Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 158

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 155Archive 156Archive 157Archive 158Archive 159Archive 160→Archive 165

Media question

Hi. I need some advice on something I've been working on since last year. They're related to the Dead Space media franchise; the original comic prequel, the movie Downfall, and the later movie Aftermath. I've very rarely done anything related to anything outside video games, so I'm nervous about the differing standards and the fact I brought these articles together using fairly scanty sources. Are they able to become GAs, or are they stuck in limbo? I've been so involved with them that my judgement is biased. Also, additional question about the later comic Dead Space: Salvage and the novel Dead Space: Martyr. I couldn't find any sources for the former on its creation or any kind of reception/sales/anything, and no critical commentary for the latter. My opinion is that both should merge with Dead Space 2, but I'm wary of doing something like that. I ask these questions here due to the franchise's roots in video games, making them relevant to this topic. --ProtoDrake (talk) 11:23, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

I've been doing quite a few of other media stuff for Dragon Age and Mass Effect franchises lately, so I've spent a lot of time doing research on these. Unlike books or films, there are no vetted guidelines for comics. Sources for the comic miniseries and films are anything but scanty, and are quite clearly notable when assessed per WP:GNG or WP:NFILM, in my opinion. They can easily be B class in terms of quality, but I'll let others give their opinion on whether they can possibly meet GA. As for Martyr, I actually merged it into the main franchise page a few days ago after noticing the poor state of the current article, before I noticed a bunch of sources placed as "ref ideas" on the talk page. I've self reverted and believe that it can and should be a standalone page, per WP:NBOOK. There are two full length reviews from Escapist and Alternativemagazineonline.co.uk, so that is the critical commentary you are looking for, which satisfies the first criteria of two or more non-trivial[2] published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book. There's a couple of interviews too, and a few articles which contain general commentary about the book. Obviously, GA quality is not possible, but there's no reason why we can't cover the book for the benefit of the reader. As for Salvage, what exactly have you found so far though? No sources are listed as ref ideas like Martyr was. Haleth (talk) 13:32, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
@Haleth: All I've found for Salvage is from the Dead Space 2 Prima Guide limited edition, which I also used as a source for some info on Aftermath. Basically it's the comic's writer Antony Johnston and artist Christopher Shy talking about the context and a little about its production, but there's almost literally no commentary beyond that, no publisher page that I've found, and no data on its reception or sales. If there had been, I would've put them there. It's something that would make a subsection in Dead Space 2's article, or part of wider commentary on its media in a possible dedicated page. As for Martyr, again that could be worked into a subsection within DS2 or part of a media page. It's a miracle I found enough sources for Aftermath. --ProtoDrake (talk) 13:52, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
If that is the case, just merge Salvage to the Dead Space (franchise) article, under the adaptations section. While it may have played a role in setting up a backstory for Dead Space 2 as part of the purpose of its existence, it is not a DLC or bundled component of the game and should really be covered in the broader franchise article, if there's anything worth covering at all. Martyr, I don't agree that it should be a subsection of anything since viable sources exist. It is a published book, not an in-universe element, and it passes the first criteria under WP:NBOOK in my opinion. Someone just needs to make use of the sources on the talk page and write up an article for it. If no one is willing to do it, I'll do it. Haleth (talk) 14:13, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
Broadly, comics and other words fall under fictional works, and we have no special notability guidelines for them - that is, they must meet the GNG. If all you see are plot summaries and no reception or development, that's a sign to redirect and merge brief summation to a larger article. Even if there are reviews, it may be easier to have a separate "Dead Space media" article to group them rather than separate articles. --Masem (t) 13:36, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Spectrum games reviews

In case this wasn't already known around here, and I think it is a fantastic find since I was not aware of it, but I just discovered that the website Spectrum Computing is quite good at listing magazine reviews for retro games from the UK. For example, click on this one and use the "Magazine Reviews" dropdown; a lot easier than trying to find them by searching on archive.org, and MobyGames is nowhere near as good as listing reviews (or even listing the games themselves) published in the UK! BOZ (talk) 00:26, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Oh yeah I use it all the time when I write up articles on the British computer games. It's good. GamerPro64 00:56, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
I forgot to chime in as well but that website has also helped me with reviews for old 8-bit Spanish games. Roberth Martinez (talk) 04:34, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

QPQ for a VG GA nom?

Here is the article. If anyone else has a VG GA nom or any GA nom I would be happy to do an exchange. --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 16:04, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't have any article at GAN at the moment, but might have one within the week - if no one has taken you up on your offer by the time I'm "done" with one of my current projects I'll be glad to do it.--AlexandraIDV 06:53, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
@Jeromi Mikhael: It took longer than I had hoped, but I have a GAN up now as well, for the RPG article Under a Blood Red Moon. If you're still interested and available, I'm up for doing a review trade.--AlexandraIDV 08:54, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
@Alexandra IDV: Yes! Thank you! I've been waiting for this for a long time! Shall we do this concurrently, you-first-then-me, or me-first-then-you? --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 11:37, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
@Jeromi Mikhael: Concurrently is fine by me. I'll start the Survivalcraft review right now and hopefully have it done over the next few days.--AlexandraIDV 12:50, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Death Crimson articles severely lacking

At the moment, out of the 3 Death Crimson games, only Death Crimson OX for the Dreamcast has an article, and one where all of the sections are short or nearly nonexistent. This franchise is highly important to the kusogē concept, and it only seems right to have fleshed-out articles for all of them. I would appreciate help finding good sources, particularly ones about "Death Saturns"—a meme/concept of creating a Sega Saturn which can only play the original Death Crimson, sometimes being customized to an elaborate extent.

--Ithinkiplaygames (talk) 07:04, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

@Ithinkiplaygames:The development section of Death Crimson OX's article has three interview references with one of the game's staff members that can be used. Don't hurry things up. I do want to make an article for the original Death Crimson one day though but not right now... Roberth Martinez (talk) 16:43, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
If it is indeed important to the kusoge concept, perhaps it would be better to use that info to bulk up the Kuso article, which is sorely lacking in content and even more lacking in sourcing.--Martin IIIa (talk) 00:40, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Dead or Alive (franchise)

Is this article supposed to be about the video game series or the media franchise? This matters a lot when making Wikidata items. --Trade (talk) 09:27, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Dead or Alive (franchise) It's about the whole franchise, including the video game series. TarkusABtalk/contrib 10:39, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

FAR for Shadow of the Colossus

I have nominated Shadow of the Colossus for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. (t · c) buidhe 03:23, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Opinions needed for Backbone (gaming platform) article name

I approved the article at Backbone One because the actual device is largely what the WP:RS mentioned in reviews. The original creator moved it back to Backbone (gaming platform) asserting that the entire platform is notable. I'd like some opinions on whether this is truly the case. If general consensus is that the entire platform is notable then I'll just leave it there, but I feel like the platform is largely tangential to the Backbone One itself, and the Backbone One certainly doesn't rely on the (non-notable) platform to work.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 01:52, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

All of the reliable sources currently cited in the article focus on the Blackbone One, not the app/platform itself. So, I agree with you that the article should probably be about the Blackbone One for now. FWIW, I also think it's weird to talk about a "platform" on iOS given that iOS is a platform itself, but that's fairly tangential. DocFreeman24 (talk) 06:54, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Changing the video game infobox

I feel the video game infobox is currently highly misleading by always using "Programmer(s)", "Artist(s)", etc., regardless of the size of the team - obviously something like GTA V had much more than the two designers and one artists mentioned in the infobox. I feel that where appriopriate changing these to "Lead Programmer(s)" etc. would make things a lot clearer. --Eldomtom2 (talk) 17:46, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

That might actually not be a bad idea - I do get tired of culling down infobox fields when IPs add half of the dev team into infoboxes. Maybe this would help? Sergecross73 msg me 17:51, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
I think that's not a bad idea. Programmer, Designer and Writer are the worst to get right if there's more than one, or there's a principle for commentary from the others, or the staff list is huge. The infobox would need some tinkering for space, but it sounds a solid idea. --ProtoDrake (talk) 18:02, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
I've always taken it as implicit that the labels imply "lead (persons)" in those roles and our instructions reference this. This makes it reasonable that for a small team (5-10 members) we'd likely list everyone while a big AAA game, you're only going to have 1-3 names at most per field. While we could make it say "Lead programmer(s)" I wonder if this would then be odd looking on small team games. Perhaps there could be a simple flag like "uselead" that flips the language on those labels to use "Lead whatever(s)" if that parameter is yes (rather than doing it on a per-label basis). --Masem (t) 18:21, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
1) Adding "Lead " to the front of these fields would push them to two lines tall, which may be okay but should be considered. 2) If it was optional, I think it should be opt-out, not -in, since the vast majority of game articles are not about games with only a handful of contributors. --PresN 18:35, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
Agree with Masem, I think adding "lead" is redudant since most of the time for large developers for AAA games we are not going to list all programmers just those who "led" it. I think that is obvious from context. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 18:41, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
From my experiences on other sites it is not obvious from context, especially since to the layman it is often hard to tell how large of a team a game “should” have. I realise that’s anecdotal but I think the potential for confusion is obvious. --Eldomtom2 (talk) 23:37, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
To give my two cents on the matter: I think the infobox for video game articles is fine as it is. It doesn't need severe alterations like the one suggested by Eldomtom2. But that's just my opinion... Roberth Martinez (talk) 19:14, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
The documentation already directs that these are for lead positions already. The word "Lead" is omitted from the labels due to spacing and simple awkwardness to repeat 5-6 times in a row. -- ferret (talk) 19:30, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
I agree with ferret's points. Additionally, I can't recall ever witnessing drive-by editors adding a slew of staff to infoboxes, meaning that readers understand the implied "lead". It's a non-issue. TarkusABtalk/contrib 03:49, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
We in fact considered this very issue when we discussed the current version of the infobox instructions. The instructions specifically state "This field is often unfilled in modern high-budget development due to large team sizes and collaboration. Older games and indie games are more likely to use this position." and "If a single person is credited as 'lead programmer', list that person; if there is no equivalent, omit this field". The word "lead" is implied in the infobox and explicit in the instructions. Axem Titanium (talk) 04:20, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
Good idea. Can we also get some improvements on infoboxes for game series? Right now a lot of them are using the anime/manga template rather than game templates because of how much better the template works for series.Londonbeat41692 (talk) 04:31, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
Uhh can you share an example? I think that's because they were originally anime/manga series. TarkusABtalk/contrib 04:59, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
@TarkusAB:At the top of my head, I know there are examples such as Yu-No, Dokyuusei and the other games by Elf Corporation. Roberth Martinez (talk) 13:52, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
OK, seems it might be optimal for game series with equally notable animanga entries. Well, the infobox is just a tool. A means to an end. If the animanga infobox works best in that case, so be it. TarkusABtalk/contrib 14:08, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
Some of them don't even have a corresponding anime, but there was no other good way to condense the entries to one series page, like with Last Escort.Londonbeat41692 (talk) 00:44, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
Uh you added that?...OK I think I understand your confusion now. We explicitly don't have this function in the video game series box because it's ugly. Go to any other major game series page and see how we handle series. If you really want that function added, you can start a new discussion for that but I wouldn't even bother because it has a snowball's chance in hell at being added. TarkusABtalk/contrib 10:36, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
The Animanga infobox is a monster that is in my opinion wildly out of compliance and consistency with the rest of the project's infoboxes. Absolutely will oppose any effort to alter video game related infoboxes in a similar direction. -- ferret (talk) 12:29, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
100% agreed with Ferret. The point of infoboxes is to present the key facts in an easy-and-fast-to-read format, whereas the animanga infobox is an extremely long list of media and their respective staff, often as long as or longer than the rest of the article.--AlexandraIDV 13:08, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I did add the animanga infobox to the Last Escort page after seeing it on a different game series page, I don't recall which at the moment. It might have been Harukanaru Toki no Naka De. I don't want the staff attributes, just a way to have all of the titles in a series and their release dates and platforms listed in one long box together.Londonbeat41692 (talk) 10:37, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

How many games do we need to make a series article?

In the early editing days of mine, I wanted to make series articles for Final Fantasy Dissidia, and Mercury, and I even saw this consensus reflect on other series I didn't have a strong inclination towards such as Life is Strange (series). But the consensus was back then that 3 games were not enough to create an article for series for a game.

