Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 168

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 165Archive 166Archive 167Archive 168Archive 169Archive 170→Archive 175

Manhunt (video game series)

Hi everyone, is Manhunt (video game series) necessary? There are two Manhunt video games, besides some rumors for a possible PlayStation 3 sequel, there's no news about another entry or merchandise or other media. It just repeats the information from Manhunt (video game) and Manhunt 2. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 21:33, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

I'd wager no. A lot of it is discussed in the article about the first video game. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:53, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree; this does seem to largely duplicate information contained on the two individual articles, and I can't see what having the combined article contributes. — Czello 22:00, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
True Crime (series) is another one of those. --Mika1h (talk) 00:12, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Agreed that shouldn't exist either. While Sleeping Dogs is "technically" a True Crime game, it has no relation to the IP in practice, and never will. And only having 2 games is dubious for a series article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:07, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Speaking of which, User:Panini!'s work summarizing multiple editors' thoughts on the rough requirements to warrant a series article is begging to be enshrined in our MOS somewhere. It's practically a consensus in and of itself. Axem Titanium (talk) 06:27, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Films already have one, see MOS:FILMSERIES. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:46, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the input. I've AfD'ed it. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 07:33, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
We did codify what the series requirements are, well over a decade ago. The more pertinent question is who removed it from the guidelines? - X201 (talk) 15:03, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
I'd like to know too. It's created a number of extra discussions in the last month or two for something that our community is generally pretty unified on. Sergecross73 msg me 15:12, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
I don't remember this. Was it a section in MOS:VG? I can't recall if we had a separate section for different types of articles that tend to fall in our scope. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:30, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
Maybe this is a Mandela effect, but I recall a similar thing, not to have a "... (series)" article with a least three entries and additional media/merchandise. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 19:20, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
I know we've had a pretty rock-solid consensus on it for the longest time. I don't spend a ton of time reading MOS:VG because I'm a part of so many of the discussions that form it, so it's possible I'm mistaken and it wasn't on there. I also recall that years ago that we had to change a bunch of WP:VG info when we converted our stuff from "guidance" to "official MOS page", so maybe it didn't survive that or so rethink too? Who knows. Sergecross73 msg me 20:02, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Found it. Added to Naming conventions (video games) by Zxcvbnm on 11 August 2009 Although I think it existed elsewhere before then. - X201 (talk) 20:33, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
And removed here. Regardless, that's the Naming conventions page, which isn't really the proper place to give MOS advice for when a series page is warranted. I think the VGMOS should have a dedicated section with style advice for series pages, based on Panini's article. Axem Titanium (talk) 07:01, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
It was also in the MOS before it became the MOS. - X201 (talk) 08:37, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
"I think this", "I think this too." It's unanimous, someone just go and add it back already. Panini! • 🥪 12:39, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
I pushed it live here. I had to adapt some of the language to put it into MOS voice. Feel free to adjust. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:16, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Atomic Heart

Hi everyone,

I could use another to keep an eye on Atomic Heart (video game). It's not an edit war per se, but I've been sparring with Orange-kun and I haven't got the time later today. See also the discussion on my talk page. Thanks. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 09:04, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I think you're right on the money. Looks like it's standard POV pushing, not based in sources. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:18, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Leon S. Kennedy

The article Leon S. Kennedy is one of old those typical articles filled with overthetop list reception sections. User:GlatorNator told me about removing those parts due fancruft content and while I agree, should his film appearances (Leon was like the protagonist of three movies) also be removed? Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 14:14, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Critical reception on his portral in film shouldn't be removed on the priniciple of it being film appearances. They should be treated the same as reception to his game appearances. TarkusABtalk/contrib 17:36, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Seconded. If any movie stuff is removed, it shouldn't be just because it's movie commentary, it should be because it's vapid "Top ten eyebrows in film" type listicle commentary. Sergecross73 msg me 18:01, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Thirded. From my experience, the article for PoP's Prince includes critical commentary on his film version. The stuff that should be removed is pointless or questionable listicles. --ProtoDrake (talk) 18:21, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
My quick scan of what the reception is for the film character is that it is approaching more minor/vapid sourcing rather than any deep dive of the how the character was portrayed. There is untouched material about the design/casting of the film character as part of the development section, which is fine, but we don't need any reception about the film character if its mostly empty or the like. But definitely keep the film appearances there. Masem (t) 18:21, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

@GlatorNator:

Now that I see, for some reason voice acting commentary in reception was also removed.Tintor2 (talk) 19:19, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Restored. GlatorNator (talk) 21:40, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Source request

For anyone with RPS Premium—I'm writing a reception section for Pizza Tower and Rock, Paper, Shotgun's review of the game is locked behind their subscription paywall. JOEBRO64 16:07, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Seriously? Paywalling basic game reviews? I didn't realize that was a thing. Sergecross73 msg me 16:46, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
Gaming websites just aren't what they used to be I guess. GamerPro64 17:31, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
I think it's perfectly fair for a site to have a subscription plan, but $80/year seems rather... overconfident, considering it's not that much cheaper than a year's worth of Gamepass. I fear it will just result in fewer games getting articles, sadly. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:53, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
Oh yeah, to each their own. I was just surprised because usually it seems like websites paywall breaking news or big special features, not routine reviews. Sergecross73 msg me 23:07, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
They might be willing to participate in something like Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:03, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
I submitted a suggestion. Based on the responses here, I'm assuming no active WPVG users have a subscription. JOEBRO64 21:13, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

I think something is not right about an article

There are ISBNs and plot summaries on The Legend of Zelda Manga page. I think this may violate a wikipedia policy. Can someone with more experience than me take a look? Blitzfan51 (talk) 15:24, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow, what policy do you think is violated? soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 15:32, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
There's no issue with ISBNs (that's raw data, uncopyrightable). The plot summaries, however, must be unique text and not simply repeat or simply paraphrase the synopsis by publishers, and this should be checked if there's a question. Masem (t) 15:47, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
I mean, something is definitely not right about the article. It's WP:ALLPLOT and the formatting is poor. The name is also incorrect, since it's not about the single manga named "The Legend of Zelda". "List of The Legend of Zelda manga" would be more accurate. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:42, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
Thanks everyone. I'm still new here and I knew something was wrong, I just couldn't put my finger on what exactly. I'll go change the article name. Blitzfan51 (talk) 00:09, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
wait, somethings wrong. i can't edit the title. Blitzfan51 (talk) 00:14, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Displaytitle is only for stylizing the title. See: WP:DISPLAYTITLE & HELP:MOVE. --Mika1h (talk) 00:38, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
I made the move and changed the display title. I do agree that the article is in poor shape. If it's intended to encompass every LOZ series manga, then I think the individual volume descriptions need to be summarized more, or removed entirely. Something with tables like List of Naruto volumes or other manga featured lists would be a better way to organize it. Axem Titanium (talk) 22:24, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. :) Blitzfan51 (talk) 12:51, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Concerns about video game character article deletions

I'm not intending to meatpuppet or something here, but there's a larger argument that needs to be heard about this topic:

1) Everything in a video game is fictional and totally controlled. The owners of the game create every detail of the story. Because of that, 100% of our information is going to be from primary sources and it will be always be 100% correct. Anything not from a primary source will be fan-fiction. We can't question a story. We can't interview a character from it nor can we interview Character A about Character B. We're never going to get some new development that is canon outside of primary sources. So most of the available information on various characters gets rendered null immediately.

2) Video games are copyrighted. We really can't post full biographies, nor can we post screenshots or anything else from a game or franchise without consent from the creators. I don't know what would be left after what I said above, but this second issue is going to finish what is left.

3) While video games are becoming more open world and more in-depth, the majority of games are focused on the game play without much of a story. On older games, if you got maybe a paragraph about what a character was about, you'd be lucky.

4) Games with larger character rosters have more limited information about various characters. There's 1000+ Pokemon and few are really covered in-depth.

5) The media has had notoriously poor coverage of video games. You might find out when a system was released or if some game was really popular like Mario, but that's about it. Various games are clearly notable - I'd bet most of the people in the US have played various popular games, yet the media's coverage is nowhere near that. I can't imagine ever going to the media though to learn more about Paul Phoenix though when Tekken is right there.

All of this really limits what kind of information can be worked with here and leads to a lot of problems with the website's focus on independent sources and media write-ups that determine notability. I really think all of this needs to be considered and looked at before any type of deletions occur about standalone character articles.KatoKungLee (talk) 03:16, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

