Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 166

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 160←Archive 164Archive 165Archive 166Archive 167Archive 168→Archive 170

Ninja Hamster screenshot

Weird issue at Ninja Hamster article, the screenshot isn't showing. I've tried different browsers and machines but it doesn't show on any of them. It's been uploaded in 2012 so I guess it can't be an issue related to Wikipedia's cache. The screenshot shows fine on the file page: File:Ninja Hamster screenshot.png but the thumbnail in "file history" section isn't showing. Mika1h (talk) 20:14, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Interesting. If I had to make a complete guess, there is something funky/broken with the encoding of the .png file. The thumbnail is also broken on the file history section of the image as well. Perhaps someone with a better understanding of the interworkings of MediaWiki could chime in. Skipple ☎ 20:21, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
Hi @Mika1h:, on Chrome on mobile it does show, maybe it has been fixed? soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 08:22, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
Yes, it appears to have been fixed. --Mika1h (talk) 08:57, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I am proposing to merge The Legend of Zelda (TV series) into The Super Mario Bros. Super Show! and would appreciate comments. Eldomtom2 (talk) 19:36, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Quick notability question

Okay, so I maybe a little rusty on this - is two reviews in print magazines not enough for notability for a video game anymore? This is regarding the article on Gobble a Ghost [1] which has been redirected to the publisher's article. Thanks for any advice. Marasmusine (talk) 14:52, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

@Marasmusine - The issue of Home Computing Weekly in question appears to have no such review? Unless I'm missing something obvious. casualdejekyll 15:03, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
Two is unlikely to meet WP:GNG unless you have more.Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:04, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
I've double-checked the Home Computing Weekly issue and page number, and the review is definitely there. I suppose a rule-of-thumb then might be three reviews. Marasmusine (talk) 15:18, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
I think I had "two reviews" in my mind because several subject-specific notability guidelines say that if the topic has been the subject of at least two articles, this is enough for notability. I have been considering a magazine review to be an "article". Marasmusine (talk) 15:23, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
WP:GNG doesn't specify an absolute minimum number of sources beyond "multiple" as they may vary in depth and quality, but I would at least expect three different sources providing significant coverage (which do not need to specifically be reviews).--AlexandraIDV 16:13, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
The GNG just requires multiple in a technical sense, but it's pretty rare to be able to write a coherent/cohesive/comprehensive article with just 2 sources, so merge/redirect are pretty common outcomes. As others have mentioned, there's no concrete acceptable number, but I don't personally create an article until I've got 4-5 dedicated sources. If you can write 3 paragraphs of content with 4-5 sources, that's usually enough to keep people from even thinking about merge/redirecting. Sergecross73 msg me 16:24, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
Thank-you for your replies everyone, it would seem for many of the games I'm looking at, a summary on the publisher's article would be better. Marasmusine (talk) 17:27, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
If you're not sure what to search for to find more sources, try checking unreliable sources to see what they discuss. This can be a goldmine of keywords. If you're already familiar with the video game, oftentimes it's a matter of knowing where to search rather than what keywords to use. For older games, I mostly rely on the Internet Archive and Google Books. For anything released by a major publisher (EA, Epyx, Origin, Interplay, etc), there's almost always enough reviews scattered among the various 1980s computer magazines to establish notability. Retrogaming magazines will often do interviews with notable developers, too. You won't get an interview with John Carmack in some random retro magazine because he's too big-name. But Martin Galway or John Romero are certainly possibilities. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:45, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

New Articles (December 5 to December 11)

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 v3.15 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 14:56, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

December 5

December 6

December 7

December 8

December 9

December 10

December 11

Quotes in References

While doing my usual 12-hour biweekly stakeout of The Origami King I saw this edit. There's nothing wrong with it as its properly justified and formatted, and the source is reliable, but I'm curious about the inclusion of a quote in the reference. What's the criteria for including one, and should it be kept or removed? Panini! • 🥪 14:20, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

There's no policy-level requirement on quotes in references (outside of possible length and copyvios), they should only be used if it may be difficult for the reader to locate the exact quote or part of work of interest relevant to the material being supported. For a review article, I don't think that's required (unless we were providing the English translation of a foreign review). More often we use quotes as part of a plot summary for long works (RPGs) to pin down key points in the otherwise long work. Masem (t) 14:35, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
Sorry about that IceWelder, I thought the source was Digital Trend, not Gaming Trend. Panini! • 🥪 14:56, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
You caught me mid-response! :) I second Masem's stated use cases, plus long quotes can lead to a bloated references sections. Still, I did notice that source used was unreliable, so I reverted the edits on those grounds. Regards, IceWelder [✉] 15:01, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

We're So Close to a Year of Luigi Good Topic

In the beginning-ish of this year I spent my editing time creating and bringing to GA Year of Luigi, and this topic interested me a lot (who doesn't love Luigi) and I pursued making it a good topic. Following that I brought Dr. Luigi, New Super Luigi U, and Mario & Luigi: Dream Team to GA as well. I began working on Luigi's Mansion: Dark Moon but it turned out to be a much larger project than I had anticipated, resulting in my real-life catching up with me and leaving it unfinished. I've been relatively more active recently and started chipping away at it when I have some spare time, but I haven't had the sit-down-and-grind time to overhaul like I usually do.
I'm leaving this message to let you all know that the Year of Luigi is pretty darn close to a good topic, and Dark Moon is the only thing in the way. The article currently needs the following:

  • A sourced gameplay section (it's written really well, actually, but it's almost entirely unsourced)
  • A review of the plot section (Just a check to make sure the plot is accurate and is as best as it can be written)
  • An overhaul of the critical reviews subsection (Cat's Tuxedo stopped by and added paragraphs about the reception of its graphics and audio, but there is much more other general critical opinions that need to be covered like this).
  • rewritten lead

As of now I have overhauled the Development, Marketing and release, Sales, and Awards and nominations (Original diff of before I began to prove I've actually been working on this and I'm not just randomly throwing this on everyone). I'll have this done at some point or other when my IRL calms down, but if anyone would like to chip away a bit at one of the 4 points a bunch, you would really be helping me out and the good topic itself. Panini! • 🥪 16:06, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

If it helps with anyone's urgency, next year is the 10th anniversary of the Year of Luigi. Time flies huh? Axem Titanium (talk) 21:46, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
I know it's a copyright thing, but File:Year of Luigi logo.png looks so wrong to me. Otherwise everything looks really good, and I'll see if I have time to help out! DecafPotato (talk) 06:38, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
I don't see any issue with it. If you wanna see a logo that looks weird look at File:GeForce Now logo.svg. The empty green space there is supposed to contain the Nvidia logo but apparently that doesn't fall below the threshold of originality, and it can't be included because that wouldn't comply with fair use since a non-fair use version exists. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 14:09, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
I mean cmon, The ga icon is green.. luigi.. I mean its pretty obvious what needs to happen here. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 16:21, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
Make the GA icon Luigi?[Joke] ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 16:23, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
Thats honestly a cool idea, having WikiProject themed GA and FA icons. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 16:24, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
That was a joke, copyright makes that impossible, as well as articles also being associated with multiple WikiProjects most of the time. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 16:26, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
Glad to have you back and thanks for working on the topic. I gave the lead a quick copy-edit and feel free to revert / change anything you don't like. Let me know if there's any other way to help. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:03, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
Though maybe the few wikiprojects that aren't dead (VG, MILHIST, I can't think of any others off the top of my head but I know they exist) should have themed icons. I think they deserve the recognition. casualdejekyll 19:50, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
That would be pretty cool. Although the issues I brought up above make this difficult, although I don't think an article that's relevant to VG would also be relevant to MILHIST. But who knows. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 19:52, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
@Panini! the garage sale detail in the plot section seems unnecessary, as thats not mentioned in the game itslef. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 17:59, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
@Panini! From what I can tell, the plot section is accurate and well readable. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 16:05, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia Really To Blame For Video Game Console Generations?

https://www.timeextension.com/features/is-wikipedia-really-to-blame-for-video-game-console-generations

Interesting article relating to Wikipedia and console generations. GamerPro64 02:12, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, very interesting read. At least it takes the blame off of us a little bit, considering the commentary on generations from well before Wikipedia's existence... Sergecross73 msg me 02:30, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
We didn't quite invent it, but we did kind of formalize it post-sixth gen, and then the power of Wikipedia's reach took over. I'd have liked to have seen some coverage over the discussions around 8th and 9th generation, our attempts to take care, and even our own evolving feeling that maybe Ninth generation isn't quite a thing. -- ferret (talk) 02:33, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
I still think that the numbering is somewhat our fault, in how we assigned first gen to the non-swappable consoles, second gen to the first cartridge ones, etc. That article, in addition to what we have, point out that dividing games by "generation" wasn't a novel idea, but what those generations were to be called was. Masem (t) 02:52, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
I think it's really interesting that this random IP edit from 2005 and this other IP edit from 2007 are partially responsible for the existence of console generations as we know them. Agree that this was an interesting read...if only there was a History of the History of video game consoles page I could put this in...[Joke] DecafPotato (talk) 03:50, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
Ain't it wild those articles back then were in reverse order, newest to oldest? -- ferret (talk) 04:25, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
Jokes aside, @DecafPotato:, I think Historiography of video games (or Historiography of the video game industry or something similar) is honestly a good idea. Just think of how video games have been thought of culturally. From starting out as a niche, nerdy thing in scientific circles, to be considered a children's "toy" to being the most successful part of the entertainment industry. From arcades, to physical media at home to digital distribution. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 09:56, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
Looks like a writer with nothing else to report about. It's a solution in search of a problem.--JOJ Hutton 10:03, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
Interesting take. The whole point of the site is for articles like this—chronicling the history of different parts of the industry—so I think this looks like a writer who knows exactly what to report about. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 23:56, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
It's absolutely something to be mindful of—when discussing recent history, how one organizes that history does inform how people perceive it. And it's definitely a reason why Wikipedia should always be "leading from the back", so to speak. Not everything needs to be organized and categorized and put into boxes because it's "neat" if that's not how such subjects are tackled "in the real world". Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 14:11, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
Somewhat related question: is there any kind of list out there about self-fulfilling Wikipedia claims? That is, something that's been incorrectly reported on Wikipedia which then became widely accepted because of it? — Czello 14:18, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
@Czello - Alan MacMasters? Jar'Edo Wens hoax? Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia, I guess, but the thing is that it simply doesn't get reported on often due to the nature of the beast. casualdejekyll 14:25, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
WP:CITOGENESIS -- ferret (talk) 14:44, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
Yep. Unfortunately it's tough to actually tell what is circularly-sourced to Wikipedia with any modern subjects, because the reality is especially in the games press, a lot of people are just going to cite Wikipedia without attribution and that stuff can make it into the article. I've only noticed on occasion because I wrote the lion's share of an article and could tell they were just aping the structure and language of the Wikipedia version. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 15:07, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Hades II

Hello, in an attempt to gather consensus we're kinda split, so do you think Hades II is ready to be in mainspace? There's a draft for the game, and looking at other Game Awards announcements like Earthblade and Crash Team Rumble, it seems to have the same amount of information, so what do you think? DecafPotato (talk) 21:27, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

My personal stance is usually 4-5 dedicated WP:VG/S-approved sources and 2-3 paragraphs of info. If you can expand it into that, yes. If you want, no. Just my personal stance that generally keeps my article creations out of trouble. I wont argue if you don't follow it. Sergecross73 msg me 21:31, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
I've been the one avoiding a standalone Hades II article because we have yet any comments about its development (only characters and target release plan), and that all is presently better in terms of comprehensiveness in the current Hades article. We are trying to avoid creating game articles that basically amount to product announcements without further depth, even though the coverage of the announce may seem notable. I expect that we will get more dev info on Hades II sooner than later (Supergiant is not shy about sharing) and which point a standalone would be fine. Masem (t) 00:04, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, for Hades II right now we have the announcement video and the FAQ page. Everything else is just sources repeating that or speculating. I'm sure they'll start talking about early access and stuff in a month or two, so I say hold off. --PresN 01:27, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
I think it is too soon for Earthblade to have its own article. Same goes for Hades II. OceanHok (talk) 15:36, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
Imo Earthblade has significantly more information, and can't easily be incorporated into another article because it's not a sequel to anything. DecafPotato (talk) 15:53, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
I agree with Masem, we should wait until more development information is revealed. Nothing right now but speculation and marketing. ‡ The Night Watch ω (talk) 05:44, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Silly question about Category:Video games set in castles

