Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 162

< Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games
Latest comment: 1 year ago by Sergecross73 in topic Mega Man Legacy Collection in need of some TLC
Archive 155 ← Archive 160 Archive 161 Archive 162 Archive 163 Archive 164 Archive 165

Earth Seeker

Latest comment: 2 years ago10 comments7 people in discussion

A student editor (!Wete Pentz Bass!) has recently been expanding Earth Seeker as part of a Wiki Ed assisted university course (see User talk:Ian (Wiki Ed)#University of Maryland Baltimore County/Japanese Translation (Spring) for details). The student seems to have first been working on a translation of the Japanese Wikipedia article about the game in their sandbox User:!Wete Pentz Bass!/Earth Seeker, and is now incorporating that sandbox content into the existing English Wikipedia article. In the process, they’re also introducing various MOS and formatting errors that need some cleanup. Some of the other new content, however, does appear to be directly translated from Japanese Wikipedia. As a translation it seems OK and there’s some attribution for that content provided on the article’s talk page, but it might not be the kind of content typically considered OK for English Wikipedia articles about video games. Japanese Wikipedia articles about such games may not be held to the same standards as the ones on English Wikipedia are and there might not be nearly as many Japanese Wikipedia users monitoring such articles for issues.

Perhaps there’s a way to better incorporate some of the positive changes the student made without completely undoing all the edits? So, it would be helpful if members more familiar with this type of article could try and assess what those might be. Student editors like this almost always mean well and aren’t trying to be disruptive. They’re may also be following advice they’re getting from their course instructors or classmates, who tend to be newbies too. They may be working under time constraints or other non-Wikipedia restrictions, and simply not realize that such things matter not in the mainspace. If a complete revert is necessary, then so be it but perhaps overly critical edit summaries and the adding of boilerplate user warnings to the student’s user talk page could be avoided when doing so. — Marchjuly (talk) 20:46, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Please also note that the state of the article prior to when they started editing was basically nonexistant - it was 10 sentences, 3 of which (as well as 2 of the 4 sources) shouldn't have been there. So, essentially is pretty hard for them to make things worse, no matter the formatting. --PresN 00:08, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
It is hard to make things worse, but the article would likely need a total rewrite if it were ever to be attempted to be brought up to being a Good Article. It suffers from extreme WP:REPCITEing and WP:GAMEGUIDEitis. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:09, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
It is far easier to trim down than fill out. --Masem (t) 04:12, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
Agreed. Please don't revert wholesale. I'll help trim it back some. Cleaning up obscure JRPG articles in terrible shape is right up my alley. I'll take care of it. Sergecross73 msg me 15:22, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
A lot of the crufty bits are from the JP article! But something is better than nothing at this stage of article improvement. I don't think we need to make any process or project level changes in our workflow to "address" the phenomenon of student editors who make novice-caliber improvements to neglected stubs. Accept the help, fix what needs fixing, and continue on. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:58, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
If a lot is taken from jp.wikipedia, do make sure that at least on the talk page there is some notice of attribution eg {{Translated page}}. --Masem (t) 19:03, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
A {{Translated from}} template was added to the article's talk page by a bot and this is generally sufficient for attribution purposes, though it would be better to specify which revision of the Japanese Wikipedia article the student was translating if possible. As for the other stuff, thanks to everyone who commented above and who also worked on cleaning things up. — Marchjuly (talk) 03:39, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Many of the JP article about ACG are suffering from extremely in-universe perspective, so it maybe inappropriate for translate them directly into English Wikipedia. If I were them and want to translate some JP articles related to video games, I would just translate something like ja:きゃんきゃんバニー, although this is an eroge. So47009 (talk) 12:55, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, the whole thing started because a newbie did this for a college class, so an eroge would probably be...less than ideal. I'd agree otherwise though. That said..last I checked the original editor hadn't even edited in over a week, so I'm not sure if he's abandoned this altogether or what... Sergecross73 msg me 16:21, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/And Yet It Moves/archive1

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello, I wanted to bring attention to a peer review I've started for And Yet It Moves a few days ago. Any comments would be appreciated! --ThomasO1989 (talk) 18:35, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Sakura Wars titles

Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Hello. The official English titles for the Sakura Wars games were confirmed via Sega's Twitter feed ([1], [2], [3], [4]). However, WP:VG/JP says "In games where there is no official English title (such as Osu! Tatakae! Ouendan), the first sentence should retain the romanized Japanese title while the remaining translation information should be placed in a footnote."

Given that, I have a quick question: should we consider using the most common official English titles or the romanized Japanese title in the opening paragraphs on the Sakura Wars video game articles as per WP:USEENGLISH and WP:COMMONNAME? Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:56, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree with your modification, as given that SEGA mentioned it on their official Twitter, it should be considered the official English title if it wasn't already. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:09, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
I agree too. Since they're confirmed as the official title, it should be the titles used here. I had considered not using the subtitles when I created the articles for SW 2 to 4, but went with the common English versions of the titles, which seem now to be confirmed as the official versions. --ProtoDrake (talk) 20:14, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
There's a new discussion going on at Talk:Sakura Wars 2: Thou Shalt Not Die#Title. Input from project members would be very much appreciated. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:49, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Multiple album covers in Music of Minecraft

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I created a discussion because a new editor believes that the album covers meet the criteria for Non-free media information and use rationale. Just to avoid an edit war, I would greatly appreciate a third opinion. You can find the discussion on the matter here.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 17:24, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Using software download sites as citations

Latest comment: 1 year ago16 comments8 people in discussion

I want to make sure I am not off-base in these two cases. Are these reversions on Gold Box [5] and Blood & Magic [6] in any way acceptable per the arguments of the IP editors who added them, or was I right to remove them? BOZ (talk) 10:18, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Fansites would fall under unreliable sources. They can only be used to source information about fan works, not the actual game itself. Fansites are also stated at WP:VG/EL as an inappropriate form of external link. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:02, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
IP's arguments (while well-intentioned) have nothing to do with keeping or removing links. These are external links. So either they are further encyclopedic materials or some very specific exclusions, like an official website. Neither appear to fit this. —  HELLKNOWZ ∣ TALK 14:57, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Does it make any difference if that software (Gold Box Companion) is actually being included in the official release (Steam at least)? If not - would a reference to the Gold Box Companion's inclusion in the new Steam release (such as https://www.pcgamer.com/the-classic-gold-box-dandd-games-are-on-steam-but-whats-special-about-them/) be valid as a reference if the direct link to the software is not? Caidh (talk) 21:44, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
I feel it should make a difference - since both the Gold Box Companion and The All-Seeing Eye are now pre-installed on the Steam downloads licensed by SNEG LTD (info at bottom of page).
https://store.steampowered.com/bundle/24494/Gold_Box_Classics/?gclid=CjwKCAjwjZmTBhB4EiwAynRmD1lSloQ-WqlGm3PXXxmV6d6U42_IaVDYhXEkh_lWZog4TwxSZt70mxoCFFkQAvD_BwE
Not to mention the Gold Box wiki page has a section specifically dedicated to "On modern systems" and a citation mentioning The Gold Box Companion.
It'd be quite strange to allow a sentence describing a piece of software, but not allow a reference to the author's site where you can download and learn more about said software.
Also, the author's site links back to the very wiki page we're trying to edit... 76.218.230.54 (talk) 06:42, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
The PC Gamer article would indeed be valid, rather than the fansite itself. That is because the fansite is not a "published" source, but the PC Gamer article is. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:42, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
I'm really confused, the software is now pre-installed on the Steam releases, licensed by the publishers (SNEG) of the the Steam releases.
How does that count as an unreliable source or as not published / official?
Must it go under external links? 76.218.230.54 (talk) 10:47, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
There's no need for it to be linked at all, that's the crux of the issue. We're an encyclopedia. References are for verifying content. We prefer third party sourcing. We've already got that, so we're all set. I think you may be confused by the purpose of an encyclopedia. We're not a promotional tool or a means of funneling users to downloads. We generally try to avoid linking to digital storefronts or retail listings. This is very similar to that. Sergecross73 msg me 12:45, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
There's also the risk of the link to a download site being malicious and containing malware. It can also allow users to add links to websites that allow you to download a free, pirated version of the game (which is completely illegal). So there are some ethical reasons as well as being an encyclopedia. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 14:20, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
I can understand those concerns but as I addressed this point before, there is nowhere on The Gold Box Companion site where you can download pirated versions of the Gold Box Games. To the contrary the site directs everyone to the official GOG and Steam releases. Quote from the site in question
"Gold Box Companion is a tool for all the Gold Box games, Unlimited Adventures, and the two SSI's Buck Rogers games. It offers automapping, easy-to-use journal entries, and helps with some of the interface issues to make playing a little less tedious. Buy the games from Steam or GOG " on the site this highlighted text links to the Steam and GOG releases 76.218.230.54 (talk) 23:30, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
No one claimed that there was no need to link this site - the arguments were that it was a fansite and unreliable. I argued that the software is now licensed and published by the developers SNEG and has therefore met that burden of proof, thus deserving some acknowledgement and either a reference or at least an external link noting that. The reason I went to edit the page in the first place, is because there's material in the Gold Box Wikipedia article talking about the Gold Box Companion.
I don't understand why you think this is similar to a storefront or digital listing the software is 100% completely free. Not to mention the tons of other Wikipedia pages featuring video games and TTRPGs that link to official websites or fan sites where people can learn more about the subject and potentially buy the game or tabletop RPG in question like Wikipedia's pages on Star Control 2, the Kings Quest Series, the dozens and dozens of Wikipedia pages dedicated to Doom and all of it's fan content.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brutal_Doom the Doom community loves the fact that Brutal Doom has an official Wikipedia page. It's great, appreciated, and informative.
I simply don't understand why this case is different.
Why can we have a link to DOSBox where people can download DOSBox, but not a link to The Gold Box Companion app? 76.218.230.54 (talk) 23:25, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
I'm not talking about anything anyone else is saying - ask them for clarification on that. I'm saying we don't link to external downloads per WP:PROMOTION, whether it's paid or free, it still applies. As an encyclopedia, we're here to inform, not promote or directly aid in obtaining. Sergecross73 msg me 00:21, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
The Gold Box companion is not advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment. It's not an opinion piece. It's certainly not scandal mongering and it's not self promotion, advertising, marketing or public relations.
It's free to download if people want to and choose to use it with their official copies of the Gold Box games. I'm willing to concede that we put it as an external link, but to not include it when it's now licensed and pre-installed on the Steam releases would seem to strain credulity. Even the GOG forums highly recommend gamers play the Gold Box games with the companion app to help modernize the experience.
https://www.gog.com/forum/forgotten_realms_collection/ive_found_the_gold_box_companion_pretty_vital/page1
I'd 100% agree with you if Joonas Hirvonen's was requiring users to give any kind of financial compensation. That would fall under advertising, marketing, and / or promotion, but much like the dowload links in Wikipedia's Linux article this is both free and optional. The software is free. There're no customers. How can it be considered an ad, promo, or some kind of marketing?
I do apologize. I don't edit Wikipedia often at all, which is why I'm confused. 76.218.230.54 (talk) 07:15, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
I feel like that argument is ultimately contradicting. If it's so official it got bundled with the game on Steam, then why even bother wasting people's time linking to the creator's own site? If the answer is "so the creator can get recognized and have people donating to them or following them on social media", then WP:NOTPROMO. If Steam is how most people these days will legally play the game, then there would no longer be a need to send people to download it individually. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:52, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
76.218, I think you're misunderstanding WP:PROMOTION. We're not calling GBC those things. We're saying that content on Wikipedia shouldn't be for advocacy, opinion pieces, scandal mongering, self-promotion, or advertising. Wikipedia linking to a product, even a free one, is still promotion. Woodroar (talk) 13:01, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
No need to end this discussion - but for now at least I've added the PCGamer article, which references the Gold Box companion's inclusion in the Steam release. That article directly links to the site for the add-on which should, in my opinion, suffice. Caidh (talk) 23:01, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Definition of free-to-play

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

As a heads-up, there is a discussion at Talk:Free-to-play#Free-to-play and freeware about whether free-to-play games should be considered freeware games with paid "premium" content, or whether the two types of games are mutually exclusive as it currently stands. FreeMediaKid$ 04:41, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

What genre this game should be categorized?

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Recently, a user edited the article of Alcahest for Super Famicom and labeled it as an action game, basing his edit on what a YouTuber said: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWjI6LzuiLE I was guiding myself based on what this issue of Famitsu described it when previewed in 1992: https://archive.org/stream/weekly-famitsu-no.-182-june-12th-1992-600dpi/Weekly%20Famitsu%20-%20No.%20182%20June%2012th%201992%28Compressed%29#page/162/mode/1up + elements featured in the game such as EXP and MP. However, Square Enix's official website calls it an action game solely: https://www.jp.square-enix.com/game/detail/alcahest/ I just want to know from you guys how i should label the game's genre on its article. Thanks! Roberth Martinez (talk) 18:11, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Keep in mind that when that game came out, video game genres were nowhere close to as deep as we have them today. eg: even at SNES period, it was only 10 main categories and thus they were trying to fit their square peg into whatever round hole they think was best, at that time. I would use what we have modern sources saying, which "action role-playing game" makes sense. --Masem (t) 18:26, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sources

Latest comment: 1 year ago8 comments5 people in discussion
Main page: User:Headbomb/unreliable

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

  • John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm aware yes. The issue (for me at least), is that I'd have to put a lot of work to get those domains, and these lists are very VG-focused, and may not apply across the board. For example, Cinema Blend might be unreliable on the topic of video games, but could be reliable on movies. Or they might not be reliable for reviews but could be reliable for news. Which makes it hard for me to integrate WP:VG/S in WP:UPSD. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:24, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
Maybe a version could be created for VG related articles? Probably not by you since that's a lot of work but maybe someone here in WPVG. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 19:25, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
User:Headbomb/unreliable#Example_2:_Add_a_source explains how. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:29, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
@SD0001: Is there a way that someone could import a supplementary .js page, instead of adding sources one by one? This way WP:VG could have a master supplementary list, and maintain it themselves? Or should they do something like a clone of the script, with only the extra sources, and load it after my script so it can overule mine when there are collisions, and otherwise apply as normal? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:30, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
Yes it's possible to have supplementary project-specific js rules, but they would need to be in someone's userspace. Users would need to put something like window.UPSD_supplementary_rules = ['User:Example/UPSD-video-games.js']; in their common.js before the main script is imported. The main script can then read and process those rules. – SD0001 (talk) 05:01, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
@SD0001: Could you make a mockup / tell me what I needed to do to update my .js script? Or if nothing needs to be done, could you update the instructions at WP:UPSD? Let's coordinate at WT:UPSD. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 06:24, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Notice of CFD discussion

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi all, you are invited to participate at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 April 23 § Video games set in a fictional location, where 5 video game-related categories are proposed for deletion. JBchrch talk 01:25, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Won't happen but it's my belief that 98% of "Video games set in" are junk. -- ferret (talk) 01:54, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Gizmondo sales numbers, possible circular reporting? Reliable number?