What is this? What are you trying to do here? Sergecross73 msg me 03:28, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
I feel the current rules and general attitudes on the website were not well thought out and I feel video game information is extremely vulnerable for reasons I listed above. All video game information is 100% primary sources and copyrighted, and current website trends are against primary sources. I have major concerns that we are going to lose out on a lot of information real soon for reasons that I don't think are going to stand the test of time. This concerns things that haven't happened yet and may not ever happen. That's the best time to have that discussion. KatoKungLee (talk) 03:45, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Looks like it in relation to AFDs of Mortal Kombat characters, eg Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kabal (Mortal Kombat). Masem (t) 03:39, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Video game character notability has been an issue here since like 2008. Even back when standards were looser, there were still tired debates on how character articles should be handled. To make matters more confusing, different projects have different standards by their community (for example, comic book characters). It'll likely never be resolved. The best you can probably do just give your thoughts on the whatever character is at an AFD or merge discussion. MoonJet (talk) 03:40, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Comic book character articles are a major problem in terms of being far excessive in coverage without supporting information. Do not use those as "examples" we want to follow. Masem (t) 04:12, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Well, what I meant is that comic book project clearly has different standards than the video game project. I know it doesn't matter here, but I'm just pointing out the confusion. MoonJet (talk) 05:50, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
No, it is the case that the comic book area has not brought their standards to the expectations for the rest of WP. For example, television characters like Walter White (Breaking Bad) or Rick Grimes are better suited, despite probably being long-winded in the character appearances. Masem (t) 14:15, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
If you're interested in such in-depth coverage of character biographies, I might suggest contributing that work to another wiki dedicated to various video games? Whether that be an existing one or starting a new one? Loosening our notability standards for video game characters to create 100% primary source, WP:INUNIVERSE plot summaries / fictional biographies is not the way to go. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 04:09, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
WP:INDISCRIMINATE is the relevant Wikipedia policy here. "Wikipedia treats creative works [...] in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the development, design, reception, significance, and influence of works in addition to concise summaries of those works." This means that regardless of whether it is confirmable as true, it must have context to be encyclopedic. Without secondary sources/significant coverage, there is no context. I think that is perfectly fair to ask of an article, since it's an encyclopedia for general knowledge, rather than devoted to fans of any one work. These are basic guidelines that are a linchpin of Wikipedia, please do due diligence before going on a screed about why we're all evil for deleting fictional characters who are entirely plot summary and sentence long mentions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:25, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
If there is no secondary coverage then an article should not be created. It is one of the basic pillars for this site. No exception should be made. OceanHok (talk) 04:53, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
There's a reason why most video game characters aren't notable, in the same way that characters in film, novel and TV shows. Some receive external coverage that separate them from the game in the same way that some characters are received outside of their TV show and actor (we have Lara Croft, whereas they have Walter White). That doesn't make every video game character simply notable because it's in more than one game. Not only are we looking for a fictional character to be notable in terms of third party reliable sources, but also that they transcend thier medium entirely - else, they can be explained well enough in their parent article. We absolutely don't need articles on every Mortal Kombat character out there. Johnny Cage though? Yeah, likely independently notable and worth an article of his own. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 06:05, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
KatoKungLee, it seems you still do not understand what is considered notable by Wikipedia's standards. I've said before in one of the Mortal Kombat character AfDs you were being disruptive. I've also pointed you to WP:VG/RS. Others here have stated that notability is a core principle of Wikipedia. But it seems to fall on deaf ears, which is apparent by your talk page comment: "It's a very weird thing to me for three reasons. Basically every male in the English speaking world over 15 probably knows all of these characters so it's obviously notable." If you still can't grasp what is notable and how we establish notability, Wikipedia might not be the place for you. WP:COMPETENCE is required and we can't have the same discussion again and again when you WP:DIDNTHEARTHAT. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 07:30, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Our information should be based on secondary sources. Nor are primary sources 100% correct. Nor does Wikipedia have to have all information. These are all just fallacies about the purpose of Wikipedia. There are many wikis (and you can easily create your own) for such detail. —  HELLKNOWZ ∣ TALK 14:31, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Most video game characters that are considered notable have something going for them outside of the scope of the games they appear in. They're for instance popular characters that appear in various games, they've become the face of a large franchise, or they've been influential on the industry in some way. The articles themselves don't discuss these characters as if they were real people and they don't focus on these character's backstories or lore. Instead they focus on things like their design (how it came to be and how it might have changed over the years), appearances within and outside of their original franchise, impact and legacy, things like that.
Wikipedia is not the right place to learn more about fictional characters within the context of the worlds they exhibit. That stuff is covered in fanwikis, which have their own role in the fandom ecosystem and where a lot of the issues you raise don't exist (fandom wikis vastly prefer primary sources over secondary ones and have very loose notability guidelines).
To address a few other points - notability on Wikipedia is not inherited, which is why not every character in a game that meets our notability guidelines automatically gets their own article too. For the same reason some characters in a franchise (such as Pikachu) get their own article, while others don't. ReneeWrites (talk) 14:44, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Random but similar comment: I noticed that Sigma (Mega Man X) was tagged for related notability issues for years but I'm not sure if managed to pass such guidelines. I tried adding one or two commentaries for his first appearances involving gaming design, role in the narrative and one or two reviews from Marvel vs Capcom Infinite since they kinda made him a final boss. Still, it's only two paragraphs so I'm not sure if it's better.Tintor2 (talk) 22:11, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

I added a full page ref to Sigma's talk page that comes from a character encyclopedia that can be used to source his backstory. I believe that since the encyclopedia is published by DK, it counts as secondary coverage. (Could also be useful to numerous other Capcom characters). ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:58, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
The DK-style encyclopedias and visual guides are pretty much always authorized tie-ins, so while they can be very good for citing stuff that would otherwise be tough to cite without just citing the games, etc., they don't count as secondary sources for notability purposes. (Halo has three editions, two by DK and one by Dark Horse, but they definitely aren't independent secondary according to Wikipedia's definition.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 14:39, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Averaging Reviews

I've discussed with @TheJoebro64: and based on previous discussions here (in 2016) and here Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Archive_111#Review_scores specifically on the articles for Donkey Kong Country and Super Mario All-Stars. Previously it's been applied that we can add up the reviews when there is no "overall" score, but I feel like this is misleading and against WP:STICKTOSOURCE which specifically states "Take care not to go beyond what the sources express or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intention of the source, such as using material out of context. In short, stick to the sources." I feel like averaging out the reviews. I know there is WP:CALC, but that appears to be more for organizing actual math and showcasing it with good faith that the math is performed correct. Also per WP:SYNTH, "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source." Per that above, I don't think we should be combining the individual rankings from early Nintendo Power (which gives ratings for graphics, theme & fun, etc.) and then adding them or averaging them out to make an average "score" for the game in a review infobox. Same with taking things from EGM which took an average of four or so reviewers and presenting them as an overall score misleads an audience to think that the publication gave an overall ranking, which it didn't. Anyone reading it, would assume that that was the final grade. From previous discussions, these issues were not brought up, so I think we should go for a new conclusion here keeping WP:STICKTOSOURCE and WP:SYNTH in mind. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:06, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't think we should be combining the individual rankings from early Nintendo Power (which gives ratings for graphics, theme & fun, etc.) and then adding them or averaging them out to make an average "score" for the game in a review infobox. This is correct. Most websites that had subscores are known not to linearly combine them so that would be literally SYNTH. Same with taking things from EGM which took an average of four or so reviewers I think it's fine practice to simply add up the scores and present it out of the total maximum possible points (e.g. 27/40) as proposed by Masem. It's the same information as an average but requires simpler CALCs. I think the benefit of being able to see the score at a glance in the review table outweighs any negatives. Axem Titanium (talk) 14:30, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
I added this to the template instructions last week because it kept coming up and the answer was always the same. I added the following: If a review scores components of a game separately (but does not give an overall score) e.g Graphics 3/5, Sound 4/5, Gameplay 5/5 etc, add all the components together to reach a single score like 12/15, and add a footnote listing the individual scores. That has been the advice from numerous editors over the last decade. - X201 (talk) 15:09, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
While I understand the value of that, and personally on my own, that's how i'd interpret a rating, I don't see how that applies to WP:SYNTH as any average wikipedia reader would assume seeing that number that that was the full rating. Sure we can add subnotes, but our notes are basically just saying "this isn't an actual rating given by the magazine" but the presentation of it does. Regardless if this has been the format for years, per the previous dicussions I linked to above, it doesn't ever seem to have been brought up that it goes against WP:SYNTH. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:56, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
I don't think we should be using averages as this misrepresents what the sources actually published (unlike, eg, Metacritic, where the goal is explicitly to publish an average). Popcornfud (talk) 19:33, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
My 2p now: I think adding up the individual reviewer scores for magazines like EGM (X/40) with a footnote explaining the individual scores should be fine, since I'd say that falls under simple CALC and it's a known practice amongst gaming magazines (e.g. Famitsu). As for individual components a la Nintendo Power or GamePro, I've been convinced that adding them up probably goes beyond CALC and would support discouraging it. JOEBRO64 23:20, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Interpretation of scores like this is absolutely inappropriate. Adding up the sub-scores assumes that graphics, sound, gameplay, etc are weighted equally, when the reviewer has not explicitly said so, and is unlikely to have ever thought so - five gameplay points probably mean more than five sound points for most genres, for example.--AlexandraIDV 17:14, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Completely agree with Alexandra on that. With regard to EGM, I favor doing an average of the reviewers' scores because that's how EGM presented those scores in their annual buyer's guides and such. Martin IIIa (talk) 03:59, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
I feel like if you cite the buyers guide, that would probably be acceptable. But I don't think it should be the specific magazine itself as the magazine didn't actually average them that way. Andrzejbanas (talk) 06:53, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I feel like the general understanding here is to not average out scores unless the magazine does so itself (i.e: Famitsu, or EGM if they have done that in their later guides). Unless there are some other voices out there who have more to add, what is the next step to take from here? Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:59, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

It has been a few days so I've re-brought up the conversation of where we go next at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Video_games#Averaging_Review_scores_in_Review_infobox. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:14, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