Would 'keeps' or 'towers' be considered castles and belong in Category:Video games set in castles? I've seen a few games set in locations described as 'towers' or 'keeps' (e.g. The Keep) and I've hesitated to put them in the cat because the word "castle" isn't explicitly used. Waxworker (talk) 15:34, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't think a category like that is needed (cc @Qwerfjkl:). There are so many video games set in castles, it's hardly a defining aspect. It's not gameplay, it's not narrative, but an in-game locale. Does it have to be the entire game, or is just one level sufficient? soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 16:58, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
I was thinking something similar - I kind of find it hard to believe it passes WP:DEFINING. But if it does...then I would guess the answer is less about Wikipedia policy, and just more about the standard definitions of castles, towers, and keeps. (I'm not a castle expert, so I couldn't really answer directly.) Sergecross73 msg me 17:49, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
To give a few examples, I could and many if the Castlevania games are games known for the castle settings, whereas one map in Overwatch would not. Something like Return to Castle Wolvenstein, on the other hand, while st in a castle, the castle doesn't contribute much to the character if the game. Masem (t) 19:23, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
Agree with Masem. The category itself can be defining enough in some games to be there, but any game with a castle isn't defining at all. DecafPotato (talk) 16:36, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
That's fair. I was thinking more Mario and every other JRPG in existence in the way they have a castle as a small part of it. I wasn't thinking of things Castlevania. Sergecross73 msg me 17:53, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
99% of our "Video games set in X" categories are misused. It's a huge issue. Like FIFA games with 30 "Set in" categories because a stadium is technically located in a certain city. -- ferret (talk) 18:02, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
So what's the cut-off point to be defining enough? In what way should castles (or keeps, fortresses, citadels, etc.) be featured? soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 21:59, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
Probably when the castle is the main setting or hub of the game. As in, not just a level in a game. (Oinkers42) (talk) 22:55, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
WP:CATDEF is pretty clear about what is a "defining" trait ("one that reliable sources commonly and consistently refer to in describing the topic"). A good rule of thumb is whether it's important enough to show up in the lede of the article. If not, then the castle setting is not quite a "defining" setting/trait of the topic. Masem's examples would fit this rule. czar 16:36, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

"Video games developed in" categories

I blocked Phediuk (talk · contribs) a while back for adding "video games developed in ..." categories without sourcing the statement. Phediuk has since added the phrase "or by developers based there" to the categories so that the category can be added without citing where exactly it was developed. For example: Special:Diff/1108182844 and Special:Diff/1127841688. Is this how the categories should be used? There's no guarantee that a game was developed in the United States just because there's an EA logo somewhere on the packaging, and I've found errors when people categorized articles by guesswork. It also seems to me that dumping games in these categories regardless of where they were actually developed dilutes the category's usefulness. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:57, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the ping. I clarified the categories to better reflect how they are (and always have been) actually used. I did not invent this wording, but borrowed it from Video games developed in Japan, which has used the same definition since its creation in 2007 (link); my only contribution was to change the word "companies" to "developers." I believe these categories are named as such because it is less redundant to word them as "Video games developed in [country]" than as "Video games developed by developers based in [country]"; this has usually not been a problem, since it is very rare for, say, a studio based in Canada to develop a game somewhere other than Canada. For the few cases where "developed in [country]" and "by developers based in [country]" are not synonymous, the category includes both. The example of the EA logo is irrelevant to this discussion, since EA is a publisher, not a studio in itself; these categories have never been added on the basis of the publisher, unless the developer and publisher are one and the same. The "developed in" category only applies to the studio(s) that developed the game, which is usually easy to verify. In cases where the developer's location is unknown, no such category is (or should be) added. Thank you; hope this clears things up. Phediuk (talk) 01:12, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
"developed in X" and "developed by developers based in X" should mean the same, so the additional wording is redundant. When an American company has a game developed via outsourced staff in another country (such as Big Rigs: Over the Road Racing by an American conpany but Ukrainian devs), it should not be categorized as an American-developed game. IceWelder [✉] 15:12, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
Agreed; the two wordings should be synonymous in all but the rarest cases. There is no difference between "developed in [x]" and "developed by developers based in [x]" 99.9% of the time. The additional wording serves mainly to eliminate any possible ambiguity. Phediuk (talk) 15:17, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
What's the 0.1% here? If a game was developed in Iceland, it doesn't matter whether it's one student or a studio of 100 people. In both cases the developing persons were in Iceland. IceWelder [✉] 15:26, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
Agreed also. I suppose a rare exception could be if a developer made a game while on vacation or something, in which case the distinction between "developed in [x]" and "developed by developer based in [x]" could be meaningful. If such a case exists, the additional wording covers it. Phediuk (talk) 15:29, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
In the ultra-rare occurrence that a game is entirely developed while the developer is on vacation, I think that should be mentioned, not the country the developer is "usually" in. I'm not aware of any game they was created under these conditions, though. IceWelder [✉] 16:40, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
Indeed, this whole discussion is more of a thought experiment than anything. It's pretty hard to come up with an instance of "developed in [x]" and "developed by developers based in [x]" not being the same thing, though the additional wording can still serve as a safeguard, just in case some bizarre circumstance pops up. Phediuk (talk) 17:11, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Editors have done a good job to create categories like Category:Electronic Arts games and Category:Rare (company) games (just examples). I know this also mirrors films and television, however, and this might be something we need to take up at a larger scale, I would argue that we need to distinguish between developer and publisher in these categories. For example, while Apex Legends is under the EA umbrella, it is a game published by EA in that sense. The notion of developer vs publisher is much stronger in the video game area and so I wonder if we need to make these categories as "Video games published by Electronc Arts" vs "Video games developed by Electronic Arts". --Masem (t) 15:42, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Ghost Riley#Requested move 29 November 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Ghost Riley#Requested move 29 November 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. —usernamekiran (talk) 15:13, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Post-closure, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:08, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Skydance Task Force

To anyone that's working in this WikiProject: If anyone's working on articles from Skydance, i have a task force opened up at the WikiProject Animation article called Wikipedia:WikiProject Animation/Skydance Media work group. This task force is open for Video Games, Animation, Film and Television, and Sports. If anyone is interested in this, we have some slots open up. BMA-Nation2020 (talk) 22:29, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

New Articles (December 12 to December 18)

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 v3.15 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 21:53, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

December 12

This doesn't seem to meet stand-alone notability, in my opinion. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 05:55, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
AfD'ed. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 09:17, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

December 13

Boldly redirected. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 06:01, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
Redirect undone, AfD'ed. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 08:35, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

December 14

Boldly redirected. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 06:13, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

December 15

December 16

December 17

Boldly redirected. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 06:29, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
Boldly redirected. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 06:20, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

December 18

Well, between Waxworker making categories and Ludoyo finding and tagging old categories and articles, we have a pretty long list this week. Thanks, you two! --PresN 21:53, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

X-only Categories

I know this issue has probably been raised before on this platform, but I think a very public and current consensus is needed, particularly for the benefit of Teader2 and others of their opinion. Recently there's been a recurrence of removing Category:PlayStation 5-only games from currently-confirmed exclusives such as Final Fantasy XVI, while adding it to titles like Horizon Forbidden West and God of War Ragnarök when they're multiplatform. I would like a public discussion and consensus on its use. Might help stop these mini-edit wars from getting out of hand. Where XVI is concerned specifically, I would personally err on keeping the category until a multiplatform release is OFFICIALLY confirmed. ProtoDrake (talk) 10:00, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Pinging @Soetermans:, since they've also had contact with this phenomenon. --ProtoDrake (talk) 10:01, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
For one thing, Teader2 seems a very thinly veiled evasion block by Teader. I could be mistaken, but I'm pretty sure their edits go against consensus and common sense. Like the latest one, removing the PlayStation 5-only category because "It's a VR game, not a console game". What? soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 10:08, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
Edits by Special:Contributions/102.170.68.106 also seems suspiciously similar to Teader's. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 10:11, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
Really wish we could get rid of all of them. We aren't even supposed to directly note a game is "exclusive" in articles, so why do we have it as a defining category? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 10:14, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
Didn't we have a discussion about something very similar not too long ago? These discussions had a very clear consensus on what we consider console exclusivity. ReneeWrites (talk) 11:09, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
I would oppose removing the console exclusive categories; console exclusivity can absolutely be defining for a game and affect its sales, reception, etc. even if it not directly noted as such. It is a matter of general interest whether a game is exclusive to a certain console. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:01, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:List of Xbox One accessories#Requested move 14 December 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:List of Xbox One accessories#Requested move 14 December 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 15:31, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Cast credits in plot sections

This might eventually need to go to WP:MOSVG, but I thought I'd bring it up here first for a more general audience. Our current Manual of Style argues to not include cast lists, and to mostly mention voice talent if notable in the development section, however I've noted a somewhat recent trend across video game articles that people are putting inline credits into plot sections themselves. I'm not a huge fan of this—for one, it bloats the synopsis section, especially since if some voice actors are mentioned, invariably all the named characters in a section get it too, even if they're not notable; in addition, I feel like it creates some verifiability issues separate from "just play the game to grok the plot summary" stuff. Thoughts on whether we need to be clearer in the MOS about this, or else need to amend it to align with increasing practice? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 12:23, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Plus one for me on this. I don't even like it on TV/movie plot summaries. The individual actor that is associated with a character is better outside of the plot summary. It just bloats the text. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:39, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
That approach (adding cast names after first mention of character) is a leftover from the Film project which has moved away from that practice. Masem (t) 12:43, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
Wasn't away the film project had moved away from it (though you're right, it's per MOS:FILMPLOT), but it seems like it's a relative recent development with video game articles. Might just be my perception, though. Either way, I feel like while the arguments against are slightly different there (pretty much all films have a cast section, something games don't) it also aligns with the fact film actors are much more important and emphasized in sourcing than voice and mocap actors in games, and thus it doesn't make sense to treat them the same. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 12:56, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
It's already in the MOS: WP:VGSCOPE#11 czar 07:00, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

More feedback requested at Talk:Raji: An Ancient Epic#Removing Waypoint/Vice Media Source

There's been a very slow back and forth at Raji: An Ancient Epic about the reliability of a source in the article and I'd like to wrap this up more conclusively so it doesn't drag on for another year(!). Your feedback is appreciated. Axem Titanium (talk) 05:29, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Sarah Hamilton AfD

Hi everyone! Belated season's greetings. I've nominated The Longest Journey voice actor Sarah Hamilton for deletion. Your input is appreciated. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 16:46, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

New Articles (December 19 to December 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 v3.15 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 22:58, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

December 19

December 20

December 21

December 22

December 23

December 24

December 25

This week, Ludoyo continues with their spree of tagging articles that got missed in prior years! --PresN 22:58, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Want to thank @MR.RockGamer17 real quick for making those articles on individual awards! DecafPotato (talk) 03:06, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
I put lot of time, effort, and passion it to expanding the D.I.C.E. Awards' presence on Wikipedia. It really means a lot time to me that you said that, DecafPotato. Thank you for your kind words. MR.RockGamer17 (talk) 04:37, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Expanding video game platform lists with genre, etc

Before they go any further and end up with a lot of work reverted, I wanted to ping Rep112 and have a discussion about their expansion on the PLaystation and Gamecube lists of adding "genre", "publisher", and "extras" to the tables. This is substantial additions, well over 35-45kb per list. These are columns that have long been absent from these lists, and their inclusion in other platform lists like Nintendo Switch's has been questioned.

