Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 172

< Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games
Latest comment: 3 months ago by Sergecross73 in topic Sparks of Hope sales discussion
Archive 165 ← Archive 170 Archive 171 Archive 172 Archive 173 Archive 174

Dave the Diver

Latest comment: 6 months ago8 comments5 people in discussion

There's been a running dispute at Dave the Diver over whether Mintrocket, a subsidiary of Nexon, is an indie developer. Reliable sources, who have acknowledged that Mintrocket is a subsidiary of Nexon, have nevertheless said they're an indie developer and this is an indie game. However, this issue seems to have become a big issue to some people on Reddit. Someone recently removed several reliable sources and said it's not an indie game, cited to an interview on a Korean website. Does anyone know if this source is reliable and thus the interview might be trustworthy? And would a machine-translated interview with the developer overrule what third-party reliable sources say? WP:VG/OFFICIAL seems to apply here, but one could also invoke WP:ABOUTSELF and say that this is correcting a mistaken belief by the press. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:46, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Looks like they only removed the videogames.si source in that edit, keeping all the other sources prominently describing it as an indie game in the title. If we can confirm that the interview is properly legitimate, I think it's reasonably to at least omit "indie" from the lede section. We can still write about it having indie aesthetics for sure, using indie as a sort of movement of game design. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:51, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
I would tend to agree it is not an indie dev. First, there is the quote posted on the talk page. Through my own research, I found a separate quote directly from Nexon saying that Mintrocket is an in-house division. "Had 'P3' been developed normally inhouse, it would have been presented to users under the name Mint Rocket". It appears this could be a case of an editorial mistake by Sports Illustrated because of the game's indie-esque appearance.
Obviously this is problematic but per WP:IAR, Wikipedia is not required to state anything a source says if there's clear evidence it could be wrong. I would err on the side of removing the indie game mentions and referring to it as a Nexon subsidiary. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:58, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
I think you misunderstand. I don't care whether individual Wikipedians think Mintrocket is an indie developer. There is no question that they are a subsidiary of Nexon; however, that is irrelevant to the question of whether they are an independent developer. On Wikipedia, the only relevant criteria is whether reliable sources identify them as such, and multiple reliable sources have said this is an indie game, and one explicitly identified them as an indie developer. Eurogamer themselves have said that it is an independent game made by a Nexon subsidiary; this is cited directly in the article. So, we don't need editors to come to their own personal conclusions. Eurogamer has already done it for us. What I am asking is not "do you think this is an indie developer?" I am asking if the Korean website is a reliable source. If it isn't, then the interview could be faked. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:46, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
Ignoring the question of whether the talk page interview is an RS, because I am unsure, and looking purely for English sources that might be relevant, there is an alternate Eurogamer article in which Eurogamer says: "Do you find it as fascinating as I do how every now and then you get a whiff of VERY NOT INDIE BUDGET peering out from behind its indie facade? [...] It's published and perhaps made by Nexon, right, who are completely huge? I would love to know how this game came to be!" It's possible that when Eurogamer said "indie RPG" they meant "indie-style RPG" or that they simply contradicted themselves due to a misunderstanding. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:28, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
I add some games to the Monster-taming game category. TroyToonTrotStudios (talk) 17:26, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
Speaking of Korean sources, I am currently working on Blue Archive, another Korean game, in my home wiki. A quick glance of the kowiki shows that they list the following websites:
I have no knowledge of Korean, but I believe this could help. MilkyDefer 05:20, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
And it is a pity that the Korean source claiming that Mintrocket is not an indie, is not in that list. I think we cannot jump to the conclusion that the site is unreliable -- we might need to find someone familiar with Korean games. MilkyDefer 05:23, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Star Wars: Dark Forces release date

Latest comment: 6 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I'm looking for additional input on the correctness of the release date for Star Wars: Dark Forces. Please see Talk:Star Wars: Dark Forces#Release date. Regards, IceWelder [✉] 16:07, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Working towards FA on Splatoon 3

Latest comment: 6 months ago4 comments2 people in discussion

As I'm sure some of you may have noticed in the Wikipedia Discord, I'm planning on working on making Splatoon 3 an FA. However I have absolutely no clue what I need to do to get it to FA status. I'm fairly sure that even though it's a GA right now, it's definitely not ready to be an FA. So is there some sort of way I can request feedback on what to do to work on getting it to FA status without actually requesting an FA review? ― Blaze WolfTalkblaze__wolf 20:18, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review is a good place for that. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:44, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
That's what I thought, and yet I recall being told in the Discord server that it isn't good idea. Or maybe they didn't. I have terrible memory. ― Blaze WolfTalkblaze__wolf 01:34, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
How's it going? QuicoleJR (talk) 01:30, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

New Articles (October 16 to October 22)

Latest comment: 5 months ago12 comments5 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 v3.16 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 12:49, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

October 16

October 17

  • None

October 18

October 19

October 20

October 21

  • None

October 22

Sorry to bother, but it appears Suika Game is missing from this week's report. CaptainGalaxy 17:21, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
Added, sorry- when an article gets created and then moved the same day, the script doesn't always recognize it as a new article. --PresN 17:51, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
That's all good. Thank you for adding it. CaptainGalaxy 18:07, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
Hey, SNAAAAKE!! is back! Panini! • 🥪 03:38, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
Oh just a new tag of an old article. Don't jumpscare me like that. 😅 Axem Titanium (talk) 21:06, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
Suika Game, a game that became popular out of the blue around me two years ago and faded in popularity after, suddenly go viral again worldwide - all happening too fast for me to grab an understanding of the situation.
The corresponding article in zhwiki is still "合成大西瓜" (synthetic big watermelon) rather than "西瓜游戏/西瓜遊戲" (suika game). Yesterday I made a distinction between these two games in Wikidata, please double check my work in Wikidata. There are several media coverages on the original "synthetic big watermelon" that I have no idea how to incorporate into the current article. MilkyDefer 07:25, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
Currently Synthetic Big Watermelon is mention in the English article as being an origin of the gameplay seen in Suika Game. Currently it has notes about the different fruit in that version as well as release date. CaptainGalaxy 15:26, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
I meant more than that. For example, Chinese Academy of Sciences released an article detailing the internal mechanics that make "Synthetic Big Watermelon" addictive. There are also other reports focusing on the original "Synthetic"'s advertisement fraud. You may want to incorporate these sources about the original game into the current article but the problem is how. MilkyDefer 05:19, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
I mean, the article more talks about the Japanese game. The mentions of "Synthetic" is due to sources delving into the origins of the concept, alongside just a brief mentions on what makes the two versions slightly different in visuals. I don't think more is needed about Synthetic, but if you can think of a good way to incorporate it then you are more than welcome to. CaptainGalaxy 00:15, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
I am trying that in my home wiki. I will consult my fellow editors for a resolution - keep the two intergrated into one article, or boldly split them up. MilkyDefer 04:24, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
UPDATE: My idea of merging the two games into one article has been met with unprecedented and universal ridicule. I am forced to split them up. MilkyDefer 03:52, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

CNET archives

Latest comment: 5 months ago5 comments2 people in discussion
  Resolved

I would not be surprised at all if any of you are aware of this problem, and certainly this talk board is aware of CNET having deleted articles earlier this year, but I have just discovered that not all the content from the 2000s was archived, or so it looks. I discovered what appears to be the only evidence that a CNET review for M&M's Kart Racing, a Wii and DS piece of shovelware that has been called one of the worst games of all time, ever existed. Attempts to connect to the review page by reconstructing the link based on cues from the ABC mirror and the CNET website as archived in the Wayback Machine in 2008 and accessing it in the Machine have failed. Granted, I realized I was looking in the Wii section of a list of reviews when I should have been looking in the DS area since the review is for the DS version, but now my access to the Wayback Machine is throttled again, and I cannot continue browsing the archives to dig up the article. Is unsaved CNET content a real problem that anyone here can attest to, or is it just the Machine denying me access again? P.S. No amount of my research on the Internet can uncover answers as to why access to the Wayback Machine periodically goes offline. FreeMediaKid$ 01:05, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Well, I got access to the Wayback Machine again before getting it cut again. During that time, I was able to ascertain what the URL was. It is http://reviews.cnet.com/M_M_s_Kart_Racing_DS/4505-10068_7-32632053.html. Needless to say, it is a dead link, and apparently a permanent dead one, too. Maybe the review has survived with a later URL, but again, I will not be able to find out until I regain access or someone else finds it. In the meantime, feel free to confirm from your experience whether CNET reviews have been permanently lost. FreeMediaKid$ 01:53, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
Found it. I had to look inside the ds-games path of the domain and look at a list of websites with that path archived in the Machine, and that is how I recovered it. I have tagged this discussion as resolved. FreeMediaKid$ 03:16, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
@FreeMediaKid! If it's for CNET, it's also worth checking Gamespot. Here's a live version of the review from there. CrimsonFox talk 07:24, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
I would have proceeded to add the CNET review, but it came to my attention that it it identical to the one by GameSpot. I am only just learning this, but is it not true that, since the closure of Gamecenter, all CNET reviews for games are GameSpot reposts? FreeMediaKid$ 05:29, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

New Articles (October 23 to October 29)

Latest comment: 5 months ago1 comment1 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 v3.16 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 13:06, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

October 23

October 24

October 25

October 26

October 27

October 28

October 29

Computer Entertainer

Latest comment: 5 months ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Months ago, I uploaded nearly all of the 100 issues of Computer Entertainer, identified by WP:VGRS as a reliable source, to the Internet Archive. The uploads were useful because, with the Archive adding searchable text to PDF scans, search engines index those uploads' web pages, making seaching the issues by text feasible. This notification serves three purposes: 1) to inform users about the Archive uploads, 2) to cause them to consider updating the Reference library to include mentions of Computer Entertainer, and 3) to encourage users to find the missing issues, namely Nos. 1 to 3 and 95 to 100. Given its copyright holder's failure to crack down on online scans (they can be read here and here, to name two websites), I calculated it unlikely that the submissions would ever get DMCA'ed, so I hope that, along with the two other purposes of this discussion, someone will upload the remaining issues to the Web. I will then submit them to the Archive and use my privilege to group them into the Computer Entertainer collection.

And now for my rambling
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

It may be imprudent to bring these years-old events back into light, but I feel that I must clarify some of my demeanor then, and I feel that I have failed to provide the community with adequate explanation during the time those events involving me were unfolding. These explanations are long overdue.

A user named Gamingforfun365—naïve, a little rude, relatively inexperienced, and undecided on how he wanted to edit until years later—decided to undertake the task of reviewing articles. For context, I was that user, but since I am personally better off not tying myself to my past, I shall refer to him in third person. One of these articles was Crispy Gamer, which he helped pass. Then, he sought to elevate it to feature article status. The fatal error he committed was being oblivious to the requirement that he be a major contributor. Accusations of stealing credit from the user who submitted it as a good article nominee were levied against him. The accusations were unfair, given his, Gamingforfun365's, inexperience, and he never forgave them for such libel. In the midst of a heated argument, Gamingforfun365 then posted what, in retrospect, turned out to be his biggest blunder in the history of his Internet use. He stated that "I am actually having fun from how lousy this discussion is going." He thought that his comment was clear in illustrating that the discussion had engaged in drivel and that all editors needed to move on, except that that comment was itself drivel, and so led to a long-shot ANB discussion after he neurotically talked incessantly about the article. When he confessed that he had not actially reviewed the articles appropriately, that may be true, but it is possible that he had also deliberately minimized his reviewing efforts in a gesture of self-berating.

Part two of that event pertains to how he tried to meet the requirement that he be a major contributor to the Crispy Gamer article. He realizes that, beyond minor edits, thr article could not be improved much further, which led him to the conclusion that whoever reads this rambling will find silly: that an editor for an article becomes a major one because they would have made the substantial improvements. That was why he believed he could renominate the article. He likely assumed that other users on this talk page would infer his reasoning. It never occurred to him that others would not, and so the bickering resumed, hence the ANB incident. He came to regret failing to explain himself. It is not the first time on the Internet that he has been falsely accused of eschewing norms when in fact his actions could simoly have been seen as misguided, and it would not be the last, either.

In a second event, in 2019, in a discussion about an article on Birdo, he posted his view on whether to keep the sources describing the Nintendo character as transgender. He then committed a blunder by expressing a political view about lifestyles like this. One may find the following reasoning ludicrous, but he posted that message for fear that right-wingers would bombard him with admonition and charges of immorality, just for making an edit suggestion about the article. That message was intended to placate those right-wing concerns, except, to his horror, that there would be no such right-wingers. There was admonition and charges of immortality, but it came from the wrong type of users. He did not forgive those, like last time, who claimed that he was trying to tout straight cisgender mores, and, as a realist, it made no sense to him anyway. If he had understood what response he would receive, why would he post it? What practical benefit would that have served him? He apologizes for the confusion, but laments the moralizing aspect that played out.