The reason, why I bring this up now, is because there is an AfD for Patapon which appears that editors are saying that there is a need for three video games in order to call for it to be a notable series. Has consensus changed since then or is this a misunderstanding on WP:VG's guidelines.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 14:00, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patapon It would also greatly appreciated if other editors would look into this AfD, because i think more eyes on it will give more info than "3 games = enough to have an article" as the current consensus is going.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 14:52, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
3 is a bare minimum but this assumes there's also good development information and some type of cohesion between the games so that there's linkage between the cames and makes a series article appear to be more than just gluing summaries of three games together. Obviously, once you start getting to 6 or more games, those questions become less of an issue as you're now just providing an index, but offering that information is still something I'd strive to include. --Masem (t) 14:57, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
@Masem: With Patapon, could you voice your opinion on it? Unfortunately, no one else is giving enough reason to keep only that 3 is enough to have a series article. (However I'm the one left looking for coverage). Do you see any other reason why it should/shouldn't be kept?Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 15:07, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
Just came to echo what Masem said. He pretty accurately covers the current consensus. I'll take a look at the AFD too. Sergecross73 msg me 15:10, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
With Patapon, I'd simply make a section on the first game's page as "Series", and just say the game spawned a number of sequels. Probably don't even need the table. I will stress that a navbox template for a 3+ series of games is 100% acceptable as well as all necessarily redirects (eg, I'd assume if the series page was deleted that the current Patapon (video game) would go to Patapon and a Patapon (series) redirect for search purposes can be made.). Just that the series page without any dev info is basically useless in this situation. --Masem (t) 15:17, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
The original discussion on what creates a series/franchise also included mention of spin-offs like cartoons, films and other media carrying some weight. i.e It's not solely about video games. - X201 (talk) 15:40, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
It should not be just on pure count of media releases, though if you have a franchise with 10+ different works, now you're at a point where at least you can say "List of <X> media" makes sense if you can't hash together a coherent franchise article that otherwise expands on premise, development history, and other factors. --Masem (t) 15:45, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
As the old saying goes... "Once Is Chance, Twice is Coincidence, Third Time Is A Pattern"--Coin945 (talk) 15:42, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
@Masem: if you still feel that way, it would be good to add to the AfD if you dont mind of course.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 13:34, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
You don't need to AFD. That's all merge and redirect and move stuff and you don't need an AFD for it. --Masem (t) 13:47, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment There's a discussion to be had here about when is a series/franchise article appropriate, but I feel this discussion is dangerously close to canvassing to an AFD. -- ferret (talk) 13:49, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
@Masem: Unfortunately at this moment, it may not look like I have the consensus to just merge and redirect. So if i do anything like that i'm going against "current" consensus"
@Ferret: I didn't know Masem's opinion at the time on the situation. But whatever their opinion was merge/keep, I was going to recommend it be added to the AfD so long as they gave clarity and use the GNG. I can even ask you to vote if you're willing to give more information other than "3 titles equals a series, and that's that". If there is real reason to keep the article, then I believe it will be good. But unfortunately, the editors choosing to "keep" aren't the ones trying to fix the article, or expand.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 14:04, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
In regards to your last sentence it may be worth seeing WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 14:20, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
Yes, but "there's not enough content" is perfectly valid argument when we're talking about merge/redirect/unnecessary article split-type situations. Sergecross73 msg me 16:01, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
@Spy-cicle: the essay you pulled up doesn't apply. I didn't nominate this for punishment for lack of attention. My last comment is suggesting that I'm the only editor that actually cares about the Patapon articles and wasn't able to find much to create a series article (without SYNTHESIS). So if the consensus is to keep, I have to wait until new information again that could make a quality article or vote for an AfD after some time has passed (another year maybe?).
you're usually more forthcoming with clarity in trying to reach a consensus but when it comes to Patapon afd, it's just a vote, and that's not helpful in the long run for editors learning how to gain consensus IMHO. Which the principle of the essay is trying to advocate for proper discussions.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 08:37, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
This is less clear to me now after reading this. When is a series not a series? I understand we want coverage of the series, and not just separate games. But I can't picture a series that would only be covered as separate games, unless they weren't actually a series at all. Almost any sequel would compare it to one or more of the previous games. So what more would we look for? Archrogue (talk) 18:45, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
I think there's agreement that a minimum of 3 main games (not ports or remasters) are required. But you need more than just being to just summarize the general gameplay and reception the games have gotten. We want something alongside the development of the series as a whole that glues the games together, even if this is information borrowing from the existing game articles. Eg Monster Hunter#History, Dead Space (franchise)#Development or Assassin's Creed#History are the type of information that I think is critical to a series article. If you can't provide that type of linking information, and just are listing the games, then a series article may not be appropriate. But as I mentioned above, if the number of games starts getting large a "List of (series) games" would start to become reasonable than including this info within the first game's article. --Masem (t) 19:02, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
To be clear, we're not arguing whether or not these things are truly a series, we're just arguing that a series article isn't necessary when there's only a few games and all of the content is specifically about singular entries, to the point where it could just be placed in each individual article instead. As Masem says, just look at any WP:GA or WP:FA article's History/Development type sections for examples of how to do it right - Final Fantasy and Dragon Quest do it right too. Sergecross73 msg me 19:43, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Pokémon species articles

I think it is paramount that we go over some of the old articles and attempt to clean up what we can to see what may be salvaged. I've been doing edits in some, and noticed that the Reception sections become considerably smaller once you exclude content that does not really have any meaningful reception (ie, reception of their in-game value or merchandise info). - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 01:48, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Most of them can't be salvaged. They get deleted, then remade by someone who wasn't familiar with the previous deletion, and so on. Most Pokémon—no matter how recognisable they are to any given fan—aren't suitable for a standalone article. On that front, Bulbapedia does a much better job than we could ever do. It’s an incredible resource that readers are far more likely to visit for information. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 22:00, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
For me, salvaging is more about seeing if some of the borderline notable cases can be improved in any way. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 00:44, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
Less salvaging, more deleting :) TarkusABtalk/contrib 01:00, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Is this article far off from becoming Good?

Kewala's Typing Adventure is a relatively smaller article compared to my others, so it shouldn't be as difficult for me to sift through it and finesse. Just wondering about the chances of getting this up to GA?--Coin945 (talk) 03:44, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

The lead needs more info and not just be three sentences or so. GamerPro64 04:30, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
Done.--Coin945 (talk) 03:48, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Chronology templates

I have nominated all the templates in Category:Video game fictional chronology templates for deletion. The discussions are listed at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 July 2. This includes:

TarkusABtalk/contrib 09:03, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

I rather not. Editors may have different thoughts on each. TarkusABtalk/contrib 15:13, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
FWIW, of this list, Metroid's timeline is comparable to Zelda's where there is clear, secondary sourcing discussing the timeline as a whole, in contrast to the other ones which require some OR and/or SYNTH from multiple different sources (And in some cases, specific exclusions of some games based on WP editors' own rules). As such, Metroid's time is rather valid to keep, but the others definitely fail this level of inclusion. --Masem (t) 19:47, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure it still makes sense as a template, though, given that in-universe ordering is rarely that important compared to outside release order. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 19:54, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
I agree. This is something better suited for a dedicated franchise Wikia than Wikipedia. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 08:48, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Although, I agree with Contra and maybe DmC and Deus Ex, I do not agree with Metal Gear, FF7, Kingdom Hearts, Metroid timeline. Their chronology has been covered in the past by both secondary and third-party sources. I don't necessarily believe this is fancruft automatically. Longterm novels and even film series have some representation of chronology if it doesn't line up with the release. Examples are Marvel Cinematic Universe and The Witcher. And although I do believe those articles can be cleaned up, I'm just pointing out that representation of chronology is not fancruft.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 16:34, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

QPQ to keep WP:FA noms moving

Been trying to bring Ur-Quan up to FA-quality, and the nomination appears to have stalled. There's already been a source review and an image review, so it's mostly getting people to sign off on the prose. Don't mind helping people with their own projects if it frees up their bandwidth for this. I'm a pretty solid researcher and/or copy-editor. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:24, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Proposal to omit journalist names

I have proposed a change to MOS for journalist names to be omitted from prose in reception sections. Please see discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Video_games#Use_of_journalist_names TarkusABtalk/contrib 04:30, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Request for additional input on two sources

Hi everyone. Siliconera and Gamers' Republic are currently being evaluated for their reliability. Since these discussions form part of my Rockstar San Diego FAC, I would really appreciate some additional comments. Regards, IceWelder [✉] 14:20, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Maintaining older featured content

After seeing the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Unreviewed_featured_articles/2020#Thanks,_and_a_previous_effort_by_WPVG, I thought it might be worthwhile to list some updates about older featured articles for this project.

Currently at WP:FAR
  1. Shadow of the Colossus
Currently noticed at potentially needing FAR (it would be very helpful if project members could fix these outside of FAR or list them for featured article review following the instructions at WP:FAR)
  1. StarCraft (video game)
  2. Agatha Christie: Murder on the Orient Express
  3. Defense of the Ancients
Listed as URFA and marked as possibly satisfactory (if project members could read through these and note in the appropriate table section if it is viewed as satisfactory, that would be very much appreciated)
  1. 1080° Snowboarding

Thanks, Hog Farm Talk 18:49, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

  • Starcarft and DotA are both pretty important topics and high-importance to video gaming, definitely worth saving and plenty of people will be willing to help, The Agatha Christie game is a lot more niche and would need someone particularly interested to rescue it. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 12:16, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
    • I added comments from WP:URFA/2020, including some that were delisted, some noticed for FAR, and some where notes were left on the talkpage for improvement. I hope editors will take a look and help fix up these older FAs. Z1720 (talk) 23:33, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Shen Long GA Reassessment

Sheng Long, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual 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.--Whiteguru (talk) 03:47, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Notice of a discussion at Talk:Game over

Please participate in this discussion on the talk page of Game over if you can. Thank you. DesertPipeline (talk) 12:42, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

GAR closure help

Hi, I need help. The still-active GAR for Metroid Dread. It's been inactive for some little time, and there seems to be a consensus (including for the original nominator) to delist. But I've no idea how to get it done, and I almost screwed up the original GAR nomination. Could someone else handle this if possible? --ProtoDrake (talk) 18:20, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

You could try listing it at WP:CR.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 18:53, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
Although I voted to delist, I've just had a read through the discussion and there absolutely isn't consensus to delist. If this were to be closed by someone uninvolved, it would almost certainly be as no consensus. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 20:41, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Disagreement over redirect of The Key of Avalon game article

Hey,

I have been creating/rewriting articles for specific types of arcade games, including Derby Owners Club, Sega Networks Taisen Mahjong MJ, Dragon Treasure, Quest of D, World Club Champion Football. There's been no problems, except for The Key of Avalon for some reason, which has been redirected to the List of Sega arcade games by@Onel5969. Here is the article in it's previous form. The argument was that it doesn't pass WP:GNG. Frankly, I don't see it, especially in comparison to previous articles I rewrote/created. I have provided a good amount of sources I feel, with much info about development and reception. Here is also the discussion about this. OtopNr.3 (talk) 16:54, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

New Articles (June 21 to July 11)

Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements
 A listing of all articles newly added to the Video Games Wikiproject (regardless of creation date). Generated by v3.7 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 14:50, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

June 21

June 22

  • None

June 23

June 24

June 25

June 26

  • None

June 27

June 28

June 29

June 30

July 1

  • None

July 2

July 3

July 4

July 5

  • None

July 6

July 7

July 8

July 9

July 10

July 11

I had a complicated cross-country move, so we skipped a few weeks of this, but it's back with a special extra-long edition! Not listed is that the entire Book namespace was moved to a /archive subtitle, since there's no on-wiki way to actually do anything with the books and hasn't been for a few years. --PresN 14:50, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks as always for maintaining this. Even bot-assisted, I'm sure it's not trivial and it always seems like there's a new bug or two to squash. Even if no one used it (which isn't true, I certainly glance through it to see if there are glaring and obvious candidates for deletion/merge), it's a useful paper trail for new articles on the project that future editors can look through to identify failures of process if a new article tree appears and wasn't caught early. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:38, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I agree, it's really appreciated. I always find it interesting to see the various stuff that is created. It's a good way to catch both good and bad stuff. And today I learned something. I'm usually up on my memes and internet culture, but I had no idea of the origin story of Press F to pay respects. I thought that was just an internet thing. Didn't realize it came from a video game. Sergecross73 msg me 19:52, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
I also use and appreciate it. Something like this should be standard across all Wikiprojects. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:51, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Question about Requests Section

I'm not the most knowledgable on how the Requests page works, but I noticed that there are some articles that seem to have been there since 2017. Is there any sort of time limit to how long a page can be on the Requests list? Or is it just a matter of whether or not somebody is willing to make an article on that subject? (2603:6010:CF43:1000:F5B4:F009:1834:1240 (talk) 20:25, 12 July 2021 (UTC))

There's no formal rules. There's just some that have been on there for a while because they're not particularly popular and there's not really all that many people taking requests to begin with. (We have many regulars here, but many, myself included, already have no shortage of projects to do with our own personal interests, and don't really have time or interest in taking on other projects.) I think some ideas are occasionally informally removed too if they seem unlikely to ever be created, or if an editor floods it with too many requests. Sergecross73 msg me 20:50, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
I'll be real and say that most of the Requests will probably not be made into articles. It's mostly a shot in the dark hoping someone will be willing to take on the Request. There have also been issues in the past with people dumping massive lists of games on there without showing why a game merits an article. But it's better to be there than not be there because it does result in articles being made from time to time.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 22:51, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

For example, if you look at the three oldest current requests on the page:

It looks like they all should have ample enough sources to create articles for them, but people tend to be busy and no one has gotten around to creating those so far, but they may one day. 207.229.139.154 (talk) 03:03, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Honestly, while a lot of them are definitely no-gos, there's a lot of old ones t hat people simply haven't taken the time to try making work. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 09:43, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps a bit of a title change is in order - rather than "article requests", which prioritises people wanting articles created, we have "article suggestions". A place where someone can put down sourcing next to any title, without actually creating an article would be helpful, rather than just a list of obscure titles that are unlikely to ever be worked on. Article request places rarely get looked at, but if I knew that there was somewhere to just drop off notes, if I was to read a magazine and can put the info about a game in one place, that might incentivise it being created. I know BOZ does quite a bit of this, so might be interested.
More to the point with this idea, is that sometimes there is more to things than just linking to a reference, you can put information that is helpful from that source. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:58, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
I did come up with a spreadsheet based on my work on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Reference library compiling all the reviews on redlinked games from maybe a dozen magazines (so not the majority of them), mostly from the 1980s, and came up with a list of retro game articles for which I had found at least three reviews from my work on the Reference Library. I did not want to overburden WP:VGR with this since it is a long list. I included links to the Mobygames page (anything without a Mobygames page is marked with an asterisk instead), as well as a link to each review that I found (there are undoubtedly additional reviews out there for most of these):
Numerous redlinks with potential

