Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games

(Redirected from Wikipedia talk:VG)
Latest comment: 2 days ago by KGRAMR in topic GT scope question
WikiProject iconVideo games Project‑class
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
ProjectThis page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

TruckersFM edit

Hi everyone,

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

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

American Truck Simulator discussion edit

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

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

Goals edit

If you check out the main WPVG page right now, you can see that we've hit our goal of 10% of articles B-Class or better, and at 99.7% are almost at another goal of 75% of articles Start-Class or better. Congratulations to all of us who improved articles over the past years! So, it's time to consider replacing them with new goals. For some ideas, see previous discussions here and here.

It feels like only yesterday that we set these goals... it wasn't, of course, because as the invisible comments tell us at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/goals, that B-class goal started at 1597/3093.5 (51.62%) in September 2014, and the Start-class goal started at 15039/22526.25 (66.76%) in January 2014. They were ambitious, long-term goals. The other two were started in November 2020, and will probably also take a decade to finish. I'd like to recommend as a result that we try, if possible, to pick new goals that are achievable in less time, even if that means they're more esoteric, though just "next round number%" is also ok. --PresN 14:32, 9 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

The zhwp WPVG has a set of goals (translation) which is similar to our goals:
  • 5 Good or Featured Topics
  • 5% of articles B-Class or better
  • High/Top-Importance articles basically reach C-Class
  • 1250 DYKs
The last goal seems newness. We have 1,389 DYKs and promote ~10 DYKs monthly, thus 1,500 DYKs (around one year) might be OK. But I'm not sure is there a DYK push custom...--For Each element In group Next (talk) 15:38, 9 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
I'll be honest I've always been semi-disinterested in DYKs because I don't really get the purpose they serve.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:07, 9 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
May I suggest a goal to clean out some of our backlogs, namely the screenshot and cover art backlogs? (Oinkers42) (talk) 16:18, 9 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
User:DocFreeman24 has been doing this. Timur9008 (talk) 13:16, 10 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
From what I can tell, his edits over the past few months are mainly cover art and not screenshots. A goal or even a drive would help significantly with the almost 9k backlog. detriaskies 18:28, 12 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yes this is right, I’ve been mostly focused on cover art so if someone wanted to do screenshots that would be a great addition. Also I’d be more likely to do screenshots if there was an upload tool for screenshots the way there is for cover art. The upload tool makes it sooooo much easier than the manual process. DocFreeman24 (talk) 23:52, 18 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Other goals to throw out there as ideas: <=7500 stubs (we've dropped ~1000 a year for the past 2 years, are at 8906 right now); 300+ FAs (we're at 268 and have been doing about 8/year recently); all Vital Level-5 video game articles C+ (17/175 are starts) or B+ (58/175 are start/C). --PresN 21:00, 9 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Those all sound like good ideas. QuicoleJR (talk) 02:38, 10 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
We could try getting all Top-Importance articles to B-Class or better. We are currently halfway there, since 30 of the 61 articles are C-Class and none are Start-Class or Stub-Class. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:55, 9 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
I like the ideas from QuicoleJR and PresN. Let's balance a few goals that reduce our lowest quality articles, and a few goals that increase our highest quality articles. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:09, 10 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Okay, so, the proposed options are:

  1. <=7500 stubs
  2. 300+ FAs
  3. Vital Level-5 video game articles C+
  4. Vital Level-5 video game articles B+
  5. Top-Importance articles to B+
  6. Clear cover art backlog
  7. Clear screenshot backlog

Can we get a vote where everyone picks two options, and then I'll swap in the winners when we pass our 75% start goal? --PresN 15:55, 13 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

