Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games

(Redirected from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/BioWare)
Latest comment: 16 hours ago by Panini! in topic Requests for comment on Pokémon-related articles
Learn more about this page

Merging/moving of Neo Geo (system) > Neo Geo

edit
Latest comment: 13 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I've been asked (at Talk:Neo Geo (system)) to post this here and see if there is consensus for this merge/move.

I have proposed the merging of Neo Geo (system) to Neo Geo for the following reasons:

As part of the merge:

  • The 'Retro consoles' section of the current Neo Geo article, which makes up half of it, would remain, as it is directly related to the Neo Geo (MVS/AES) topic - they are remakes of that product
  • The rest of the current Neo Geo article, from the top until the point of the 'Retro consoles' part, would be removed as it's redundant. The various hardware by SNK are already well described in the SNK article. Additionally, the article currently also has questionable content (described as a 'family', "discontinued in 2004", and a complete lacks of sources).

Let me know if there is a general agreement for this. --Sceeegt (talk) 20:41, 6 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

NOTE This request has been reformatted and reproposed Talk:Neo Geo (system)#Merge proposal. TarkusABtalk/contrib 18:54, 12 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

About Atari

edit
Latest comment: 7 days ago17 comments3 people in discussion

The history of Atari is complicated as we know. Problem is that it is made worse by how the present day Atari is currently presented here. There's a lack of differentiation for the public to understand, unlike how the Bandai Namco Holdings article clearly differs from Bandai Namco Entertainment.

So to cut it short, Atari is:

I think the way this is all set up on Wikipedia only complicate matters further. Atari SA is merely the holding group and that also owns various non-Atari things - and Atari Inc. is the one that publishes games to this day like Yars: Recharged. In fact it seems the whole "Atari" brand and www.atari.com including merchandise and the new Atari 2600+ are under Atari Inc. And yet, the Atari Inc. article ends in the year 2000 before it was rebranded from Infogrames, without anything more.

I think Atari SA shouldn't contain information like the games and products and such because it's a holding company. The actual article that should have these is Atari Inc., the company that serves the general public. All products made by Atari currently contain the Atari Inc. name and copyright and it's even there at the bottom of atari.com, not "Atari SA". I imagine corporate info and such are the sort of things the Atari SA article should keep for itself.

And then we have Atari Interactive. Similarly to Atari Inc., this article's history is predominantly its historic days before it was called Atari. And ever since then (2001) there is barely much - in fact nothing, because it merely mirrors Atari SA. From what it seems, (see the chart on p. 11) Atari Interactive Inc. is simply set up as the legal entity that owns the brand behind the scenes and licenses it to the rest. Hence the existence of this article called "Atari Interactive" only serves to complicate things further, especially as it isn't a public brand and is only a legal entity behind the scenes, meaning that it also isn't notable at all to have its own article. Ideally it should be called "Infogrames Hasbro Interactive", active from 1995 to 2001, serving that period and the games it published which are all listed in the article currently.

So does the community here agree with me to...?:

