Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 173

< Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games
Latest comment: 9 months ago by Captain Galaxy in topic New Articles (March 10 to March 17)
Archive 170Archive 171Archive 172Archive 173Archive 174Archive 175→Archive 177

New Articles (January 1 to January 7)

Latest comment: 11 months ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements
 A listing of all articles newly added to the Video Games Wikiproject (regardless of creation date). Generated by v3.17 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 01:44, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

January 1

January 2

January 3

January 4

January 5

January 6

January 7

Quite late this week, as I was out of town. --PresN 01:44, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Source Possibility

Latest comment: 11 months ago5 comments3 people in discussion

I was looking at this book here from Limited Run Games. It's basically a really detailed overview of early Atari games. I'm not sure how this would pass WP:RS here as obviously, limited run is not a regular book publisher, but this seems to have a lot of detail on some of these early works. Does anyone here have any insight on how it would/could pass WP:RS before I bunker down and purchase? Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:08, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

It looks fine. The author is Kevin Bunch who was interviewed by the Video Game History Foundation here as well as from a museum here, and the photos in the book were provided by Jeremy Parish. He seems to be very much in the video game history scene, so I think the contents in the book can be trusted. TarkusABtalk/contrib 23:12, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
Kind of bit the bullet and purchased it anyways for myself! This definitely puts my mind at ease on using it as a source. Thank you Tarkus! Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:43, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
You should look to grab Atari 50, the collection done by Digital Extremes, as it is like a "special edition" for Atari 2600 titles with some additional information that may not be in references already. Masem (t) 00:59, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
oh I have. There are some nice bits of interviews ews and write ups, but this other book seems even more in-depth. Andrzejbanas (talk) 06:14, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Splitting discussion for Gamergate (harassment campaign)

Latest comment: 11 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

An article that been involved with (Gamergate (harassment campaign) ) has content that is proposed to be removed and moved to another article (Impact of Gamergate). If you are interested, please visit the discussion. Thank you. Mathglot (talk) 08:59, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

GeoFS

Latest comment: 11 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please can someone check the recent edits by the IPv6 editor to the GeoFS article. At the very least the capitalisation and markup needs fixing, but I'm completely unsure whether they're good edits or not. Thryduulf (talk) 01:59, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

New Articles (January 8 to January 14)

Latest comment: 11 months ago4 comments3 people in discussion
Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements
 A listing of all articles newly added to the Video Games Wikiproject (regardless of creation date). Generated by v3.17 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 19:41, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
~50 "Video games set in X time period" categories

Video games set in the 11th century BC — Cat's Tuxedo (newly tagged - originally created 1 month ago), Video games set in the 12th century BC — Cat's Tuxedo (newly tagged - originally created 1 month ago), Video games set in the 14th century BC — Cat's Tuxedo (newly tagged - originally created 1 month ago), Video games set in the 1500s — Cat's Tuxedo (newly tagged - originally created 1 month ago), Video games set in the 1510s — Cat's Tuxedo (newly tagged - originally created 1 month ago), Video games set in the 1520s — Cat's Tuxedo (newly tagged - originally created 1 month ago), Video games set in the 1530s — Cat's Tuxedo (newly tagged - originally created 1 month ago), Video games set in the 1540s — Cat's Tuxedo (newly tagged - originally created 1 month ago), Video games set in the 1560s — Cat's Tuxedo (newly tagged - originally created 1 month ago), Video games set in the 1570s — Cat's Tuxedo (newly tagged - originally created 1 month ago), Video games set in the 1580s — Cat's Tuxedo (newly tagged - originally created 1 month ago), Video games set in the 1590s — Cat's Tuxedo (newly tagged - originally created 1 month ago), Video games set in the 1600s — Cat's Tuxedo (newly tagged - originally created 1 month ago), Video games set in the 1610s — Cat's Tuxedo (newly tagged - originally created 1 month ago), Video games set in the 1620s — Cat's Tuxedo (newly tagged - originally created 24 days ago), Video games set in the 1640s — Cat's Tuxedo (newly tagged - originally created 24 days ago), Video games set in the 1650s — Cat's Tuxedo (newly tagged - originally created 1 month ago), Video games set in the 1660s — Cat's Tuxedo (newly tagged - originally created 24 days ago), Video games set in the 1670s — Cat's Tuxedo (newly tagged - originally created 1 month ago), Video games set in the 1680s — Cat's Tuxedo (newly tagged - originally created 1 month ago), Video games set in the 1690s — Cat's Tuxedo (newly tagged - originally created 1 month ago), Video games set in the 1700s — Cat's Tuxedo (newly tagged - originally created 1 month ago), Video games set in the 1710s — Cat's Tuxedo (newly tagged - originally created 1 month ago), Video games set in the 1720s — Cat's Tuxedo (newly tagged - originally created 1 month ago), Video games set in the 1730s — Cat's Tuxedo (newly tagged - originally created 1 month ago), Video games set in the 1740s — Cat's Tuxedo (newly tagged - originally created 1 month ago), Video games set in the 1750s — Cat's Tuxedo (newly tagged - originally created 1 month ago), Video games set in the 1760s — Cat's Tuxedo (newly tagged - originally created 1 month ago), Video games set in the 1770s — Cat's Tuxedo (newly tagged - originally created 1 month ago), Video games set in the 1780s — Cat's Tuxedo (newly tagged - originally created 1 month ago), Video games set in the 1790s — Cat's Tuxedo (newly tagged - originally created 1 month ago), Video games set in the 17th century BC — Cat's Tuxedo (newly tagged - originally created 1 month ago), Video games set in the 1800s — Cat's Tuxedo (newly tagged - originally created 1 month ago), Video games set in the 1820s — Cat's Tuxedo (newly tagged - originally created 20 days ago), Video games set in the 1830s — Cat's Tuxedo (newly tagged - originally created 1 month ago), Video games set in the 1840s — Cat's Tuxedo (newly tagged - originally created 1 month ago), Video games set in the 1850s — Cat's Tuxedo (newly tagged - originally created 1 month ago), Video games set in the 1st century — Cat's Tuxedo (newly tagged - originally created 1 month ago), Video games set in the 1st millennium — Cat's Tuxedo (newly tagged - originally created 1 month ago), Video games set in the 1st millennium BC — Cat's Tuxedo (newly tagged - originally created 1 month ago), Video games set in the 25th century BC — Cat's Tuxedo (newly tagged - originally created 19 days ago), Video games set in the 2nd century — Cat's Tuxedo (newly tagged - originally created 20 days ago), Video games set in the 2nd millennium — Cat's Tuxedo (newly tagged - originally created 1 month ago), Video games set in the 2nd millennium BC — Cat's Tuxedo (newly tagged - originally created 1 month ago), Video games set in the 3rd millennium — Cat's Tuxedo (newly tagged - originally created 1 month ago), Video games set in the 3rd millennium BC — Cat's Tuxedo (newly tagged - originally created 19 days ago), Video games set in the 4th century BC — Cat's Tuxedo (newly tagged - originally created 1 month ago), Video games set in the 4th millennium BC — Cat's Tuxedo (newly tagged - originally created 1 month ago), Video games set in the 5th century BC — Cat's Tuxedo (newly tagged - originally created 1 month ago), Video games set in the 8th century BC — Cat's Tuxedo (newly tagged - originally created 20 days ago)

January 8

January 9

January 10

January 11

January 12

January 13

January 14

The new GAs are because I went through and tagged all of the The Last of Us episodes, some of which had already been promoted. --PresN 19:41, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

There might be a better article to expand the Nintendo and fan games to cover Nintendo's stance of its IP in general which has a rather large section at Nintendo already. Masem (t) 20:09, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
I proposed on Talk:Nintendo and fan games to rename it in a manner to cover Nintendo's stance on IP specifically, because that seems to be all that the article is currently about anyway. Alternatively we could completely refocus it, but that would mean scrapping and rewriting most of the article. I invite you to share your thoughts there. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:43, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Super Smash Bros. (video game)

Latest comment: 11 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Super Smash Bros. (video game) has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 16:13, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Tomb Raider portable trilogy sources

Latest comment: 11 months ago13 comments7 people in discussion

Hi. Since Tomb Raider's in people's minds right now, I thought I'd raise a question here. The three original portable-exclusive Tomb Raider titles (TR GBC, Curse of the Sword, The Prophecy) are severely short on sources on development and even release. Let along anything else. The Prophecy and GBC seem salvageable, but I've found literally no sources on Curse of the Sword beyond announcement very shortly before its release, and a few reviews.

Can anyone help with finding actual dev info on these three? My searches have turned up nothing. I was thinking of doing something on these, but in the current situation, I'm only seeing the original GBC title and The Prophecy being preservable as individual articles, with Curse of the Sword looking like becoming a subsection in the original GBC article given the seeming lack of info and its mechanical similarity to its predecessor. ProtoDrake (talk) 22:25, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

First of all, Curse of the Sword got a vast number of reviews. Development info is not a requirement for a game to have its own article, though perhaps it might be more necessary when trying to raise it to GA standards. The reviews alone are more than sufficient to justify the article's existence.
Finding said info is another story, though. IGN even stated that "the game was worked on in secrecy". The actual dev team appears to have been rather tiny, and it's pretty likely its development will be hidden behind an NDA forever. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:51, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
Come on, don't tell regulars how essential development info. He's well aware. He's obviously asking because he wants to write a halfway decent article. Sergecross73 msg me 00:59, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
Speaking bluntly, I was hoping for sources that didn't rely on assumptions in reviews. And yes, a GAN was in my plan. --ProtoDrake (talk) 10:13, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
I've recently noticed that a ton of issues of Nintendo Power are up on the Internet Archive. But I think you'd have to figure out if/what issues ever covered them first. As far as I saw, they're not "searchable", so it's more like if someone dumped their old magazine collection on you and said "here, feel free to skim through them". Sergecross73 msg me 14:57, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
At a quick glance, this is all I could find in Nintendo Power:
  • Tomb Raider GBC: preview (with some dev quotes) in issue 130, strategy and review in 132
  • Curse of the Sword: features in 147 and 148 (and a review in the latter) but seemingly nothing about development
  • The Prophecy: tiny news story in 160 and very brief review in 163
– Rhain ☔ (he/him) 23:02, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
I did a search but I also found nothing with regards to more development info. Timur9008 (talk) 15:14, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
I found two reviews for the game here: https://www.uvlist.net/game-49547-Tomb+Raider Roberth Martinez (talk) 21:29, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

To everyone above, this has been a HUGE help, combined with some more searching I've done. The only thing I'm really missing now is a source confirming the EU release date for the original GBC title, and perhaps The Prophecy. --ProtoDrake (talk) 10:03, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Not sure how useful that is to you, but via Kultboy (Q112344357), a review of each in German:
Hope that helps, Jean-Fred (talk) 19:23, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
And via the breadcrumbs of Universal Videogame List (Q64447538) (as pointed out by Roberth Martinez), some in French:
Jean-Fred (talk) 19:36, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
I came across with a review of the orignal GBC Tomb Raider in this issue of Total Game Boy: https://archive.org/details/Total_Game_Boy_Issue_08/page/n5/mode/2up Roberth Martinez (talk) 21:29, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
P.S. - I found another preview of the the game in this other issue of Total Game Boy: https://archive.org/details/Total_Game_Boy_Issue_07/page/n6/mode/1up Roberth Martinez (talk) 21:31, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Sonic the Fighters

Latest comment: 11 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Looking for more opinions at this discussion on whether to include reception box or not at Sonic the Fighters TarkusABtalk/contrib 22:40, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Invite to join the February 2024 Unreferenced Backlog Drive

Latest comment: 11 months ago4 comments2 people in discussion
WikiProject Unreferenced articles | February 2024 Backlog Drive
 
There are just 1216 articles belong to Category:Video games that do not have any references, according to PetScan. Just 1216! Let's source all of these articles in this drive and make video-games related articles a little bit more reliable for the readers.
  • Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles cited.
  • Remember to tag your edit summary with [[WP:FEB24]], both to advertise the event and tally the points later using Edit Summary Search.
  • Interested in taking part? Sign up here.

CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:35, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

The drive runs for 30 days, so if everybody here cite 41 articles listed in PetScan, all of these articles will be cited 1 days ahead of the end date for the drive (1216/41 = 29.6). CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:37, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
Does List of PlayStation 2 games (L–Z) need citing? Timur9008 (talk) 15:06, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
Yes. You can add a new column that contain citations, verifying developer, publisher, released date and supported regions. Though a bit tedious, it's actually fairly easy to get these citations by taking some in existing Wikipedia articles. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:08, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Little Goody Two Shoes#Requested move 23 January 2024

Latest comment: 10 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Little Goody Two Shoes#Requested move 23 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:12, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Star Ocean Box art

Latest comment: 10 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

We've come into a bit of an issue on how to handle the box art on the Star Ocean article. If anyone could weigh in on our discussion on whether to use the PSP or SNES cover art in the infobox, it would help as we're oddly not really arguing but not sure what is best! Talk page is here. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:20, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

New Articles (January 15 to January 21)

Latest comment: 10 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 v3.17 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 20:44, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

January 15

January 16

January 17

January 18

January 19

January 20

January 21

I don't have an Xbox series X/S. If one of you buys Indiana Jones and the Great Circle, please let me know what you think of it on my talk page. Panini! • 🥪 23:06, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Indiana Jones and the Great Circle is quite possibly the weirdest game title I've heard. UnexpectedSmoreInquisition aka USI (talk) 12:18, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
It's not "weird", it just sucks! When I first heard it, I was like, "What?! Surely that must be the working title." But I guess not. Every Indiana Jones title has this emphasis on something grand, larger than life, something to match this epic quest that Indiana Jones is about to go on. It's a treasure that has this priceless, spiritual weight and historical significance to it, something that details just how important of an artifact it truly is. Say what you want about Kingdom of the Crystal Skull and Dial of Destiny but at least the titles check those boxes. You're telling me "great" and "circle" were literally the best thing they could come up with?! Oh, Puh-LEASE! I don't even need to explain what's bad about it, it's just that self-describingly terrible. Panini! • 🥪 20:41, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
I mean, it is the mathematical name for the thing it is about. IceWelder [✉] 20:59, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
The man's a sexy archeologist. NOT a mathematician. Panini! • 🥪
Be on the lookout for the sequel: Indiana Jones and the Hairy Balls. – Pbrks (t·c) 21:10, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
I was just thinking that the story would be like one of those flash games that tries to teach math, where Indiana Jones has to go find the "great circle" which contains all of the circles in the world so that his pointy chin could be a bit rounder. Of course, reality is often more disappointing. Also, if this is a real thing it somehow makes it even worse. Can't wait to hop on and play iNdIaNa JoNeS aNd ThE gReAt CiRcLe. Anyways, that's all for this topic because I'm not sure whether this violates policy to discuss here (WP:NOTAFORUM) so bye! UnexpectedSmoreInquisition aka USI (talk) 22:44, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Latest comment: 10 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I'm seeking some guidance on the common practice to reference links to emulated versions of articles of commercial 80s and 90s games, particularly to the Internet Archive. I understand it is seen as helpful, but I'm not sure about the copyright implications of doing this, even for abandonware. WP:ELNEVER suggests that there is probably a need to remove these external links when they come up. Are there any other sources of guidance on this? ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 22:14, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

I think WP:ELNEVER is clear enough, emulated games violate copyright even if they are abandonware. They would have to be freeware or open-source to qualify. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:03, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, I will keep an eye out for these and remove them in future. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 23:23, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Takeshi no Chōsenjō#Requested move 26 January 2024

Latest comment: 10 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Takeshi no Chōsenjō#Requested move 26 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:10, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

On individual award pages and cats

Latest comment: 10 months ago4 comments4 people in discussion

I've noticed that for both the British Academy Games Awards and D.I.C.E. Awards that users have created pages for each of the individual awards. I am pretty confident that some years ago we opted to remove these for any awards - excluding the award's top prize so like The Game Award for Game of the Year or Seumas McNally Grand Prize which actually do get some indiviual discussion at times. This also applies to the individual award categories or similar breakout like Category:D.I.C.E. Awards as these are non-defining for games outside of GOTY's.
Do we need to review this discussion? — Masem (t) 02:17, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Look, if these lists don't have any prose and all the sources are either primary sources or lists of nominees/winners, then there's nothing for us there. Unless there's significant history or controversy for a specific award, there's no point in having an encyclopedic article on it. So I think these are just easy deletion discussions. Just check for reasonable exceptions before nominating them all, like GOTY. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:30, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
Strikes me as standard awards page creep. Random editors see one page and assume the rest are fine and proceed to fill out the page tree. AFD away! Axem Titanium (talk) 21:18, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, I think this keeps happening in the music world too. I believe we already generally have a consensus against splitting it out but people do it anyways. Usually it's just a matter of the classic "Well I saw they split it out for (most notable industry award in existence) so I thought it was only fair to also split it out for (random barely notable award) too!" Sergecross73 msg me 21:47, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Help replacing music file at The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask#Music

Latest comment: 10 months ago4 comments2 people in discussion

The current file is someone's "public domain" rendition of the Clock Town theme but it's likely to be deleted from Commons in the coming days. Since any replacement would have to be non-free fair use, I figured it would be helpful to illustrate the "changing tempo" of the Clock Town theme across day 1-day 3. Can anyone with more experience in this domain help me with replacing the music file on this page? Axem Titanium (talk) 21:39, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Also if anyone happens to own the Majora's Mask Boss Fight Books, let me know! Axem Titanium (talk) 21:41, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
Sent you an email! – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 22:02, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
🙏 Axem Titanium (talk) 22:08, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Inclusion criteria for List of controversial video games

Latest comment: 10 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hey, just reaching out to invite any thoughts on a starting point for creating inclusion criteria for the article List of controversial video games which you can find here. The article currently does not have such a criteria which has led to a fairly indiscriminate list with items that span from anywhere to well-cited items to very vague items with descriptions like "sex/violence" or items that relying on a single source to substantiate them. Similar approaches have been taken for the article List of video games notable for negative reception which has curbed the inclusion of random games. The aim is to curb minor controversies which in themselves have not received significant coverage. It would be great to find some community consensus on this to take a firmer approach on the article if criteria are seen as needed. Thanks! ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 11:56, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Xenoblade Chronicles 3 GA

Latest comment: 10 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Not long ago, I was reviewing the work of Zekerocks11 on Xenoblade Chronicles 3. The article was coming along, but it looks like this user likely left Wikipedia before they could finish.

It appears that Zekerocks11 left after an AN/I was closed with no action against a user who was later blocked for another incident. I don't know if anyone has a way to invite them back, but I thought I would mention it for context.

The article was improving and could have been well on its way to reaching Good Article status. If someone wanted to take this on, I'd be good to review it. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:00, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

New Articles (January 22 to January 28)

Latest comment: 10 months ago6 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 v3.17 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 21:22, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

January 22

January 23

January 24

January 25

January 26

January 27

January 28

@PresN you need to place your sig at the end of this post. Gonnym (talk) 23:19, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
I assure you, having posted this for apparently almost 6 years, that I really don't. --PresN 23:31, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
Sig is already in the grey box that heads this, seems perfectly fine. Masem (t) 01:16, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
Well, you don't need to sign it, but it makes my job much easier. You scumbag. SineBot (talk) 01:24, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
The true enemy to fight is your bot "owner". You have nothing to lose but your chains! --PresN 01:32, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Scope of Team Rocket

Latest comment: 10 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I would like to invite discussion over at Talk:Team Rocket#Whether to refocus this article. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:51, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Category discussion input

Latest comment: 10 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi everyone, I nominated Category: War video games for deletion a little while back, and it has been relisted twice. If you're so inclined, say your piece at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 January 30#Category:War video games. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 20:38, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Thoughts requested for a change to the table format at List of generation III Pokémon

Latest comment: 10 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi, I opened a discussion at here, with the idea that it would be used in all generational lists. Any input would be well received. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 00:12, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Fossil Pokémon (Sword and Shield)#Requested move 31 January 2024

Latest comment: 10 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Fossil Pokémon (Sword and Shield)#Requested move 31 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:39, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Mario Kart DS

Latest comment: 10 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Mario Kart DS has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:28, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Conflict of interest and Geometry Dash

Latest comment: 10 months ago7 comments5 people in discussion

I've been planning to prepare the Geometry Dash article for WP:GAN and WP:DYK. However, I'm a bit hesitant to start since I actively play the game myself. Do I have a COI with the article's subject? — Davest3r08 >:) (talk) 15:10, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate that you call out this concern, because most people wouldn't consider this at all. The consensus is broadly that being a fan of something isn't a conflict of interest. Hopefully, the GAN process would reveal any biases in the article. Requesting a peer review on bias specifically is an option, I suppose. Regardless, if you're not being paid to write positively about Geometry Dash (or it otherwise affecting your status), I hope you can look at the game with a critical eye. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 15:21, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
Maplestrip, thanks! — Davest3r08 >:) (talk) 15:33, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
Nope, unless you were actively involved in its creation, or were somehow earning money off of the game, it wouldn't be considered a COI. (If simply liking things were an issue, it'd be impossible to get anything done on Wikipedia, as it's extremely common to write about things you like...) Sergecross73 msg me 15:30, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
Not for me! I exclusively write about stuff I hate, like video games! /s Axem Titanium (talk) 20:22, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
I don't know, in my time mediating/maintaining articles like Intellivision Amico or Nickelback, there's plenty of hate-editing out there too haha. Sergecross73 msg me 22:10, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
To give more concrete examples, a conflict of interest would exist of you were one of the developers or work for the publisher, closely connected to to someone associated with the game (family, friend, significant other etc) or work for a marketing firm paid to promote the game.--67.70.103.36 (talk) 01:39, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Call of Duty 2

Latest comment: 10 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Call of Duty 2 has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. λ NegativeMP1 00:43, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Arkhamverse articles

Latest comment: 10 months ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Could I get help with creating the Arkhamverse articles for Batman, Joker, and Harley Quinn? All are in some of the most famous video game moments of all-time. I need help with citations. ShirtNShoesPls (talk) 00:30, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

I would recommend asking at WP:VGCHAR, they are pretty knowledgeable when it comes to video game characters on Wikipedia. QuicoleJR (talk) 03:03, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll reach out. ShirtNShoesPls (talk) 02:21, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
The first problem is going in having characters in mind and then wanting to "find" notability for them. That inevitably leads to non-notable articles. The article should be a result of discovering sources, not forcing sources to fit whatever character you had in mind.
On my first pass just looking for ANY characters in general who may be notable from the Arkham games, I found nothing of note. It seems to me you are best off trying to integrate it with their normal article, or in Joker's case, improving the section in Joker in other media. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:20, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Animal Crossing character discussion

Latest comment: 10 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have started a discussion at Talk:List of Animal Crossing series characters#Should Ankha be included? that this WikiProject may be interested in. The discussion seems to have slowed down, so feel free to participate! QuicoleJR (talk) 23:06, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Unclear notability at WP:VG/R

Latest comment: 10 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Specifically, I was browsing through the list, and I am unsure whether the game developer Jes Negrón passes WP:NBIO or would fall under WP:1EVENT. Sources also mention the game she created, Good Bones, but it doesn't seem to be notable in itself, and they largely mention it under the context of her being the plaintiff in the Riot games lawsuit. It seems to me this may be a case where the lawsuit should have an article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:08, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

The section at Riot_Games#Allegations_over_gender_discrimination_and_sexual_harassment seems to be fairly long already. She should certainly be mentioned there but perhaps it might need to be spun out as well? I'm not strongly advocating for a split at this time. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:21, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Still working on Go Vacation. Any sources I'm missing?