BOZ (talk) 12:29, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

I think this really just drives the point home that the requests far out-number the people looking for projects to do... Sergecross73 msg me 13:47, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
I do want to tackle Turmoil one of these days... Roberth Martinez (talk) 22:59, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

New Articles (July 12 to July 18)

Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements
 A listing of all articles newly added to the Video Games Wikiproject (regardless of creation date). Generated by v3.7 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 14:11, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

July 12

July 13

July 14

July 15

July 16

July 17

July 18

PALGN article

I just noticed that PALGN has been deleted speedily. I was just curious if anyone had a chance to review the article and confirm it didn't meet GNG. i can't see a previous version of the article, so i can't tell.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 17:06, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Outside of one source on the page, all the refs were either to PALGN directly, or were trivial mention (eg that it was listed at Metacritic's aggregators). I think the PROD was right. --Masem (t) 17:15, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
Ok. that makes sense then. Thank you.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 17:26, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Notice of the article How They Got Game being proposed for deletion due to notability

How They Got Game, an article within the scope of this wikiproject, has been proposed for deletion, as its references do not establish the subject's notability. The article may be deleted after 14:49, 22 July 2021 (UTC). If you can, please consider looking for reliable sources which establish the subject's notability. Thank you. DesertPipeline (talk) 08:12, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Cover art: NA vs EU

There is a discussion that requires consensus on the cover art. Zxcvbnm wants to replace the current Europe cover art for the North American cover art and I do not agree there is a need. The discussion can be found here Your input is greatly appreciated.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 23:10, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Chronology of Video Game series - Question

Does the chronology of a video game series, including entries that are of a different entertainment medium (i.e. film), require a template on each article covering an entry on the series to help explain this detail to readers, or is it excessive and pure WP:FANCRUFT? Problem I have is that, while I believe the chronology of a video game series does need explaining, not only in terms of story but also on why the writers, producers, creators and developers chose to do so, I question why that detail should require a template to tell us where the game is placed in the series, when that could be defined in a Setting section for the game's plot. GUtt01 (talk) 14:16, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy link Template talk:Final Fantasy VII chronology to a prior discusson. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:19, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
Thank you, Lee. Ignoring the talk it links to, this linked template is an example of one that has led to me raising this question. Now, while I am a fan of various video game series, this being one of the titles I enjoyed years ago, I also know that I can't write down chronology from the perspective of a fan, but from a general point-of-view. Which raises the question for the need for such a template on a general encyclopaedia. If you remove any reasonings from a fan's point-of-view, what logical reasons can a general encyclopaedia have for using one? GUtt01 (talk) 14:32, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
On a game article, unless understanding that chronology is essential for understanding the plot (and this should include ties to the dev section about where the creative team wanted to go with a story), then the chronology template for a series is unnecessary on an individual game article. For example, while the overarcing chronology of Zelda is actually a subject of discussion, nearly every game is an isolated aspect of the Zelda story, and it would not be necessarily to include the timeline. --Masem (t) 14:30, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
@GUtt01: I believe having experience with these series is also a form of bias against them and you may not even know it. Knowing where they fall in the timeline by experiencing the series yourself may not necessarily find it useful to you, but could be something a first-time reader may be looking for to have any context. Series like Kingdom Hearts or Metal Gear aren't so clear. The series made up of prequels, sequels, and interquels as well can be beneficial to see the timeline. If you had zero experience with Metal Gear, would I know which came first? Metal Gear Portable Ops, or Metal Gear Acid?
I personally don't think they should be removed from every article but I do think they should be revised and be more useful to first-time editors. IMHO it may be easier for first-time readers to find the chronology of release in tandem with the story chronology. Perhaps a sortable table that allows you to toggle between the two.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 15:52, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
@Blue Pumpkin Pie: A neutral point-of-view is important to Wikipedia, whether you are bias for or not on a subject within it. Just because I am a fan of a game series and support explaining chronology, does not mean that I can support things that make no sense or add excessive arrangements that go against a general encyclopaedia. As a gamer who has played and enjoyed a series, I reflect on edits to it with a NPOV as is best for Wikipedia, therefore I would not be acting biased against or for articles on that series. GUtt01 (talk) 16:03, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
I support the proposal for a "sortable table" in the main series article, rather than the current template. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:12, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
A sortable table... hmmmm... yes, that would be a more appropriate item than the template. A good alternative, and I think BPP probably came up with a good suggestion. It would alleviate the issues with templates of this nature by providing something more efficient for readers looking into game series for the first time. GUtt01 (talk) 16:19, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
It's WP:FANCRUFT in the vast majority of cases. The only real exception I can even think of would be on the Zelda series article. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:48, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

I think these chronology tables are helpful for franchises that are 1) long-running and story-driven, and where 2) the chronological order does not match the release order. On a page like Kingdom Hearts, for example, I think the box works to quickly and effectively communicate that the franchise's story is more complex than its release order lets on, while also providing a sort of summary of the #Story. Without it, a reader who wants to figure out the order of the titles— and they very well might, when #Titles already mentions where each game falls in relation to each other— has to sort it in their head. It just seems reader-friendly to include. That said, I'm unconvinced that this needs to be a template, transcluded onto each game's page— the overarching story seems a bit less relevant for any specific game, and these templates are essentially a second navbox for the series. IMO the table should be hardcoded into the series page, a la The Legend of Zelda#Fictional chronology, which I think gives them use without getting into fancruft-y territory. — Kawnhr (talk) 16:46, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Descent series as a good topic

Now that Descent, Descent II and Descent 3 are all good articles, I am considering nominating a good topic encompassing the trilogy. However, a serious obstacle exists that may prevent it from passing. There is also an unreleased reboot bearing the trademark name, but here are considerations on why it may be ignored. First of all, that article is about an unreleased game that might eventually lose its notability, unlike Sonic X-treme. Secondly, it is not certain whether the game will be released with the Descent trademark. Worse yet, it is not certain whether it will release at all. I am stuck on how to make the right judgement, so I need others' opinions. FreeMediaKid$ 03:26, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Just because it is vaporware doesn't mean it will lose notability, but looking at the article, the sourcing is pretty weak. If you trim off the fat, you could merge to Descent (1995 video game)#Legacy, or perhaps enough sources exist out there to fix it and make a GA out of it, if you were so inclined. TarkusABtalk/contrib 03:39, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
I could not have said that first part better, that notability is not lost. I did forget to state my third consideration. It is that based on my quick online search, I doubt one would find many sources containing meaningful information on the game, and even so, the article would need to be substantially updated once the details of the gameplay, the launch of the game, and the reception all come forth. It would thus risk losing stability as it undergoes major revisionism, which is why I do not believe it can become a good article for now. Merging it into the Descent article may make sense, and I may very well end up doing that. The redirect can be reverted once (and if) the good news comes to light. FreeMediaKid$ 05:57, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
Hey all, merging the article is actually untenable since there are sufficient sources to establish notability. The merge would not stand and would likely be reverted. See also: PC Gamer article, 2nd PC Gamer article, Rock, Paper, Shotgun article. Of course, the sourcing isn't great, since no updates have been posted by the devs since last year, but it does scrape by as a standalone article, much like Mega Man Legends 3, which was also cancelled after a great deal of hoopla.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 06:22, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
  • I think you will be best off with GA-ing the newer Descent's article as well. Considering that Gameplay will be very brief and Reception almost non-existent, it will be relatively little work compared to the other articles. Other than that, I think Descent: FreeSpace – The Great War also fits within this scope and you should consider whether there should be a series article.
edit | discuss
Descent series
5 articles
Descent (1995)
Descent II
Descent 3
Descent: FreeSpace – The Great War
Descent (unreleased)
Regards, IceWelder [✉] 14:05, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
I can see the first part of your argument, but I have trouble seeing how Descent: FreeSpace relates to the series. Surely that game was developed by the same people, but it is stated that FreeSpace is not part of the Descent canon and that the game was called so simply to avoid claims of trademark infringement. Even then, should we also consider adding FreeSpace 2 to the topic? The point is that in doing so, we may as well form a topic called "Descent and FreeSpace series". FreeMediaKid$ 19:07, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
  • As a note, there is a long-standing precedent for good topics/featured topics that unreleased pieces of media do not need to be GA+, on the basis that it is impossible in almost all cases. Instead, they need to have a completed peer review with all concerns addressed, and within 3 months of the game being released they need to be brought up to GA standard (or at least nominated) or else the topic can be demoted. In this case, Descent (unreleased video game) may end up being removed, but the fact that it's not released or GA does not block the topic. --PresN 20:14, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
    • Also worth noting, if a game isn't possible to be much more than a stub, and can get consensus to that effect, then a GT can go ahead. PresN said it better though. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:44, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
      • Does this mean I am in the clear to nominate the topic? Of course, the only change I would make to the above table is to remove Descent: FreeSpace since I do not see how it is related to the Descent series besides being developed by the same people. FreeMediaKid$ 00:40, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Per WP:FTCRITERIA point 2. The topic has an introductory and summary lead article or list. In this case that would be the series article. But it appears no such article currently exists: Descent (series).  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 15:22, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, I checked all of the good topics there are, and I found that not one of them had a topic name that was not hyperlinked to an article. Based on the amount of our coverage on the series, I thought that creating a series article would be unnecessary, but I may change my mind. Is there a precedent for allowing nominated topics to pass without having a summary article that is theoretically unneeded? (EDIT: Ignoring the need to peer-review the unreleased title for now.) FreeMediaKid$ 20:27, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
There are lots of game series that don't have a series article, and it really depends on what there is to say about the series outside of the individual games and their individual histories. This could still be a good topic, and it would be sufficient to just hit the normal criteria. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:38, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
What I am thinking is that if the article were to be created, it would have an outline of the three games, a section on common gameplay elements, a coherent development history focusing on the series itself, a reception section, and a mention of the unreleased reboot. Considering the size of the series and its media coverage, the problem is I cannot determine whether the article would work as a brief summary of the series or whether it would just be a content fork. At the very least, I could speedily work on one about the unreleased title, tag it for peer review, and then get it to pass the review. I may as well go ahead and do it now. FreeMediaKid$ 03:12, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
Just to reiterate, if you're sticking with the "unreleased" tag instead of "upcoming", then the article may still be eligible for GA, in which case the topic will be ineligible until the article is promoted. This may require a separate discussion, though. – Rhain ☔ 04:52, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
I personally support maintaining the "unreleased" disambiguation. There is no telling when or if development will restart. On Kickstarters with thin margins already, stuff like this is usually the kiss of death. I would suggest attempting to get it to GA standard and considering it as cancelled unless other news comes out.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 06:51, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Considering the advice, I have decided to request a peer review. There is not much left to improve in my opinion, and a September 2020 announcement suggests that development may not quite be abandoned. Meanwhile, one can follow where the court case, Little Orbit LLC v. Descendent Studios Inc., is headed here. FreeMediaKid$ 04:12, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Re-evaluating Kotaku as a situational source