After that's done I'll also do a much needed cleanup to both articles and put references where currently lacking. Sceeegt (talk) 20:01, 11 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure what the right answer is. For almost the first decade, this article was about Infogrames. I don't think the new title accurately reflects that. The company as we know it went bankrupt in 2013. This may be the type of article that needs a further split, for clarity. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:06, 14 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
I think what you're thinking about is not relevant to what I mean. FYI I've taken a look and the page was moved from its old name to the present one in 2018, though it's not something I'm concerned about. Sceeegt (talk) 16:06, 14 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Atari SA is / was Infogrames. It's not the same company as Atari, Inc. (1993-present) and the two companies should not be merged. It's a confusing area because the Atari trademark has been passed around between a bunch of different companies. The bankruptcy has made things worse because the holding company has very limited continuity with Infogrames, but may as well be a different company. Most of its assets were sold off and it had to be rebuilt from the ground up into something else. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:40, 15 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
You're right that they're different and shouldn't be merged, although I never claimed they should be. What I'm saying is that there should be a clear differentiation between Atari SA, a holding company, and Atari Inc., a game publisher of said holding company, similar to Bandai Namco Holdings & Bandai Namco Entertainment. Since this format is already established in the Bandai Namco example, I may be bold and perform a move of relevant game info to Atari Inc and structure Atari SA with its more corporate-oriented info. Sceeegt (talk) 19:11, 15 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
I see. I think the problem is if you migrate the game content from Atari SA to Atari, Inc. (1993-present), there's a risk of migrating the information about Infogrames to the wrong company. I do see how this a confusing topic area, because we're talking about many different entities passing around the same trademark. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:18, 15 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yep, I forgot to mention I don't intend/support to move Infogrames-related content, only the Atari status quo since 2003. Sceeegt (talk) 19:22, 15 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
I'm not sure if any other editors will chime in here. But if you feel brave enough to handle the confusing web of acquisitions/mergers/reorganizations/renames, you could give it a try. My best advice is to stick really closely to the sources and be incremental. What's the first problem to solve? Is it just making it clear that Atari SA is presently a holding company? Shooterwalker (talk) 19:28, 15 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yeah you're right. I am committed to making the Atari articles better and easier to understand (I've already made changes to Atari and Atari SA in the past week for improved understanding to readers). I'll probably start with first sorting out Atari Inc by structuring its history and also adding references because the whole 'product history' part is unreferenced and that's not acceptable. By the way what's your view regarding Hasbro Interactive? Sceeegt (talk) 19:36, 15 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
OK well I have managed to make improvements. The whole Atari, Inc. (1993-present) article is in much better state now: there are subheadings, it's in order, and importantly it's very well referenced, plus I've also updated with the newest content - previously it ended at 2013. Surprisingly there wasn't very much strictly game-related content on Atari SA to move. By the way, User:LTPHarry made what I think is a very decent suggestion: splitting away the historic GT Interactive part into its own article. I wonder what you think of it. Personally I want to prioritize renaming Atari Interactive to Hasbro Interactive should there be consent. --Sceeegt (talk) 23:03, 15 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
I am pinging @Indrian: here as they have a solid foundation on the pre-1990 era of video games, and thus this might be something they can at least help thread the needle on how the company pages should be organized. It would be really good if at the end of the day we can find or construct a historical/hierarchical graph of how Nolan's Atari has ended up. Masem (t) 00:01, 16 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
It's funny, that's exactly what I had in my mind the other day! To create a simple sort of hierarchical flowchart-style diagram showing the history of Atari and put it here. However I don't know how to create it so maybe if anyone else is interested to do such a graph? Sceeegt (talk) 00:07, 16 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
It might be me, it might be someone else, it even might be the Graphics Lab, but we can make such. It might even just be a timeline which is "easy" to create. But all of this is predicated on having RSes that allow us to trace the history without any type of interpretation. Masem (t) 00:13, 16 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
I should also add that the "Atari Inc. (1993-present)" title is also one that can be very confusing and misleading. It could easily lead someone to think it was an entity named "Atari" that existed in '93. Yes, I was a victim too - I got confused between Atari Corporation and this supposedly Atari Inc from the Jaguar era, until reading the details clearly (on top of the Atari Games that too existed at the time). I suggest a renaming of this article to perhaps 2003-present (the status quo under the Atari name). Splitting GT Interactive into its own article would also help in this case. Sceeegt (talk) 01:37, 16 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
In the grand scheme of things I personally think the following would be ideal improvements to make the Atari topic less confusing: (very interested to hear your views)
Sceeegt (talk) 02:51, 16 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Renaming the old Atari to GT Interactive is a good idea. I would even consider a split for Atari SA around the time of their bankruptcy. But you're doing good work. Everything is well sourced. The hard part is figuring out how to organize and name these. I think some splits and re-merges will be part of that. Shooterwalker (talk) 13:24, 17 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yeah it's the organization that we need to collectively agree on. A split of Atari SA may be a good idea indeed, although I currently don't have a strong opinion regarding that. Sceeegt (talk) 00:48, 18 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Template:MobyGames and IDs

edit
Latest comment: 13 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Currently, {{MobyGames}} takes the "id" of the MobyGames page it is linking to and just appends that to https://www.mobygames.com/game. However, a recent change to MobyGames has made it that pages now have a number, so that, for example, /group/212 links to "Game Groups > Heroes of Might and Magic series" while /game/212 links to Masters of Orion. My idea was to remove the old way of how the template works and replace it with one that takes 2 parameters: One for the link type (game, group, developer, etc.) and the other for the numerical page ID, also called "Moby ID". This could also tie into the Wikidata properties MobyGames person ID (P3913), MobyGames game ID (P11688), MobyGames company ID (P11689), and MobyGames group ID (P11690).