"List of accolades received by" game articles

For example, List of accolades received by Marvel's Spider-Man. Is there any reason why these tend to be formatted differently than when they were still a part of the game's main article? They tend to include awards that we usually remove from the first table and also include cruft such as the date the award was given, which is trivial. They seem to be trying too hard to match films when we already had have an established style and MOS for them (WP:VG/AWARDS); the only reason they even exist independently is due to WP:SIZE. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 13:08, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree that inclusion of awards that are not notable themselves (where the awards overall lack an article) should not be included, and the only date that matters is the general year that the awards cover (eg both the last TGA, and the upcoming GDC, are all generally for 2022 games). The awards list should be treated as if it were content in the main game article, so all MOS aspects still apply. --Masem (t) 13:26, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
  • I can't see any awards on the Spider-Man table that would normally be excluded; they're all suitable for inclusion per the MoS. I'm also not sure what "established style" is being referred to; WP:VG/AWARDS specifically mentions consistency "with accolades from film and television", and three of the four examples cited there generally match the style of Spider-Man. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 14:13, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
    Then all game award tables, no matter how small, should follow this format. I just don't like the inconsistency being shown here, as if these standalone articles get special treatment solely because of the quantity. And while Spider-Man doesn't currently have this problem, I've had to remove non-notable/unreliable awards like NAVGTR and Steam Awards (Titanium Awards too possibly?) on these type of lists before. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 15:17, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
    I agree, they should follow that format; I'm not sure how the standalone articles are getting "special treatment", though? They're simply following the MoS, and all other award tables should do the same. Titanium and Steam Awards both fit the criteria established by WP:VG/AWARDS, and NAVGTR was removed years ago and has never been restored since (in the standalone lists). – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 23:33, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
    What part of WP:VG/AWARDS allows for the Steam Awards, which are 100% a popularity contest as they are only voted on by Steam users? They have been removed from every other awards list in the past. And since when do we care if a game trailer gets nominated for an award? (which you are saying belongs on the list of accolades received by Elden Ring) This doesn't even belong in prose unless it received largescale media coverage, so how are tables any different? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:13, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
    Trailers are part of the marketing of the game, and regularly included in film and TV accolades lists. If it gets a notable award, then that should be mentioned. Thanks, Indagate (talk) 20:09, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
    Silly but at least it has consensus in other media. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 00:06, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
    • "Awards included in lists should have a Wikipedia article". Being user-voted does not automatically prohibit it (at least not according to the MoS) if it is otherwise notable. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 23:20, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
      So are we all in agreement that fan-voted awards (The Steam Awards) can exist in award tables as long as it has an article? I recall the project being against such a thing in prose, so there is a disconnect here. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 00:09, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
      Coming to this conversation late, but I feel that the reason that previous consensus existed years ago is that these awards were seldomly notable at all. A GameFAQs rankdown or a random "Voted by the players" thing on a gaming website isn't given any outside coverage from the publication and isn't notable enough to be considered. From my perspective, the Steam Awards actually receive coverage each year now (e.g. randomly pulled examples: [1], [2], [3]), and should therefore reach the threshold of inclusion. It's also a good way to show interest from regular users in a "reliable source" kind of way IMO. Nomader (talk) 12:53, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
Switching to pedantic mode for a moment: Shouldn't that Spiderman article be renamed List of nominations and the odd occasional win received by Marvel's Spider-Man? - X201 (talk) 14:16, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

New Articles (March 20 to March 26)

Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements
 A listing of all articles newly added to the Video Games Wikiproject (regardless of creation date). Generated by v3.15 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 13:40, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

March 20

March 21

March 22

March 23

March 24

March 25

March 26

I had a feeling when i saw "Enderman" that it wasn't notable and sure enough it's at AFD currently. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 13:52, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Counter-Strike 2

Valve Corporation has announced "Counter-Strike 2", which will replace Counter-Strike: Global Offensive this summer - literally. Though, I suppose there is debate about whether or not this counts as a new game or if it is a simple technical upgrade to CS:GO. We considered Overwatch 2 to be a replacement for Overwatch, as it was a separate product that transferred gameplay over, while removing the original. Counter-Strike 2 is being called a "free upgrade" to CS:GO, with everything gained through its predecessor transferred over, but I think there is confusion. IceWelder has changed the designation of CS2 to being an upgrade and not separate product, which they have naturally have the right to do, but looking at the sources, I still cannot tell where we should fall on this subject. As such, I'd like to hear what the community has to say. BOTTO (T•C) 16:26, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

It should be considered a separate product because it will not require the player to have CS1 to play CS2. The body can explain how it is being treated as an update to CS1 by Valve, but from a release standpoint, it is its own product. Masem (t) 16:34, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
The official communication treats Counter-Strike 2 the same as it did Dota 2 Reborn back in the day. If they don't talk about a sequel, why should we? IceWelder [✉] 16:34, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
I don't play any of these games, so I'm no expert, but in reading articles, I was under the impression it was similar to the Overwatch sequel situation. I haven't seen the official wording, but it's clear many third party RS's refer to it as a sequel, and we're not required to go by first party accounts of a situation. Sergecross73 msg me 16:42, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
I think this really hits the nail on the head -- it is clearly being *covered* as a sequel, which is therefore how we should cover it. Nomader (talk) 12:03, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
Pretty much all major outlets[4][5][6][7][8] do not refer to Counter-Strike 2 as a "sequel" in their articles covering the announcement. It being a "sequel" seems to be misconstrued based solely on the "2" in the title, but it was never indicated as such by Valve. Before the actual release, we might not know how the it will be handled. We only know, according to the official website, that "Counter-Strike 2 arrives this summer as a free upgrade to CS:GO.". Perhaps the best option is to wait and avoid CRYSTALing. IceWelder [✉] 12:34, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
I see your ref bomb with a fellow ref bomb of reliable sources calling it a "sequel" as well, randomly pulled ([9], [10], [11], [12]). I think if reliable sources call it both, we should call it both (or if one becomes preposterously more popular, we can lean that direction instead) -- we shouldn't be relying on Valve's official word on it. Nomader (talk) 03:28, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
Is it it's own product? From reading the sources currently published it's very unclear to me whether on release this will be its own separate product with the CS:GO listing being removed/deprecated (a sequel), or whether this will be treated the same as Dota 2 Reborn and that CS2 will be an engine replacement product update with a bunch of new features (an upgrade). Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:43, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
We'll have to see how sources treat it once it's actually released, but it's technically just a big update to CS:GO that ports it to a newer in-house engine. Of course, sources could all decide to call it a new game or something, but so far it looks the majority isn't following Valve marketing. —  HELLKNOWZ ∣ TALK 16:52, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
Regardless of whether it's "officially" a sequel or an OW2 situation, my gut feeling thus far is that it'll get enough RS coverage to warrant a separate page in terms of development and reception. The page can explain that it's actually just a replacement for CSGO or whatever ends up happening. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:14, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
At this point I don't see why a separate article would be needed. If there becomes SIZE issues even after summary style, (or it clearly demonstrates its standalone status by getting a bunch of new reviews from outlets on release) then a separate article should be considered. As is, you'd just be duplicating a ton of content in the gameplay section if you split it. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 20:30, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
@David Fuchs: I don't believe a separate article is necessary as of now, either. Do you think we should mention it on the List of Valve Games and what-not or hold off for now? BOTTO (T•C) 22:41, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
A factor here is if there will be enough sourcing to explain why CS 2 is not the same as CS 1. eg with OW2 compared to OW, we know there's a fair amount of developer details of the major changes that while the core game is the same we can write about it as a separate product. As CS2 was just announced those details may be weak right now so yes, it does make sense to talk about CS2 on CS:GO's page. Masem (t) 00:42, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
I'm confused why any debate or consensus need to be happen at this time. This conversation screams of WP:CRYSTAL and I see no reason to decide one way or another now. Use the verbiage that is being published. I agree with Axem Titanium, for Wikipedia's purposes, the release almost certainty necessitate treating it as a sperate entity regardless of how Value treats the product.
Someone is going to need to point me to where Value is calling the game a "sequel". Short of that, I strongly believe that verbiage should be removed from Counter Strike. "Update", "upgrade", "overhaul", all make sense to me within the context of what has been said by the publisher. "Sequel" has separate connotations that have yet to be confirmed. This is an appropriate situation to ignore the rules and rely on first party verbiage. Skipple ☎ 03:34, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
How about we treat it like we would with GTA Online? That one is by and large the multiplayer component of GTA V but is treated as a separate product. Blake Gripling (talk) 04:22, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm not quite following why this is a time to ignore WP:PRIMARY? Sergecross73 msg me 12:49, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
Mmm, perhaps ignore is the wrong word, but rather prefer the verbiage used from the primary source. Due to the importance and massive impact of the announcement along with the extremely limited information available, 3rd party RS's are going to engage in speculation. Skipple ☎ 13:02, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
Whether Valve (and sources) call it a Sequel or not is kinda irrelevant. Being a "sequel" is not part of GNG. DLC and expansion packs get articles all the time. CS2 will almost undoubtedly have it's own article, and while we're still at the "it's just announced" phase, as soon as more details arrive that should probably go ahead and happen. I'm sure everyone knows I tend towards deletionism and merging, but as I turned into a grouchy old person, I also started to lean towards "CRYSTAL is great and all, but don't fight the obvious inevitable" (i.e. redirecting the latest announced Call of Duty game. Just let it be, there is no question that it will be notable.) -- ferret (talk) 12:56, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

More release dates

Hi, I've noticed there's a one day gap separating even some high profile games with the days they've shipped. What should the release date be set to?

