Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games

Add topic
Active discussions
WikiProject Video games (Rated 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.
Project This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

Jagged 85 cleanupEdit

Just an FYI—Maestro2016 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log), a prolific editor who frequently edited WPVG-covered topics, has been blocked ([1]) as a sock of Jagged 85 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log). For those unaware, Jagged 85 was a user who was banned "for long-term and systematic misrepresentation of sources, despite a previous RFC/U on the same problem". See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jagged 85, more specifically Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jagged 85/Computer Games Evidence and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jagged 85/Video Game Genres Evidence for more information.

Given how active and prolific Maestro2016 was, we've likely got a lot of cleanup on our hands. Also be on the lookout for editing flurries from anonymous IP addresses, potential block evasion. JOEBRO64 18:51, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

One area in which Jagged/Maestro/whatever-sock-they're-using-now is extremely active is sales numbers, often synthesizing figures by combining disparate sources, many of them non-official or just estimates that someone pulled out of their butt. List of highest-grossing media franchises is a particularly egregious case, being about 99% Maestro's work; I attempted to clean it up back in January 2021, but Maestro resisted every edit and added seemingly everything back. At a certain point it just didn't seem worth it to keep fighting him. Phediuk (talk) 23:30, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
@Phediuk: I've tagged list of highest-grossing media franchises for cleanup. Also pinging @Indrian and Merlinme: who appear to have been involved with previous WPVG-related Jagged cleanup. JOEBRO64 12:22, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Thank you. Another thing to keep in mind is that that list has also been susceptible to citogenesis, with mainstream news outlets repeating its dubious, cobbled-together numbers as fact, so any sources reporting franchise revenue numbers that don't themselves refer to a definitive source (e.g., a press release from a company stating a single, definitive number) should be regarded with suspicion. Phediuk (talk) 14:14, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Actually, that page is closer to 85% or 90% of Maestro's work. The sources that I added are all accurate. But yeah the numbers that are false should be removed. I would do it myself since I initially created that page but It would be a headache. Timur9008 (talk) 17:47 ,26 June 2022 (UTC)
It might be a good idea to compile a list of all of the articles, so that we don't duplicate effort while cleaning this up? Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:39, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
For guidance, it's best to look up for arcade games, especially those from 1985-1995, as that's where Jagged did his edits back when all those issues of RePlay magazine were available at Internet Archive before being taken down by the publisher. Roberth Martinez (talk) 01:12, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
I've also tagged List of fastest-selling products, the video game section of which Jagged/Maestro appears to have edited a lot with little oversight from others. The "best-selling video games" sections of our "[year] in video games" articles also appear to be common targets of Jagged/Maestro editing. JOEBRO64 12:21, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Also tagged Battle royale game#Impact. Since I didn't make it clear in my initial post, for those who aren't familiar with Jagged/Maestro's WPVG contributions, his most common practice was to inflate sales numbers for his favored games through synthesis of sources, including using preorder reports, improperly combining different estimates, or quoting sources out of context. Most of these edits went through unnoticed, since Jagged/Maestro's edits usually seem reasonable and are backed up with sources. Check check check to make sure the sources cited actually back up what is claimed or are actually accessible (the last point being that Jagged/Maestro frequently cite obscure sources that are locked behind a paywall, which makes them difficult to verify). JOEBRO64 12:32, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Adding List of highest-grossing mobile games as another page tagged. JOEBRO64 14:16, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

The one thing I've noticed Maestro2016 doing a lot is changing KGRAMR's statements "In Japan, Game Machine listed [Game X] on their [date] issue as being the [rank]th most-successful arcade unit of the year." to "... of the month." I let these edits be because (1)I don't have access to the cited sources and can't read Japanese anyway, (2)no one else was reverting any of these edits, (3)WP:Assume good faith, and (4)in some cases it did seem much more plausible that Game X was the second best-selling arcade game of the month than the second best-selling arcade game of the year. In light of Maestro2016's misrepresentation of sources, though, I now have to ask if anyone can confirm whether month or year is accurate.--Martin IIIa (talk) 19:55, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

@Martin IIIa: I've discussed this with @KGRAMR: in the past (User_talk:KGRAMR/Archive_2#Game_Machine). It's actually of a two-week period because the magazine was published every two weeks and (I think) it was published in every issue. What they did was poll arcade operators on which games were the most popular. It's just a vague popularity ranking, not the most "successful" by any measurement. TarkusABtalk/contrib 20:41, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, i owe that screw up due to my lack of knowledge regarding the Japanese language. By the way, that section of Game Machine started on November 15, 1983 and lasted until the magazine's final year (2002). (P.S.: by searching "Game Machine's Best Hit Games 25" on Wikipedia, it will show the articles with this source listed, which i'm going to rectify soon after i finish a draft i was working on...) Roberth Martinez (talk) 21:02, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
Cool, thanks so much for the clarification, guys. Martin IIIa (talk) 23:31, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Bumping—tagged 1992 in video games. We're going to need to look through all the "[year] in video games" articles as these also appear to have been Jagged/Maestro targets. JOEBRO64 11:19, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Dammit, I'm looking through a lot of our "[year] in video games" articles and it seems like many of them are almost entirely the work of Jagged/Maestro. Anyone here have any familiarity with these topics in particular? I don't, all I can really do is tag them as requiring Jagged 85 cleanup. JOEBRO64 12:34, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

When to move draft articlesEdit

Has the VG community formed any sort of consensus on when it might be appropriate to move a draft article for an upcoming game? I've been working on Draft:Kingdom Hearts IV since it was formally announced in April 2022, and I think it passes WP:GNG by the sourcing alone, but it still is undated and has no indicated platforms of release. Don't want to make a move out of the draft space if someone would come back around and move it back. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:07, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