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The sales number of Gizmondo is listed as less than 25k, with a source to a 2007 GamePro article. I have doubts. Where did GamePro gain this information? Is it reliable? I don't think so.

This New York Times news article, when the company went bankrupt, says that "But sales have been lackluster. Six months after Gizmondo was introduced in Britain, Tiger recorded $1.7 million in revenue, equivalent to about 5,000 units sold. U.S. sales figures have not been released." This means that this reliable source only has given sales numbers for Britain in 6 months, and claims that figures for the US have not been released.

I tried to search for other sources on Google but have been unable to find anything from the 2006-2007 period stating that 25,000 units were sold, except of course that GamePro article. I am certain that this was then added here on Wikipedia and, this being such a highly visited website, led to circular reporting of that number ever since. Similar to the Casio F-91W article that had circular reporting due to a wrong release year in Wikipedia.

I don't know where GamePro got that number from. It is certainly not reliable enough and I think it should be removed. --Morita Akio (talk) 08:46, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

If I remember right, I think we've already had discussions about that specific GamePro source in specific being unreliable with some of its sales figures (hard to say, it was a while ago and you didn't link to it) but I think the source keeps getting re-added over time because we generally find GamePro to be a reliable source otherwise. Sergecross73 msg me 12:33, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

New Articles (April 25 to May 1)

Latest comment: 1 year ago7 comments3 people in discussion
Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements
 A listing of all articles newly added to the Video Games Wikiproject (regardless of creation date). Generated by v3.11 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 13:50, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

April 25

  • None

April 26

April 27

April 28

April 29

April 30

May 1

Wait, what do "Shakespeare's plays" have to do with video games? I noticed that the template was "deleted" (even though it's still a blue link) but Shakespeare's plays and video games are pretty much completely unrelated. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 13:55, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
I took a look at the template and it looks like the script thought the template was deleted because it was removed from this WikiProject as well as some others. Shouldn't it be checking to see if the page is a blue link when seeing if it was deleted, rather than if it was removed from the WikiProject? ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 13:57, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
@PresN: (I should probably ping you) ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 13:58, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, "Deleted" is the wrong word in this case instead of "Removed from project" or something, but I left it in this case because it was funny that this project was ever on there. --PresN 14:04, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Alright then. It is pretty funny that someone thought Shakespeare's plays could be associated in some way with video games (not meaning to call the template creator stupid though). ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 14:06, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
I'm the one who recently trimmed the template, and removed a bunch of Wikiprojects. No idea why so many irrelevant WPs were there. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 14:08, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

In the case of the current Nintendo allegations

Latest comment: 1 year ago8 comments6 people in discussion

I feel this should be added to the Talk page for the article, but I digress. In recent weeks, Nintendo has had a complaint filed against them to the National Labor Relations Board, with many allegations of mistreatment towards contractors hired by the company. However, I remain unsure of whether or not this can be added to the article. It is for sure notable as has been covered by Kotaku, IGN, Nintendo Life and GamesIndustry.biz just to name a few. But as I see no mention of it in the article itself, I am wondering if it's due to a reason we shouldn't or can't. I wasn't sure if this was due to MOS:ALLEGED or not so I'll ask here. If there is a reason I would like to know more. And if not, then should we add it to the article? CaptainGalaxy 23:31, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I assume it would be fine to add at the bottom of the article, much like Electronic Arts#Criticism and controversy. There are also various other points of published criticism that can be added, such as restriction of being able to stream their games and doing major copyright takedowns of their content to the point where Youtubers cannot even attempt to use something Nintendo related without getting a DMCA. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:38, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
I can see a sentence or two, but anything more at this point is going to be an WP:UNDUE issue, considering it's just a couple of allegations made in 2022 for a company that been around for over a century... Sergecross73 msg me 01:50, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
This was previously at the article's talk section but i'm going to post this for anybody who might see this as useful. This link (https://press-z-or-r-twice.blogspot.com/2020/12/accounts-of-nintendos-crimes-against.html?m=1) belongs to a former member of the Project M development team, who made a chronology of Nintendo's "crimes" against various communities. Yeah, take that title as you will. Multiple subjects are discussed here + the member provide links to said subjects. Again, take this as you will... Roberth Martinez (talk) 21:21, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
Are reliable sources reporting on this blog? If not, then this certainly isn't a reliable source on its own accord. Sergecross73 msg me 21:33, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
Most of the stuff there is just a "controversy" in the minds of a few people, although certain things could probably merit a mention, like Nintendo's hardline stance on fangames, which has been documented numerous times, and their hardline stance on emulation. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:03, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
Their stance on emulation is already in the article, if I'm not mistaken JOEBRO64 22:52, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
I'm seeing more than a few reports to the point where I think an entire section is warranted on the labor complaints alone. Axem Titanium (talk) 22:58, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Should: Wii (video game series) be renamed into Nintendo Switch (video game series)?

Latest comment: 1 year ago7 comments7 people in discussion

After the launch of Nintendo Switch Sports, i was brainstorming if the article should be renamed into "Nintendo Switch (video game series)"

The game is doing well and Nintendo might make a make a new one, but this isn't a forum and if you think the article should be renamed, reply below. TheSecondComing10 (talk) 12:51, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't see how this would make sense. It would technically become a successor to the Wii series if Nintendo were to release more games like it. But it wouldn't give the series a new name since most of the games in the series are on the Wii and have "Wii" in the title. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 12:57, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
No, that makes zero sense. Sergecross73 msg me 13:54, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
No. 1 Game does not justify a category, and it especially doesn't warrant a full rename of an already existing category. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 13:54, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
Are RS calling it the Nintendo Switch series now? Seems like a no to me. casualdejekyll 15:21, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
Even if it was a series, it still wouldn't be the common name. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:25, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
In fact Nintendo calls Nintendo Switch Sports a new installment of "Wii Sports" series[1][2]. I see no reason this rename is justified. MilkyDefer 16:36, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ 「Wii Sports」シリーズ最新作『Nintendo Switch Sports』が登場。4月29日に発売決定。 ["Nintendo Switch Sports", the newest installment of "Wii Sports" series, is coming. For sale at April 29.] (in Japanese). Nintendo. 2022-02-10.
  2. ^ 《Nintendo Switch 運動》、《異度神劍3》和《瑪利歐激戰前鋒 戰鬥聯賽》等 Nintendo Switch專用遊戲軟體最新資訊公開！ 多款支援中文作品預定發售！ [The newest information is revealed for Nintendo Switch exclusive game softwares "Nintendo Switch Sports", "Xenoblade Chronicles 3", "Mario Strikers: Battle League" etc.! Several games supporting Chinese is scheduled!] (in Chinese (Hong Kong)). Nintendo. 2022-02-10.

Sales/budget creep

Latest comment: 1 year ago15 comments8 people in discussion

There's something I've been noticing recently with a few articles, generally recent ones, that I don't know exact policy on. With statements of so-many sales/shipments ect., I've seen users adding stuff into articles (Tomb Raider: Legend, Nier: Automata, Final Fantasy VII) whenever some new piece of sales data appear. This is mostly regarding total sales of a product worldwide. The thing I'm thinking is, should there be some kind of cut-off point for Wikipedia. I know significant milestones regarding commercial performance are relevant, but when you're continually adding and possibly invalidating other figures or text in other parts of the level, it just looks like "it sold this much, then it sold that much, but now it's selling this much you guys!". There's a similar problem with inflation adjustment for budgets, particularly with FFVII's article, which can just end up being updated and updated and updated... I personally think there should be a cut-off point for additions and updates that aren't a matter of celebration or significance but only upping the numbers. --ProtoDrake (talk) 11:53, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree with that statement. When it's updated every time new data comes out there's a point where it all becomes WP:UNDUE. I would say that the section should reflect the first couple of months, by the end of the year, any major million milestones, and an endcap "as of X sales reached X". It's important to note other interests of spikes and drops, however (I'm pretty sure sales for Mario Kart 8 Deluxe spiked yet again after the Booster Pack released). Panini! • 🥪 12:22, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
I think it makes the most sense to give the immediate sales (sold $300 million its first week, etc), stuff like the proximate year (sold X million copies, making it the best-selling X game-type stuff), and then just update lifetime sales after that point (once you have 2022 sales you cut the 2020 sales mention entirely.) I don't even think examples like a Mario Kart sales spike are particularly relevant either, unless there's an inordinate amount of coverage about it. So to take an example above, turn By March 2020, the game had reached worldwide shipments of over 4.5 million copies.[106] In December 2020, it was reported that cumulative sales had exceeded 5 million units worldwide.[107] As of February 2021, the game has sold over 5.5 million units worldwide.[108] As of July 2021, the game has sold over 6 million units worldwide into The game sold over 6 million units worldwide by July 2021.
In general Wikipedia has a problem with sedimentary-type writing where people just keep adding new lines instead of adjusting the old ones. Sales figures tend to be one of those spots for video game articles. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 12:50, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
Sedimentary writing is a great way of putting it. You see the same thing in articles about sportspeople too. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 22:29, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
In the music content area, we usually track debut sales, and cumulative/total sales. I think we should probably adapt a stance more like that. (That's usually how I handle it with the obscure game articles I maintain alone, but it's true that I don't currently try to fight it with popular stuff like Mario Kart or Smash.) Sergecross73 msg me 12:56, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for raising this. To state the obvious, we don't need a complete list of every sales update. The debut sales and total cumulative sales are probably enough, with major milestones in rare cases. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:32, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
Yeah I've been planning to trim down the Sonic the Hedgehog 2 sales info for a while. It's been increasingly expanded to the point of ridiculousness in the past few months (and I'm willing to bet some sources are being misrepresented, based on the addition-er's edit history).
I'm going to echo what everyone's saying here: document the initial sales, then the cumulative sales. That's all that's really relevant. JOEBRO64 15:06, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
Historical sales figures without secondary coverage should definitely be removed as new primary figures are added. -- ferret (talk) 17:07, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
Agreed what TheJoebro64 said regarding this. Initial sales and cumulative sales are all that should matter. Timur9008 (talk) 22:55 ,6 May 2022 (UTC)
Seems like everybody is on the same page, so would there any be opposition to directly adding this to the MOS:VG? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 22:30, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
Red tape opposition: It needs discussed at MOS:VG's talk page. Making MOS rules here is a no no since we upgraded it to True MOS. -- ferret (talk) 22:42, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
That's true. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 08:24, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
Should this be raised/continued on MOS:VG? It seems there's a consensus, and it seems to be enough of an issue that a guideline would be good. --ProtoDrake (talk) 10:19, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
I think that's a good approach. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:55, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
Yep. Just open a discussion there and point to here and notify here that it's open. We just don't want any other MOS regulars seeing us claim there's a consensus to change the MOS and finding no actual MOS discussion. That was a big part of the RFC to promote the MOS, that more than the "locals" would have visibility and that consensus would be more broad. -- ferret (talk) 21:10, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
I've opened a discussion, and tried pinging you all so you could contribute. If I did anything wrong or I didn't cover the issue, please feel free to correct. --ProtoDrake (talk) 21:57, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

New Articles (May 2 to May 8)

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements
 A listing of all articles newly added to the Video Games Wikiproject (regardless of creation date). Generated by v3.12 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 20:14, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

May 2

May 3

May 4

May 5

May 6

May 7

May 8

Final Fantasy VIII as good topic

Latest comment: 1 year ago9 comments5 people in discussion

See this section for the recent additions to the good topic and discussion.Tintor2 (talk) 20:02, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Wouldnt it be "Final Fantasy" as the topic? or are you referring to adding Final Fantasy VIII to the topic? PerryPerryD Talk To Me 20:03, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
No, they are talking about FF8 as a good topic. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:04, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Sounds like a useless topic, as FF8 is a part of the Final Fantasy series directly. FF8 might be a Sub-Category if theres enough articles about FF8 (and not about FF as a whole). PerryPerryD Talk To Me 20:06, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
@PerryPerryD: Please actually click the link before commenting. There are 7 articles in the topic (post-addition). --PresN 20:08, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
(edit conflict)It already is a good topic, as it had four articles. This thread is for the addition of two further GAs.Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:09, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
I understand that, however due to limitations of my current device I cannot tell if this is a sub-category or if its a standalone category, if its the latter I'm confused of the purpose of this category. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 20:11, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
We're not talking about Categories. Good Topics can have overlap and children topics. There is a specific topic around FF8, which encompasses 7 articles with 2 more being proposed. Please take a moment to re-read your comments here and try to see how they may come off as rather rude and dismissive of the work to get this topic, the 7 articles related to FF8, to GA. -- ferret (talk) 20:16, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
I do apologize, I was simply confused on if this topic would be worthy of seperation, which I received an answer to. I apologize for my confusion. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 20:18, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Merging List of card-collecting video games and List of digital collectible card games

Latest comment: 1 year ago6 comments4 people in discussion

These two pages seem to have been created at around the same time and totally overlap, probably due to the bad categorization scheme at the time. Since the latter is in far worse shape but has the more consistent name, I think maybe it should be merged to the former, and the former moved to the name of the latter. Any assistance would be appreciated to see if there is anything listed in the latter that isn't already in the former (and isn't non-notable). ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:50, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