I have put together a draft template at User:Einstein95/Draft:Template:MobyGames which currently automatically gets the game ID from the page's linked Wikidata item, but also allows the use of type|id in the same pattern as a MobyGames link. -Einstein95 (talk) 10:57, 12 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

New Articles (September 9 to September 15)

edit
Latest comment: 4 days ago2 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 v3.20 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 02:10, 18 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

September 9

September 10

September 11

September 12

September 13

September 14

September 15

Tagging a number, and the specific number 2,147,483,647 at that, is the stupidest and most worthless thing this project has ever done and I think- never mind. Panini! • 🥪 18:10, 21 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Requested move at Talk:Master Takahashi's Adventure Island IV#Requested move 11 September 2024

edit
Latest comment: 6 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Master Takahashi's Adventure Island IV#Requested move 11 September 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 01:31, 19 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Character Reiko Nagase

edit
Latest comment: 4 days ago4 comments4 people in discussion

The article Reiko Nagase, about the Ridge Racer mascot character, seems to have been removed in 2023 by User: Kung Fu Man. I thought this was pretty absurd because the article was well referenced by reliable sources and reasonably detailed. I reverted the article back into existence but they've removed it once again.

Their argument is that the article doesn't talk about the character, but that doesn't hold water because the entire article is about the character. Not every character on earth is going to have a public personality. But what does matter is that this is a notable character - given the amount of coverage she's gotten, as is clearly evidenced in the Reception section - and that's what warrants the article. The topic notable enough and is solidly backed by references. Or are we going to delete Duracell Bunny next just because there's not much "about the character"? Sceeegt (talk) 00:12, 20 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

We need that coverage to be significant, and KFM's reasoning seems to be the fact that all but one source is all brief mentions or listicles, which are not good sources for judging notability. The number of sources is not a measure used here. Masem (t) 00:21, 20 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
For the future, I'd suggest bringing this up at Ridge Racer's article before bringing it up at the main project. Either way, I will say I do stand by KFM's reversion. A lot of the article's Reception are just one sentence references and trivial mentions. There's a couple of somewhat decent sources, but those aren't really enough to build an article on. I mainly echo Masem here: Coverage is needed to build an article and an article needs to actually be supported by in-depth, significant pieces of coverage to be notable. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 00:23, 20 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
While I don't particularly agree with Kung Fu Man's BLARs (I personally consider ANY character article a potentially controversial one, so they should all go to AfD without exception), the sourcing for the article was really weak besides maybe this, so in this instance I think he was correct. Her characterization is also near nil. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:51, 21 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Redirect this page?

edit
Latest comment: 4 days ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Yesterday I rid of the Project Gotham Racing series article by redirecting it to Project Gotham Racing (video game). I did it as it looked uncontroversial, my reasoning being that it wasn't notable enough to warrant its own article, being just four main titles, plus it badly lacked content. I would happily expand an article if needed (like I've done to others) but this is one that we're better off without. The latter article already has ample info about the series in a 'Sequels' section.

My redirect has been reverted by someone saying WP:TALKFIRST. I know I'll never get anywhere on that article talk page so am posting this here whether you agree with ridding the series article? Sceeegt (talk) 03:06, 21 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

It might be a case of WP:NEXIST rather than just redirecting the article. This is a major source of significant coverage for the series as a whole. With how massive the series once was, I wouldn't be surprised if there was more out there. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:30, 21 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
I also found this, which I think would also qualify as overall series SIGCOV. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:40, 21 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for providing the second source - the first one I did come across the other day and I used it to make a "Development" section in Project Gotham Racing (video game). While they do provide coverage, I'm worried it will just fill out "Development" sections in each game's article - meaning that a series article would just duplicate them.
Indeed the series was once big and I was certainly a dedicated fan of PGR3 around 07. Trouble is I'm not sure it could make a unique series article that could stand on its own without copy-paste. MotorStorm is another existing series article that suffers from the same problem. Sceeegt (talk) 14:30, 21 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

