Open main menu

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games

WikiProject Video games (Rated Project-class)
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
Shortcut: WT:VG
WPVG icon 2016.svg WikiProject
Video games
Main page talk
Threads are archived after nine days.
Manual of Style talk
  Article naming talk
Sources talk
  Search engine
Wikidata Guide
Reference library talk
  Online print archive
  Sales charts
  Website archive
Newsletter talk
  Current issue Draft
Article alerts
Article for Improvement
Deletion discussions
Essential articles
New articles
Popular pages
Recognized content
  Good article Good content
  Featured article Featured content
Requested articles


External links to media acceptable?Edit

I recently seen a link to a youtube video in Untitled Goose Game treated the same as an image and it seemed so odd. I've never seen articles do this. Is this acceptable?Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 23:16, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Assuming it falls under fair use, then they really should act exactly the same as any image. However, I do find it a bit odd to just have a link to the game's announcement trailer (which would generally be removed as an external link for being promotional) and not some sort of developer interview. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 23:44, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I understand using links in the External link section, but i find it very odd to put a random link in the body of the article. Does anyone else have an opinion on this? Does the MOS think this is acceptable?Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 15:18, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
  • This looks like fancy formatting over what is essentially an external link to a product trailer, which fails WP:ELNO and WP:PROMO. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 15:42, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
  • A few points, this is done with {{external media}}. Second: if it is the case that a piece of official media, uploaded in a non-copyright-violating way (eg to the game's official YouTube channel), and the piece of official media is discussed by secondary sources beyond it existed, then this is appropriate. For example: for Untitled Goose Game, it is known that the original alpha gameplay trailer drew interest, both in the game and the use of a classical piece of music which was then expanded upon in the final release of the game. It would be fully appropriate to include the external link to that trailer in the body of the article where it is being discussed. Same could be argued for something like the Dead Island reveal trailer which we actually have a separate article about Dead Island Reveal Trailer. However, for most games, we get a random trailer which isn't discussed to any degree, so that is where it would be inappropriate to include the trailer link both within the body in external media, and at an External Link. --Masem (t) 15:54, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
    • In other words, while the use of links in the external media section do not have hard-set guidelines, apply the principles of NFCC as a first pass, at least with respect to WP:NFCC#8 - does the link's inclusion help the reader, and does its omission (eg having the reader go hunt it down themselves) harm their understanding of the passage? If having that link helps to support the sourced prose, it should be fine to include. --Masem (t) 15:58, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Personally, it just seems like a workaround for not including the actual trailer itself. But i'm no expert on this subject. If you think its fine to be included, i won't contest.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 16:04, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
  • The actual trailer at release for UGG was never discussed outside "hey, the game is coming". This is a good reason not to include that trailer. This is the point I'm trying to make: if you using in-body external media, it better be highly relevant to what the user is reading. If it is there for purely promotional reasons because it is not supported by the text, it fails ELNO. --Masem (t) 16:17, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I guess i'm not understanding the difference between an external link in the body and uploading the media onto wikipedia.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 16:38, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
For non-free material to be used on Wikipedia is has to pass WP:NFCCP. This includes "Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." For a gameplay trailer 99% of the time it will not meet this significance and since there is no significant reception from this launch trailer (to my knowledge) it does not justify its inclusion.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 17:00, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
It makes sense to use the external link here rather than upload to Wikipedia as non-free media because if you were uploading it here, you'd have to make serious sacrifices to the video quality so as to not harm commercial opportunities to the copyright owner. Just better to link to the video rather than upload an inferior quality or shortened version here. TarkusABtalk/contrib 20:43, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
I'll probably avoid using external links in the body of a paragraph just to link to media that we didn't/couldn't upload in Wikipedia. But i wont contest its use. Again, i just dont understand it myself. It seems like its cheating the system. but of course, thats my humble opinion. I'm not advocating its removal. Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 20:56, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Look at it as a middle ground. It's for when a piece of copyrighted material is being discussed directly, but uploading that copyrighted content to Wikipedia directly would be difficult or require significant quality reduction that would impact its understanding. We aren't gonna upload the whole damn trailer to Wikipedia in 240p, and/or only show a portion. That's silly and a waste of time when the whole thing is on YouTube in high quality. It's better in this case to just link the trailer. The trailer is discussed directly by several sources so I think it's OK. TarkusABtalk/contrib 21:15, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

I think i'm going to drop it. i still don't understand it. I've seen wikipedia opt to never show the media or link to it before if it meant within fair use. Now we are linking to other sites to show the trailer. If it was in External Links, it would make more sense to me, just not in the body of the article. To me, it seems like Wikipedia is advertising the link itself more than presenting the trailer.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 21:32, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

I sort of agree with BPP here. If sources are discussing the trailer as often as claimed, why can't we simply write and cite them in prose (assuming they have it embedded in their articles) without presenting a direct link here (via a template) back to YouTube? Putting the same exact link under the EL section would generally see it being removed for being promotional, even under the same circumstances. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 22:01, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Could the issue be juat that the way it is captioned in the external media box? What if for UGG it said "Alpha gameplay trailer for UGG. This trailer drew significant interest to the work-in-progress, and led to further use of Claude Debussy's compositions"? (Obviously the "caption" here has to be clear in the prose). Just leaving that link there I can see looking like outright promotion if no additional details are spelled out. --Masem (t) 01:29, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
That works actually. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:31, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Needing some opinionEdit