Over time, the article output from Kotaku has gotten a lot more like a blog. With articles like this now being put out that blatantly attack games and their developers, and random articles about Pokemon full of trivial facts that are being used to justify the creation of new articles, it seems hard to call the site a paragon of editorial oversight, and there is already a disclaimer on their box at WP:VG/S. In a word, they have become as clickbaity as various other sites that constantly spout out listicles. While they can still have some well-researched articles, it seems time to put them down as a Situational rather than 100% reliable source at WP:VG/S.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 21:46, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Kotaku has always been a blog. Their bread and butter is listicles and shortform editorial ("hot takes"). I think the current disclaimer "News posts after 2010 are considered reliable. Editors are cautioned of blog/geeky posts that have little news or reporting significance" is sufficient. Use them for reviews, longform editorial, and original reporting. Avoid them for listicles. I don't think anything has changed in that regard, on their end or our end. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:51, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
Why have a disclaimer if they are totally reliable? I'd say that is a contradiction. The disclaimer itself is an admittance that they are situational, and that articles that are "geeky" cannot be used to justify notability. That is the very definition of a situational source.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 22:02, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
This is a problem with video game news outlets that isn't specific to Kotaku. To get clicks, much of their content is going to be niche, and many of the headlines are going to be clickbait (although that's no difference from internet or print journalism broadly). In this instance, the article is pretty detailed in its elaboration, providing context to the history of XCOM and why this game doesn't fit that: "The XCOM games are known for their challenging tactics, roster management and bullshit shooting percentages, so it’s surprising (or really, not surprising at all) to see 2K license out a new mobile game that has absolutely none of those traits. [...] Instead, XCOM Legends has you rushing automatically from staged encounter to staged encounter, using loads of abilities that have cooldowns and earning all kinds of different in-game currency that can be spent on all kinds of gacha crap." Is it the NYT? No. But you're going to have to provide more than a single tweet here to indicate where the writing itself is sloppy. What has happened here is likely an overzealous editor looking to get clicks, but that doesn't impugn the actual writing... — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 23:06, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
I do want to say there is some weight to this discussion but it’s been started on what I consider bad grounds (twitter and a headline). The better grounds might be: can we demonstrate Kotaku's ongoing commitment to editorial oversight and fact-checking? Much of Kotaku's best talent left during the Deadspin controversy (notably journalist Jason Schreier—who went to Bloomberg News—and editor Maddy Myers, who migrated to Polygon. The onus is always on those seeking to include a source to establish that the outlet is reliable. Can we still demonstrate that? — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 23:19, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
(Also EIC Stephen Totilo to Axios early this year, now that you mention it) Alyo (chat·edits) 23:29, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Because the concept of "totally reliable" is a bit of a fiction: reliability has always been a contextual question, and even an organization that is, on-face, completely reliable will have strengths and weaknesses vis-à-vis different topic areas/journalists/times. Kotaku is largely reliable because, within the context of the WP:VG/S, their editorial policies on the news side are a cut above the situational sources. I don't see how that tweet changes anything, just like I'd disagree that one particularly aggressive movie review would make the magazine that published automatically unreliable.
N.B. it's also kinda funny that the author of the XCOM article is the same guy who wrote the "geeky" 2012 post that Kotaku's WP:VG/S entry warns about. At least he's fleshing his content out more. Alyo (chat·edits) 23:08, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
Good point. WP:RS even says as such. "Reliable" or "unreliable" are descriptors for a particular source, not a publication. Publications can be known to (reliably) produce reliable work, which is why we maintain a list of generally reliable publications to make source-searching easier, but no publication is reliable 100% of the time. Axem Titanium (talk) 01:54, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
Absolutely not in support of re-evaluating a source just because they swear in a headline (or tweaked them to be in a more informal style or whatever the "complaint" is here.) Unless there's some sort of change in their editorial policy or something more substantial, nothing has changed. Sergecross73 msg me 23:31, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
Even in the snippet of text given by ImaginesTigers, the writing is clearly sloppy and wouldn't even be accepted in a high school journalism class. "Bullshit shooting percentages" - says who, exactly? The fact that someone is aiming at an alien with 99% hit chance and misses is a meme, but that isn't any different than most other games that use randomization. There's nothing particularly "bullshit" about XCOM over other games, it's just random. "All kinds of gacha crap." immediately dismissing the game's genre as "crap", and therefore admitting a significant bias to the article, which is supposedly gaming news. While I'm not one for most gatcha games, plenty of people enjoy them and play them regularly. I personally think it's unfortunate that they made the mobile XCOM into a watered-down gatcha, but this is highly unprofessional and unedited poor journalism.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 00:47, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
I recommend making a post on WP:VG/RS, laying out your concerns with more examples. IMO, it isn't a meritless proposition—reducing it to situational—but it needs to be based on more than one writer swearing. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 01:10, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
You're going to need a lot better argument if you're going to persuade people to get a consensus. Half your argument sounds like idle gamer grumbling on the internet. The type of stuff I expect to see from someone who creates an account yesterday or something. Sergecross73 msg me 01:28, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
Agree. A Twitter headline (not even the headline that shows up on the website!) is not the "gotcha" proof that a whole site is unreliable that you think it is. Axem Titanium (talk) 01:54, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
  • They're a site that covers videogames. Sometimes that means saying that they think a videogame looks bad or is bad; WP:RSes aren't required to always be positive in tone, to say things you agree with, or to avoid swearing. If a game does, in fact, look terrible, what sources would we cite that to if we disqualified any source that said it? And, of course, for what it's worth, we don't evaluate the quality of a source's writing, either, so you're wasting your time saying that you dislike their writing. To show that they're not a WP:RS you would have to demonstrate that they lack a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy (relative to other videogame-focused publications, which is the purpose of WP:VG/RS.) None of what you're saying touches on that. "Clickbaity" and "listacles" aren't WP:RS criteria (in fact we already ignore headlines, even from the highest-quality sources, per WP:HEADLINES.) In terms of coverage from other WP:RSes, see Washington Post: Under his leadership, the site became a destination for coverage of labor and harassment issues in the gaming industry and launched the careers of a number of prominent games journalists. ... Under Totilo, Kotaku published stories that analyzed video games through critical lenses that touched upon sociopolitical issues. While many sites over the years had attempted to do this, Kotaku became the most influential and highly-trafficked. And in terms of recent WP:USEBYOTHERS, see Yahoo quoting them extensively; see also IGN. For a site focused on games journalism this is pretty solid and doesn't really reflect your description of them - do you have WP:RSes of comparable quality saying otherwise? --Aquillion (talk) 01:58, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
This is going to be a recurring problem, and not unique to Kotaku. In order to fund actual journalism, sites are going to write click-baity headlines. That means taking a popular franchise, and writing a top ten list, or an inflammatory attack. A lot of sites have written negative reviews, and I think they're realizing that the more bold they get with the language the more clicks they will get. I don't think it undermines the entire source, or even the author. It's just that an entire medium of knowledge is collapsing under its own business model. I don't agree with using this as a pretence to mark any singular source as unreliable, and I'm not sure this can be addressed as a WP:VG/RS discussion either. I think this might be a manual of style thing, where we decide how to write articles in neutral ways, and what types of topics and opinions we should exclude. I suppose I'd ask, "what's the most damage that a Wikipedia editor could do if they cited this Kotaku article"? Shooterwalker (talk) 02:31, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
To all of this above, we also have the ability on WP to recognize when a source is publishing opinion vs. fact, and when it is opinion, to keep that out of Wikivoice. That Kotaku doesn't necessarily mark their opinions as such isnt an issue when it is very clear this was meant as an opinion piece. It doesn't change the reliability of the rest of their articles, without any other evidence to question that. --Masem (t) 04:07, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
Speaking of which, Kotaku just put out well-sourced original reporting on Skull & Bones not 24 hours ago. Axem Titanium (talk) 06:59, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
Which was not really the argument. I literally said that some articles from Kotaku were well-sourced and perfectly fine to use. However, some are far less so. The poorly-written XCOM article, for example, demonstrates a total lack of research into mobile games in general, and is mostly a hit piece created to draw rage and clicks. Sure, it may be an editorial, but citing the author's uninformed opinion gives bias to the article that is unwarranted by fact. Calling it a reliable source suggests that any article can be used, which is clearly not the case. Just imagine adding a sentence to an article saying "Kotaku stated that gacha games are 'crap'" and you will immediately see why.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 07:06, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
That's really just not the case. Look at WP:VG/S. We call IGN reliable even though you can't use the WP:USERG blogs, and we call Gamespot reliable even though you can't use their release dates, which themselves are sourced to Gamefaqs. Being called reliable isn't a free pass to use a source all the time in every situation. Context still matters. It's still a generally acceptable type situation. Sergecross73 msg me 11:05, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
I think ZXCVBNM is missing the point of the review - it's not a shit gacha game. It's a shit X-Com game. That's the issue. Koncorde (talk) 15:46, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

This is a case where WP:HEADLINE applies. The headline opinion from Tweeted that "2K very quietly launches new XCOM game that looks like ****" is nowhere in the article body. Moreover differs from the actual Kotaku headline "2K Launch XCOM Game That Looks Nothing Like XCOM". Kotaku like many other sites rely on adverts and thus need to make "click baity" headlines to get enough readers to fund their website.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 15:13, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I believe Kotaku changed the article name subsequent to publishing. Koncorde (talk) 15:46, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
Indeed, the original headline read "2K Very Quietly Launches New XCOM Game That Looks Like Shit". The body is mostly unchanged. IceWelder [✉] 16:05, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
WP:HEADLINE still applies. It literally doesn't matter what the text of the headline was at any point, changed or not. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:05, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
Of course it does. I would even argue that a proper response to criticism can add to the site's professionality (within the bounds noted by other users above). IceWelder [✉] 19:28, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
  • The point here isn't this specific headline or source. It's that video game journalism has long been notorious for its low quality and yet we continue as a project to excuse blatantly unencyclopedic source material, as if a publication's reliability (read: editorial safeguards, pedigree, reputation for accuracy and fact-checking) is somehow the defining factor in whether we should cite a source. We've shown little discernment as a project, with extremely lax internal practices. As alluded in the OP, our editors roll up Reception sections from "trivial facts": veritable katamaris of listicles, spicy hot takes, clickbait trivialities, and churnalism. We're not going to stop using Kotaku, but we should be really clear, even when using our vetted sources, about the minimal discretion we want editors to use when evaluating whether a source belongs in an encyclopedia article. It's high time, as a baseline, that we adopt WP:ORGDEPTH's standards for run-of-the-mill coverage. czar 03:17, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
  • I agree, I think this is basically what I was trying to say. The standards should be high for source content, not just assuming provenance = notability.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 03:19, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Sense of community

Does anyone feel as though this WikiProject has lost a sense of community over time? I dunno, I get the impression that things are just kinda... sterile, I guess, like we come here just to have meetings and then go our separate ways. We don't even stop at the water cooler! - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 16:25, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

I think that is somewhat the general fact of WP:NOTFORUM. Unfortunately that means a lot of the elbow rubbing is offwiki. -- ferret (talk) 16:27, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, I reckon that's true. It's a shame though, back in the day I remember things being more playful. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 16:33, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict) To add on to what ferret said, the Discord has a channel for WPVG wherein we are able to chat about the things we like. That's where I've made friends on Wikipedia beyond just name recognition. If you're looking for a sense of community, that's probably where you want to be. Discussions there are often centred around editing activities and interest, of course, but there's much more leeway in "hey, I just want to talk about X with someone" in the project channels. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 17:00, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, the banter and socializing has mostly migrated to our Discord channel, leaving this here talk page more focused on actual work. It seems like a pretty good thing to me, too. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 16:35, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
There's a WP:VG Discord channel? - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 16:38, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
Well, it has a WP:VG section. Wikipedia:Discord. (Oinkers42) (talk) 16:44, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
Personally, I think this is happening on other projects, not just WP:VG. I still think the comradery is still there, but you'll see it more in user talkpages.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 20:13, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
Reiterating above, we aren't reddit or a forum. I tend to communicate on a more friendly manner on user pages, or offwiki, which is I think where a lot of this has moved too. I would argue that's a good thing. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:23, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
I still feel the camaraderie, and I see it in the quality of work that this WikiProject does. Mind you I did take a long break in the middle and maybe it's more noticeable if you've been here the whole tine. One thing I noticed is that people haven't been using WP:BARNSTARs as much. A small gesture goes a long way. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:51, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, if you saw how (in)active most other Wikiprojects are, you might not have had that thought. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 07:17, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

New Articles (July 19 to July 25)

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 v3.7 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 12:27, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

July 19

July 20

July 21

July 22

  • None

July 23

July 24

July 25

I just wanted to mention that Doodle Champion Island Games, tagged on the 24th, is missing. (Oinkers42) (talk) 14:38, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, looks like the double-move confused the 1.0 bot, so it listed the move from Champion Island Games to Doodle CIG, but not the original move out of draft space. Now added to the 23rd. --PresN 17:19, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
I wrote and undid a redirect for Deliver Us the Moon a while back, but I don't think it ever showed up on the feed. Haleth (talk) 18:17, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Please review my DYK nom for Typequick

Hi! Please can I request that a member of WP:VG reviews the article Typequick for DYK?

A review has been started by RoySmith in which they stated three minor points and failed the DYK, and after addressing them one by one they have chosen against continuing their review.

Addressing RoySmith's three points:

  1. The reviewer's suggestion of plagarism is countered by Earwig's Copyvio Detector report of "Violation Unlikely 7.4% similarity".
  2. An image mentioned by the reviewer (which was in Wikimedia Commons) has been switched for one available under the Creative Commons CC0 1.0.
  3. The reviewer's claim of bias is contrary to the article being written in a neutral encyclopedic tone and fully sourced. (The literature leans towards positive coverage which is proportionally represented in the Critical Reception section).

I would appreciate a second opinion from someone within this Wikiproject.

Thank you kindly, --Coin945 (talk) 18:23, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Notification of move discussion at Gaming computer

An editor has requested for Gaming computer to be moved to Gaming PC. Since you had some involvement with Gaming computer, you might want to participate in the move discussion (if you have not already done so). SkyWarrior 02:50, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Can anyone find any sources for 1953: NATO vs Warsaw Pact?

I started something at User:Piotrus/Draft:1953: NATO vs Warsaw Pact but I couldn't find a single review, I guess it is not notable? I also checked Polish language sources (since the developer is Polish). I thought that the theme would generate at least a bit of buzz/reviews among wargamers, but I guess I was wrong...? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:10, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

According to Steam, the game is still considered Early Access, so you're unlikely to find any full reviews. Judging by the phrasing ("should be ready in roughly couple months")—and the fact that the description hasn't changed since at least 2017—I don't think a final release is ever going to come. – Rhain ☔ 03:32, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Review still needed for Soma Games

Hi there! A while back I created a page for the indie company Soma Games. Red Phoenix suggested that I should bring the article up here on the Project to have people look at it and give feedback so that it's not all written by one person and to ensure we clean up any traces of inccorect tone or Peacock words. I highly recommend reading through the article's Talk page before reading the article so you can get an understanding for the context that the article was written in and not accidentally assume bad faith :)

Over a full year has passed without anyone organically finding the article to read it over (and only a single response to my two previous requests to review it), so that is why I'm bringing attention to it here on the Project page again to make sure the article can be totally shaped up to align with all of Wikipedia's standards! I just want to emphasize one more time not to mistake accidental ignorance for intentional promotion or to interpret it as intentional disregard for article rules but rather to assume good faith about everything that was written.