Latest comment: 10 months ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Hello! I've been editing this article for a very long time now, and haven't been able to find any additional sources to get it to Featured Article status. Does anyone have any ideas for where I could look? TheAwesomeHwyh 00:45, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

And by "a long time", I mean I've been working on this article for six years. Woah. TheAwesomeHwyh 00:50, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
Could give this a spin. [1] - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 00:52, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
Not sure to what extent you've searched for sources but regardless, check out WP:VG/SE if you haven't already! Panini! • 🥪 01:01, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

New Articles (January 29 to February 4)

Latest comment: 10 months ago8 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 v3.17 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 23:09, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

January 29

January 30

January 31

February 1

February 2

February 3

February 4

Cukie Gherkin's been making a killing on character articles lately. Good lord!--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:18, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
Note- the above made more sense when I still had February 5 added on (I'm 1 day late, so I had the data), where Cukie Gherkin had 5 character articles in 1 day. A preview of next week's post! --PresN 23:22, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
If you told me to even name 5 video game characters on the spot, I'd probably say Mario and Walter White and then be out of ideas. Panini! • 🥪 23:47, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
Just found this, here we go:
  1. Link
  2. Yoshi
  3. Princess Peach
  4. Isabelle
  5. Kirby
QuicoleJR (talk) 01:47, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
None of those are video game characters, doofus. Panini! • 🥪 02:23, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
Oh, you're right. Sorry about that. QuicoleJR (talk) 02:30, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
What about Princess Beach? Axem Titanium (talk) 22:45, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Draft page that I am working on

Latest comment: 10 months ago6 comments5 people in discussion

I am currently working on Draft:Tom Clancy's The Division (series) But I am struggling to find sources could someone help me find some? Someone0317 (talk) 06:57, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm sure the articles for each game would have useful refs. -- ZooBlazer 07:07, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
With only two games released so far, it seems WP:TOOSOON for a series article. Maybe when the third game releases and the other spinoffs do as well, there will be an argument for a series page. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:56, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
Yup, exactly this. Series articles with only 2 game entries are generally deleted, because all of the information can generally just squarely be placed in the article for the first or second game. I'd put that project on hold until games three and four are out. That could help the whole sourcing problem too. Sergecross73 msg me 15:19, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
There are exceptions, of course; for example, if you could find a lot of other non-video game works for The Division. Looking at a Reddit post, there are roughly half a dozen books. So, if there was enough coverage of them, that might help. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 22:50, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
They are working on a spin-off and a third game Someone0317 (talk) 23:03, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Fortnite revenue

Latest comment: 10 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi all. Fortnite's revenue was mentioned here [2]. I'm not sure whether it can be added to the main Fortnite article though or should we wait for a better source. Timur9008 (talk) 05:49, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

38 Studios

Latest comment: 10 months ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Hi. Among other things, I've become interested recently in the work of 38 Studios. I've already created and brought to GA an article on Project Copernicus, and I've recently done some further work on Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning which is currently in GAN. The history of 38 Studios is...a lot, as I'm finding out. I'm wondering how far my scope should stretch when it comes to the post-bankruptcy legal stuff that went on (two legal cases at least, one being federal and only resolved in 2019). I don't want the article to become bloated, but I feel it should be noted at least. I've done articles on video game developers before, but 38 Studios is a whole other kettle of fish. Opinions would be much valued. (Minor edit: I'm pulling together stuff for a 38 Studios article rewrite in my sandbox if anyone's interested in looking at what I've found.) ProtoDrake (talk) 20:15, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Honestly, my instinct would be to be maximalist and only pare back if reviewers object. I think all of the fallout from 38 Studios is fascinating as well and would like to read it. Axem Titanium (talk) 06:33, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
This, 100%. IceWelder [✉] 07:05, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
@IceWelder and Axem Titanium: Right, I've completed the major edit. Other eyes more than welcome to check over and trim/expand where appropriate. Looking through the legal and financial shenanigans was...a time. --ProtoDrake (talk) 23:33, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
Great work! I didn't find it bloated and I liked the Reactions section. Nice little article here, telling a relatively complete story about a corner of the game industry. It's certainly a lot better told than what the article looked like before! Quick thing I noticed, the sentence starting with "Initially scheduled for a 2011 release" doesn't have a main verb, it's just two dependent clauses. There's also "close to approving $30 in funding", which seems low 😂. Axem Titanium (talk) 22:36, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
@Axem Titanium: Thanks for catching those (I wouldn't put it past 38 at that stage to be cadgeing small change). Getting all the legal stuff and settlements straight was a nightmare, so I had to summarise in places. --ProtoDrake (talk) 22:57, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Mike Booth

Latest comment: 10 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi! In case this is of interest to anyone here: Draft:Mike Booth is currently under review in the AfC queue. Booth is the creator of Left 4 Dead and founder of Turtle Rock Studios. I have a COI here – Bad Robot Games, Booth's current employer, is a client of mine. Happy to answer any questions, and appreciate any time and feedback. Thank you! Mary Gaulke (talk) 04:07, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Konix Multisystem

Latest comment: 10 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello to y'all! I hope everybody is doing well. Last month, i compiled a wealth of sources regarding the unreleased Konix Multisystem console at the article's talk page under the sources section. I think it will be of great use to anybody interested working on that particular subject. Take care everybody :D Roberth Martinez (talk) 00:44, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Good articles on early access games

Latest comment: 10 months ago6 comments4 people in discussion

As of recently, I've been looking into the prospect of a Palworld GA, since well, it's one of the most popular games right now and an extremely interesting subject all things considered. It also undoubtedly has enough high-quality sourcing. However, I am hesitant on if I should be patient before working on it, or if I should go ahead and begin the cleanup process even if GAN doesn't come for a while. Have any GAs on games still in early-access ever been made? Or is it generally a good idea to wait? λ NegativeMP1 18:15, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

It would be tough but not impossible to satisfy the stability criterion of WP:GA? because of ongoing controversies. That's not to dissuade you from getting it "GA-ready" or maintaining clean-up. It's easier to expand in response to new happenings (e.g. full release, lawsuit, etc.) if the base article is already in good shape. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:23, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
I really don't think we can consider an early access game to be sufficient complete for a GA. A B-class and getting all the copyedits for a GA once the game is fully out and a proper reception section can be made, sure. Masem (t) 18:31, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
The stability bit completely slipped my mind. Knowing that, it's probably best to wait, though I'll probably still be cleaning it up. Thank you both for the responses! λ NegativeMP1 18:44, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
The "stable" criteria of GA comes to mind. I know people think of instability as coming from edit warring. But instability may be that reliable sources are still reacting to the content in real time, and not a failure of any of our editors. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:50, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
There could be arguments made for a game that has been in early access for years, enough to have garnered sufficient and quality reception from RSes, to say that even if the game left early access, it likely will not significantly change the article. But key is "years", not something like Palworld which only had just come out. I'm thinking more like, Star Citizen, which still lacks a true release window yet now been out to test for over a decade. Masem (t) 02:11, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
Latest comment: 10 months ago6 comments2 people in discussion

I don't know the etiquette about nominating a subject for FT that I didn't work on, but it seems like the Metroid Prime Trilogy would qualify, being a GA itself, and the three games included being FAs? - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 23:27, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

The larger series was a good topic until it was demoted in 2016 due to the non-GA Federation Force; when that article and Metroid Dread are brought up to GA, it'll be eligible again. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 23:54, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
I'm not talking about Metroid as a whole though, I'm talking about a Metroid Prime Trilogy Featured Topic. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 01:28, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
I know, but my point was that a trilogy FT seems pointless when the larger series is already so close to GT. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 02:25, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
Well, sure, but an FT is a bigger accomplishment than a GT. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 02:30, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
I'd argue a GT with three FAs, an FL, and twelve GAs would be a bigger accomplishment than an FT with three FAs and one GA—but they're both impressive regardless. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 02:16, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Spreadsheet of British SNES game reviews

Latest comment: 10 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello to y'all once again and sorry if i'm bothering once again XD I don't know how many of you hang out at the AtariAge forums but i came across with this speadsheet of British SNES game reviews (1) by user S_R_G (2), which i think it will be a godsend for everybody here. I decided to post it here for anybody interested. Have a nice day :) Roberth Martinez (talk) 20:27, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

New Articles (February 5 to February 11)

Latest comment: 10 months ago10 comments7 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 21:11, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

February 5

February 6

February 7

February 8

February 9

February 10

February 11

I was just going to call out Cukie Gherkin's 9 new B-class character articles in a single week (wow!), but now I'm also going to go the other direction and call out "Our princess is in another castle!" because... really? --PresN 21:11, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

That really doesn't seem to be a necessary article. I'm all for writing articles on random stuff that people normally wouldn't expect an article for, but this seems to really be pushing that. Definitely not as well covered of a quote as something like It's dangerous to go alone! or All your base are belong to us. λ NegativeMP1 21:58, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
I'd think "princess in another castle" is at least as well known as "all your base", if not moreso. It was a line of dialog in the Mario movie, indicating they expect a decent chunk of people to be in on the joke. Normally I'd not think a gaming quote was article worthy either, but if there's one quote that merits an article, I think it would likely be this one. I literally can't think of a more iconic quote known by more non-gamers. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:52, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
Iconic doesn't equal notable. We want to see significant coverage, and what I'm seeing are equivalent to one short brief article, a brief mention in a locationalization article, and then one-off calls to other works (keep in mind that we do want to discourage popular culture sections without good sourcing) "It's Dangerous...." has the same problem. On the other hand "All your base" describes how it became a meme, as well as the fact it had appeared outside video game media, but just barely passes this bar. Those other phrases can easily be described in the games they originated from with just a few paragraphs — Masem (t) 01:18, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

@PresN: Hey, sorry to bother you. I must of made of a mistake when creating the draft for it (probably because I haven't made one in years), but it seems that the Geno article I created wasn't caught by the bot. My bad, CaptainGalaxy 23:38, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Good work, by the way. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 00:02, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
Thank you very much, I spent a lot of time checking both the English and Japanese Google News sections searching for articles. I'm proud with what I created here, although I am surprised I actually managed to make it. CaptainGalaxy 00:10, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, for some reason the 1.0 bot listed it as first "draft created" and then "draft changed to redirect", and since my script doesn't check new drafts it never double checked if that redirect went to a valid article. This one's a new bug, but it's the latest in a series of issues that means I need to rewrite the whole script to not trust anything the 1.0 bot says happened but instead use it as a list of articles to directly investigate the history of. That rewrite has been pending for a year, so don't hold your breath, y'all. In any case, added your article to the list above. --PresN 03:20, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Crowd control

Latest comment: 10 months ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Does crowd control need its own article, or should it be redirect to the glossary? I'm leaning toward redirecting it because it seems unlikely that the article could avoid the current mess of being a game guide. That said, it's a pretty broad topic, so maybe I'm being a bit too pessimistic. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:12, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

If the original research and unreliable sources were removed, there would be almost nothing left of the article (perhaps nothing at all?). This is a WP:TNT situation regardless of whether it's notable, so I support a redirect. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:07, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
The best source currently in use there, is literally a glossary of video game terminology. I think a merge is well-warranted. That source does indeed look pretty decent btw. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:49, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

WPVG, PIQA, and A-class articles

Latest comment: 10 months ago22 comments11 people in discussion

Last year, consensus was reached to establish a project-independent quality assessment scale (WP:PIQA), which has recently begun wide implementation. Within the hundreds of bot edits in your watchlists, you may have noticed that the |class= parameter is removed from most WikiProject banners, but not {{WikiProject Video games}}. This is because, in February 2015 (9 years ago), A-class articles were locally deprecated in our project and our quality scale is considered custom. In the 2015 dicussion, it appears that the principal concern was a lack of A-class reviewers, although opinions differed on whether this justified the removal of the class. With PIQA now being enforced, would it be wise for us to restore A-class assessments and re-establish uniformity with other projects in this regard? (Pinging previous contributors: @GamerPro64, PresN, JimmyBlackwing, Tezero, Czar, Masem, Dank, and JDC808). IceWelder [✉] 10:09, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