In both cases, he could have littered the talk pages of the users who cried foul, and given his current personality, he almost regrets not doing that. A man looks effeminate if he lets false claims about his state of mind run across. On top of that, he also legitimizes these claims if he does not refute all of them one by one. However, he would likely not deign to post harmful messages on one's talk page if one questioned his motives, instead refuting those charges. The point is that his, Gamingforfun365's, early experience has left him indignant over his treatment—which he feels to this day–and he hopes to alleviate that feeling by expressing this clarification. In case you thought this post was just me rambling, there is a reason I collapsed it.

FreeMediaKid$ 05:29, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Nice work here; these look like gold mines for articles on old games, especially the release schedules. Phediuk (talk) 12:41, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
I added Computer Entertainer to the Reference Library TarkusABtalk/contrib 17:55, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

About game categories by decade

Latest comment: 5 months ago10 comments6 people in discussion

Numerous categories subdividing games by decade were created last year by User:StarTrekker such as Category:2020s horror video games. As far as I know there was not consensus about this, and it makes them harder to alphabetically navigate. Is this just an example of WP:OVERCAT that should be reverted or was there a consensus to do so? ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:51, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Why would one need a consensus to create a category? Its no different than the Category:2020s horror films or Category:2020s horror novels trees (that also exist for other genres). By far more people are going to be interested in seeing media listed by date and genre than alphabetical order.★Trekker (talk) 21:36, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
No games are categorized that way, so one would assume that a massive change to the categorization scheme would merit discussion. From what I've seen, films tend to be talked about far more in terms of the time they were made. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:17, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
Personally I don't understand why video games would be different than any other media really, I've for sure seen people discuss video games from when they came out.★Trekker (talk) 01:11, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
Categories are meant to be defining about a game. A game can be well known for the year it was released, or the genre, but whereas films and television shows are often talked about by their decade, I just don't see that with games. Perhaps its because changes in games move much faster than other products or due to the new-ishness of games compared to other media.
If one does want all horror games in the 2020s, that's what cross-categorization tools or Wikidata are for. Masem (t) 01:38, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
99.999% of Wikipedia users don't use cross-categorization tools or even Wikidata. I'm not seeing any convincing argument for video games being different than every other media.★Trekker (talk) 17:22, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
It's not defining. One may describe the 2023 Resident Evil 4 remake as a "2020s game", or a "horror game", but not really a "2020s horror game". Games aren't usually defined by decade-genre like that. I've seen platform-genre more often, like "PS1 horror games" or "N64 platform games". It's difficult to say why this is. It could be because games are still a relatively new format, and have evolved so quickly that say, horror games in 1991 have little in comparison to those in 1999, for example. There may be exceptions but I don't think 2020s horror is one of them. TarkusABtalk/contrib 18:10, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
I've also seen things like "PS2-era platformers" which are not just those on the PS2 but in the same general generation as they often use the same gameplay elements. But that's harder to nail so even that I would not use. Masem (t) 04:10, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
I mean, going on that sort of logic, a similar percentage of general, non-editor readers probably don't even know categories exist in the first place. Not that I'm opposing you on those grounds, just a note that every part of this effort and discussion is probably not worth the time. Sergecross73 msg me 18:28, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
Agreed with TarkusAB, the important aspect that distinguishing video games by other media is the platform. If we had created 2020s horror video games, we could create a bunch of intersections (like 2020s video games developed in the United States, horror video games developed in the United States...). And by the same logic, we would have 2023 horror video games, 2023 PlayStation 4 games, PlayStation 4 horror video games, etc. Unlike other media, a video game may have multiple platforms and multiple genres (and other characteristics), so the cartesian product result may be awful. For the certain readers, the intersections are somehow useful; but it's really hard to be maintained, and make the category bar mess. --Lopullinen 03:40, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

New Articles (October 30 to November 5)

Latest comment: 5 months ago1 comment1 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 v3.16 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 14:36, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

October 30

October 31

November 1

November 2

November 3

November 4

November 5

Resource request (NGC Magazine)

Latest comment: 5 months ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Hello everyone. Apologies if this is the wrong place for this question. I plan on working on the Buffy the Vampire Slayer: Wrath of the Darkhul King article in the future and putting it through the peer review process prior to a potential WP:FAC. The game apparently received a review in the August 2003 issue of NGC Magazine, but I cannot find anything about it online. Just for clarification, the information was already cited in the article prior to my editing.

I was wondering if there was a way to request for this particular source or if anyone had any pointers on finding information from the magazine in general. I could ask on the request page for the WikiProject Resource Exchange, but I thought I should ask here first. I currently have no way of verifying if this issue even reviewed the game, and I am not even sure if I could buy a physical copy of this issue. Sorry again if this is the wrong place for this question. I hope everyone is having a great week so far. Aoba47 (talk) 21:24, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

@Aoba47: I have access to it. I can send to you later today. TarkusABtalk/contrib 22:30, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
I was going to say that they are on the Internet Archive, but it appears they've been nuked since I last checked. You can find the August 2003 issue at Sega Retro / Retro CDN; the review is on page 66. Other than that, this page and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Reference library are definitely the right places to ask. IceWelder [✉] 22:31, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
Thank you both for the responses. I am still new and inexperienced when it comes to video game articles so I was not even sure where to look outside of the Internet Archive, and even then I sometimes miss things on a first look. Hope you are both doing well. Aoba47 (talk) 23:37, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Regent Bakery, Portal, and The cake is a lie

Latest comment: 5 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
See also: Talk:Regent_Bakery_and_Cafe § Portal_and_The_cake_is_a_lie

I've recently created Regent Bakery and Cafe. I'm struggling with how to expand the entry re: Portal (which also happens to be a   Featured article) and the Internet meme The cake is a lie. Both articles reference Regent, and I'm confident all three topics should be covered in each, but I'm not exactly sure what's best. Hoping some folks here might be interested in helping out via article improvements and talk page feedback. Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:45, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

@Another Believer: I'm not sure it should be expanded much, to be honest? Like, it's certainly interesting that the cake in Portal (and thus the meme) was based on a cake from a real bakery nearby, but beyond a sentence saying that in the three articles, there's not much more there to be said. The provenance of the cake isn't that meaningful to the game or meme. The article for the bakery should extending the sentence to mention the meme (now done), but that's about it, I think. --PresN 23:59, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

An Atari Jaguar Chronology has popped up...

Latest comment: 5 months ago6 comments3 people in discussion

So, i was browsing Twitter/X when all of the sudden, an Atari Jaguar chronology has popped up (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/u/0/d/1IW3M4k-nDqN-HubfNkLdU8PYkKvgd0UpD80fbtTH_QA/edit?pli=1#gid=0) by user Pimpeaux (https://twitter.com/Pimpeaux/status/1719357455128236444). I took a look at the list and it seems pretty well researched (IMO). However, one thing that grabbed my attention was the constant use of the rec.games.video usenet Atari group, which i don't know how that is seen here on Wikipedia. I revamped the list of Jaguar games at the start of October (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Atari_Jaguar_games&oldid=1177995450) and it took me a while to find those sources with the release dates listed. I would use the spreadsheet more as a guide rather than the de facto source but i don't know. What do you guys think about this? Roberth Martinez (talk) 21:22, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

A usenet group is WP:USERG I would think? -- ferret (talk) 22:17, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
Nobody can keep you from using anything as a personal resource - you're free to get "ideas" or "leads on information" from wherever. But as ferret notes, it'd fail USERG as an actual source. Sergecross73 msg me 22:35, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
@Ferret and Sergecross73: I also wanted to ask you guys an idea i have for the Atari Jaguar list (and sorry for the somewhat late reply!): since the list for Atari Jaguar CD games just encapsulates 13 games, i was thinking of merging it with the titles on the main list but i also had an idea of making it a separate list within the main Jaguar game list page. Does it sound like a good idea or do you guys have potential suggestions? Roberth Martinez (talk) 00:11, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
I like the idea of it being a separate section at the main Jaguar list, if that's what you're saying. Sergecross73 msg me 02:52, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
@Sergecross73: Pretty much, yeah! Roberth Martinez (talk) 03:24, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

New site from former Kotaku writers

Latest comment: 5 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Aftermath is a new site from four former Kotaku writers under their control. [1]. Content looks potentially useful for article but probably give it time before using. Masem (t) 14:56, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. It'll be a good one to keep an eye on. Judging by their introductory article, on one hand, there's a lot of credentials to writing at other RSs. On the other hand, we'll have to see how they handle their "interest in freelancers" too, make sure it doesn't just turn into a user blog platform. Sergecross73 msg me 15:03, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

The Escapist and Zero Punctuation

Latest comment: 5 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The Escapist has imploded again with the entire video team either being fired or quitting. [2] Yahtzee Croshaw of Zero Punctuation is leaving too, so the site might be dead for real this time. I see escapist references occasionally in articles (usually Yahtzee's work) so if any bot wranglers want to archive anything worth archiving, now is probably the time to do so, just in case. Meanwhile, the former escapist team seems to be launching their own independent site/channel, so keep an eye out for Yahtzee producing new episodes of not zero punctuation on not the escapist. I was going to ask if Yahtzee keeps his "reliable" status at whatever this new outlet is, but per Masem's post above, it sounds like they would still need to be evaluated as a new source, regardless of the reputation of the existing contributors. CurlyWi (talk) 16:26, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that's correct. Escapist and Yahtzee are on the fringe of usability as it is, so any future output would certainly require a new evaluation. Sergecross73 msg me 16:35, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Geoff Keighley's Behind the Games

Latest comment: 5 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Behind the Games was Geoff Keighley's series of long-form articles on GameSpot. I found this in my notes and wasn't sure where to put it, so I'll list it here. The topics covered are:

It's truly a shame GameSpot has wiped these, and its many other feature ariticles, from its website. IceWelder [✉] 20:06, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Infobox platform control for VR games

Latest comment: 5 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

With so many VR headsets out there, and the amount of games that support each, I feel that the platforms parameter of affected infoboxes could become overloaded with the different headsets that support it. A prime example of this inevitable overload is VRChat, an article where editors constantly update the infobox with new supported headsets. Is there a way, where necessary, we can condense this parameter into a more generalized term for the VR space? Jalen Folf (talk) 01:27, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

For VR games we generally try to use the platform it launches from (Windows for the most part), rather than the headset brand. Masem (t) 20:18, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Time for a fresh coat of paint on our article box arts?

Latest comment: 5 months ago7 comments4 people in discussion

This is something I've been poking at off and on, but project wide we do have a large number of video game articles with box art that's honestly not aged well:

  • Many are in JPEG format, which scales terribly as is and leaves artifacts. Even if the original is based off a JPEG scan, scaling it down as one for fair use purposes tends to compound just how unclear things can look
  • Many are far smaller than current fair use standards will allow. Heck some are smaller than even Fair Use standards at the time would have been okay with.
  • As time has gone on, scanners have gotten better and we have better resources to draw covers from.

So an idea was to possibly take a particular platform, and start going through and systematically tidying up any old arts that could use better counterparts. Upload them in PNG, let the bot do the resize, and help a lot of older articles maybe look a little better in the process. What do you guys think? Is it worth possibly sitting down as a project and coordinating? Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:12, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

We still have hundreds of articles that require box art and almost 10,000 that need screenshots, so I think the priority should be on adding that before going back and tidying up older ones. It's a good thing to do if the article is being improved but... I feel like the insane screenshot backlog takes priority. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:34, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
Er, our non-free policy limits non-free art to 0.1MP, which is what nearly all of our cover art is set to. That cannot change without a change in policy.
And while we can talk about moving from JPG to PNG, remember that JPG can be better for art that is closer to photo-realistic due to how it compresses info. Masem (t) 03:01, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
Where is this "JPEG scales terribly" idea coming from? That's not true at all. The artifacts are just from the overly strict resolution rules rather than the format itself. PNG is a fine format too, to be clear, but if you think you can determine whether a particular bit of box art is a JPEG or a PNG at a glance, I doubt you would do better than 50/50 at some sort of Pepsi challenge of guessing whether an unknown image is a PNG or a JPEG. Anyway, if there's poor quality scans or under-min resolution scans to update, sure, but merely switching image formats is probably not worth anyone's time. (Especially if you just take a JPEG and convert it to a PNG.) SnowFire (talk) 08:07, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
Okay well it seemed like a good thing to get everyone working on a tangible goal so we could give things a shot in the arm but clearly a bad idea, nevermind.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 08:12, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
I do think that there is the germ of a good idea here - if we ever look into updating our max resolution without need for a non-free no-reduce tag, then that increase will provide an appreciable improvement (and be good for accessibility!). 0.2 or 0.3 megapixel images will look better no matter what format they're in. But I think we need to look into the potential policy update first, and a hypothetical image refresh only later. I have a half-written proposal from a year+ ago on the topic that our current image resolution limit only makes sense for such narrow and rare use cases that we should really change the default; maybe worth digging up again. SnowFire (talk) 09:09, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
I feel like if that was going to go through we'd need to get more projects on board with it. I agree it would be nicer, but I feel there's going to be an argument for necessity depending on how some projects are so expect that to come up.
As for the idea it was a matter of looking through some old articles I wrote and realizing we still had images from 2005 in stuff like Game Boy covers. And honestly it felt like such a small thing to try and coordinate with folks on to give things a shot in the arm because realistically things have slowed down, while this is something anyone with a decent eye could contribute to. But yeah message received, forget I mentioned it.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 09:59, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

About the Koei Tecmo article

Latest comment: 5 months ago5 comments3 people in discussion

So, I wanted to bring this up. But the article Koei Tecmo is almost exclusively about Koei Tecmo Games, not Koei Tecmo Holdings. despite being titled as such. But it just... mixes and matches information from both companies. Including, relatively, "false" information on location, stock exchange, subsidiaries, etc Some of the information is outdated as well.