I think that's right. As long as the second list doesn't include games like Slay the Spire or Inscryption, the merge makes sense. --Masem (t) 21:10, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
I don't think StS or Inscryption meet the classical definition of "collectible card game", which usually involves a finite list of cards where collecting the full set is a major goal. So Hearthstone and Gwent would qualify but Monster Train would not. Support merging the two lists and keeping at the latter name. Maybe a round robin history swap and then redirect? Axem Titanium (talk) 22:33, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
I also didn't notice the previous discussion at Talk:List of digital collectible card games#Proposal to redirect to/replace with List of card game-based video games. It argues that they don't totally overlap because the former list also contains arcade games that integrate physical CCG's, sort of like Nintendo games and Amiibo cards.
Still, I think it's untenable to have two lists that mostly overlap in content. Maybe instead of a swap, List of card-collecting video games could be moved to List of video games using physical collectible cards to more obviously split their content, or something of that nature, while most of its content is merged into the latter article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:29, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
There might be some subtle differences that I'm not picking up on. Even so, these two topics should be merged. Any additional organization can be done through table columns or sections or something else. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:07, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
OK, since there is widespread agreement on this, I will be swapping the two articles and then redirecting the one that was in a worse state. People can go into the history if they want to make sure the list is complete, although it likely pretty much is already. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:41, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Proposal: Merge Covenant (Halo) to Factions_of_Halo#Covenant

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

See Talk page for rationale; appears to not be notable enough for its own separate article. Pinging @Czar: as well. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 02:49, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Namco Museum

Latest comment: 1 year ago10 comments5 people in discussion

So for a number of years (since December 2015, to be exact) I've been compiling reception info on the various installments of this series at its article, Namco Museum. In 2018 Boz created individual articles for Namco Museum Vol. 1 and Namco Museum Volume 2. Articles for Volumes 3, 4, and 5 have not been created yet, and I'd rather not create them myself as I'm not 100% confident that they meet notability standards. So I'm not sure what to do with the reception info for Vol. 1 and 2. If I move it from Namco Museum into the respective individual articles for Vol. 1 and 2 while leaving the reception info on Vol. 3, 4, and 5 where it is, that creates a seeming hole in the reception section for Namco Museum which unwary editors might devote time to filling. But of course, if I leave it as is in Namco Museum, that leads to duplicate content and therefore double the maintenance required. This seems like it must be a fairly common dilemma but the solution is not coming to me. Help?--Martin IIIa (talk) 22:44, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Maybe merge them into an article called Namco Museum (PlayStation series)? I think they could all be easily and uncontroversially grouped together. Also, Namco Museum Volume 2 barely passes WP:GNG. (Oinkers42) (talk) 22:54, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
I am not a fan of merging unless it unequivocally fails WP:GNG. WP:NOTPAPER applies - similar games in the same series do not have to be grouped to save hard drive space - and it makes things easier to categorize and navigate when they are separate articles. If the content is duplicated, it should be moved to its own article and only a short summarization given in the series page.
The other ones do seem independently notable as well; Volume 3 got reviews from CVG, GameSpot and IGN. [7] ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:20, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
Games that just squeak by GNG but where if there's a good merge idea, such as this, make a lot of sense to merge so that you don't leave the individual games at risk of the GNG. Comprehensive coverage should be a factor alongside how well the GNG is met. --Masem (t) 23:29, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
FWIW, none of the "squeak by" GNG. That's their opinion but not one borne out by the facts. They all have numerous reliable reviews beyond the ones mentioned. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:46, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
Why the "PlayStation series" disambiguation? Aren't they pretty clearly multiplatform? Sergecross73 msg me 00:09, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
The first six (Vol. 1 - 5 + Encore) were only released on the original PlayStation. Since these are the only ones that would be discussed in this article, I could think of no better disambiguation. (Oinkers42) (talk) 00:15, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
Oh, were you talking about just merging all the "volume" ones into one article? I figured it made more sense to merge them into the already existing series article, which covers all the multiplatform versions. I mean, they're all like the same thing right? These Namco 8-bit Arcade game collections? Sergecross73 msg me 00:24, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
I mean, Namco Museum already exists for that. Also, those six are even more the same thing. (Oinkers42) (talk) 00:38, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
Seems like that's leaning more than a bit into WP:CONTENTFORKING, though. Is there any content that would go into this article that cannot be covered by Namco Museum? Also, like ZXCVBNM I'm inclined to think that the articles don't need to be merged. Martin IIIa (talk) 02:25, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Proposal to merge Perfect Dark (2010 video game) to Perfect Dark

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Just thought I'd let the project know about this. Discussion here. JOEBRO64 03:01, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Source question for Panzer Dragoon Orta

Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments4 people in discussion

I've been doing work on a planned expansion proprietary to GAN of Panzer Dragoon Orta in my sandbox, and during source hunting I came across a podcast interview with its director Akihiko Mukaiyama, with Ryan Payton of République developer Camouflaj and someone called Kevin Larrabee. (Link here). It contains some behind-the-scenes info from Mukaiyama on the development of Orta. The website I found it on and that hosts it appears to be a podcast site that was active from 2013 to 2020, but I don't know its antecedents. Some help and opinions would be appreciated. I've used podcasts as sources before when I'm sure of their source and validity, but with Orta I'm flying blind. No pun intended. --ProtoDrake (talk) 19:36, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

@ProtoDrake:As soon as you mentioned the name Kevin Larrabee, i knew who you were referring to. I actually used his podcast as reference for an unreleased Bomberman title. IMO, i would say yeah, use the podcast as reference. Roberth Martinez (talk) 18:13, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
Not sure whether or not this podcast site is a reliable source in general (at a glance, I see no problems with it), but since this is an interview with one of the game's developers, WP:VGINT applies. So I too would say this is good to use. Martin IIIa (talk) 02:15, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
I'd say the podcast is fine as a source if it's an interview with a developer. Like Martin IIIa said, WP:VGINT should apply. JOEBRO64 03:26, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

F1 (video game series)

Latest comment: 1 year ago8 comments7 people in discussion

There was a weird merge at F1 (video game series) recently. Before 2021 there was two different series called "F1": Electronic Arts' 2000-2003 series and Codemasters' 2009-2020 series. There was no apparent connection between the series apart from the name before 2021. Now that EA has acquired Codemasters, EA has been the publisher for the Codemasters series since 2021. To me there should be some sources linking the two series and not just the seeming coincidence of the same publisher. --Mika1h (talk) 21:38, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Are the games in relation to each other in terms of plot/characters/gameplay? PerryPerryD Talk To Me 22:25, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
I've not found any sources talk about the relation between the series apart from EA regaining the F1 license. For example Kotaku, TheRace.com, IGN --Mika1h (talk) 22:49, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
The only relationship between the EA series and the Codemasters series is that they're both licensed through Formula One Group as the official games for those years. A similar situation will be the FIFA series post FIFA 23, now that EA has relinquished the license. There will still be a licensed FIFA 24+ game, but it won't be developed by EA Sports. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:36, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Rhythm Thief & the Emperor's Treasure

Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments3 people in discussion

I am looking for assistance with what to edit with this article. I can see the plot section needs severe re-working, but does anyone see anything else that should be changed with this article? Thanks :) PerryPerryD Talk To Me 17:50, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Sorry if this response isn't quite what you wanted, but to my eye; yes the plot needs trimming, and the gameplay needs citations, the development and release needs expanding (I left sources for that on the talk page a while ago) and the reception needs rewriting. The lead should be the lowest priority until the rest is written so it can be written based on this content. I'd advise doing it in a sandbox so you can take your time and avoid edit conflicts, it's what I do for article rewrites. --ProtoDrake (talk) 18:42, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
This is exactly the response i wanted PerryPerryD Talk To Me 19:13, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Trim plot heavily, fully reference gameplay (right now it's unreferenced) and either give every publication that is in the review box a mention in the reception or delete the redundant ones. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:18, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Chibi-Robo! Zip Lash peer review help

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Recently I had had User:Panini! help me out with the peer review process for Chibi-Robo! Zip Lash. However, through no fault of their own, they have gone on a WikiBreak (I hope they enjoy it). So currently, I am left without a reviewer. I appreciate if anyone can takeover if they are not too busy. CaptainGalaxy 10:16, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

New Articles (May 9 to May 15)

Latest comment: 1 year ago5 comments3 people in discussion
Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements
 A listing of all articles newly added to the Video Games Wikiproject (regardless of creation date). Generated by v3.12 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 04:02, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

May 9

May 10

May 11

May 12

May 13

May 14

May 15

@PresN: I just noticed on May 9 Ian Abercrombie was tagged, however I believe that was either a mistake or trolling. CaptainGalaxy 15:01, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
Eh, he was a voice actor for 6 video games, so I get why the tag was added. And why it was removed 2 days ago. I'm not the dictator of tagging, I just report on what has happened- I only drop things that are errors or vandalism. --PresN 15:04, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
Ok fair enough, sorry to bother you. CaptainGalaxy 15:32, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
FYI editors often cast a pretty wide net in tagging Wikiprojects on articles. And that's fine. But it's also often pretty uncontroversial to remove the more tangential ones too. It's all pretty low-stakes, optional stuff. Sergecross73 msg me 15:57, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Move ARMA (series) and games?

Latest comment: 1 year ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Does the "ARMA" in the title stand for something or is it just stylization? If the latter, they should all be moved, but maybe there is some acronym I'm missing. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:36, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Many sources stylize it as ArmA. Maybe it stands for Armed Assault? – Pbrks (t • c) 20:38, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
This dev blog may shed some light on it CrimsonFox talk 14:36, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Based on e.g. Steam listings, Bohemia consistently uses "Arma" (not "ArmA" or "ARMA"). Acronym or not, if the official spelling is regular Titlecase, we should use it too. IceWelder [✉] 20:09, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Well that pretty much settles it then, it is absolutely a stylization to write it in all caps or CamelCase. I will proceed with a requested move. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:14, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Two games released in 1997 named Moon

Latest comment: 1 year ago13 comments8 people in discussion

There are two video games named Moon released in 1997:

Neither game is an obvious primary topic, so I think Moon (1997 video game) should become a disambiguation page, and the second article should be moved to a new name. The typical practice I've seen in this case is using the developer or publisher name to disambiguate, but in this case, the developer/publisher is named Tactics, which would mean Moon (Tactics video game) which sounds like the genre so is misleading. Any ideas? TarkusABtalk/contrib 08:43, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

If the first one was simply called Moon, then a move would likely be necessary, but its subtitle gives it natural disambiguation, and the hatnote on the second article suffices for any confused readers. I don't think any change is required here. – Rhain ☔ 08:47, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
I'm not seeing anywhere in our naming conventions that specifically discourages "(visual novel)". It was moved to (1997 video game) without discussion just a few months ago, with an edit summary pointing to another discussion which doesn't seem to cleanly map onto this case. I actually think it should be moved back to "Moon (visual novel)" here since that's more parsimonious dab. The RPG can stay at its current name per natural dis as Rhain pointed out. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:57, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Simply Moon (visual novel) would not work, because that still implies visual novels are not games, and therefore it would not conflict with Moon (the RPG) also being a video game. Visual novels are without a doubt video games, which was the main reason such a disambiguation is invalid in the first place. Moon (1997 visual novel) would potentially be valid though, since it is being used when "video game" would be too vague. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:14, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
It wasn't just this article that dropped the (visual novel) disambig. All articles with that disambig were moved to (video game) resulting from the discussion at Talk:Clannad (video game). As such, we don't have to go down that road again ad infinitum. For my part, I think the article should remain at Moon (1997 video game) since the other game already has natural disambig. Failing that, Moon (horror video game) would suffice (if that's even an acceptable disambig).--十八 21:14, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
"implies visual novels are not games" It does not imply that. Wikipedia rules for parenthetical title disambiguation are esoteric and the average reader is not going to come to the conclusion that an article titled "Moon (visual novel)" is not a video game. If they know what a visual novel is already, then there is no problem. If they don't know what a visual novel is, they can read literally the first line of the article to find that out. I think if we, as a project, are explicitly discouraging an entire class of parenthetical disambiguation, the discussion for that should happen on a project page, not a move request on random article's talk page with a half dozen participants. That's not how precedent is established on Wikipedia. Axem Titanium (talk) 03:32, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
You could go by platform PerryPerryD Talk To Me 03:15, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
Here it is, the denial of visual novels as a genre of video games. For your information, the concensus of using "video game" is established in Talk:Clannad (video game). MilkyDefer 08:44, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
And from an eastern Asian perspective, the latter Moon by Tactics (who later spawned Key) is obviously more notable. I say this for sure. No one ever heard about the former one. MilkyDefer 08:48, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
Or try moving pages? In Chinese Wikipedia this is not a problem because the naming convension there requires to format the title as-is. So the two articles are actually different (the latter one being zh:MOON. and the former one being zh:月亮 (游戏)). I heard that the naming convension here requires some regularization or sort of, I don't really know about that. MilkyDefer 08:52, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
@MilkyDefer I'm personally ok with Visual Novels having been moved to Video Game, but I don't think the use of "(visual novel)" had anything to do with editors judging them to be "not video games". It's just that they are "visual novels", a sub-genre that is somewhat specific and niche. More importantly though, a move discussion for a single game does not establish a project wide consensus. I think it's fine, I agree and know most of those editors in that discussion, but to expect the wider project to know that a specific VN article was moved two years ago as a "consensus" to name all VNs as "video games" is stretching it. More properly, the discussion should happen, or at least be referenced to then see if any opposition to making it "official", at WP:NCVGDAB. -- ferret (talk) 13:20, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
  • I have started a formal discussion to abandon the (visual novel) disambiguation at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(video_games)#(Visual_novel)_disambiguation TarkusABtalk/contrib 15:34, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
    • Agree with ferret on all counts. The issue seems to be that "visual novel" is one of the few video game genres that does not have the word "game" in its name (e.g. adventure game, action game, role-playing game). I don't see how that necessarily implies that visual novels are not games though. And I don't see the issue with keeping the article at "Moon (visual novel)" either, if it lets us have more parsimonious dab than "(1997 video game)". Axem Titanium (talk) 16:29, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

New article help

Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I wanted to create some new articles starting with Mohawk Games. But the draft in my sandbox at User:Leonramb/sandbox was rejected, because of a shorter and less sourced draft at Draft:Mohawk Games that was already rejected. I'm not sure if I just have to wait. It seems like a glitch that a rejected version would prevent my better version from being created but I don't understand the article creation system yet.