An issue with categories

edit
Latest comment: 2 days ago8 comments6 people in discussion

Over the last several years, we've had a number of editors making a good effort to populate categories that sort games based on studio or publisher (eg Category:Valve Corporation games)
First, I notice that whether the use of "games" or "video games" in these titles is non-standard, and given that "games" can also imply printed board games, I think we need to standard to "video games" but that's less of a concern.
The case that led me to realize there was a problem was the fact that Disco Elysium was published by Spike Chunsoft in Japan, so it has been categorized as a "Spike Chunsoft video game", which seems very misleading. And that's where I think we need to make these categories more explicit between the developer and the publisher. Disco Elysium is clearly under "video games published by Spike Chunsoft" and nothing seems weird about that at that point.
It makes then more sense when we get to the big publishers like Activision and EA. Battlefield 2042, currently is listed as a "Digital Illusions CE games" and an "Electronic Arts games", but it would make far more sense to have it as a "video game developed by DICE", and a "video game published by EA".
There are a few things to consider before making this massive a change. One is the naming scheme, as "video games developed/published by X" is weighty but also I think the minimum we need to distiguish between these. The other would be in how we'd catalog games that have multiple studios aiding a single lead studio, such as most Assassin's Creed games. It would make sense to categorize Assassin's Creed Odyssey as a "video game developed by Ubisoft Quebec" and "published by Ubisoft", but all dozen-some other Ubisoft studios that assisted in its development would be overkill for that. So I think in such cases, only the lead studio should be incldued in the categorization. Finally, for many indie games where the developer and publisher are the same (like for Hades / Supergiant Games), it doesn't make sense to include both categories, but instead just give weight to the developer version.
In any case, we're talking a major change so I'd rather get our consensus on this figured out first before seeing how much automation we could make to simplify any changes. — Masem (t) 15:14, 21 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I understand we have rules for the infobox template to keep it simple and direct, but I don't see why we need that for categories. I don't think we need to make the distinction that clear. Battlefield is made by DICE but it is also clearly an EA property, so calling it an EA game is not wrong. You will still need a parent category for studios that both develop and publish games. OceanHok (talk) 15:20, 22 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Agreed and in general the more specific a category is, the better. The only limiting factor is if the category in question is WP:Defining which in this case it certainly is. Sources will always make clear who the publisher and developer are rather than say the game is "by [publisher]." The categories should reflect that. In terms of how this would work in practice, it could look something like "[publisher] video games" with two children "video games developed by [publisher] and "video games published by [publisher]" J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 18:27, 22 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Agreed, this seems like the best way to handle this. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 00:10, 23 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
More realistically for every notable studio or publisher, there should be a category with just their name, like Category:Valve Corporation, then these two categories can be children of that (if both are needed) — Masem (t) 02:04, 23 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
I think that having separate categories for 'video games developed/published by X' seems unnecessary, and just having 'X company games' is simpler. I don't think having a category for a company that only published a game in X region or for X port is misleading or confusing - whatever's going on with the game's developers/publishers should be discussed in the article itself. I don't think this is codified somewhere, but I think specifying 'X company video games' rather than 'X company games' is only necessary when the company in question also makes games other than video games, such as board or card games. Waxworker (talk) 00:31, 23 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
But to take the example of Disco Elysium, no one would naturally classify it as a Chunsoft game, but that's the implication given by the fact it is categorized, presently, as a Chunsoft game. So the current scheme is misleading. Masem (t) 01:58, 23 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
I have to concur with Masem that categorizing "published by" and "developed by" separately would be very helpful. These are two completely separate things and I'm sure people tend to be much more interested in finding categories of works created by a studio than a categories of works published by a corporation. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 06:12, 23 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Metacritic

edit
Latest comment: 3 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

{{cite metacritic}} isn't directed to a proper release platform URL because Metacritic updated its URL format and this template did not reflect it. Can someone fix this? Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 12:26, 22 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Please discuss on the templates talk page, but checked a few articles and the template seems to be working as intended, please give more detail including examples. Thanks, Indagate (talk) 13:08, 22 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Japan Studio

edit
Latest comment: 2 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Due to the brand Japan Studio not being used until 2006, all games produced by the developer prior should be credited as Sony Computer Entertainment Japan or any appropriate alternative (must be a pipe/redirect of Japan Studio article). It's as absurd as calling EarthBound a Creatures Inc. game. MimirIsSmart (talk) 14:29, 23 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

New Articles (September 16 to September 22)

edit
Latest comment: 2 days ago4 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 v3.20 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 18:14, 23 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

September 16

September 17

  • None

September 18

September 19

September 20

September 21

September 22

Shoutout to JIP for that fascinating article on an oldie, and an overseas one at that!
Also, do you know what was on Draft:✅? I'm curious. Panini! • 🥪 19:42, 23 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
It was a draft about a Filipino indie video game that was deleted as non-notable and lacking references. It used to have a normal title but someone moved it to that funny title. JIP | Talk 21:20, 23 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Been a very busy week for Pokemon it feels like. I didn't even realize Haunter and buzz were that close apart from each other when I did them.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:17, 23 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
edit
Latest comment: 16 hours ago2 comments2 people in discussion

There are currently two Pokémon related discussions ongoing: One is to discuss whether Pokémon Emerald should be merged with Pokémon Ruby and Sapphire, while the other is to discuss whether Fan-made Pokémon games should be moved to a new title or not. Further comments on both discussions would be greatly appreciated. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:36, 25 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Now that you mention it, I don't think I've ever considered Magneton... I gotta go call him asap. Panini! • 🥪 05:50, 25 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games&oldid=1247719383"