Thanks so much everyone! Emitewiki2 (talk) 20:02, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Help finding Game Informer Issue 229 (May 2012)

I need to get this magazine so I can cite page numbers, authors, and other details, as well as verify some information. Would anyone be able to help? - Whadup, it's ya girl, Dusa (talk) 05:02, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

@MsDusa, try contacting the editors in Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Reference library/Game Informer, if you haven't already czar 06:03, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
Oh right, I forgot that was a thing. Thanks! - Whadup, it's ya girl, Dusa (talk) 06:04, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
And if you don't have any luck there, Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request is often helpful. BOZ (talk) 10:14, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

IP editor problem

Hi, I've come across an unpleasant situation. I casually revisited the page for Vanillaware's simulation title Kumatanchi, and found that an IP editor 88.7.248.121 has been consistently adding in untrue/unsourced information on this page, and also on pages for its publisher Dimple Entertainment and Hasbro. Their argument appears to be that Hasbro was involved in production and super-duper-really released the title overseas and that it's an educational game not...what it actually is. I left a message on their talk page, and it's had no effect at all. I've put in a page protection request for the Kumatanchi page, but I'm now being drawn into the territory of edit warring, and have little experience regarding this kind of vandalism. Help would be appreciated, if this situation can get any help at all. --ProtoDrake (talk) 10:42, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Update, the IP editor has possibly created an editor account, Protect1835. --ProtoDrake (talk) 11:02, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
I warned them about edit warring for now, if they keep this up without discussing it on a talk page they are at risk for getting a block. It's on them to prove the value of their edits; considering they don't have any sources, you're definitely in the right on reverting their edits. Also I just noticed they have made an account named Protect1835, I have reverted their last edit and asked for a source.--Megaman en m (talk) 11:03, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Opinions on merging article

I was looking to do some improvements on the sad and sorry state of Crazy Taxi: Fare Wars, but I realized that it's unclear if the game should have its own page. While it's standalone notable and has some development information, it's also literally a compilation of two previous games with no changes. The only addition is multiplayer. I am looking for opinions on whether it merits a permanent merge into its section in Crazy Taxi before I spend time improving an unnecessary article. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 11:12, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

I waver on whether or not we need separate articles for re-releases like these, but this doesn't strike me as particularly bad. I mean it's obviously not a GA or anything, but it's a pretty average looking start class article. Sergecross73 msg me 14:37, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
Actually after I improved it, it's definitely C-Class now, I just didn't bother to reassess it yet because it's still undergoing improvement. I think if it didn't have the additional multiplayer element, I probably would say it's better off merged, but that at least gives some differentiation. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 22:10, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Over the last days user Haleth has reassessed the importance of many video games and video games related articles (other topics too but in minor part). He claims he did well, but I think most of these reassessments are wrong (Fallout 3, Mass Effect, as examples), albeit made in good faith, as they give games or other related articles an importance they don't have. I think he is misinterpreting criteria of importance or what critics say about those games. He implied he is using the list of video games considered the best to support his edits to importance (as they are "the best", he thinks they all deserve an high-importance valuation).

Since he seem willing to go on, I think more users should comment and express their point of view on these edits the user made and how he is making them. Lone Internaut (talk) 12:28, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree that a game considered "the best" usually only corresponds to "Mid" importance - "widely commercially acclaimed". "High" importance is usually reserved for games that had a massive impact on the industry. It would be hard to say in any measure that a vast amount of games have copied or been influenced by Fallout 3, although it was a commercial success.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 12:34, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
I dont tend to put much emphasis on this stuff, but if it's already being discussed, I didn't particularly agree with lowering the importance of Mario. If that's truly in line with how things are supposed to be done as Haleth states, I imagine it needs to be reworked. Mario is one of the most iconic things in the history of the industry. Sergecross73 msg me 12:35, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
The importance scale is a bit hit and miss anyway, as people have different meanings in terms of "importance". My thoughts are that the top level importance articles are those that are fundemental to the understanding of the concept, so video game, video game console, history of video games etc. High class are for culturally hard hitting items, so Pac Man, Pong, Space Invaders etc. but maybe concepts like esports and video game publisher. And so mid level are games that are fundementally more relevant to the wider public, or games (or games series), so Earthworm Jim, Mass Effect 3 or Zelda II: The Adventure of Link
I think the issue is that it's vague. Are Final Fantasy VII, Second life and Talk:E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (video game) mid or high level games? Does a game with a large fanbase mean that they automatically skip up to Mid class? Is Mario (franchise) so big that it would be a top level item, despite not needing to know what it is to understand video games? I don't have the answers, but this is how I view these importance levels. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:54, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
It seems clear to me, that a shared position is emerging that sees this recent edits as problematic, especially in differentiating between high and medium importance. It's pretty clear nor Fallout 3 nor Mass Effect (1) are high importance video games. Also, at the moment, we have (both edits by Haleth) Ellie (The Last of Us) as high as Mario (on the same level of importance). This leaves me seriously perplexed. Lone Internaut (talk) 13:08, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
Ellie would also seem to fulfill the "Mid" criteria (Well known [...] characters [...] typically appearing as the primary protagonist [...] in a long-running game series), but would certainly not qualify as a "cultural icon" or be widely recognizable even to non gamers. That said, Haleth is right about Mario, since characters cannot be "Top" importance in the current criteria.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 13:13, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
This is a good way to think about it: "High" level games/characters should be those that easily surpass the realm of just video games and are well established in the larger culture works (with some give or take). Now, maybe with the upcoming TLOU show, Elle might be inserted more but I agree right now, her importance is pretty much limited to the VG industry as a whole and thus would only qualify as "mid" at this point. --Masem (t) 13:20, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, I mean I am not really questioning our system of criteria (if Mario can't be "top", it can't), but whether Haleth's way of reassessing respects those criterias. Clearly Ellie is not as important as Mario. Lone Internaut (talk) 13:22, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

So looking at the existing list of "High" importance and there's a lot of duplication of character, series, individual entries in series (such as Donkey Kong). For me it seems clear that while Donkey Kong has transcended his initial appearances - I don't think that means high importance is conferred to all his games. This is the same sort of logic I would apply to Assassins Creed for instance. The series of games are probably highly significant, and the open world free roam traverse mechanics were somewhat revolutionary, but the individual games are largely mid level importance as generically successful games and the characters are popular figures but also generic - Ezio maybe alone meeting the threshold for greater consideration. I would apply this to FIFA and Madden for similar reasons whose seasonal iterations all but ensure their importance is transient beyond large generational changes. In contrast a series such as Metal Gear, Witcher, Dragon Age, or Mass Effect (for me), as continuous story arcs may just support the underlying games each as being individually "High" because (as Masem suggests) their influence outside the medium and longevity. Koncorde (talk) 15:38, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Lone Internaut, I suggest you don't get ahead of yourself with the aspersions you are casting of me. Zxcvbnm simply gave a view that Fallout 3 probably isn't influential enough to be rated "high importance", and it's fine for us to publicly debate the merits of that claim with sources to back it up, and if there's consensus, to reassess it back to mid-importance. Sergecross73 disagreed with my decision to reassess Mario as just "high", but he did note that the real issue may well lie with how the criteria was written to begin with, and other editors also agree that the current assessment criteria does not make allowances for video game characters to be rated as "top" importance and hence what I did is clearly in line within the guidelines. Lee Vilenski hit the nail on the head and identified the issue for what it is: that assessments of such nature are highly subjective, and the criteria rather vague. There is no "shared position is emerging that sees this recent edits as problematic", so don't use weasel words to suggest that other editors share your opinion that my edits are somehow disruptive or problematic.
As for individual topics which are mentioned by other editors, since my reassessments are being scrutinized, I'll summarize in point form.
  • What sources can we fall back on to measure games that have "a massive impact on the industry", other then "best of" or "top" lists published by reliable sources? How do we measure, divorced from our own perspectives and biases, what is objectively well known outside of the video game industry, keeping in mind cultural, linguistic, and nationalistic boundaries, and what is only known within the video game industry but still highly popular? If we simply decide stuff that is massive impactful based on our personal judgment without consideration of sources that could support that, it's just original research. It is a logical conclusion in my opinion that a list curated from a broad range of reliable sources to identify games which are considered the best in the industry can imply a reasonable measure of importance by their influence or impact in the video game industry, since subsequent developers may quite likely be inspired by said games for their projects. If I am coming across as being too certain of my opinions, I actually am not: I asked for an objective, uninvolved opinion on the talk page of that list article, but no response so far.
  • In reality, I disliked Fallout 3, but I cannot deny the fact that its release marked a major turning point for the Fallout franchise both critically and commercially, and I would say it was almost as influential as Skyrim was in propagating the Bethesda style of open world game design as an ideal throughout the 2010's. The sources which list Fallout 3 as one of the best video games of all time seem to support that notion. Fallout 4 is overall more commercially successful then Fallout 3, but that is simply coming off the reins of the template it had already established. Fallout 4 is adequately assessed as mid-importance since it is not as widely acclaimed as its predecessors nor is it as influential in redefining the IP's basic tenets like Fallout 3.
  • Ellie has been covered by LGBT-centric media which do not usually cover video games, for obvious reasons. At least three sources have called her "iconic" or a "lesbian icon": Pinknews via Yahoo,Shacknews, and Out.com. There's also various "top character" lists which include both Mario and Ellie by eminently reliable sources, but I won't list them. Feel free to disagree with their POV, but it is still WP:RSOPINION within the context of broad coverage and WP:NPOV, and the assertion that the character isn't well known outside of the dedicated video game fanbase does not hold water when examples like the aforementioned sources are taken into consideration.
  • "As important as Mario" is an other stuff exists argument. Mario is objectively important for Japanese pop culture and Nintendo's sphere of influence in video games, which I should point out from a long view perspective, it is no longer of pre-eminent dominance like back in the late-1980s and 1990s. Ellie is objectively important from the perspective of feminist or queer themes and representation in fiction, because of the sources that exist, which demonstrate that her importance goes beyond simply having a substantial video game fanbase. I believe the character has already reached that point in pop culture and it is no longer a "wait and see how the TV series perform" situation. I absolutely agree 100% that "Mario is one of the most iconic things in the history of the industry" on a personal level, so if there's an allowance for top-importance criteria for characters, Mario should absolutely be assessed as such, and Ellie certainly does not belong in that category. But again, that is unless and until the Wikiproject form a consensus to change that.
  • The practical purpose of assessing importance for Wikipedia articles is to indicate to other editors what vital or essential articles are from the perspective of the Wikiproject, and ongoing maintenance of articles which have been assessed GA or FA is important. I note that Mario was assessed as a "top importance" article and a level 4 vital article in art for a number of years now. That said, I have yet to see any real effort to get the article to GA-class in a decade, which is rather confounding as it is not a BLP or contentious topic. Perhaps the implication there is that either the assessment of importance does not actually do anything substantial to promote essential articles to a level of quality that they should be, or that the majority of Wikipedia editors do not actually believe Mario is as important as the conventional belief held by the Wikiproject.
  • I concur and second everything Koncorde said.
As Vilenski noted, we certainly can and should have a project wide discussion about how to assess and whether the assessment criteria itself should be revisited and amended. But Lone Internaut, your singling out of my edits here as the problem or the source is not only blowing the issue out of proportion in terms of importance, it's also a form of personal attack and I've asked you to stop on my talk page. Haleth (talk) 19:43, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
Off-topic dispute between two editors
I do not think the fact I am discussing (we are discussing) your way of changing importance to articles is "out of proportion in terms of importance". And of course it has nothing to do with personal attacks. You're not in the condition of asking me to stop and you are creating an unnecessary ad hominem adversarial situation and taking things personally. It looks like you're trying to divert the talk to not relevant matters. Of course, I disagree with most of what you wrote on the comment. It seems clear that serious doubts (directly or indirectly) are emerging from this discussion about how you interpret the criteria of importance and how you interpret the words of criticism when it comes to these articles, last comment by Koncorde included which broadly follows Masem's previous opinion. Interesting to see that you concur with that. The fact that some of these criteria may be subject to subjectivity does not mean that other users will be watching doing nothing as you change the importance based on your own individual thought. Technically this would already be enough to undo many of your edits in this regard. Lone Internaut (talk) 00:04, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
What this really is about, is that you involved yourself in a content dispute with me, and instead of trying to understand where I am coming from and whether flaws with the assessment criteria itself is the underlying issue, you started your line of attack on my talk page and then started a thread here to scrutinize my edits when I told you to stop. At no point did you attempt to have a civil discussion asking me to explain the rationale behind the edits. So maybe it is you who is "creating an unnecessary ad hominem adversarial situation" as you are clearly looking for an excuse and tacit approval from other editors, no matter how vague, to justify your position and undermine my editing work. I'd call that a vendetta. Stop trying to speak for others in the community, like your attempt to twist what I said (I did not imply, I specifically said I was relying on the list article) or trying to link isolated statements from Masem and Koncorde into some kind of imagined consensus on my editing pattern while disregarding that Koncorde actually approved of some of my individual reassessments (i.e. Ezio, Mass Effect). Editors can address me directly if an edit I made is indeed out of touch with consensus or guidelines, or if it is simply something they disagree with i.e. Sergecross. Disagreeing with an individual editorial decision is not the same as considering a pattern of edits “problematic”, "disruptive", or something worth challenging. All I see here from the rough consensus is that the broad merits of the assessment criteria is worth discussing or revisiting, and I am happy to share the rationale behind my edits as part of the discussion; if consensus suggest otherwise, self-reverting on some of them is always an option. Haleth (talk) 02:29, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
I don't need to take any vendetta on you. The adversarial posture in which you place yourself seems to leave little room for a user-to-user talk and in this case the problem is brought to the entire Project. I wrote in your talk with the best of intentions, there was no line of attack. I do not consider "where you're coming from" as a valid point and I don't think the problem is within the criteria system but in your reassessments and the reasons behind them. On my second comment you began to threaten me and see me as an enemy (speaking of "line of attack"). You did it all by yourself. Like, really, why such aggressive attitude? It's just useless. I really suggest you to calm down. Believe or not there is nothing personal, don't take stuff personally, accept the criticism and go on. Lone Internaut (talk) 07:19, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
I think this discussion just gotta generally cool off. I don't know if anyone is expressing any animosity, I think that intent and tone is just hard to convey over text. - Whadup, it's ya girl, Dusa (talk) 02:27, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
I've taken the initiative to hat-note this digression, which has veered off-topic and distracts from the actual discussion. While I disagree with many of Haleth's judgements (and, to be clear, that is what assessments essentially are), Lone Internaut's persistent need to address Haleth by name instead of highlighting the edits themselves is fairly egregious. Perhaps you have been bristled by these changes, but it is absolutely no reason to single out one editor. None of this is damaging Wikipedia. It’s a dispute about an internal system of categorisation for editors and nothing else. Keep the focus squarely on the edits and not the editor unless there is something demonstrably wrong with the editor. In this case, there is not; this is a routine disagreement. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 03:00, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
Given the high number of edits (dozens and dozens, I mentioned a couple) it made more sense to address user Haleth directly so that everyone could consult his history and see the reassessments he made. There is nothing more to this. Lone Internaut (talk) 07:19, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Multiple editors have indicated, directly or indirectly, that there is nothing manifestly problematic with my edits as alleged by you, with Imaginetigers calling out your own behaviour to be particularly problematic. I see here that you are constantly trying to perpetuate this dispute by sticking to an allegation or viewpoint well after the consensus of the community has decided that moving on to another aspect of the issue would be more productive. I advise you to cease being disruptive and drop the stick. If you still intend to continue with this discussion, focus on the broader aspect of the discussion initiated by Koncorde, which has nothing to do with whether my edits are problematic or otherwise, but about how the community as a whole should interpret the assessment criteria and/or whether we even need to place any weight on them to begin with. Haleth (talk) 08:20, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
The discussion is still open and there may soon be a revision of your edits (as happened to Ellie article), because yes, looks like they are indeed problematic. ImaginesTigers clearly misunderstood my addressing directly to you as a user and I explained. Don't act like it didn't happened. Why you keep having this ad hominem aggressive attitude by dispensing advice that you could turn to yourself? Wiki articles are useless if there is no ground to bring them up and bringing them up at random only shows no knowledge in how they must be used. Stop hating me, don't threat me, stop that. Or maybe you should just... let it go. Lone Internaut (talk) 08:40, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
This particular discussion has been hatnoted, which means no one else is interested or should be interested in your vendetta. I have already stopped leaving comments after ImaginesTigers intervened and other editors took the discussion about talk page reassessments in a different, far more productive direction. It appears you are the one trying to have the last word here, and not once have you acknowledged the actual criticism for your own behavior, which has been called out as egregious. The emerging consensus is clear that there is no reason why a conflict should be instigated, by you I should emphasize, over assessment article importance, and that the nature of such assessments are highly subjective in nature. No one else in this discussion is supporting your stance of scrutinizing my patterns of edits, and there is a fundamental difference between that and simply disagreeing with another editor's individual judgment. And somehow, you clearly said you are holding out hope that the community will eventually turn around and support your position about my competence as an editor. Is that not a vendetta, then? Since you have clearly admitted that you have hounded my edits to find evidence of "problematic edits" without due cause or community support, here is my final warning to you: back off and leave me alone, before I consider escalating further action to scrutinize your incivil behaviour. Haleth (talk) 08:50, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
There is talk about reviewing your reassessments below, opened by ImaginesTigers (Ellie was the first one, other will come probably) not in this hatnoted discussion (which has been hatnoted after this comment of yours, anyway). Don't pretend you haven't noticed. Also I just looked into your history, not hounded your edits. I have admitted nothing, stop coming up at random with these Wiki articles as you like which have nothing to do with what is happening, stop accusing me of vendettas that don't exist and stop with these unnecessary threats and warnings, especially in the Project's talk. Lone Internaut (talk) 09:47, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
I think I am just going to nope out of this discussion, as you clearly feel the need to be validated as "correct" or "right" by the participants of this discussion. @ImaginesTigers:, just for what it's worth, is Lone Internaut correctly describing your position, or taking what you said out of context? Haleth (talk) 10:04, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
On Wikipedia most of things need to be validated as correct or not. Why are you asking it here, anyway? This is an "Off-topic dispute between two editors" hotnoted discussion. Ask and nope out below where he said he "will soon" (if you need to ask). He asked which ones (reassessments) are objectionable and proposed to discuss about those. Of course, I will take part in these future discussions with great energy. Lone Internaut (talk) 10:17, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
I don't have time to weigh in on these changes but will soon. I think many of these should be taken on a case-by-casis basis. I've adjusted Ellie to mid-level significance. As for the others, it might be more appropriate to lay out which in particular are objectionable and, if they are, have discussions about each on their respective Talk pages. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 03:00, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
@ImaginesTigers: I would say, the problematic reassessments are Fallout 3, Mass Effect 1 and 2, Dragon Age, Dead Space, many Overwatch characters and some others. Thanks for taking care of Ellie. Lone Internaut (talk) 07:19, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Wasn't going to bring it up, but we're here. I reckon Doomguy might warrant a second opinion, if anyone cares or deems it relevant. Haleth (talk) 13:30, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
I would supprt ImaginesTigers by adding that none of these ratings have any "main page" role, as far as I'm aware. They are strictly an internal measure for editors. And even there, I don't think it offers much guidance. Because we're gonna edit what we feel like editing. Scratch hard enough and I'll tell you that most stuff is rated as too important, and the only truly important articles are for broad topics like first-person shooters or dialogue trees. But considering what little impact these ratings have on anything, it's not worth any amount of conflict. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:08, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Quick look at some of the listed "High" importance articles