I tried the same thing for Draft:Siege of Centauri and Draft:Galactic Civilizations 4 and I haven't gotten word back yet so I wanted to share them here too. Thank you! Leonramb (talk) 04:17, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

@Leonramb: Anyone is welcome to edit drafts. You can edit Draft:Mohawk Games to have it contain the information that you currently have at User:Leonramb/sandbox. Then, you can submit Draft:Mohawk Games for review. – Pbrks (t • c) 06:03, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
I decided to edit Draft:Mohawk Games and it should be ready for consideration. Draft:Siege of Centauri is ready too. (Thank you for accepting Galactic Civilizations IV.) Leonramb (talk) 10:37, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

CFD Games set in a fictional location cleanup

Latest comment: 1 year ago9 comments5 people in discussion

Hey all, I just spent a bit of time cleaning up the idiosyncratic fallout from the above CFD, specifically the upmerge of Category:Video games set on fictional planets to Category:Video games set in outer space. The former appears to have been used for many games featuring a named fictional world (I will refrain from commenting on whether this needs to be categorized at all) so the upmerge to "set in outer space" led to many strange cases like Warcraft, Final Fantasy IX, and Runescape landing in the latter category. I'm not familiar with every game affected so I can't say that I caught all the miscategorizations. If you've got a moment to peruse Category:Video games set in outer space, take a look and see if anything jumps out at you that needs fixing. Axem Titanium (talk) 23:59, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

  • So is Lord of the Rings set "in outer space" because its internal fictional cosmogony named the planet Arda? Eh. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 00:10, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
    Yeah, doesn't this pretty radically change the category? There's a very different meaning there. Most fantasy video games, like JRPGs, take place on a fictional planet...but comparatively few would still logically be described as taking place in "outer space". Sergecross73 msg me 14:22, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
    Yikes, not a real strong consensus for the change either. I'd take it to deletion review if it wasn't for my belief that categories are largely inconsequential to most readers on Wikipedia. Sergecross73 msg me 14:25, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
  • I think this needs a DRV, because of the resulting choice is nonsensical. --Masem (t) 14:24, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
    • DRV started Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 May 30 --Masem (t) 14:45, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
      • The original CFD has been overturned so it is now open for comment.
      • I will say that if these categories are kept, it should only apply to where the setting is well defined by name or other clear origin feature. eg the case below of LittleBigPlanet should not have one of these because its setting is vague. --Masem (t) 12:21, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
        That will require a threshold criteria to be defined. X201 (talk) 14:39, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
LittleBigPlanet, despite its name, is not set in space. - X201 (talk) 11:26, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

New Articles (May 23 to May 29)

Latest comment: 1 year ago6 comments4 people in discussion
Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements
 A listing of all articles newly added to the Video Games Wikiproject (regardless of creation date). Generated by v3.12 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 16:39, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

May 23

May 24

May 25

May 26

May 27

May 28

May 29

PresN 16:39, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

  • I don’t believe he have enough coverage for Swords and Sandals to be an article.--70.24.251.91 (talk) 02:50, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Bravo to @Pbrks: for writing Cheating in esports. Great concept article, well on its way to GA. One bit of feedback: can you add like one sentence in the lead to explain what esports is? Other than that, it's a really good overview of the topic. Axem Titanium (talk) 16:04, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
    • Thanks! I had a good time writing it. I've thrown in a background section, as well as couple sentences to the intro. – Pbrks (t • c) 15:42, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

New Articles (May 16 to May 22)

Latest comment: 1 year ago5 comments3 people in discussion
Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements
 A listing of all articles newly added to the Video Games Wikiproject (regardless of creation date). Generated by v3.12 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 16:36, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

May 16

May 17

May 18

May 19

May 20

May 21

  • None

May 22

  • The bot seems to have missed indiexpo, tagged May 18. – Pbrks (t • c) 17:45, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Oh, right, the script doesn't like articles that have been forced to lowercase (it considers them "redirected" since the url doesn't match) - it gave me a warning message about it and then I just breezed past. Added, thanks! --PresN 18:50, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
    @PresN: There's a few more missed articles I noticed: RockyNoHands (May 22) and PATA (esports) (May 22). Probably a bug from page moves? – Pbrks (t • c) 15:07, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
  • I have called out to Chinese Wikipedia community for help with Draft:TapTap, a Chinese publisher. I am not hoping for much though, it is always harder to write about Chinese things than Japanese things in zhwiki... MilkyDefer 20:04, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Panzer Dragoon Orta

Latest comment: 1 year ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Hi. I've just completed an expansion/rewriting of Panzer Dragoon Orta. I wouldn't consider myself as being close to the series, as I've previously not had much attraction towards it, and I've never done rail shooters of this kind before. But I'm planning to bring it to GA before year's end as it's the game's tenth anniversary. Pinging @Popcornfud: since they seem to have done the work on Panzer Dragoon Saga, which is the most recent PD nom of note. --ProtoDrake (talk) 15:17, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

fix ping: @Popcornfud: JOEBRO64 15:31, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
@ProtoDrake:For being your first time working on a rail shooter subject, i'd pretty much say that you did a fantastic job on reworking the game's article, as someone who has interest in playing the Panzer Dragoon series. Roberth Martinez (talk) 16:09, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for working on this! I'm a little busy at the moment but I'll definitely take a deep look in the next week or two. Popcornfud (talk) 17:43, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
@Popcornfud: This kinda happened quickly without planning, but I've also done some expansion and tidying for Panzer Dragoon II Zwei. Maybe we can make this whole thing a GT before its next anniversary. --ProtoDrake (talk) 22:24, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

question

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I am planning to improve Diablo but are PlayStation Universe and PC Games Hardware reliable? 2001:4455:68F:F600:E88F:15DE:842:8319 (talk) 05:16, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

I would raise these both at WT:VGRS. Playstation Universe has been discussed briefly before but with no result. The sister magazine to PC Games Hardware, PC Games, is an RS so it's likely PCGH would also pass. CrimsonFox talk 10:57, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

New Articles (May 30 to June 5)

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements
 A listing of all articles newly added to the Video Games Wikiproject (regardless of creation date). Generated by v3.12 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 13:12, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

May 30

  • None

May 31

June 1

June 2

June 3

June 4

June 5

The pile of redirects is actually me clearing out the backlog of redirects that were still tagged as their old class. --PresN 13:12, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

GameZone's reliability

Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Is GameZone considered a reliable source? ― Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 13:22, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Check out WP:VG/S. Its got a master list of how we classify a large number of sources. If you search there, you'll see that it's currently classified as reliable. Sergecross73 msg me 13:36, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
If you want my opinion, i've used it myself several times and i consider them to be reliable. Roberth Martinez (talk) 16:16, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Thanks! ― Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 17:20, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Judgment characters

Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments3 people in discussion

I've been planning to make a character article for the ones starring in Judgment (video game) and the sequel Lost Judgment since the developers are quite open about how they created them and I had already created one for the lead, Takayuki Yagami, based on how much commentary he had. For Yagami's I used the main character of The Last of Us as model. However, is there any requirement for the character article to be created? I've barely made lists besides Final Fantasy IV. Lastly, how it should be named? "Characters of Judgment" "Characters of Judgment (series)" or "List of ...."? Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 22:31, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

It should be named List of Judgment characters, if notable enough to create. Merko (talk) 22:37, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Attempted a discussion about the naming last year and the consensus was basically ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. Personally, I agree with Merko. – Rhain ☔ 23:24, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
I see. Thanks. I've been working a bit in my sandbox.Tintor2 (talk) 00:07, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Dealing with the alternate E3 shows with lack of E3

Latest comment: 1 year ago13 comments7 people in discussion

We're coming up to June where there are already several E3-type announcement shows scheduled to happen (MS/Bethesda for example, as well as Keighley's Summer Game Fest). In the past these have been discussed on the appropriate E3 page, even for E3 2020 which had been planned (so notable) but later cancelled. Now this year, E3 2022 was canned completely, so there's seemingly no reason for an E3 2022 page since there were no significant plans made in comparison to E3 2020. So I'm trying to think how to handle this case, on the basis that E3 is expected to be back next year. I do NOT want to create separate pages for each, and its clear the RSes are connecting these as E3-like events so it make sense to connect them all, I just don't know how to name the page. --Masem (t) 16:24, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

How well do the various announcement/press shows overlap with the Summer Game Fest? If in the past we had them as part of the E3 page for the year, even though some were not officially part of E3, then having them as subsections under a hypothetical Summer Game Fest 2022 would seem like the most elegant solution. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:27, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
Some do, but not all of them are organized under Keighley's event banner. They all are staying consistent that mid-June is when we usually see these things. --Masem (t) 16:38, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
I've just checked the Summer Game Fest website. Looks like the Xbox/Bethesda Showcase, and Tribeca Games Spotlight are now listed as one of the upcoming events. Given the list of partners for the 2021 event, it's possible that others like Sony, Ubisoft, Wholesome Direct, etc. may do the same in the coming weeks though they also may not. I suspect we can't answer this now, but it is something we should keep an eye on as more announcements are made. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:45, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
Maybe just as a subsection about game expos in the "2022 in video games" article or something? Sergecross73 msg me 17:29, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
Or, if its becomes WP:UNDUE there, List of 2022 video game expos? Panini! • 🥪 17:35, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
While E3 was definitely an expo, I don't think the satellite events like the Xbox Showcase, Playstation State of Play, etc, would meet that definition. Expo events would be events like Gamescom, PAX, EGX Rezzed. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:40, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
I would say Serge is right here. It's either important enough to get mentioned in the years' events, or it's not, and the relevant info will be found on the respective game/studio pages. Coverage of expos is pretty routine IMO and I don't see why it is a necessity that the info be covered in a bespoke page, especially as they are drifting away from being connected to a singular event. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 21:41, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Thirding Serge's suggestion. 2022 in video games is the right venue for this, and probably the right venue going forward. Using the annual E3 articles as a coatrack for ancillarily related events is not ideal. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:05, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
I kinda disagree 2022 in video games is the appropriate venue. If we are just gonna list the games shown at these trade shows, the nature of these content doesn't seem to mesh well with the scope of the year article. It is also quite odd if we only include these pseudo-E3 events but not other trade shows like gamescom/PAX in the year article as well. OceanHok (talk) 16:58, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
How about looking at it from this perspective: what exactly makes these showcases notable? They get coverage for the announcements, sure, but what press coverage is generated besides "X was announced, Y had a trailer, Z was playable at a show floor" or some clickbaity "who won this expo?"-type stuff? What content would these hypothetical articles contain beyond that? I'm failing to see why there needs to be some place to aggregate individual press events. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 17:29, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
I think we may want to revisit this. A few hours ago Keighley tweeted the list of partners for the Summer Games Fest, and the events calendar on the SGF website is now listing more of the fringe events you'd expect to see at E3. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:51, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
To add, today Keighley revealed that SGF will include a physical show next year (yes competing with E3's planned return). I am confident now we need to create a base SGF article and then break out the yearly ones fir this, which will include moving stuff off existing E3 pages. --Masem (t) 23:15, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Requested peer review on Spark the Electric Jester

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I've gone ahead and requested a peer review for this article, as I'd like to get it to GA soon and I think it may be pretty close to qualifying. Any feedback from more experienced editors would be appreciated. Thanks! LBWP (talk) 19:47, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Answered your review. Check the page for my response. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 00:55, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Proposing Cover Art Task Force

Latest comment: 1 year ago9 comments8 people in discussion

There about 670 tagged video game articles with missing identifying art. I think we can quickly add images to the vast majority of them quickly by organizing. Merko (talk) 22:35, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Doesn't warrant a task force really, there's nothing specific to discuss in relation to the topic. -- ferret (talk) 22:41, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
I don't disagree, but unfortunately, most Task Forces just fizzle out due to lack of interest and participation. They don't tend to generate interest that isn't already there. Sergecross73 msg me 23:05, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi, I've been working on this A LOT over the past 2 years and reduced the backlog from 2,000+ to the current level. At this point, a lot of the remaining entries that are missing cover art are either (1) games that don't have easy/obvious cover art or (2) games where, for whatever reason, it's going to be pretty hard to track down any cover art. So, for that reason, I really don't think a task force is warranted but I'm always happy to contribute to this area of our Wikiproject. I usually try to do a pass through all of the new articles to add cover art where I can and would certainly always welcome help in that effort. DocFreeman24 (talk) 06:09, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Oh, one other comment: If you're really interested in working on something like this, might I suggest focusing on the articles missing screenshots backlog as that category is much bigger. I haven't had the motivation to dive into that yet as it seems like a much more daunting project. DocFreeman24 (talk) 06:11, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Echoing others here, you would probably get more help, feedback, and support by posting about it here, rather than siloing it off into a task force talk page. Bureaucracy is the enemy of productivity and TFs are basically all bureaucracy with none of the benefits. Axem Titanium (talk) 07:03, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
I echo the others and just to provide you with the background and the reason why everyone shivers when a new task force is mentioned, have a look at the "Completed" section of Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Inactive project cleanup. There are a couple of editors on here who cleaned that lot up and I'm not keen on encouraging the creation of something that creates more work for them or others. - X201 (talk) 08:26, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Agree on no reason for a taskforce but I've added a few. I helped a user at the talk page find some older covers/suitable images a while back and quite enjoyed it. CrimsonFox talk 12:29, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
I could help from time to time with adding cover arts to those articles in need of one. Roberth Martinez (talk) 14:47, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Shining (video game series)#Requested move 5 June 2022

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Shining (video game series)#Requested move 5 June 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 14:51, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Article titles of esports players

Latest comment: 1 year ago13 comments7 people in discussion

Esports player articles should be titled according to WP:COMMONNAME. I have made many moves/requests for player articles that use their legal name, when I believe their stage name is preferred, and inevitably, in every one, this finds some opposition, since in reporting, players are written as First "Stagename" Last. Users will argue that there is no evidence that their stage name is actually preferred and to basically keep the status quo. I know that this is anecdotal, but anyone who follows esports knows players by their stage name; very rarely do people refer to them by their legal name. Of course, there are cases where they are known by their legal name more often (usually when they are known for something other than being an esports player). I am not saying that we should ignore WP:COMMONNAME, but I would like to have a sort of "tiebreaker" rule I can refer to in these types of discussions. I believe that their stage name should be preferred over their legal name, unless their is clear evidence that their legal name is more common. – Pbrks (t • c) 15:14, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