In Japanese these are two separate articles Koei Tecmo Holdings and Koei Tecmo Games. It's worth noting, Koei, as a corp, was just renamed into Koei Tecmo Games upon fusion with Tecmo, while Holdings was an entirely new corporate entity. This is reflected in their IR page. KT Games only includes the, well, games. Not KT's other businesses which are listed as well.

Should something be done about this or just leave it as is. I'd be up in "splitting" or creating a separate article for the two.  ►Kyo  ►Talk  18:16, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

I've noticed that KT doesn't have much on the way of experienced editors regularly editing/maintaining it. (Nothing against them, I've noticed that sometimes that just randomly happens in both video games and music areas I edit in.) So I'm guessing this was just a result of negligence, and you're probably free to fix it as you please (within the usual confines of sticking to what sources say, etc.) Sergecross73 msg me 19:02, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
This kind of mixing has happened before at Square Enix as well- like KT, Square Enix is actually since 2008 a holding company that then has a bunch of confusingly-named subsidiaries in different countries, and the article wasn't clear when it was talking about the holding company or the Japanese subsidiary that contains all of the actual notable work. Sorting that out isn't trivial. That said, keep in mind that readers really don't care one bit about the holding company, or the precise regulatory/financial arrangements made within. It's true that KT Games is a subsidiary of KT Holdings, but it's also true that KT Holdings does nothing of note and just exists as a shell around KT Games and its sister companies for legal/financial reasons. So, while I agree that you should go ahead and fix up the article however you see fit, I'd recommend not spinning off an article on the Holdings company, and instead just focusing the article on KT Games while making it clear that the parent holdings company is the one with the stock, and the other studios are siblings of KT Games, not subsidiaries. --PresN 23:51, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
I agree this is probably a better approach too. Sergecross73 msg me 23:56, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
yeah, I suppose this makes sense for cleaning up the article.  ►Kyo  ►Talk  00:47, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Refideas edit notice

Latest comment: 5 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello! :) I would like to make a notice here that as of this week, if an editor clicks "edit" on any article that uses the Refideas template on its talk page, they will see an editnotice above the editing window indicating that there are sources on the talk page that are not currently in use in the article. This would be especially useful for anyone with an active interest in improving that article, and it would also be useful in helping gauge the notability of an article. :) BOZ (talk) 15:32, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Date format at Nintendo article

Latest comment: 5 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
  FYI
 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Talk:Nintendo#Date format.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:43, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Graphic adventure game lead

Latest comment: 5 months ago10 comments5 people in discussion

Hi, is it reasonable to leave out the "graphic" in the leads for graphic adventure games. I feel it would be more concise, especially when they are episodic adventure games, and it may be assumed that not to be text for modern games. Asked specifically for Life Is Strange (video game). (If a prefix is needed, I would go with narrative adventure or similar) By the way, I'm wondering if listing publication awards like Top 20 games becomes excessive here. (cc @Nyxaros:) IgelRM (talk) 11:03, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Since graphic adventure games are part of adventure games, I don't see any reason why they shouldn't be used. It's more specific and defining than a general term. Why would the sources and statements about publishers choosing game of the year or any related content be excessive? While we are on the subject, it would be better if you convert these expressions to prose after removing them from the award lists instead of deleting them completely. ภץאคгöร 11:17, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
Also, do not remove multiple reliable references without giving a valid reason. ภץאคгöร 11:24, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
Simply "adventure game" is usually used, with "graphic adventure game" being somewhat redundant, at least when talking about video games. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:23, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
Adventure games have predominantly been graphic for the past forty years. A text adventure in the 2010s is an exception; complex graphics can typically be assumed unless specified otherwise. "Graphic adventure game" is probably a more reasonable label in the 1980s. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 12:22, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
I would agree with these - today "adventure game" is generally meant as a graphic adventure game, and we only need to distinguish when talking text adventure games, or the early establishing graphic adventure game titles like Mystery House or King's Quest. Masem (t) 13:28, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
"Narrative adventure" is placed under "graphic adventure" so it may be used instead (but the only source on the page describes it as "narrative games – specifically choice-driven interactive fiction"). ภץאคгöร 13:45, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
My edit summary said "Please list publications instead of combining with EFN." The "Attributed to multiple references" style is not helpful for readers and I did not see what the references were bringing to the article. We would have to see which sources may be integrated into prose and aren't passing mentions.
Edit: On the top 10 lists, they are generally low notability; if I reasoning is given, I would move it to the reception paragraphs.IgelRM (talk) 09:29, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
This is not the same topic but anyway. Template:Efn is perfectly fine to use and it is clear what the sources are bringing to the article, in addition to stating that they include the exceptional claim. I don't know how lists are "generally low notability" and how you came to that conclusion. It seems to me these are your personal opinions/preferences. ภץאคгöร 16:43, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
I was replying to "remove multiple reliable references", I think we got confused here. I cannot imagine the style is preferred but I realize I'm not the best source here. I have not seen it used recently. I would also disagree that citing listings are mentions for acclaim is preferable. IgelRM (talk) 14:48, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Reference Library rework

Latest comment: 5 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I have completed the first phase of rebuilding the Reference Library. I have more work planned, but I wanted to notify the project that this rebuilding is underway. Feel free to help if you want.

The goals of the restructure are as follows:

  1. Shift the focus from editor-owned materials to online archives. Many of the editors who listed themselves as contacts for magazines or books are no longer active. It was a good idea in the beginning, but it's showing itself to not be sustainable. I don't see many editors taking advantage of this anyways. There are also many more scans available now than when the library started, and most of us use archival websites anyways, so that should be the focus.
  2. List more material: Magazines were only listed before if editors owned them. I'm slowly adding more magazines that are available elsewhere online. I've also added a section for television shows, and the books list will be expanded in the future.
  3. Simplify navigation: There were too many links before and they were poorly organized. Links to magazine archives were hidden in subpages and poorly formatted. Now, links to archive sites and indices are presented up front in an organized table.

TarkusABtalk/contrib 23:20, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for doing this! Axem Titanium (talk) 23:44, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

New Articles (November 6 to November 12)

Latest comment: 5 months ago3 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 v3.16 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 14:49, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

November 6

November 7

November 8

November 9

November 10

  • Hmmmm...so "JSpock" created "Jeff Spock"... Sergecross73 msg me 15:29, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
From User:Jspock, "Create own page". ohmygodheadmitit!.gif Axem Titanium (talk) 23:46, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

November 11

November 12

New Articles (November 13 to November 19)

Latest comment: 5 months ago4 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 v3.16 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 02:22, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

November 13

November 14

November 15

November 16

November 17

November 18

November 19

Help with finding a source for a release date

Latest comment: 5 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Apologies again for the random question. Does anyone have any general advice on finding an appropriate citation to support a game's release date? I am currently rewriting the article on Buffy the Vampire Slayer: Wrath of the Darkhul King. I had initially used CNET as the citation for this information, but that does not seem appropriate given the consensus here. To further add to my confusion, IGN has a different date listed on their profile of the game (here), but I am not sure where that information is being pulled from or if it is user-generated or added by IGN itself. Apologies if this has a really obvious answer. I believe that I have exhausted all the resources on this game, and I could not find one that explicitly says the release date so I am just a little lost here. Thank you in advance for any help! Aoba47 (talk) 03:32, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi. I found sources giving June 26 for NA and June 27 for EU. Regards, IceWelder [✉] 04:55, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for the help! Aoba47 (talk) 11:17, 23 November 2023 (UTC)


FAR for Digital media use and mental health

Latest comment: 5 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have nominated Digital media use and mental health for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:07, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Maestro2016/Jagged 85 video game related edited articles

Latest comment: 5 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi all. I've been trying to remove content added by User:Maestro2016 for a while now. Would love if someone would give me a hand and look into these gaming-related articles

Game related articles that need to be checked:

Arcade video game
Battle royale game
1998 in video games
1995 in video games
1992 in video games
2000 in video games
1993 in video games
2001 in video games
1997 in video games
2002 in video games
1994 in video games
Timur9008 (talk) 16:02, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

I can if u want DieCrewls22 21:25, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

New Articles (November 20 to November 26)

Latest comment: 5 months ago1 comment1 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 v3.16 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 14:27, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

November 20

November 21

November 22

November 23

November 24

November 25

November 26

Chrono Cross

Latest comment: 5 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

So for those unaware, Chrono Cross recently went through a FAR, and lost it's Featured status. However it's also part of a larger Good Topic on the series. If it doesn't hit Good Article status within the next few months, the topic itself will come under fire and may be removed. While I'm not saying everyone drop everything and try to fix it up, there are at least cited issues that can be addressed slowly that we can try to get it back up there, if anyone else is willing to help. Kung Fu Man (talk) 08:18, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

  • Might as well crosspost what I said a couple days ago on discord, just some summarizing of the issues:
some of the issues highlighted in Wikipedia:Featured article review/Chrono Cross/archive1 seem remarkably solvable. a lot of citation formatting and parameter-filling. a few files with iffy FURs. a handful of borderline sources needing better justification.
however there are some major prose issues to address too: gameplay isn't all properly supported to sources, characters / synopsis too hefty and almost only cited to game text, reception needs major expanding, legacy is disorganized. and "extreme overquoting" throughout. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 17:30, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Acclaim Studios Austin#Requested move 18 November 2023

Latest comment: 5 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Acclaim Studios Austin#Requested move 18 November 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 18:49, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Ongoing peer review of Hogwarts Legacy

Latest comment: 5 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hello! I made a peer review request for Hogwarts Legacy about three weeks ago. Currently, there is one user providing some input on the article's state, and I would welcome other people to join: Wikipedia:Peer review/Hogwarts Legacy/archive1 Vestigium Leonis (talk) 09:26, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

I will try and take a look next week. If you ping me if I forget, that will be helpful. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:13, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
@David Fuchs Ping for this, also got a bit busy. Will have time to continue working on it next week as well. Vestigium Leonis (talk) 12:53, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Reception section question

Latest comment: 5 months ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Hi, got something to raise. I stumbled on the article for Tomb Raider: The Last Revelation recently, and discovered that the editor Angeldeb82 had expanded its reception section. This isn't inherently an issue, but the way it's been expanded seems clunky and unwieldy. I didn't want to just revert it, as since I brought the article up to GA I'm not a neutral party, but extra input on this is definitely required as I'm finding it borderline unreadable now. ProtoDrake (talk) 12:05, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I'll be the bad guy and revert here. It's become a quote farm—25 new quotes, where there were none before—with very few adding anything of substance. There are some seemingly useful references in here (which I'll add to the talk page) but there are more effective methods of adding them. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 13:27, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Endorsed. Theres a few editors who go around doing this. It's welcome when it's a tiny stub in danger of deletion or being merged, but not particularly helpful when wedging it into an already fully developed B/GA/FA level article. Sergecross73 msg me 14:52, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Kotaku now a situational source

Latest comment: 4 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This is big enough that it should be brought up here, so editors who don't watch/participate at WT:VG/S are aware. Kotaku has begun publishing AI-written articles without marking them as such, and as a result has been reassessed from reliable to situational at WP:VG/S. The current notes and limitations are as follows:

News posts from Kotaku between 2010 and 2022 are considered reliable, although editors are cautioned of blog/geeky posts that have little news or reporting significance (such as [3]). Articles published before 2010 had comparatively weaker editorial standards, while articles published from 2023 onward should generally be avoided due to content farming concerns and unmarked AI-written content. It should be noted that this is not a definitive cut-off—editorial deterioration is gradual, and editors have noted instances of low-quality reporting in preceding years—so articles should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