Ex: NFS Carbon

Wiki listed release date - October 30

Announced ship date prior to release October 31

https://www.ign.com/articles/2006/10/25/need-for-speed-carbon-hands-on

First reports of shipping/in stores date - November 1

https://www.ign.com/articles/2006/11/01/feel-the-need-the-need-for-speed

https://web.archive.org/web/20070116145233/http://pc.gamezone.com/news/11_01_06_01_46PM.htm

Ex2: Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 3

Listed release date up to release - October 30

Announcement: https://www.gamezone.com/news/tony_hawk_s_pro_skater_3_to_ship_oct_30th/

First reports of shipping/in stores date - November 1

Ship/in stores press release: https://www.gamezone.com/news/tony_hawk_s_pro_skater_3_for_ps2_and_psx_ship/ Venky64 (talk) 01:12, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Personally, I'm not generally concerned when release dates vary by a single day. Sometimes it can just come down to time zones, or variances between when a game is shipped from a publisher or put on shelves by a retailer. And a single day doesn't really matter that much when you're talking about a game that released 2 decades ago... Sergecross73 msg me 01:55, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
I am pretty sure our MOS says that for release dates that maybe differ by a day or three, that we only use one release date. A week or more is probably appropriate to note. --Masem (t) 02:14, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
Remember that before digital storefronts, release dates weren't always a thing. Magazines would usually print the month, and you'd have to call your local store and ask when their shipment was coming. It got better with time, but even in the 2000s you had 'ship dates' and whatever date your local store received it. TarkusABtalk/contrib 03:40, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

GDC 2023 photos

Game Developers Conference 2023 has finished and there are piles of new Commons-eligible photos on their Flickr account. I started a GDC 2023 category on Commons, however their images are not captioned and I don't recognize everyone, so any help on uploading photos for people/games we have articles on is appreciated. TarkusABtalk/contrib 20:36, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

At least with the GDC/IGF winners that becomes a giant game like Obra Dinn.... :) Masem (t) 22:58, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
@TarkusAB: Thanks for this, by the way- just used this to get a photo of Andrew Shouldice (Tunic's developer) for its article. --PresN 21:49, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Maabus

Does anyone have access to any of the reviews listed for this game at Mobygames[13] or any other sources to add to the article Maabus? 8.37.179.254 (talk) 13:49, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Here's a review from CD ROM Today. It doesn't seem to be mentioned on MobyGames. Here's one from CD ROM Review. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:46, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
Great, thank you! I will add those. 8.37.179.254 (talk) 14:50, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Old pictures

Figured I'd bring this here but this site [14] has pictures of old staff that can be used/uploaded (e.g Rob King) I think. Not sure if useful (RPGDOT is listed at Inconclusive discussions) Timur9008 (talk) 10:41, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Unless the pictures are specifically released under a Commons-compatible license (or the subject has passed away), we couldn't use them. Are there any specific images where that is the case?--AlexandraIDV 11:28, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
Nevermind then. The interviews I guess can be used. Timur9008 (talk) 11:38, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Clunky title, idea for a better one?

Hi everyone, I noticed Randy Kryn made an edit to Bugs Bunny & Taz: Time Busters, adding a link to List of games containing time travel. I think that's a very clunky and oddly titled list, "containing time travel". I'm not sure what would be a better title though. List of time travel games, List of games featuring time travel? List of games featuring time travel elements? soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 12:10, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

List of games featuring time travel sounds good to me Timur9008 (talk) 12:14, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
Maybe we should paint the title red instead. I can't see how such a list would satisfy WP:LISTN, and the existing sources aren't convincing. Plus, there already is a category. The small prose part can be merged to Time travel#In fiction. IceWelder [✉] 12:18, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
Years ago I nominated a bunch of lists based upon themes, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of ghost video games. Most of them stayed in the end. But this time it'll be different. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 12:24, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
If kept, I'd recommend using Timur's suggested titled. Not particularly endorsing the articles existence though, just saying it's less awkward of a title. Sergecross73 msg me 12:33, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
Time travel in games/video games could be a viable subject for a proper encyclopedic article, but that might best be split off from Time travel or Time travel in fiction, which don't include any information about games or video games at all. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 12:56, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
List of games featuring time travel fits with other list names. Deleting it? What's the matter with it? Trying to get rid of articles which apparently lots of editors and readers like is not the way to maintain Wikipedia, especially if done with a tried "years ago" and "this time it'll be different" attitude. Wikipedia and Wikipedians are not, at their core, about such things. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:27, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
Whoops, I had clicked on the ping and thought this was the List talk page, and then in publishing the above saw that it's the Video Games WikiProject. Even more surprised that you'd be the ones talking about deleting directly related full articles like the game list. Maybe better to be proud of them being under your wing and, if problems exist, edit them into better shape. But thanks for bringing up the suggestion of a new name, this one is very clunky as are some others I've came across. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:33, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
I don't know if the answer is deletion, but the question of "what's wrong with it" has a pretty simple answer - virtually every entry is unsourced, including a rather large amount of prose. It's in terrible shape regardless of notability. Sergecross73 msg me 14:38, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
Extremely common and actually essential to most Wikipedia lists for the linked articles to be the depository of the sources. Red links need not be kept, unless well sourced (not every notable topic has a Wikipedia page). The prose descriptors can be edited although they also fall within plot writing, which is one of the only things on Wikipedia where editors have some leeway in describing something mostly in their own words, even if the words need some editing from others. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:46, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
Common =/= correct. What you're saying doesn't comply with WP:V. We overlook sourcing needs for basic plot summaries of games, not themed lists like this. There's may be a path to this list existing, but that isn't it. Sergecross73 msg me 14:52, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
Each entry on a list which has link provides the instant path to verification. It would be improbable for each entry on a list on Wikipedia to be sourced on the list, that would take the time and intention of individual volunteer editors. It could be done but won't be done, so requiring that sourcing from each blue link be copied to long-term existing entries on list pages calls upon time and attention which amount to making a work requirement which, if not fulfilled, removes hundreds of easily verifiable lists from Wikipedia. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:09, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
You're an experienced editor, so I find it baffling to think that you believe that either of us would think this is a valid defense of an article. Sergecross73 msg me 15:13, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
What would be a valid defense? That you would destroy hundreds, perhaps, thousands of good lists solely because the sources of their blue links are one click away? Wikipedia is not an assembly line where employees are required to make a specific action. If a long-term list has existed without requiring that each long-term item be sourced at the list itself (I can see that needed for new additions, as some lists do) then removing those easily vertifable items would be hurting and not maintaining Wikipedia, so WP:IAR - a major policy - would automatically apply over any guideline. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:21, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
Following WP:V and WP:LISTN. Sergecross73 msg me 15:55, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
LISTN is being discussed below, and the list in question fits its criteria. Let's not lose attention on the original topic, the name change, and I'd suggest you go ahead and move the page to "List of games featuring time travel" so the page name can be distributed without including a built-in error, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:59, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
It doesn't appear they're convinced either, so I'm confused with where you're going here... Sergecross73 msg me 16:16, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
This shouldn't be a list to start with. If there was a notable topic about "games with time travel" that would support a good deal of prose (which may be possible), then a list associated with that topic in the article would make sense. But if you're just grouping by a theme without other details, that's what categories are for.
I have noticed a few of these lists starting to pop up and they should be deleted. Masem (t) 14:40, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
Lists, categories, and navboxes on Wikipedia officially complement each other and should never be put into competition such as you describe. Which lists popping up do you object to? Randy Kryn (talk) 14:49, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
I have zero idea how these meet Wikipedia:LISTN. These are never discussed as a group. We shouldn't have a list for a concept lots of things contain. That is what categories are for. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:12, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
Exactly. There might be sources that talk broadly on time travel in video games, but, like List of ninja video games, that I don't ever expect to see multiple indepth sourcing to discuss the games in the theme, and thus the list is inappropriate, but a non-diffusing category would be fine.
Pulling together lists that just happen to document a broad trope in video games, without the additional sourcing around those, is inappropriate. Masem (t) 15:17, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
Sourcing is only one route listed in WP:LISTN. Another route would then apply: "Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. Editors are still urged to demonstrate list notability via the grouping itself before creating stand-alone lists." Randy Kryn (talk) 15:24, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
Please explain how these are information or navigational? Masem (t) 15:27, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
In my opinion, "Games containing time travel" is an example of WP:OLIST, an over-extensive list. As such a common trope, it would ask too much to keep the list updated while benefiting readers too little. In this case, a category is all that's needed.
The other ones based on themes such as ninja or vampires I think there is a far better argument for keeping. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:28, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
Both informational and navigational seem to fit. If a reader is interested enough about a game containing time travel to click on a Wikipedia page about it then many, if not most, would also be interested in other games about time travel. That's where the navigational aspect comes in and fits the descriptor provided at WP:LISTN. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:32, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
An informational list would be one where one would be able to compare and contrast the entries - for example, List of best-selling video games fits that style. Navigational lists allows to move between closely related topics easily like that in a navbox - such as the embedded lists in Home video game console. Neither idea fits the concept of these lists of (trope) video games. Masem (t) 16:18, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
Indeed. I grew tired of this back and forth, and just put the article up for WP:AfD, which would be the best location to discuss the notability of the list from here. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:14, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Newsletter

Hi all -- I saw that Blaze Wolf sent out the newsletter and noted that it would be the last one in the format due to the large amount of time required to make it (completely understandable). I have a couple of questions:

  • Is there any way that we could automate a large portion of the content (like PresN's new articles section that he posts to this talk page each week) in terms of delivering most of the content updates?
  • Would it be possible to have more in-depth pieces run only once a year, with just automated content updates going out every quarter?