  • Agree. No one who is trying to find shox (gamer) types in "Richard Papillon". Similarly, although the reporting issue Pbrks mentions is real, I think it's counter-balanced by the clear indication in actual esports broadcasts to only refer to players by their gaming handle. Alyo (chat·edits) 15:42, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
Not an issue WP:VG can solve. This needs discussed broader than the project. Probably have to RfC at COMMONNAME or VP. -- ferret (talk) 15:45, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure we've had some pretty in-depth discussions on this in the past. There's always things like MOS:TRADEMARK to factor in too. (Specifically WP:TITLETM, couldn't remember that link at first.) Sergecross73 msg me 15:46, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
The approach for using handles for esports players follows from how YouTube handles are preferred (eg Etika, Markiplier, Jacksepticeye). Redirects of their full name should exist, as well as populating disamg pages as needed. --Masem (t) 15:56, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
WP:STAGENAME seems to be the most relevant guideline, which is itself an elaboration of COMMONNAME as it applies to people. I agree with Masem that this is basically analogous to how we handle Youtubers. Please continue to resist calls to move article titles to John "Gamerslur" Doe and keep them at the stage name. We don't need a new guideline/MOS modification for this. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:01, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
Agree with above colleagues that this doesn't need relitigation; COMMONNAME and STAGENAME cover this for game players as well as other cases. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:15, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

I understand that COMMONNAME and STAGENAME are the relevant guidelines, but they don't really handle the situation I described above of "equal" use in sources. In any event, if it is not believed that this should be moved any further, I would appreciate input at Talk:Matt Leto#Requested move 31 May 2022. – Pbrks (t • c) 18:45, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Ah I see what the specific issue here is. In move discussions, COMMONNAME is of course the relevant guideline but simply asserting that is not usually enough except in very obvious cases. You need to demonstrate that one is the common name above the other across a wide variety of contexts using examples. Relative google hits is a coarse and imperfect correlate of this and doing a good representative sample with actual sources is often more convincing. That does mean that if First "Stagename" Last actually is the most common name in published sources (perhaps due to some asinine editorial style guideline across many publications), then that's what we have to go with. But make note of what gets used after the first mention in an article, if they use "Stagename" or Lastname to continue to refer to them. That would be an indication that one is more common than the other. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:05, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
To take a clear example "Weird Al" Yankovic is what we use here, because that form of his name is so common in sources. I would think if a esport player's common name is clearly established as first "stage" last, then we go with that but if that is fully demonstrated. Otherwise it should be first last, or stagename, which is otherwise more common. The first "stage" last should otherwise be avoided. --Masem (t) 23:12, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
To be clear, I was not proposing that First "Stagename" Last should be used. I was asking about when sources just about equally use the legal name and the stage name, which should be preferred article name. – Pbrks (t • c) 23:31, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
Then you would need to make the case for your preferred article title using a breadth of sources on a case by case basis. I don't think you'll find support for a guideline that recommends one over the other by default. Axem Titanium (talk) 00:33, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
This response begs the question on the issue that Pbrks is bringing up though: what happens when "a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources" tend, because of various style guides, to write out the full name of esports players (First "Handle" Last) even when they are known in their own sphere only as "Handle". To go to WP:CRITERIA, the first method of deciding on an article title completely fails points 1 and 2, recognizability and naturalness. People familiar with esports recognize the handle, not the name, and readers looking for information are searching for the handle, not their name. A interesting example can be seen at Johnathan Wendel, aka Fatal1ty, arguably one of the few people who will have done enough post-esports to be better known by his name rather than handle. A lot of the sources are dead or need updating, but the three conventional RS's (NPR, SI, CNN) all call him "Wendel" throughout the piece despite acknoledging that he's better known by his gaming handle ("better known by his gaming alias, 'FATAL1TY'...", "Wendel grew famous under the gaming handle Fatal1ty...", "Wendel, better known as Fatal1ty..."). That's a clear indication that we'd just be following their style guide, rather than what the player is actually known by. So what happens when these two policies conflict with each other? This is less of an issue with modern players, as there are sufficient gaming outlets and RS in esports to have sources that just say "handle", but it's a much more common issue for players pre-2012 or so. (Which then also leads to a problem with point 5, consistency, of WP:CRITERIA.) Alyo (chat·edits) 15:15, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Core subject merger - Free game engine

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I've proposed a merger at Talk:Game engine#Proposed merge of Free game engine into Game engine. Side note, this article probably needs some love regardless. -- ferret (talk) 19:26, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Featured Article Save Award for Diary of a Camper

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There is a Featured Article Save Award nomination at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Diary of a Camper/archive1. Please join the discussion to recognize and celebrate editors who helped assure this article would retain its featured status. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:30, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

POP Two Thrones sources?

Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Hi. I've been doing some scouting round for sources on Prince of Persia: The Two Thrones. I came across this reddit post, with links to articles posted on VK (service) of interviews with The Two Thrones staff regarding the somewhat drastic changes the game went through during production. Think is, would these be viable as sources? I ask this particularly considering the website's origin and the current situation, as well as the usual problems of fan-driven interviews. --ProtoDrake (talk) 17:40, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Things that are believably sourced to primary sources (e.g. interviews) are presumed to be reliable about themselves (but do not demonstrate notability). As long as you believe the (otherwise non-RS) publication/person actually did the interview, then it's fair game. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:55, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
@Axem Titanium: Checking comments on the ArtStation page of Erwan Davisseau, who provided one of the interviews, the initial public contact on this page's comments lines up exactly with what is repeated in the article here. So since both are from the same author(s), the thing as a whole seems legitimate. I was just feeling extra wary considering the website's origin given the current world situation. --ProtoDrake (talk) 19:10, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
I don't think the fact that Russia, the country, invaded Ukraine has much of a bearing on a random post on a Russian private social media company from before the invasion about a topic that has nothing to do with the war. If it was something more closely related, like a supposed interview with the devs of Call of Duty on the topic of Call_of_Duty:_Modern_Warfare_(2019_video_game)#Depiction_of_Russians, for example, I would have more reason to question the authenticity of the interview. This one seems innocuous enough, though the info does strike me as pretty esoteric/trivial and "fan"-ish, so not everything is fit to include. Other than that, it meets acceptability criteria for primary sources. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:28, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Essay: 50,000 video games on Wikidata

Latest comment: 1 year ago16 comments7 people in discussion

50,000 video games on Wikidata from Jean-Frédéric

Be aware of d:Wikidata:WikiProject Video games if you are not already.

Bluerasberry (talk) 20:16, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Interesting read, thank you. Sergecross73 msg me 20:18, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
"indie game" as a genre? Hmmmm... --Masem (t) 21:07, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
I almost posted the same thing. -- ferret (talk) 21:08, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, as linked in the post we have quite a long tail of, er, questionable uses of genre (P136) − see d:Wikidata:WikiProject Video games/Statistics/Genre. It’s a bit of a mix bag of things − quite a long tail of “obvious errors” we need to fix ; in the more systemic ones there are also a bunch of subclasses of video game theme (Q42907216) which do not really have another place to go than in P136 − for example the “narrative genres” that are science fiction video game (Q27670585) or fantasy video game (Q42409239) (but what about horror video game (Q11338014) then ;-)), or the perspective, or…
As for indie game − well indeed, not sure where it would better fit. I don’t think it’s the most egregious use of P136 (for what it’s worth I can think of several other DBs which also store it as a genre), per lack of a better spot. Jean-Fred (talk) 14:03, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Do we have a property for "game budget" (e.g. indie or AAA)? I don't think we have a category (or the sources to support it) here on Wikipedia, but that would be a better location for indie game than genre at least. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:09, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
And even if we did, something like this can be subjective. For example, would Minecraft be considered an indie game or AAA (or both)? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 15:56, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
I agree that neither are optimal placement. The game industry can't even agree on a definition of indie or AAA, for that matter. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:10, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
I would tend to say we should not "indie games" or other like-budget info in Wikidata because its far from objective. We can use categories for indie games where its indie nature is clear from sources (though that still leaves the Minecraft question), but I don't think this should be included in Wikidata in any form. --Masem (t) 01:11, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
I don’t think “objectivity” is the right lens through which to look at this. “Wikidata is not about truth, but about collecting a plurality of statements, backed by sources, about a topic − even if they are considered truths only by some and lies by others” (I penned that once, inspired by this). We have a set of tools to deal with contradictory statements, like references, ranks and qualifiers like statement supported by (P3680) or statement disputed by (P1310) to reflect that. There would not be any problem having Minecraft=indie/supported by RS1/disputed by RS2 and Minecraft=AAA/supported by RS3/disputed by RS4.
In general, I’d think if a data point is good enough for a Wikipedia category (or even a Wikipedia list), then I would not see any reason why it could not be recorded in Wikidata − why wouldn’t it be? (The exception being, for me, things which would be borderline impossible, or at least a tremendous amount of work to model properly (for example things like List of video games considered the best)
Jean-Fred (talk) 22:23, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
There’s budget (P2769) − only used on a handful of games though (But that’s a Quantity-type property, you can’t just move indie game (Q2762504) to it) Jean-Fred (talk) 16:16, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
"horror games" as I've tried to document at both video game genre and horror game, is the only game genre readily recognized and based on the narrative element. Masem (t) 19:24, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
I am aware of that work, hence why I made this reference :) My point was that the uses of P136 between 'gameplay genres' and 'narrative genres' are not always clear cut, hence why having a bit of a mess is perhaps not the worst solution (as in, would someone want to move “sci-fi game” or “fantasy game” out of P136 into another, hypothetical property, this would raise other problems). Jean-Fred (talk) 22:23, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
#title=Video games with a budget
SELECT ?item ?itemLabel ?budget ?unitLabel WHERE {
  SERVICE wikibase:label { bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "[AUTO_LANGUAGE],en". }
  ?item wdt:P31 wd:Q7889;
    p:P2769 _:b8.
  _:b8 ps:P2769 ?budget;
    (psv:P2769/wikibase:quantityUnit) ?unit.
}

Click here to launch the Wikidata query

You could add a new property "isindie" and add it to games that have been described as indie by the games press. I'm only half joking. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:10, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
There is no such thing as boolean properties in Wikidata.
As I said above, I don’t P136=indie game (Q2762504) as particularly egregious ; but I would definitely raise an eyebrow P136=AAA (Q16245021), and it is kind of is the same thing sooo... food for thought :) (worse things worse, there’s always has characteristic (P1552) for such things) Jean-Fred (talk) 22:23, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for relaying this here :) Jean-Fred (talk) 14:03, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

New Articles (June 6 to June 12)

Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements
 A listing of all articles newly added to the Video Games Wikiproject (regardless of creation date). Generated by v3.12 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 18:39, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

June 6

June 7

June 8

June 9

June 10

  • None

June 11

  • None

June 12

Note: I'm away from the computer I run this on for the next two mondays, so this report will be going on hiatus for a couple weeks. --PresN 18:39, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

How difficult is it to run the script that you use for this by the way? Would be happy to share the work of doing this if it's feasible to teach someone else how to do it. I've found it be a really useful/interesting feature of this project and would be happy to contribute to its continued existence if possible. DocFreeman24 (talk) 06:15, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Images in templates

Latest comment: 1 year ago16 comments11 people in discussion

An editor is making a ton of changes like this, where they put an image on a template. I'm not opposed in a general sense, but it looks terrible the way they're doing it - it creates a ton of white space while cramming the existing template items into a narrower space. This...looks terrible, right? Making sure it wasn't just my device I'm using it something. Input appreciated. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 17:19, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

It may be better if for such a large navbox to use subnavboxes that collapse, such that there is initially less white space there.--Masem (t) 17:28, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
I'd say they should be reverted. The navboxes are going to be placed on pages where there's likely logos or branding much earlier anyhow, and it's impinging on navigation (i.e. the point of the template.) The decoration doesn't add anything but some extra page loading resources and less space to actually display the box contents. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:08, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Agreed, images for navboxes seem unnecessary. Indagate (talk) 18:16, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Agree per DFuchs. Navboxes are for navigation. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:53, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Agreed with all of above. -- ferret (talk) 19:30, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
I am the mentioned editor who made those changes. I see your point. When you put it that way, I can see why it may look bad visually.
I had simply been following the example I had seen at Template:Nintendo and Template:Sega. I had assumed that these were the golden standards of video game infoboxes and had wanted to improve other navboxes to that level, albeit in a small way.
I have seen a few comments saying this has no practical use, and I disagree with this point. When you have multiple navboxes expanded, they start to become visually quite similar. This helps better differentiate them at a glance in such a scenario.
If I can find a way to do this in a more aesthetically pleasing way, and pitch it here later with a link to sandbox, would anyone be opposed? Mbrickn (talk) 20:14, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
I struggle to see how this doesn't fail MOS:DECORATION. Additionally there's an element of bias in it to. You can't do this for logos from countries with stronger copyright laws than the US, it just wouldn't qualify as fair use. - X201 (talk) 21:23, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Per MOS:DECORATION, as I stated previously, I did this with the belief that this improved reader navigation in instances of multiple infoboxes being open. However I think your point about international use is more pertinent. When I made my changes I made sure to use logos found on Wikimedia Commons, rather than those locally on Wikipedia. As I understand it, fair use content is not allowed on commons, and so I am not sure how fair use would come into play with these images. Mbrickn (talk) 01:54, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
A reader could simply collapse a navbox if more than one exists on the same article. Images in infoboxes are almost always just for the visual flair. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:48, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
I think it is fine as the logos are free. (Oinkers42) (talk) 01:52, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Personally I don't think they look that bad at all, but they shouldn't be necessary for navigation. Wikipedia automatically collapses navboxes when there are more than one in an article, so aside from someone purely goofing around there's no reason for multiple navboxes to be open, much less ones which the reader is unfamiliar with. If anywhere, an image would be useful in the navbox heading, where the reader could see it without having to open the navbox.--Martin IIIa (talk) 02:37, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
After considering the above, instead of images would it be acceptable to use navbox colors to better differentiate navboxes? Mbrickn (talk) 16:05, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
We spent years purging custom navbox colors. They were often problematic colors with accessibility issues. We're not a PR company. We don't need to drape our navboxes in company logos and color themes. -- ferret (talk) 16:22, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Understood, I'll leave it as is. Mbrickn (talk) 18:51, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
The thing is, with logos, they can be used to identify the navbox at a glace. Colors I completely understand, but there is not really much of a reason to remove logos from navboxes. (Oinkers42) (talk) 19:50, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Super Mario Maker and it's sequel on Template:Super Mario

Latest comment: 1 year ago7 comments4 people in discussion

Considering that these two games are of a different genre than the other games in the "main series" section, I think it is reasonable to ask why they are in that section and if they should be moved to be under the spin-offs section. I think it is safe to overrule the reasoning of them being listed on the official website. (Oinkers42) (talk) 04:23, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