  • I vote options 1 and 3. --PresN 15:55, 13 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Lots of good options, so just picking 2 is tough. I'll go 2 and 3. -- ZooBlazer 16:05, 13 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
After consideration, I go with 1 and 3. --ProtoDrake (talk) 16:16, 13 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
I'm thinking 2 and 5, with 3 as a very close third. I pick 5 over 3 because it is much less prone to changing, although I like both as goals. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:21, 13 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • I like 1 and 3. I missed the "nomination phase" here I guess, but I'd support a GA-based option ("x% of articles GA or better") ~ A412 talk! 16:51, 13 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • The problem with that one is that we're currently over 5% with 2428, but thousands from 10%. And just going to an even 2500 would be done in 3 months at our current rapid GA pace. --PresN 17:50, 13 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
1 and 6 TarkusABtalk/contrib 17:30, 13 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
3 and 7. (Oinkers42) (talk) 17:33, 13 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
5 and 7 here. Another possible goal is dealing with the former featured gaming articles. Roughly about 34 articles, and some pretty high-importance ones too like the NES. detriaskies 17:50, 13 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
I believe reducing the amount of low-quality articles should take priority, and out of these I think 1 and 3 will accomplish that most expediently, so they get my vote. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 17:57, 13 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
I believe 1 and 3 benefits readers the most. It can be overwhelming to see how many 90s/2000s game articles are just awful looking stubs. Sergecross73 msg me 18:29, 13 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
My vote is going to 1 and 3 per what others have said. I'm also already working (or planning) on de-stubbing some articles, so 1 falls in line. λ NegativeMP1 18:37, 13 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
I'm gonna go with 1 and then either 6 or 7. Getting rid of the large image backlogs would be neat. CaptainGalaxy 20:26, 13 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
6 and 7. GamerPro64 22:36, 13 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
2 and 6. Skyshiftertalk 23:11, 13 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
1 and 2. I think dealing with stubs and getting more FAs are the two most important things to do in the project, as we have numerous articles that are either very close to being Start-class or simply not notable. 1 is also something that could easily be coordinated; for example, let's say that 10 users agree to focus on one letter each, doing what they can to figure out which articles are notable and improving them to at least Start-class. It wouldn't be a quick process, but it'd be a gradual one that doesn't take much effort for each individual stub. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 23:39, 13 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
1 and 6. I think this is the most important in terms of what readers will be looking for, especially 1. ― novov (t c) 07:03, 14 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Expose on Gamurs Group publications edit

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

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

Template:Steam edit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Articles under "Related" in navbox templates edit

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

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

New Articles (March 10 to March 17) edit

 A listing of all articles newly added to the Video Games Wikiproject (regardless of creation date). Generated by v3.18 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 17:16, 18 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

March 10

  • None

March 11

  • None

March 12

March 13

March 14

March 15

March 16

March 17


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

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

Reminder: GDC Flickr edit

A reminder that with GDC going on this week, their photostream on Flickr uploads everything (still) under a free license compable CC-BY-2.0 license, so this is a good source for developer images, if you can verify identities. This is usually better for the awards night (Thursday) but you can sometimes get a good image of a person lecturing a room, for example. — Masem (t) 01:25, 19 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Are any Nintendo folk I'd be interested in using going to be there? Panini! 🥪 04:19, 19 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
You can search the schedule here and there are a few Nintendo ppl that will be there, but no names I immediately recognize. Masem (t) 04:24, 19 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Ooh, Takashi Tezuka! His infobox image is long overdue. Panini! 🥪 04:38, 19 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Keep in mind that the photograph doesn't spend time at every session, through big recognized names that would draw a room, they will be at.
But again, at the awards, they generally photograph every winner and most of the attending nominees, which is why that's a more sure spot. Masem (t) 04:51, 19 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
I don’t know who accepted the awards for Tears of the Kingdom − maybe you can recognize him? See File:Game Developers Choice Awards 2024 - Best Technology - The Legend of Zelda Tears of the Kingdom - 03.jpg Jean-Fred (talk) 23:08, 22 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Guy on the right looks like Takuhiro Dohta, the technical director. --Mika1h (talk) 23:49, 22 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
It sure does, and it makes sense that the technical director would be accepting the technology award. Pictures in commons:Category:Takuhiro Dohta. Thanks!
(Per the livestream, the guy on the left was doing the translation) Jean-Fred (talk) 08:56, 23 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

You know what? Let's do it. Let's bring Mario to GA edit

Hey everyone! I have had this article on my radar for quite some time and it's one that's been nagging at me, especially recently. So why not, in the year of our Lord 2024, why not bring Mario to GA? I'm talking full overhaul, because he needs it. I haven't done any big projects as of late, except for the ones I've been ignoring.