The discussion that led to this can be found here. JOEBRO64 22:39, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Magazine list

Latest comment: 4 months ago4 comments4 people in discussion

The Reference Library magazine list has been updated. There's more work that could be done but I was getting exhausted of adding magazines and most of the major publications are listed anyways. Feel free to add more magazines and links. TarkusABtalk/contrib 17:07, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Excellent work; this looks like a great resource for older sources. Phediuk (talk) 13:13, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
Good work. This should come in handy. Timur9008 (talk) 18:16, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
@TarkusAB: Thanks for your herculean effort! I really mean it :) I'll help you filling the library by finding more vintage or retro gaming magazines i might come across :D Take a rest, you deserve it! Roberth Martinez (talk) 22:48, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

New Articles (November 27 to December 3)

Latest comment: 4 months ago1 comment1 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 v3.16 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 16:49, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

November 27

November 28

  • None

November 29

November 30

December 1

December 2

December 3

  • None

Hill Agency: PURITYdecay

Latest comment: 4 months ago11 comments3 people in discussion

Could someone from this WikiProject take a look at Hill Agency: PURITYdecay and assess per WP:NVIDEOGAME? it was just moved to the mainspace by it's creator from their userpage, which means it never got assessed for Wikipedia notability via WP:AFC. The creator is student editor in Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/Texas_Christian_University/Technological_Dystopias_(Fall2023); so, they might not be too familiar with notability guidelines related to video games. The article actually doesn't look too bad at first glance and may only be in need of some minor cleanup, but I too am not very familiar with the notability guidelines for videopgames and how they are typically applied. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:46, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

The prose is decent for a newbie...but the sourcing is pretty rough, and it has zero professional reviews on Metacritic. Not saying it's not notable yet...but there are some bad signs. Sergecross73 msg me 02:50, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
It might be a good idea then to let the WikiEd advisor(s) assigned to this student's course know about it then. If the current soucing is not sufficient to survive an AfD, then maybe it's better to WP:DRAFTIFY the article so that they student doesn't lose their work. At the same time, if the student is being graded on their work, others stepping in a further improving the article might also not be the best thing for the student. I'll add a {{Please see}} to the WikiEd advisor's user talk page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:06, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping @Marchjuly. My two-cents is to treat this as you would any other submission. If there's some hope for it and can be improved upon with reliable sources, then I think it's worth giving that chance with WP:DRAFTIFY or tagging with Template:Notability. I'll let the editors know about this convo and encourage them to work on it. Brianda (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:55, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
I would classify it as "in danger" of an AFD nom, but also potentially salvageable too. Some of the sources are iffy, but the awards it's received could help. My two cents - give it a "ref improve" tag and see if anyone can improve it. Sergecross73 msg me 19:15, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
Tagging it with a maintenance template (e.g. {{More citations needed}}) seems reasonable for the moment per Sergecross73's suggestion above. Some questions for Brianda (Wiki Ed) though. Does this Wiki ED course class instructor and their students understand WP:OWN? Do they realize that once one of their students moves something into the mainspace it's there for anyone and everyone to edit? Are they differentiating between the contributions of their students and contributions made by others when it comes to grading their students? -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:06, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
I've always wondered about that last question. Am I hurting their grades when I revert their their misguided work? Or unfairly helping them out if I rewrite/expand it? Just curious. Sergecross73 msg me 01:12, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
Good questions @Marchjuly, @Sergecross73 . We make it clear in our trainings and in our conversations with instructors that any content added to Wikipedia needs to follow WP:GP, and if it doesn't, then editors might comment on, edit, revert, etc, and that's ok and that's how Wikipedia works. Short answer, no, you are not hurting their grades or unfairly helping them. If anything, you are helping them see how the process of knowledge creation works on Wikipedia, how it's community based and how these guidelines are actually enforced. I think when students (first-time editors) experience this, it helps dispel the myth that anyone can do whatever they want on Wikipedia, and helps build trust towards the platform. If you are curious about the grading aspect, you can check out this link, that has other links, that go into depth about the different ways instructors can grade an assignment.
With that said, if you come across work that isn't following WP:GP, feel free to ping me! I can't be everywhere all at once, but I try my best to get into contact with the instructors and students asap, to address the concerns raised. Brianda (Wiki Ed) (talk) 23:11, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
Thank you Brianda (Wiki Ed) for the explanation, I appreciate it. One other question...I assume you meant to link to something different than WP:GP? That appears to link to "Gadget Proposals". Sergecross73 msg me 23:37, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
Oh no. I meant WP:PG. Sorry about that. Brianda (Wiki Ed) (talk) 23:42, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
No worries. Thanks again. Happy to get answers for things I wondered about but never took the time to figure out before. Sergecross73 msg me 23:49, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Opinion pieces are always reliable, regardless of source?

Latest comment: 4 months ago16 comments7 people in discussion

User:Kung Fu Man has reverted the removal of a Comic Book Resources source from Larry (Pokémon) stating that "this is an opinion piece". Consensus says that post 2016, the site is unreliable. I had assumed that unreliable source meant it was not usable in any case, but am I incorrect in thinking this? And would this even qualify as an opinion article? The title certainly does not allude to it being an opinion. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:52, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

That wasn't what I was saying Zx, and I already brought up a discussion on WP:VG/S that I feel that judgement was made in haste and furthermore makes no sense compared to the others. I would suggest continuing the discussion there so it's not spread out.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:56, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
I'm not sure where the "made in haste" part was? CBR has been caught using AI to write articles and fired most if not all of their editors. An array of users all agreed that it was unreliable and there isn't much wiggle room in this determination. The fact is that there is no way to prove a CBR article was or wasn't made with AI. The Larry article certainly exhibits some hallmarks of it, like overly exaggerating writing that claims he is an "exquisite commentary" without saying much about how it is so exquisite. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:01, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
If I may ask, why is the range from 2016-present? I understand the Valnet purchase made CBR's content lower quality, hence the situational-ness, but the AI thing seems to be a fairly recent change? I don't see why the announcement of AI made articles in August of this year would affect the past seven years, especially since AI making articles in and of itself is a fairly recent thing. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 06:54, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
"The fact is that there is no way to prove a CBR article was or wasn't made with AI. The Larry article certainly exhibits some hallmarks of it,"
The AI usage accusation came out mid this year, that article was written in December 2022. I will add too, apparently they did comment on the AI-usage accusation and stated they had no potential plans to. No offense man I get not wanting to possibly use AI articles, but claiming that one is such a reach so hard I fear you may have destroyed your shoulder.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 07:50, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
Ironically, the same article says that employees are expected to write more than 10 articles a day. While they might not be overtly using it, it's still very much a possibility that employees are covertly using it to let them meet the quota. More than 10 articles a day is just impossible unless they do almost no research and heavily compromise on quality and provides a very strong incentive to stick them into GPT-4 given they are freelance workers. It may not be true but I also don't think it's an extreme reach like you say. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:55, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
Zx, I'll give you the content mill aspect is terrible. And as I stated, them firing 3/4 of their workforce is enough to say they shouldn't be counted as unreliable from that point. But when you have a source from the horse's mouth saying "it's not happening" and you assume it is, nevermind the fact it's from a point before the whole "AI article" BS even went into full swing, you're basically doing original research.
At worst in this case I feel the Larry article should flesh out that source. But I don't see that article as any worse than those from the other sites, let alone stuff like GamesRadar, IGN or GameInformer have cranked out.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:15, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
I would agree with Zx here. CBR uses AI now, they can't be trusted. QuicoleJR (talk) 02:15, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
And I agree, but that's a change that went down *this year*, as did the mass firings. There's still the issue of 2016 to that point.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 07:42, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
Obviously, a change that happened after a piece was published does not affect its reliability (re: AI). Also, VG is not the only project to assess sources. Quote from WP:A&M/RS: "Comic Book Resources: From 2016 to mid-2023, Comic Book Resources is generally considered to be fine for attributed opinions and columns ...". Charcoal feather (talk) 18:53, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

I imagine ValNet's purchase of Comic Book Resources and the content-mill it is today is what excludes it from being a reliable source, not specifically the AI-written articles. If anything, using AI generation is a symptom of an unreliable source; it would've already had poor editorial standards beforehand. I don't know the evolution of its editorial policy and staff well enough to say a specific date when the publication became unusable... ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 18:21, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

On a related note, given the glut of AfDs for Pokemon character and monster articles on the basis of notability, is the sourcing in a good state? I'm not looking to endanger the article at all, but I've been a little confused about where the line for character articles should be drawn given how many AfDs for far larger Pokemon articles there have been. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 09:58, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
I'm afraid that, because of the status of Comic Book Resources, Kotaku, and Screen Rant, this would be best off merged back into the List of Pokémon characters. Three or four citations when there's an overarching list to cover the subject, typically means the subject can be described in enough detail in said list. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 13:45, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
@Vrxces: The main problem is there's SIGCOV but not a lot to say about the character itself in the body of the work yet. It's a reverse of some Pokemon articles . (i.e. Snorlax, who survived a recent AfD because he was "too iconic" but honestly is light on actual reception).--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:17, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, it's an interesting contrast to the usual situation. I've really noticed a purge of character articles recently, which seem to have a more subjective, amorphous approach to notability, so it's been a little confusing to watch. Fortunately, accepting that I'm a bit confused about it has definitely nipped my deletionist streak in the bud! ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 01:19, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
Larry is fine as an article in terms of sourcing right now. I'm not exactly hailing those sources as always being reliable (They're situational for a reason) but the three you've listed all contain significant commentary on Larry, which means they are all viable sources in this instance. Ruling out sources solely because they're situational isn't exactly a great way to class a character's coverage, especially since the coverage, all put together, is more than enough for a separate article, in my view. Several sources all discussing the character in depth with no real "filler" sources is better than a lot of articles that have been merged in the past, such as Pichu. (Who really didn't have much significant discussion to Larry's extent by comparison) The only reason it's such a small article right now is really because Larry is such a recent character, and thus has only made the one appearance as of now. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 03:37, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

New Articles (December 4 to December 10)

Latest comment: 4 months ago2 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 v3.16 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 01:53, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

December 4

December 5

December 6

December 7

December 9

December 10

  • I removed the VG project banner from List of K-On! characters. It's strictly about the anime characters, and any game relation seems to be due to the licensed works in the original article (video games aren't even mentioned in that list).--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:08, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

List of role-playing video games: 2022 to 2023

Latest comment: 4 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The redirect List of role-playing video games: 2022 to 2023 was previously deleted because of WP:TOOSOON. As that seems no longer applicable, I re-created the page as a stub list. It would help if the table could be further populated. Thank you. Praemonitus (talk) 17:27, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

VGHF will be providing an online digital gaming resource library soon

Latest comment: 4 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Preview of its features Masem (t) 01:12, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Pre-FAC peer review of Hotline Miami 2: Wrong Number

Latest comment: 4 months ago2 comments1 person in discussion

For the past while (basically since I have joined Wikipedia), I have been working on improving Hotline Miami 2: Wrong Number as much as possible, getting it through GAN back in October, and I plan to nominate it for FAC some time in January. This will be my first time nominating something for FAC and due to this, I have opened up a pre-FAC peer review for the article, which has gone nearly a month without any responses. If anyone could take a look at it that would be great, and I'm willing to exchange reviews as well. NegativeMP1 22:49, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

The peer review is now closed. NegativeMP1 03:10, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Viability of a Category:Fan translated video games

Latest comment: 4 months ago7 comments6 people in discussion

I noticed that such a category was deleted back in 2007, but only had small participation in the discussion. I for one think that a video game having a fan translation is defining, as there are many games that are only widely known in the West due to this, like Mother 3. When speaking about such games, the fan translation is front and center. I'd like people's opinions on whether it would be viable or not though. It would preferably only contain games whose translations were specifically mentioned in reliable sources. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:19, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

You'd need to consider whether or not to include re-translations (games officially localized but fans don't like the translation so released their own), or incomplete translations. TarkusABtalk/contrib 01:10, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
I don't have issues with the category being re-made once again. I'll also add to what Tarkus said as well, by citing what happened with X for the Game Boy; an English fan translation appeared the very same day the unreleased official English localization (Lunar Chase) was leaked in 2020. Roberth Martinez (talk) 01:22, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
A category like this will be fine, as long as -- as you suggest -- each entry has a RS that has reported on the translation. Phediuk (talk) 01:35, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
This is a tricky one. You get games like Final Fantasy V which has been in English for over 20 years now, but still have very notable fan translations. On the other hand something like Tobal 2 most people probably have forgotten these days and its notability was in its hayday well before any fan translation came about. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 05:58, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

