Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games

Latest comment: 22 hours ago by IgelRM in topic Using box art images
WikiProject iconVideo games Project‑class
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
ProjectThis page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Request for reviews at Doom FAC Edit

The Doom (1993 video game) FAC is in danger of stalling out; it's gotten one support and a half-review, but could use some more reviewer attention. Willing to trade reviews for anyone willing to give it a look. --PresN 01:51, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@PresN Midnight here, but I'll check it out tomorrow. Ping me if I forget to do it within a day. Panini! 🥪 04:17, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'll try to look at it this weekend. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 13:22, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I’ll see if I can look into it as well, though I’m working into the weekend this week. At the very least I may be able to do a source review, if I can find the time. Red Phoenix talk 17:47, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Guidance on content relating to of technical and performance issues Edit

The article Caesar III contains the text: The version was subsequently released onto Steam in 2016, but the client-based DRM of Steam has caused that version to suffer from stability and compatibility problems not seen on the original digital version provided by The editor originally provided a link to user discussions on the Steam page for the source for this statement. I haven't been able to find any guidance on when an article should (1) address a game's technical or performance issues; and (2) where those issues are not covered by secondary sources, refer to user generated sources. Any help on this would be appreciated. VRXCES (talk) 08:35, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WP:USERG is the relevant guidance in this case. Technical and performance issues should only be mentioned when they are detailed by reliable sources. In this case, the performance problem may not necessarily affect all users, so the testimonials of a few players are not necessarily definitive or correct. The performance issues should also be something major so it's not putting undue weight on a minor topic. When a game is borderline unplayable at launch and sources talk about it, that could be included. If it's a patch that introduces a performance problem that is quickly fixed, maybe not. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ () 08:40, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, that's clarified my thinking - appreciate your help in pointing me in the right direction. VRXCES (talk) 09:06, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Zxcvbnm: hi. It is worth noting that Caesar 3 is not a new game in any way at all: it is a game which was released in 1998, so naturally after so much time, bugs and incompatibilities are very likely because of the games’ extreme age. The version on Steam is just a DRM-free version that was modified by GOG way back in 2010, but fundamentally all it is, is a CD copy patched to the latest patch and then minor startup bugs fixed and the DRM removed to ensure it launches with no CD. The game is entirely unsupported [since the development studio who created it went bust 2 decades ago] and is provided on a “best efforts” basis, meaning any user reports are the only thing that can be used [there are no official sources because they would be based on the original launch in 1998 which is irrelevant here], as there is no development by anyone, other than “does the game start on modern windows? If not, fix the bug”, which is done primarily by GOG. Does this change anything for you in this regard? Thank you. — CitroenLover (talk) 12:29, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The actual facts of a situation don't matter much to Wikipedia; ultimately the only thing that matters is if WP:RS thought it was a serious enough problem to write about. Verifiability is more important than truth. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ () 19:35, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New Articles (September 4 to September 10) Edit

 A listing of all articles newly added to the Video Games Wikiproject (regardless of creation date). Generated by v3.15 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 12:51, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

September 4

September 5

September 6

September 7

September 8

September 9

September 10

Proofread request for article "List of video game modes" Edit

I would greatly appreciate proofreading and suggestions. Thanks! (talk) 21:57, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New Metacritic design, platform-specific links broken Edit

Since yesterday, Metacritic has a new design. As part of this, the site has changed its overview format from one page per platform per game to just one per game. For example, Grand Theft Auto V currently links to the following platform-specific URLs:

If you access any of them now, they will lead you here:

Regardless of which link you used, the platform shown will be the PlayStation 4 (97/100 at 66 reviews). The score shown by default seems to that generated from the most reviews, regardless of whether it has the best score (see an example where the lesser score has more reviews). This effectively breaks our links for the vast majority of multi-platform games. The platform-specific scores can still be found on the overview pages with all reviews, but again under a new link scheme. Previously, you would have accessed them like so:

Now, this was changed to:

This begs the question: Do we need to update these links for all game articles? Do we need to mark them as dead? Should either of these be a bot task? IceWelder [] 10:17, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My guess is that it should be a task for a bot to update all links to the correct format. It seems like it would be simple to do a find and replace and it's not a case where the link actually died. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ () 10:39, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think it's as easy ans f&r because you'd want to merge some citations on multi-platform games, archived refs would need to be re-archived, and I already found one case where the name-in-link was changed with no working redirect. IceWelder [] 13:36, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's not a big deal. All the info is right there on the main page now. The only thing missing is the autogenerated text ("mixed or average reviews"), which can still be accessed from that page, even if you need to manually click on each platform to see it. I didn't like the new interface the first time I saw it, and I had visions of having to restore hundreds of broken links. I think it may make things easier for us, though, because of how central most of the information is. If they just fixed it so that the autogenerated text appeared for all the platforms on the main page, it'd be perfect. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:11, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If NinjaRobotPirate doesn't think it's a big deal than neither do I. Panini! 🥪 03:21, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Would be a good thing for people to go through their articles at their convenience and fix, but yeah it's not a critical issue to fix. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 13:55, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alphabetical order at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Requests Edit