Should we be including this much (subjective) information in the table? Does it actually aid the reader, esp as columns that aren't filterable or truly sortable? -- ferret (talk) 16:39, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Publisher should be included, but the other column like genre and extras should not, due to the extra size they would add. Masem (t) 16:49, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
If it helps I can remove the info from Notes and put genre in its own column (usually one word), and then put the setting (theme) in Notes (or remove everything but genre altogether too but having theme/setting like sci-fi/futuristic is nice imo) Rep112 (talk) 16:59, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
No on genre, theme, or any type of notes column. Publisher is fine and probably more pertinent than developer anyway. TarkusABtalk/contrib 17:06, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
Genre would bring it in line with all the xbox/ps4/ps5 lists though. Rep112 (talk) 17:09, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
Those lists aren't any particular standard we need to aspire to though. Sergecross73 msg me 17:11, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
OK well I'm unsure how to proceed. Will there be a poll or something? I did get a couple other people who seemed to like what I did and I am not familiar with how things are decided on Wikipedia. Rep112 (talk) 17:32, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
Echoing the others - okay with publisher, but not genre or anything else. These lists bloat out to a hard-to-read state very quickly. We've got to stick with the objective basics. Sergecross73 msg me 17:10, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
Btw, I guess this is out of the question anyway but I combined 6 different fields from the DB into the 2 columns Genres/Notes. It is possible to separate them all out into different wiki columns to make them sortable. Just stating it as an option. Rep112 (talk) 17:46, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
What DB? Most DBs are not considered reliable sources for use on Wikipedia, and all details on Wikipedia need to verifiable. This includes Wikidata, a non-reliable user-generated source. -- ferret (talk) 18:41, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
MobyGames Rep112 (talk) 18:55, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
MobyGames is an unreliable source as it is user-generated. -- ferret (talk) 20:22, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
Well that sucks but can't really argue with the rules :/
I guess it doesn't matter at this point but I do think MG is a little more reliable than most UG sites as they try to only accept reliable and accurate information from what I read. Rep112 (talk) 20:30, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
I undid most of the articles but I need some help I think, because it looks like I have to do each revision manually?
The problem is with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_PlayStation_2_games_(A%E2%80%93K) and
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_PlayStation_2_games_(L%E2%80%93Z)
Is there a way to purge them all automatically without going through each one? Rep112 (talk) 20:46, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
    • forgot to mention:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_PlayStation_2_games_(A%E2%80%93K)&action=history
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_PlayStation_2_games_(L%E2%80%93Z)&action=history
it goes on for 2 pages almost since rodw did a lot of edits. Rep112 (talk) 20:47, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
Nevermind I figured it out Rep112 (talk) 20:56, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
@Rep112 Do you want them reverted to when you first started? I can handle that. Also, please don't be discouraged. These lists are a frequent topic of discussion and their role within the project, how far they should go, against policies like WP:NOTCATALOG, etc. Feel free to keep discussing possible changes and improvements or where you might find similar tasks. -- ferret (talk) 20:58, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
I fixed them all no problem.
Not discouraged but I don't think there's a lot I can contribute. My thing was scripting to add huge masses of info from databases from around the internet, but I can't use commercial databases so they would have to by definition be UG databases and so it ends there... Rep112 (talk) 21:14, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
@Rep112 If that's the type of work you enjoy you may want to look into Wikidata. It does a lot of database scraping and import work. -- ferret (talk) 21:49, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Infobox image debate: JP Super Mario Bros. 2 cover vs INT The Lost Levels promo art

I recently updated the Infobox to this File:Super-Mario-Bros-Lost-Levels-artwork.png (i don't know how to link images without them being displayed). However, it was removed by Czar because they claim the Super Mario Bros 2 cover is more well-known. I thought I would bring a more solid consensus here.

My opinion is that the cover art and the original aren't that different and it's more consistent with the common name. Maybe back in the early 2000s, the Japanese cover was more well-known because it wasn't as accessible. but I don't see it as the case today considering the game was ported internationally under the new promotional artwork.

I'm sure Czar can expand their own opinion further here. What should we do, keep the original Japanese cover or the modern international promo art?Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 17:24, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

You can put a colon (:) in front of the image link to link to it (like this).
The place to discuss this is the article's talk page. If you would have asked there, I would have said that the artwork used by sources with the release for how the game is known in the western world (Mario All-Stars) is the white cover with Japanese text. It is not "known" by the cover you uploaded. It is known as a Japanese game (per its Japanese cover) that only later received an English-language name. czar 18:05, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Keep the original Japanese, as:

  • It ain't broke.
  • International box art is not even consistent, as there are multiple versions (one that BPB linked, another from Mario Wiki). We don't update box art each time there's a new release. The Japanese box art has stayed consistent and has existed for much longer than the international ones. -- ThomasO1989 (talk) 18:14, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
@Czar: Actually, it's hard to see, but Super Mario All-Stars modified it to have English text.
@ThomasO1989: Just to clarify, I wasn't concerned about which one was the most modern cover. The point was just to find any cover that reflects the same promotion of SMB:TLL. Whether it was old or new. I'm not 100% sure where IGN got that cover, but i think i remember it seeing in the Wii store. However, they have been fairly consistent using the same cover as the Japanese with just english-text.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 18:35, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
I actually like the one from Mario Wiki. DecafPotato (talk) 00:40, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
  • @TheJoebro64: I'd say the need to change it is based on the fact that the Japanese version is promoting this game as SMB "2", instead of SMB "The Lost levels". Just like how Super Mario Bros. 2 doesn't have a cover that says SMB "USA". So that's where the "broke" plays in. WP:MOSVG also promotes using English-language cover art over all else.
  • @Masem: The infobox is inacurate. it has been released in the US multiple times. The first English release was in SNES as part of Super Mario All Stars, it has been re-released independently in the US through Wii, 3DS, Wii U, and finally Switch Store. The cover I uploaded was the Wii release. The rest have used the modified version of Super Mario Bros.

As a compromise, I can always update the image to reflect the cover used for Switch Store/All Stars. After all, it looks closest to the original cover, and appropriately reflects how the game is promoted in English territories. But, I don't believe we can continue this discussion by simply saying "It isn't broken"> there is plenty of valid reasons to change the cover art. There are English releases, and none of them call it SMB "2".Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 17:29, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

  • I support the one JoeBro linked to. It is in English, official, and is close to the original JP cover and the SMB All-Stars image (its first English release). TarkusABtalk/contrib 18:05, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
  • The file is being updated now.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 18:15, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
  • I support using the English language boxart, irrespective of whichever specific boxart it is. These versions are all basically the same, except that the coloring is different, and if there's no meaningful difference other than text language then I believe we should bias towards the English versions of box art. Further, it's consistent with the title of the article. (If the article were rather titled something like "Super Mario Bros. 2 (1986)" I would probably argue in favor of the Japanese boxart.) silvia (User:BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) (inquire within) 18:39, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
To further compromise, the plain Japanese text logo exists. We could replace the cover art in the infobox, and we can also add the text logo as a free image considering it doesn't meet the threshold of originality.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 18:49, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

I'd prefer the original cover be used instead of compilation menu art. From my recollection The Lost Levels has never been sold by itself with the artwork provided above, and I find that the Japanese cover provides more educational value as it's what the original packaging used. I'm not totally against the change but I feel it would favor accessibility over historical accuracy and said educational value. LBWP (talk) 12:58, 28 December 2022 (UTC) @LBWP: I clarified to Masem about this before, but that is not accurate. It has been released independently from All Stars multiple times. It was released on wii, 3ds, wii U, and Switch store.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 17:07, 28 December 2022 (UTC) @LBWP: I do agree that some form of education needs to be given, but not at the expense of misinformation. Which is why I proposed uploading the Japanese logo in the Development section instead since it is plain text. We can even apply the same thing to Super Mario Bros. 3 and add the "Super Mario Bros. UsA" logo to, to educate how Japan sees this game as a spin-off, or at least not a true "2".Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 17:36, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

@Blue Pumpkin Pie: No, what I meant was that the game has never been released independently of All-Stars or other video games with the All-Stars/NSO art as means of identification. The Virtual Console releases make use of the title screen instead. That's my issue, that the image has never been used for storefront identification whereas the Japanese box art has. Again, I'm not totally against this change, as its presence in NSO makes for a pretty compelling case. That's a service that is relevant to a lot of people. My personal preference is just that we use actual packaging or digital storefront artwork instead. I also feel that replacing the Japanese box art actually has greater potential for misinformation than keeping it would. Some Wikipedia/Google Images users may hastily save the picture and pass it off as packaging artwork for an English NES release elsewhere, which obviously doesn't exist. Maybe that's a stretch, but if the Japanese box art is replaced, a caption identifying the new image as NSO artwork is necessary. I do like your idea of including the Japanese logos in the articles too, but it's worth noting that similar cases, like the articles for pre-1997 Final Fantasy games, don't do this with the English art. Mario is a more culturally significant franchise, so maybe an exception could be made in this case. LBWP (talk) 18:58, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
@LBWP: I urge you to research. The Lost Levels has been released independently from All-Stars in the past multiple times. In fact, the one in All Stars compilation is a 16-bit remake and has since not been re-released. Subsequent releases have been the original 8-bit (Which is why the menu will still show SMB2). So far, the Switch version is promoting the artwork and the same as All Stars. It seemed like the Wiiware release used the blue backdrop. It is still considered "Promotional Artwork" see here for more info.
Final Fantasy VI isn't an accurate comparison. The Lost Levels was released with that name internationally and hasn't changed its name. Final Fantasy 6 was renamed Final Fantasy 3 for the NES release, but all subsequent releases have been FF6. You would have a point if the game continued to keep the "III" as part of its name.
What is a more accurate comparison is SMB2/SMB USA. It was released outside of Japan as "Super Mario Bros. 2", and it continues to be the common name internationally. But to Japan only, it is called "Super Mario Bros. USA".Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 19:25, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
@Blue Pumpkin Pie: You're misunderstanding me. I'm aware The Lost Levels (the 8-bit version) has been released independently of All-Stars before, as I linked to one of the Virtual Console re-releases in my reply. My point is that none of these re-releases used the All-Stars artwork as promotional material. If they did, I would be more supportive of this change, but the image has only been used sparingly outside of All-Stars itself. In my opinion the All-Stars/NSO artwork doesn't accurately reflect the context of the game's original release. It's like a retroactive localization of the Famicom cover. If Nintendo is going to be marketing The Lost Levels using the All-Stars artwork from now on, however, than I can't saying using it in the article is wrong, especially is this is how they'll market it going forward with future re-releases. LBWP (talk) 19:51, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
The infobox won't always reflect the original release. We will generally prefer any release with fewer brands/logos on it. And so long as it has a caption to clarify, then it won't confuse readers. For me it's not about what is the most common artwork, it's whatever artwork reflects a common name. I've taken the liberty of updating it already and I also added the SMB2 Japanese logo in the Development section, so no one can claim it's not accurate. Of course, the Release dates need to be added in the infobox so people don't believe it was never released outside Japan.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 20:04, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
Anyone else?Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 06:46, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

I recently added Super Mario Bros. 2 to have SMB-USA logo in the development section. I also have an edit for Super Mario Bros. The Lost Levels to reflect the same example (here). Of course, it was reverted, but the goal was simply to keep the image from deleting. I hope more eyes can look into this.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 19:27, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Title discussion

Much to my surprise are flight simulation games part of the article amateur flight simulation, a term I haven't seen used before. I haven't got a proper solution though and your input is appreciated. You can find the discussion. here. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 17:05, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

New Articles (December 26 to January 1)

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 v3.15 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 20:07, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

December 26

Redirected. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 21:29, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