The Fidelity Ultimate Chess Challenge

Latest comment: 4 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Firstly an IP removes content without explaining why, then the 3rd time says it's redundant, I simply don't get why it's redundant, the article is pretty limited as it is, so why remove content prose that helps buff it up a bit?? I really don't get the editing and view it simply as disruptive, can anyone else explain this?? Govvy (talk) 15:37, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm not quite certain what the IP was intending to say, but direct quotes of that length are considered a copyvio. You should paraphrase reviewers' thoughts and keep direct quotes as short as you can to convey the message. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:58, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

NES game list needing help

Latest comment: 4 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I unfortunately don't have the spoons right now. Over the last 3-4 months, since the Famicom list merger at least, a rash of unsourced additions to List of Nintendo Entertainment System games have been made. The entire thing needs someone willing to cull all the unsourced non-notable entries. -- ferret (talk) 21:30, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Here are a few good sources for NES game lists: The NES Encyclopedia, and Classic Home Video Games 1985-1988: A Reference Guide. Andre🚐 21:44, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Limit for "Review scores" table

Latest comment: 4 months ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Hello again. I have a quick question about the video game reviews template. Is there a limit to how many reviews that should used for the table? I am still working on Buffy the Vampire Slayer: Wrath of the Darkhul King, and during the peer review, a reviewer said that they were advised not to add more than 10 reviews to the score tables on album articles in the past. Is there a similar thing for video game articles? Apologies if this has already been discussed and answered before. Thank you in advance for any help! Aoba47 (talk) 16:21, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, the documentation doesn't have a specific number but pushes that it should be kept pretty limited. It's not meant to be a catalog of every RS review, but a sampling of major representative opinions. I personally go for about 7, and would definitely say that 10 should be the max. --PresN 16:48, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
Every review listed in the table should also be addressed in the reception, otherwise its just filling the table with unnecessary info. That's generally why 7 to 10 is the suggested limit. Masem (t) 16:54, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for the responses. That makes sense to me. I agree with both of your lines of reasoning as having a limit would help the readers and keep the table more precise and less filled with fluff. I will work on that part of the article later today. Aoba47 (talk) 17:23, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Hedgewars, again

Latest comment: 4 months ago6 comments6 people in discussion

Hedgewars is a free and open-source turn-based tactical artillery game and Worms clone. On this site, it was deleted in 2009 and 2014, after which it was WP:SALTed. However, to bypass the restriction, the article reappeared as "Hedgewars (video game)", and it was deleted again in 2022, though not salted. In each of these discussions, the rationale behind the result was failure to establish notablility, although the last discussion saw the hardest evidence in favor of it. This discussion presents an even stronger case for it, with some sources the same as those presented there, and with these sources, either Hedgewars meets the notability requirements by a small margin, or I am beginning to learn what exactly that line is.

To minimize the possibility of reviews being solicited, I left out those by websites such as Softpedia. I also only considered substantial reviews, rather than those like one by Linux For You, so I was left with six reviews. Two come from Gry-Online and PC Guru. Both are considered high-quality sources, one according to WP:VG/RS and the other probably so. Two further sources are Linux-oriented, LinuxEXPRES and EasyLinux (via LinuxCommunity). The last two sources are notably mainstream: iDNEZ.cz, a major Czech website, and Republica, a Spanish news website, although curiously, the latter's article is dated about a year and a half before the site was launched. I am not sure what is with that. It could be that it originated on a different publication before its contents were merged into this one.

Hedgewars also received news coverage. They include these two Czech websites, but I prefer articles with significant coverage, so I am limited to three articles. One comes from Komputer Świat, of moderate length. The other two are by Root.cz, which is a little longer, and LinuxCommunity, the most comprehensive article I could find on the Web. There are of course minor news articles, like this one concerning an iPhone port. There are also various articles in the format of "best x games" or "top n x games", the best of which seems to be "the 10 best free software games" by Linux Voice, although I am concerned that it may be undue since, coming from a Linux magazine, it is possibly intended to be a list of "the 10 best free software Linux games".

Of all the high-quality, substantial articles and reviews that attempted to demonstrate Hedgewars's notability, I could uncover a total of nine sources, all unique. That is a lot of sources for an FOSS title, one that has no hope of surpassing Worms in popularity, at least in the near future. The coverage has definitely improved since the 2009 deletion, and with it serving as the most comprehensive evidence for notability to date, this discussion should serve as the most well-informed debate and there as the final verdict on the game's notability, with the possibility of future significant coverage. I am on the fence on this subject, but assuming all the nine said sources can be used, I am inclined to believing that the secondary coverage pulls it into notable territory necessary for an article on Wikipedia. I remember reading nearly a decade ago about the developers chiding Wikipedia for deleting the article twice. They may chide us again should we not find for its notability, but I would not be personally offended. Any conflict-of-interest issues can be handled with in case we do. FreeMediaKid$ 21:46, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Impressive job finding sources, I think the article meets WP:GNG. You should nominate the page at Wikipedia:Deletion review. --Mika1h (talk) 23:51, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
I would also support putting it at Deletion review in order to potentially overturn the deletion with these sources. The fact that most of its coverage was in a different language probably tripped people up. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:36, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
Also, maybe before hitting up DR, you could create a draft version with the new sources. Masem (t) 13:05, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
Seconding this. People have a much better time envisioning the article when they can just see what it would look like and not have to envision. Axem Titanium (talk) 01:18, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
In any way, it should be possible to mention it as a notable Worms clone. IgelRM (talk) 02:04, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Note on Insomniac data breach

Latest comment: 4 months ago7 comments5 people in discussion

A hacker group has released tons of information they stole from Insomniac after Insomniac refused to pay their ransom. Some of this appears to include sales data for many.Dony first party games since the PS2 era. However I would strongly urge we not include any of this info unless it has been "satitized" through a reliable source. Masem (t) 22:20, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

It's already been added to several "Best-selling" lists and List of most expensive video games to develop, mostly through secondary sources though such as Gamingbolt. -- ferret (talk) 22:22, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
One of the entries is for an unannounced game, which I think we should not be including, per WP:CRYSTAL (that until its actually announced, plans for its release could change). Masem (t) 04:30, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
I don't think it qualifies as WP:CRYSTAL if it's simply reliable sources listing it as a planned game. Just any speculation about it that isn't in the sources. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:46, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
I think we just need the proper context. It shouldn't be added as fact, but as "From the leak, as reported by Eurogamer, (video game) was reported to be in development". Or something to that capacity. Sergecross73 msg me 14:27, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
Dev houses make plans for future games all the time but which never come to light. Until there is a clear public announcement that they have a planned game (as with Riot Games or Remedy), we should treat internal planned games as potential ones but very much suspect to CRYSTAL. Masem (t) 15:04, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
I agree with Masem. Worst case if you want to preserve the info drafting may be a better route as if it doesn't get cancelled we'll likely see more in the next six months.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:21, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Mario Kart Wii "Ultra Shortcut(s)"

Latest comment: 4 months ago16 comments5 people in discussion

I used the custom Google search engine for reliable sources for video games WP:VG/LRS and I typed in "Mario Kart Wii Ultra Shortcut" and wasn't sure if the coverage in the sources that come up make this topic notable to be included on the Mario Kart Wii page or somewhere else on Wikipedia like a section on the Speedrunning page. Can someone please help me understand? I am super surprised it wasn't mentioned on Talk: Mario Kart Wii until I mentioned it. NintendoTTTEfan2005 (talk) 06:11, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Eurogamer, Polygon, Vice; It's true that Mario Kart Wii is becoming quite known as a game massively broken by speedrunners. Can definitely be worth a line or two in the Legacy section, though if you want to go further than that, I'd be interested in what you could compile and write on it :) ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 07:55, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
Ok, can definitely do that. Though the legacy section of MKW's page was removed a while ago. But perhaps in can be brought back. But I'd say that perhaps it should be called "Speedrunning presence", since that is the name for the section of the Mario Kart 64 page that talks about the speedrunning scene. NintendoTTTEfan2005 (talk) 08:00, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
That's probably a reasonable section header here. I wonder if there's sources talking about Mario Kart Wii speedrunning very broadly. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:41, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
Idk. I will have to check NintendoTTTEfan2005 (talk) 08:46, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
A section called 'speedrunning presence' doesn't seem the right choice to me and a 'legacy' section is often tricky. For legacy, try to see it as a lasting influence on other games. That a game can be buggy and be exploited in speedrunning isn't 'legacy'. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 09:40, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
I'm also of the mindset of thinking that a few sentences in the article would be fine, but a whole section or separate article would be a bit much... Sergecross73 msg me 14:24, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
Ok. Glad to have opinions about this from others. But where should the information go in the article?NintendoTTTEfan2005 (talk) 14:27, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
There's a Mario Kart 8#Fan response as part of its reception section that contains random odds and ends like modding and the "Luigi Death Stare". Maybe something like that? Sergecross73 msg me 14:51, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
Seems like that might work. But I am wondering if I should mention and/or link the YouTube video by Summoning Salt titled "Mario Kart Wii: History of the Ultra Shortcut", since the video titled "The Quest to beat Abney317" is referenced and linked directly in the section of the Mario Kart 64 page. NintendoTTTEfan2005 (talk) 15:00, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
No, I think the Mario Kart 64 section on speedrunning should be reworked, or deleted. It wasn't written according to reliable sources. Something I noticed earlier on the year - while Mario Kart 8 was very well written by a lot of experienced editors, there's a number of older entries that aren't particularly well written. For example, at the beginning of the year, I noticed Mario Kart 7 was in surprisingly bad shape. I cleaned it up some, but it's still not amazing. So don't assume other article are necessarily the way to do things either. Sergecross73 msg me 15:11, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
Oh I hate the framing of "fan response" when describing the mechanical intricacies of the (hobbyist) competitive scene. That doesn't feel right at all... ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 12:21, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
I don't really care what it's called, I just meant a subsection similar to as far as it placement. Sergecross73 msg me 13:06, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
I believe that Ultra Shortcut is brought to attention singlehandedly by Summoning Salt. The YouTube videos themselves are perhaps not eligible for a reliable source, but if they are comprehensive enough to be cited by other sources, the reliable sources could be used instead. MilkyDefer 08:36, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
Well, that video sourced via a vice article on the summoning Salt Wikipedia article, but the video isn't directly mentioned on that Wikipedia article. NintendoTTTEfan2005 (talk) 01:35, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
Which I am a little surprised by since it is the most viewed video on Salt's channel. NintendoTTTEfan2005 (talk) 01:36, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

TGA Game of the Year Award

Latest comment: 4 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Does the Game Award for Game of the Year count as a list or an article? — Davest3r08 >:) (talk) 16:53, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Since it's formatted as a table, a list. The similarly structured Academy Award for Best Actor is also considered a list. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 17:05, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Final Fantasy series/addition1

Latest comment: 4 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Right, it's happened. After finally getting Final Fantasy XVI to GA status, I've nominated it for addition to the FF series topic. This is just so there's an easy link for people to follow, as I'm still new to this. I've done my best to follow the instructions. ProtoDrake (talk) 21:33, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Reliable source question

Latest comment: 4 months ago7 comments4 people in discussion

I'm wondering if someone from this WikiProject can help find a reliable source to cite for Torahiko Tanaka#Video games. The content about the game was added by another user, but they didn't add a citation. I can find the game for sale on sites like Amazon, Yahoo! Shopping and the like, but I'm not sure if those are considered reliable sources for something like this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:04, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

@Marchjuly Are you aware of WP:VG/S and the Google Custom Search linked there? Just pointing it out if you aren't. The Metacritic page is at this link but not much help there. Developer/release date/etc on Metacritic is unreliable last I knew, as it came from GameFAQs previously. -- ferret (talk) 01:05, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for that information. I don't do much editing related to video games and didn't know about that link. I give it a look. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:08, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
Famitsu via Yahoo Japan. Does that help you? IgelRM (talk) 01:42, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
That's an entirely different modern-era game. Marchjuly is checking on a late 90s game. Whoops that site format is weird. I guess it does make a mention way down, but no real details but platform/release. -- ferret (talk) 01:45, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
It does mention that.
第1試合は、Nintendo Switch用ソフト『棋士・藤井聡太の将棋トレーニング』（先手）とプレイステーションで1999年に発売された『田中寅彦のウル寅流将棋 居飛車穴熊編』（後手）です。
Roughly translated as "The first round is between the Nintendo Switch software "棋士・藤井聡太の将棋トレーニング" and the PlayStation software released in 1999 "田中寅彦のウル寅流将棋 居飛車穴熊編".", it is really just a passing mention. MilkyDefer 03:46, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone who commented. I guess all that's needed it something to verify that the game existed, when it was released, and which company created it. All that information is essentially found on the game's packaging? Is it possible to cite the game's packaging in that case? Otherwise, perhaps a game website like the Famitsu one found by IgelRM should be sufficient, right? -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:41, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

List of Atari 2600 games cleanup input

Latest comment: 3 months ago7 comments5 people in discussion
Thanks all! Sergecross73 msg me 16:17, 6 January 2024 (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.