Is it possible to put everything In Alphabetical order at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Requests instead of month/year added? I think that would make it easier to navigate.(my opinion) Timur9008 (talk) 10:57, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am not sure I'd support this, because the date listing emphasizes that the older ones have been waiting longer and should be done sooner. I don't see an obvious purpose behind an alphabetical listing (and it can be searched with Ctrl+F) ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ () 20:06, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not opposed per se, but the list is pretty long, and I wouldn't think it's worth the time and energy to make that change. (Unless you waited until the list was trimmed way down...but I don't know how likely that is either - never seems like the Request Board ever catches on all that widely...) Sergecross73 msg me 21:08, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I do think that retro games should have their own section. The sheer amount of shovelware older games that have been added is liable to drown out the newer titles and make it intimidating to tackle the list. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ () 22:04, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It could probably use another review and culling of unlikely article creations again. In the past there have been editors who spammed added a lot of rather "iffy" articles idea suggestions on there that are unlikely to ever be created (and/or be in a pretty iffy state if anyone attempted to create them.) Sergecross73 msg me 03:29, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
User:NinjaRobotPirate/Games is a semi-curated list of recently released games. You can sort it by a number of different headers, including title, release date, number of user reviews on Steam, and genre. I also listed most of the info you need to write the article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:51, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is a fantastic idea! As an article creator of indie games, this is particularly useful for me to leverage. VRXCES (talk) 04:48, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Can we address the elephant in the room that the overwhelming majority of the entries are 1980s computer games that were added by two editors, one of whom is banned. These games are virtually lost to time, only covered by contemporary sources that are difficult to acquire. *Nobody* has any desire to work these requests, so they just accumulate and clog the list. I do understand a lot of work was put into compiling those entries, but its becoming difficult to discern which requests may be different and worth pursuing. I propose moving 1980s computer games to its own section on the page. TarkusABtalk/contrib 17:43, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yes, this is what I was alluding to above. I support this. I know that personally, I keep a list of drafts I'm actively planning on working on...and then another list that are essentially "abandoned ideas" that I don't really realistically see myself doing anymore, but I still keep around because I hate to delete the work I did in source hunting. Maybe we need to do something like that? Some sort of old/stale/abandoned/unlikely type section? Sergecross73 msg me 17:58, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Perhaps the list should include a sort option for release year. I want to avoid arbitrarily splitting the requests if possible. I think this way, everybody wins. If we reorganize the list as a table too, it can be sorted alphabetically or by date added.
Requested Article Release year Sources Notes
September 14, 2023 Super Mario Bros. 1985 [1] [2] Put notes here
September 14, 2023 Super Mario 64 1996 [3] [4] Put notes here
September 14, 2023 Shigeru Miyamoto N/A [5] [6] Put notes here
I will volunteer to do this. I have some upcoming time off work in the coming week. What do people think? Courtesy ping @BOZ: TarkusABtalk/contrib 19:16, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Although not strictly a requests page, I have made User:BOZ/BTG reviews noticeboard as a way of cataloguing independent sources for specific games that could possibly one day be used to build articles. I have been thinking that the VG space could use something like that too (as either a replacement for, or in addition to WP:VGR). I definitely don't have the time to put that together, unfortunately, but if you want to use any ideas from my userpage that would be fine. :) BOZ (talk) 19:28, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was going to recommend a table like this, especially considering the ability to organize by release year and request date. Maybe we could add an additional way to organize, such as the console it released for? I think that would also inspire people to take a look at it. Panini! 🥪 16:24, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(I would like to mention that Shigeru Miyamoto released in 1952. It's release was overlooked at first but it started to be recognized as a cult classic somewhere around 1977.) Panini! 🥪 23:32, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  • I have completed the first steps of revamping the VG Requests page. I replaced the old list with a sortable table, so you can sort by date requested, article title, release year, or original platform. I have started entering in the release years and platforms, but this is taking time. This brings me to my next point.
The list is long. There are 484 requests on the page as of today. There's a large chunk that are 1980s computer games, another large chunk that are modern indie games, and then "the rest".
I just want people to know I'm going to go through the list and remove low effort requests. That is, requests that don't provide enough sources so someone can easily complete the request without having to worry about GNG and finding more sources. Some requests only link to questionable sources, or websites that have barely any information. And some requests only link to Moby Games or Metacritic, and the critics they used are few in number or unreliable. Stuff like that. TarkusABtalk/contrib 04:14, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nice work. MobyGames has an API, it might be easier to go through and extract the year/platform information from that. Though I support the removal of low effort stuff regardless. ― novov (t c) 11:46, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good work Timur9008 (talk) 11:47, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It looks incredible Tarkus!
I do agree with you striking ones without enough linked sources. I support just removing them from the list if there aren't enough sources without even checking to see if there's more out there, just for the sake of bringing down the count in this refresh. Panini! 🥪 15:36, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am so ok with seeing the requests getting pared down. It's been a bane for me for years. Especially with the five year old requests ln there. GamerPro64 23:10, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I want to give a special thank you to Mir Novov (talk · contribs) who finished the grueling work of adding in the original platforms and release years. The request page is now a lot more useful and I implore everyone to check it out. TarkusABtalk/contrib 06:27, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Input on possible name change of an article Edit