If you feel (as an experienced editor here) that it's good enough for mainspace, you can move it yourself. And I would tend to agree KHIV's page is sufficient for mainspace. --Masem (t) 16:16, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
You can also submit it to AfC. There are a number of people who are AfC reviewers and have a better idea of when an article is ready for mainspace. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ () 16:40, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
I should clarify, I have a host of experience judging/evaluating drafts and moving them, particularly for TV series and films, so no AfC necessary, I can make a move myself. The crux of my question was if VG community had set any parameters for allowing upcoming games (because I know every E3/State of Play/Game Awards/Nintendo Direct there are posts cautioning on article creations for newly announced games) in the same way TV and Film have WP:NFTV and WP:NFF respectively, using the start of filming as a guidance for moving. But it sounds like there really isn't and I appreciate Masem's comment, so I may move the article in the coming days. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:42, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
No, nothing more than the usual "does it meet the GNG" and "can it be merged to a series or earlier entry if there's little to be said" standards. Your KH4 draft easily clears that standard in my opinion. Sergecross73 msg me 17:49, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
As long as it is more than "the game was announced...", ideally with a decent development start, in addition to the GNG factors, then it should be fine. This is definitely the case with the KH article you have. --Masem (t) 17:52, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
Thanks all. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:46, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Pinging Masem Favre1fan93 Sergecross73 Zxcvbnm. I undid the archiving of this discussion, as I'd like to hear all of your thoughts using a very recent example which I discovered just a couple of days ago.
I refer to the page history for Citizen Sleeper. The entirety of its contents are two infoboxes, a one-sentence long lede, and two sentences for the reception. It does have an extensive list of references, all of it unused but placed under "Further reading", put in by the article's original creator, who appears to be unable or unwilling to make further contributions to flesh out its prose. After I became aware of the article's existence from the Wikiproject's weekly lists, I decided to move it into draftspace. My reasoning is that while the sourcing does indicate that the topic has the potential to be a standalone article, the actual article that was created is a very bare bones stub and to be blunt, I expected a better effort from another experienced editor. Other editors could also contribute to a public draftspace article too, if they have the time or motivation to do so.
Two weeks later, it was moved back into mainspace from draftspace, with zero improvements being made to expand it into a proper short article at the bare minimum. The rationale I provided for the draftspace move was noted but not accepted, with the list of unused sources under further reading referred to as a justification. So, what are all of your thoughts on this, within the context of the expectations and norms of the Wikipedia community? Anyone who consider themselves part of the editor "community" can and probably should take the initiative by doing their part to expand subpar articles whether in draftspace or mainspace, even if they are not personally interested in the topic, but at the same time I can't help but feel that some editors just expect others to clean up after them? Should it be sent back into draftspace again? Subjected to AfD? Merged into a tangentially related topic? Nothing to see here? Haleth (talk) 10:51, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
Why would you not ping @Czar to this? The only real bar to accepting a draft should be whether the topic is demonstratably notable with reliable secondary sources. Some consideration to whether or not it's clear UPE/COI/SPAM or COPYVIO as well. Unless, seeing this in mainspace, you would still considering PRODing or AFDing it as failing GNG, there's no point in draftspacing it. Draftspace hides articles from interested editors, as it doesn't pop up in normal searches, and also removes the ability to attract editor views through links, etc. I often have difference of opinion with Czar about notability (As do you and me), but "It's a stub" is not valid rationale for draft moves. "expect others to clean up".... Yes, to a degree. It's a collaborative project. Finding dozens of sources was work already, putting that work to paper for others to continue is valid. -- ferret (talk) 14:26, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
There is a good reason why I wanted to reopen the discussion, because of situations like these. Take, for instance, this diff here with @Sergecross73's decision to draftify Sign of the Sun because it was not ready to be published, due to the fact that there's hardly any content and the game was barely defined, but do note that no concerns about its notability was ever raised. While there were more sources listed for Citizen Sleeper, that still doesn't change the fact that it reads like an unfinished draft. The difference here is that Sign of the Sun was slightly expanded by its creator following draftication, and was later reintroduced back into mainspace after going through an AfC reviewer, whereas the original creator of Citizen Sleeper boldly moved it back into mainspace without making any improvements. I didn't ping Czar because I was preoccupied with getting the attention of specific editors who previously participated in said discussion and he was not one of them, but that is irrelevant anyway since no one else besides yourself have bothered to leave a comment and continue the discussion. Haleth (talk) 16:58, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
To be clear, when I did that, the article looked like this. There was no meaningful content present, and the sole review presented, a hastily copy/pasted quote from a review - was rendered meaningless because they hadn't hardly even been defined to begin with. It was "This is a video game and one reviewer didn't like it", without even defining what the game was. No description of gameplay. Not even a vague note on genre. I don't do this much - mostly the extremely short articles created by a couple editors around here - but these sorts of articles are pointless. No one is informed by stuff like that. And they're incredibly obscure, so there's no reasonable suspicion it'll get better naturally either. Sergecross73 msg me 17:28, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
To be clear, I'm not particularly supportive of the article created by Czar, and I'm kind of surprised he is too, with the high standards he usually has. But at least that article was for a game released a couple months ago with a ton more modern, readily available sources. Something like that is more likely to garner attention from others and get better naturally over time, unlike a game that has managed to go multiple decades without ever event attempting to be created. Sergecross73 msg me 17:37, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
To clarify, I didn't restart the discussion to specifically scrutinize Czar's approach to article creation, but rather the issue of when is it appropriate to draftify an article that is in its present state clearly lack meaningful content for mainspace, and when it is appropriate to be moved back to mainspace by the original creator or AfC reviewer. I am sensing that your opinion on whether an article that is rushed or unfinished should remain in mainspace, hinges on whether the subject could be objectively assessed as obscure or otherwise? Haleth (talk) 04:00, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
Czar's draft had 21 reliable secondary sources, which we can probably safely assume had probably been vetted by Czar. Despite the stub content, this clearly sets a passing score for GNG, and leaves tons for other editors to work on. Is it short? Is it a stub? Unquestionably, but a lot of research and effort is completed and there's almost no chance whatsoever it will go to AFD.
Sign of the Sun had 3 sources, and no further reading or content. This would be the bare minimum to maybe pass GNG, so the idea that it belonged back in draft for longer isn't that far of a stretch. Even now, after the attention brought to it due to this section, it only has 5 sources, which is unlikely to be deleted at AFD but honestly is less than I prefer to see.
The primary bar for an article is GNG. If notability can be demonstrated, a stub is fine. Would it be nice if it's more? Sure. But if the sourcing is there for the rest of us, that's half the battle. -- ferret (talk) 15:11, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
I will add that I did Sign of the Sun because it was on the Request page. (and will be working on reducing the backlog there) Timur9008 (talk) 18:26 ,23 July 2022 (UTC)
Yes, but it's much more important to write coherent articles than it is to reduce that backlog of these super obscure games of little consequence. Sergecross73 msg me 15:29, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
I think I'm with SergeCross here. I'll reiterate that it still isn't about whether an article about the subject should be written in the first place because notability was never the issue here. It's whether draftspace is the best course of action in dealing with incoherent articles, and if editors like Czar are well within their rights to resist calls from other editors to at least improve their creations beyond a bare minimum stub length that is devoid of meaningful content, then I question why we even have a draftspace system or guideline procedures in place for articles to "incubate" in draftspace to begin with? Hence, "when to move draft articles", or should articles ever be moved into draftspace on any grounds at all? Haleth (talk) 17:05, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
Pretty much all of my draftspace moves are related to WP:N and WP:V calls. I guess I have nothing else to add here. It's certainly not really a WP:VG level question, you're asking why we have draftspace at all while forgetting WP:ACPERM. -- ferret (talk) 17:14, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
I don't see the issue here. WP:DRAFTIFY is quite clear about when to move to draftspace and what kinds of stubs are inadequate. czar 06:52, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Temperature check: Categorizing video games by creatorEdit