I agree with the above by Shooterwalker, this shouldn't be a conflict issue. But we should look at how we are rating games importance because it does drive focus, and it is meant to be revealing the significance to the community for achieving higher standards. However... it does feel a little bit like successful series, particularly popular ones, get in because of the brand name and not because they actually achieve whatever "lasting impact" is meant to be.

  • Current definition of High: "Series and games that have been shown to have a lasting impact on a genre, culture or the industry itself; typically a few years are needed to assess this impact. (e.g., Pokémon, Final Fantasy, The Bard's Tale, Super Mario 64, Tetris, Metroid, Minecraft)"
  • Current definition of Mid: "Achieved wide commercial success, critically acclaimed or had wide sub-culture effect outside of their country of origin (e.g., Uncharted 2: Among Thieves, Alone in the Dark, Gears of War series, BioShock, Super Meat Boy)"

Examples of games tagged as High and my thoughts (not comprehensive, just initial feelings):

  • Animal Crossing game series: There is no denying the impact of the initial game. However we have also tagged as Animal Crossing: New Horizons which is just an evolution, has been around for a year? How can it have had "lasting impact"?
  • Anno 1602: no significance from what I can see.
  • Assassins Creed series and Assassins Creed 2: So while the argument for the series is pretty solid; all but defining open world climby stabby games, the second game carries almost no weight beyond commercial success and critical success that embeds it firmly in the "Mid" tier by our definitions.
  • Call of Duty, Call of Duty 4 MW, Modern Warfare 2, Black Ops: Series, again makes sense. CoD like Medal of Honor all but standardised every single mechanical trope of modern shooters into a series of annual product releases. However individual games, while maybe having some success, have hardly changed gaming for all time. COD4 you could say was something of a tonal shift because of the modern setting. It immediately inspired dozens of copy-cats. But MW2, aside from the first mission, did what? And Black Ops? It appears to have been again added for commercial success.
  • Halo, Halo 2, Halo 3, Franchise, Combat Evolved: I am going to be a bit of a dick here and say the franchise itself makes sense. The character of Master Chief makes sense. Cortana almost certainly should be similarly (given she ended up the name of the Windows App) - but the individual games themselves after the first don't do much (which seems to be a running theme).
  • Pokémon, Pokémon (video game series), Pokémon Gold and Silver, Pokémon Red and Blue, Pokémon Ruby and Sapphire: another instance of the series and initial game being super influential - but everything after that just being iterative until Pokemon Go (which isn't a High for some reason, possibly time related, despite becoming the poster child of augmented reality type games?).
  • Tekken (series), Tekken 1, 2, 3: Hmm.
  • Tony Hawk's (series), Tony Hawk's Pro Skater (video game), 2, 3: Did 2 or 3 really do anything?

Obviously I have cherry picked a few here, because I would like to know what it is that has been defined as "lasting impact" of Halo 3 or Tony Hawk 2 (as examples) so that we can better translate that into criteria for inclusion. Koncorde (talk) 12:37, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Ehh, I think this is going too deep. It's just a rough indicator of general importance. Readers don't see it, and most editors don't reference it anyways. Games are "important" for different reasons, and everyone will have different opinions. I disagree with your assessment on at least half of those. TarkusABtalk/contrib 13:14, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
Indeed. It's literally just a way to catalogue articles for the wikiproject, and that is it. We could as a community decide we don't need the importance scale at all, and move on.... Nothing would change. I disagree that we should take what sourcing into account - more that we need rough categories for what are articles that we feel are top for the project. However, remember, if your favourite article is low, that doesn't make any real difference (like at all). Earlier I mentioned that I feel like History of video games is likely a top class article - does that mean we need to all improve that article? No, we can all edit whatever articles we like. I'm clearly going to go ahead and work on Hogs of war instead. I'd argue the scale is important... And I'd rather we killed it off completely than argue about it. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:21, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
The ultimate goal of the assessment is to help provide guidance to wikiproject editors, looking for something to work on, articles that the project considers of higher priority but have lower quality ratings (B, C, or less) We have chosen generally to try to avoid considering too much of what importance has been placed on a game within the industry and instead more what outside the industry would see as significantly important, as we are a general encyclopedia. It's just a matter of recognizing this when doing the importance assessment, and generally why it wasn't a good idea to take the top rated games and claim they all should be "high" as not all top rated games are necessary important to the industry. But as Lee says, this is not a system that is enforced in any way on editors, they are free to do what they want, as any improvement is good. Its just that we do want to be careful in that assessment. --Masem (t) 14:11, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
@Tarkus, I am not sure how it can be too deep to ask how we are using the system that is in place for 7 or 8 examples series. Someone took the effort to tag them as important to the project: shouldn't we want to see and know why?
Meanwhile if the point is you disagree with half of my comments - that clearly means the criteria don't work anyway.
@LeeVilenski, I am not sure how we can argue a game or series is "top for our project" if we don't know why certain games or series are "top for our project" or why we then even care what is "top for our project"? I am neither arguing for nor against the system: but if someone somewhere is trying to make something of the system - shouldn't we understand why?
@Masem, I entirely agree. So what end is it achieving? Koncorde (talk) 15:29, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
  • My personal view is that 'Importance ratings' are both highly subjective and infrequently used by editors. I think that a more valuable tool to find great projects to work on is by analysing the most-viewed articles with the poorest class - Stub, Start, C. (Ignoring spikes due to recent events). If the culture is flocking to these articles, whether we like it or not, they are the most culturally significant or 'most important' to our Wikipedia:Readers, who collectively make decisions about our trustworthiness, comprehensiveness, and usefulness based on what they find. Yet, what they find isn't the best representation of what we can do. It would be pretty cool if there was a bot to output such a list automatically. To me this conversation seems like the very definition of beaucracy - a lengthy discussion on how to implement more complicated rules for how to do something that rarely ever gets updated or used in the first place.--Coin945 (talk) 15:54, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
In my case the argument is the opposite of bureaucracy - I am asking the project what are their rules for. The "rules" aren't being followed as understood or described, or infrequently, and so on, repeatedly people say it is subjective etc, and claim it isn't used. So what are we doing with it if the majority either don't care, nor think it is relevant? Koncorde (talk) 16:04, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
Probably, for the importance assessment criteria, some users have exaggerated in that respect (me included, sometimes). There may be some "subjectivity" but it's not really that much. In the case that I have brought here, it seems obvious to me an excess of subjectivity in the importance reassessments. I believe these "rules" are much less subjective than what is believed. And I think the argument is relevant; this also comes from personal experience: I have seen experienced users making a fuss about the accuracy of importance assessment for the Project's articles in the past. But it seems that some do not think the same way, others a little yes a little no. Lone Internaut (talk) 07:41, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
  • In that case, should the project decide to adjust the purpose of the importance assessment criteria by a metric which measures the article's page views against its assessed article quality then, or does that overlap with the vital articles assessment which is its own thing as well? Or perhaps depreciate the importance grading as proposed by Lee Vilenski (which I do support), since it appears to have little effect in driving content quality for articles deemed to have various degrees of out-of-industry relevance or importance? Haleth (talk) 08:31, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
  • The main issue with simply using the amount of views, is that the article could be important for another reason. I'd argue someone like Xavier Woods should really have a VG tab on their page, due to having a gaming show, but they would get most of their views because of being a professional wrestler. I do think the importance scales should be a "whatever" trademark, not worth arguing about, just that it may give someone looking for low-status high-importance articles something to look for. In other projects I sometimes use these lists to look for C and B class articles that are reasonably important to pass through GA, so it does have some merit - I'd just rather not have it than argue over inclusion criteria. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:52, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment / suggestion. I mentioned this before a few years ago on the VG talk page but didn't get much agreement, but there's an easy solution to all this - deprecate the Importance criteria entirely. I agree that Fallout 3 is probably mid-importance not high-importance, but it doesn't actually matter, and time spent arguing about it is time that could be spent in more productive ways. WP:MILHIST is one of the most active and successful wikiprojects, and they smartly deflected all the heat from "importance" rankings by simply not doing any. They're not needed. The very, very minor benefit they offer - that some curious editor who is interested in all video game topics equally but wants to hunt down some high-importance articles with low quality ratings to clean up - can easily be replicated with article alerts, Wikiproject drives, lists, etc. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Sports/Archive_10#Proposal:_Deprecate_importance_parameter_for_assessment_for_Sports for a semi-recent example of a Wikiproject deprecating importance ratings entirely after a big argument about the importance of a few articles that went nowhere. SnowFire (talk) 04:14, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
    I agree with this. It's a subjective relic from a decade ago and has no real place or purpose nowadays. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 09:22, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
    I disagree strongly. Frankly, I like the idea of having a metric by which importance is ranked and I see little benefit to removing it. It's inevitably going to encounter disputes, but what doesn't? The idea that importance could be controversial is not a very strong justification for removing it.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 09:28, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
    Sure, if Importance was useful in the first place, then it'd be worth the effort from the minor controversy or talk page edit war every so often. I'm saying it's not useful, so even a small maintenance cost is too high to pay. SnowFire (talk) 16:02, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
    I agree with deprecating it. It's a waste of energy and we'd be taking our cues from some of the most effective WikiProjects. (If someone were interested in an alternative, I would recommend creating some task forces or some projects around important subject areas. For example, core gameplay terminology. But this is give editors a sublist of important articles to improve, and not to exhaustively rank our articles on a 4-tier scale.) Shooterwalker (talk) 14:47, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
    • Make this into an RFC so I can support it? This parameter only amounts to wasted energy and begs the question of "high importance" for whom? If it's about the moribund WP:1.0 project, then we already have WP:VITAL4 and WP:VITAL5 to delineate the actual "highest" priorities for a general encyclopedia. Below that, our distinction between mid- and low-importance articles is purely a thought exercise and has no bearing on any aspect of why we're here. czar 03:26, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Upon further reflection, I would support any effort to deprecate it. What I thought is an uncontroversial method of categorizing articles for priority maintenance, taking cue from the topic's coverage by reliable sources, is somehow turned into a point of contention and a massive time wasting exercise over subjective importance, which benefits absolutely no one. If nothing else, I can see an emerging consensus in favor of that direction for this Wikiproject. Haleth (talk) 16:21, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