As the article belongs to the WikiProject Video games, I thought I share my thoughts in here. I recently reworked the article about the German Computer Game Awards (Deutscher Computerspielpreis). I already opened a topic about a possible name change at the talk page a couple of months ago and got no response (the options are now outdated though).

There is currently one non-german source that refers to the award as the German Computer Game Awards while the German Games Industry Association game also uses that translation on their official page. Examples that translate the original language into English are the Czech Game of the Year Awards or Slovak Game of the Year Awards.

Can anyone share their thoughts on this? Or maybe tell me what steps I should take on other than using a talk page? I have no previous experience on renaming / moving articles. Thanks! Vestigium Leonis (talk) 23:29, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think that, as well as this, is good enough to invoke WP:USEENGLISH. You have to start a WP:RM discussion on the article talk page if you want it to be seriously discussed. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ () 02:52, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It looks like there is no serious discussion needed. I will check the beginner guide on how to move a page and will do it soon. Thanks! Vestigium Leonis (talk) 08:15, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If anything, it should be "German Computer Game Award" (singular) per the few English pages the award's site features. IceWelder [] 08:20, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New Articles (September 11 to September 17) Edit

 A listing of all articles newly added to the Video Games Wikiproject (regardless of creation date). Generated by v3.15 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 20:12, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

September 11

September 12

September 13

September 14

September 15

September 16

September 17

AfD'ed. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 20:20, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of video games with PS1-style tank controls seems like a very notable list. --PresN 20:12, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Apple Inc. being tagged just recently is neat, an article that was made in 2002. That might be a record. Panini! 🥪 15:38, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Maybe! We've had "21 years ago" 3 other times- George Lucas, Demoscene, and WarGames, but I haven't checked where in the year range they actually fell. --PresN 15:43, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I checked out of curiosity, since this would also make the winner the oldest article recognized by WPVG:
  • WarGames: First edit 06:01, 24 January 2002‎
  • Apple Inc.: First edit 08:19, 3 November 2001‎
  • Demoscene: First edit 10:27, 11 October 2001‎
  • George Lucas: First edit 14:50, 2 July 2001‎
I'm curious why George Lucas the article is recognized by the project at all. He's only tangentially related to video games due to the property he's made (it would be as if JK Rowling was under the project because of all the Harry Potter games), and the word "video game" isn't even mentioned in his article. Am I missing a better connection between the two?
According to these stats (if I'm wrong about Lucas), that would also make User:Koyaanis Qatsi the first honorary member of WPVG. Panini! 🥪 16:11, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Lucas really shouldn't be tagged, as you mention, and I've removed it. Apple Inc. does seem valid as they've become a pretty huge player in the gaming space, albeit not in the realm more traditionally covered by game journalism (and Wikipedia, for that matter.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 16:20, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • WarGames: First edit 06:01, 24 January 2002
  • Apple Inc.: First edit 08:19, 3 November 2001
  • Demoscene: First edit 10:27, 11 October 2001
User:AlexWasFirst is the first honorary member of WPVG! Panini! 🥪 16:47, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In terms of the gap from when it was created to when it was tagged:
  • WarGames: 24 January 2002—19 March 2023: 21 years, 1 month, 23 days
  • Demoscene: 11 October 2001—24 December, 2022: 21 years, 2 months, 13 days
  • Apple Inc.: 3 November 2001—13 September, 2023: 21 years, 10 months, 10 days
So you're right, Apple has had the largest gap so far from creation to tagging. --PresN 17:00, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The oldest VG article overall will likely be Video game itself. The history goes back to March 2001 where some kind of merge occurred, so it will have been even older than that. IceWelder [] 21:33, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