This came up in the WP:DISCORD a few days ago (not raised by me!), but wanted to have the discussion on-wiki for transparency, plus I think Discord has disproportionately more category-hostile types that can fuzz a sense of consensus. Are Category:Video game characters by creator and its subcategories valid categories?

The argument in favor of the category is that as long as Template:Infobox character has a value for "creator", we might as well stick it in a category, too. Plus, there's already Category:Fictional characters by creator, so might as well have this for consistency.

I'm not so sure, however. Category:Literary characters by writer is about characters that indisputably flowed from the mind of one person: Agatha Christie wrote Hercule Poiroit, full stop. This is very rare in video games - even Miyamoto had a team when making Super Mario Bros. 1. While gaming media will sometimes discuss the "creator" of a character, this is simply shorthand, and it doesn't have the same implication the literary sense has. Matsuno did not "create" Vaan (Final Fantasy) in the same way that Arthur Conan Doyle created Sherlock Holmes - Matsuno had ideas and an entire team created Vaan. Other writers and artists were involved. Vaan might be unambiguously a Square Enix character and a Final Fantasy character, but he's not 100% a Matsuno character. And that's a "strong" case where Matsuno clearly did have quite a bit of influence; Category:Characters created by Shigeru Miyamoto includes plenty of characters that I would wager to bet that Miyamoto did like 0.5% of the work on, essentially playing the role of "Executive Producer" where he is just signing off on the team's work. Basically, I think this category might be valid for characters from true indie games with one person driving them: Creeper (Minecraft) was made by Notch, Sans (Undertale) was made by Toby Fox, etc. It's not valid for wider projects. For example, we currently have Mortal Kombat characters in Category:Characters created by John Tobias and Category:Characters created by Ed Boon (with many characters in both), but is that accurate? Did Ed Boon really refuse to touch Johnny Cage and made Tobias do all the work on him? Seems doubtful. (And heck, that infobox creator credits the martial artist who originally portrayed Johnny Cage too, Daniel Pesina - correctly, in my opinion, the actor was clearly a huge part of the role, it wasn't just the producer.) And that's a case where the development staff was just 4 people on the first game, which you'd expect to be an "easy" case, but it isn't.

Anyway, categories have (well, should have) a much stricter criteria than just any infobox value. What makes a good infobox mention doesn't always make for a good category: categories should be defining, and categories should be unambiguous. I'm not convinced this is so important as to be defining, and it's often ambiguous as to how much "creation" should be credited to any one person. Just credit the company (Category:Sony Interactive Entertainment characters, etc.) instead, only crediting individuals when they are the company, and make Category:Video game characters by company the replacement subcategory of Category:Fictional characters by creator if there's a desire to have a replacement.

I would be particularly interested in hearing from editors who voted to keep the "categorization by fictional location", as that might clarify whether this case is sufficiently different as to be worth nominating at CFD, since Discord (mostly?) agreed that category was sketchy, but see above about how Discord's consensus doesn't always line up with on-wiki consensus. SnowFire (talk) 20:38, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

I find crediting a video game character to a singular person to be utterly pointless. In your Poirot example, Agatha Christie came up with the concept of who he was, decided what he looked like, and wrote every thought, speech, and action that he took. Which part of that was the "creation"? Because for most video games, that process involves at least three distinct people - the character designer, the artist, and the game's script writer - and as you note, any one of those three is possibly (probably) a team of people instead, if not all three. Vaan was "created" by Matsuno - except that Akihiko Yoshida actually designed what he looked like, and even our own article notes that he designed him differently than Matsuno had envisioned him. And the story was written by Miwa Shoda based on Matsuno's concept, but the actual script (including all of Vaan's dialogue!) was written by Daisuke Watanabe... and then after it was all written the character design was changed again because Kouhei Takeda did the voice acting and motion capture differently then the design and they decided they liked it enough to keep. Sooo... who created him? Which singular person gets the honor of having Vaan in a "Characters created by X" category?
Well, given that our current fiction-by-x and fiction-about-x category schemes are a morass of strung out nonsense that no humans would (or could) reasonably use because Wikimedia tried to use categories instead of more complex tags, I suppose the only consistent thing to do is to actually stick him in five categories, one for each person that I named. (/s)
Tl;dr: we should delete the entire Category:Fictional characters by creator tree. And then start chop down several other useless trees in the same vein. --PresN 23:56, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
I agree with you both for reasons already well articulated above. The list of characters to whom one single creator can be attributed to their creation is vanishingly small and would likely not be enough to support categories. Auteur theory as it applies to video games is generally discredited at this point. There is no need to reproduce it in category form on Wikipedia. Axem Titanium (talk) 02:42, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Also agree with this. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 12:17, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

I've nominated this category and its subcategories for deletion. Please weigh in at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 July 31#Video game characters by creator. Pinging all discussion participants @PresN, Axem Titanium, and Dissident93: for visibility. SnowFire (talk) 23:56, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Wii Fit PlusEdit

  An article which may be of interest to members of this project—Wii Fit Plus—has been proposed for merging with Wii Fit. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. SmartAn01 (talk) 06:10, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Deletion review of Tender Claws and notability for game developersEdit

The entry for the indie game development company Tender Claws was recently deleted, and I have initiated a deletion review as I think they're clearly notable - but the person leading the deletion review argues that the company is not notable as there is not enough coverage, only of the apps (games, interactive experiences etc) that they have created. Here is the original AfP discussion and the last version of the article before it was deleted.