December 27

December 28

December 29

December 30

December 31

January 1

PresN 20:07, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

The last few weeks I see this post and think "Whoa are we even more active as a Wikiproject?" But it looks like much of the uptick is tagging old creations that were missed? Sergecross73 msg me 21:15, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, it's the same thing this week as it was the last few- Ludoyo is finding tons of articles that were never tagged and adding them, while Waxworker is making a bunch of per-company categories. Other than that, activity is normal, maybe a bit slow over the holidays. --PresN 21:54, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Never noticed the "XXXX in downloadable songs for the Rock Band series" articles before. Is this really something Wikipedia should be keeping track of? Not to mention that the actual substance of these articles is completely unsourced. IceWelder [✉] 19:36, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
I just noticed that too. And not only is there an individual list article for each year, but there appears to be one that lists all of them as well. There's definitely no way we need both existing concurrently. Sergecross73 msg me 20:37, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
The full list uses the transclusikn trick to bring the other lists into one. I know when RB was still on a tear (eg around 2010) that there was concern about the size of the list so the by-year split was set up. Masem (t) 20:51, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
just List of downloadable songs for the Rock Band series would work, no? DecafPotato (talk) 03:45, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
I personally think all the song lists are WP:GAMECRUFT and should be removed. If we do not allow things like "list of animals in Planet Zoo" or "list of cars in Forza", there is no reason we should keep a list about songs in Rock Band or Guitar Hero. OceanHok (talk) 11:53, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
When the music games were hot, the soundtrack of a game (including DLC) were often subject to analysis or at least reported, making tracking of these reasonable since third-party sources were covering it. In the decade since the fad of music games have waned, while there are sources that acknowledge the games exist, there is nowhere close to the same reporting. To that end, we may have to reconsider at least the DLC lists (not the shipped-with playlists) since only about 1/3rd of them can really be sourced, and that's all from 2008-2012 roughly. Masem (t) 13:37, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
I agree, OceanHok, these listicles should be deleted. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 15:15, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Do we really need a Development of Cyberpunk 2077 article? The main article isn't really that long, and the development article also isn't long. OceanHok (talk) 11:53, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
That's one of the rare cases where I don't even need to look at it to know that if any game ever deserved a standalone Development spinout, it's this one. There has been so much discourse, controversy, coverage, analysis of the troubled development and release of CP2077 in the past few years. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 12:37, 4 January 2023 (UTC)"
I feel like the article needs to be reoriented to be about the controversy. It ought to be renamed to Controversies surrounding Cyberpunk 2077 and added to Category:Video game controversies. Simple development information is not standalone notable and should be in the article of the actual game, there is nothing particularly special about it. The notable part is the backlash that came from releasing a largely unfinished, bug-ridden and totally unfit for last-gen platforms game after massive amounts of hype. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:11, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
I think you're right that "Controversies surrounding Cyberpunk 2077" is a more sensible article to have, as that subject feels particularly notable on its own, while its long development has a somewhat more niche interest. (Contrast with Duke Nukem Forever, where the long development was way more notable than the final reception). However, I don't think Development of Cyberpunk 2077 should be changed so significantly. Rather, I would think a new article should be created, and the development article should be nominated for deletion. I might suggest waiting with the deletion nomination until after such a controversies article is made, though. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 13:21, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Btw, regarding the content: didn't Cyberpunk 2077 receive a large number of post-release fixes and improvements to make the game more playable? Wouldn't such continued development fall under the "Development of .." article? I know in the game communities I'm in, Cyberpunk 2077 is sometimes named as a game that became much more playable after release, and this aspect might make our "Development of .." article reasonable to have. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 13:40, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Remember that we want to avoid articles specifically about controversies unless the controversy itself is so notable. However, the controversy is part and parcel of the reception of CP2077 (including the turnaround after the fact), and thus splitting it out doesn't make much sense. (Eg No Man's Sky keeps all the controversy on that page). Masem (t) 13:26, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
WP:CSECTION says we don't even want controversy sections generally, let alone splits. Neutral on the dev article. I'm not generally a fan of these sorts of splits, but the main article is pretty massive in size. Sergecross73 msg me 13:58, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Agree with Serge on the controversy section/article. As for the Dev article, the main question is whether or not it's a WP:Content fork, regardless of size. If it's being used to hide or minimize the development problems when the article is summarized in Cyberpunk 2077#Development, then it's a WP:POVFORK that needs to be rewritten or remerged. From a size perspective, the main article is 32kb prose and the Dev article is 16kb prose, much of which is redundant already with the existing dev section of the main article. I could see it getting remerged based only on size. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:26, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
I feel like this is sort of a meta-problem, but I've been noting we seem to have a problem of ballooning video game articles that treat every AAA game like A Huge Freaking Deal and spend probably an inordinate amount of time fluffing them up. They feel promotional as a result, and essentially a self-perpetuating cycle (because editors who are fans of X game see that Y got its own article for its development, so they want one too, whether this is a conscious decision or not.) The "Development of" articles take it further because they usually spend a lot of time repeating every trade show appearance and trailer, which in the grand scheme of the topic aren't usually that important (very few games have notable marketing.) But it's also a case where "pre-release" reviews get their own subsections despite the fact that they are very much based on impressions and don't sometimes relate at all to the final product. In short: there's a lot of content in these articles we probably shouldn't be covering so breathlessly, and as a result the "need" for split off articles would be further reduced. I dunno if this is only a problem in my own mind, though. It certainly seems to be an issue beyond our project (where people are always spinning off film accolades, etc. and treating Wikipedia as a directory instead of a summary.)
As to CP2077 itself, the main article is only 32KB and the split off is well south of 20KB. I don't think based on size issues alone it should have been carved out. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 17:32, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
No, I'm of the same mind as you. I think most of Category:Development of specific video games (and the broader category of "X of specific video games articles", e.g. List of accolades of X) can be boiled down to fancruft/detailcruft, but since it's not about weapons/cars/other in-universe details, it gets a pass for some reason. The "breathless" proseline coverage of every trade show appearance and trailer is a problem and both balloons coverage needlessly and also obscures/crowds out actual interesting development info about how the game was made and why. If it were up to me, I would heavily discourage the practice in our MOS. Axem Titanium (talk) 22:13, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
I agree with David Fuchs. There's no reason a development section should be so long that it needs to be separated from the game itself. Even the most complicated development can be discussed in a few dozen kb. I also see "controversy" articles as WP:NPOV, because they inherently put more weight on negativity. A lot of those articles are artifacts of an earlier time on Wikipedia, when standards were lower. I would support something in our MOS to encourage tighter summaries, and discourage the WP:DIRECTORY approach of covering every trade show, trailer, and patch. I would also support a merger discussion of Development of Cyberpunk 2077. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:51, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
I think specific-development articles like Development of Duke Nukem Forever are fine—that game's development is certainly notable and there's enough information to sustain an article, but Cyberpunk? I agree with Zxcvbnm that the game's controversy is its more notable and important element (though I disagree that we should split the controversy—if we do split it, it should be into Reception to Cyberpunk 2077 to avoid a WP:POVFORK). But I think these splits miss the point of what they should be. They should have the same inclusion standards as the main article's development section, meaning they shouldn't include a bunch of details about every single trailer or wayy-too-specific details on minor aspects of development. These splits should be done when the Development section gets too long for the article, then they should be reduced to only the most important information, then they should be split if they remain too long. Cyberpunk 2077's development section wasn't too long at all, and the stand-alone Development article is bloated by a bunch of quotes and obscure details. DecafPotato (talk) 23:52, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
I'm basically echoing what others have said already, but no, there's no reason for a standalone development article for Cyberpunk 2077; it can all easily fit into the main article. In general, I think the "Development of" articles are a bad practice and really don't need to exist, outside of a few extraordinary circumstances (e.g. Development of Doom, Development of Duke Nukem Forever). They're usually excessively detailed and, once you've cut down the fluff, almost everything of note can fit in the parent article. I still remain unconvinced the spinouts the ones we have for games like The Last of Us and Red Dead Redemption were warranted. JOEBRO64 00:01, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Is it worth trying to codify some of this stuff in our guidelines or manual of style, then? Since clearly the more general guidance of content forks, article size, etc. aren't really doing the trick. Something more clear like "spin off Development/Reception/Accolades/Music/etc if"? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 17:44, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
@David Fuchs: That sounds good. This is just my opinion here; I agree some of the articles seem superfluous (Deus Ex, Mother 3, Fez, Cyberpunk 2077), though some (GTAV, Nukam Forever, and though I say it myself FFXV) do seem to have value in collating information without being too Wikia-like and bloated. Or at least being fixable without merging. I think notability should also be a factor here. Is the very development of the game, the run-up to release, covered and notable enough for it to merit its own article without prose bloat? This also extends to things like DLC, tie-in media, and music. (PS: should this discussion become its own thing?) --ProtoDrake (talk) 18:51, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Yeah my thought was that if people agree this is A Thing We Should Look At, we take the discussion to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Video games or at least a new topic here. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:55, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

So... about Category:Kingdom Hearts characters...

There was a discussion about the category that lead to almost all of the category's entries being purged out (linked here). The discussion technically ended in a delete, but the category remains, so the options are these:

1. Simply delete the category and move the only article listed into Category:Kingdom Hearts original characters.

2. Leave as is.

3. Add a few Disney characters that are very plot relevant to the series onto the category (Donald Duck, Goofy, etc.) with inclusion criteria determined so that the category is not flooded with Disney and other Square Enix characters.

4. Merge Category:Kingdom Hearts original characters into the category.

Which should be chosen? I personally think the third one is not a bad idea, but I want to get this resolved. (Oinkers42) (talk) 06:50, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

"Development of Cyberpunk 2077" move discussion

A discussion as to whether or not to change the title of the article Development of Cyberpunk 2077 has been started at Talk:Development of Cyberpunk 2077#Requested move 6 January 2023, and may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. silvia (User:BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) (inquire within) 11:39, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

VG Plot

Hello! I looked at the plot for Splatoon 3 and I feel it may need to be reduced, however I'm not sure if there's a relevant policy (or essay) regarding the plots of videogames. I'm aware that MOS:PLOT suggests that plot sections be between 400 and 700 words for films however I'm unsure if that applies for video games. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 14:30, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Film's guidance is good for VG's too Masem (t) 14:45, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
WP:VG/PLOT is what you're looking for. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 14:57, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Why does WP:VGPLOT not redirect there? Ah thank you! ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 17:40, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Now it does :) ReneeWrites (talk) 18:04, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Funnily enough I searched for WP:VGPLOT first and upon finding that didn't go anywhere (at the time) I came here. I had a feeling there probably ,was something I just couldn't find. ありがと (Arigato/Thank you) once again. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 19:01, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Kind correction: that's ありがとう (arigatou), not ありがと. MilkyDefer 03:37, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Ah thanks. Must just be westernization similar to さようなら (sayounara) turning into sayonara. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 04:11, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Nope, in Japanese さようなら (sayounara) is rarely used, さよなら (sayonara) is more common. MilkyDefer 08:05, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Duolingo lied to me Huh. Good to know, thanks for the corrections! ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 13:17, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Regardless if we're going to continue this we should do so somewhere other than here. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 13:21, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
does the new plot section for Splatoon 3 look better? I rewrote it to be a bit less than half the size. DecafPotato (talk) 22:31, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with the game so I had a hard time following the plot summary. It's full of proper nouns and characters that aren't explained anywhere. (FWIW, the older longer version wasn't much better in this regard.) Try to assume as little knowledge as possible on the part of the reader. Axem Titanium (talk) 23:16, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
^Good way to put it. In order to explain the gameplay of Super Mario Bros. 35, I had to explain the gameplay of Super Mario Bros. first. Panini! • 🥪 02:54, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

New Articles (January 2 to January 8)

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 v3.15 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 14:20, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

January 2

January 3

January 4

January 5

Should probably be changed to Time Trax (video game). soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 22:22, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
Done. --PresN 22:45, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