Fellow editor NakhlaMan woul like input on how to best cleanup this list. There's no dispute or opposing viewpoints per se, they just wanted input/consensus ahead of time since it'll likely be a large undertaking.

The article is currently split into 3 separate lists, essentially first party releases, third party releases, and homebrew games. How should cleanup be handled? Options include:

  1. Trimming out homebrew and combining the 1st/3rd party list.
  2. Combining all 3 into a single list.
  3. Do nothing - current layout is fine as is.
  4. Different approach - outline in comments

Input is appreciated! Thanks! Sergecross73 msg me 12:54, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

  • Option 1 - it's the standard approach to the "list of (console) games" lists. Sergecross73 msg me 12:55, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 1 makes the most sense. Sortable columns makes it easy to identity the first vs third party games. --Masem (t) 13:15, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 1 - It's best to relegate the homebrew games into their own list apart from the main 2600 game list. I am completely in favor of merging the 1st and 3rd party titles into one single, cohesive list. Roberth Martinez (talk) 00:43, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 1 - As Serge already noted, every other console game list does this. I also think the homebrew games should have some criteria of notability if they're gonna have their own list, but that's another discussion. Harryhenry1 (talk) 04:59, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 1 - I wouldn't object to merging the first and third party titles into a cohesive list. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:17, 27 December 2023 (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.

New Articles (December 11 to December 17)

Latest comment: 4 months ago7 comments5 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 v3.16 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 21:23, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

December 11

December 12

December 13

  • None

December 14

December 15

  • None

December 16

December 17

Have you considered using User:AAlertBot and User:AlexNewArtBot? There's an example of the output on Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy. Praemonitus (talk) 21:28, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
Fundamentally they're doing different things than this list. AlexNewArtBot checks for new page creations and tags them by "subject" based on what words are used in them. So you end up with both false positives and false negatives, and also don't get things like page moves out of draft space. This list, on the other hand, is articles that are new to the wikiproject, which is why it's based on the 1.0 bot output.
Also, posting this once a week means that people actually look at (some of) the articles in question. Most weeks get comments around the listed articles. The constant presence of AAlertBot, on the other hand, means that for a large project (like this one) the output just becomes background noise that people don't check regularly (though I find it super-helpful for smaller projects). --PresN 21:36, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
Has there not been another one of the 'New articles' posts? MKsLifeInANutshell (talk) 04:12, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
Whoops, it was Christmas yesterday and I completely forgot until your post just now. --PresN 04:13, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
My reversion of the removal of The Last of Us Online was reverted a second time. Anyone besides me think that this game is probably notable? Even with its cancellation it's part of a major franchise and got dozens of articles on the subject over a long period. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 01:16, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
That's twice today I've seen a case where someone started an article, did 99% of the work, decided the bar wasn't met and self-redirected.... only for you to unredirect. In some cases the people putting the work in might just be correct. -- ferret (talk) 01:21, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Latest comment: 4 months ago18 comments17 people in discussion

I hope everyone on the project has a lovely Christmas and New Year period. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 21:13, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Same to you. Happy Holidays everyone! Sergecross73 msg me 22:47, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
Merry Christmas! Anyone want to buy me Mario Wonder? Panini! • 🥪 22:53, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
Many yuletide greetings to the world of Wiki. --ProtoDrake (talk) 00:26, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
Same to you. Merry Christmas! Timur9008 (talk) 06:53, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
Merry Christmas to you all and to all good time editing!!!!! CaptainGalaxy 10:42, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
Merry Christmas! QuicoleJR (talk) 17:05, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
Merry Christmas. Waxworker (talk) 17:24, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays! Archrogue (talk) 18:51, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
Merry Christmas yall! Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 19:26, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays to everyone here. DecafPotato (talk) 21:08, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
Merry christmas and happy holidays to y'all :D Roberth Martinez (talk) 22:21, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
Merry Christmas to everyone. (I'm slightly late...) Skyshiftertalk 00:20, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
Still Christmas in my part of the world! QuicoleJR (talk) 01:37, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
Merry Christmas! I was very busy today. (Oinkers42) (talk) 04:06, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
Merry belated Christmas to everyone in the VG WikiProject. Phediuk (talk) 20:52, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays to everyone working on Wikipedia! (its definitely Christmas at the time im writing this) MKsLifeInANutshell (talk) 04:08, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
Happy Holidays, everyone. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:18, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

New Articles (December 18 to December 24)

Latest comment: 4 months ago8 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 v3.16 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 04:22, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

December 18

December 19

December 20

December 21

December 22

December 23

December 24

I'll be honest, I'll probably re-merge Ramattra in a month or two if no new discussion comes up. Zx revived it and while I appreciate the enthusiasm, I put it on ice for a reason.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 05:14, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
@PresN: Hey, for December 21 - Xotic, it was actually created by me, not @Zxcvbnm, the same thing happened for November 28 - Lego Ninjago: Shadow of Ronin. It was shown that @Ca had made it. Only because the page used to exist, and he just merged that previous page's history. So my name got deleted. If you check the page but put Draft: in the link, then check the history, my name would be there. MKsLifeInANutshell (talk) 07:26, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
This page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Lego_Ninjago:_Shadow_of_Ronin&action=history MKsLifeInANutshell (talk) 07:27, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
Same for Near (programmer) -- I think the root cause is because it was created (as a userdraft then mainspaced), then pagemoved by Zxcvbn. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 07:42, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
Found the bug, I think- the 1.0 bot list actually has it listed twice, as a creation for Xotic and a creation for Xotic (video game). The script removes one, as there's a page move from one title to the other, but I think the "who wrote this" part skipped checking because it already had a name, because (video game) was the first one and it has an author- Zxcvbnm. Obviously, it should have checked for the author of the move target, not source; let me see if I can fix it. --PresN 15:20, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
But yes, the root problem is the undrafting + page move, because that's 2 page moves and it has issues with that. --PresN 15:22, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
Ok, fixed. Thanks all for letting me know! --PresN 15:32, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Red Dead Redemption 2 - Proposal for A-Class Article Status

Latest comment: 4 months ago9 comments3 people in discussion

Hi,

I am not certain if there is a standard formatting for these proposals, so I am sorry if there is. However, I did read A-Class criteria, so I do at least know the basic method. I have posted this proposal in the article's talk section as well.

Anyway, I believe that the Red Dead Redemption 2 article certainly meets the requirements for an A-Class article. I believe that it meets the Featured article criteria well enough for being well-written, comprehensive, well-researched, neutral, stable, compliant with Wikipedia's copyright policy, to be considered as an A-Class article.

I love the article, and I love this game, so it would be great to see it be A-Class! Coulomb1 (talk) 01:27, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

@Coulomb1: Thanks for sharing your thoughts, but WP:VG does not assess A-class per WP:VG/A and WP:VG/ACR (based on this 2015 discussion), so such an assessment is not currently possible. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 01:37, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
Thanks @Rhain for the info. I guess I could try to go for Featured Article, right? Coulomb1 (talk) 01:44, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
I'd be hesitant unless you're familiar with the article and subject matter. Per WP:FAC: "Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article before nominating it." – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 02:16, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
Gotcha. I've read the article and near-100% the game (96% ahhh I hate that hunting challenge). Should I start contributing before I try? Coulomb1 (talk) 02:21, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
The choice is yours, but I would personally recommend putting your efforts into something less arduous than FAC for your first major project on here. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 02:47, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
I'll take your advice. Thanks for your help. Coulomb1 (talk) 02:53, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
Hey! FAC isn't arduous! Panini! • 🥪 16:45, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
(I just looked up what arduous means. My mistake, you're absolutely right. Panini! • 🥪 16:45, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Source request (Famitsu)

Latest comment: 3 months ago4 comments1 person in discussion

Back in September I requested at WP:RX for this source. The request was archived as stale after 3 months, so I'm asking here in hope of finding someone more knowledgeable in the topic. Below is a copy of the original request:

  • "ティアリングサーガシリーズ ベルウィックサーガ". Weekly Famitsu. No. 859. Enterbrain. 3 June 2005. pp. 188, 210?.

For User:Dudhhr/Berwick. Thanks, – dudhhr talkcontribssheher 00:02, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Date corrected to 3 June 2005. – dudhhr talkcontribssheher 16:17, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
This issue of Famitsu is not at WP:WikiProject Video games/Reference library/Famitsu. – dudhhr talkcontribssheher 16:38, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

– dudhhr talkcontribssheher 08:31, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Video game label

Latest comment: 3 months ago17 comments7 people in discussion

I had boldly removed "video" from the lead of some recent PC only games, just using the genre like an adventure game. I feel it is misleading to call, e.g. a CRPG game a video game. It also came up that the computer game redirect was recently changed from PC game to video game.

(@Ferret: Continuing from my talk page here please) Regards IgelRM (talk) 11:07, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Video games include computer games, so it definitely feels wrong to remove the word "video" from these. Masem (t) 12:56, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
A video game is a game that has a video component, which includes computer monitors. And just think for a minute how ridiculous it is to say, for instance, King's Quest IV isn't a video game because it was computer only where as King's Quest V is because there was an NES release. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 13:20, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
A computer game is a "type" of video game (one released only for computers), just like a console game is a "type". Long-running convention on wiki is to refer to everything as "video games", and not change the lead sentence based on what platforms the game was released for, especially as consoles increasingly become computers with a custom UI. --PresN 15:21, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
But it's possible to use the alternative terms to say video games, as in console, are a type of computer games. While it was not what I wanted with my edits, I would like to challenge the "everything as video games" convention here. If we talk about changes, would people generally refer to mobile games as video games and not app games? I don't believe the extend of the video label usage on wiki is appropriate. IgelRM (talk) 15:56, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
.... what is an "app game"? I've literally never once seen or heard this term anywhere, so the argument falls a bit flat. -- ferret (talk) 16:02, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
Sorry, it wasn't meant as a term but just that things are labeled as apps. E.g. Apple Arcade doesn't appear to mention video.
But to correct myself looking through newspapers.com, console (cannot find video) games as part of computer games is used. Found an example suggesting computer game for King's Quest VII Ottawa Citizen 1995, "The Princeless Bride proves King's Quest fun not done yet": "Fortunately for computer game enthusiasts[...]" under Electronic Gaming section IgelRM (talk) 16:30, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
I'm just not sure what you're proposing. You weren't changing "video game" to "computer game" based on contemporary sourcing. You were just flat making it "game", which is generic and unspecific and could mean lawn darts. -- ferret (talk) 16:35, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
This thread has become rather confusing, I was still talking about the convention to refer to everything as video games mention by PresN above. Yeah, it's not really related to my edits anymore, I noted that there is consensus against it (I hope you don't feel obliged to still respond because of that). IgelRM (talk) 16:32, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
Just another editor echoing the above - computer games are video games too. Sergecross73 msg me 16:41, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
I am surprised by the clear consensus, thanks for the input. I thought it would be best to avoid video, but looks like this term variant isn't relevant here. IgelRM (talk) 12:27, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
Saying "X is a game" isn't very specific. The name and link to video game makes a lot more sense, or you're including a wide range of sports and games that are "games". I see the actual wording change is from say simulation video game to simulation computer game; which is specific, but doesn't actually tell you more about the subject. Considering a lot of these games can also be played on a non-PC (windows phones, for instance), the term "video game" covers the item much better. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:35, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
We generally mention the video game genre, which should signify that it is not a "physical" game. The Entertainment Software Association used to differentiate between computer and video games and the Computer Entertainment Supplier's Association said "computer game industry". Although I see some board game articles also link to "board game". (My edits were both to simulation computer game and just racing game in some cases)
My editing was games originally developed for computers and usually not available on other systems. Before consoles became popular, most sources might have used computer game in some cases but this could only apply to historic computer games. IgelRM (talk) 13:02, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
Again I point to my King's Quest example. Would would you called King's Quest V? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 13:26, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
The King's Quest series article just says graphic adventure game series and computer game seems fine. It was originally for computer systems, so I think a newspaper search would yield the term. This is probably traditional and confusing for Wikipedia but sometimes computer games could also include console video games. I recall a Wikipedian noticed some British newspapers used video and computer games synonymous.
Unrelated, it appears computer game gradually seems to be less used, e.g. the "All Party Parliamentary Group on the Computer and Video Games Industry" became "All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) for Video Games and Esports". Maybe it will be called "gaming entertainment" someday. IgelRM (talk) 13:55, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
I pointed this out among my reverts but, the sourcing above reveals another issue: You're coming in from an ENGVAR stance using British sourcing. In many cases, British use "computer game" to mean "video game", which muddies the waters here further. To go through a dozen+ articles changing for this reason is a flat MOS ENGVAR issue on top of everything else. -- ferret (talk) 15:54, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
I saw the revert message, but my editing wasn't based on changing to British English and I felt it wasn't necessary or appropriate to use the video. (I pointed to the Entertainment Software Association above) IgelRM (talk) 15:48, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Indie in lead sentence