Are there any guidelines specifically about notability for game developers? I would imagine most developers have little coverage about the company as such as most coverage would be about their games? I would really appreciate people with knowledge of games and wikipedia weighing in on the deletion review and whether or not Tender Claws should have an entry. --Lijil (talk) 13:18, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

There's only NCORP. It's not really appropriate IMO to shop around about a DELREV. -- ferret (talk) 13:21, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Sorry, I wasn't meaning to shop around, I am genuinely trying to learn the rules here which are not clear to me. Is there any info about what makes a game developer notable per Wikipedia? Lijil (talk) 13:34, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
.... WP:NCORP. This AFD ran the proper course. -- ferret (talk) 13:37, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

New Articles (July 18 to July 24)Edit

 A listing of all articles newly added to the Video Games Wikiproject (regardless of creation date). Generated by v3.12 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 18:11, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

July 18

July 19

July 20

July 21

July 22

July 23

July 24

PresN 18:11, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

  • I doubt anyone was concerned, but just to explain in case anyone was concerned about the relatively low-quality Vectorman 2 article I created: The Vectorman article was previously some sort of messy series type article, so I decided to split them into 2 separate articles. I split them right away, because its poor organization was one of the worst aspects of the article. I'm working on Vectorman 1 now, and then moving on to a proper creation of 2 next. So it will look better soon. Sergecross73 msg me 17:48, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
    I agree with this, I am not sure if I'd call 2 games that came out back to back a "series", especially with nothing was done with them afterwards. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ () 07:08, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
    Wow, I was just planning to propose splitting the Vectorman series article into articles about the individual games, and here someone has already gone ahead and done just that. Thanks, Sergecross. Martin IIIa (talk) 12:01, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
    No problem! Thank you both! Yeah, both are easily independently notable, they just needed someone to write them out separately. There's plenty of sources out there since they were both popular in their time, and have been re-released a ton of times.
    I'm hoping to wrap up my efforts on the first entry today, and then start right up on the sequel. Sergecross73 msg me 13:57, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Console and Handheld separation in Video game series templatesEdit

I do not think it is a good idea to keep console games and handheld games separate in video game series templates, especially with hybrid consoles like the Nintendo Switch. For an example, look at how Template:Donkey Kong is currently set up:

It has the main series divided by platform, regardless on their playstyle. What I propose is division more dependent on the series itself, and how it is generally viewed. A good example would be Template:Metroid with its division more there to separate out the Prime subseries. An idea for Donkey Kong is to either separate out the Arcade style games (Donkey Kong (video game), Donkey Kong Jr., Donkey Kong 3, and Donkey Kong (1994 video game)) into a Classic or Arcade-Style group. Another potential idea is to do separate the games by eras (Arcade, Rare, Post-Rare). I just really want to avoid future conflicts, especially if the console game system and handheld game system continue to merge together. @TheJoebro64: @ArmosNights: (Oinkers42) (talk) 14:26, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

It likely depends on a per series basis. Masem (t) 14:32, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, and that is what I am encouraging, but the console/handheld division seems almost unusable nowadays. (Oinkers42) (talk) 14:35, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
I really don't see what the issue here is. There were arcade Donkey Kong games, console Donkey Kong games, and handheld Donkey Kong games. Splitting them up both makes sense and aids navigation. The Metroid comparison doesn't work because there was never a concrete division between the handheld and console games as there is with something like Donkey Kong or Sonic, and the Switch being hybrid is irrelevant because it's still primarily considered a home console and you wouldn't call a game that's playable on Steam Deck a "handheld game". (There isn't even an exclusive Donkey Kong game on Switch!) Your central argument - that Donkey Kong '94 is different from the other handheld games and thus should be grouped with those released in a different format - falls apart considering that Donkey Kong 64 is totally different from the Country games but you aren't questioning that at all. As I've repeatedly stated, this is trying to find a solution to a problem that no one is having. JOEBRO64 16:01, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Which is why I proposed the idea of the era separation. Also, future proofing is not really a bad idea. (Oinkers42) (talk) 17:06, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
"Future proofing" is WP:CRYSTALBALLing, and "era separation" strikes me as WP:OR (not to mention that the "eras" aren't really distinct; Donkey Kong '94 and Country came out the exact same year). JOEBRO64 20:46, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
It is not really WP:OR when they are distinct and objective, Arcade era is pre-Donkey Kong Country, Rare's era is the games made by Rare (company), Post-Rare is simply everything made after Rare was acquired by Microsoft in 2002. Also, future-proofing is not really WP:CRYSTALBALL, it is just being prepared so a debate like this does not have to happen again. (Oinkers42) (talk) 21:10, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
I think it makes sense depending on what the series is. It's not something I'd start up for a modern game series, but for ones that started in the 80s and 90s - Sonic, Mario, Donkey Kong - there was a very big difference in perception when it came to their console and handheld games. The Sega Genesis Sonic games are very often discussed together, and both visually and conceptually, I don't think it would be helpful to blend all the Sonic Triple Trouble's and Sonic and Tails entries in between the major Genesis ones. Same goes for all the handheld minor Land entries of Super Mario and Donkey Kong on handhelds being amongst their major SNES entries. Sergecross73 msg me 16:46, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Definitely. For many series that began in the '80s/'90s, like Mario, Sonic, Donkey Kong, Kirby, and Zelda, there's a clear distinction between the console and handheld installments. It doesn't make sense to group the smaller handheld games like Sonic Chaos or Donkey Kong Land alongside the big budget games like Sonic 3 and Donkey Kong Country. For navigational purposes, it makes far more sense to separate them. JOEBRO64 20:30, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
I've sort of resolved that, for now, some series will be fine as console and handheld and some make more sense to reorient now. I'd argue some of the earlier series (Mario/Zelda) actually work better under different organizations than "console" and "handheld", which we can say that the Switch is "primarily considered a home console" except that we don't even truly treat it that way on Wikipedia (the Switch article is written purely as if it is a hybrid console that straddles the two, the Switch is listed in the "hybrid" section on the Nintendo consoles and ninth gen templates, the Switch Lite is under "handheld" on both as well). This is increasingly a random distinction for some series, and will probably make less sense over time, but I can see why we'd leave some as is for now. I do not believe the navigational argument holds for Mario or Zelda, where its just as logical to split them by game type, which I could go find many articles off of Wikipedia that discuss and separate them this way. ArmosNights (talk) 13:47, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
Then how do you handle bigger budget handheld games like New Super Mario Bros. and Super Mario 3D Land, also the distinction makes it seem like the handheld games are lesser. (Oinkers42) (talk) 20:40, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
There are also cases where separation of console and handheld games wouldn’t make sense in the case of Metroid two of the dedicated handheld games are actually part of the mainline series (2, and Fusion).-- (talk) 21:05, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
May I ask how you stumbled upon this discussion with only 11 prior edits, none of them related to templates or WP:VG? JOEBRO64 21:18, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
I mean they make a good point, especially when you consider franchises like Kirby that are primarily handheld. (Oinkers42) (talk) 21:27, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
To answer the question above I recently had a power outage so my IP was reset. As to how I found this, I am a video game fan and found this page some time ago so I often keep an eye on discussions here out of interest and sometimes chine in on ones that interest me.-- (talk) 21:38, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