January 6

January 7

January 8

PresN 14:20, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Noting for the record that I did not actually create the Northernlion article, I just moved it to it's current location while responding to request on my talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:32, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
Fixed, your name got on it because it moved out of draft and your name was the last "mover". Will add to the bugs list. --PresN 19:57, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
I've been meaning to ask - what does "newly tagged" mean? I recognized one of the articles I'd worked on in the past in namespace (Train Jam) and there were no recent edits, aside from a very minor one back in November. What happened that made it appear on this week's list? ReneeWrites (talk) 21:43, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
It's been tagged with the {{WikiProject Video games}} banner on its talk page. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 22:20, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
Yep, this edit. "Newly tagged" = "a new talk page tag adding it this wikiproject, but the article itself is older". --PresN 22:41, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
Thank you both for the clarification! ReneeWrites (talk) 16:40, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

"Series with new entries" in year articles

Do we want to keep doing things like this? I have wondered for some time now if they really are useful to readers, or if they're mainly there "out of tradition/habit" and because editors enjoy listing things. But maybe there's something I'm missing. AlexandraIDV 01:05, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Personally, I feel it's helpful. Sequels to established series, in general, is a topic that is widely covered in video games journalism, and there is encyclopedic interest to be served in documenting how dependent the games industry has been and continues to be on name recognition of established titles. silvia (User:BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) (inquire within) 01:08, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
It's absolutely unnecessary for those, particularly when they include smaller and indie titles. --Masem (t) 01:40, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
Feels like another example of Wikipedia's example bloat problem. Sergecross73 msg me 01:44, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
Remove it TarkusABtalk/contrib 03:18, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
I agree, get rid of it. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 07:57, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
Definitely get rid of these. I can't imagine what purpose they might serve. The usage suggested by silvia would be served by building an article with sourced comments and observations on the subject, not by dumping massive OR lists and hoping that readers somehow pick up on the point you're trying to insinuate. Martin IIIa (talk) 22:11, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Evaluating Rainbow Road

I plan to translate Rainbow Road (Mario Kart) into zhwiki, after I wrap up my work on Atri: My Dear Moments (zhwiki ver). Upon evaluation, I discover that a large part of the article is sourced by a YouTube video. I feel that this article is odd, but I don't really know how to improve it.

btw I noticed a newly-created Mario Circuit which is far worse. MilkyDefer 09:11, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Completely unsourced, boldly redirected. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 09:30, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
For those not in the know, zhwiki is the Chinese language Wikipedia. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 09:34, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
I am of the opinion Rainbow Road isn't notable. The GamesRadar+ piece is good, but the rest are listicles - there is heavy WP:REFBOMBing going on in the article for sure. As a racing game track, it also fails the "is this of interest to non-fans" test - even with standard levels like Ravenholm, there's something going on with the characters and story. A track is just made to be pretty. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:46, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Completely agreed. So much fluff, so little substance. Sergecross73 msg me 12:01, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Many years back I wrote Blue shell, and I believe this article does hold up somewhat. Rainbow Road has a similar level of fame, but I don't think it works as an encyclopedic subject as it stands now. A part of the issue is that I could describe most of the subject by simply saying "it's the most challenging final racetrack of every Mario Kart game." The subject is fairly simple, getting generally positive reception for its design and music for each of the games. If we had quotes from Nintendo about their philosophy when creating a Rainbow Road, or analysis on the evolution of the theme, we might have something to write about. Right now, the article feels disjointed. It's unclear whether all these top lists are about a specific instance of Rainbow Road, or all of them simultaneously. The line "Its music has been praised by GamesRadar's Brett Elston [26] as well as Dan Neilan from The A.V. Club" refers to two separate music productions! Turning the article into a (practically uncited) list of "appearances" also doesn't help for establishing the article as being about a coherent subject. The article has some potential through the 2015 Gamesradar article, but I think that might be the only non-listicle citation that isn't about one specific version of the track. I apologize for the train-of-thought. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 13:32, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Blue shell is also something I probably wouldn't approve if it were submitted today in AfC. It mostly relies on listicles and interviews (primary sources). The Gamasutra article is real good, but on the whole it's probably something that needs to be discussed in a paragraph in Mario Kart, or perhaps as part of a "Gameplay of Mario Kart" article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:57, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
I don't know why we'd need a separate "Gameplay of Mario Kart" article. Isn't that one of the core components of having a series article at all? Sergecross73 msg me 18:05, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
I agree both in the general case - that is exactly what a series article is for - and in the specific case, in the sense that this is... a racing game. It does not have such a depth of gameplay that could at all justify a spinoff article like that. Blue shell and Rainbow road should be merged into the series article. --PresN 19:19, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
I think the Blue shell is fine, but I agree that Rainbow Road is lacking and can easily be explained in Mario Kart#Courses DecafPotato (talk) 01:29, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
Just checked and realized that the section was removed--I'm fine with recreating it to facilitate a merge, but not with an unsourced table, a sourced prose overview is fine. DecafPotato (talk) 01:54, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
With all your opinions, I have decided to translate what3words instead. MilkyDefer 09:17, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

New Articles (January 9 to January 15)

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 v3.15 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 21:47, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

January 9

January 10

January 11

January 12

January 13

January 14

January 15

PROD'ed. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 22:29, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
De-PROD'ed. AfD'ed. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 10:24, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

PresN 21:47, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Interesting to see so few of the creations being from WP:VG regulars... Sergecross73 msg me 23:47, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
I think as a general rule longtime editors are usually more focused on article improvements than creations. At least that's been my perception when editing. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 15:50, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Help

Hi. Ksanker started the "GA review" for the article Kainé, and...they're messing about to put it mildly. Course of action? I've never had this happen to me before. ProtoDrake (talk) 09:05, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Have you tried talking to them first? I can't see any communication between the two of you. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 09:11, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
@Soetermans: I've left a message on their talk page. Fingers crossed. --ProtoDrake (talk) 09:18, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Most of their edits were unsourced or even made up, I even saw them making up the book that they supposedly cited. Safe to say that they were on a vandalism spree and your review was caught in the crossfire. I would recommend tagging it as G1 or G2. IceWelder [✉] 09:34, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Kingdom Hearts characters

Last year I created [[Riku (Kingdom Hearts)]] and [[Xehanort]] from the Kingdom Hearts series. While a user noted it had to be copyedited, he removed several sources focus on the two of them which are quite important for their notability since they focus primarily on them rather than random comments. I restored at least the most notable from Riku https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Riku_(Kingdom_Hearts)&diff=prev&oldid=1096367992 but I don't know if Xehanort is properly organized so I would appreciate somebody to help. Cheers. Tintor2 (talk) 19:51, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi Tintor2, why'd you nowiki the links to the articles? And what's keeping you from mentioning the user in question? soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 20:07, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Insincere Giraffe Two article and ask for a third opinion. Also, restored some sources from Riku that were deleted. In the apparently copyedited version, it relied on "X says this" reviews sources with small parapgraphs and most of the the feature article centered on his character were removed. I still haven't restored most of the Xehanort sources but Riku's article still has unsourced sentences involving his voice actor.Tintor2 (talk) 00:43, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Eiyuden Chronicle: Hundred Heroes

I'm just going to let the page history speak for itself. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 13:28, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

This looks to me like an issue that should be dealt with at an AfD discussion, per WP:BLAR. silvia (BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) (inquire within) 13:37, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
Started a discussion. silvia (BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) (inquire within) 13:49, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

List of banned video games

The amount of entries without any sources whatsoever have gotten completely out of hand. Looking at the talk page i have seen multiple complaints about misinformation. I feel either we need to unsourced entries or at the very least make reliable sources a requirement for new entries. Trade (talk) 21:16, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, setting up inclusion criteria is a often a good solution to cleaning up messy articles like this, though technically, you don't need any inclusion criteria to remove unsourced content - it's already a requirement by default per WP:V. Sergecross73 msg me 21:55, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
I've gone over the most obvious stuff. I'll try to go over the rest tomorrow. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK
I do think that that page may be better at "Banned video games by country", which then makes sense that the details of why games are banned are listed, as well as explaining the format better. --Masem (t) 22:44, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
Moved as by our suggestion. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 09:08, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
By your suggestion. Odd typo... soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 13:46, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
I can't help but think that the addition of a year column would be helpful on this article, Some of these ban decisions are decades apart and could do with the context. - X201 (talk) 14:20, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Do you guys it's time to move the German section to it's own article at List of video games banned in Germany now that List of video games banned in Australia exists? --Trade (talk) 14:50, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

I think that's an unnecessary spin-off, the Australia article has a considerable amount of information, the section on Germany in the list article is somewhat meaty, but not that large to warrant its own article in my opinion. But if you can find more info, go ahead! soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 15:00, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
Should this article only be for games that are illegal to own? Or also those that are illegal to sell, rent, distribute or advertise? Trade (talk) 15:24, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
Are there no games banned in Germany for depictions of nazi imagery? I would have expected at least one, but I'm not familiar with the topic. Axem Titanium (talk) 01:00, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
It seems every game with Nazi imagery was banned until 2018; there's some history on the topic here. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 01:14, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Yes, Germany recently changed its rules on images that held hateful speech (like Nazi images) from being outright banned to being acceptable when used with artistic merit. Masem (t) 03:17, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Note that the Australia games list has been around a long time, since at least when L4D2 was released (since I remember adding to it around then). Masem (t) 01:08, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Should we stop using 10-star rating template?

Should we make a rule in the MOS to avoid using 10-star ratings in the VG review template? it makes the VG review template wider than necessary, and it's not always easy to see. The 5-star rating isn't that imposing, and easy to read. But the 10-star rating requires a few extra seconds in what I believe should be instantaneous. This can be especially harder to read when it's a half-star. like 6.5/10 looks like this . I also want to iterate that every 10-star rating system from reviewers is also accompanied by the numerical version too.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 15:42, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