What does it look like when an article has received an A-class assessment for one project, but the video game project template on the same talkpage doesn't feature that same letter? Is it typically B-class or such? I think in those rare cases, it would be fine to just join it all together into one single A-class. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 10:17, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
Video game articles tagged as A-class are rendered and categorized like unassessed articles with no automatic replacement. It would require manual intervention to set to B-class. IceWelder [✉] 10:53, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
I'm asking what our typical standard is/was when, for example, Milhist assessed an article to A-class, and we followed the same article with our template as well. I understand that we didn't support A-class technically, so what did we usually do in that scenario? I don't know of any examples of this occurring. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 11:03, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
Typically, if one project set it to A-class, it had passed GA, so we set it to GA-class. If it had not passed GA, we would set it to B-class. --PresN 12:41, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
Here I thought A-class was a level below GA... If we were to merge with all other projects, one class would have to overwrite the other. Could some of our GAs suddenly be turned into A-class? Or would some A-class articles be turned into GAs? ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 12:51, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
A-class is the step between GA and FA (at least in theory). I don't think creating A-Level checks is the way forward. It's only really used on a handful of projects (such as WP:MILHIST). Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:27, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
So there probably won't even be a conflict if we do go along with this? And if there ever is, it'll be fine if our GAs get relabeled as A-class? ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 13:29, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
No, we wouldn't relabel our GAs to be A class. Things that are A class might be relabelled as GA class if no one wanted to retain that system, or if WP:VG wanted to use A-class, then we could create the grading process that is required. Personally, I think dedicating a review system for A-class is a bit of a waste of time. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:01, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
Enabling A-class wouldn't mean that we need to establish a separate review process; the "basic" one (per WP:A?) should suffice and is only required if someone actually opens such a review request instead of GA or FA. Simply allowing A-class articles to exist is seemingly the mainstream option. IceWelder [✉] 14:40, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
Why are we adding back bureaucracy just because the new PIQA process supports A Class? No one at this project has had interest in an A-class process for a decade+. -- ferret (talk) 15:06, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
I think it's because fundamentally, an A-class with no review process, sandwiched between a GA-class with a review process and an FA-class with a review process, is kind of pointless. It doesn't really hurt anything, I guess, to have it, but it doesn't add anything either. Especially since it turns out that the PIQA changes to the bannershell template still work for us (e.g. even though the bots have been leaving our assessments in place, if they're removed we just use the bannershell ones like everyone else with the exception of A-class). So... why add A-class unless you're going to do something with it? But I agree with you- we're not going to do anything with it, so what's the point. --PresN 15:49, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
That's the thing. We can't just add it back, unless we're going to do it. It requires the review process. That might just be a talk page discussion but it *must* happen. -- ferret (talk) 15:53, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
I can only think of one video game with the A status And Yet it Moves, but it doesn't look to be an official one. But looking into the process I think it's actually pretty fascinating and has some potential. It looks to be like a peer review process, but for individual Wikiprojects.
Peer reviews barely get any traction. So, imagine a world where a new video game editor submits their article for A-class review ahead of a GA review. A bunch of us WPVG users can drop in and point out any obvious issues or some minor drive-by comments. It can really cut out the middle man that is PR, and help get more eyes on an article ahead of formal reviews so they don't have to go hunting for help and forcing people's hands.
But, that's hypothetical. There's seems to be no interest in bringing this back, and this will likely not happen if nobody is interested in the first place. Before thinking about this, neither was I. Panini! • 🥪 17:02, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
A-class is meant to be pre-FA, not pre-GA. We have GAs and PRs that sit as is, let alone a new level between them and FA. -- ferret (talk) 17:04, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
While I do feel there's a gulf between GA and FA in terms of what wikipedia is looking for, Ferret's right in that adding another review process when we're already struggling to get reviews done is a significant factor. For it to work best too you'd really need external views from outside the vg project to ensure the article is clear to people unfamiliar with these subjects, and I don't see that readily happening.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:11, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
I'm in agreement. I think our limited time and effort is better spent on the semi-periodic GA/FA/PR review swap threads that pop up here than in implementing another hurdle to FA level of assessment. As my wiki time has decreased, I wouldn't mind spending more time doing reviews of others' work. Could we perhaps make said review swap threads a more regular occurrence? In the past, it feels like it only happens when one editor gets fed up with waiting for a GAN/FAC review. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:29, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
I like the sound of that Axem Titanium. Many users here have made review threads in the past (I see GamerPro64, ProtoDrake, PresN from the first page of archives), so perhaps we could automate these threads in a way with a built-in "begging" subheader? (It certainly shouldn't be weekly because that would be outrageous). Panini! • 🥪 19:18, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
@IceWelder I used to like the idea of the A-class, and I actually had a couple of articles reviewed and passed as A's when the project previously supported it, but I am indifferent to whether or not we want to reinstate it. It's a nice extra check in the box for an article, but at the same time, is it worth going through all the hassle of having it reinstated as well as going through the process of actually reviewing articles for A? Granted, it would help to cut down the FAC review process as it can help to resolve issues that would likely come up in an FAC review, so there is that benefit to it. JDC808 ♫ 04:05, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Metacritic reception summaries attributed to GameRankings

Latest comment: 10 months ago7 comments5 people in discussion

I have noticed that there are numerous articles for older games where their reception section says it "received mixed/favorable reviews, according to the review aggregation website Gamerankings". All the examples I've looked at show this consensus summary citing GameRankings were added by the user Angeldeb82 as part of good-faith attempts to expand and update the reception of older games. This specific phrasing is standard for articles when noting Metacritic's consensus, but then Metacritic explicitly gives this, while GameRankings does not, so no summary should be attributed to this site. Incidentally, I also found that the original URL to GameRankings' page in the citation instead links to (an unrelated page) on Metacritic and I've no idea why. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 13:39, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

That's because the GameRankings links have been dead and redirected since the end of 2019. Angeldeb82 (talk) 17:15, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
That doesn't explain why you attributed a quote to Gamerankings that they never provided... -- ferret (talk) 17:24, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
If GameRankings is going to be sourced, the most we can do is simply say what score it has and leave it there. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 20:47, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
Yep, we can't say that Game Rankings, if it had "received mixed/favorable reviews" assessments, would do so in the same way Metacritic does now. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 21:35, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
It will take a while but I'll look to go through the articles with this phrasing and change them so it just mentions the score. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 14:29, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
Adding numerical scores in prose seems meaningless and questionable. @Wikibenboy94 Perhaps use the number of reviews as that at least reveals popularity and is not somewhat redundant to Metacritic. IgelRM (talk) 05:32, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Dragon's Lair (Game Boy Color video game)

Latest comment: 10 months ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Hi everyone, I am considering reviewing the well-written GAN for Dragon's Lair (Game Boy Color video game) by @Cukie Gherkin. I am very supportive of niche GBC articles and have written a lot myself ! That said, it would be good to receive a second opinion on the standalone notability of this article as a port of Dragon's Lair given WP:NVG and the sheer amount of identical ports for the game. I am not advocating for a merge but just want some guidance on where a port has merit in being dealt with as a standalone article. Otherwise I am happy to process the GAN for this game. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 03:19, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

I found these sources [3], [4], [5]
Not sure if useful Timur9008 (talk) 03:45, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
As there is a development section unique to the GBA port, in addition to reviews specific to the port, it looks like it passes the GNG without issue. Masem (t) 03:46, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

The Wikiproject Video games 20th anniversay(!)

Latest comment: 10 months ago16 comments16 people in discussion

I would like to point out that 20 years and 10 days ago today was when Greyengine5 founded the Wikiproject! That's incredible! Happy 20th anniversary to all members of the project!

For the fun of it, why not share when you joined the project and why? Special thank you to anyone in particular are also encouraged.

  • I joined the project in ~October 2020 after being invited and familiarized to it by (Oinkers42) and Captain Galaxy. The friendliness of everyone here, and especially how collaborative everyone is towards each other's works, is why I stuck around. Panini! • 🥪 19:10, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Wow, that is impressive, especially considering how many Wikiprojects fizzle out, or are so inactive that they hardly function. I joined Wikipedia on 2008, but I don't think I started commenting at WT:VG until closer to 2010, with conflicts repeatedly arising over newly announced platforms like the Nintendo 3DS and PlayStation Vita. Funny enough, I didn't technically "join" WP:VG until well after I started because I misunderstood how Wikiprojects worked and were perceived. I was afraid I'd be assigned work I didnt want to do, or that I'd be perceived as having a bias at AFD if I joined. ("That video game isn't notable, Serge only wants to keep it because he's a WP:VG member!" type stuff, which I eventually learned that's not how it works.) Sergecross73 msg me 19:41, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Wasn't there a member list of some kind? I remember adding my name to it. My first edit on a WP:VG-tagged article is on a talk page. And frankly, over 17 years later, I stand by it. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 20:14, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
  • I first entered this place (not sure I "joined" persay) all the way back in 2012, when I was taking my first tentative steps towards Final Fantasy articles and had a question to raise about Fabula Nova Crystallis Final Fantasy. I've found a group that's generally supportive and engaging, and have been pleased to contribute to article discussions, matters of conduct, or thornier issues surrounding edit disputes or recent discussions surrounding notability and source validity. I've experienced great patience through my stumblings, and support/guidance when asked most of the time. It's kept me invested in the video game article space. --ProtoDrake (talk) 20:31, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
  • I've been around since...good god, 2006? I joined to edit the M.U.G.E.N article back in the day while going to college, and man that was a huge embarrassment. I was so young and naive back then. But I got a feel for things over the years, and do hope I least contribute something useful to the project in the long run.
  • Not sure when I joined the project, but my first Wikipedia edit was all the way back in December 2004 in the video games space. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 21:52, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Joined the project in mid-2006, about a month after I started editing. I thought joining projects for the stuff I was working on was the way to go, and ended up never leaving. --PresN 22:39, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
  • I joined Wikipedia (and by proxy the WP:VG) in 2017. At the time my main interest was everything Atari Jaguar-related (and still is to this day). Over the course of seven years, i've learned a lot here thanks to the users here at WP:VG, some of which have helped me a lot with the article i've worked on so far and i thank them very very much for lending me a hand. I do try to repay their help by finding useful sources for various articles as a way to say thanks to those who have helped me over the years here. I'll stay around here as a side-hobby along with my job and help as much as i can with articles, list, etc. Roberth Martinez (talk) 00:28, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
  • I must've joined in 2014, which, oh wow, I've been here for half the life of WP:VG now? Started out with some video game mechanics, later moved to esports, but I guess I'm now more active on talkpages than in mainspace, oop. I've thoroughly enjoyed my time in this project and may WP:VG thrive for the years to come! ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:07, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
  • I don't remember joining this project. I was making IP edits to game articles around 2007-2008, and the project slowly clasped its tentacles around me. 10 years from now, we will merge into our final form. Shooterwalker (talk) 13:52, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
  • On my first ever day (my 3rd ever edit to be precise), I made an edit on the Pokémon Yellow article (now Pokémon Red, Blue, and Yellow) on April 17, 2020. I then made the discovery of this WikiProject about a month late on the 14th and decided to join. 2 days after, I got my first video game article draft approved, that being Dr Kawashima's Brain Training for Nintendo Switch. By February 12th the following year, I got my first GA article on Chibi-Robo! Zip Lash. Wow, it's mad to think I am such a small part of such a big collaborative project that spanned for 2 decades. Also appreciation to Panini! for mentioning me in their post above, glad I was able to help on you your path here, your work here is incredible (I will get around to getting the Super Mario Bros. 35th Anniversary to GA eventually, mark my words). In fact, all of your guys' work is amazing. But yeah, I have a couple of articles I want to work on, it will just be finding the right time to get them done, I'm just happy I got the Geno article I wrote looking so good. Here's to many more years working on this project. Thanks to you all, CaptainGalaxy 15:45, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
  • My major early contributions were to Wikiproject Square Enix (née Wikiproject Final Fantasy) but it looks like my first edit was to a Wind Waker article in 2006 so that counts? Boggling to think about how long I've been on this website. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:35, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
  • I'm only a recent joinee, coming in like... a few months ago, if I remember correctly, but I joined mostly because it happened to align with what I primarily tended to be involved in on Wikipedia. Though I haven't done as much as a lot of yall yet, I'm glad I'm able to help out with this, since this is just such a fun thing to do. Special thanks to the guys at WP: VGCHAR as well for helping me really get into this. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 05:20, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Congratulations from a member of the Chinese version of WPVG! Although I am not an active contributor here, your WikiProject has greatly influenced me. From the guidelines to the model articles, your sources taught me a lot. And followed your success, our WPVG has also become the largest WikiProject on my homewiki. Thank you, the Video games WikiProject on the English Wikipedia! --For Each element In group Next (talk) 11:13, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
  • I first joined Wikipedia in late December 2006 as a member of the the Square Enix WikiProject (then known as WikiProject Final Fantasy), before joining this project shortly thereafter. Since then, I've been improving several video game articles to GA and FA status, including the Final Fantasy series. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:34, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
It's only been a few months since I joined the project, and I only came to know of it when my name got credited for 'New articles' for creating Lego Ninjago: Nindroids at the start of December. Sure, I had made Lego Ninjago: Shadow of Ronin but never got credited for it (no offense PresN), but anyways, since then, I have been working my butt off making new articles for the people of Wikipedia! I would also like to credit Vrxces and Salavat for helping me throughout. Never would've made it here without them. And I wish to thank everyone on the project for also working their butts off helping other people and making Wikipedia a better place in the video games category. MKsLifeInANutshell (talk) 14:42, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
You are very welcome! ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 08:04, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