←) Any opinions on F-Zero 99? Keep as is or redirect? Sudden announcement and release so lack of significant coverage. I believe there will be a slow and steady release of reviews, but still seems like it will stay a small article that can neatly fit on F-Zero (video game). « Ryūkotsusei » 18:43, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think it's fine as a stand alone. I've seen a lot of coverage, and there's a fair amount of sourcing and content on the articles. My two cents - an attempt to merge it would likely lead to drawn out discussions that would result in the article being kept. Sergecross73 msg me 20:19, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would say that the game has definitely received enough coverage to meet GNG. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:41, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

3O requested - Notability met for Defold? Edit

Please see Draft_talk:Defold#WP:N_Breakdown, looking for a relatively quick support/oppose discussion on whether sourcing has reached levels appropriate for WP:NPRODUCT. The question is whether enough sustained sigcov has been found. Unfortunately there is a LOT of non-independent sourcing here, but I think we've gotten a good set of sources lined up. The article needs carefully handling due to very heavy COI editing. -- ferret (talk) 18:22, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Day of Sigma Edit

I've been trying to expand Mega Man Maverick Hunter X but I'm kinda not sure about something. Once the player beats the game, they have access to a 30 minute episode based on the villain's past. Should I elaborate about the episode's plot somewhere like the plot section? Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 22:01, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pokemon Scarlet and Violet: The Hidden Treasure of Area Zero Edit

There is currently a discussion on the talk page as to whether or not this DLC deserves an article now that some of it has released. I myself am abstaining from the vote since I don't want to be spoiled from the plot of the DLC. ― Blaze WolfTalkblaze__wolf 19:06, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Perhaps I can blank out the plot for now as a compromise? Visokor (talk) 19:09, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Software infobox for open source games Edit

Hi everyone,

I noticed that occasionally open source games use the {{Infobox software}}, as in Freeciv for instance. Shouldn't these use {{Infobox video game}}? It lists more technical information, which might be more suitable for an open source (or open software) game, but I do not see the benefits of listing coding languages, stable releases, etc. Thoughts? soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 12:44, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A great deal of such examples were done by Shaddim and Codename Lisa, both indef blocked by the community at this time and much of it since reverted. However this particular case was switched from Infobox VG to Infobox Software back in 2007... by another indefinite blocked user. I don't have a strong feeling on it, it can be looked at case by case, but the short answer is it's a video game using a different infobox to provide fields that have been judged unnecessary or inappropriate for video game articles (on basis of MOS:VG and {{Infobox video game}}). I would say take a look at the secondary sourcing. Is it focusing on the game as game? Or as a project/development effort? The article is drenched in primary and unreliable/userg sources right now. -- ferret (talk) 12:56, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would tend to argue that with true open source projects, fewer of the fields in the VG infobox will be able to filled in (no publisher, rarely any individual credits, etc.) while the software infobox is more complete. You get unusual situations like Rogue (video game) which got commercially published later and thus has a VG infobox.
I would say that we should follow approach like selection of date or English variety - don't change it from what the original author had included without engaging in consensus for that change on the talk page. Masem (t) 13:14, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Masem If that's how we should do it, for this particular case the original infobox was the VG one. But the change over was long long ago. -- ferret (talk) 13:31, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If the change was made yesterday and the user indef blocked, changing it back is fine, but with the age of that change, it is still better to seek consensus to change. But I do think that it is best as a page-by-page decision of which infobox gives the better "picture" of what the game is. Masem (t) 14:13, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
With the Freeciv example, what is the benefit of the software infobox? Stable/beta releases is arguably something we shouldn't cover at all, and certainly don't cover for games, stuff like the git repo is irrelevant since there's already an official link for the site on the page, the languages are irrelevant unless significantly covered by secondary sources, etc. Seems like bloat that would be solved with a video game infobox in this case. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 20:12, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Using box art images Edit

Hi, I'm wanting to edit the Purr Pals page to include an image of the back box art, but not sure how to navigate it regarding copyright and licensing. I've posted on that talk page, but just to paste it here for ease:

I want to add this box art image to show the back cover for the game. I am aware that the game cover itself is likely copyrighted material, and I also am not sure how the licensing works being derived from GameFAQs as well. I saw that there's this page on the cover licensing rights, but am not sure how simple or nuanced it would be to add an image from another source.

Thanks :] <>< AnteaterStim (talk) 11:26, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unless there is some significant discussion from sources about the back cover of a game, we never include back cover art. The front cover is used for identification of the game and is allowed, but that's it. --Masem (t) 13:23, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why did you want to do that? Sergecross73 msg me 14:02, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There's pretty much no reason to ever add back cover art unless it's specifically discussed, that would go against fair use (using the minimum copyrighted images necessary). ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ () 17:21, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
MobyGames is permitted as an external link via template (which has a cover database). IgelRM (talk) 23:32, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]