I'm leaving this message to see if others in the project are interested in teaming up and taking this one on as a team. Something along the lines of divvying up the work+collaboration, I mean. This is not one I would want to take on myself, especially since I don't have large bursts of time anymore. Such a project scares me to take on alone and I'm not the most experienced, anyhow. So, if anyone is interested let me know; this isn't something I want to hit the ground running on right away, so this is here to spark motion for those that are interested. Panini! 🥪 21:13, 19 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

I might help copyedit a bit. I would help more if I had any idea how to bring a character article to GA. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:28, 19 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
As you know, it's already on my watchlist, and I'll be around to help review, guide, etc. Sergecross73 msg me 22:08, 19 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
I might also be able to help with bringing this article (and Luigi) up to GA status. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:10, 20 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
I really hope you can pull this off! It's an exciting prospect but a daunting project. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 07:39, 20 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
I don't have much free time at the moment, at least for the near future, but I can try to help out where I can. Feel free to ping me if you need any help. DecafPotato (talk) 04:39, 22 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
I could may work on the reception section which is mostly just listicles and trivia, and I also have articles I wanted to GA such as Rayman 2 and M NatwonTSG2 (talk) 12:27, 22 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
I'm thinking about adding cosplays of Mario to the legacy section. I have found two celebrities cosplaying Mario. Seth Rogen [1] and Kendell Jenner [2]. Just need a third one. Kazama16 (talk) 5:38, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for all the kind words; I don't want to pull any major triggers without consensus, so as I work I will be detailing my progress and any pending changes on the Mario talk page. Feel free to leave comments or pitch in as well! Panini! 🥪 00:49, 24 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Seeking additional input on a draft to improve Pokemon by generation lists edit

I proposed changes here, with a draft here. If anyone could weigh in on what changes are good and what are bad, that'd be wonderful. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 22:26, 19 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

I don't love the [show] tags for every section. It's an accessibility concern and also it's just annoying to click on each one to view the content. I also agree with Mable's comment that losing the coloring/sorting by type is a shame. Axem Titanium (talk) 00:13, 20 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
While color should not be used in BG colors like that (particularly with those not being web-friendly colors) there is nothing against adding a color swatch associated with the types using {{color sample}}. You still are conveying info by text but providing a secondary means that is within accessibility allowances. — Masem (t) 00:31, 20 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Oh I think I quite like the {color sample} idea. I have to agree that using "[show]" is not great here. The tables are about a 100 to 150 entries long and most descriptions are pretty short, so I think it works fine to just have the text there. An overly long description should just be an invitation to remove the cruft until you still have enough to break it out into a new article. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 07:44, 20 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
I proposed another version on the talk page. --PresN 11:20, 20 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Cominy ended its Famitsu service yesterday edit

While I was searching for a Famitsu score on a video game, I came upon a message that says (translated from Japanese): "The game fan SNS "Cominy", which has been operating since 2011, has ended its service as of March 19, 2024. We would like to express our sincere gratitude to the many customers who have used our service since its launch." That means that all of the Famitsu scoring that had been on the page since 2011 has since vanished from existence on all its links for old video games, and now I can't search for scores below "75" anymore. That means no more old Famitsu scores anymore. Now what? --Angeldeb82 (talk) 16:01, 20 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Do you think we should try checking for archived versions of the pages? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:21, 20 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
I think so. Angeldeb82 (talk) 22:45, 20 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

GT/FT projects for Nintendo franchises edit

Given my frequent mentions of a potential project to make some Nintendo franchises a good or featured topic, I've been thinking: which franchise (such as Mario, Kirby, Splatoon, etc.) should we consider making a GT/FT at the present? Thanks. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:20, 20 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Not a franchise, but: this. The Virtual Boy GT is almost half GA/FL. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 20:52, 20 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
The fanboy in me wants to say Kirby, but we are actually quite close to completing a Metroid Games GT. I would recommend working on that one. Other than that, a smaller series like Splatoon or Wii Sports would be much easier than a larger series like Mario or Zelda since there will be less articles we would have to work on. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:00, 20 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Not a whole franchise, but if each Pokémon generation list gets to FL, it could become a FT with List of Pokémon. It was briefly brought up a couple months ago, but not much progress has been made yet. -- ZooBlazer 22:21, 20 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
The Year of Luigi, and the collection of Mario role playing games, are both close to becoming good topics. I'm tracking their progress here, since both are on my radar. Panini! 🥪 03:09, 21 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Category:Video games featuring male protagonists edit