I would tend to agree, but I think that it should just be swapped with a rating out of 5 stars to maintain the star format. If there's a half-star, it should be rounded down after being divided in half. For example, 6.5/10 would become 3/5. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:43, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
That's disingenuous to change the scale like that. Just write 6.5/10. Also 6.5/10 = 3.25/5 TarkusABtalk/contrib 00:02, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
I'm not a fan of using images (stars) at all. Why can't we just say 4/5? It's not like we have images of thumbs when a media gets two thumbs up. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 00:05, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
I don't think we should round like that—even if intentional, we are making it seem like a reviewer gave a more negative score to the game than they actually did. That's the rationale behind using the {{Rating}} template in the first place: minimize the alterations to the actual review. DecafPotato (talk) 01:51, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
It doesn't matter. It's all the same, whether it's 3/5 stars, 3/5, 6/10, 60/100, or 240/400. It's all the same value. I'll never understand why editors dwell on this. It's not just a WP:VG thing either. Sergecross73 msg me 00:52, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
It does matter. Many star ratings are based on whole numbers only, so when you see a review score, you may reasonably assume the reviewer chose 3/5 as opposed to 2/5 or 4/5 only. This is different from a 6/10, where it is clear the reviewer had 7/10 or 5/10 as options. To go a step further, adding a decimal (6.0/10) is also different as it demonstrates that the system uses decimals, i.e. the 6.0 was chosen as opposed to a 6.5. When we change the scale, we change the interpretation of the score. I know ratings get silly after a certain level of granularity but nonetheless...I'm feeling a light to decent 6 on this comment...tran... TarkusABtalk/contrib 06:50, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
I don't really believe your average reader is going to have that sort of takeaway from a review table. I don't believe one's really going to know whether or not Polygon could give a 6.25/10 review score or not unless they went and checked out their review policy/scale. Not looking a decimal places on our review boxes. Sergecross73 msg me 18:23, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
I agree. The 5-star scale is more readable, I also don't think rounding scores up or down by a quarter point (on the 5-star scale) is going to make that much of a difference visually, or make much of a different impression on people who see it. The half-star score on the 10-star scale given as an example is already barely legible. ReneeWrites (talk) 02:04, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
I am not a big fan of altering the scale either. Regardless the WikiProject, we shouldn't change the scale. For me, it's less about numerical equivalence and more like... that isn't what the review says, and we should avoid altering what the source wrote as much as possible—and this is refactoring the source. I agree with Lee Vilenski: do we even HAVE to use the images? Is there a problem with literally just saying "6.5 out of 10 stars"? ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 02:54, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
I'd rather we keep the mix between 10 and 5-star scales over doing away with them altogether, if it comes to that. ReneeWrites (talk) 17:02, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
The stars system does not have a good accessibility? In poor network conditions, the template displays nothing? And 10-star ratings are really hard to read.--Lopullinen 05:54, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
By that logic, Wikipedia shouldn't display images either, just in case someone's browser can only display text. I think keeping the stars is useful to indicate the particular style of rating system that publication uses, and in any case, can't see how it's interfering any less with accuracy to convert stars to text than it is to slightly round down certain scores. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:00, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
That's not true. We should use images - but that's why ALTTEXT exists, for when an image doesn't display. We shouldn't ever use images in place of information. There's no benefit to writing 6.5/10 over having an image that displays the amount - and arguably it's easier to read. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:33, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
I'm fine with ditching stars in the VG reviews template and converting everything to numbers. Changing/rounding stars is out of the question per TenTonParasol. Axem Titanium (talk) 16:59, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
If the site only used stars, we should not assume a numerical value is equivalent to what their start system represents, and thus should still report the score using stars. If they use both number and stars, we can use just the number. Masem (t) 17:29, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
This makes zero sense. It doesn't matter if it's 3/5, 3/5 stars, or 3/5 coconuts. It's all the same thing. This discussion makes my head hurt. Sergecross73 msg me 18:14, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
I generally note that other WikiProjects don't get hung up on trying to replicate the stars visual just because the review puts up an image of three stars but does not write out "3 out of [4/5/10]". They instead write "3 out of 4 stars" to visually describe it. See Nope (film)#Critical response, Dark (TV series)#Reception, Spare (memoir)#Critical response for examples. {{Rating}} asks people to do this anyway and write "6.5/10 stars" for the alt text on the template. As is, we're already writing out the text equivalent. Funny enough, there are music articles that do both—see 24K Magic (album)#Critical reception. (Ime, music tends to stick to smaller scales of out of 4 or out of 5.) All this suggests that, like, it's generally accepted at other projects that and "3 out of 5 stars" are the same thing and it's acceptable to do the latter. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 17:57, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
Completely agree. I don't know that we need to get rid of the stars visual, but Blue Pumpkin Pie's concerns about visibility are valid, and I certainly prefer altering the score's visual representation over altering the score's numeric value. We already don't bother with recreating visuals for systems like one to five thumbs ups. Martin IIIa (talk) 19:36, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
This discussion is so stupid. "They represented them in stars, not numbers" is a ridiculous justification, because there's no shot that we would regard a 7/10 banana score by using banana symbols. Stars are less accessible than plain text, and the value of not doing "original research" on what the stars mean is so silly. Especially considering we can refer to interpretations made of the websites' scores on Metacritic, GameRankings, or OpenCritic. - Whadup, it's ya girl, Dusa (talk) 21:35, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
I think we really should just switch to prose. Stars are not as legible, they have accessibility concerns, and they don't add anything you don't get from a more concise text presentation. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 22:37, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
I'm glad this topic getting traction. Honestly, for accessibility concerns, it might be best just to stick to text rather than any rating system. The meaning of 4/5 instead is essentially the same. Now that I think about this, it could imply that one reviewer's rating has a higher value than another. It also adds more characters in the article than necessary, 4/5 = 3 characters but {{rating|4|5}} is 14 characters.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 07:39, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Vote

I decided to make this a vote now that there are established opinion:

  • Option A Update MOS to avoid 10-star ratings.
  • Option B Update MOS to avoid any star rating templates.
  • Option C keep status quo.

I'll make my first vote for Option B.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 22:30, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

B, and the "bathwater" argument is incredibly silly, as it implies that value is lost by not using visual imagery to depict a star rating. No, that's just decorative, and the value loss of decorating the article is exceeded by value gained through better accessibility in the article. - Whadup, it's ya girl, Dusa (talk) 01:46, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
B, per others. Cleaner and more consistent. ThomasO1989 (talk) 16:55, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
Really unsure why we needed a vote when the consensus was so clear already. But B, we shouldn't need images to show ratings. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:01, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
B or C are both fine, but not A per my above rationale. DecafPotato (talk) 01:13, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
  • B. I would also accept another option (D?) where the rating template is nixed for anything above a particular total, such as more than 5 items. Failing either of those, C, but never A. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 01:52, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
  • B works best for me due to its consistency, but as noted in my above rationale, C is fine with me as well.--Martin IIIa (talk) 02:46, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
  • C (even though I know this is a losing proposition), as "3 stars out of 5" may not be the same as "3/5" or "6/10" when taken numerically - a lot depends on publication. But given this is probably not going to win out, A to remove the harder to read 10-start readings. --Masem (t) 02:52, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

It looks like B is in favor for the majority. I made the changes to MOSVG based on the consensus. Feel free to change the wording.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 07:37, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Restoring older Featured articles to standard:
year-end 2022 summary

Unreviewed featured articles/2020 (URFA/2020) is a systematic approach to reviewing older Featured articles (FAs) to ensure they still meet the FA standards. A January 2022 Signpost article called "Forgotten Featured" explored the effort.

Progress is recorded at the monthly stats page. Through 2022, with 4,526 very old (from the 2004–2009 period) and old (2010–2015) FAs initially needing review:

  • 357 FAs were delisted at Featured article review (FAR).
  • 222 FAs were kept at FAR or deemed "satisfactory" by three URFA reviewers, with hundreds more being marked as "satisfactory", but awaiting three reviews.
  • FAs needing review were reduced from 77% of total FAs at the end of 2020 to 64% at the end of 2022.

Of the FAs kept, deemed satisfactory by three reviewers, or delisted, about 60% had prior review between 2004 and 2007; another 20% dated to the period from 2008–2009; and another 20% to 2010–2015. Roughly two-thirds of the old FAs reviewed have retained FA status or been marked "satisfactory", while two-thirds of the very old FAs have been defeatured.

Entering its third year, URFA is working to help maintain FA standards; FAs are being restored not only via FAR, but also via improvements initiated after articles are reviewed and talk pages are noticed. Since the Featured Article Save Award (FASA) was added to the FAR process a year ago, 38 FAs were restored to FA status by editors other than the original FAC nominator. Ten FAs restored to status have been listed at WP:MILLION, recognizing articles with annual readership over a million pageviews, and many have been rerun as Today's featured article, helping increase mainpage diversity.

Examples of 2022 "FAR saves" of very old featured articles
All received a Million Award

But there remain almost 4,000 old and very old FAs to be reviewed. Some topic areas and WikiProjects have been more proactive than others in restoring or maintaining their old FAs. As seen in the chart below, the following have very high ratios of FAs kept to those delisted (ordered from highest ratio):

  • Biology
  • Physics and astronomy
  • Warfare
  • Video gaming

and others have a good ratio of kept to delisted FAs:

  • Literature and theatre
  • Engineering and technology
  • Religion, mysticism and mythology
  • Media
  • Geology and geophysics

... so kudos to those editors who pitched in to help maintain older FAs !

FAs reviewed at URFA/2020 through 2022 by content area
FAs reviewed at URFA/2020 from November 21, 2020 to December 31, 2022 (VO, O)
Topic area Delisted Kept Total
Reviewed 		Ratio
Kept to
Delisted
(overall 0.62) 		Remaining to review
for
2004–7 promotions
Art, architecture and archaeology 10 6 16 0.60 19
Biology 13 41 54 3.15 67
Business, economics and finance 6 1 7 0.17 2
Chemistry and mineralogy 2 1 3 0.50 7
Computing 4 1 5 0.25 0
Culture and society 9 1 10 0.11 8
Education 22 1 23 0.05 3
Engineering and technology 3 3 6 1.00 5
Food and drink 2 0 2 0.00 3
Geography and places 40 6 46 0.15 22
Geology and geophysics 3 2 5 0.67 1
Health and medicine 8 3 11 0.38 5
Heraldry, honors, and vexillology 11 1 12 0.09 6
History 27 14 41 0.52 38
Language and linguistics 3 0 3 0.00 3
Law 11 1 12 0.09 3
Literature and theatre 13 14 27 1.08 24
Mathematics 1 2 3 2.00 3
Media 14 10 24 0.71 40
Meteorology 15 6 21 0.40 31
Music 27 8 35 0.30 55
Philosophy and psychology 0 1 1 – 2
Physics and astronomy 3 7 10 2.33 24
Politics and government 19 4 23 0.21 9
Religion, mysticism and mythology 14 14 28 1.00 8
Royalty and nobility 10 6 16 0.60 44
Sport and recreation 32 12 44 0.38 39
Transport 8 2 10 0.25 11
Video gaming 3 5 8 1.67 23
Warfare 26 49 75 1.88 31
Total 359 Note A 222 Note B 581 0.62 536

Noting some minor differences in tallies:

  • A URFA/2020 archives show 357, which does not include those delisted which were featured after 2015; FAR archives show 358, so tally is off by at least one, not worth looking for.
  • B FAR archives show 63 kept at FAR since URFA started at end of Nov 2020. URFA/2020 shows 61 Kept at FAR, meaning two kept were outside of scope of URFA/2020. Total URFA/2020 Keeps (Kept at FAR plus those with three Satisfactory marks) is 150 + 72 = 222.

But looking only at the oldest FAs (from the 2004–2007 period), there are 12 content areas with more than 20 FAs still needing review: Biology, Music, Royalty and nobility, Media, Sport and recreation, History, Warfare, Meteorology, Physics and astronomy, Literature and theatre, Video gaming, and Geography and places. In the coming weeks, URFA/2020 editors will be posting lists to individual WikiProjects with the goal of getting these oldest-of-the-old FAs reviewed during 2023.

Ideas for how you can help are listed below and at the Signpost article.

  • Review a 2004 to 2007 FA. With three "Satisfactory" marks, article can be moved to the FAR not needed section.
  • Review "your" articles: Did you nominate a featured article between 2004 and 2015 that you have continuously maintained? Check these articles, update as needed, and mark them as 'Satisfactory' at URFA/2020. A continuously maintained FA is a good predictor that standards are still met, and with two more "Satisfactory" marks, "your" articles can be listed as "FAR not needed". If they no longer meet the FA standards, please begin the FAR process by posting your concerns on the article's talk page.
  • Review articles that already have one "Satisfactory" mark: more FAs can be indicated as "FAR not needed" if other reviewers will have a look at those already indicated as maintained by the original nominator. If you find issues, you can enter them at the talk page.
  • Fix an existing featured article: Choose an article at URFA/2020 or FAR and bring it back to FA standards. Enlist the help of the original nominator, frequent FA reviewers, WikiProjects listed on the talk page, or editors that have written similar topics. When the article returns to FA standards, please mark it as 'Satisfactory' at URFA/2020 or note your progress in the article's FAR.
  • Review and nominate an article to FAR that has been 'noticed' of a FAR needed but issues raised on talk have not been addressed. Sometimes nominating at FAR draws additional editors to help improve the article that would otherwise not look at it.

More regular URFA and FAR reviewers will help assure that FAs continue to represent examples of Wikipedia's best work. If you have any questions or feedback, please visit Wikipedia talk:Unreviewed featured articles/2020/4Q2022.