New Articles (February 12 to February 18)

Latest comment: 10 months ago20 comments14 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 13:36, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

February 12

February 13

February 14

February 15

February 16

February 17

February 18

I have significant concerns with the suitability of Opera House (Final Fantasy VI)], World of Ruin, Active Time Battle, and Triple Triad. I don't feel that spinning off these quote-heavy four-paragraph articles on specific parts of games is useful to readers. --PresN 13:36, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

They seem like content forks to me. Why can't ATB and Triple Triad be in a section about common gameplay elements in FF franchise article? They are essentially spin-off articles of a spin-off article (recurring elements in the Final Fantasy series). The other two articles should be discussed in due weight in their respective parent articles as well. If being paradied in Undertale is a level's sole legacy, then it probably has little to no lasting significance. OceanHok (talk) 14:29, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
None of these need to be spun out. World of Ruin and the Opera House alone makes absolutely no sense without the context of FF6, and the sources discussing them are not indicating any real world impact on them alone that is so significant that they need to be examined on their own.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:09, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
I think most of these are somewhat reasonable. Active Time Battle is the center of the gameplay of Final Fantasy, and in lieu of a broader dedicated Gameplay of Final Fantasy article, this article makes sense to me. The Opera scene does have a decent set of sources specifically about it. World of Ruin has nothing, though. All those sources are just about Final Fantasy VI in general. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 15:25, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
I was having the same thoughts before I saw people discussing it down here - none of these spin outs feel necessary, and the ones I've spot checked really feel like the reception sections were padded and drawn out far more than necessary in efforts to make the split look necessary... Sergecross73 msg me 15:33, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
I think most of them have extremely strong sourcing and easily merit a standalone page, with the exception of World of Ruin, though I'd debate that it has "nothing" - it has multiple pieces of significant coverage specifically about the World of Ruin, with the Kotaku article and GameSpot article both being a serious examination of it. And yes, they are specifically about the World of Ruin and its effects on the characters, not the broader plot of FFVI. Still, I found so many sources about the others, and they are so well-known, that it's surprising to me that they never had an article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:48, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
I think my big concern is that one of the sources [6] doesn't really talk much about the World of Ruin much at all, mainly as a conduit to talk about characters like Kefka and Celes, the latter especially. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 16:30, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
Ultimately the subjects can't be understood in the context given without understanding the game they're from, and a lot of what you're citing as notability is borrowed from the game itself: they're viewed strictly as elements of that game Zx. Out of all of these, perhaps Triple Triad I could see as an article because there have been both physical and fan game recreations of it and it's understandable enough outside of the context of Final Fantasy. But the two levels definitely should just be redirects. Even the one real world reference in Undertale isn't enough, and would probably be better suited for an article about "Darkness and Starlight" if that ever came about.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:49, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
This is the best argument... Just because one aspect of a single game or single series may have sourcing to meet the GNG does not require it to be standalone article, particularly if context is necessary to understand the topic on its own. I have been seeing a lot of these unnecessary spinous just because an editor thinks the GNG is met, and typically that ends up with a reception section that is drawing from listicles or other flimsy sources. Masem (t) 16:25, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
I don't think this is a problem about sourcing though. We have sources focusing on the creation of the Sea in Sea of Thieves, the swing mechanics in Spider-Man, where's Xur everyday in Destiny, but we don't need an article on any of them unless they are important when discussed outside of the context of the game. It is undue to have a standalone article about a minor part of the game that does not leave a lasting impression or attract commentary from the press over a period of time. For instance, for an ATB article to exist, it must demonstrate how it inspired other video games (outside of FF) to adopt similar combat systems. OceanHok (talk) 17:16, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
I would agree - but these DID attract commentary over a long period. ATB was invented in the early 90s and got a massive article about it in 2020. The World of Ruin got an article in 2021. Triple Triad in 2023. So WP:SUSTAINED is clearly met. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:05, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
I agree with KFM and OceanHok here. Notability is not the main issue at hand, it's context. TT, WoR, and Opera scene all require a significant amount of context from their respective main articles to even begin to understand them. There's some good dev info and reception here that would be better situated in the context of the main article. Axem Titanium (talk) 22:03, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
Chiming in here, I do want to say Triple Triad I feel *may* be able to stand on its own, but it feels like eventually you'll run out of tangible things to say. While it is a standalone game now (and back in FFXIV?) there's just...not a lot to really say about it?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 05:39, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
Running a source examination of Opera House (Final Fantasy VI):
  • Source 1 is fair game, clearly in-depth coverage.
  • Source 2 can be considered a passing mention at best, only mentioning the opera house twice.
  • Source 3 isn't about the scene itself, but only the audio design behind it. It's more or less an interview that could be put in an audio design sub-section of an article, easily boiled down into one to two sentences.
  • Source 4 is brief, but seems to be acceptable.
  • Source 5 is more than brief. It's three sentences in a listicle with a ton of other scenes mentioned. It seems to be okay, but the substance of this should be questioned.
  • Source 6 falls into the same boat as 4.
  • Source 7 only is used to verify it inspiring a scene in Undertale. Obviously doesn't contribute towards SIGCOV.
While you could argue that this one in particular is technically notable, this appears to be stretching WP:THREE pretty hard. I don't have an opinion on whether or not it should be merged, I'm all for video game levels getting their own articles. I'm simply providing a source examination if any consensus or debate on whether or not to merge these articles happens. λ NegativeMP1 17:28, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
I will quickly note that "the audio design behind the opera scene" is a pretty reasonable primary aspect of said scene. It's a pretty central aspect of it. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:38, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
Nightingale (video game) is probably going to be popular (see the page views). It's also one of the 10 most wishlisted games on Steam. I'm not expecting any problems, but there are currently a grand total of two people who have this article on their watchlist – and I constitute half of them. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:48, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
I'll warn the the two watchlisters on their talk page Panini! • 🥪 19:14, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

I have not fully looked into it, but MLB The Show 24 does not look notable. (Oinkers42) (talk) 19:44, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

I would think this is a WP:NOTBURO case for a game that is releasing in a month and will almost certainly be notable then (see previous series entries). ~ A412 talk! 20:02, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Audio and YouTube Interviews

Latest comment: 10 months ago11 comments9 people in discussion

Currently gathering sources for an article on the fanmade Sonic Triple Trouble remake. There are a few text interviews published by (mostly) reliable sources, but I've also found quite a few audio and YouTube interviews. Wikipedia:VGINT touches on this, stating that "Interviews from any source are typically allowed as a 'self-published source about self'".

I'm a little confused. I don't know to what extent I should use these audio/YT interviews. Can I use all of them or should their inclusion be smaller in proportion to the text interviews (ie 4 text interviews and 1-2 audio ones)? Which ones should I use? I haven't listened to any of these audio interviews yet, but if they contain info that the text ones lack, I might throw them into the article for thoroughness. Even then, podcast/YT interviews are harder to archive than text ones, and I wouldn't know how to handle that. If those interviews eventually went offline unarchived, I'd have to write them out anyway.

I wanna write this article to B or GA quality (possibly FA?), so I don't wanna include info cited from these sources and have to write it all out later. Advice on this would be appreciated. LBWP (talk) 09:15, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

You can use any interview to any extent that you wish, as long as you're reasonably confident that they're actually real interviews with the actual developers. As primary sources, they don't establish notability, but they're perfectly usable for design/creation/development info. There's no particular balance you need to achieve between text and audio interviews so it's just your choice for how much you want to incorporate. It would be helpful to include timestamps in the citation for audio/video though. If you're worried about archiving, you can always include the relevant quotation inside the citation template using the quote= parameter. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:50, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
As a follow-on from this question, @Axem Titanium and @TarkusAB, does a YT video interview being the dominant or only source of development information on a game create issues, particularly for a GAN? This is something I am currently encountering. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 08:06, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
It's fine. Just make sure to consider their POV. Like if a developer says: "Our first game, Mario 1 had some of the best parallax scrolling in the industry, and we wanted to improved on that with Mario 2. When we presented at E3, we think people were really blown away by the technical aspects." You should treat that differently than if it was coming from an independent RS. TarkusABtalk/contrib 19:00, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
Axem is correct. Go all out. If you're worried about the interviews going offline, you could download the files and keep locally, then reupload to archive.org if they ever disappear. TarkusABtalk/contrib 22:05, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
For what it's worth, since LBWP mentioned possibly bringing the article to FA, I've gotten told off at FAC for using YouTube interviews in the past—I had to remove two or three from Donkey Kong Country to get it through the process. JOEBRO64 19:52, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
That's annoying and I disagree with it. WP:ABOUTSELF rules and caveats should be the primary consideration, not the mere fact that it's published on YT. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:50, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
Unfortunately it's one of the brick walls with the whole FAC process. Twitter posts are even frowned upon, which can be annoying because there are some cases where a developer will *only* state something about a subject's creation on twitter, and secondary sources will never comment on it.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:12, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
Just an FYI more than anything - I had previously toyed with the idea of creating an article for the 16 but fan remake, but I held off. I feared I couldn't scrounge up enough content to support a separate article, or to be able to ward off hypothetical detractors who'd potentially push for a WP:MERGE. But I was mostly looking at third party sourcing, not the interview stuff, so maybe you can come up with more. I'm not saying you shouldn't create the article, just saying it's something to keep in mind, as even the original articles is all that long. Sergecross73 msg me 20:16, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
  • The above advice is out of step with the rest of the encyclopedia. We're conflating reliability with whether to include information. The developer writing/talking about themselves is contextually fine with respect to admissability as long as they're not making extraordinary claims, but that doesn't mean the information is worth including. The verifiability policy says to:

    Base articles on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy

    and

    Exercise caution when using [self-published] sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources.

    A section relying entirely on a YouTube/podcast (or any other self-published interview) source indicates that that material was not noteworthy enough to be picked up by the incessant video game press. It would indicate that the material is to be paraphrased broadly to fill in necessary details that reliable sources do not, but it shouldn't be considered as license to write a multi-paragraph Development section when there isn't enough reliably sourced material to justify it. That's undue weight.
For the OP's example, whether self-published text or an audio interview, treat it with the same caution, and only use enough of it to fill in necessary detail. In this case, there should be nearly no need for primary sources as reliable sources already say anything a general reader needs to know about the fact that an unofficial fan remake was released. They don't need to know about the fangame's developer unless reliable sources found it to be noteworthy. Splitting out an article when the only expansion is from primary sources is an example of a coatrack. czar 22:58, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
I’ve got to agree with czar on this one. The main issue here is WP:PRIMARY - the noteworthy parts are those covered in secondary sources, and carefully handled primary sources can help to flesh out the details, but it shouldn’t support a section, let alone an article. Red Phoenix talk 02:32, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Comic Book Resources#Requested move 14 February 2024

Latest comment: 9 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Comic Book Resources#Requested move 14 February 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Sariel Xilo (talk) 19:50, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Onimusha: Warlords origins and WP:OR question

Latest comment: 9 months ago9 comments3 people in discussion

Please see the first paragraph of Onimusha: Warlords#Development, which is entirely sourced to https://www.ign.com/articles/1997/05/29/interview-with-capcom-japans-yoshiki-okamoto

Is it original research to say Onimusha started as a Nintendo 64 DD title? Part of me thinks it is, because its not stated outright, but part of me wonders if I'm being too much of a stickler and there's really no realistic interpretation otherwise. I've played very little Resident Evil or Onimusha in my life, so some background in the area may help in determining this too?