Latest comment: 3 months ago18 comments7 people in discussion

Hello. I have recently removed Indie from the lead sentence of game articles, e.g. "Digital: A Love Story is an indie visual novel by video game designer Christine Love" [...]. I thought this was safe enough given that this is not definable like that but was advised to ask here by Masem. Also, unlinked video game and shortened to "adventure game" etc. I also generally shorten "developed and published by" to just by Company. Regards IgelRM (talk) 01:50, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

What does "not definable" mean? I see you've removed this from numerous games that have multiple reliable sources that call it an "indie game". -- ferret (talk) 01:55, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
In the way that it is not like a game genre that generally belongs in the lead sentence. I have generally not removed Indie mentioning elsewhere or the category. I think the PBS Game/Show video is a great reference on the topic, but I point to having more concise lead sentences anyway. IgelRM (talk) 02:10, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
In the context of Christine Love's works, I don't mind this change as the indie nature comes through in that first sentence anyway. Perhaps paradoxically, for larger productions (like say, Shovel Knight or Celeste), I think the word "indie" would do more work in the opening section, identifying at the very least the context/movement it was created within. I understand the desire to clean out a word with a fuzzy definition, but it's so commonly used for good reasons too and we should continue to follow the reliable sources that label these games as such again and again. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:54, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
It is common used, but what is a context/movement? It appears used to categories something the audience likes. If we can attribute indie to sources, we shall include it somehow? (Missed here replying before, ideas below) IgelRM (talk) 05:35, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
I appreciate the rationale for reducing word count in the lede sentence, but I also think that "indie" is a strong, well used descriptor for many (but not all!) games that would fit the vague definition of indie. Eg, things like Fez, Binding if Isaac, FTL, etc, are all heralded as indie games. I agree that it is not a genre term, but usually that first sentence is where calling it out as indie seems to make the most sense. Masem (t) 15:25, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
I agree that indie can and should be used as a descriptor, it has a pretty clear definition that is wholly separate from major video games. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:37, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, but potentially all non-AAA games are "Indie games". Do Kerbal Space Program 2 or OlliOlli World feel like indie? Mentioning the term needs attribution like Eurogamer called it "indie" etc and that doesn't work in the first lead sentence imo.
Edit: Edge case, but we don't say Dave the Diver is a indie adventure although most publications probably said so. IgelRM (talk) 03:47, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
It appears that the video game world is going through the same struggle the that the music world has gone through trying to define things like indie rock. It can certainly be confusing where the line is drawn at times, but I don't believe it should be our role to remove the term. If reliable sources use the term then we probably generally should too... Sergecross73 msg me 21:26, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
I think the indie label has been added to most articles lead sentence based on what the author felt and not how many sources use the term for a game. From the indie rock articles, a lot of the bands mention there also say "rock band" and not "indie rock band".
But I suppose going through my edits again and adding what sources labeled these games as indie? IgelRM (talk) 03:55, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
I think that there would need to be multiple concurrence in reliable sources when talking about the game that it is indie, and it should be almost impossible not to see "indie" next to discussion of the game. If no source says a game is indie, even if it is developed by one person and clearly mets what indie could mean, there's no reason to include. Masem (t) 04:46, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for sticking with me by the way. I'm trying to apply this to Superbrothers: Sword & Sworcery EP (I had removed indie from lead), PC Gamer says "But it is a great indie game that’s on PC". So trying to avoid making it sound like the indie rock genre, maybe "X is an indie(efn source) and adventure game by X" or "X is an adventure and indie game(efn source) by X". Or maybe later "The game was called a great indie game". PC Gamer source IgelRM (talk) 05:04, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
@Masem: Bump IgelRM (talk) 07:39, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
Since this discussion went stale, I re-added indie where I had removed it before. I used the 2nd wording, but did not source indie in the articles yet. I think formalizing somewhere what you said above of having multiple concurrence in reliable sources for an indie label would still be needed (As it would reduce the amount of indie and this discussion had led to something). IgelRM (talk) 16:38, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
Often indie games have very different characteristics from equivalent AAA titles - e.g. an average indie RPG versus an average modern AAA one. Given that this distinction is something sources take note of, it's definitely best to retain mentions of it in the lead IMO. ― novov (t c) 02:47, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
We don't mention AAA role-playing game in the lead, although that might be more rare since most games would be "normal games"? Also is AAA based on budget, aren't the terms used for targeting/marketing a game and not in a review? IgelRM (talk) 03:59, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting doing that, just using it in my comment as a shorthand way of saying "not indie". Though ofc, that's technically incorrect as some studios are too big to be indie but aren't quite AAA. ― novov (t c) 08:27, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
Understood IgelRM (talk) 16:40, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Characters of, or List of characters

Latest comment: 3 months ago18 comments12 people in discussion

Category:Lists of video game characters and its subcategories shows some there is no standard way to name things. Example: List of Paper Mario characters and Characters of the Mario franchise. Got dozens of lists with each type of naming. Dream Focus 09:03, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, there's no rule about consistent naming, and they're kinda written differently too. The former is more of a bulleted list, the latter is more of a prosaic article with sections. Andre🚐 09:34, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
This was discussed two years ago. There was no consensus to change anything. TarkusABtalk/contrib 09:39, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
The discussion was revived earlier this year, which led to several page moves by Kung Fu Man dependent on the article's formatting (i.e., whether it was more of a 'list' or an 'article'). – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 09:59, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
That seems like a fine approach. Andre🚐 10:02, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
I've always been in support of purely the "List" naming; rarely if ever does such an article ever not list the characters somehow. Case in point, Characters of the Mario franchise is quite clearly a list, even if it claims it's not. Generally speaking it's used as puffery to make the article seem less "trivial" as when "List" is in the name. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:57, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
I think the change is whether or not there is a critical lens on the article. If the article simply lists info about characters, that's a "List of X characters". If it talks about the people, then that's more than a list. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:13, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
A good example of where to not use "list of" is the article Characters of the Overwatch franchise, as the type of article that while a list, has more in depth related to broad commentary on the development of characters as a whole, in addition to smaller ones, that that specific title is appropriate, in contrast to the above example of Characters of the Mario franchise which is really just a flat list and probably better named that way. Masem (t) 13:00, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
To add to the above, the Final Fantasy character articles that have made GA are less traditional lists and more article-type entities as a lot of development and critical commentary is present. --ProtoDrake (talk) 13:11, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
I mean, ideally, I guess, all list articles could make progress toward become fleshed-out prose articles? Maybe not realistic that they'll all make it there, but in theory, that's a better place, right? Andre🚐 13:13, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
If you can add development and commentary, yes, but I suspect that's going to be very tough for a lot of games that don't get the same indepth coverage but still otherwise have enough sourcing to support a list. Masem (t) 13:21, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
I will agree the Mario franchise one is definitely an outlier, a big problem was the original was Characters in the Mario franchise. In that case I'd agree with moving it to List of Mario characters or List of Mario franchise characters and then reclassifying as List-class would probably be better.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:14, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
That Mario characters article could definitely look like a Final Fantasy character article if someone gave it proper treatment. I could do that if I need to, but what's preferred; a detailed character overview or just a list? Panini! • 🥪 23:15, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

From what's above (and it should continue above is there's more constructive stuff to come), this is again turning into a case-by-case basis. Especially with the more stringent notability guildelines and the dedicated characters WikiProject group that's appeared and seems to be doing good work. --ProtoDrake (talk) 20:08, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

I would support WP:BOLD efforts to standardize them. I also understand there is some logic to having different names. It's probably more useful to discuss specific examples than to try a one-size-fits-all solution. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:59, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
I would support BOLDly move-protecting all of these pages in their current forms and gag-ruling all discussion on all days except Halloween. It doesn't matter, and there's nothing to be consistent with. Many of these articles work fine under either variant. SnowFire (talk) 07:35, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
There is no real requirement for these to be standardised. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:01, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
Well the logic I was going with is if the sections can be developed into full discussion and there's reception and development to warrant then, then "Characters of" was the better route; this matches the logic WP:SE utilized in theirs. As it stands though keep in mind there are still about 50 lists to go through, with some probably needing to be AfD'd because they're just non-notable dumping grounds, others needing to be cleaned up, and still others blocked by redirects that have been modified over ten years that need to be nuked (i.e. the Halo list).
It's not just a naming standard though, but helps to figure out which should be classified as List-class, and which can be classified on the normal rating standard. If you check the discussion on the task force, that was part of the point: pure lists have only one option of movement, "Featured List" class. On more complex fleshed out list format articles, this not only doesn't give an idea on *what* needs to be improved, but makes Good Topics that much harder to obtain (going back to the Square Enix project, look at the "Characters of" list format articles that are classified as Good and how they're used). So there's a way to remedy the overall situation, it's just going to take time due to dealing with 20 years of, well, lists and list-format articles..--Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:16, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

All the games in the Metacritic game page are gone!

Latest comment: 3 months ago6 comments4 people in discussion
Please stop creating these sorts of topics. There's no reason to think anyone here would know. Please either be patient and wait, or contact the website itself. Sergecross73 msg me 02:58, 31 December 2023 (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.

It seems that all the games in the Metacritic game page are gone, because they're all replaced with a "Page not found"! Now what?! When will all the games be back up? Example link --Angeldeb82 (talk) 23:17, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

@Angeldeb82 As with your past talk sections about various sites having temporary issues, no one here will be able to explain when Metacritic may fix this issue. However, as Metacritic is a huge site, I'm sure someone is working on it. Your example link above works for me, personally. I did find that the Browse Games link currently returns no results though. -- ferret (talk) 23:33, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
Well, all I see in the example link is a "Page not found", just like all the other game pages that have vanished. Angeldeb82 (talk) 23:52, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
The link is working fine for me too. WikiProject Video games is not the place to complain if you are personally having short-term issues accessing a website. It is normal for websites to experience occasionally outages, so please don't start conversations like this unless the website being down is an ongoing and persistent issue. Damien Linnane (talk) 01:16, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
Sorry about that. Anyways, Metacritic is fixed, so all the game pages are now working fine. Angeldeb82 (talk) 02:33, 31 December 2023 (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.

Help with Princess Zelda GA review

Latest comment: 3 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

It appears that we have an inexperienced editor as GA reviewer of Princess Zelda, therefore I would appreciate it if anyone is interested in reviewing the article as it is currently open for a second opinion. Thanks. Fieryninja (talk) 11:23, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

I've deleted and left the user a message. -- ferret (talk) 15:23, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Guidance on notability guidelines for articles about a video game series

Latest comment: 3 months ago6 comments5 people in discussion

Hi there, I've been asked by @MKsLifeInANutshell to review the draft for the Kinect Sports series at: Draft:Kinect Sports. I wanted to confirm the thinking around notability for new articles for series, as I can't find anything specific under the general notability guideline. Is my thinking correct that a series article does not inherit notability from its individual works, so that a series article should really only be considered notable if there is significant coverage, critical commentary and/or industry recognition of the series as a whole? Appreciate any thoughts. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 21:48, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Video games and video game series are essentially evaluated against GNG alone. There is no SNG. The series needs sources that explicitly discuss it as as series/franchise. -- ferret (talk) 21:50, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the help, I wanted to check I wasn't missing something in policy, so appreciate it. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 21:53, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
I think the only thing beyond the GNG is that there should be at least 3 entries to warrant a series article. There's been a pretty consistent consensus that, if there's only 2 entries, all info should probably just fall somewhere in the first or second entry's article rather than being spun out to a series article. Sergecross73 msg me 22:06, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
Three is usually what we require, and only then when it's spoken about in depth as a group. There is a previso that if something had one or two games, but was a part of a wider series, then you could have a "franchise" article (provided it was independently notable from the individual games) as well, but that's super rare.
tl;dr, it's gotta meet GNG. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:38, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
We don't have our own SNG but MOS:VG has some guidance for series articles: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Video games#Remakes, expansions, and series articles. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:36, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Accolades table, Gayming Magazin