FAs last reviewed from 2004 to 2007 of interest to this WikiProject

(With apologies for not sorting the FA list down)

If you review an article on this list, please add commentary at the article talk page, with a section heading == [[URFA/2020]] review== and also add either Notes or Noticed to WP:URFA/2020A, per the instructions at WP:URFA/2020. Comments added here may be swept up in archives and lost, and more editors will see comments on article talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:08, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

  1. BioShock
  2. Castlevania: Dawn of Sorrow
  3. Characters of Final Fantasy VIII
  4. Chrono Cross
  5. Crazy Taxi
  6. Development of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion
  7. Devil May Cry (video game)
  8. Final Fantasy IX
  9. Final Fantasy Tactics
  10. Final Fantasy XII
  11. F-Zero GX
  12. Golden Sun (video game)
  13. Halo 2
  14. Kingdom Hearts
  15. Kingdom Hearts (video game)
  16. Kingdom Hearts II
  17. Kingdom Hearts: Chain of Memories
  18. Ōkami
  19. Populous: The Beginning
  20. System Shock
  21. The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind
  22. The Legend of Zelda: Oracle of Seasons and Oracle of Ages
  23. Vagrant Story
As they're my old noms, Golden Sun, Populous, and Halo 2 are on my cleanup list (Halo 2 is mostly done, the others need more work) but I encourage original nominators if you're still around to take another look and mark them off. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 17:18, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
Oh wow that's quite a list! 8.37.179.254 (talk) 16:45, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
I'm willing to review Okami and the Oracle games if I Get some help since I've never reviewed an article for an FA before. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 16:54, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

WATCH DOGS LΞGION lead

Hi everyone, could anybody be willing to help out in this discussion? I'm just editing on my phone and have a busy day ahead of me, it's a pain looking up old discussions and very time-consuming as well. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 06:25, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

defining Dynasty Warriors

I brought this up a couple years back, but I think the issue has now become even worse, the the point that every single Omega Force game that is a hack n' slash, is a Dynasty Warriors title -- except, at this point, real-time tactics Bladestorm: The Hundred Years' War and games like Attack on Titan (video game) are also listed as part of the "Dynasty Warriors" in their infobox or in the template.

The developers of the series, Omega Force, have said before that Dragon Quest Heroes isn't a Musou game, but an action role-playing game. Clearly, having a stricter definition to what makes something a Musou, however it's also not branded as one by Omega Force, Koei Tecmo, nor Square Enix..[1] Which they mentioned mulitple times to different outlets, with lines such as "What we tried to do in Dragon Quest Heroes, we didn't make it as a Musou game as the Dynasty Warriors games, it's pretty much like a Dragon Quest game instead, it's kinda about avoiding making an action game, so it does not become a Musou game." coming from the producer.[2]

While titles like Persona 5 Scramble have been specifically mentioned that they originally were intended to be a Musou, but they thought it was so different, that it became its own project.[3] It, of course, doesn't have to Musou branding neither in Japan nor the Warriors branding in other regions. So, in terms of IP, they aren't related.

But then, there are titles like Bladestorm: The Hundred Years' War in the template, which does not even remotely play like a Musou title? Games like |Attack on Titan were also announced and had part of their marketing, that they were unique new projects from Omega Force, and not Musou titles.[4][5] And it too, does not play like a Musou game. (Although, I'd say it's conceptually closer to one than Presona 5 Scramble is,)

Now, the Dragon Quest Heroes article by Push Square, does jest "Well, it sure looks like a Musou to me!" - so the question becomes, is the infobox definer... just colloquial use, and not used for the series? Or, are we using the Warriors or Musou terminiology as a genre definer? Which has gained in popularity in recent years. Not just as a definer, but you might've also made the case that "Musou" is unique to the developer Omega Force or to Koei Tecmo, but that's not the case, as we've had various titles in recent years that people have been calling "Musous" as a genre definer, for titles such as Fate/Extella from Marvelous, Gintama Rumble and Senran Kagura: Estival Versus, and games like Ninety-Nine Nights from Konami.[6] Even from different developers.[7]

Because these edits keeep going back and forth even without me, I'm bringing this up again. How are we defining this template or the series? If just as a loose genre term, then... I question its usefulness, and it'd have to include other titles as well. As a de facto listing of the series that is called Warriors and is published by Koei Tecmo, would have titles like Dragon Quest Heroes and Persona 5 Scramble, amongst some others, certainly not be included, as they're neither spin-offs, nor otherwise directly related aside from sharing the developer, and fighting groups of enemies. At best, they should be listed as related.

There's also the issue of games like Dynasty Tactics, which... isn't a Musou game in a gameplay-sense, but... certainly the marketing attempted to tie the series together in a franchise-sense. This title isn't even in the template, but the template is on the page.

My other suggestion would be, changing the template from a Warriors one, to a general Omega Force one. The issue would still be there, but we could include even more titles from the developer into the template and tidy it up, as games like Bladestorm would not be in any template.  Kyoushu~  ►Talk Page  17:27, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Can we just give them some sort of "cross-over spinoff" delineation or something? Seems like most of them that are deviating from the usual formula are the ones that are collaborations with other IPs. Sergecross73 msg me 17:31, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
To go slightly off the topic, in terms of template, I'd suggest overhauling the whole thing into a general Omega Force template, similar to this:
Which would have at least everything included into the template; However, the issue of the definition would still remain. Personally, I would go with the "literal" definition from the developers, but there's been similar situations and... months, to years long Talk page discussions, as was the case with Bloodborne lol  Kyoushu~  ►Talk Page  18:29, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Would Persona 5 Strikers not count as a Warriors game? (Oinkers42) (talk) 18:31, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Exactly. That title in particular is officially not part of the series. To them, it's just not Warriors game, not even part of the same genre. So the question is the definition of "series" here. Are we just using it as a colloquial term? Or are we using it as defined officially?  Kyoushu~  ►Talk Page  18:45, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, drawing lines like that isn't a good idea. Drawing a line at licensed/crossover or not is fine because it's pretty clear cut and objective. But "degree of musuo elements" isn't maintainable. Templates need to be entirely intuitive on their own since there's no room to any explanatory context. Sergecross73 msg me 18:37, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
I think that's good, as it draws the line at games that literally have "warriors" or "musou" in the title, which seems pretty objective. DecafPotato (talk) 20:07, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
Alright, I'll go ahead with the Omega Force template, then.  Kyoushu~  ►Talk Page  17:04, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Really? You hardly got any input at all. I mean, if you're making a call at this point, you've got one support, 1 person who doesn't agree with where you're drawing a line (me) and...that's it. To each their own, but as is, you won't have any sort of discernible consensus to point to in maintaining a status quo. Not a great approach to something that sounds like it's been a multi-year dispute. Sergecross73 msg me 19:26, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
I also support that unless it has Warriors/Muso in its title (or developers confirm it is part of the Muso franchise), it shouldn't be defined as part of the series.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 22:12, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
What exactly is the practical difference between Fire Emblem Warriors and Persona 5 Strikers, both seem similarly spin-off to me. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 23:48, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
This is a similar issue with Demon Souls and Dark Souls. At the time, Bloodborne, Sekiro, and Elden Ring weren't as prominent so they just called it "Souls games", even though they share the same combat, they were still two different Intellectual Properties. Some sources define "Muso" as a genre, while others as part of the Warriors series. A similar but easier problem is with the "Monster hunting" genre and Monster Hunter. We should just stick to what's official out there. If the developers fully claim to be a crossover with their Warriors series, then we should base it off that.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 00:27, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
This is precisely my objection, and you're now the second (third counting me) to ask that. It's not intuitive. And it's exactly why it won't solve the ongoing disputes. Sergecross73 msg me 00:55, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
To me, the difference is more objective and clear than the FromSoft examples are, as the title doesn't have any similar branding whatsoever, and unlike Fist of the North Star: Ken's Rage, isn't branded as a Warriors game in Japan either, on top of there being mulitple sources from the developers saying it's unrelated to the Warriors series. I don't think just feeling similar should be the definer, lest we put Dino Crisis into the Resident Evil template.  Kyoushu~  ►Talk Page  08:06, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

@DarkKyoushu: Where are you getting these claims? The article isn't referncing the information you brought up and the Japanese title literally has "Muso" in it, which is the English's equivalent to Warriors.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 12:15, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

@Blue Pumpkin Pie: What? Ken's Rage? Ken's Rage is a Warriros game, It's called 北斗無双 Hokuto Musou in Japanese. Persona 5, however, is ペルソナ5 スクランブル ザ ファントム ストライカーズ Sukuranburu Za Fantomu Sutoraikazu,  Kyoushu~  ►Talk Page  13:57, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
"To me, the difference is more objective and clear" - this is exactly the reason why issues keep recurring for you. You're doing it according to you, instead of doing it according to what would be understandable to your average reader/editor. The number of people questing things in this conversation should be proof enough of this. You don't seem open to this possibility, so I'll just stop. Good luck with this. You're going to need it. Sergecross73 msg me 15:21, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
I wouldn't have opened a discussion if that was the case.  Kyoushu~  ►Talk Page  15:55, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
Nevermind. I think it's clear we should just stick with what devs say and how the game is marketed as. If it has muso/warriors in the title and Omega force confirms its a "muso/warriors" game, then that is how we will base it.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 21:36, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Dragon Quest Heroes Is Not Another Dynasty Warriors Clone".
  2. ^ "PS4 Exclusive Dragon Quest Heroes Isn't Any Ordinary Warriors Game".
  3. ^ "Persona 5 Scramble was originally Persona Warriors".
  4. ^ "Attack on Titan is definitely not a Warriors game".
  5. ^ ""This is not Warriors": Omega Force teases a new game".
  6. ^ "Fate/Extella's First Screenshots Show Off Its Musou-Style Action".
  7. ^ "Marvelous Games Tweet".

Assistance with Celeste (video game) GA review?

I thought I was equipped in time to focus on reviewing Celeste, but I haven't had the right amount of time. if someone qualified could take over and assist?Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 07:10, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Review has been closed as not listed. The Night Watch (talk) 21:43, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello,
Please note that The Sims (video game), which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 30 January 2023 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team

Another Potential Good Topic (Other GT suggestions welcome)

This isn't currently on my radar, but I'm curious if posting the progress here would inspire anyone to contribute.

edit | discuss
Mario role-playing games
18 articles

Mario & Luigi

Mario & Luigi: Superstar Saga
Mario & Luigi: Partners in Time
Mario & Luigi: Bowser's Inside Story
Mario & Luigi: Dream Team
Mario & Luigi: Paper Jam

Paper Mario

Paper Mario
Paper Mario: The Thousand Year Door
Super Paper Mario
Paper Mario: Sticker Star
Paper Mario: Color Splash
Paper Mario: The Origami King
Super Mario RPG
Puzzle & Dragons Z + Super Mario Bros. Edition
Mario + Rabbids Kingdom Battle
Mario + Rabbids Sparks of Hope

Panini! • 🥪 16:54, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

It looks tantalizingly close... Getting the ones about individual games up to GA seems like it'd be quite easy, too, with only the M&L series article taking a little more effort. As much as I like the Mario RPGs, though, I don't have as much time to spend on WP these days.--AlexandraIDV 17:05, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
I can definitely help with copy editing whenever the time is right. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:35, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Riot Games Criticism and controversies draft

Hello! I'm a Riot Games employee looking for help with an edit request I've made on the company article's Talk page. I have put forward a draft, available here, that reorganizes and adds fresh information to the article's Criticism and controversies section. New content that I've added to the existing section text is green.

My initial edit request for that draft, which you can see here, summarizes the substance of my proposed improvements. After realizing that asking editors to review a lengthy section draft might be unreasonable, I closed the full section edit request and opened a new one that deals specifically with Riot's response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine. You can see that request here.

