk/contrib 06:18, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
@Masem: I'm all for reducing the scope of current gen console lists, but we haven't yet found any viable criteria to do this. I had hoped that physical releases only would be a good option (as as you say it's a more rigorous process than digital) but it's hard to consistently find RS to confirm that a game did in fact have a physical release. We discussed this recently on the Switch list talk page. No one has been able to come up with any other ideas for a restriction. Kidburla (talk) 12:20, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

New Articles (September 26 to October 2)

Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements
 A listing of all articles newly added to the Video Games Wikiproject (regardless of creation date). Generated by v3.14 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 12:05, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

September 26

September 27

September 28

September 29

September 30

October 1

October 2

Fixed that bug from last week where a page created and then later moved was getting skipped as a page move. Not fixed: the similar but different bug where if you create a page and move it the same day, only the move is recorded at all in the source data. That one is a pain. --PresN 12:05, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

BTW, I did not create the Switch emulation page, only moved it. It did not record the actual creator. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:08, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
Fixed, but the history of that page is all screwed up because of the page moves/histmerges- you got tagged because you're the only author of Emulators of Nintendo Switch, which is the title it was "created" at according to the bot prior to being moved to Nintendo Switch emulation... which according to it's own history already existed. Messy! --PresN 19:14, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Video game screenshots

Latest comment: 1 year ago8 comments5 people in discussion

Don't know if this has been discussed before, but wouldn't it be helpful to change existing screenshots of games to be ones taken from the release build, unless pre-release or marketing material is the purpose of the screenshot? If the primary non-free use rationale for these images are to "accurately showcase the subject", using material specifically crafted to sell the game may be disingenuous. Thoughts? DecafPotato (talk) 04:14, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Unless the game seriously changes its look between pre-release and final, this is rarely an issue for the bulk of games. There might be a few small things that a in-the-known gamer can pick out, but rarely something that will affect the screenshot for the causal reader. Masem (t) 04:26, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
Depends how drastically different it is. I've swapped screenshots that looked nothing like the final version of the game before. But tiny differences are not going to be visible. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:39, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
Got it. So, change it if it's noticeable. DecafPotato (talk) 18:53, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
It's not so much "noticeable". When we have a screenshot, we are supposed to be making a claim about the game with it. If we can take a better screenshot that shows whatever point we are making to a greater respect, then that's worth changing. If you want to pull out a game and take a screenshot from a release build that shows a better view of the point being made, that would be suitable. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:00, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
Yep! For example, I might change the 2nd screenshot on Pokemon Legends: Arceus to actually depict a battle against a wild pokemon rather than another overworld screenshot since the one depicting a battle actually showcases one of the main aspects of Pokemon (battling) and shows the differences between the battling in PLA (Pokemon Legends: Arceus' initialization) and prior games. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 19:03, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
@Blaze Wolf This is definitely a bit off-topic, but I'd actually argue against a screenshot depicting a typical Pokémon battle. At least how I see it, the "See also" link at the top of the Gameplay section is to explain the "typical" aspects of gameplay for Pokémon games (e.g. turn-based battles), and the section in the PLA article itself showcases the divergence from that standard, in which the screenshot conveys an action RPG-style fight. Obviously I think the screenshot could be improved, but I don't think a typical battle is the way to do that in the context of PLA as a whole. DecafPotato (talk) 02:41, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
You are right. Hm... well let's discuss this further on the article itself instead of here. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 02:43, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Tekken 5

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments1 person in discussion

While cleaning up Tekken 5 I wondered if the PSP and PS3 ports, Tekken 5: Dark Resurrection, should be merged with the original one, since they don't really have that many differences other than some rules and few additions. I never got to play Dark Resurrection so I don't know if there should be a merge discussion to begin with. Cheers. Tintor2 (talk) 21:25, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Seems I got a response so far so if anybody is interested check Talk:Tekken 5#Combine the ports?.Tintor2 (talk) 00:31, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Archive_164&oldid=1218748229"