Defer to the people who were actually putting the time into this as well here (and thank you for all the work you've done over the years). Nomader (talk) 14:52, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

@Nomader: The answer to your first question is probably yes. The answer to your second question would be yes only if other people wanted to work on it. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 14:54, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
Was going to send you a note on Discord but realized it's probably better if I put it here instead so it can be viewed more widely. I'd be happy to help because honestly I love the thing, but I think it requires a larger brainstorm from the community about -- what do we want from it and what would be easier to produce? (Know that this has endlessly been discussed in the past in the Newsletter sub-page but with its current state, I think a fresh discussion on it is warranted). I feel like the bare minimum should be:
  • Automated summary post about featured content, DYKs, and etc.
  • Talk page summary (enjoyed Thibbs work here, especially when I wasn't that active)
  • And then one feature a year?
I obviously have not worked on it before, so defer to those (like yourself @Blaze Wolf: who have). Nomader (talk) 15:27, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
@Panini!: Pinging Panini because they worked on it way more than me. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 15:29, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm not even on the Discord so I didn't even know there was a new newsletter was planned until after the fact. Not even sure why there needed to be a new one. GamerPro64 01:38, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

This wasn't actually announced on the Discord server. I just noticed that the next issue had already been worked on and figured that I should at least finish it and maybe bring it back from the dead. But there were some things that would just take way too much effort to do. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 01:43, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I have an interest in updating content lists, if there were no automated programme. I do the same thing on my homewiki via semi-automated python scripts. --Lopullinen 08:05, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, eh.. I also contribute to that "semi-automated" process with my bot. MilkyDefer 05:42, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

​ I created Q1 2023 and updated routine contents. It can be sent out like issues in 2019 if no other problems. --Lopullinen 04:45, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Frank Cifaldi merge discussion

Opinions requested Talk:Video Game History Foundation#Merge Frank Cifaldi into Video Game History Foundation TarkusABtalk/contrib 22:20, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Reversion of whole edits

As already correctly noted, WT:VG is not the venue this, neither the complaint nor the defense badgering going on. It's at WP:ANI now, so save it for there. Sergecross73 msg me 19:57, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Nyxaros [15] User has reverted most of our contribution without consent at talkpage. Do you think this is correct thing to do. Seeing his talkpage he was already warned by multiple editors before [16] (by JDDJS) [17] (by EdJohnston) [18] (by Tintor2) and insulting another admin [19]. He readded back those crufts and listicles to the article. If this ended up being nothing, I have no intention of being very much that active on this website anymore. GlatorNator (talk) 21:50, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

I think I had problems interacting with him while editing the Resident Evil: Damnation article but I kinda got tired so I avoided him.Tintor2 (talk) 22:09, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
Removing unsourced information and WP:SYNTH tires me too, Tintor2. Making constructive changes should be the goal. ภץאคгöร 22:17, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
The page is already in a rough situation, but you can see the edit diff here, and maybe explain clearly why, for example, a sentence like "Kamiya stated in a 1998 interview following the release of Biohazard 2 that his favorite character is Ada Wong because she is "older, tougher, and has a husky voice," appealing to his preference for older women." is relevant to the article and is encyclopedically appropriate and notable. This is just one of the problems. ภץאคгöร 22:26, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
First of all, I think there is evidence of a serious WP:NOTHERE issue with Nyxaros. Simply based on talk page history alone, there is significant WP:OWN behavior. Even Talk pages are not owned by individual users and there is a responsibility not to remove others' comments because of perceived slights. I have to side with the other editors on this one - even if their edits are incorrect, such reversion behavior prior to any discussion is clearly disruptive.
On the other hand, I do agree that Nyxaros is correct in his assertions: simply saying Kamiya liked Ada Wong is not appropriate. If he did not play a role in actually designing her, then it's pointless information for the reader and should be left out of the article.
That said, restoring listicles as well feels like it's just reversion out of anger rather than legitimately paying attention to individual edits and the material therein. It's throwing the baby out with the bathwater. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:05, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
WP:Please do not bite the newcomers
If you spot some pointless information, then remove it rather than reverting entire edits, especially without consensus. GlatorNator (talk) 23:40, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
I strongly agree with ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ. I think that this discussion would be better suited for WP:ANI though since this is really more of an issue with a specific editor than it is with content. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 01:36, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
ANI seems the way to go here. A quick glance at their talk page history shows a consistent pattern of being disruptive. There are several warnings about edit warring and their tone in edit summaries is particularly uncivil ("that's sad for you", calling another a "disruptive editor", "Had the audacity to send a message without even knowing how to write an article. Nice."). Very WP:UNCIVIL and WP:COMPETENCEISREQUIRED. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 04:29, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
Anger? I do not care about this editor or their edits enough to be "angry". Editors have the right to remove messages from their talk pages. Articles can be improved in small steps, rather than being made perfect in one fell swoop. I am not supposed to pick every edit they did and fix it. I tried to cleanup and rewrote sentences to make it a better article. It seems you are completely ignoring the problems of the page, simply dismissed the only example I gave, the sentence from Kamiya, saying that he did not design the character, and you even ignored the main problem of the example, "his appeal for older women"s relevance to the article. Looking at the history of my talk page and going back a few years to create drama and closing the topic without even adressing the issues of it because you were simply more busy searching through history. Congratulations. I hope it has had a positive effect on your attitude towards other contributors such as persistent vandals and that you will now welcome them with the red carpet. I got an actual "uncivil" response from GlatorNator on their talk page (when I explained why their edits were also reverted) that says 11 years on Wikipedia and I "still ha[ve no idea what [to] do, smh.]" The user just removed the aforementioned example from the article and completely reverted back to old version. Nice! ภץאคгöร 08:10, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
I agree with the ANI course here. Especially considering the responses above. --ProtoDrake (talk) 10:27, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
I don't see the problem with a little bit aggressive replies from me on my talk page months or years ago to statements that attack me, such as Saying that "rotten" is not "negative" is stupid, and if you think that, you should be topic banned from film articles. Posting links pointing to my non-recent replies here (though I agree that "Had the audacity to send a message..." from two years ago was bad on my part) and interpreting them out of context is wrong (as edit summaries are potentially subject to misinterpretation or oversimplification) and not the subject of this page. None of the links provided by the user "warn" me of anything. You can go ahead and continue to accuse me for my supposedly "consistent" "uncivil" behaviour on ANI if you think it is wrong to say that what is wrong is "wrong", and waste others' time there too. Or you can contribute to Wikipedia by addressing the problems on the Ada Wong page instead, as this is the the page to discuss video game articles. The choice is yours. ภץאคгöร 17:16, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
As for the subject of interest here, you can see that the editor, as I have mentioned before, reverted back to old revision, which includes trivial, incorrect, and/or repetitive information. I have already linked the edit diff above, so you can decide which info should stay, which is better or not. Otherwise, it is better to WP:STICK. ภץאคгöร 17:16, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
That reads as one big fat WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Those edit summaries were the ones that stick out the most on your talk page. Since you just had the rather troll-ish edit summary with "really sad", my best guess is normal behaviour for you, i.e., WP:DUCK. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 17:35, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
How so? Yes, they happened on my talk page in the past. They are not relevant to today, this page or topic. And yes, it is "really sad" to see comments on editor instead of contributions on the ignored article on this video game talk page. Don't know where did you get "troll-ish" or were able to guess what my "normal behaviour" is since you don't even know me in any way. ภץאคгöร 19:15, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
Having interacted with Nyxaros before, I can confirm they have serious problems being civil and respecting consensus (e.g. calling me a "smartass" for reverting them for editing against consensus). I'd more than welcome a block or bringing this to ANI. JOEBRO64 17:37, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
I don't have a "serious problem", TheJoebro64, and I don't know how you can "confirm" that. It seems you are still hurt what happened years ago since you brought it up here. No, there wasn't a consensus back then on that topic and there isn't a consensus about removing "listicles" on the Ada Wong article or anything. I do not understand what you want to gain from this interaction. Get over it. ภץאคгöร 19:15, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
For the record, I didn't write anything "uncivil" to the editor GlatorNator. On the contrary, they stated I didn't know what I was doing for 11 years and that I was supposed to get their "consent" for my edits. They opened this section to talk about past and accuse me instead of talking about the problems and their edits on the Ada Wong page which has had intensive IP activity lately. ภץאคгöร 19:28, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

I have started an ANI discussion on them. Any further statements on their actions should be made there and don't be afraid to repeat things that you already mentioned here at ANI. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 19:50, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

New Articles (March 27 to April 2)

Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements
 A listing of all articles newly added to the Video Games Wikiproject (regardless of creation date). Generated by v3.15 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 15:03, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

March 27

March 28

March 29

March 30

March 31

April 1

April 2

Not listed - a bunch of "List of role-playing video games: 19xx to 19xx" lists that got their talk pages redirected to the main list, then I re-tagged (while leaving the redirect). A neat idea to consolidate discussion, but remember to leave the talk page templates if you do that so they still get counted. --PresN 15:03, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Strange question but is there any downside to excluding WP:G13 draft deletions? Might reduce the number of drafts that appear in "Articles deleted/removed" ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 19:39, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
Right now I don't exclude anything based on why it was removed or redirected or whatever; it wouldn't be too hard to exclude deletions for G13 reasons if people don't find it useful. --PresN 20:49, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
Fair enough. I"m only saying that as G13 is a rather routine deletion simply based on inactivity of a draft and not based on any content. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 21:04, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Unsure about Draft:Dokapon (series)

On one hand, the series page falls short of having sources discuss it as a whole. But, it is a very long running series with no real landing page for users that can actually list its games. Would an alternative be a List of Dokapon games? ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:06, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Help with Japanese text

While the reception of X (Mega Man) seems to be better than in previous revisions, I can't find too many translations about the character's voice actors. The few I found direct to fansites as the original websites no longer work as a result of Flash. When X games were rereleased, Capcom released videos with X's interview Kentaro Ito here as well, as his successors Showtaro Morikubo and Takahiro Sakurai here. Even with automatically translated subtitles I have no idea what they are saying. Is somebody skilled at Japanese who could add at least some tidbits about the actors from the videos? Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 18:58, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

"X million hours played"