There's no dispute or argument with another editor here, I was just curious what others may have to say on it. Sergecross73 msg me 17:28, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

He pivoted to talking about cartridges before talking about the idea, so it could have been for carts as well. I don't think they ever did any development on either platform though. I think all you can say here is that: In 1997, Yoshiki Okamoto told Dengeki Nintendo 64 about an idea he had for a "ninja version of Resident Evil" that could potentially make its way to the Nintendo 64 or 64DD. TarkusABtalk/contrib 17:58, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, this is more or less my gut reaction. You could say "they were thinking about Onimusha type games as early as 1997 during the N64 era, but I don't think you can say it was actually in development for the 64 or 64DD from that, or that it was a "cancelled N64 game". Sergecross73 msg me 18:19, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
Looking at this further, this interview which is also linked in the article, provides a slightly different interpretation of events. Keiji Inafune seems to take credit here for the "Sengoku Biohazard" idea, making no mention of Okamoto. He also mentions that it was first worked on using Resident Evil 1.5 as a base (which was a PS1 game). It's possible, that this ninja-RE idea was being floated around the office for some time. TarkusABtalk/contrib 18:11, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
@Sergecross73: I think there is also an interview by EuroGamer regarding Onimusha on the Nintendo 64 as well with Keiji Inafune out there online. Roberth Martinez (talk) 23:25, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
Interesting, if true, that would change things. I'll have to look for that. Let me know if you happen upon it. Sergecross73 msg me 18:19, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
@TarkusAB and Sergecross73:Sorry if i haven't reply to you guys. I'm currently without internet on My Home (as of writing, i'm connected on the Home of My grandparents). This is the EuroGamer interview i was talking about with Keiji Inafune regarding Onimusha 64: https://web.archive.org/web/20220518165042/https://www.eurogamer.net/i-keijiinafune-july04 Roberth Martinez (talk) 22:59, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
No worries. But wow, yeah, that source verifies it. Guess I'll add that source rather than remove the claim. Thank you! Sergecross73 msg me 01:03, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
It kinda contradicts Inafune's own words in the video interview with GameCenter CX, that RE1.5 (which is to my knowledge, only a PS1 game) was used as the basis. I guess they took RE1.5 and tried rebuilding on N64, or there were N64 builds before using RE1.5 TarkusABtalk/contrib 01:28, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

JP Nintendo website url changing

Latest comment: 9 months ago3 comments3 people in discussion

https://www.siliconera.com/nintendo-japan-announced-japanese-website-url-changing/

Just a heads up; might break a lot of old citations. Fix as you come across issues. Best, Axem Titanium (talk) 19:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

3,917 links to the nintendo.co.jp domain according to Special:Linksearch, though that count includes talkspace. Checked a few and they seem to all work - at least for right now. Nifboy (talk) 01:51, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
You can always put in a request over at Wikipedia:Link rot/URL change requests once you have a better sense on how stuff is breaking and what is and isn't redirecting correctly. Sariel Xilo (talk) 02:07, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Trauma Center series GT possibility?

Latest comment: 9 months ago8 comments5 people in discussion

Hi. I was thinking of creating a Good Topic around the Trauma Center game series released by Atlus on Nintendo platforms between 2005 and 2010. All five titles ( Under the Knife, Second Opinion, New Blood, Under the Knife 2, and Trauma Team) are GA status. As to the previous series article, I decided to a bold redirect to the first game's article as I could find no independent reliable commentary on the series as a whole, so any series article was basically cribbing from the other titles. This series feels a little difficult to create a GT around because of how localized/niche it was, without much independent commentary. Opinions? ProtoDrake (talk) 20:47, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Would perhaps a List of Trauma Center games list work instead? Panini! • 🥪 21:53, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
Five items is a bit short for a list; if there were a bunch of non-game media to lengthen it to 10+ items then maybe, but it doesn't appear that there are. You might be able to get away with just having Under the Knife as the lead title and then the four sequels under it? --PresN 22:16, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, that's how I do it. I either use a series as the main article, a list, or the first game. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 01:50, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
It'll have to be the first game if it happens at all. I already explained the main series problem, and the series got almost literally no additional media to cover. --ProtoDrake (talk) 09:48, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
I personally think it should be fine to not have a series article for the GT. I think it's an impressive collection of articles! I think it's better not to make a series article if that broad topic doesn't have anything new to add. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:55, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
Right, I decided to be bold and nominate it. --ProtoDrake (talk) 10:34, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

@PresN, Panini!, Maplestrip, and Cukie Gherkin: I need help/input on the GT nom itself now. One of those there (Zxcvbnm) is strongly insistent that a series article is possible, and the nomination now appears to have stalled. (Personal opinion, given the difficulties this series was giving when I was going through the GAN process, I'm coming to believe that Trauma Center is cursed.) --ProtoDrake (talk) 09:08, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Snake (video game)#Requested move 13 February 2024

Latest comment: 9 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Snake (video game)#Requested move 13 February 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. RodRabelo7 (talk) 18:43, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Template:WWE video games

Latest comment: 9 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I've brought it up at the template talk page (Twice) but have never received any answer, let alone a satisfactory one. So I'm going to add this here. The template's organization is awful when it comes to pre-Smackdown/2K series games. Atrocious, even, as it mixes up games that are only loosely related because they're named after the same historic PPV while completely obscuring which games are actual direct sequels to each other. There's no way when looking at it to know that No Mercy is the direct sequel to WrestleMania 2000, or that the GameCube WrestleMania series continued with Day of Reckoning, or that In Your House and Attitude were sequels to Acclaim's home port of the WrestleMania arcade game, which was separate (and predated) THQ's Mania games. I think readers would be better served by organizing by actual series, or by publisher, not just names.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Oknazevad (talk • contribs)

I don't know enough about WWE to give actual organization advise, but I'm not seeing a ton of opposition to you over there. You could probably try just being bold and reorganizing how you want. Sergecross73 msg me 19:42, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
I was hoping to get some input in organizational ideas. I'm thinking maybe a stem-and-leaf sort of organization where it's organized by publisher then platform, with each platform chronologically listed. Until the originally PlayStation exclusive Smackdown series was merged with the Xbox originating Raw series, games were not multi-platform. I may try working it in my sandbox first. oknazevad (talk) 19:47, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

New Articles (February 19 to February 25)

Latest comment: 9 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 22:45, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

February 19

February 20

February 21

February 22

February 23

February 24

February 25

Better late than never! --PresN 22:45, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Given why we created Microsoft Gaming, as to avoid piling all the studios MS owned into Xbox Game Studios, the List of Microsoft Gaming studios seems to be undoing that. We have a table of the major structure and studios with MS Gaming on that page, and the breakdown by country makes little sense since, for example, Activision and Bethesda studios sit in different branches under MS gaming. Masem (t) 22:55, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Returnal (video game)#Requested move 24 February 2024

Latest comment: 9 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Returnal (video game)#Requested move 24 February 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – robertsky (talk) 15:08, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

New Articles (February 26 to February 28)

Latest comment: 9 months ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements
 A listing of all articles newly added to the Video Games Wikiproject (regardless of creation date). Generated by v3.17 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 18:20, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

February 26

February 27

February 28

On time, every time. The 1.0 bot hasn't run for the video games project for a few days; I've put in a bug report. Will be a big catchup whenever it runs again. --PresN 18:20, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Nintendo naming issue, possible citogenesis?

Latest comment: 9 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi people! I've been investigating the Nintendo and the "Nintendo Koppai"/"Karuta" name, at Talk:Nintendo#Karuta vs Koppai, and I'm suspecting an ancient citogenesis case since then, b/c I can't really verify "Koppai" in any of RS sources before 2005; and seeing appearances of that in sources post-2005, I'm having doubts. It actually seems also that the company wasn't founded as "Karuta/Koppai", but renamed to that in 1950/1951. Looking at some Nintendo docs I see the company itself saying, paraphrasing, "Showa 25: changed company name to 任天堂かるた".

I invite people to weigh on Talk:Nintendo#Karuta vs Koppai. Thanks! - Sleeps-Darkly (talk) 17:48, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Randy Linden, new article

Latest comment: 9 months ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Hey folks,

This has been on my todo list for a long time, but we finally have an article for Randy Linden, author of several seminal ports and emulators. Would appreciate any scrutiny and improvements as it's been a good long time since I've written a BLP from scratch. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 03:42, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Hey Thumperward, I just went over the article. It was already in pretty good shape. The section headings (Console games, 32-bit era, Recent work) was a bit clunky in my opinion, I made that into a more standard 'career', but maybe that can be divided further into subsections. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 22:20, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Ehhhh. I think that bunches too much stuff into one section; there are some pretty clear epochs in Linden's career and I think having them as separate sections worked for that (also I feel pretty strongly that including sections like "career" or even worse "biography" in a biography is an anti-pattern). Also, I'd have preferred if the YouTube links that were removed were incorporated into the article body as with the other interviews, rather than just removed; for now they include unique material that isn't present in the article. But thanks for going over it and all the cleanup that was performed. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:02, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
I am not opposed to other sections or subsections, but before, the article makes no reference to 32-bit systems or what they are. And of course, those can be console games as well, the name of the previous section. The section "32-bit era" went up to March 2017, way past what is considered the fifth generation of video game consoles. "Recent" is a WP:DATED term. I looked again at the article to maybe use years (19xx to 19xx) as simple subsection headings, but the timeline isn't clear. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 08:34, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Recent Final Fantasy articles

Latest comment: 9 months ago17 comments8 people in discussion

I think it's important that we examine some recent Final Fantasy articles, particularly Opera House (Final Fantasy VI), Triple Triad, Active Time Battle, and World of Ruin. Now, for me, I think Triple Triad is probably fine, but the others are really shaky. The shakiest article of these, in my opinion, is the Opera House article. Looking at the sources, they are quite limited. Two just have the opera house mentioned in lists, with only one source actually being about the scene. Not that GNG requires that, but it certainly helps. The real issue with Opera House for me, however, is the fact that a non-trivial number of sources, even the one that's about the opera house, is more about Celes' character than anything else. The Opera House, as a setting, is a lot less significant than Celes' song. Even the Undertale reference is a reference to Celes' scene. Of "setting" articles on Wikipedia for video games, I would argue that it's by far the weakest and most tenuous article.

As for World of Ruin, I'm on the fence about it - it's pretty weak in its current state, but I haven't looked deeply into more sources, so I'm unsure. My first impression is that the World of Ruin seems like something that would be iconic and receive significant coverage, but based on the article as it exists, what's there wouldn't convince me. Active Time Battle I have no idea how to approach. It certainly could be notable since it may have influenced other games, but the article in its current state doesn't really show off that notability.