Thoughts on this category? This has been popping up on my watchlist quite a lot recently. I feel like we could tag the vast majority of game articles with this, so it's not exactly defining. IceWelder [] 19:33, 20 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Seems WP:NONDEF to me. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:13, 20 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
It's a weird case where the female counterpart has some point given the discussion so "obviously there has to be a male one". The female-led one ultimately would be better off as a list than a category though.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:27, 20 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
VGs featuring female protagonists is clearly defining, as well as any disenfranchised group (like non Caucasian, gay, etc). If you pick a video game at random it will feature a white, straight, make protagonist, which is why those cats are non defining. Masem (t) 21:00, 20 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Oh I'm not defending the category, I agree it's non-defining. I was just replying at the time the possible logic behind it, which is pretty weak.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:02, 20 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Agree it's non-defining (even assuming total gender parity you're classifying... half of all video games?) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 20:31, 20 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Agree it's not defining. It didn't help that it was also being applied pretty...loosely...by an IP editor that has now been blocked too. Sergecross73 msg me 20:47, 20 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
I also agree it's a WP:NONDEF category. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:49, 20 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

If Category:Video games featuring female protagonists exists, I don't see why Category:Video games featuring male protagonists shouldn't, tbh. Skyshiftertalk 20:53, 20 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

The standard here is WP:DEFINING, not "all categories need an equivalent" or "we need parity across category types". Try not to fall into that trap. Sergecross73 msg me 21:00, 20 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
See, just to weigh in, I'm not even really certain that we need either category. Looking at the female category, it has a whopping 2,000+ entries. Just looking at one example, Abyss Odyssey doesn't even mention gender in the article. The category doesn't seem to venture too deep into iffy definitions, thankfully, I just wonder how many articles in it have any commentary on the presence of a female protagonist. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 21:14, 20 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
I'm leaning toward this conclusion as well. I think KFM's suggestion for a list (or even an article?) is a good one. Games that were notable in some way for featuring a female protagonist, not the mere presence of (at least one) female playable character. I'm not suggesting that sexism/patriarchy is over, but with 2000+ entries, I don't think the category is helping anyone navigate at this point. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:25, 20 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
I agree with deleting both categories as well as Category:Video games with gender-selectable protagonists. Games with gender-selectable protagonists are usually written as gender-neutral as possible, making the protagonist's gender even less defining. QuietCicada chirp 00:47, 21 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Since there seems to be confusion, the "female protagonists" category exists because a lack of female protagonists in games has been widely cited as a problem. See: Gender representation in video games#As player characters. People have never said there are too few male characters, so it is not defining in the same way, and both don't need to exist. The gender select one has been kept in deletion discussions a couple times, citing the fact that gender selects can sometimes be defining for a game, like in Mass Effect for example. I personally think 95% of the games there are non-defining, but there doesn't seem to be a huge chance of it being deleted? ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ () 02:50, 21 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Most people would agree women are underrepresented, sure, as equal numbers would put them at slightly over 50% of all protagonists. There is also great disparity in how they are portrayed (sexualization, infantilization, etc.). But those are very different issues from whether this lack of parity or over abundance of trope-y characterizations make the category defining per policy. Basically every JRPG that has more than one character going back to the 1980s has a female protagonist or five. Every fighting game going back 35 years includes female protagonists. A ton of modern indie games have female protagonists. The list goes on and on (over 2,000 apparently if Wikipedia categorization is a guide). We can both fight for better representation and acknowledge that a category containing thousands of games with little in common isn’t really redressing any past or present representation issues. Indrian (talk) 03:06, 21 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
I've gone ahead and nominated the "male characters" category for deletion as obviously non-defining, but if people think both should be removed, they can weigh in as well. The male one, however, will likely have to go regardless of what the decision is as it simply doesn't make sense in light of why the category is there. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ () 03:09, 21 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Ultrakill edit

I could use another set of eyes at Ultrakill. I'm already at my three reverts. Newish user keeps pushing their revision. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 17:19, 21 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Kotaku de-prioritizing news edit

Kotaku EIC Resigns Over New Editorial Edict: "Jen Glennon, who took over as editor in chief of Kotaku in October, resigned Thursday. In a resignation letter seen by Aftermath, Glennon says that she made this choice due to the management team’s recent decision to deprioritize news in favor of guides."