USgamer going offline soonEdit

"[...]some but not all of the content being migrated to VG247." [2]. Ensure your sources are backed up. « Ryūkotsusei » 15:31, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

That's a bummer, I generally enjoyed their content. I see the focus is more that the website is going down rather than that they're closing down as a publisher, so I imagine that they've already been inactive and I missed that one...? Sergecross73 msg me 16:19, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads-up. Is there any way to see all the times it's been linked/cited across Wikipedia articles? I thought there was a tool for that but it's not coming to mind. The website as a whole seems to be well archived on Internet Archive but it will be more challenging to mine new sources from it without a live website for search engines to trawl. Axem Titanium (talk) 16:40, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
@Axem Titanium, yep, here and you can find pages like this in the future via Special:SpecialPages (in the left-hand sidebar) czar 18:29, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
Ah cool! Just under 1k links though is too much to archive by hand. According to WP:PLRT, there's a bot that automatically adds archive links that are dead. You can submit jobs to the bot to run on specific pages (or a large list of pages) but I don't see a way to proactively run it on a specific website's links. Any ideas? Axem Titanium (talk) 20:03, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
I've been checking through some of the links, and they've all got archives stretching back to when any article was first published. A bot should be able to do a lot of the work with ease. --ProtoDrake (talk) 21:12, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
Has the entire website been archived? (Oinkers42) (talk) 18:36, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
I saw someone on Twitter say that they had gone through the entire website and archived everything through the Wayback Machine somehow, so that's good news ^_^ ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 11:34, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Licensed games as seriesEdit

I've noticed lately that in articles on licensed video games, editors have been using the "series" field in the infobox for the game's license, e.g. Alien Trilogy and Alien Resurrection are identified as part of the Alien series, The Amazing Spider-Man: Web of Fire and The Amazing Spider-Man 2 are identified as part of the Spider-Man series, The Lost World: Jurassic Park and Trespasser are identified as part of the Jurassic Park series. In many cases the article prose even says the game is a sequel to the previous game which used the license, even when that game has a different developer, different publisher, completely different gameplay, and no storyline connection. Is this correct? I realize that a subset of games using a license can also be a series, such as Top Gun with Top Gun: The Second Mission and Madden NFL, but in many cases the only thing the game in question has its common with the rest of its "series" is that is uses a license from the same IP, and my understanding was that the consensus among reliable sources is that there's more to being a series than that. Am I wrong? Martin IIIa (talk) 13:31, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

The "series" should only be for the video game series, not a licensed series. Those usages you give are incorrect. --Masem (t) 13:44, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
Alright, I'll go ahead and remove those when I encounter them. Martin IIIa (talk) 14:09, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
I'd also remove any mention of a game being a sequel simply because it uses the same licensed IP unless it actually shares some sort of continuity to the previous game, such as developer, gameplay, or obviously plot. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 07:40, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Amy RoseEdit

Please see the lengthy discussions and consensus regarding Amy Rose at Talk:List_of_Sonic_the_Hedgehog_characters#Proposal_to_de-merge_Amy_Rose_from_here. MoonJet has once again un-redirected the character after a discussion just three months ago that established a rather clear consensus. -- ferret (talk) 01:29, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