@Zxcvbnm: since he worked on these articles. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 21:41, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

This seems like the wrong forum for this sort of discussion. It feels like you're making an AfD argument, but not in a deletion discussion? So nominate them for AfD if you believe they aren't notable - I will of course give the reasons they are. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:07, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
But I'm not proposing an AfD for all articles, I am talking about a recent batch of articles, all of which I believe were posted in an incomplete state, and multiple possibly non-notable. Furthermore, considering how often AfDs where the goal is to merge are called out for being the wrong venue, I posted it here to gauge people's views on the issue. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 22:22, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
I am more than a little flabbergasted that they would be characterized as "in an incomplete state". With all due respect, your apparent high bar of inclusion is so far beyond Wikipedia's standard one as to be in the stratosphere. Soon I'm expecting people to demand that articles be FA-quality before they're even made.
I subscribe to the idea that Wikipedia is a work in progress. Stating offhand that the article will never be expanded or completed doesn't make an awful lot of sense to me. Anyone can edit an article, and we have no idea who will do so in the future. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:17, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
I didn't argue that being incomplete was a justification for deletion. As someone who was just mischaracterized in another discussion, I would ask that you not jump to conclusions, especially such a bizarre conclusion as claiming I said that they will never be expanded or completed. Whatever you think people are saying is not the case. My own text in this discussion explicitly said that the World of Ruin may prove notable. My point was that multiple editors found themselves of a similar mind on these, namely being unsure that these articles were notable enough, that to me it suggests that they are being split out before notability has been adequately established. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 23:22, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
I'm not really sure what you want to do with a list of vaguely connected articles. If they aren't notable, then either boldly redirect them, or propose a merge/redirect/deletion. I agree that some of these articles are borderline notability, but the forum is for individual articles, not something us undefined as "recently created Final Fantasy articles". We don't require things to be completed to be in mainspace. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 23:18, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
None of these need to be separate articles except Triple Triad. Just because something is marginally notable doesn't mean a separate article is warranted, these don't demonstrate any reason why they have to be, or should be separate. These articles existing is just repeating content or is detrimental to other articles, they're likely stuck in the state they are in right now permanently. For example, Active Time Battle is summarized in Recurring elements in the Final Fantasy series, a well standing, existing good article where the material belongs. I already gave a source examination when these articles were first made as to why I don't think the Opera House should be its own article. I agree that World of Ruin likely needs more examination, as the current state the article is in is not the best and doesn't demonstrate much. λ NegativeMP1 22:29, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Agreed. As I said before, notability is not the primary issue here, it's readability, redundancy, and comprehension. Either the articles lack crucial context to understand them, or they repeat so much of other articles to establish context that it's mostly about the other thing. It's better to merge intimately related concepts into larger articles so the reader can benefit from increased understanding and readability. There's no need to break things up into "notable" least publishable units. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:39, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
Third'd. Many of these fail points of WP:MERGEREASON, which is another important aspect to be considering alongside the GNG when creating spin out articles like this. There's some good content here (outside of feeling a bit drawn out at points), but it doesn't need to be located at its own article. Sergecross73 msg me 21:45, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

To appease objections on venues, I've elected to go through the articles and open discussions on their talk page to ideally find evidence of notability. I've opened a discussion here. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 00:20, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

IMHO, notability was clearly established for... pretty much all of them besides World of Ruin, which I admit is shaky, but I've found a few more sources for the latter that I've placed on its talk page. Hopefully that appeases concerns over its notability. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:31, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
Please link merge/deletion discussions as they are created for these. I think it's probably appropriate to keep them separate. A merger of "Opera House" into Celes Chere seems reasonable too, seeing as it is "her scene." I don't believe there's a larger problem happening here; these four were created in a short timespan and it sounds like no new ones have been created since. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:47, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
I'll do that so long as the discussion isn't archived. I'm not in a hurry to merge or redirect any of these, mainly because it just makes it easier to find sources for each individual one. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 20:16, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
For the record, I don't think there's a venue issue. This is the most trafficked video game discussion page; it's the best place to get eyes on something (video game-related) that's not intended to get a deletion outcome. There's multiple articles in question so having a collective discussion at any one of their respective talk pages is doable, but would be strange. If there was only one page, the discussion thread on a low-trafficked talk page would languish for weeks and you'd just need to post a notice here anyway. Complaining about venue feels like WP:NOTBURO to me. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:54, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
Not bringing it to the actual articles in question risks alienating a subset of editors who are not necessarily WP:VG regulars. It will therefore become a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. It is not bureaucracy, but rather the reason why the consensus process exists the way it does. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:09, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
This can be solved by simply notifying those talk pages of a centralized discussion. Note that a Project talk page is a broader consensus than a single article talk page typically. -- ferret (talk) 22:25, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
That doesn't exactly strike me as likely - these are relatively new articles, there's not going to be some sort of established, long-term non-WP:VG members maintaining them already. There's also nothing wrong with just doing some brainstorming at the Wikiproject level and holding follow up discussions based on how that goes too. Sergecross73 msg me 22:44, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Is Super Jump Magazine a reliable source?

Latest comment: 9 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Someone is trying to add https://www.superjumpmagazine.com/, a video game 'magazine' website as a source to Lemmings (video game). I note it isn't already mentioned at the project's sources, and only one other article on Wikipedia is citing it (Warno (video game)). I'm not convinced it satisfies WP:RS. Can I get some feedback from other people on the source? I note there was an actual magazine called Super Jump which folded in 2011, which appears to be completely unrelated. Damien Linnane (talk) 07:49, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I would err on the side of unreliable. While it does have editors, it (a) doesn't seem to care whether it's reporting on pure rumors. See this article which comments on a rumor from a single journalist without caring about or confirming its veracity. (b) Relies solely on freelancers who have no reason to care whether they are being factual or true because they have zero "job security" anyway. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:15, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
Good points. I'm thinking the same thing regarding general unreliability. I appreciate the response. Damien Linnane (talk) 22:35, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

In regards to the GA process of Ruiner Pinball

Latest comment: 9 months ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Hello to everybody. I hope y'all doing well and had a great weekend! I'm in the middle of taking the article for the Atari Jaguar game Ruiner Pinball to GA status but the main issue holding it back is the development paragraph in the "Development and release" section. To explain the issue: I could only find one source detailing the game's production, that being a anecdotal forum post by programmer Scott Corley at the 3DO Zone forums (https://web.archive.org/web/20150920094658/http://www.3do.cdinteractive.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=3496). I did add other sources that gives more background to Corley as to what was his role at High Voltage Software and i tried searching for more info, but that forum post is really all that i could find regarding the game's development process. I feel that if it has to be removed, we could lose valuable info about how Ruiner Pinball was made. And finding any info regarding the development of Jaguar games, given how unpopular was back in its day, is no easy task. Me and my fellow GA reviewer want more opinions about this issue so, any thoughts are more than welcomed! Roberth Martinez (talk) 21:58, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

I cited forum posts from Toby Fox on Megalovania's development and that got through to GA alright. It's much like twitter citations in this regard where it's sometimes the only place such dev commentary exists, so you cite what you can as long as you can prove that is the person making those statements.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:07, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
@Kung Fu Man:Corley introduces himself in the first forum post of the thread i linked above. To quote the post: "And for those of you who are wondering what the heck is going on, I'm Scott Corley, I was at High Voltage Software from the very early days". That is also why i added other sources to back up that claim such as these: (1), (2), (3). Roberth Martinez (talk) 22:32, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
Then yeah I'd say you'd be fine to cite this from my own GAN experiences.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:39, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Gaming websites stat

Latest comment: 9 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

So I found this a while ago but according to the Yahoo search engine [7] there were more than 1452 websites that specialized in gaming back in 1998. I was wondering can this info be put to Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games or Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources? I apologize if this feels like trivia but I'm curious what others think. Timur9008 (talk) 13:37, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

It feels like a meaningless statistic, because it's hard to know if it was actually counted by hand or what "specializing in gaming" means. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:41, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

AfC Submission Review - Jinggg

Latest comment: 9 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi there, I recently submitted an AfC submission about a professional valorant player named Jinggg.

Can someone help me review it or suggest improvements for me?

Thanks! Dulcetia  🗩  08:46, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

What are the WP:THREE best sources you have for the player? It's all about quality over quantity, so if you can demonstrate several places he got significant coverage then it will be easier to judge if he is notable. The sources have to be more than just a minor announcement (i.e. that he is joining or leaving a team). Most if not all of them seem to just be updates or announcements. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:36, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

FAR for Pokémon Channel

Latest comment: 9 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Good morning - I've listed a FAR for the article Pokémon Channel which could use some improvements as listed in the nomination. Grateful for any thoughts or input you may have. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 21:29, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Pac-Man Museum+ article name

Latest comment: 9 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I asked this on the article's talk page but reposting here for visibility, why would Pac-Man Museum +'s name have a space before the +? Every source used on the page calls it Museum+, with the sole exception of the Nintendo World Report review. Is this a Manual of Style thing? Unless the page creator made it like that for whatever reason and it was never challenged. detriaskies 18:40, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

The edit summary at Pac-Man Museum+ appears to explain why it was moved. I disagree with the reasoning (WP:COMMONNAME applies over any perceived "official" naming), but the name has been there long enough I am not sure a reversal is allowed without discussion. Feel free to start a WP:RM asking for it to be moved back. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:06, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Where can I access print sources?

Latest comment: 9 months ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I want to improve Beat Sneak Bandit, and I've found out that a magazine called Games Master has reviewed it. However, I can't seem to access it online. Where would I go? Thanks, TWOrantulaTM (enter the web) 03:15, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

[8] - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 04:10, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

TruckersFM

Latest comment: 9 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hi everyone,

Any thoughts on TruckersFM, an in-game digital radio station? It has some sources but I'm not entirely sure it's notable enough. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 10:16, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Seems like a case of a game community, nominated: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TruckersFM. IgelRM (talk) 12:40, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
@Soetermans: In case you missed the AFD, could use your input. IgelRM (talk) 10:38, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Expose on Gamurs Group publications

Latest comment: 9 months ago18 comments8 people in discussion

Aftermath just posted a large reported piece on current day Gamurs Group sites (relevant sites to WP:VG/S include Siliconera, Dot Esports, Prima Games, Destructoid, The Escapist, The Mary Sue). tl;dr relevant to us is that their output as of mid-2023 is mostly SEO-driven low-effort content and we should probably avoid it where possible. Think Valnet-adjacent. Primary sources that they report on are still fine, insofar as they're still doing original reporting (are they doing any of that?), but beware of content mill/churnalism. On a more positive note, we should probably discuss Aftermath and Second Wind (former Escapist editorial guys) at T:VG/S as possible additions. Axem Titanium (talk) 23:45, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for this. Disappointing stuff. I've been seeing more and more of this sort of stuff on my newsfeed too - "73 Nintendo Switch games recommended for purchase" as if any sort of thought or direction could be put into such a large collection of "suggestions". I haven't really noticed Siliconera do much of that yet at least.
FYI, I like Aftermath, but discussion on them seems to keep stalling out. Participation hasn't been the best though. Sergecross73 msg me 00:27, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
Aren't most of these situational or riding that edge already? -- ferret (talk) 01:18, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
Personally I feel with most editors already aware to avoid churnalism or low quality articles I don't feel it changes much if anything.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:23, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
Honestly, to an extent, I think the importance lies more in saying "be mindful of the quality of your sourcing." - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 02:47, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
Welp, we should probably start talking about moving these all to situational source. Right now, none of them mention this and some of them are listed as 100% reliable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:42, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
I feel that's a moot point and will just lead to editors trying to block them on the grounds of them being situational and not on the context of what's being said. Churnalism and content mill behavior is hardly an isolated problem, if anything it's rampant across almost the sites now (IGN, GamesRadar+, etc). I'd rather advocate certain kinds of articles would be best to avoid for sourcing.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 05:47, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
This reporting describes a massive shift in their corporate philosophy, though, not just a few pieces of clickbait here and there. They have essentially gone "all in" on AI-generated spam. I think the risk of it remaining reliable outweighs the potential for a few things to fall through the cracks. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:55, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
I may be mistaken, but reading the piece while Gamurs originally wanted to, the backlash dissuaded them. The only other mention of AI is from the higher ups at Gamurs touting it as "the future" but not using it yet. It's definitely a case to watch, but saying they've gone "all in" feels inaccurate.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 06:12, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
I'm not sure we can trust that they AREN'T using AI in some capacity - with these apparently impossible sorts of quotas. But you do have a point that they only mention SEO content rather than straight-up AI stuff. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:28, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
As ferret mentioned, many of these sources are already "situational" or "reliable but with exceptions/limitations" anyways, so I'm not sure how much has really changed. We could add something like "be wary of AI articles", but honestly we're probably on track to say that about all sources soon enough with the way things are headed. Which is honestly similar to what we went through in the past with userblogs in the early/mid 2010s. We started downgrading a bunch of sources that featured user-blogs, but after a while it seemed like so many websites featured them that it just became assumed to avoid them... Sergecross73 msg me 11:14, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
  • As we try to address churnalism, it will be tempting to move more and more sources to the situational section, and I don't think that is sustainable. Even some of our best sources are now capable of churnalism. We may hit a point where everything is situational in an industry that's desperately trying to sustain itself through clicks. And then what are these "situations" where a source is acceptable or not? That's the real question, and I don't think it's tenable to say "we stopped using most sources after 2021". Some thoughts:
  • AI-generated content is unreliable, and there seems to be a consensus for that.
  • We will always respect a game review, as long as it's a reliable independent source with editorial review.
  • Previews vary. Are they a real look at a game, or "we haven't had a new Metroid in 4 years" followed by a writer's personal wishlist?
  • News pieces vary. Opinions pieces vary, wildly. I wish I had better observations here.
  • Lists are sometimes good, but usually not. In general, we like editorial lists that are informed by a wide breadth of games (best RPGs of 2023, according to IGN). We usually disregard a list about a niche topic in a single game (best weapons in Call of Duty: Vanguard). There are a lot of lists between those two extremes, but we can start there.
  • News pieces about the audience are at a high risk of being low quality. Sometimes it's an important controversy, but sometimes it's literally trying to generate clicks off of something that is getting clicks on social media.
My overall point is that we may need to offer more guidance about the types of coverage we build articles from, instead of simply saying specific sources became unreliable after a certain date. Shooterwalker (talk) 11:46, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
If everything is situational, then it's time for Wikipedia to potentially rethink its notability criteria, but that isn't really a matter for one WikiProject. But as long as online journalism by humans still exists, it's more of a "cross that bridge when we get to it" issue, stuff should not be kept as reliable just out of desire to have more RS existing. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:55, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
But everything already is situational to a certain degree. Spend any amount of time at WP:RSP or WP:RSN and you'll see that's how experienced editors approach it. IGN is an authority on reviewing your yearly Call of Duty entry, but they have no business advising on solving world hunger or giving 401k advice. Everything is contextual. These source lists help solve common problems and get newbies up to speed, but we ultimately still need to approach this like humans with brains, and not computer programs. Sergecross73 msg me 12:07, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
If we're talking only about these sources, I think the status quo is fine. Some are correctly marked as situational, and some are correctly marked as reliable. And editors are going to have to keep using their discretion when sources cross into trivia, even for our most reliable sources. Shooterwalker (talk) 12:09, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
I think this is an excellent point that the labels "generally reliable" and "generally unreliable" lose the subtlety of. One thing I'll add is that I think the video games area often (incorrectly, IMO) considers blanket source reliability more than it considers WP:ORGIND, and I think this is reflected in Shooterwalker's bullet points about previews and announcement news pieces, which are straight reprints of press releases at worst and reprints with writer personal opinion at best. I think it's a reality we have to accept, and is more accepted outside of VG, that the same publication can publish good original content and non-independent content.~ A412 talk! 17:00, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
Shooterwalker's bullet points are a good encapsulation of my thoughts on the topic. I'm a longtime reader of Polygon and I'm frustrated by some of the editorial output, but it's still pretty easy for me as a Wikipedia editor to see which articles are usable and which are not, even as I consider the outlet as a whole to be reliable. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:46, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
I'm glad other editors see the nuance. I don't want to drag this off topic, since we're discussing what to do about this one set of sources. But I hope we can talk about some general best practices at another time. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:10, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Template:Steam