They're still platformers though, are they not? Axem Titanium (talk) 04:43, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Yes, but their main genre is being a level editor. (Oinkers42) (talk) 05:05, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
I don't agree. It is both, but countless players like myself have played hundreds of hours of platforming in Mario Maker without ever creating a single level. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 05:59, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
What does "main" genre even mean in this context? I'm concerned we're veering into OR in making a judgment about that. Nintendo seems to think they're part of the Super Mario series. I would need a huge body of evidence to the contrary to be convinced otherwise. Axem Titanium (talk) 06:35, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
I am concerned that the only viewpoint we are considering here is WP:PRIMARY, especially since the website is overtly promotional. Would it not be ideal to compare to other sources from outside of Nintendo? (Oinkers42) (talk) 12:34, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
So find and provide them. You're posing the question., present your evidence for a change to the status quo. -- ferret (talk) 15:54, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Shortdesc for esports players

Latest comment: 1 year ago11 comments8 people in discussion

Currently, there is no standard short description for esports players. For other subjects the lead occupation would be used (e.g. Football player), but for esports, the full video game title (e.g. Counter-Strike: Global Offensive player, League of Legends player), is used for the lead. This is of course too long for the short description, so currently there currently are several variations in use. For example:

For the stake of consistency, which one would be preferred? I personally prefer "esports player" as the term player is most commonly used to describe such individuals, and it'd be in line with players of other sports. Yeeno (talk) 04:18, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

I also prefer "esports player". Plenty descriptive enough, and it avoids cases where individuals may play multiple titles in their career. – Pbrks (t • c) 05:05, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
Given that most other shortdesc for biographical articles includes the nationality, I think we do want that here, but that's it, "<nationality> esports player" is good enough for the purpose of what a shortdesc does. --Masem (t) 05:33, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
Apologies if I am broadening the discussion too much, but if we do end up choosing "esports player", should the disambiguation for esports players (currently "gamer") also be changed? Yeeno (talk) 07:25, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

I adapted this from the short description instructions,

Esports inclusion format suggestion
Criterion Recommended format Examples
Only famous for being an esports player [Person description] British Esports player
[Person description] (birthyear–deathyear) French Esports player (1990–2021)
Famous for more than one thing, but esports most notable [Person description] from startyear to endyear Tongan Esports player from 2000 to 2008

I think it covers the appropriate options. - X201 (talk) 11:53, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

  • Note: above tweaked to add nationalities after Alyo's comment below - X201 (talk) 14:56, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
I would support this format. Alyo (chat·edits) 13:39, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Short descriptions don't have to be consistent, but yeah, as a standard "Country eSports player" is suitable.Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:45, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Just go with [Nationality] esports player (born [year]) per WP:SDDATES. Anything else is over-complicating it. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 15:54, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Agreed. What's more, "Tongan Esports player from 2000 to 2008" doesn't actually indicate that the person is notable for other stuff too, if that's the intent. Popcornfud (talk) 15:58, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
I support this format, per above. Also keeps in mind that, per WP:VG/STYLE, "esports" is not capitalized unless at the start of a sentence. Yeeno (talk) 03:18, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Prince of Persia: The Forgotten Sands

Latest comment: 1 year ago24 comments7 people in discussion

Hi. I'm here to raise a question about the article(s) for Prince of Persia: The Forgotten Sands. Since the 2010s, the Wii version has been split off into its own article, but having been doing research for the game I'm not finding that much gameplay differences between the various versions, nor a huge amount of development information. Even the cover art of all versions is identical. I know there are precedents for different versions if there are truly substantial differences, but these differences seem to come down to detail and control method rather than anything else. Also, I can't find any confirmation anywhere about the use of Jade Engine from the Ubisoft staffers unless there's a source somewhere that I missed. The article(s) as a whole is in a state, and I'm pondering merging the articles back together. I've got an article forming in my sandbox, admittedly at an extremely early stage. Opinions? --ProtoDrake (talk) 21:51, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Merge it. I'm not even going to look, I more than trust your judgement. -- ferret (talk) 22:47, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
The article being in a poor state is not grounds for merging, since there is no deadline and the article can always be improved. With a totally different story, I am unconvinced the articles need to be merged - many games have very similar gameplay, but we are not merging Saints Row and GTA just because they play like each other, because they have totally different stories, characters, etc. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:54, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
That's...not a great analogy. Something like Sonic Unleashed, where the Wii version was different than the PS3/Xbox versions, would be more comparable. It's generally a case by case basis thing. Sometimes, with Sonic Unleashed, it's not split out into separate articles. Other times, it is. But this article in question has been in horrible shape for many years, pretty much since it's inception. Unless someone is actively saying they plan on fixing it up immediately, I don't see a realistic reason to see that improvements are coming... Sergecross73 msg me 03:11, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
Again, there is no deadline. Saying "it must be improved or merged" is contradictory to Wikipedia guidelines that "Wikipedia is a work in progress". As long as it could conceivably be a good article, it can stay as-is. I absolutely support merging in cases where the article has no standalone notability, but that version of the game absolutely does. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:19, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
You're free to your stance and I'm free to mine. Either are valid. We are not required to wait indefinitely for improvements that may or may not ever come. Sergecross73 msg me 03:22, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
I support merging for now unless anyone has immediate cleanup plans. Sergecross73 msg me 03:20, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
The only diff I see is the mention of Wii controls and the reception. That's nowhere near close enough for a split article. It needs to have a minimum a development section that necessitates why the specific port was unique (and even then that's not always required, eg Ghostbusters: The Video Game). Merge is 100% appropriate. --Masem (t) 04:16, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
Sigh... yet more arguments made without even a cursory investigation of the title involved. Here is an entire article about how the Wii version is NOT a port. This review calls the Wii version "a design that's completely unique to the franchise" as well as "a side-chapter that runs parallel to the Xbox 360/PlayStation 3 version". Hardcore Gaming 101 gives the Wii version a separate page, saying that "in this case the “port” differs more than usual from the HD versions, as it is an entirely separate game," also stating that it "is the first game ever in the series to feature a two-player mode". This is a dev diary specifically how they built the Wii version from the "ground up" that could massively flesh out the Development section - the link is broken but surely it can be accessed via Internet Archive. It didn't take me very long to prove conclusively that the game needs its own page. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:23, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
Just because there is additional dev information doesn't mean the game needs its own page. If the size of the original game's page is not large, then incorporation of the Wii version is entirely possible as to avoid duplication of plot and gameplay. Masem (t) 14:35, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Okay, before this develops any further... Since yesterday when I posted this question, I've been doing writing and further research. As a test I expanded the Wii version's article, and actually it can stand on its own. The main article will need a little working to make things flow properly, but the Wii article can stay. There's enough development information coverage to justify its existence. --ProtoDrake (talk) 12:05, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Now that is what I call a development section. Thank you for your hard work in expanding the page. I added a gameplay screenshot to the article as well. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:08, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
Question: Are refs 3 and 4 in the article just duplicates? Maybe they should be combined together. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:17, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
@Zxcvbnm:, yes they are duplicates. It was a bit of a rush getting the article put together. Ref 3's from my edits and its the full citation for the magazine, ref 4's from the old one and...not a full citation. --ProtoDrake (talk) 18:26, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
Now, time to make another separate article for the Nintendo DS version. (Not even joking, it's yet another separate game that is a sidescrolling platformer). ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:53, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
I'm fairly sure the PSP version is its own thing as well, a 2.5d sidescroller, even though it hardly gets mentioned in the main article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:59, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
@Zxcvbnm: All I could find about both the PSP and DS games is already in my sandbox and in text form. It took serious digging, as they weren't really covered at all in interviews or much in previews, let alone reviews. There truly isn't enough to make into their own articles, any more than the mobile and browser versions. The Wii version is the exception. --ProtoDrake (talk) 21:03, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
One development source that I saw you found for PSP is this. While it's not going to make for as massive a development section as the Wii version, it's IMO enough to justify an article for the PSP version when the separate reviews and story are also factored in. See WP:NOTPAPER, articles don't need to be exemplary to exist, they just need to be notable. As for NDS, you are probably right that it's best off staying part of the main article at this point. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:41, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
I'm all for the Wii version because I trust ProtoDrake will do it justice, but...seems like you're stretching things a bit thin there with that PSP proposal... Sergecross73 msg me 23:50, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
NOTPAPER may be one aspect, but given that on most video game ports, the gameplay and plot section are repeated over and over, and if only minimal development and reception specific to the port version can be added, it is far better for the reader to have an overall comprehensive article that covers the small changes for the port.
Same concept goes for remasters/remakes. Some are clearly a whole new approach or development pathway with major gameplay changes (RE2/3/4) which make the new information sufficiently comprehensive on its own for a separate article, while others simply have a few modernization and nearly nothing else to discuss. Masem (t) 00:22, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
I do not agree with endlessly spliting content away from the parent articles. Can we mention these ports/alternate versions/companion games in due weight in the parent article instead? One cohesive article is better than like, four abandoned, poorly-developed stubs with little to no potential for expansion. A section named "Version differences" would be sufficient. OceanHok (talk) 03:00, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
To be sure, I do not support splitting if something will just be a stub. It should be a consequentially large article. However the Wii version is already fairly large with its own info and will get bigger once a reception section is fully written out. I am pretty much fine with the others remaining sections, my main initial argument was that the Wii version merited its own page. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:10, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Literally years and years and years ago, I wrote a random movie tie-in article that was Over the Hedge: Hammy Goes Nuts! and I approached it by just having a small different section for each game... which generally seems to me to be the best way for some of these smaller titles (I don't really think there were many if any developer interviews). Honestly, I'm still on the fence about the Wii article that we see here but that development section is really great work and I'm not going to bring a bonfire to a house party. Nomader (talk) 06:46, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Right. I've now put up the edits I was working on into the main article. And before any more discussion about the PSP version comes up, I have something of a check list regarding whether a version of something needs its own article, which I applied to the PSP version. Is there independent coverage that doesn't recycle a lot of info from other versions? In this case, no, as the PSP version has very similar gameplay to the Wii version and little external commentary. Is there developer commentary and interviews on it beyond promotional blurb about "it does X and Y's so cool in this version"? No, definitely not. Is there dedicated information on the making of its music and story? Again, no. Is the information gathered more than three paragraphs long? No, the gameplay is one paragraph and development is less than half a paragraph. Compare this to the Wii article, which has extensive comment on its story, gameplay design and technical development. I consider that somewhat definitive; the Wii version can stand on its own as an article, the rest really can't. And yes, there are always going to be exceptions with other series, but I know from personal experience things can get screwy and stressful if I try arguing exceptions into a general principle. Sorry for the long reply, this article's been a headache to structure. --ProtoDrake (talk) 10:51, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

EGM online review scores

Latest comment: 1 year ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Something odd appears to have happened over at Ride to Hell: Retribution, a game famous for its low scores. It received a score of 0.5 from EGM when reviewed. Today a user changed that to 1/5 stars. I checked the online review and does say that. I'm certain that 0.5 is the correct score. Has EGM changed their scoring system and has that resulted in scores being rounded up?. Also, Has anyone got a paper based version of this review that I could quote page number etc on? - X201 (talk) 14:55, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

An archived version does indeed show 0.5. – Pbrks (t • c) 15:00, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Indeed. The scoring system was changed in 2019. I have restored the correct score with an archived link. IceWelder [✉] 15:05, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing. I checked Wayback and it refused to show me anything prior to 2019. Odd. - X201 (talk) 15:16, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
The URL format changed alongside the review system, with the old one now a redirect. You probably tried to check archives of the new URL, which of course has none before 2019. IceWelder [✉] 15:34, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Gaming "subseries"

Latest comment: 1 year ago10 comments8 people in discussion

So I've attempted to fix inconsistencies for the Xenoblade Chronicles, Persona, and Trails series regarding how they are formatted in the infoboxes of their respective articles. (Trails had the parent franchise listed first, Persona did as well but with additional text noting them, while Xenoblade had the primary series listed first.) I've focused on JRPGs since that's an interest of mine but this would apply to any subseries in a larger franchise, like Yoshi and Warioware existing inside of Mario.

The options are:

  1. primary series, parent franchise = Persona, Megami Tensei
  2. parent franchise, primary series = Megami Tensei, Persona
  3. primary series (noted), parent franchise (noted) = Persona (sub-series), Megami Tensei (main)
  4. parent franchise (noted), primary series (noted) = Megami Tensei (main), Persona (sub-series)
  5. primary series (parent franchise) = Persona (Megami Tensei)
  6. parent franchise (primary series) = Megami Tensei (Persona)
  7. primary series (omitting parent franchise) = Persona

Unless there are additional unlisted options, which of these does everybody thinks looks the best? I prefer option 5 the most, but maybe this would be inconsistent with similar situations in other forms of media like books and films, of which I don't really follow as much as video games. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:46, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Speaking at a glance, Options 4 and 5 seem promising. But in defense of four, in the case of five there are going to be awkward special cases, such as Final Fantasy XV. --ProtoDrake (talk) 22:05, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Think 5 is the best. The most narrowest series should be first. Eg if we.were to apply thus to Mario games, which Donkey Kong is somethings considered a spinoff, lising "Mario" as the primary series for Tropical Freeze wouldn't make sense. --Masem (t) 22:46, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Mario is actually a spin-off from Donkey Kong, not the other way around :P JOEBRO64 15:33, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
I prefer 5, but anything would be better as long as it's standardized. Sergecross73 msg me 00:47, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
I think option 7 is best. If the parent franchise is important to note, it can be mentioned in prose. JOEBRO64 15:34, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
  • How about 7? The parent franchise would be in the lede/infobox of the subseries article anyways, such as in your example. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 19:09, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
  • I also prefer #7. I don't think the parent franchise is important at all if the subseries has already become its own thing. It would also be awkward if we list the parent franchises for series like Rabbids when the parent franchise is pretty much discontinued. OceanHok (talk) 06:20, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Despite the even split of opinions on options 5 and 7, the KISS principle dictates 7 would be the better option. Does anybody have any further comments on this? Otherwise I'll just go ahead and make the edits. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:10, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Coming to a consensus on "derivative game releases"

Latest comment: 1 year ago11 comments8 people in discussion

The recent and fairly contentious discussion on the Perfect Dark remaster and the above discussion on Prince of Persia suggest to me that we should come to a consensus on what to do with remakes, remasters, ports, licensed games, and other games that for various and sundry reasons might not be considered a "full new release". I'm not explicitly proposing anything here just yet; I'd like to see if there's anything I missed that comes up in this discussion. From my perspective, I think there's two expedient paths forward:

  1. One way is revisiting Wikipedia:Notability (video games), which was tagged as an essay in a not especially well attended discussion in 2011 (particularly by people from this project; the discussion reads to me like User:Jinnai the proposer vs. everyone). It would need a little updating but I think it has a good foundation to work from. It even has a section that I like on what to do with the proliferation of non-notable game awards, which is a nice bonus but completely adjacent to this discussion.
  2. Alternatively, if there isn't appetite for having a full WP:SNG discussion, we could selectively incorporate the parts that we want into Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Video games#Dealing with remakes. I think the table in particular is a good thing to be able to point to as a baseline approach, even if we don't and probably shouldn't use it as a hard and fast rule.