Latest comment: 3 months ago12 comments5 people in discussion

My understanding is that Gayming is considered a publication award with subject expertise. But this was disputed by @Sophiesyne: and @CandyGallows:, therefore I figure it would be worth bringing up here. (@Rhain: Also I found insisting on linking Gayming Awards on Stray (video game) rather surprising, but I realize LGBT is a hot issue) Regards IgelRM (talk) 13:27, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Is this specifically a question about Stray (video game)? Because I wouldn't include a reader-polled/choice award in with wider industry awards or a publication-specific one. The latter are far more consequential than the former. (And on the same note, I find it really weird that PlayStation Blog gets a similar large amount of space to talk about its own awards, especially since it's not an independent entity.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 14:27, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
No, I believe it's mostly about this edit at Cult of the Lamb and this one at Signalis, both of which moved the Gayming Awards nominations from prose to the table. The mention of Stray seems solely in opposition to this edit which added a link to Gayming Awards. Not sure I see the point of a statement like "LGBT is a hot issue" since it's neither an "issue" nor relevant to the conversation. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 01:18, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, although you also reverted my edit at first for poor quality. It was more of a observation and since I'm mentioning Gayming anyway here. Apologies if it sounded like I was coming at you. IgelRM (talk) 12:57, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
RE PlayStation blog: I also feel like it would need another wording as it feels like both a platform holder feature and subsidized accolade. IgelRM (talk) 01:57, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
I don't dispute Gayming Magazine's expertise. I reverted your edit because you removed the Gayming Awards from the Signalis article's awards table. I support adding a paragraph to the section. However, our policy is for the table to remain intact despite any information the paragraph repeats (God of War is an excellent example). I assume others reverted your edits for similar reasons. Hopefully, this cleared up any confusion.
--Sophiesyne (talk) 17:58, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
Yes, but this paragraph/table difference is precisely why I brought this up. Please see David Fuchs above, I don't think it is necessary to include in the table as well. IgelRM (talk) 12:58, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
@Sophiesyne: May I bump this, because the God of War example mentions publications which are not included in the table? IgelRM (talk) 02:00, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
From my understanding the Gayming Awards presented by a magazine, Gayming Magazine, is not notable enough to have its own article thus should only be included in prose as opposed to a table per WP:VG/AWARDS.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 16:39, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
That was my thinking, but I suppose Rhain's argument is that it might be in the future. IgelRM (talk) 01:52, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
My "argument" has nothing to do with the table at this point, and my recent edits are entirely in line with Spy-cicle's suggestion, so I'm not sure what you're referring to. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 02:10, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
Missed this reply; But yes, I misunderstood what Spy-cicle was referring to. IgelRM (talk) 20:41, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Endemic

Latest comment: 3 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I'm reading a Next Generation article which describes Wizards & Warriors as "Acclaim's first endemic title". Ordinarily in this context I would assume "endemic" to mean developed in-house, but Acclaim didn't start developing games in-house until much later. Two possible interpretations that come to mind are that it was the first game where they were the original publisher (rather than the localization publisher of a game first released overseas), and that it was the first game they published rather than just distributed, but I'm not versed enough in Acclaim history to know which one (if either) Next Gen meant. Anyone have an idea? Martin IIIa (talk) 22:53, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

I think what they are saying (looking at that article) is that W&W is the first title Acclaim published that was developed (by a different group) outside of Japan. Or basically your first interpretation, given the defition of endemic here [4]. Masem (t) 00:14, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

WP:VG Discord Channel

Latest comment: 3 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

It's been a while! New Year! I wanted to remind everyone that WP:VG has a space on the community Discord server that is rather active with casual conversations about games as well as gut checks for editing, sourcing, etc. Need a place to quickly ask if a source is suitable? Wanna know if your draft is ready before submitting it, just for a little extra good feel? Consensus always happens on site but sometimes a little real time chat goes a long way. Or you just wanna gush about the new game you're playing? Come on in.

Note as well for our WP:VG admins, the community server has an administration space with access to CUs, Arbcom members, Stewards, and WMF employees if you have any questions or inquiries, or want second opinions on things. -- ferret (talk) 16:40, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Latest comment: 3 months ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I hope everyone working on this WikiProject has had a wonderful year, and many more to come. Let's try to do even better in 2024! Happy New Year! MKsLifeInANutshell (talk) 06:03, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Happy New Year! Editors and the others. NatwonTSG2 (talk) 14:12, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
Happy New Year! QuicoleJR (talk) 18:46, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Gameplay sections

Latest comment: 3 months ago8 comments7 people in discussion

I guess I've had this question for a little while, but how important is it that gameplay sections be properly cited? I often write skeletal gameplay sections unless the game sounds pretty interesting. That wasn't usually a problem back when I was writing articles that got 100 page views per month. Now that I've been clearing some backlogs of best-selling and award-winning games, that means that someone who has actually played the game sometimes comes by and replaces what I wrote with their impressions of the gameplay. Or they remove the citation and rewrite the entire section because they disagree with the source cited (which maybe describes it as a genre they don't like). So, I guess my question is: does it really matter? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:56, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

To give my two cents on this topic, since I'm in a similar situation, I recently created the Undertale Yellow page, and spent a decent chunk of time trying to create a reasonably sourced article. It was short, and didn't give a whole lot of detail, but I worked with what I had for a game that is lucky to even pass the bar of notability. Now, the article is a giant chunk of cruft that I honestly don't think is fixable. Some of the sources I added at the start of the article even got removed in exchange for an excessively detailed plot summary and a completely unsourced gameplay section. And if I tried to rewrite it back to how it was, it would probably get changed back, especially since that game's hype and fandom is all over the place right now.
So I guess my answer to this question personally would be, if it's an article on a subject that somewhat matters, or was one you planned on extensively taking care of (ex. bringing to GAN or FAC), yes. But I guess on some articles, like my example, it's a battle you can't win. λ NegativeMP1 05:46, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
Unsourced gameplay is better than literal nothingness IMO, but even a little bit of sourced information is far better than a lot of unsourced information. I simply am not going to trust the info to be accurate if it's not sourced. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:04, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
Thing is, in my experience it's hard to find reliable sources which address gameplay in an encyclopedic manner. Usually what you have to work with is previews, reviews, and historical retrospectives, all of which naturally focus on sound bytes rather than comprehensiveness. Gameplay elements which are central to the game but don't sound exciting on paper are often omitted or phrased in a manner that isn't entirely accurate but sounds cooler, while elements which have no significant impact on how the game is played or only come into play at one or two points are often emphasized - and typically these same omissions and distortions are repeated across all the available sources. This is why I'm reluctant to write gameplay sections for games which I haven't played. I think it's best if the gameplay sections are written by editors with a thorough experience of the game, and sourcing attached to that where possible. Martin IIIa (talk) 19:21, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
It's not that hard to find sources. For example, PC Gamer will say that something is a platform game where you jump around aided by a jetpack. But then someone comes around and removes the mention of a jetpack and the citation to PC Gamer, saying that it's actually something similar to a jetpack but not one. And they'll change the genre to "puzzle-platform adventure game". Now, my impulse is to revert this and restore the sourced content. Everyone knows genres need to be sourced. Gameplay should be, too, according to MOS:VG. But I haven't played these games, so I don't know if it's a jetpack, a jetpack-like device, or whatever. So, let's say I just let them rewrite the plot-oriented stuff while keeping the major details – for example, who really cares if it's described as a jetpack or jetpack-like device, I guess. But sometimes I just can't convince them to leave the sources in the article and the sourced commentary on the gameplay, and I don't want to keep reverting forever. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:10, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
I don't really buy that we should just have a load of stuff, even if we can't find sources. Using your own experiences of a game to explain how the gameplay work is for a different website, not this encyclopedia. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 23:20, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
Gameplay sections need to be sourced to third-party sources. If there are reviews for a game, there is very much likely sources using those reviews that can source the gameplay as well. Masem (t) 01:32, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
This has always been my stance and what I've always instructed others to do. Sergecross73 msg me 01:59, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Sparks of Hope sales discussion

Latest comment: 3 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello all. Looking for more input at Talk:List of best-selling Nintendo Switch video games#Sparks of Hope figures. Please chime in if you have thoughts. Thanks! Sergecross73 msg me 21:45, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

New Articles (December 25 to December 31)

Latest comment: 3 months ago3 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 v3.17 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 02:45, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

December 25

December 26

December 27

December 28

December 29

December 30

December 31

Script updated: Fixed an issue where if a page was un-drafted and then moved, the mover was attributed instead of the creator (because the script was checking the page history of the initial un-draft target, not the final name). --PresN 02:45, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Seeing that my name and the article I created appeared here, I must ask, does anyone have a copy of a PC Games review for Insane 2. I opened a request over a week ago, and I am still waiting. I take it there have not been many editors here checking the Resource Exchange page lately. Very well. I am now bringing it to this page's attention. Also, to follow up on a previous discussion, it seems that there is support for the creation of Hedgewars—an outcome I foresaw, frankly. I may do just that in the near future. I would have considered using my sandbox, but I saw editors suggesting using the Draft namespace instead. That makes more sense, considering the article has been remove several times, and an administrator needs to know what it would look like at its best. FreeMediaKid$ 03:08, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Beatmania IIDX series coverage

Latest comment: 3 months ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Noticed recently that the Beatmania IIDX series, and a lot of other Bemani titles, have pretty inconsistent coverage. The trend is similar in jp wiki and ko wiki in that only some versions have articles, like Beatmania IIDX 19: Lincle and ko:Beatmania IIDX 28 BISTROVER. Not only that but the only sources on a lot of these are Konami's official website and various wiki sites. I'm not all that familiar with the approach on this project; is it worth it to try and fill out the red links when every article will be a list of songs, minor changes, and release dates? I want to emphasize that the difficulty is in finding coverage of the games, even though they're massively popular; all of the existing pages have very few sources that I would call great on their own. Reconrabbit 04:58, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

If reviews and other independent reliable sources can be found that discuss each entry individually, then stand-alone articles are acceptable, just like we have an article for every Madden and NBA 2K game. But finding sources for obscure and iterative Japanese game franchises like this is usually a nightmare, so until someone wants to attempt that, it's usually more appropriate to condense it into a series page. TarkusABtalk/contrib 07:57, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
I wrote Beatmania IIDX 27: Heroic Verse mainly based on Remywiki, 4gamer and 3939land articles. I anticipate most reliable news related to Bemani is going to come from the horse's mouth (Konami) or from 4gamer; does it make sense to keep working on these releases (and fill out the red links on {{Template:Beatmania}})? Reconrabbit 17:27, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Does it make sense? No, not if these are your sources. Remywiki is WP:USERG and 3939land looks like a WP:BLOG. Both unusable. TarkusABtalk/contrib 18:16, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
If that's the case then there probably shouldn't be articles for any of the titles in the series. Every one either has no references at all, or relies heavily on Bemaniwiki, Remywiki, or Bemanistyle, all of which are WP:USERG. Some of these have sections that have just been copied wholesale from the respective wiki sites. Reconrabbit 18:54, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Sun Haven (video game)#Requested move 5 January 2024

Latest comment: 3 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Sun Haven (video game)#Requested move 5 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:35, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Merge Ninja Gaiden for the Lynx into the arcade page

Latest comment: 3 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello to y'all and happy new year! Recently, i started a merge proposal regarding Ninja Gaiden for the Atari Lynx and the discussion can be found at the talk page of that article. Here's my reasoning as to why i'm making this proposal: The Atari Lynx release is a port of the 1988 arcade original. Now, if it was an adaptation like say, the Game Gear and Master System iterations, which are completely different beasts altogether, the article for the Lynx version would be fine as a stand-alone article. However, this is just a straight adaptation of the arcade version to Lynx. I also checked some of the reviews listed at MobyGames (https://www.mobygames.com/game/7703/ninja-gaiden/reviews/lynx/), which pretty much label the Lynx port as a conversion of the arcade original. Therefore, the info there could be merged into the arcade article without issues. You're all welcome into the discussion and a great day! Roberth Martinez (talk) 16:51, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Dracula's Castle (Castlevania: Symphony of the Night)#Requested move 7 January 2024

Latest comment: 3 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Dracula's Castle (Castlevania: Symphony of the Night)#Requested move 7 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 14:22, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:China Digital Entertainment Expo and Conference#Requested move 7 January 2024

Latest comment: 3 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:China Digital Entertainment Expo and Conference#Requested move 7 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 19:06, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:List of Microsoft video games#Requested move 7 January 2024

Latest comment: 3 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:List of Microsoft video games#Requested move 7 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 19:23, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Gamemaker#Requested move 9 January 2024

Latest comment: 3 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Gamemaker#Requested move 9 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:08, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Opinions requested for Famicom Detective Club infobox artwork

Latest comment: 3 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I am requesting additional opinions at Talk:Famicom Detective Club#2024 discussion on whether to retain the current infobox artwork (OG box art), or replace it with the English logo from the remake. TarkusABtalk/contrib 21:59, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Archive_172&oldid=1199643868"