The consensus was based on what was available at the time. I have uncovered more sources, including non-Valnet ones and some academic sources since the last discussion. Articles that are deleted or redirected are brought back all the time once new sources are uncovered and improvements are made. I was sitting on the draft I had for a while, and I thought it was time to give it a go. This was merely a bold move with no disruption intended. Look at the 2019 merge discussion. Everything proposed there has been addressed now. I admit that the de-merge discussion from a few months back was rushed, as I should have done more work first. But I only opened the discussion up because when someone else tried restoring it, (with no improvements, by the way) it was contested. Maybe I could have waited for a while and bring it back later instead of opening that discussion. But to say I "once again" un-redirected it is inaccurate. Another editor was repeatedly un-redirecting it, not me, while I was merely making some edits to it. This was the first time I've actually un-redirected it. MoonJet (talk) 01:47, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Wow, feels like unilateral editing against an almost unanimous consensus! Sergecross73 msg me 02:13, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
I haven't looked at the article yet, but given the multiple consensuses to merge in the past, I think BOLD is not the proper way to de-merge the article, regardless of how sterling it is. Consensus can change but never by the bold assertion of one editor. If you think your new draft addresses the concerns of the previous discussion, I would submit it to WP:AFC or start a new de-merge discussion BEFORE rushing it to mainspace. I would also be prepared for the possibility that the answer might still be no. Personally, I think it's ok for well-developed drafts to stick around for extended periods of time as they gather high quality sources, some of which may not exist yet. Axem Titanium (talk) 03:13, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
For the record, it had been proposed for a merge twice. The first time was in 2014, where the consensus was a snow keep (and she had way less sourcing than she does now, should I add). The second time was in 2019, where the previous keep consensus was changed to a redirect. Then I suggested a de-merge some months back, to no avail. But like I said, I think I was too hasty with that discussion. I admit I should have spent more time looking for sources back then, and then either do the bold restoration like I just did, or open up a new discussion. Because after that discussion, I really did some more searching around, which I should had done before.
I understand the consensus for a merge and maintaining the merge a few months back. But these have no bearing on improvements made after the fact. Had I not uncovered these sources, I wouldn't have restored the article. MoonJet (talk) 04:45, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Standards are higher now for independent articles than in 2014. Given the extensive merge/unmerge discussion history for this article in particular, I think a lot of people would be more willing to reexamine it if you went through the proper channels instead of going straight to a bold unmerge to mainspace. Editors involved in previous discussions who spent considerable effort coming to the prior consensus would be understandably annoyed if one editor could just blow up all that discussion under the guise of being "bold". Axem Titanium (talk) 21:05, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
I understand that standards aren't the same now as in 2014, but at the same time, how much higher is too much? Notability standards have, for most part, been unchanged since 2014 on most other areas on Wikipedia, (at least from my experience) and even back then, standards for video game character articles weren't exactly lax. Should I have opened another discussion first? Probably, to be honest. But I went with a bold unmerge, because I felt that the issues in previous discussions have been addressed now. But hey, the unmerge was contested, so here we are. MoonJet (talk) 23:24, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
I don't have an answer to that question. My allegiance has always been to clear communication and good prose, not to independent articles. If a well-written entry in a list is the best place to convey information about a thing, that's fine with me. I think there are occasions where independently notable things are better covered in a single semantically meaningful summary page than fractured across multiple articles. My point about the origin of this discussion is merely about setting the tone for the discussion. It's a collaborative project and you'll likely encounter these editors again in other contexts. It pays to not burn bridges or good will. You may even garner a more sympathetic audience for your proposal. We live in a society, after all. Axem Titanium (talk) 07:00, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Diff of the changes. If I understand this correctly, the substantive new sources are a Screenrant article ("Sonic's Amy Rose Never Had to Be The Series' Most Worthless Character") and passing mention in some other articles, like two paragraphs in a "Gaming's unrequited loves that were never meant to be" listicle? I don't have an opinion on the article's previous merits, but I will say that if these are the main additions, it's not enough. Screenrant is a bottom-tier source (honestly should have been just ruled out entirely) and the other mentions seem to be passing mentions. Are there any other substantive sources you'd like to highlight as elevating the topic to a separate article? (Insert usual reminder that a longer section at the list article is perfectly fine if you do find genuine more sources.) SnowFire (talk) 05:48, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

@SnowFire Those are not the new sources, actually. These are some of the new sources. That second one is a listicle, but it does discuss why Amy Rose should be part of the Super Smash Bros. series, rather than just a short blurb of her. The second-to-last one is a listicle too, but it does discuss why she should be in the third Sonic film. Either way, there's a few academic sources covering her, and discusses politics surrounding her character, giving a good indication for notability (which were cited in the restored article). In addition, there's a couple books sources on her that I didn't cite in there. While I don't have access to it, Sonic: The Ultimate Character Guide seems to have a whole page on Amy Rose, possibly two pages.
Also, I would like to note that I have removed some of the sources from the reception section I had in my draft previously like the "Gaming's unrequited loves that were never meant to be," precisely because it was a trivial mention, and wouldn't have helped the article's standing, even though I kept it to verify one of her personality traits. Screen Rant is appropriate for non-BLPs, which is what Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources notes. Even so, the article doesn't rely on Valnet properties as much as it did previously. MoonJet (talk) 09:49, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
What's the assertion of reliability for the Russian article? What about Indian Express? The first academic paper does not appear to be published in a peer-reviewed journal and the second academic paper definitely isn't because it's a Master's thesis. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:05, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
The Russian source, while it looks like a fan wiki, is written by Anna Myklina, a staff member on the site. And the site is a news portal site with editorial policies and all that, not just some random fan site. Maybe some input should be asked over at WP:RSN. Indian Express is a news site, which are presumed to be reliable, unless proven otherwise (like Daily Mail).
I'm not as familiar with academic sources. What indicates that these are peer-reviewed journals? MoonJet (talk) 23:42, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Well the problem is that they don't seem to be published in peer-reviewed journals. I can't find the journal for one of them and the other isn't published at all. Unpublished work is broadly not considered reliable. Axem Titanium (talk) 07:00, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Just wanted to add that The Indian Express is considered generally reliable per WP:INDIANEXP. – Rhain 01:45, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
    Indeed, but it's somewhat moot. The article uses the cartoon as a brief example and mention of Amy... then never actually discusses her character at all, focusing on another topic. -- ferret (talk) 01:52, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
I'm sure; I just wanted to answer Axem's question about the source. I have nothing to add to the actual discussion. – Rhain 02:01, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
  • I've just reviewed the un-redirected article, and I still have to stand by my previous stance that there is no significant coverage presented. The in-universe cruft has been cut down for the most part, but the article still is only built upon passing mentions in listicles and articles not primarily about Amy. The current effort suffers from pretty heavy REFBOMBing designed to puff the article up. I think it's safe to say at this point that the sourcing required to warrant a separate article for Amy plain and simple doesn't exist. (Not to mention, unilaterally un-redirecting against what was essentially a unanimous consensus is the type of behavior that gets people dragged to WP:ANI.) JOEBRO64 14:30, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
    And this has been told to Moonjet every step of the way too. They simply refuse to hear it. Sergecross73 msg me 14:49, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
    To say the article is built on passing mentions is listicles is not accurate. I had several sources in the reception that were not listicles, and even some of the listicles I do have do discuss why she is an entry there, rather than a short blurb on the character. And WP:GNG does not require articles solely or even primarily about the subject. And even if it was built on passing mentions from listicles, that doesn't mean there's no potential to change that. MoonJet (talk) 01:45, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry MoonJet, but I have to agree with these folks above that Amy simply isn't a plausible article. I don't want your quality writing and source checking to go to waste, though; I'm certain there are plenty of notable Sonic-related articles that could use some rewriting and sourcing, or you could even broaden your scope and slowly pick away at List of Sonic the Hedgehog characters. In this case, consensus is clearly against your opinion and WP:STICK applies. Please don't take these opinions or this essay personally though. I think we all just need a nap. Panini! 🥪 19:05, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
    Unfortunately having a high quality of writing makes it even less likely that the editor will listen to policy, because they already know and yet continue to attempt to will the article into existing. FANDOM is the place for obsessive fans, but bringing that logic to Wikipedia results in WP:NOTHERE behavior. I'd love to be proven wrong but I think it is pretty clear when an editor has a general interest in video games versus a highly targeted and narrow goal that is incompatible with Wikipedia's aims. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ () 21:04, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Okay, I am giving this one a shot as there are some good sources here, anyone else is free to contribute at User:(Oinkers42)/sandbox/Amy Rose, just do not blank the page or WP:TNT without discussing it first. Also, remember to WP:AGF and WP:AAGF. (Oinkers42) (talk) 01:38, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
    The problem isn't the content or what's written. It's the sourcing itself. -- ferret (talk) 02:19, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
    But he said that he thinks there's good enough sourcing for her to potentially get the article back. MoonJet (talk) 02:41, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
    Read the discussion as a whole. Oinker's stance is very clearly in the minority, and not the consensus so far. Sergecross73 msg me 16:47, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
    I know, but Ferret was implying that Oinkers46 made no mention of the sourcing, when he said that there's some good sources in there. MoonJet (talk) 23:29, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
    I implied no such thing. Oinkers said there are "some good sources", implying that the issue was the content instead. I refuted that. I am starting to wonder if you deliberately misrepresent my statements, as it keeps happening. -- ferret (talk) 00:55, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
    Actually, ferret, I thought that's what you were implying, too. No need to stop assuming good faith. Martin IIIa (talk) 01:03, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
    ...Why would someone blank your own user space draft...? Sergecross73 msg me 02:49, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
    Just putting this as a precautionary, especially if someone angerly tries to WP:TNT this. (Oinkers42) (talk) 20:19, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
    No one should be doing that to a draft really, let alone a userspace sandbox draft. You have a lot of leeway there. Unless you violate WP:U5 no one should be blanking it. Sergecross73 msg me 21:08, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Eh, I don't care about bold unmerges. The worst thing that happens is that it has to be undone with a single button click. Consensus, meanwhile, can get super bogged down in bureaucracy, and we hate that don't we folks - Whadup, it's ya girl, Dusa (talk) 05:16, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