I've been seeing this type of statistic included in game articles recently, following a push from big publishers to publicize it as part of their post-launch press release/victory lap. Since it's only ever publicized when it looks good or impressive, it's hard for a reader to understand and contextualize what it actually means in terms of a game's popularity. Total hours played also needs sales data to even mean anything, and that's not always readily available (or intentionally obfuscated) at the same time point. The view is always skewed by lack of data and transparency. Compare that to sales, which are concrete numbers that refer to a real thing in the real world. The shift from reporting sales to reporting hours is also part of a general trend toward "softer" data points that can be more easily cherry-picked to generate the desired perception (cf. Netflix viewing time controversy, How to Lie with Statistics). I have a hard time seeing this as anything more than marketing bluster and I would prefer if we could discourage its use. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:04, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree. I haven't seen it much in articles I maintain (though I spend less time on "big blockbuster" types more prone to this) but I'd remove it were I to come across it. I thought about saying "unless it was particularly impressive", but as you say, I don't even know how I'd come up with a good example of that. The numbers are so big, yet something like "over 10,000 hours of Tears of the Kingdom played" would likely realistically seen as a massive flop... Sergecross73 msg me 17:15, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
I dunno. They're obviously pushed because they sound great, but with the lack of transparency regarding sales these days you can say the same thing for basically all game sales now, where concrete sales figures usually only get pushed if it's impressive enough. As long as they aren't an extended point of discussion (the same way we shouldn't be posting running tallies of sales and the like) I don't particularly see an issue. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:13, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
I recognize that but at the very least, you can be sure that a sale is a sale. What's an "hour played"? Does it include idling time? Does the game include enforced waiting mechanics (e.g. incremental games)? What about games that are just tedious and take a long time to get anything done? All of these make it difficult to make meaningful comparisons across games, whereas a sale is a sale. It's a basic unit of economic trade that most readers can derive a meaningful amount of information from, even if the details differ across games. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:22, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

VR Troopers (video game)

Does anyone have access to any of the reviews listed for this game at Mobygames[20] or any other sources to add to the article VR Troopers (video game)? 8.37.179.254 (talk) 14:55, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Nothing on Newspapers.com as far I can see. Timur9008 (talk) 15:08, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
Have you tried pressing the 'read review' button on Mobygames? They should all be linked from it. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:20, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
Sorry I meant additional sources to add. Timur9008 (talk) 15:27, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
Yes, most of them are available on the "read review" button, but a few are not, in this case there are three that are not linked, and often enough even when it does say "read review" the link is dead. 8.37.179.254 (talk) 15:46, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
Try putting the URL in the Wayback Machine if it's dead. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:47, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
Moby Games is wrong saying that Mean Machines reviewed it, Mean Machines finished in 1992 and split into two. You need this Mean Machines Sega review - X201 (talk) 15:25, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
Oh, thank you very much for finding that, I will add it! 8.37.179.254 (talk) 15:47, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Virtual Boy template deletion discussion

Hi everyone,

I nominated {{Virtual Boy}} for deletion. Similar to Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 December 6#Template:Atari Lynx games, it's a short-lived system with just handful of release. To me, that doesn't mean it should have a navbox, but some people are insisting it should stay because of that very reason. Please join the discussion here (cc Oknazevad who said it should go). soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 12:00, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I explained my rationale in the discussion, but overall the idea of something being short lived as a rationale to pare down content is a notability fallacy akin to WP:DEFUNCT. Despite having few releases, it was demonstrably incredibly different than most consoles before or since. (Besides VR, obviously, but that's a different, far more advanced principle). ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:35, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
I appreciate you taking the time to reply, Zxcvbnm! soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 15:48, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Can title screens substitute for cover art?

I noticed the title screens of some really old games are probably too simple to be copyrighted. Would it be acceptable to use those to illustrate their respective articles instead of non-free cover art? Ixfd64 (talk) 00:01, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

A title screen or a splash screen can be used in case a cover art, key art, promotional flyer, promotional art cannot be found. This can also apply to articles in regards to unreleased titles. But it's preferable to use cover arts or any of the items i mentioned above. Roberth Martinez (talk) 00:23, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
If it's a really obscure indie game or really ancient game, hopefully yeah, that could be fair-used as the title. Some games don't have cover art. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:49, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
Ixfd64 is right that, if we have a textlogo of a game on Commons, that does severely weaken the fair use rationale of the cover art. I think this case is rare and minor enough that we can largely overlook it, though. Most of these old games only have one non-free image in total. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:07, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
I see. But what about using title screens in place of normal screenshots?
Although this would reduce the number of non-free images, I imagine a mere title screen wouldn't be as useful for the purpose of illustrating gameplay. Ixfd64 (talk) 19:05, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
A gameplay screenshot would be equally necessary, since it shows how the game works. Roberth Martinez (talk) 21:22, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
DaggerFall for example has procedurally generated graphics that could get considered as de minimus in a gameplay screenshot.
We could establish a guideline for pixel art quality games to prefer title screens . Nira gliro (talk) 01:10, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Merger Proposal

I am not sure how to nominate stuff for proposed mergers, so I posted a discussion at Talk:Myth Makers: Trixie in Toyland. Please help build consensus. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:24, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

@QuicoleJR: Enabling the WP:TWINKLE gadget lets you tag an article for a merge automatically as long as you are WP:AUTOCONFIRMED (a fairly low bar that includes all but the newest users) ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:13, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Oh, OK. I will do that shortly. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:17, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

The article is now up for deletion here. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:57, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

List of highest-grossing mobile games

List of highest-grossing mobile games article is mostly Jagged 85/User:Maestro2016 work. I was wondering can the article can be deleted(like List of fastest-selling products) since I don't anyone will take the time cleanp the article up and some of the entry's(the more $2 billion ones and after the sources are checked) moved to List of highest-grossing media franchises? Wondering what you all think. Timur9008 (talk) 16:13, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

If there is strongly suspected or substantiated evidence that these "best-selling/grossing" lists are misrepresenting sources or are simply incorrect, then I think we should move to blank them as soon as possible. I think leaving up misinformation is worse than lacking the information at all. I see that the highest grossing mobile list is tagged with Jagged 85 since June 2022, so potential misinformation has been up for almost a year, or more. It can be restored after someone has gone through the sources; misinformation doesn't need to be live in articlespace in the meantime. Axem Titanium (talk) 16:35, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
I've already did a almost WP:TNT on highest media franchise page.(been cleaning it up since November of last year). If someone moves the highest mobile grossing page to draft I will be working on it from there. Timur9008 (talk) 16:44, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
There is a serious WP:SYNTH issue with these sorts of lists. If an editor is collating individual data on how best-selling the games and products are, they are doing their own original research. (Game A made $10 million, Game B made $15 million, so Game B is more bestselling). It doesn't seem like any reliable source has assembled such a best selling list, and even if they did, it would just be duplicating that source. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:57, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
I draftified it. I think there's some limited level of routine WP:CALC argument to be made to justify this type of list. I don't know where to draw the line, personally. For example, on List of best-selling video game franchises, the total number for Mario series games sold is simple addition of... over 40 sources. Is that still routine? I don't know! I don't have the energy to maintain/police these lists, which are the product of an enormous amount of editor time and work, so I'm usually live-and-let-live, if not necessarily by choice. User:Timur9008, are you aware of other "best-selling" lists that are tagged with Jagged 85 cleanup? We should draftify those as well. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:10, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for draftifing it! I've checked [21] and only the year in video game articles need attention + the Battle royale game page as well other pages not related to this Wiki Project. Timur9008 (talk) 18:19, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
40 sources is almost certainly not routine. The data should come from only one or a few sources to be routine. If this isn't the case for most games or franchises, the list should probably not be a thing. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:21, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
It's a tough thing. Timur and Phediuk have done a tremendous amount of work cleaning up List of highest-grossing media franchises, for example, but it still necessarily relies on doing a LOT of adding. It's not something I feel comfortable litigating without getting far more involved and understanding what goes into this documentation effort. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:30, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
Ironically, I feel like the very fact that it requires a massive effort points to some degree of WP:OR. Typically, citing a source should be simple because the information is already there. If you're jumping through tons of hoops and putting info in spreadsheets, you're doing research. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:06, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
I agree with you in theory. Ten years ago, I'd be right with you in the AFD vanguard. In practice, I've found that I've become less pugnacious over the years when it comes to trying to dismantle large-scale projects like this. (This is a soft repudiation of WP:EFFORT.) I personally no longer have the time or inclination to wreck good-faith sandcastles, especially from longtime WP:GNOMEish editors. In this case, afaik, the sources do indeed back up every number, you just need to do a lot of work to arrive at it. Whether that still amounts to OR is for the community to decide. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:33, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Riot Games Operations section review

Hello! I'm asking editors at this WikiProject if they would like to examine an edit request I made over at the Riot Games Talk page. I'm a Riot employee trying to improve the company's article, so I'm abiding by Wikipedia's COI rules, putting forward content in edit requests and then letting independent editors decide if my suggestions are up to snuff. I recently submitted a brief Operations section for community review. It's similar to ones I've seen on other corporate pages, and features key details about Riot's structure and function.