New Articles (July 26 to August 1)

Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements
 A listing of all articles newly added to the Video Games Wikiproject (regardless of creation date). Generated by v3.8 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 15:27, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

July 26

July 27

July 28

July 29

July 30

July 31

August 1

  • None
  • I've put List of EA Play games up for AFD on past basis of these storefront lists being NOTCATALOG, AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of EA Play games. --Masem (t) 15:35, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
  • I almost hate to bring it up, as we're all tired of the fictional character merger/deletion discussions, but the Villager (Animal Crossing) article is pretty flimsy. There a lot there, but a lot of it is actually just describing Animal Crossing gameplay, and list every passing mention and listicle entry... Sergecross73 msg me 17:52, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
    • I wonder if there are more sources to do with Villager's status as a meme. - Whadup, it's ya girl, Dusa (talk) 21:13, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
      • There is certainly scope to cover the "villager trading" aspect popularized by New Horizons; this is supported by in-depth sources such as VG/247 and Polygon. I certainly can see this topic being written in a manner patterned after Mii due to their similar attributes as customizable avatars with specific quirks, someone with subject matter familiarity should just expand the article as there really isn't an issue with notability. Haleth (talk) 12:49, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
        • Indeed, that's why I didn't take any actions with redirecting or nominating. There's probably a notable article here, it just doesn't illustrate it very well, right now, as is. Sergecross73 msg me 13:18, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
          • I think the notable article would be Gameplay of Animal Crossing, or better yet just Animal Crossing#Gameplay. The notable things Haleth mentioned (avatar customization, character trades) are Animal Crossing gameplay mechanics, and have little to do with the Villager itself. There are even more gameplay mechanics (home design, museum, fishing, pattern design, etc.) that are common across all the games and would make more sense covered in a central place. And just to clear something up, the sources Haleth mentioned are discussing the exchange of town villagers (animal NPCs) between players. The article Villager (Animal Crossing) is about the Villager, the human player character. Those characters cannot be traded. TarkusABtalk/contrib 13:25, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
            • I think it is splitting hairs to say that the stuff I mentioned have little to do with the concept of the article's subject, because anything that takes place within a video game is essentially a gameplay element, the topic of the discussion included. If there is sufficient commentary specifically about the topic, broadly or otherwise, I don't see why it cannot be discussed in its own article. I admit that I don't follow the series, but I am under the impression that the core gameplay loop of the series, before New Horizons anyway, always involve recurring interactions between player character villagers and non-player character villagers as well as their environment in a persistent world. I don't believe the activity of trading within the "black market" driven by entities like Nookazon actually count as a gameplay mechanic as I am led to believe, from reading said sources, that it is not the intended use of the Villager characters. While the writing on the current article does leave much to be desired and probably places an undue emphasis on the Smash iteration of the player avatar as it does not appear to fully explore commentary about their role in the originating series, there is no reason why the article cannot cover the totality of the concept of Villagers as avatar characters (both PC and NPC) in Animal Crossing, with a section each for PC avatars and non-player characters as there are ample sources which broadly discuss both concepts. I feel that the Life simulation game and Social simulation game articles, both of which need proper expansion btw, ought to broadly cover the generic aspects of Animal Crossing's life simulation gameplay, with anything specific to the series summarized in the franchise article's gameplay section.
MsDusa, are you referring to commentary like this? Haleth (talk) 16:01, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
The Villager article does bleed a little too much into the gameplay content area though. That's honestly what made me bring it up initially - in my initial read through of the article, I removed a whole "controversy" section that had nothing to do with the character itself. Sergecross73 msg me 16:38, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Just went and did some more digging. Perhaps commentary like this GameSpot article or Polygon article make for more salient talking points about the subject? Haleth (talk) 17:29, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Yes, that looks like good coverage. Sergecross73 msg me 20:33, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
  • By the way, I wanted to point out that even though my name appears in the Paprium article, the work was done by Cmahns. For a brief reminder: I actually requested help to make my draft of Paprium here on the WP:VG talk page but Cmahns took interest on it and I let him go through. Personally, I'm not happy with how it turned out, as it mainly focuses on the controversy the project had over its development period, but some of you guys here might like how the page looks. Anyways, I hope you're all doing well! Roberth Martinez (talk) 23:56, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Improving Flash game coverage on Wikipedia

Hi, I've been working quite actively to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the lost art of Flash games. Recently I created an article on Pico's School, a title I don't expect anybody active in this project and over the age of 30 to be unfamiliar with. I'm still learning the ropes around here and I was hoping I could enlist somebody to volunteer to improve the article? Thisisarealusername (talk) 07:42, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm very sympathetic to suggestions like keeping this article standalone, but my searches brought nothing new besides what's listed in the article. Having an access to the first book (not to the 2nd one though), I can say that's absolutely a non-trivial coverage of the game. However, the other references are...really weak. None of them bother to mention the game in any significant way beyond one or two sentences at most, and it leads me to say it fails WP:GNG. I believe that it's probably better off merged at Tom Fulp (an article that needs an expansion about his works anyway). Let's if someone else chimes in to say something, but I am not optimistic sadly. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:50, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Best way to collaborate on video game clone

This article interests me and I think it has potential to become a good article. But I don't think I would be able to do it alone. Is there a good way to find collaborators who want to work on this together? Jorahm (talk) 19:48, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

New Articles (August 2 to August 8)

Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements
 A listing of all articles newly added to the Video Games Wikiproject (regardless of creation date). Generated by v3.8 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 21:08, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

August 2

August 3

August 4

August 5

August 6

August 7

August 8

Question about Dokapon Ikari no Tekken

The first sentence is "Dokapon! Ikari no Tetsuken is a role playing board game made for the PlayStation." This makes it sound more like a video game. And it seems like there is no board game implementation. So it should not be in the BTG Wikiproject. Slimy asparagus (talk) 18:19, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

That article needs a lot of work. It only had one source and an entirely unsourced how to play section which I don’t think is needed.--65.93.194.2 (talk) 00:48, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
Honestly, this should probably be redirected. Didn't find any sources in my search. There might be some Japanese sources, though. - Whadup, it's ya girl, Dusa (talk) 02:32, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Again on Xbox Series X/S or PS5 games that are simply playable versions of Xbox One or PS4 games

This came up at Hellblade: Senua's Sacrifice but I see its propagated through other articles. Today the game got a performance patch that adds to the Xbox One version, already playable on the Xbox Series X/S, performance improvements. This is not a separate release for the Xbox Series X/S. However, a user added it to the infobox as if it were. I reverted, but they pointed out that this is the case across multiple other articles, eg [519].

While I have added to MOS:VG today to speak to the specific Xbox Series X/S or PS5 situation, we've had long-standing advice that such backwards compat should not be considered a new release, and this is also replicated in the Infobox video game template. I want to make sure we still have consensus that this should be held true, or if we consider such performance improvement patches to be equal to a release on that platform. --Masem (t) 16:46, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Please allow me to weigh in, as this is created in part because of my edits. The point I tried to get across in edit notes is that current generation of consoles allows for the next generation version to build on top of previous one via an update. Examples include: Avengers (2020 video game)[1] Plague Tale: Innocence[2] Destiny 2[3] Doom Eternal[4]

All of these titles were "updated", however all of them are listed on the PlayStation Store as PS5 games. In contrast, the Xbox Store lists the general platforms the game is playable on, including BC, but since Hellblade's update is not different from the games I mentioned above, I expect it to be treated the same on Wikipedia, even without PS5 version or a paid upgrade, or a physical version - something not every game has as of late.

Thank you for reading. Would like to hear your thoughts. MaksimFisher (talk) 21:17, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Hawkeye and Xbox Series X/S Optimizations Now Available in Marvel's Avengers". Xbox Wire.
  2. ^ "A Plague Tale Innocence Next-Gen PS5 and Xbox Series X/S Update Released; Cross-Gen Save Progression on PS5 Troublesome". wccftech.
  3. ^ "How to download the Destiny 2 upgrade on PS5, Xbox Series X". Polygon.
  4. ^ "Doom Eternal's free next-gen update out late June". Eurogamer.
I realize the PS store may list them as such, but from a practical matter of how we call releases on WP, we have tried to give games with backwards compatibility (or in this case forward compatibility) the same weight as an actual separate release that was developed for that platform. This is avoid saying that, like for video arcade games like Pac-Man, that because its playable via MAME, that it was "released" on every system that MAME supports. We do want to recognize when these optimization patches become available in prose, but this should not be considered a new release on that platform because the game was still playable before that point. --Masem (t) 21:24, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
To add as another point: using the date of the optimiztion patch creates the wrong impression that the game was only available on those systems that day. Hellblade, to use an example, was available to play on X/S the day the systems came out. Just that it didn't have any special optimizations not already built into the Xbox Series X/S software. The presence of an optimization patch doesn't change when the game was available, so this creates an oddity in the infobox. As such, it is better not to include these systems as platforms just because an optimization patch was released in the infobox, but it is 100% appropriate to discuss that patch in prose. --Masem (t) 13:46, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Some input needed on an requested move / consistency in naming our broader coverage topics

I opened a move request for Sexism and video games (move discussion here). The meat of the move (moving from "sexism" to "misogyny") isn't an issue, but how to phrase the second part (talking about harassment of women in both game dev and players), and this is where I think we don't have full consistency across a lot of articles. I had suggested "in the video game industry" but some argue this doesn't cover players, and other suggestions have been made. So I invite comment there to figure out how to resolve that.

In general, we probably should have a consistent language set for these types of articles. We have a lot of possible terms, but they all have some nuances that we should be clear about for naming purposes:

  • "in video games" (eg Gender representation in video games) generally means the content of video games, and less about the real world facet
  • "in the video game industry" (List of women in the video game industry) generally means the developers, and generally excluding the players/streamers/esports
  • "in video game culture" (Cannabis and video game culture) would be more about the players and consumers of video games, and not including the developers
  • "in video gaming" as we determined before is generally about the playing of video games and not necessarily reflecting on the industry as a whole (we had this whole move thing about a year or so ago to resolve that)

It feels like we lack a concise term that is inclusive of the development and the consumer side of video games (eg about the people) and that specifically excludes the content of video games. As such, trying to find a useful term here for this discussion may be helpful that can be used further on. --Masem (t) 14:36, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

I cannot really think of one, the closest (which is still far) would be "and video games" (as opposed "in video game") but that suggests the content of video games over the industry, etc. "in the video game community" shares the same problems as "culture". "in the video game sector" could be too vague. "in the video game commericial and consumer area" is far too clunky and long. Stumped.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 17:45, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Feedback requested at proposal to extend "Find sources" functionality

There is a proposal at Village Pump about extending the functionality of template {{Find sources}} to facilitate the use of {{Find video game sources}} on Talk page headers of articles, as well as in other templates. Your feedback would be appreciated at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Proposal to improve customization of Template:Find sources. Thank you. Mathglot (talk) 23:50, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Proposal: Deprecate importance parameter for assessment for WPVG

This came up in the debate above, #User reassessing video games and video games related articles' importance.