@MsDusa:, it seems the concern wasn't the bold unmerge itself, but rather the fact that I had unmerge it just a few months after consensus was established. But the reason I did that was because I felt I had addressed the issues brought up the last discussion, but most people here hasn't agreed with that so far. MoonJet (talk) 05:50, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Retro Gamer UK magazines are gone forever from Internet ArchiveEdit

It seems that all of the Retro Gamer UK magazines are forever removed from Internet Archive, as shown on this link here. Now all we have left are only Retro Gamer Spain magazines, which is no fun at all. This stinks. --Angeldeb82 (talk) 23:34, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Oh that's too bad. Hopefully someone kept the archive. Andrevan@ 00:13, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
@Angeldeb82:Have you tried Issuu? That site has most of the Retro Gamer issues that were hosted at Internet Archive. Roberth Martinez (talk) 22:49, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
That's great! And I was able to find Issue 30 of Retro Gamer! Thanks. I'll keep that in mind. Angeldeb82 (talk) 22:57, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
I still have one package with issues 1--140 and a few more. Unfortunately, Retro Gamer doesn't sell digital back issues (else I would just buy the magazines I need). A very handy topic index can be found here. IceWelder [] 23:02, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
@IceWelder:That's one of the things that royally bothers me a lot about magazine publishers: Why they can't host their old magazine catalog on their website? Look at both Game Developer magazine and Game Machine magazine as examples. They stopped publishing their magazines a long time ago after moving to web but they host their old issues at their official websites for free for educative purposes. I really wish more magazine publishers follow their footsteps in the future... Roberth Martinez (talk) 04:06, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Luna gamesEdit

Luna is available in mainland US only, so would it be fair to edit articles such as Far Cry 6 and Riders Republic (games that launched on day one with Luna versions) in a way that separates them in a way that displays something along the lines of
Windows, PS4, PS5, Xbox One, Xbox Series X/S

  • WW: October 6, 2021


  • US: October 6, 2021

Venky64 (talk) 14:14, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

No, it likely isn't necessary, given the implicit availability of luna. Masem (t) 14:15, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
What does implicit availability mean in this context? Venky64 (talk) 14:21, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
This would actually add confusion, in my view, as it suggests it's on Luna, but that Luna deliberately only released it in the US. That may be technically true, but the reality is that it was "released on Luna", and Luna as a whole just happens to be restricted to the US. Luna did not release "to the US", if that makes sense. Until/unless Luna is available elsewhere and actually has regional differences, we don't need to point it out. -- ferret (talk) 14:21, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Oh. What if the infobox already has regional differences in its release dates, like Yakuza: Like a Dragon, which launched in Japan first? The whole infobox would then have to adhere to specifying releases on a regional basis, right? What happens to the {{vgrelease}} format then? Venky64 (talk) 14:29, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
If there was say, a JP release followed by a later WW release, it's still fine to do JP then WW. "WW" indicates a broad release, and regional differences can be denoted separately. -- ferret (talk) 14:58, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
I cited this article in particular because the title is available for Luna now. Regional differences would be specified for Luna as well, so would you mark it as a US release when regional differences do have to be specified? Or should I write worldwide for that as well? (sorry! last question, I think) Venky64 (talk) 15:21, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Since when is Luna considered a platform viable for the infobox? WP:VG/PLATFORMS says the only exception to subscription or streaming services is Stadia. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 07:38, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Based on my reading of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 152#Amazon Luna - also a platform like Stadia?, developers have to configure Luna games so they'll specifically work on the AWS services. So it's far more similar to something like Stadia than OnLive because it can't really be classified as an extension of existing platforms, it's its own thing. JOEBRO64 12:30, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

New Articles (July 25 to July 31)Edit

 A listing of all articles newly added to the Video Games Wikiproject (regardless of creation date). Generated by v3.12 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 00:01, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