Here's the link to my request. Thanks in advance to anyone who takes a look! JHixson at Riot Games (talk) 19:49, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Mega Man X8 reviews

For some reason, Mega Man X8 is the game I failed to find reviews enough to write a proper reception section. Most links like EGM or 1UP take me to dead sites. If anybody finds an archived review, please add it to the talk page so I'd appreciate it. Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 04:22, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Well here is the EGM review, and here is the 1UP review. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:19, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Thoughts on Discontinuation of the Nintendo eShop (Wii U & 3DS)

Should it be merged into the article on the eShop? If it stays as-is, what should its title be? I would think Wii U and 3DS eShop closure would be a bit less of a word salad. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:46, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Strongly against this. I have no idea how they dragged that out for an article that size. It's bloated beyond belief. It should be a simple 1-2 sentences in their respective articles. Sergecross73 msg me 00:38, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
Strong redirect. This doesn't require more than a sentence or three in the parent console articles. -- ferret (talk) 00:52, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
I also strongly support merging back into the eShop article.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 00:53, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
Ditto everyone else. Please merge what's needed and rd. Axem Titanium (talk) 01:34, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
I'll be blunt. Kill it with fire. JOEBRO64 01:48, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
@Sergecross73: @Ferret: @Blue Pumpkin Pie: @Axem Titanium: Merge discussion has been started on the article itself so there can be consensus. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:50, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
Looking a bit further, I'm starting to wonder if this is even in good faith. The article creator randomly tried to make it the largest article in existence, and, while I can't link to it because it's been deleted, he tried also to write an alternate history article about how Trump beat Biden in the 2020 election. Not like he was disputing who won either. It was framed as literal fanfiction. And he tagged it with like thirty improvement tags. (And it was entirely his writing.) While I'm sure we all have varying political views that I have no interest delving into, I think we can all agree that alternate history articles have no place on an encyclopedia. Feels like he's just goofing around... Sergecross73 msg me 13:30, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
He could very well be a WP:SOCK given his experience editing compared to the amount of edits on his account, combined with the disruptive editing behavior. Literal days after joining the site he made a draft article with a full layout and huge amounts of sources. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:54, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
WP:NOTHERE; possible SOCK, EVADE; DUCK. It's clear that this is not a first account. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:12, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Pre-AFD consideration at List of Nintendo products

I've opened a section at Talk:List of Nintendo products#GameFAQs / MobyGames / IndieDB initially about the mass use of unreliable sources. But once I started looking at this, the more and more problematic this list is. I see a 2018 AFD that I !voted in but honestly didn't remember, and I feel the close was... not optimal. At best that discussion could be called a non-consensus. That said, inviting further opinions before I consider pushing this to AFD again. I don't think this can be salvaged. "Every product that Nintendo ever had any role in making, developing, publishing or physically distributing" is just too broad and absolutely a LISTN failure besides. None of the other console manufactures have a list that attempts to do this. At best the entire thing should be nuked and replaced with a List of Lists. -- ferret (talk) 23:55, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

I think there's merit in the idea of list that centralizes "all Nintendo-published games" (or all Nintendo-first-party-developed), but it would need very locked down inclusion criteria. Also "products"? Why "products"? There's a separate list idea for all Nintendo non-video game products (e.g. Ultra Hand), but it's just silly and unfocused to try to shoehorn it into this one. It certainly needs some kind of renaming and splitting, regardless of the sourcing issues. Axem Titanium (talk) 00:15, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Video Game infobox: Writer(s) crediting guidelines

I recently attempted to properly credit a couple of additional writers on a video game, and my edits were undone. The user who undid them listed the guidelines he linked me to. So first, I'd refer you to the "writer" section on the infobox video game page.

As a AAA Game Writer myself, I can tell you I've never seen the word "scenario" in anyone's title.

The text seems to contradict itself as well. I agree with this part: "The popular names of the video game writers. The names can wikilinked. [sic] The writers should be listed in the order of their contribution..." Especially since it's pointedly plural and recognizes that games tend to have multiple writers.

But then it continues with: "with those who wrote the game's scenarios/scripts listed before the game's story writers." This is highly ambiguous, as these terms aren't defined. Again, what is a "scenario"? In my experience and general industry knowledge, the game's "story writers" tend to be the same people who write scripts for the game (among other additional writers of various titles).

Here's where it seems to contradict itself:

1. If a single person is credited as "scenario director" or "scenario writer", list that person; synonyms for this position include "lead writer";"

Item 1 here seems to indicate that if anyone is listed as "lead writer" then only list that writer. Contradicting the plural "writers" from earlier in the section. And since large-scale games most often require multiple writers, due to the sheer amount of content in modern games, then we should abide by Item 3 below, which limits this box to three writers, as well as abiding by the text "listed in the order of their contribution" from above. And again, I have never seen or heard of anyone's title being "scenario director" or "scenario writer".

"2. If there is a person credited as "scenario concept writer" or "[original] concept", also list that person here;"

Once again, I've never seen the title "scenario concept writer" in game development. And the word "concept" needs some practical definition here. Besides that, even if there were a single person (unlikely) who created the "[original] concept" for a game, well, abiding by the above "listed in order of their contribution" in most circumstances that person wouldn't make the cut due to Item 3's "List no more than three people as far as actual contribution to the game.

"3. List no more than three people in this field."

I realize these infoboxes are supposed to be mini-snapshots of data, and shouldn't get too long, so I understand the need for this Item. Even though there are often more than three writers who contribute to a large-scale game and I, personally, would like the see a higher limit on the listed credits for this field.


So what's my point here?

These titles need to be updated if these guidelines are going to be of any practical modern use. Which will be tricky, because there is no real "standard" for how people are credited or what titles they possess across the video game industry. Every studio tends to do things a little differently.

Here's my humble suggestion for an update to the text of the "writer" infobox description:


- - -

The popular names of the video game writers. The names can be wikilinked.

1. Writers should be listed in the order of their contribution, with those who wrote the game's scripts listed before any person credited as creating the "[original] concept" for the game's story;

2. If a single person is credited as "lead writer", list that person first; in the case of multiple "co-lead writer" credits, list each person in alphabetical order by last name before any additional credited writers;

3. If there are people who have the word "lead" in their title, they should also be listed here; some example titles are "zone lead writer", "lead side mission writer", and so on;