I certainly won't stop anybody who feels up to it from reviewing the entire Criticism draft, but the open edit request right now is for the Ukraine part of it, because I think that's the most straightforward bit. Any help I can get with this would be deeply appreciated. Thanks! JHixson at Riot Games (talk) 20:47, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

New Articles (January 23 to January 29)

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 v3.15 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 22:32, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

January 23

January 24

PROD'ed. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 06:37, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
Does that meet standalone notability? soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 06:37, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
I bet it could be, but the article's current (small) size doesn't make much of an argument for needing a split... Sergecross73 msg me 21:36, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

January 25

January 26

January 27

January 28

January 29

PresN 22:32, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Help with Draft

Hello! So I"m currently working on my draft (Draft:The Crew Motorfest) and I notice that a lot of the sources mention the setting being similar to Test Drive Unlimited and Test Drive Unlimited 2 which according to the sources, some of the devs from Ivory Tower previously worked on. I feel this would be interesting information to add to the article, however I'm not exactly sure how to add it or where I would even add it to. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 20:12, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Reception. It would be phrased something like "X person noted that the setting was similar to X other games". ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:09, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
Also fits under Development. "Reviewers noted similarities between game x and game y, a game several developers have worked on previously", or something to that effect. ReneeWrites (talk) 23:23, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Assistance with Transfer Pak

I've been working on extensively filling out our Transfer Pak coverage, expanding it from a single entry on the N64 Accessories article into one of its own. I feel like it's in pretty good shape now, all told, but I think I've hit a roadblock in terms of how far I can take it. As it's a rather niche topic, there simply isn't as much coverage as I'd like, leaving me skeptical as to whether it could ever reach GA status. In particular, I feel like the reception section could use a few more examples, but the problem is finding any. I've used every resource the project has available, and I'm still struggling to find coverage beyond what I've already cited. I guess my big question is should I submit it for GA review, or is it just not up to par yet? And if not, would anyone be interested or willing to help figure out what it needs and get it over the finish line? -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 15:52, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

This seems like it could easily be merged into Nintendo 64 accessories, especially if the embedded lists are collapsed. WP:SIGCOV is highly lacking and mostly based on content farm articles. I don't recommend bringing it forward to GA, but rather working on the accessory list as a whole instead. It was probably a mistake to split it before finding good enough sources. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:56, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
This seems more like a list than an article, yes. I'd say either refactor to List of games that support Nintendo 64 Transfer Pak (cfe. List of games that support Wii Balance Board) or merge. Leaning towards merging. casualdejekyll 14:35, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
Well, a lot of the time it's frowned upon to have "List of" articles for a subject that doesn't have its own article, so I think that would be a move in the wrong direction. Personally, I don't have a problem with the stand-alone article existing per se, but I think it could be a challenge to find the coverage and content to get it up to GA at the same time. Sergecross73 msg me 16:52, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the request page

I think it's time we do something regarding the request page because at this point its doubtful all the articles will be created from the sources given there. Maybe lock the page to admin access only. Timur9008 (talk) 11:35, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

(requestlist) It has never really been likely for "all the articles" to be created. It can't possibly serve that way, as it's completely up to the whims of our fellow volunteer editors. I actually find the list surprisingly short, as it's something I imagine can only really grow. We can always hope that people find inspiration in that list to write articles, but this is a problem without much of a solution. It's good to have a place where people can post article ideas as long as they meet GNG. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 12:44, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
The main problem with the request list page is that most requesters do not bother to explain why an article about a particular subject should be created. Just dumping the name of the game and a couple of reviews there is not helpful at all. OceanHok (talk) 12:54, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
I'm fine with trimming practices like "if there's no description," but I feel like we at WP:VG have the philosophy that any game without enough RS reviews are good subjects for an article. Do you mean that it would be more useful for editors in picking which articles they might want to write, if there's a hook next to them? ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 14:27, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
The problem is that we have one of the most active Wikiprojects on Wikipedia...but none of us are really looking for ideas on things to work on. We've all got our own projects of interest going on. Meanwhile, so many of the requests simply aren't interesting or important either. So many are these Franklin Duck Learns the Alphabet (1997) stuff that most editors (and readers) don't really care about. So they just sit there. Which I'm fine with. It is what it is. And it's been like that for a long time. Sergecross73 msg me 14:37, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
I prefer Franklin Duck Learns to Type (1999), anyhow. Panini! • 🥪 14:43, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
On one hand there's a lot of shovelware dumped on the page. At the same time, it does have some good ideas. But in my experience, the good ideas came from users who only asked for a few things. In my opinion, it would be best if there is a limit to how many games or related articles a single user can request so they are forced to put the games they truly want to be articles. Users are free to make general lists of all games that don't have articles on their userspace but they should probably not be dumped onto requests. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:14, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
I thought we did put a limit on it, at one point, because one particularly user was just dumping tons of entries "ideas" in there. I do agree that some good could come of the list though. I almost wonder if we could make a subset list of more pressing/important article creation ideas? I can't think of a way of enforcing that per se, but maybe it could be figured out if anyone thinks its worth pursuing. More of a "high importance request list" of sorts. Sergecross73 msg me 22:33, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
Realistically for these articles to be created, they need to prove GNG. That means we'd need really at least three RS that discuss the subject in a non-trivial manner. Perhaps the idea is to start removing entries that don't make a good attempt at showing how they meet GNG - so if you post without giving 2 (or better 3) RS links then they can be freely removed. I'd be much more likely to write an article if the sources are already present. The request board isn't supposed to be a list of games, but rather a list of potential articles. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 22:41, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
A lot of the items are linked only to Mobygames, which I expect is done because Mobygames lists reviews. This request, for example, has five magazine reviews listed there. As long as these links to Mobygames check out, I think that's probably fine for establishing GNG in the request list. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:31, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
I would agree with this if the request page was inundated with non-notable entries and spam, but Zxcvbnm has done a really good job cleaning it up. (Both formatting-wise and by removing non-notable entries. If you compare the state of the page today to what it looked like at the start of 2022, it's like night and day.) Most of the entries are of older games that BOZ has gone out of his way for to check if they meet notability standards, and linked the relevant articles and reviews if they do. That's good work too, and it's the sort of thing we should be encouraging. But for what it's worth, BOZ has finished his archive crawl and the amount of entries added will slow down significantly from this point on. ReneeWrites (talk) 23:21, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
I guess one question that I have here is -- where would be the best place for us to leave comments on individual entries? I just went through the list and "Cybermania '94" caught my eye, and I started doing research... but I don't really want to write an article about it (and it may not even be notable anyways). Should we just append bullets below individual entries with our signatures so people know to reach out to us? Nomader (talk) 17:35, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
Some of the entries have additional text on what they were and what their significance was (including Cybermania '94!), what kind of comments were you thinking of? ReneeWrites (talk) 19:00, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
I just dropped a bunch in (see the diff here: [2]), it feels a bit messy but it's good enough! Nomader (talk) 21:30, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
I added also a comment there about Cybermania. --Mika1h (talk) 23:07, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Amazon Luna as a platform

Hello! I'm fairly sure this was discussed already but is there consensus to include Amazon Luna as a platform or no? I'm only asking as while I'm working on my draft for The Crew Motorfest (located here) I noticed that a lot of the RSes I'm finding are mentioning that one of the platforms is Amazon Luna (probably as an alternative to the now dead Google Stadia) ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 23:36, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Getting a game to work on Luna is nowhere close to the porting that was needed for Stadia. So we should not consider Luna a platform. --Masem (t) 23:43, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
How so? I've asked similar questions and never really get a satisfactory answer... Sergecross73 msg me 23:46, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
It probably shouldn't, count, no. No more than we consider the Steam Deck a platform, anyway. silvia (BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) (inquire within) 23:50, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
As far as I know, Luna isn't an extension of an existing platform. So I think it's fair game to include in the infobox. JOEBRO64 23:51, 31 January 2023 (UTC) changing my mind based on what Masem posted below JOEBRO64 03:28, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
[3]...luna is basically running Windows instances of games on AWS. There is almost no porting effort. Masem (t) 23:59, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
More akin to GeForce Now from what I gather. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 06:01, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
So are most in favor of allowing Luna to be brought up in prose but omitted from the infobox and lead? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 13:44, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Fast Food Tycoon#Requested move 3 February 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Fast Food Tycoon#Requested move 3 February 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. UtherSRG (talk) 13:50, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Merging upcoming games with little to no info

While checking out the category of upcoming video games, I've noticed Fable (upcoming video game) and Avowed. Both have no gameplay info and the coverage on both of them has been scant since their respective reveals, rumors about their development aside. I think both should be merged/redirected where possible (Fable (video game series) and Obsidian Entertainment), but I wanted to hear more responses regarding the matter. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 00:05, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

I believe it is a bad idea to merge articles when they are likely to be notable later. This is generally the case for major AAA games that are unreleased. Even if they are flimsy at the current time, it is common sense to assume it will become a full-fledged article later, so there is not really a serious notability concern. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 01:01, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Considering both are pretty high profile releases, you'd almost certainly be challenged. And if it ends up at AFD, I believe the sourcing present plus the 2-3 paragraphs of prose would likely result as a "keep" result. So I wouldn't bother. Sergecross73 msg me 01:14, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
I've strongly stood by that we should not be creating stubby standalone articles on games where there is a reasonable notable topic that what little info there is can be discussed. that approach promotes an non-factor for notability - just because something gets announced, even by an AAA studio, doesn't mean it necessarily a notable topic; it doesn't help vg coverage tends to overduplicate on simple product announcements. We should only be look to create such articles when deep-dives of gameplay, development, or similar facets become available. Masem (t) 01:15, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Stubs being created doesn't really do any harm because they can just be redirected if they're truly non-notable. Meanwhile, stubs not being created does legitimate harm because it's a hole in Wikipedia's coverage. So I would err on the side of unnecessary stubs over too few of them. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 01:43, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Since redirects can take one to a section on a more comprehensive article about the upcoming game, there is zero harm by not creating stubs. Stubs however encourage poor article creation, since most stubs show no evidence of the GNG being met. Masem (t) 02:00, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Coming full circle though, neither article example listed above is poorly written or poorly sourced. I understand your concerns, but I sometimes write these sorts of articles myself because they can often end disputes. If someone makes a lazy, two sentence, two source stub, there's often a back and forth of redirecting and recreating. But if you write up a few paragraphs of prose with 5-6 WP:VG/RS sources, it just about always ends the dispute or saves the article at AFD. Sergecross73 msg me 12:28, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
I would argue that the Fable article is very fluffy - such as mention of what they were looking for in wanted ads as to extrapolate what may be in the game. This is why we want actual significant coverage of development (at least for future games) or reception to really start an article. Masem (t) 15:46, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Remove Poké Ball from WP:VG/R?

I recently made Poké Ball Plus which is definitely notable as a physical accessory and controller, but I have been unable to determine whether the Poké Ball itself is notable as a fictional item. The sources provided there all seem to be trivial coverage, as are articles on various replicas and the like. There doesn't seem to be any real analysis of why a Poké Ball is important. I was wondering if anyone could find sources proving that it is actually article-worthy or whether it should instead be removed. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:21, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

I just did a cursory search of written sources and I came up basically emptyhanded outside of some references in a book for alpha males and newspaper coverage of..... the Poké Ball Plus. You're good to cut it in my opinion. Nomader (talk) 23:04, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
OK, I'll probably remove it unless people can come up with arguments towards its reinstatement as an article. I did find a chapter on the morality of Poke Balls in a book about Japanese law, but it seems to be heavily reaching in applying real-world logic to the situation. This is a universe where little kids can take down wide-ranging criminal gangs. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:16, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
There are a million words to say about the Pokéball, but I think all of them are being said by Youtubers and bloggers rather than professional publications. That's just the nature of modern fiction. For the long-forseeable future, the subject is covered fine in Gameplay of Pokémon, alongside the Pokédex, Pokémon typing, shinies, evolution, etc. A lot of these topics might make some sense as separate articles (or at least moreso than chess moves), but the sources just really aren't there for it. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:30, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
yeah, I think it's better explained at Gameplay of Pokémon.
(re: Shinies are something I plan to make an article, the things like reception and community are probably notable) DecafPotato (talk) 21:45, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
If there isn't an article on palette swap in general, I find it very hard to believe an article on shinies specifically is notable, since it's a subtopic. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:50, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Archive_166&oldid=1140040612"