Thoughts? Axem Titanium (talk) 17:09, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I really doubt we need or want to make a notability factor play here...it is really, does enough info about the remaster make it sufficiently different from the original game to support a separate article. It thus is more then in that view, us there enough changes in gameplay and development info to support that, along with wholly separate reviews from the original version. That's all a subjective factor and thus not good to use notability for. We just need editors to be in the mindset that by default most remaster are simple enough to fall within the original game article, and a separate article for a remaster is more on the excep/iona side. Masem (t) 17:18, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
I'm a little iffy about the notability issue, but I think it comes down to bulk of information available and reliably citable without undue repetition. Cases in point for seperate articles, Wii version of Prince of Persia: The Forgotten Sands, and the individual articles for Final Fantasy Type-0 and Type-0 HD have a number of differences and behind-the-scenes elements. In contrast the expanded versions and/or remakes of Persona titles don't tend to. I'm not sure there's going to be a hard-and-fast rule, but to define my thinking in a few words: "Does it take more than six paragraphs to talk about this in the whole article". --ProtoDrake (talk) 17:35, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, I was actually planning to start a discussion regarding this myself. In my opinion, we definitely need to have a more concrete guidance on things like this - or else we'll end up with conflicting judgements. (The Last of Us Remastered and Perfect Dark situations were virtually identical but ended with different outcomes, for one.) I think either avenue you propose would work, but perhaps revising Notability (video games) would be a good place to start? JOEBRO64 17:51, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
I agree that having a guideline in place to point to is important, even if in practice we end up making exceptions. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:59, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I have a similar thing with Sega title Wonder Boy III: The Dragon's Trap (1989) and its remake Wonder Boy: The Dragon's Trap (2017). A short thread discussing a merge is on the latter's talk page, but it wasn't heavily participated nor advertised, and I'm also on the fence. The remake was reverse-engineered basically from scratch, with plenty of coverage about the development plus, obviously, separate reception reviews. However, I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to merging, especially if it makes for a more complete original article. --MuZemike 17:44, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

My instinct is in line with yours. A more complete article that tells the full story in context with each other. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:59, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
In the end, any single person's (or group of people's) opinion is overruled by WP:GNG. Make no mistake, a game can have its own article if it passes notability, period. Whether it is to be merged despite that should always be a case by case situation, as nobody can dictate a blanket policy overruling GNG and the notability guideline. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:26, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
GNG, as it says in the title, is a guideline, not a divinely ordained law. It doesn't overrule anyone's opinion, nor can it, because it is itself the accumulation of people's opinions. There's nothing to overrule, or said another way, it can't overrule itself. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:41, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
I agree with Masem that the issue does not lie with notability (they are usually notable). For articles about remake/companion game/alternate versions/expansion/DLC/fan game, the article (and its author) need to show a compelling reason why they should exist as a separate article but not a section in the parent article (i.e. substantial gameplay changes/significant graphical upgrade, a well-developed development section that is not just routine coverage, and a reception section unique to the remake). Content should not be split off from the parent article unless the requirements are met. OceanHok (talk) 18:08, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/Donkey Kong Country/archive1

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hey! I just opened up a peer review for Donkey Kong Country since Jaguar and I are planning to take it to FAC. I'd be more than willing to swap reviews for anyone who's got GANs/FACs up right now. Just let me know! JOEBRO64 14:26, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

@TheJoebro64 Alright! I'll take a look at this. I should have a general review done by the end of the weekend. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 02:02, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Duke Nukem Forever

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There's a dispute at Duke Nukem Forever about which version of the lead to use. More opinions appreciated. Thanks. Popcornfud (talk) 19:08, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Bubsy in Claws Encounters of the Furred Kind#Requested move 12 June 2022

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Bubsy in Claws Encounters of the Furred Kind#Requested move 12 June 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:56, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Beam Software game dates conflicting information

Latest comment: 1 year ago5 comments3 people in discussion

I brought this up on BOZ's talk page back in March but many dates for many Beam titles don't match up according to this. [8]. An example would be Mickey's Safari in Letterland which uses GameFAQs(user-edited source) for the source for the release date. (says the game was released in 1993 but according to Beam Software's website it was released in 1990[9] (but also links that Nintendo PDF document). I'm not sure what to do here so I would appreciate any advice. Timur9008 (talk) 18:14, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

No third-party NES games featured the red "Nintendo Entertainment System" banner on the box until after the SNES's launch in August 1991 (though a few of Nintendo's own uses of the banner precede it.) So, I'm inclined to side with the 1993 date, especially if Beam themselves cited official Nintendo documentation that says 1993. Phediuk (talk) 16:32, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
The game cover that Beam lists on its website has a black NES logo. Maybe the one with the red logo is a reprint (from 1993)? IceWelder [✉] 12:56, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Possible. If the red banner box is a reprint, then you've just corrected a mistake present in every game database on the Web, which is always a good thing. Phediuk (talk) 16:20, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
I looked into this a bit more and I cannot find any real-world occurences of the black-logo cover. The problem is that we don't know what this discrepancy stems from. Are the dates on Beam's website just erroneous? Do they refer to the year in which the game was completed (not released)? Either way, the current March 1993 date matches the contemporary Nintendo Power listing and the list of NES games from Nintendo that the article currently uses, so I'm inclined to believe that it is the correct date. IceWelder [✉] 17:23, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Notability, verifiability and inclusion rules for video games lists by genre

Latest comment: 1 year ago19 comments8 people in discussion

Hi all,
I don't write about video games often, so I'm not sure which conventions apply here. But I've noticed that lists of video games by genre do not all have the same approach to notability, verifiability and inclusion, and I cannot find any rules within the general Manual of Style (Mos) or within this WikiProject which address this issue. Maybe it's time that we establish conventions that can be applied to all lists of video games by genre to ensure uniform quality for all of them? I'll explain.

Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists governs the general rules for lists, but some groups of lists (such as lists of 'people', 'subtaxa', or 'companies and organizations') may have different criteria for inclusion and sourcing. For the sake of clarity, I'll label all these criteria as conventions #1 (most lax) to #5 (most stringent):

  • Convention #1 WP:LISTPEOPLE & WP:LISTCOMPANY: Items may be added to lists of people or companies/organizations who don't have their own Wikipedia articles yet if reliable sources can establish their general notability and their membership of the listed group.
  • Convention #2 WP:CSC: 'Every entry meets the notability criteria for its own non-redirect article in the English Wikipedia. Red-linked entries are acceptable if the entry is verifiably a member of the listed group and it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the near future. Red-linked entries should be accompanied by citations sufficient to show that the entry is sufficiently notable for an article to be written on it...'. This implies that citations are not needed for entries that have their own non-redirect article.
  • Convention #3 WP:LISTPEOPLE 'In other cases, editors choose even more stringent requirements, such as already having an article written (not just qualifying for one), or being notable specifically for reasons related to membership in this group.' WP:WRITEITFIRST also supports this approach.
  • Convention #4 WP:SAL#Lists of subtaxa: For subtaxa, simply having an article is not enough: each item on the list needs to have an article that has 'developed beyond stub quality'.
  • Convention #5 WP:LSC: 'In cases where the membership criteria are subjective or likely to be disputed (for example, lists of unusual things or terrorist incidents), it is especially important that inclusion be based on reliable sources given with inline citations for each item.' So just having a non-redirect article is not enough for these lists: each entry must have RS backing up their membership of the listed group.
  • #2 + #5: Redlink or redirect entries are allowed on the list as long as they are verifiably members of the genre group (#2), but the membership of non-redirect articles on the list should also be supported by RS (#5). (added 25 June 2022)
  • #3 + #5: Only non-redirect articles and RS always required to verify membership. (added 25 June 2022)

I'm seeing all these five conventions – apparently randomly – applied to various lists of video games by genre on English Wikipedia. Examples:

  • List of real-time strategy video games: includes redlinks without citations. This list seems to comply to convention #1, but appears to aspire to comply to convention #2 of adding citations to redlinks, presuming the new articles will pass GNG if created. They don't find it necessary to remove unsourced redlink entries, nor to add citation needed templates to them.
  • List of MUDs: At creation, User:Chaos5023 added the (somewhat funny, but helpful) statement (which was later expanded): 'HEY YOU! Yes, you the person editing this article! THERE MUST BE A WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE ON THE MUD YOU ARE TRYING TO ADD! IF YOU ADD A MUD THAT HAS NO ARTICLE, IT WILL BE REMOVED! This is NOT a general-purpose MUD list. Entries in this list must be notable by Wikipedia standards; the existence of a Wikipedia article on the MUD, or with a section on it, is used as a shorthand for making this determination. Do not add entries to this list that do not have corresponding articles.' Although no specific reference to 'Wikipedia's notability standards' is made, it evidently aspires to comply to convention #3 in including only non-redirect articles. The edit history shows that redlink entries were repeatedly removed, so this convention is consistently applied, which I find commendable, and a better approach than the (somewhat lacklustre) approach of the RTS games list. But the article has zero references/citations/sources, so there is no way for Wikipedians to verify whether the entries in the list are members of this genre group, unless they check the articles themselves.
  • List of massively multiplayer online role-playing games: This list aspires to comply to convention #3 as well. Redlink entries are consistently removed by users such as User:Woodroar if anyone adds them. A few months ago, I did some improvements by cleaning it up and adding some sources, and checking the articles whether they were actual members of the group, and sometimes removing them if they weren't. To make verification of membership easier, I added a refimprove template, although WP:CSC does not seem to require a citation for bluelink entries. Nevertheless, there is sometimes confusion and even conflict over the categorisation of certain games, e.g. whether it is a MUD or an MMORPG, or both. As WP:LSC states 'In cases where the membership criteria are subjective or likely to be disputed (for example, lists of unusual things or terrorist incidents), it is especially important that inclusion be based on reliable sources given with inline citations for each item.' Maybe this criterion (convention #5) should be applied to lists with genres that are difficult to separate, and/or are repeatedly mixed up? I think this is the best standard that we can require of lists, but in cases of lists of video games that have a clear genre and membership is unlikely to be controversial, we need not apply such stringent requirements.
  • List of 4X video games: User:NinjaRobotPirate took the initiative in April 2022 to apply both convention #2 and convention #5 to this list: all entries on the list should be RS-verifiable members of the genre group (#5), but redlinks and redirects for games with RS-verifiable membership that are likely to pass GNG for an article are also allowed to be included on the list (#2). (added 25 June 2022)
  • List of digital collectible card games: This list has a very strict policy laid down in an editnotice, Template:Editnotices/Page/List of digital collectible card games. It states: "Attention editors! No red links. Every entry in this list must have an article written in the English Wikipedia, with reliable sources to support inclusion, else it will be removed without warning." We could regard this as a strict application of conventions #3 (only non-redirect articles) and #5 (always RS to verify membership). (added 25 June 2022)