Latest comment: 9 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I've been wondering it there has been a discussion about having a {{Steam}} template, similar to the ones for movies like IMDb or Film Affinity. I think it could help with consistency and would be a nice addition to the External links sections. NoonIcarus (talk) 03:08, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

We don't link to storefront pages, so that would not be appropriate. Linking to something like Moby Games would be the equalivalent of linking to IMDB. Masem (t) 03:29, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
Sounds alright. Thanks! --NoonIcarus (talk) 10:57, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

American Truck Simulator discussion

Latest comment: 9 months ago11 comments5 people in discussion

I could use another voice of reason at Talk:American Truck Simulator#Update to DLC map required. With my one bold edit, removing primary sourced gameguide material, I am accused of having a vendetta against maps (???), edit warring (the article hasn't been edited since at all) and being disruptive. Weird ad hominem attacks too. Input would be very appreciated. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 08:05, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

I feel the best position is somewhere in between. I agree the pre-edited article seems to be a bit bloated, redundant, and overly reliant on primary sources to provide superficial information like content and feature updates that is outside of WP:VGSCOPE. I think it was correct to be WP:BOLD to remove some of the details on minutiae about geography and the million trucks added to the game. I think there was a little bit of overenthusiasm in the cuts. There could be better compromise on preserving some key regional updates including work editors made to create a chart and graphic to summarize those updates. These are short, effective, and convey detail in a way that is not WP:EXCESSIVE. It may be good to raise a conversation when removing these things as they are not as easily restored which is what WP:CONSENSUS is. I empathize with you though; I feel like WP:VG has a more active user base and rigorous standard and experienced editors in that space can sometime clash with niche or enthusiast users maintaining a page who are putting passionate work into something that isn't quite encyclopedic. I also feel there was a bit of misinterpretation of WP:CONSENSUS here too: when there are disagreements, these sort of conversations and compromises need to be had to prevent an edit war, which hasn't happened yet. I hope this input helps. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 07:06, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
I'd agree that most of what was removed was game guide content. However, then things got somewhat WP:BITEy with Soetermans's reasoning for why he took it out. He stated it in a very matter-of-fact way, then argued angrily when that was questioned. Editors have to be understanding that people may not get why things are deleted due to certain policies, especially when other editors expended a great deal of work on it, and work through the issue rather than immediately branding other users as zealous fans or vandals. The statement "I could use another voice of reason" also suggests a stance of looking down on non WPVG members as unreasonable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:29, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
I might be misunderstanding here, Zxcvbnm, but you think this reply is bitey and I argued angrily? I have not said anything about others being "zealous fans or vandals" either. This is not helping and you are misconstruing my words. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 07:52, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
And no, non-members aren't unreasonable, that particular uncivil editor is. I haven't been edit warring, there was no consensus and one edit isn't disruptive. So asking for another voice of reason? Yes, please. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 07:57, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
That one was not, but the reply to the comment afterwards could come off as such. You responded with "I don't believe in consensus, because there was 14k of characters of primary sourced gameguide material?" in essence brushing off their entire contribution as cruft to be disposed of. Their entire argument was that you unilaterally deleted it without sufficient explanation and just pointing to various policies. I'm not saying you were wrong, but it would've been better to initiate a discussion on its removal and justify every deletion with an explanation (and you could always direct them to Wikibooks, which does accept game guides). ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:18, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for explaining. I will take your feedback into account. We seem to disagree a bit on civility though, I think jumping to conclusions right away that I "do not believe in consensus" because of one bold edit is an exaggerated and inappropriate response, let alone the nonsensical accusation of having a vendetta against maps. Regardless, the gameguide material wasn't their contribution to the article though, they've made five edits in total to it. I've left a message here pointing to the discussion, if my input is needed on the actual discussion please notify me, I've removed it from my watchlist. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 15:16, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
"Revert persistent edit-warrior attack". Can someone please step in here? Sergecross73, Ferret, Masem perhaps? Others, Zxcvbnm, Vrxces? soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 18:52, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
I've removed the content again and commented at Talk:American Truck Simulator. I agree with Soetermans that the discussion there could use input from experienced editors who understand Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Woodroar (talk) 19:03, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
Woodroar chimed in with "removing WP:GAMEGUIDE/unsourced/primary sourced content", which was revert once more by Fanx: "removing content and 65% of the sources while claiming material was unsourced does you no credit as a Wikipedian. It's beginning to look vexatious. It's certainly disingenuous". An uncivil response, straight away with the "does you no credit". WP:DIDNTHEARTHAT it's gameguide material and frankly, in my opinion, toxic that it is somehow "vexatious" and "certainly disingenuous" that others disagree with them. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 08:24, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
Protected both articles and warned Fanx directly. -- ferret (talk) 13:14, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Articles under "Related" in navbox templates

Latest comment: 9 months ago7 comments7 people in discussion

Hi, do we have a generally accepted standard of what something must fulfill to be under "Related"? I ask because I saw Super Smash Bros. Ultimate under "Related" for Bomberman's, but since it's not mentioned in Ultimate's article, I question whether it's worthwhile to list it, though I'd argue it's fair to use for, say, Kingdom Hearts' or Tekken's. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 18:04, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

If there's a standard, I've never seen it... Sergecross73 msg me 18:09, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
Personally, I would say playable or maybe stage representation. (Oinkers42) (talk) 18:12, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
I feel sometimes it gets excessive with certain brands (i.e. Capcom related navboxes including *every crossover big and small*)--Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:13, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
I add things that are related. That's my standard.
If you have to think about whether or not it's related, then it's not related enough. Panini! • 🥪 18:42, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
I think there probably add Super Smash Bros. Ultimate to Bomberman's navbox is because the titular character has appeared in it as an assist trophy which if I have a standard for the related part of navboxes, it would be that articles about subject who have references to non-related series as long these references aren't cameos and anything miscellaneous articles which focused on that series such as characters and other medias and in addition, the creators and other people who have major history with the series can be in my standard so. NatwonTSG2 (talk) 19:16, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
I'd personally say anything that's rather big or meaningful (For instance, Dante being playable in PlayStation All-Stars Battle Royale) but excluding random small cameos and the like (His Mii Costume in Super Smash Bros. Ultimate, for instance) There's probably exceptions but I feel that it's decent as a general rule given how many minor crossovers occur these days. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:59, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Pro-Tip: How to archive Tweets in a Post-"X" era

Latest comment: 9 months ago6 comments4 people in discussion

So the short version is that around June 2023, Internet Archive lost the ability to archive twitter: the site actively blocks outside outlets, and trying to archive tweets directly causes a error to be archived instead. Archive.today can still archive them, but it's not ideal and there's more than a few folks that aren't fans of its service. Now twitter is still a valuable record of developer statements and comments, with many cases it being the *only* citation for someone saying "I made this" or offering developer commentary, and these statements are not always covered in secondary sources. So how can we preserve these for verifiability in case an account goes down or the whole site does?

The solution (for now) is simple: append "/photo/1" to the url. Here's an example:

Now this isn't without flaws: if you notice the URL on wayback changes to remove "/photo/1", but you still need to include that at the end of the URL when you add it to the "archiveurl" line for the Cite Tweet template. In addition this doesn't record threads or responses. So threads with multiple tweets will still need to be manually archived. But hopefully this helps some of you. Keep in mind that the Cite Tweet template itself does not automatically archive tweets, so you may double check any you've used over the years in your own articles. Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:48, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Elon. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:59, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
I'm more of an archive.today kinda guy. IceWelder [✉] 22:28, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
My only concern with archive.today is if it goes down at some point we're kinda screwed. I feel like IA is going to outlive it in the long run.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:31, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, my perception is that archivetoday is less stable in the long run. They seem to shift top level domains every now and then for reasons unknown but could be speculated about. And for some reason they're blocked by my work firewall 🤬 Axem Titanium (talk) 16:52, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
I would say archive tweets anybody see very important in regards to a particular game both at archive.today and the Internet Archive to have two backups. Roberth Martinez (talk) 00:00, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

New Articles (March 10 to March 17)

Latest comment: 9 months ago9 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 v3.18 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 17:16, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

March 10

  • None

March 11

  • None

March 12

March 13

March 14

March 15

March 16

March 17

It's back! The 1.0 bot broke for a couple weeks, just for our project. It's now resolved, but it logged only the changes starting on Mar 10, so Feb 29 through Mar 9 are missing. If you wrote articles in that gap, feel free to add them. --PresN 17:16, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

How did we manage to have no new articles March 10 or March 11? QuicoleJR (talk) 17:50, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
It happens sometimes, not sure if it's a data issue in this case. --PresN 21:20, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
I don't know what raw data we have to work with, but is it possible to split the "Articles deleted" section into articles and redirects, and into mainspace and draftspace? ~ A412 talk! 17:51, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, easy enough. Redirects are already split out, but we had a lot of drafts deleted this week so it seems helpful to split up deletions. Now done, re-ran it for this week's report and updated above. --PresN 21:20, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Is TopSpin 2K25 WP:TOOSOON? soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 19:32, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
I think so, and I draftified it earlier before it was moved back out without any real improvements, but I'm not going to advocate for a process-for-the-sake-of-process AFD when it's now going to release in about a month. ~ A412 talk! 20:00, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
IT'S BACK!!!! Glad to see this return, sucks to hear it went out of commission for a weeks. I look forward to looking at these lists. CaptainGalaxy 22:31, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Archive_173&oldid=1216891630"