July 25

July 26

July 27

July 28

July 29

July 30

July 31

PresN 00:01, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

How are we feeling about List of Limited Run Games releases? They used to be a tiny boutique publisher where each release felt like a big deal but they've exploded over the past few years and now they're publishing dozens of games per year. It doesn't seem like they're slowing down anytime soon. Is Wikipedia still the appropriate venue for this information? Axem Titanium (talk) 16:52, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't mind it - it doesn't seem so different from our other "list of games from (publisher)" type articles. But I don't think it should be cleaned up and trimmed down. A bunch of those columns could either be eliminated or combined in function. Might help with the INDISCRIMINATE vibes its giving off as is. Just my two cents though, not pushing hard either way if this is one of those random things that opens up to a lot of discourse... Sergecross73 msg me 17:15, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
The biggest thing, I think, is that the list is simply too long for each row to get more than a single line of text. Right now they're often 3-5, which is just too much. --PresN 19:27, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Yeah that's probably it. I think the run size column is what's giving me buyers' guide vibes. Strikes me as info that exists only for owners to flex how rare their purchase was. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:31, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
slices and dices WP:NOT purge of columns done. I'm not yet convinced the list should exist at all though. This is less publishing and more... distributing. A topic we've purged from many articles and the infobox. -- ferret (talk) 20:47, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, that's the sort of trimming I was talking about, though I'd probably even trim out the genre field too. Sergecross73 msg me 21:03, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Agree with binning Genre, its not needed for lists like this. Also, the Original Release Date field is labelled as one thing but is actually doing another. That field appears to be denoting the version of the game that was used for the release, which doesn't really tie in with the the column title. - X201 (talk) 08:26, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Help neededEdit

Hi. I've been doing an expansion/rewrite for Arc Rise Fantasia, and I've just finished with the plot section. And...I'd really really really appreciate someone else having a look to perhaps trim and tidy it, but I've completely reached my limit with how bonkers and needlessly convoluted it is. If it ends up being a top-down rewrite, that's fine I don't care. This plot can just go die in a hole. ProtoDrake (talk) 22:42, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

@ProtoDrake: Yeah... I would recommend you trimming it down, if it's causing you so much trouble. Roberth Martinez (talk) 23:09, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
Remind me if it looks like I forget, but I can help with this article next week. Sergecross73 msg me 00:21, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Article title questionEdit

Earlier this week a the previously Japanese exclusive Neo Geo Pocket Color game Rockman Battle & Fighters was stealth dropped on the Nintendo Switch as Mega Man Battle & Fighters so I was wondering of we should keep the old name since the original game came out over 22 years ago or if we should use the new title since the series is far better known as Mega Man in the West? (talk) 20:17, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

As long as the Mega Man title name redirects to the Rockman page, I would keep the romanized Japanese name (Rockman) for now. Masem (t) 20:26, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
IMO it should be moved to the "Mega Man" name per WP:USEENGLISH. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ () 20:27, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
If it's finally localized under the Mega Man name, I'd move it to the Mega Man name. Sergecross73 msg me 20:27, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
It depends on what sources are using for the title, as per WP:COMMONNAME. (Oinkers42) (talk) 20:43, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
I quickly looked through the reliable sources on Google News (Escapist, Silicon Era, Gematsu, Nintendo Life), and most of them don't even mention the Rockman name. Probably because it's just the name of the main character. Seems like this will be a non-controversial move. Polygon does specify the distinction as a rename, but it seems alone in it. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:11, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Yes. Oinkers is correct conceptually, and what you're saying is exactly what I would expect to happen - the 2022 localization will bring a new wave of coverage that will almost certainly change the COMMONNAME tides, if it hasn't already. Sergecross73 msg me 14:53, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

High Impact Images in TemplatesEdit


I noticed that there were images in the high impact templates Template:Mario franchise, Template:Pokémon video games series, Template:Activision Blizzard (Recurs due to nesting?), Template:Super Smash Bros., and Template:Overwatch.

As I understand it the consensus when this was brought up recently at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 162#Images in templates was that such images should generally be removed. Normally for something like this I would just change it myself, however due to their substantial impact, I'm a bit hesitant to do so without first consulting the community. Thus I am asking here if it is ok for me to remove them.

Thank you for your time! Mbrickn (talk) 00:58, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Personally, I feel as if images can contribute greatly to navboxes, as long as they are easily understandable and visible (think more Template:Super Smash Bros., less Template:Pokémon video games series). Generally, I believe symbols work way better than text logos in this regard. It is what looks the best and is the most presentable. Also, the templates have an image parameter for a reason generally. (Oinkers42) (talk) 01:12, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
I removed them. The consensus at the linked discussion is overwhelming and recent. The Activision/Blizzard template was actually breaking itself by the presence of the images. All of them had whitespace issues and did not justify themselves under MOS:DECORATION in my opinion. Thanks for bringing these to WPVG's attention. Axem Titanium (talk) 06:10, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Some of them had very little, if no white space issues. I have reverted both of them to their prior form. (Oinkers42) (talk) 12:16, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Reverted. Still failed MOS:DECOR, still has white space at various widths. -- ferret (talk) 13:58, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
(ec) The linked discussion made no special consideration for white space or for text vs. image-based logos. You were the only one in the previous discussion who was broadly in support of logo images in navboxes under the reasoning that they were free images. Setting aside the fact that I think many editors on Commons have a ludicrously high threshold of originality, you do not address the point that the logos would be purely decorative. Either they're hidden by default in their current position because they'd be collapsed when there are multiple navboxes, or there's so few navboxes that there would be no differentiation issue. Axem Titanium (talk) 14:00, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Agreed. We just had a conversation on this with a pretty strong consensus. No need to re-litigate this now. Sergecross73 msg me 14:49, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Bridget (Guilty Gear) edit activityEdit

There looks to be a lot of editing regarding Bridget's gender, so it may be worthwhile to look into semi-protection if edit wars keep up. - Whadup, it's ya girl, Dusa (talk) 22:03, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Protected. See what you can do about getting some better sourcing though (I assume this'll be hitting the IGNs and Polygons soon if it hasn't already.) Sergecross73 msg me 22:08, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Done, appreciated. - Whadup, it's ya girl, Dusa (talk) 22:16, 8 August 2022 (UTC)