So I'm wondering what you think about this, because our video games lists by genre now apply very different criteria of varying quality. Especially lists which aspire to conventions #1 or #2 are, in my view, setting bad examples for getting away with adding games that are not demonstrably notable. This may allow fans or developers/vendors of non-notable games to draw unwarranted attention. But conventions #3 and #4 also do not prevent confusion, conflict or duplication of material that may be incorrectly included in lists where they do not belong according to genre. Applying convention #5 to all lists by genre is the best way to prevent non-notable entries and indiscriminate lists, wouldn't you agree? It may require a lot of work to cite RS for all entries in all lists by genre, but there is a reason why extensive work has been done at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources to enable editors to comply with the rules on verifiability and notability, which stand-alone lists are subjected to. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:14, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Lists are a terrible and work-intensive way of organizing this information, but people love creating more work for everyone. List standards are, as you note, incredibly inconsistent, and I don't think that's going to change any time soon. The short answer is it's inconsistent and arbitrary depending on who shows up where. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:05, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
I'm glad you agree that there's a problem, and that it probably won't 'change any time soon' by itself. Shouldn't we do something about it? Being inconsistent and arbitrary means not complying to Wikipedia standards, and although WP:SAL doesn't set universal standards, this WikiProject should be the place to draw the line and set a standard for all content within its scope. That includes video games lists by genre. At the very least, we could agree to apply convention #3 to all video games lists by genre by requiring all entries to be non-redirect articles, and to remove all redlink entries. Chaos5023 has already set this minimum standard of #3 for the List of MUDs, and Woodroar, I and others have applied it several times to the List of massively multiplayer online role-playing games; although I would like to raise that quality standard in the future to #5, I think it is reasonable to apply #3 to all video games lists by genre for now. Do you agree? Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 06:12, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
I'm on the fence here. Ideally, I'd prefer non-redirect articles with reliable sources. But my experience with articles in other areas (like lists of bands by genre) is that they're REFSPAM magnets for any spammy site that lists genres—and there are plenty of similar sites in the VG space. Simply checking for a red link is less of a time sink. That being said, I think that moving towards requiring citations across all VG lists is probably something to work towards.
FYI, @Nederlandse Leeuw: pinging editors in an edit doesn't work. (See WP:PINGFIX.) So you may want to leave a note for Chaos5023 and NinjaRobotPirate to make sure they see this. I'm only here because I watch the page and the subject was of interest. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 16:06, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
Ah, I didn't know that. Well then, pinging @Chaos5023: here now. I would love to hear your ideas on this. The example you've set with the List of MUDs is very useful, and I wonder what you think we should do about this and similar issues in video games lists by genre. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 07:13, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Tagging @NinjaRobotPirate: because you have made important efforts to improve the List of 4X video games in April 2022, and I would like to hear your opinion on my proposal here. In your comment at Talk:List of 4X video games#Removed games that need a citation, you stated: 'This article was a complete mess. I rewrote the lead, cited most of the entries, and removed a bunch of games that I couldn't verify. Here's a possibly incomplete list of stuff that I removed: [list]. Some of them could be 4X games, but there doesn't seem to be any coverage in reliable sources saying so.' That seems a very reasonable decision to me. In the overview I made above, that would mean you have applied both convention #2 and convention #5 to the List of 4X video games: you allow redlink or redirect entries on the list as long as they are verifiably members of the genre group (#2), but the 4X membership of non-redirect articles on the list should also be supported by RS (#5). I like this approach, because it finds verifiable membership more important than whether the article has actually been written yet, and is therefore open to include games that will likely pass GNG as long as RS establish their genre membership. So what do you, NinjaRobotPirate, think about my proposal above? Or would you rather expand your #2 + #5 standard for 4X video games to all video games lists by genre? Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 06:39, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
    There's no reason to be addressing this problem as a "video game wikiproject" level. This is a broad issue across the entire project. The bottom line is that the lists in the best shape are because someone has the interest to adopt them and ensure they are maintained. The core issue will forever be "enough interested hands to handle the work". -- ferret (talk) 16:28, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
    Genres are inherently contentious. One person's heavy metal band is another person's hard rock band. Sources settle the issue. I think that's the most important issue. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:19, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
    I agree with ferret about the fact that the interests of people often determine the quality of particular lists, but rules and guidelines can make it easier for people to know what to do in order to make improvements. What we see happening here is multiple people independently trying to reinvent the wheel and coming up with various solutions, but also many many lists which seem to follow no (clear) rules at all because nobody wants to make that effort to reinvent the wheel, or to find other people who already did. What I'm suggesting is introducing the same rules for all lists of video games by genre to help people make it easier to know how to make improvements. Knowing what to do will motivate a lot of people to be interested in building and maintaining these lists who would otherwise struggle and give up, especially if someone else reverts their edits for reasons they don't understand.
    Incidentally, WP:SAL gives a clear reason to address this problem at the video games WikiProject level because each domain of topics has its own requirements. That's why I brought up those examples about lists of people (to whom for good reasons strict BLP rules may apply), companies/organizations, and subtaxa. As NinjaRobotPirate points out aptly, genres are inherently contentious, so lists that categorise items by genre (which applies to most video games lists) should have to make sure that a game's membership is verifiable through reliable sources (#5). Not all topics have this membership problem, therefore this issue does not encompass the entire project (WP:SAL makes that clear), but it does encompass most of this WikiProject Video Games; that's why I raised it here, and am advocating for WikiProject-wide rules for lists by genre. The question is which convention(s) best fit(s) this WikiProject. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 06:59, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
    There problem is that "video game lists" isn't a one shoe fits all. What about "list of game engines"? List of home consoles? List of best-selling x? List of x platform games? List of x genre games? List of x characters from y game? List of games published by X? All of these have different needs and forms they may take. The bulk of the remedies above, all from the same guideline in the end, is essentially common sense examples of how to apply the guideline. WP:LSC in the end is the guiding principal around all the rest of the examples. A criteria, as makes sense for the topic at hand, can be determined and enforced. This most frequently takes the form of "notable" or "notable, or sourceable to reliable secondary". The issue with this discussion is it acts as if these conventions are separate, or that LSC itself is a convention separate from the rest. LSC actually is what ALLOWS the rest. The rest are all application of LSC. -- ferret (talk) 16:52, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
  • @Waxworker: You may want to comment here as well because you made similar points at Talk:List of erotic video games#Notability criteria. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 08:49, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
  • @TarkusAB: You may also want to comment here, because you said at Talk:List of horror video games: "This list is not adequate since it has too much gray area with any other genre with horror elements." Perhaps you are in favour of applying convention #5 to this list so that genre membership can always be verified by a reliable source? Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 09:12, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
    Hi @Nederlandse Leeuw:. We cannot conceivably enforce a standard across all video game lists. List of Nintendo 64 games, for example, lists every game because there were a limited amount of licensed releases. List of Nintendo Switch games, however, has restrictions because of the platform's lax publishing rules. There are also lists of games by genre, feature, award, engine, sales which each may benefit from unique inclusion criteria. TarkusABtalk/contrib 23:20, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
    Ah, I see that I have not been clear, sorry. I meant this discussion to be about lists of video games by genre specifically, but I have not made that clear everywhere, so I have added those two words wherever appropriate. As you say, other lists of video games do notnecessarily have similar problems as to membership. Would you think it would be useful to develop a standard for all genre-based lists then? Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:47, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
  • As a few others have alluded to, I think too wide of a net is being cast here. If you wanted to try to standardize a certain sort of list - let's say the "List of video games on (console)" - sure. But it's too difficult to apply something to all lists that fall under the content area. Sergecross73 msg me 18:50, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
    Ah, you're right; I see that I have not been clear, sorry. I meant this discussion to be about lists of video games by genre specifically, but I have not made that clear everywhere, so I have added those two words wherever appropriate. Would you think it would be useful to develop a standard for all genre-based lists then? Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:48, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Consistency is nice when there's something to be consistent about, but not all lists of video games are alike, similar to how a list of terrorist incidents might have different standards from a list of hotels. I don't think disparate approaches is necessarily a problem. Note that while references are nice in the long-term, for lists that enforce a "blue links only" standard, it's not always 100% necessary if the inclusion is non-controversial. "MUD" is fairly obvious so no big deal on including a reference or not, since MUD-or-not is obvious and non-controversial; "horror game" is a mess as how horror-y the game has to be is very much an eye-of-the-beholder type deal, so that article probably should require strong referencing requirement of multiple, good sources. Basically, I don't think different standards is a problem, although regularly cleaning up the lists that require stringent standards to remove cruft or borderline stuff is always helpful. SnowFire (talk) 03:51, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
    You make a good point; whenever membership is uncontroversial or unlikely to be controversial, inclusion rules are probably not necessary, because people will categorise games correctly by themselves. As it happens, I doubt that MUDs are a good example of an 'obvious and non-controversial' genre, as there is quite some evidence that people regularly confuse MUDs and MMORPGs, for example at Talk:List_of_massively_multiplayer_online_role-playing_games/Archive_1.
    • Person A asks: 'Do MUDs count as MMORPGs? arguably the predecessors for modern MMORPGs... but are they "massive"?'
    • Person B asks: 'Text-based MMORPGs?... A text MMO is a MUD... should there be a seperate list for MUDs?'
    • Person C says: 'To be in this list, a video or computer game must:.... 3. Be a massively multiplayer online game - not simply online, not simply multiplayer, and not MUDs'
    If it was obvious and non-controversial, presumably nobody would be asking these questions, or be attempting to define the two as separate genres, overlapping genres, or the same genre. Also, I merged List of text-based massively multiplayer online role-playing games into List of massively multiplayer online role-playing games last December, even though according to person B text-based MMO(RPG)s are MUDs, so they may think I should have merged the former to the List of MUDs instead. These seem to be examples of situations where developing a standard would be useful to avoid this kind of confusion. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:12, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
  •   Comment: I apologise for some confusion I seem to have caused. I meant this discussion to be about lists of video games by genre specifically, but I have not made that clear everywhere, so I have added those two words wherever appropriate. Other lists of video games do not appear to have as much of an issue with membership. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:44, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Help updating Playrix article.

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I’ve posted a few suggested edits to improve the article about Playrix at Talk:Playrix#Playrix_Requested_Edits_June_2022, like updating the lead, history, and information about its response to the Ukraine-Russia conflict. Since I have a conflict of interest, is someone in this project available to review the requests? Many thanks. Interstellar108 (talk) 16:21, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Consensus on Microsoft Windows vs Windows

Latest comment: 1 year ago20 comments17 people in discussion

I think this has been discussed before but could we come to a consensus on whether we should use "Microsoft Windows" or "Windows" on infoboxes/articles? Personally I've noticed more video game infoboxes use "Microsoft Windows", nevertheless a not insignificant number do use "Windows" instead. It's frustrating that "Microsoft Windows" (or "Windows") is used for some infoboxes but can't be used for others. -- Wrath X (talk) 11:38, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Think Microsoft Windows would be better as more specific and what the article is at. Agreed that consensus either way would be good for consistency. Thanks, Indagate (talk) 11:42, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
“Windows”. It’s by and large the WP:COMMONNAME, the plural s distinguishes it from “window” (not to mention that no one will think a game is playable on a physical window), and Microsoft’s own style guide dissuades writers from using “Microsoft” before “Windows”. JOEBRO64 11:55, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
I've been using "Microsoft Windows" if the game is Windows-exclusive (fits on 1 line), otherwise "Windows". --Mika1h (talk) 12:31, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
Just Windows, please please please. The name of the operating system is Windows, not "Microsoft Windows". This is overwhelmingly reflected by sources, including storefronts such as Steam, and on Microsoft's own website and materials. The Microsoft style guide even calls this out: "Don't precede the name with Microsoft." Popcornfud (talk) 12:55, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
Since our article on the OS is at "Microsoft Windows", that's what we should use too, at least in the platform list. The release date list and other fields that are later can use "Windows". --Masem (t) 12:57, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
The Wikipedia article is only called "Microsoft Windows" to provide a natural disambiguator from window - and even whether that is necessary is debatable. In the context of video game articles, there's no need to disambiguate. As I've said before, if we say a game was released on Windows, no one is going to think it was hurled from a building. Besides, "Microsoft Windows" is not the name of the product! Popcornfud (talk) 12:58, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
A natdab we don't really need either, since Windows already redirects there. IceWelder [✉] 13:04, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
  • I used to be in favor of "Microsoft Windows", and still often write it like that out of habit, but there's really very little reason to - it's longer, it's not the common name, it's not the official name, there's no risk of misunderstanding "Windows" in this context as being about the openings in buildings. I would support switching to just "Windows", and would also be in favor of moving the Windows article to the shorter name.--AlexandraIDV 13:25, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
    This. -- ferret (talk) 16:33, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
I've been using "Microsoft Windows" but if the consensus is to use just Windows I will use that from now on. Timur9008 (talk) 20:34 ,25 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Just Windows. That the article should be renamed is besides the point. For purposes of an infobox, "Windows" alone is more than sufficient to identify the platform, with no natural disambiguation needed. Our sources do the same—it's "Windows PC" not "Microsoft Windows PC", same as it was six years ago. czar 19:57, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Just Windows. I started a RM discussion a while ago to move the article to just Windows and it failed despite everybody agreeing the common name (and primary search topic) was just Windows. Still disagree with that to this day but there is also no good reason to not use Windows in prose. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:58, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Just Windows I know I've used MS often, but if there's to be a consensus, it should probably be Windows. As an addendum if we're using Windows, should we drop PC as an acronym and replace it with Windows or find an alternate solution? --ProtoDrake (talk) 21:02, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Just Windows per Czar. Sergecross73 msg me 19:58, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Microsoft Windows for me. It fits in one line, and can still be shortened if not. I always liked how in alphabetical order it placed next to Mac and Linux too. The lists would have all PC platforms first, then all consoles, which made sense. But I understand there are more important reasons for the change. MaksimFisher (talk) 01:11, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
    • That is also my only reason why I added "Microsoft" as well, because putting a PC platform between PlayStation/Switch and Xbox doesn't make much sense. Nonetheless, Popcornfud made a strong case for changing the title to a shortened version. OceanHok (talk) 04:53, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
      I think if there's some concern about the order in which platforms are grouped, then we need to figure out a way to group them properly - rather than manipulating the names to "game the system", if you see what I mean. Popcornfud (talk) 11:15, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
    The MOS (I can't seem to find the link to it...) says to list them chronologically first and alphabetically if they happen to be on the same day. This is just your own personal preference with no real policy backing it up. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 13:16, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
You're probably thinking of the {{Infobox video game}} documentation: "With multi-platform games, order by chronology; if the game was released on multiple platforms on the same day, list that subset in alphabetical order." – Rhain ☔ 23:33, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Just Windows - Alexandra summed it up very well, better than I could. When you say "Windows" in a gaming platform context, people know what it means.--Martin IIIa (talk) 03:34, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Older featured article in need of review

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

As part of WP:URFA/2020, there's been some improvements made to Chrono Cross, and older featured article promotion. Would someone familiar with the subject be willing to look it over and see if it is satisfactory against the featured article criteria? Hog Farm Talk 18:50, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Quality vs Quantity, discussion on merging Scythe: Digital Edition

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

There's an ongoing discussion for merging Scythe: Digital Edition back to Scythe (board game). The discussion is leaning toward the debate on what is more valued: more articles with lesser quality, or have less articles but with higher quality.

You can find the discussion here talk:Scythe (board game)#Merge from Scythe: Digital Edition.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 06:25, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

FWIW, I don't think this discussion has anything to do with quality, since both articles can be raised to a sufficiently high quality with some effort. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:45, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Mother 3 GA Reassessmeent

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Mother 3 has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Eldomtom2 (talk) 17:48, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Mega Man Legacy Collection in need of some TLC

Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments3 people in discussion

A few weeks ago, I noticed all the Mega Man Legacy Collection games existed only as subsections of other Mega Man collections. Figuring this wasn't the most ideal way to present them, but also thinking that they wouldn't necessarily each stand up to scrutiny on their own, I decided to merge them all into one Mega Man Legacy Collection article. The problem is that while I think I've done a decent job rewriting things for flow and trimming cruft, most of the text uses primary sources, if that. I know sources must exist since every game has enough reviews to get a Metacritic score, but I could use help combing through them to build proper citations for the article text, as well as filling in individual publications' scores for the reception boxes. I'm also sure there must be a better way to format the page than the way it is now; perhaps giving every compilation its own reception subsection instead of lumping them all together at the bottom? If anyone's looking for a project to take up, the help would be much appreciated! -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 07:12, 3 July 2022 (UTCI)

Not sure if these sources help. [10], [11], [12] Timur9008 (talk) 10:29 ,3 July 2022 (UTC)
I am not totally sure that they shouldn't just exist in subsections of each respective series page. They are just bundles of other games, so there does not seem like a pressing need for a standalone page. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:43, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
See, I absolutely disagree with that. I think if they have independent reception of their contents to establish notability (i.e. all the reviews I mentioned), they absolutely deserve to be separate from their series pages, just like any of our other game compilation articles. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 07:53, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
I agree. I think more than "TLC" is needed. It's primarily just basic release info of some bare-bones port collections. It's pretty half-baked... Sergecross73 msg me 19:03, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Archive_162&oldid=1111975253"