So...I have seen Global Star Software that was in recently recreated in this state [1]. Considering the whole article was basically a list itself, I have moved it to List of Global Star Software games per WP:BOLD and WP:COMMONSENSE. Was that the correct move? Regards, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 21:14, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Since the scope of the article changed to just a list of their games, I don't see any issue with the title move. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:34, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Planning to make a nom for The King of Fighters XIVEdit

After The King of Fighters XI became GA, I decided to try doing that for The King of Fighters XIV since there is some major coverage about the making and reception of the game. I requested a copyedit but I don't know if it has another issue. I thought about asking for a peer review but a fellow user said there was no notable issue for such a thing. Another user helped me to clean up the references and cut some undue weight. Any issue, I'll see if I can fix it. Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 18:06, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

List of videogames developed in EuropeEdit

Hello. I have wasted a large number of hours on a "little" project here. I have made an IMDB list of modern videogames (2000 to present) made in Europe. Maybe some of you will find it interesting or even useful.

The sources are mentioned there. Good day! — Preceding unsigned comment added by SondreDrakensson (talkcontribs) 18:49, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

"Industry: Video game Industry"Edit

Almost all video game developer articles have an infobox for companies. Under most of these articles the "Industry" parameter is filled in as "Video game industry". This ends up with the result of "Industry: Video game industry" which sounds awfully clunky. What are people's thoughts on it being changed to "Video games" or "Video gaming".  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 20:38, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Pipe to video games for me. Gaming isn't exactly the industry they are in, (as that suggests the act of playing). They are in the industry of creating video games. I agree this should be piped to remove redundancy Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 20:40, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
Yes, video games probably makes the most sense out of those two.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 16:46, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
I've also always piped it to video games for the same reasons. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 22:42, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Loads of of new covers uploadedEdit

User SuperUserCode is uploading loads of new video game covers where perfectly valid covers already exist, in blatant contravention of WP:VG's usual practice of "If a cover already exists don't change it unless you have a bloody good reason". It appears that the rationale and licensing are not being updated when the new images are uploaded leading to inaccurate FUR/Licensing info. There are far too many covers for me to review on my own so this is a heads up to the project. - X201 (talk) 11:54, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Courtesy ping @SuperUserCode. Also, from what I can see, these are the covers taken from Steam's new library system, meaning that they are only the cover art, void of any logos (which is generally a good thing). Lordtobi () 22:10, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
    • However, there are two major issues with these uploads:
      1. They are larger than acceptable non-frees. Yes, we have bots going around to tag and reduce but this should be done before the upload, not after.
      2. The source information is not being updated. A few I spot checked said "from press kit" which is fine, but we need that reflected in the description including a link if one is available. They are not doing that, which harms these as non-frees (We expect sourcing information to work like WP:V - good enough to be able to track it down, but doesn't need to be perfect. ) --Masem (t) 22:15, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
The box art on some of these are completely updated and different from the original ones. Team Fortress Classic for example. MAybe some of them it was a good choice, but not all of them.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 23:06, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

New Articles (November 24 to November 30)Edit

 Generated by v3.3 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 15:54, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

November 24

November 25

November 26

November 27

November 28

November 29 (None)

November 30 (None)

No new articles on November 29, and the bot hiccuped on the 30th. --PresN 15:54, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

OPM demo discs from 2003Edit


I'm currently working on an article about Hunter: The Reckoning – Wayward, and am looking for a behind-the-scenes feature that was included on Official U.S. PlayStation Magazine demo discs in 2003. The feature - I'm assuming it's the same one on all three discs, but I do not know for sure - is included on demo discs #69, #70 and #71. If you have access to these and the ability to share the feature with me in some way, I'd be very grateful.--Alexandra IDVtalk 02:17, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

A friend found the videos for me, so consider this thread solved.--Alexandra IDVtalk 23:23, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

PUBG Korea LeagueEdit

Can someone assist with assessing the notability of Draft:PUBG_Korea_League? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:13, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Review thread 44: The Great Winter SeasonEdit

We are wrapping up 2019. Remember 2019? Lets also remember that we have one more backlog before the end of the year. So here is to one more and many more for 2020.

Article Reassessments

And, as always, we still have The Request board and its continuously increasing backlog. If you want an idea on an article to write, you can stop by to get some possible leads. GamerPro64 22:58, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

List of accolades received by Undertale is also an FLC [2]. I am not sure why it is not included in the "Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks" though.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 18:33, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Added it manually--Alexandra IDVtalk 01:20, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Thank you.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 19:44, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Terminology and redirects?Edit

One thing at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2019_December_2#Viridian_City I noticed is that there is a belief that a piece of terminology should not be a redirect if it is not mentioned in the target article. "Viridian City" (one of the "cities" in the game) is not mentioned at all in Pokémon_Red_and_Blue#Setting.