I propose we formally deprecate the "importance" criteria - the Video Games Wikiproject can rank exclusively on quality, similar to what other well-established Wikiprojects already do such as WP:MILHIST that have been successful without need for an importance category. Importance always was an optional parameter, and would be a simple, one-line change - just remove from {{WikiProject Video Games}} the line |importance={{{importance|}}}. See the documentation at {{WPBannerMeta}}.

Reasoning:

  • The usefulness of categorization by importance is minor. The original goal was to curate the most important content for a CD edition of Wikipedia, but this concern is moot now. Theoretically, it makes it easy to find high-importance articles with low ratings for a clean-up minded editor interested in that kind of work, but I think this case is rare. It's a use case that can be served in other ways anyway - it'd be trivial to create article alerts or Wikiproject drives on collections of articles to get to GA or the like if that's a goal (Coin945 has made various "most viewed Start-class articles" notifications, for example, which are probably more useful and more up-to-date than an importance rating given 10 years ago by a random editor). If this change goes through, the initial list of Top-importance & High-Importance articles will be backed up and used to create some sort of internal WP:VA list, anyway. So nothing would be lost.
  • It's just a distraction. There's a cost in such categorization in wasted editor time and effort. See above discussion, and various others that have occurred over time, that generate more heat than light. If importance doesn't matter, why invite edit wars over it?
  • Even if importance was useful, it's difficult and subjective to apply to a broad project such as video games that handles many disparate topics. While I could see a consistent ranking of importance for a focused topic (e.g. a small Wikiproject like Wikipedia:WikiProject The Beatles), it gets wacky when attempting to compare a game programmer with a hit game with a gaming-related corporation or the like. It's not clear there's a good answer here.
  • This wouldn't affect importance ratings in other Wikiprojects, which may or may not have something more objective. (In other words, articles that are classified as pertaining to both Video Games and another Wikiproject won't have the other project's importance rating be affected.)

Thoughts? Pinging the participants in the previous discussion above. There's a few too many active editors of the VG project to ping everybody, but feel free to ping more people if need be as well. Will also make a notification in the Discord channel & on Template talk:WikiProject Video games. SnowFire (talk) 17:27, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Survey (Deprecate importance parameter for assessment for WPVG)

  • Support - it's navel gazing at its worst, 99.9% of readers will ever even know about this stuff (and reading some above comments makes me thing it was broken to begin with.) Sergecross73 msg me 17:31, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Support - if it stops needless arguments, I'm all for it. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:49, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Other good Wikiprojects have deprecated this and we should follow their lead. These don't serve any purpose. Readers don't see them, and I'm fairly certain most editors don't refer to them as a guide for what to edit. If anything, editors work on a page, and then hope to amplify its importance based on the subjective attention they've given it, which leads to a lot of pointless arguments. Even for the few editors who do look for "importance" as a guide for what to work on, we have lots of categories and lists that tell us about essential game terminology, or even lists of best selling or highly rated games. Let's cut it and move on. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:53, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose I accept the arguments above, but I think the importance scale is still useful, and we actually have a reasonable table of how things should be classified, with most of the content being "low" rated (this should be stressed more). This table is mostly objective, and unless someone is mass changing these against this table, we shouldn't get too worked up over small shifts (one-offs that may be "wrong"). While there's other ways to classify pages needing help, more of our "top" or vital articles are ones that likely see fewer hits, and that type of approach will likely miss those. --Masem (t) 17:58, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per Masem. I don't see this being such a large issue that it needs to be deprecated. Surely people can handle some minor importance disputes on a few pages, when by and large the system is working as intended. I don't really use it to decide what pages to work on, but other people might and I don't like the idea of not having a single gauge of what is a prominent article and what isn't. It can only be a downgrade of the system.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 19:37, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
  • To go point by point:
    1. Whether it's useful for the general populace is basically irrelevant. Any user using it should have the luxury to do so.
    2. You don't get to decide what other users feel is useful to the effort. The followon question is loaded (and is moreover a poor rhetorical device); it does matter, and your conclusion is subsequently irrelevant.
    3. Erm, have you seen WP:VG/A's handy dandy table for what goes where? I see almost nothing particularly subjective about it. Objectivity was never the point of having the list regardless, nor was it meant to be set in stone; the priority of a specific topic, as with all wiki things, is flexible and subject to change.
  • In general retort:
    • "Editors are wasting their time on this": Tell them to stop wasting their time. If it's in fact disruptive time wasting, deal with it using the appropriate process, not by removing the system.
    • Which, by the way, is valuable as an assessment of the importance of the topics that we cover. It is valuable for things like vital articles and it is valuable for things like the CDs (that rarely but do occasionally materialize) and moreover it is valuable for the list of things that we should work on, even if we do a bad job working on that list in that order. (For reasons documented elsewhere.)
  • In summary, oppose. --Izno (talk) 20:20, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose largely for the points that Masem makes. It definitely feels a little arbitrary and navel gaze-y to assess an article's "importance", even with the guidelines. But there's still some utility to it if only to the extent it helps the project identify articles of "high importance" that are in poor shape. So, at bottom, I think the benefits outweigh the cons, but only slightly and I think the criticisms of having this field have some merit to them.DocFreeman24 (talk) 22:53, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Support. This parameter has been a free-for-all for a long time. Truth be told, it's mostly ignored, but when it isn't, there isn't a strong basis for determining what editors believe other editors should perceive as a priority. Besides, since the time this parameter was created, we have a project-wide effort to name those articles—WP:VA5—which does a decent job and affords actual concentration on the highest priority articles with a formal method (talk page) for consensus: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Vital articles. This parameter simply isn't worth the cost of upkeep. I see no tangible upside. czar 23:18, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Support per the earlier points made by Sergecross73, Lee Vilenski and Shooterwalker as it clearly no longer serves any meaningful purpose, if hypothetically it ever did. From personal experience? I almost wish the instigating incident was as simple as a reassessment being reverted/changed or that it descended into edit warring. As far as I am concerned, the Wikipedia:Vital articles system already overlaps with the importance assessment system; it identifies all important or significant topics within any given field on a scale of 1 to 5, and it appears to be vetted by a group of editors as opposed to the subjective whims of a single editor. There is simply no way to provide verification or proper referencing to support any assessment ratings of importance on an article's talk page so I don't see a point of keeping a system that is unnecessary or counterproductive to the project's goals. Anyone who is keen on editing articles based on a guidance of what should be the priority of the Wikiproject can simply refer to that. Haleth (talk) 23:37, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose deprecation primarily per Izno, but open to compromise proposals. I agree that it can be muddy trying to delineate between high and mid importance, but also we can all agree that Nintendo is far more important than Pirates of Black Cove. I don't know what an appropriate compromise would look like. Maybe pick a list of the 100-ish most important articles and mark them as "vital" (that's a system that exists, right?) Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 00:45, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Well actually, we apparently have 221 articles that are "Vital Level-5" (50k most important articles), which seems like a healthy number. Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Everyday life/Sports, games and recreation#Video games (221 articles) So perhaps this is already an acceptable replacement to the importance system. Also of note, We have one article that is Vital Level-3 (top 1000), and it is of course video game itself; and we have 3 articles that are Vital Level-4 (top 10k), being video game console, Pokemon and Tetris. (And arcade game though that is a bit parallel). Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 00:57, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
I'd like to find a compromise proposal too. I feel like I'm getting scant details on why it's still useful, but my best guess is still "where is our article quality most failing our readers?" I've felt that the vital articles list does a better job of identifying these gaps, and also a list of high traffic articles. But I'm open to creating a list of a few dozen or even a few hundred articles that need attention, rather than exhaustively ranking every video game article on a multi-level scale. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:02, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Support. It's an unnecessary drama-magnet. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:31, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose You only need one good reason to keep it: some editors have used it and may still use it to find articles to improve. Beyond that, there is little cost in maintaining, and I don't recall any serious disagreement about assessments until the (disruptive) discussion above. Let's not remove the old hex screw from the toolbox because Timmy and Tommy can't play nice with it. Just bop them on the head. Someone else may want to use it. TarkusABtalk/contrib 04:01, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. It's a relic of the 2000s-era Wikipedia. I don't doubt that some editors use it when choosing what articles to improve, but most (if not all) high-importance articles have tons of eyes on it anyway and don't need to be evaluated based on some arbitrary ranking scale. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 05:35, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Importance scale is useful and I see good reasons to keep it. However, it must be used correctly and is much less subject to interpretation than some think of. Efforts should contribute in this sense. The original discussion ultimately revolved around this, not whether the scale was useful or not or other stuff that was used to derail the discussion into non-existent issues. Lone Internaut (talk) 09:34, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Support: "Low" and "Mid" are largely useless categories, because almost everything falls into one of them. I can see the value in tracking high-importance articles for the purposes of seeing where our coverage of major topics is lacking, but isn't that already covered by Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Vital articles and Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Popular pages? As an aside, if you find yourself spending a lot of time on something on WP that you find unimportant: consider simply disengaging, even if you're certain you're right, and spend your WP time on something else.--AlexandraIDV 10:11, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose I don't think the negatives of the importance scale are necessarily greater than its utility. Individual articles don't matter much insofar as the overall assessment scale helps give a birds-eye-view of the project, and in aggregate it does just that when combined with the quality ratings. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 16:11, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Just as most articles are stubs and a few are of high quality, so it is with importance grading. It is important for the wikiproject to track which articles are important, and it shouldn't take more than a microsecond for most articles to have their importance determined. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 00:29, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I can see the arguments on both sides, but I feel that this discussion should be held project-wide; either ditch it all around, or let it stay. BOZ (talk) 21:50, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Discussion (Deprecate importance parameter for assessment for WPVG)

  • Comment : I know this is a separate argument but having only task force have assessment somewhat makes sense (having importance ranking for Nintendo or Sega has more rational that having importance rankings for video games as a whole). Although my feelings on the importance parameter on WPVG are somewhat mixed, it would like to see this change either way. (Oinkers42) (talk) 18:06, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
  • In response to Masem, if it would help at all, I'd certainly be happy to help keep track of "low viewcount but still highly important articles". I just think that article improvement drives and other means. If there's something else that would help assuage this worry that articles will get "lost", certainly happy to do it. (Game mechanics I guess for the closest example being a Vital Article, Top Importance, and Start class... but sure, others.) SnowFire (talk) 20:55, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
  • To reply to Izno's comments... to be clear, I don't think the "importance" parameter is useful for Wikipedia editors either, not merely the general public. I think that whatever good it's doing can be done better by other means. If you feel that there's something useful by the current structure of importance, then there'd be no complaints from me about keeping whatever that useful tidbit is. You're also reading the "if importance doesn't matter..." line far more hostilely than intended; it's merely saying that if you accept that some element is not helpful, then we should actively remove it rather than leave it lying around forever as cruft. (You clearly think it is useful, so obviously the point is moot for you, but fine, pretend it's talking about a hypothetical "favorite color" parameter then - hopefully the general idea stands.) Editors really have wasted time on this, and back when I thought the importance param meant something, I did get into the occasional talk page edit conflict with newbies marking all their favorite games as high importance. The point is that we shouldn't even have to have that discussion; the parameter is something like an attractive nuisance, random editors will assume it means something important when it doesn't actually. I'm not sure what to say as to the "there's nothing subjective about the table" - we just had a long discussion above about whether articles should be classified as Mid or High, a distinction that matters practically not at all. So the "correct" importance isn't crystal clear in practice. Let me flip this around: do you think that importance should be added to WikiProjects that don't use it? As I noted before, MILHIST has run multiple successful article improvement & cleanup drives without need for an importance parameter. I'm just arguing that lacking importance has helped, because it focused attention to more useful matters. (Okay, VG doesn't have certain nationalist flamebait issues MILHIST would, but we still have our own issues anyway.) SnowFire (talk) 20:55, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Rush request for featured article comments

Realizing that Star Control 3 will celebrate its 25th anniversary in just 6 weeks, I wanted to get this article into WP:FA shape in time. There's already been a few commenters, all supporting (or leaning support), and helping the article to improve significantly. But the article could always use another pair of eyes, particularly someone who has the patience to do some reference spot checks. I don't mind doing some QPQ if anyone needs some reviews, research, or copy-editing. I'd just hate to miss this big date. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:24, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

List of banned video games needs cleanup

Some of the games being listed had dubious or unreliable sources, and as such I had to remove what I saw was rather suspect. Blake Gripling (talk) 04:42, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

As an aside, it feels like the title should be "List of video games that have been banned by country", as whether a game is banned or not can change over time. - Whadup, it's ya girl, Dusa (talk) 06:07, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Any old school gamers out there to help with Mev's wiki page

Hello, I read Mev's new book and realized he directed/developed so many games I had played when growing up. I came over to help establish his wiki-bio page and there is still a lot that can be added, cited. He did Last Ninja 2, Enduro Racer, First Samurai and many more. If there are any interested retro gamers, please join/help. Draft:Mev_Dinc Rainbouw19 (talk) 17:00, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Feedback requested re: moving Gamergate controversy to Gamergate harassment campaign

It has been proposed that Gamergate controversy be renamed and moved to Gamergate (harassment campaign). Your feedback would be appreciated at this discussion. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 18:50, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Archive_158&oldid=1041541708"