There is no indication that former news and reviews and non-guide articles previously published will vanish, but I've seen some fears that—as has been with many other sites in this digital media death spiral—that it might eventually start happening. It's currently anxiety, though justified anxiety, but I would recommend keeping an eye out on any Kotaku articles we're currently using or that are useful and make sure they're archived with some service or multiple. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 22:18, 21 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Kotaku has and even recently still does top-notch reporting work (e.g. [3]), in spite of god-awful corporate decisions coming from leafy green CEOs. Please archive your Kotaku sources proactively. The writers are not to blame for the declining quality and hopefully most of them get out of there to a more stable position soon. Axem Titanium (talk) 00:04, 22 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
I saw this too. Thanks for bringing it up here. Good thing to keep an eye on. Sergecross73 msg me 00:04, 22 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Diablo IV release date edit

It has come to my attention that June 5 is the stated release date on the Diablo IV page. However, every other major publication has reported June 6 as the "official" release date, including the website quoted in the article. Blizzard themselves state, "Are you ready for June 6", and follow it up by specifying the timezone in which the game launches. Can others please weigh in on this page and fix it? It seems like a critical mistake to make for a page that will continue to be among the highest-viewed for a long time to come. Venky64 (talk) 16:19, 22 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

I replied on the talk page, but as the article prose already denotes, with source from Blizzard, Blizzard changed the release date to June 5. -- ferret (talk) 16:28, 22 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Seems simple enough. Either way, this hardly strikes me as a "critical error" when its a single day and it released almost 10 months ago. Not a huge deal in the big picture of things... Sergecross73 msg me 16:35, 22 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

April 3 TFA edit

Jaguar wants to pull PlayStation (console) from the April 3 TFA Main Page slot. We'll need a substitute, probably from WP:Featured articles that haven't been on the Main Page#Video gaming. If anyone's got a suggestion, I'll also need your suggestion for the points that should be highlighted in the blurb. - Dank (push to talk) 19:12, 22 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

4X has been a Featured article since 2008. Maybe nows a good time to put it on the front page. GamerPro64 04:52, 23 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Some anniversaries: Daytona USA (30th anniversary), Toys for Bob (35 years since foundation) --Mika1h (talk) 11:19, 23 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Looking quickly: Daytona USA checks all the boxes. (Comments?) The 30th anniversary of Civnet is next year ... that might be the closest thing that 4X has to an anniversary, would that work for you GamerPro? - Dank (push to talk) 12:52, 23 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Works perfectly. GamerPro64 00:32, 25 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
My only comment is to suggest for Doom (2016 video game) to be TFA in February in honor of Vami if possible. I don't have much involvement with TFA coordination but, if someone can put that in. -- ferret (talk) 13:46, 23 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
That one is on for May ... see WP:Today's featured article/requests/Doom (2016 video game). - Dank (push to talk) 13:55, 23 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Ah if its already running that is fine. :) -- ferret (talk) 14:38, 23 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

GT scope question edit

Hi. Question for the project. I've become something of a Vanillaware fan and have all their game/developer articles except Unicorn Overlord (and including Princess Crown and Grand Kingdom) up to GA after a long period. I'm planning on nominating Unicorn Overlord sometime next month, and if that passes nominating Vanillaware and its game as a Good Topic. Out of the games they have definitively worked on, there's one that I'm not sure I could include or not, and that's Fantasy Earth Zero. It was partly developed by them, and I've included it on their developer article, but would it be includable in a good topic? ProtoDrake (talk) 21:18, 24 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

I am of the opinion that the fact that the developer seemed to eventually become Vanillaware, rather than being one company whose staff went on to create Vanillaware, it would make it fitting. Unless I'm misreading, of course. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 21:28, 24 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
My two cents in this regard is that FEZ does belong in under the Vanillaware topic (despite the name change from Purugaru to Vanillaware). Roberth Martinez (talk) 00:53, 26 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Inviting participation in merge discussions edit

There are a lot of merge discussions going on right now that have had little to no discussion, including multiple cases where there was no merge discussion at all, just the proposal to merge. I would appreciate anyone who is interested/able to weigh in on the following articles: Jane's US Navy Fighters 97 Bethesda Game Studios Austin Home video game console generations Amazon Lumberyard Transformers Autobots/Transformers Decepticons - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 23:11, 24 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

New Articles (March 18 to March 24) edit

 A listing of all articles newly added to the Video Games Wikiproject (regardless of creation date). Generated by v3.18 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 14:47, 25 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

March 18

March 19

March 20

March 21

March 22

March 23

March 24


Ninja Gaiden (arcade game) edit

I noticed just now in the info box published by Atari for North America, however Atari Lynx games, didn't have US or EU formatting and were released world wide. So doesn't that need correcting? What too? Govvy (talk) 18:01, 25 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

IAG template copyright question edit

Cross post for opinions, please reply there: Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#Template:Internet_Archive_game. Also briefly discussed in Discord before this. -- ferret (talk) 18:34, 25 March 2024 (UTC)Reply