Should all of the city names be put in that section just so the redirects are retained? WhisperToMe (talk) 00:35, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

  • I don't see the point in deleting reasonable search terms as they hurt nothing by existing. Couldn't somebody just add a quick mention of the city there to prevent this? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 01:04, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
    • Comment: Did Pokemon Red and Blue city names. Haven't done others yet... I have to go to work WhisperToMe (talk) 01:12, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't think it's a good long term practice to shoehorn in mentions of every redirect you want to keep into the text of the article. WP:R#PLA says "insignificant or minor redirects can skip [the principle of least astonishment]". Turning the perspective around, consider how many people are searching "Viridian City" in the search bar and hoping to get to Pokemon Red. It's probably a small number and unlikely scenario that someone heard the phrase but wasn't sure where it came from. Maybe this redirect is worth it but I don't think every redirect of a minor in-fiction term from a video game warrants keeping. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:12, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
    • I agree that not every piece of terminology is important/signiciant, so it may be good for the editor base to hash out which terms are relatively important and which are not. I think Pokemon city names are significant enough to be searched for. WhisperToMe (talk) 14:13, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Is there a way to check how many times a redirect was searched? Maybe we should decide based on how popular the search is.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 16:05, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
  • They work exactly the same as with full articles. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:57, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

GameRankings shuting down ?Edit

An april fools for christmas ? GameRankings announces its shuting down [3]. --Archimëa (talk) 20:08, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't think so. We should archive anything that Metacritic doesn't cover assuming the games they cover wont be moved to metacritic.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 20:12, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
It doesn't seem like a joke. We should make sure we have some good archives like on the Wayback Machine of the website before it shuts down. Furthermore, ensuring we have an archived snapshot for each time we reference them.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 20:15, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
A spot check shows GR to be archived at Wayback machine. However, this would also be a good time to strip GR out of anything where MC exists as well. --Masem (t) 20:21, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
What is wrong with having references to GameRankings? As long as the reference snapshot is archived I don't see any problem with them being used.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 20:44, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
We decided long ago that generally only one aggregate score is needed, with MC preferred over GR or OpenCritic. GR is acceptable when MC doesn't exist for the game, or that GR provides significantly more hits. It is not that GR is bad, but that we only needed the one aggregate score, so we had to decide what the most preferred ones were. --Masem
Oh that is fair enough but we should remove them situationally (e.g. the usage of both in Age of Empires makes sense in my opinion).  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 16:44, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

(t) 20:49, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

To add to this, part of the argument to not have both MC and GR is that both are owned by the same company and in many cases was presenting the same review sets (especially for anything after 2005ish) with near identical scores. -- ferret (talk) 21:29, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Maybe @Cyberpower678 could start an IABOT job for all pages linking to Lordtobi () 20:38, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
    Recommend putting something on his talk page directly. He's pretty busy so getting to pings can be hard I expect. --Izno (talk) 22:35, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
    I'd sooner contact Archive Team. czar 05:03, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
    Lordtobi, Archive request to archive domain has been submitted to the Wayback Team. —CYBERPOWER (Merry Christmas) 13:18, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • They say "The entire team will continue our mission to create informative game review content and bring reviews of classic games to Metacritic.", so maybe the old reviews that MC didn't have will now get them? If so, then we wouldn't even need to necessarily get archived GR links. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:15, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
    Well, there is no guarantee that the score would be the same, and the articles would need updating if they were put into metacritic. Realistically, gamerankings is pretty well archived, so we shouldn't be in too much trouble on that front. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 21:29, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
    Yeah, I thought so as well. I got the message too that GameRankings is shutting down as well. Good thing you got its games all archived. --Angeldeb82 (talk) 04:51, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Pete HinesEdit

We have an article on "Todd Howard", but we don't seem to have an article on "Pete Hines". Shouldn't we have an article about him? (We have articles on Australian rule footballer "Peter Hines" and American politician "Peter F. Hines".) Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:49, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

We probably should if there is signficant coverage of "Pete Hines" from reliable sources (WP:GNG)  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 16:48, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Help starting an article?Edit

Hello! I am trying to start Let's Sing Country but having some difficulty starting the initial formatting. Could someone please help with the infobox and reception table? Thanks! --Moscowdreams (talk) 21:25, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

I have fixed the infobox error in order to add a reception table use the the template here: Template:Video game reviews Regards  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 21:33, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! :) --Moscowdreams (talk) 21:34, 5 December 2019 (UTC)


I was wondering if it should be renamed to List of Loriciels games or a redirect? Govvy (talk) 09:37, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

No, it should stay. If the studio is notable, it should exist. However, the list of games should either be WP:SPLIT into a page of that title or deleted if it's original research. And if the studio isn't notable, there shouldn't be a list of their games.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 10:05, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
I also think it should stay put but I don't think there's a compelling need to split their game list into a separate article at this time. The article text is too short to justify both a main page and a list. Axem Titanium (talk) 16:00, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Return to the project page "WikiProject Video games".