4. If there are people credited as "senior writer", "writer", or "associate writer", also list those names here;

3. List no more than three people in this field.

- - -


Let me know what you think! ConnorThomasCleary (talk) 12:59, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Next time, for clarity's sake, mention the person you've been talking to, i.e., me. And most definitely mention that you've been trying to add your own name, since that's a clear WP:COI.
There has been a discussion about this on my talk page, which you can find here. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 13:09, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
I didn't know how to link back to our discussion on your talk page.
Fair to point out that I have been trying to add my own name into the credits of a game I wrote nearly half of myself (as well as another writer who massively contributed). Relevant proof can be found on IMDb and this YouTube video of the credits for the game in question (Tiny Tina's Wonderlands).
But this post isn't just about me. It was more about modernizing the description for writer credits in the infobox in general. I made a suggestion for how I feel it could be improved, and more relevant to how game writers tend to be credited across the industry, informed by five years working in video game narrative, and an additional five years as a game journalist before that.
I'm aware there is likely room for improvement. I, myself, just realized there are a number of other titles that companies use for writers that would probably be relevant as examples given (e.g. "Narrative Writer", "Writer-Designer"). ConnorThomasCleary (talk) 15:13, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
Hi Connor, welcome to Wikipedia. Sorry that this is your first experience as an editor here (longtime Wikipedia editors tend not to have a lot of patience for apparent COI editing). I was part of the original discussion that lead to our modern implementation of crediting guidelines in the infobox. "Scenario writer" is a legacy term often found in older Japanese game credits and is functionally interchangeable with script writer. You're right in recognizing that these infoboxes are supposed to be mini-snapshots of data. This was the main reason for locking down the inclusion criteria so tightly---to keep the infobox concise and avoid edit wars over it. I am aware that the games industry has a crediting problem. I support unionization efforts across the industry, which might aid efforts to standardize crediting and prevent situations where a person's credits are removed if they leave the company.
Returning to the issue at hand, the infobox is just that: a short informational box. It provides "at a glance" info about an article's topic and does not have the space to explain complicated crediting situations without compromising its central purpose. No infobox can hope to provide a "comprehensive" credits list that properly recognizes the hundreds of people who worked on a game. The proper venue for that is the Development section of the article, where individual or group contributions can be documented in more depth, according to reliable sources. If you or others on the writing team have given interviews about your contributions to the game's writing, you may suggest an edit on the article's talk page using {{request edit}} and an uninvolved editor may review it for inclusion. There's no need to jockey for credit in the infobox. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:41, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
Yes, to add onto that, it's part of Wikipedia policy that it isn't a database - Wikipedia isn't MobyGames in that regard. It can absolutely be discussed in context in the article, but straight up listing credits is not allowed unless they are the most major of major roles in development. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:57, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
If it is the case that, as you say, "scenario writer" is interchangeable with "script writer", then that should be specified in the guidelines, as well as perhaps a denotation that these titles are to be interpreted in good faith to be interchangeable with other, similar titles.
At which point, the initial text "The popular names of the video game writers. The names can wikilinked. The writers should be listed in the order of their contribution." In addition to Item 2's "also list that person here" (emphasis mine), means that my second edit (which only listed three names total after reading the guidelines, as per Item 3) should be well within the rules.
But since the rules don't specify an allowance for that level of good faith interpretation of titles, sticklers like Soetermans just see, "No one is listed as one of these specific titles, so no one else gets credited."
In my case, I was the Lead Side Mission Writer, and personally wrote nearly half of the game's content myself, while managing a team of writers who wrote another large chunk of the content. The only person above me was the Lead Writer, but I acted mostly independently of him. I also literally managed more content than the Lead Writer, since there is far more side mission content than main mission content in the game. (To me, that represents one of the "most major of major roles in development" (to use the phrase in ZXCVBNM's comment). And to be told I have no right to be credited here feels like erasing a year and a half of my life and my work as a writer. I'm not trying to be a crybaby here, I'm trying to point out that the rules as written (with the additional clarification that "scenario writer" is interchangeable with "script writer", according to Axen Titanium), support my edit.
As far as this being a "conflict of interest", I'd ask you: Who is better suited to list writers "in the order of their contribution" than someone who actually worked as a writer on the game? ConnorThomasCleary (talk) 16:12, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
Well, we go by reliable sources (see WP:VG/RS for an overview), not primary sources or by people close to a subject. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 16:19, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
Fine. I give up. ConnorThomasCleary (talk) 16:22, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
[22]https://twitter.com/ThatSamWinkler/status/1639615621527633920 ConnorThomasCleary (talk) 16:28, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
Hi @ConnorThomasCleary: I have not heard of your work and do not know how much access you would have to people who work in media, but if you have a substantive social media following, I might suggest taking advantage of that to create a reliable source. If you make a tweet saying you need a source to say you worked on the game, and someone from a website that Wikipedia calls reliable sees that and brings you in for an interview about it which is then published, we may be able to then change the article. Others have been successful doing this in the past.
Further, welcome to Wikipedia! I'd like to +1 what Axem Titanium said and apologize for your frustrating experience. While we try to assume good faith on the part of all involved, it's extremely important that we try to keep content verifiable here, and we have a lot of articles to maintain. I assure you that no one editor here is personally out to get in your way.
I hope this may be of help. I'm sorry to hear about your struggle to be credited and wish you the best of luck! silvia (BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) (inquire within) 17:10, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
To be clear, the fact that Connor worked on this game is not in question. Any video of the credits is enough to verify that. The two issues at hand are 1) whether he should be listed in the infobox, which I don't think is happening regardless of any RS interviews he gives, and 2) whether his contributions should be described in the Development section, which is an open question. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:55, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
Right, I chose my words less than optimally there. Well, question 2 might be answered if he did give an interview about his contribution, but we'll have to wait and see if that happens, obviously. silvia (BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) (inquire within) 18:00, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
+1 to WP:NOTDATABASE. I'm sympathetic to the fact that artists are under credited, and that the entertainment press is biased towards auteur theory that art is created by one person. But that's not something that Wikipedia can resolve without becoming an unwieldy database, since most AAA projects involve hundreds of contributors. I am also less than confident that we can trust primary sources as reliable, such as end credits, or instruction manuals, or other unreliable databases. The only viable solution is to include any contributors that are noted in reliable secondary sources, and summarize them in the development section. The infoboxes should be necessarily brief. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:37, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
Echoing Shooterwalker, and to respond to Connor, I think trying to pick apart the specifics of grammar and word choice in the instructions isn't going to be an effective line of argument here. The infobox is not intended as and never going to be a comprehensive credits list. The twitter thread you linked has a dozen names in it; is it your contention that all of these people belong in the infobox on this basis? You clearly believe that you made a significant and noteworthy contribution to the writing of this video game, and I have no reason to doubt you, but do you have a source? Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit so how do we ensure that fake nonsense doesn't get in? The imperfect but broadly effective line that Wikipedia uses is coverage in reliable, verifiable independent sources. Can you find an interview or news article discussing your particular contribution? Then it may warrant inclusion in the Development section of the article! But my sense is that you're not going to find support for inclusion in the infobox, for yourself or anyone else in that twitter thread not already included. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:02, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
Honestly, I think the edit in question, as well as this discussion, highlights why the infobox has the rules it does. It's changing the box to have seven writers instead of one. I'm sure they all made major contributions to the writing! They all "deserve" credit! But, from a practical perspective, if every field in the infobox had seven names, then it would be way too long, and no longer just a "summary" of the article subject. I'm sure the technical director and associate directors and dozens of artists and programmers also "deserve" to be listed in the infobox. Hundreds and hundreds of people worked on the game - it's credits are, famously, 27 minutes long - and they "deserve" to be recognized for their contributions. But the purpose of an infobox is not to repeat the credits, because it's just too much for the readers. Every "person" field essentially comes down to the same thing- put the single "highest" person for that area there, or up to three people if they held equivalent roles (e.g. 3 composers, 3 co-directors). Does this mean that for AAA games you'll get an art director but not the people who did the drawing/modelling? Yes. Does that mean that a hundred other people who spent a year and a half on this game don't get listed? Yes. Does it also mean that, in this case, where you wrote a significant portion of the game but weren't the "lead writer", that you wouldn't be listed? Unfortunately, also yes. --PresN 16:59, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
Also, not to put too fine a point on it, but you're also kinda claiming here that you "deserve" to be credited more than the lead writer, on the basis that you wrote more of the game than him. I wonder if he would feel the same! Can you see how trying to determine, for every single game in existence, who wrote the highest percentage of content would be unworkable? And even more unworkable if all we had to go on was their own statements! If someone claiming to be Sam Winkler walked in here and said that actually he wrote 50.1% of the words, who wins? What if he wrote none of the words, but as the lead who signed off on the overall direction of the script, he thinks he deserves to be the name listed? It's completely unworkable. So, we use the thing that already does all of that for us: who got listed as the "lead" whatever in the credits. --PresN 17:05, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
I second everything that PresN has said. Couldn't say it better myself. Sergecross73 msg me 17:38, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
For everyone still replying to this: I've already given up. You can stop.
My initial post here was an attempt to improve the quality of the guidelines for the writer(s) box to be more modern and more in line with how modern games are credited and created, and how modern game developers are titled (as I've said elsewhere, I've never seen the word "scenario" in anyone's title in the video game industry, but according to Axem Titanium, it is a legacy term). My suggestions here were meant to be agnostic of my desire to be credited on a particular game.
It was Soetermans who sent the conversation in the direction of my own credit -- however, I grant that I did not initially disclose my so-called "conflict of interest" in the matter, which was likely a mistake on my part -- in any case, I don't personally think that my specific credit is an appropriate topic for this general-information talk board to continue discussing. ConnorThomasCleary (talk) 20:38, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
To whoever has the power to do so, I would humbly request this entire thread be removed from the page. ConnorThomasCleary (talk) 20:43, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
I don't mean to be rude, but if you're done, you can just stop reading/responding. Some times these discussions go on for a while, and it's more for the community's sake. We value having having proof of a discussion that establishes a community consensus. Sergecross73 msg me 00:31, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
The discussion will get automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III after it's been inactive for a while. I'm sorry that your first encounter with Wikipedia has been such a negative one, but like Soetermans said a few replies below, I hope you'll stick around. I think perspectives like yours are interesting and valuable and can help shape editing guidelines moving forward, should you be open to that discussion. ReneeWrites (talk) 09:23, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
Hi ConnorThomasCleary, while consensus can change, I'm not going to lie, I don't think anytime soon we'll be expanding the video game infobox. But don't give up on Wikipedia! Despite that you were trying to add your own name, I also absolutely believe you were still trying to improve the article. We need people like you. You think getting your name removed seems like a year and half wasted? I've been here for almost seventeen years and I'm still doing this, talk about wasting time! I'm kidding of course. You're a video game writer, and while we still go by what reliable sources say, you just might have an insight into the process of creating a video game that others do not (I do not, most definitely). Your contributions would be very welcome. And who knows, maybe we will change those pesky guidelines in the near future to reflect changes in the industry. Like Axem Titanium said, there is a crediting problem in the industry. And on Wikipedia for instance, we used to have "system requirements" in articles. Or "spoiler tags", those are gone too. Don't give up, not on yourself and not on Wikipedia. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 20:53, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I did reverse the order in the infobox instructions to list "lead writer" ahead of "scenario writer". Hope this addresses at least some of your concerns. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:59, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

List of One Piece video games cleanup

I've tagged List of One Piece video games with the Jagged 85 template since Commercial reception and Japan retail is his edits. (most of Japanase retail section is sourced to forums NeoGaf and Resetera). I'm not sure what to do here. Remove these sections entrirely or some other course of action. Timur9008 (talk) 09:53, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Delete it all. It's totally unnecessary. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:34, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

The Mandatory Making of Mass and Multiple Mario Movie Markups and Mentions in Many Mario Material

Also known as M.M.M.M.M.M.M.M.M.M.M.

Lots of changes to Mario articles regarding The Super Mario Bros. Movie. There's stuff to be said about the necessity of mentioning this movie in certain articles, but I want to focus on this first: is Peaches (Jack Black song) necessary? Panini! • 🥪 06:11, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps not now. If this song has an impact on Jack Black's career then I would gladly translate it into zhwiki. I've watched the movie twice and to be honest, this song is very addicting and has the potential of becoming an internet meme.
Maybe just wait for a month or two, don't rush to the decision of delete or merge. MilkyDefer 14:23, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
I don't think it's policy to keep an article up because it might meet stand-alone notability guidelines in the future. Currently there is nothing in the Peaches page that isn't also covered on that of the Mario Bros. movie. ReneeWrites (talk) 19:49, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
WP:NSONGS values charting in their notability standards. iTunes is not one of their valid charts, but doing well there can be an indicator of it doing well on the valid charts. If it does chart, that would be a pretty good indicator that it's notable. That said, neither the sourcing nor the charting is currently up to snuff. Sergecross73 msg me 15:54, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
I am not saying it is possible now, but often movie soundtracks get their own article (but NALBUM applies), and should that happen, I'd expect that the Peaches song coverage can go into that. Masem (t) 16:03, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
It already exists - The Super Mario Bros. Movie (soundtrack) - thought it's not in the best shape either... Sergecross73 msg me 16:22, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

List of highest-grossing media franchises final scretch

Opened section/discussion at Talk:List_of_highest-grossing_media_franchises#Final_stretch. Would aprreciate any advise/comment. Timur9008 (talk) 11:43, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

New Articles (April 3 to April 9)

Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements
 A listing of all articles newly added to the Video Games Wikiproject (regardless of creation date). Generated by v3.15 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 14:40, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

April 3

April 4

April 5

April 6

April 7

April 8

April 9

Sorry for the giant block of categories! --PresN 14:40, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm guessing List of fastest-selling products was tagged because of this edit? [23] Timur9008 (talk) 14:50, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
Yes, removed. --PresN 15:53, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Is Template:Mario & Luigi really needed with Template:Mario role-playing games existing? (Oinkers42) (talk) 15:14, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

NScripter reads like a technical guide, right? soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 15:21, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
The Mario & Luigi template is not needed, and the user who created it is probably a WP:SOCK. They started making tons of navboxes immediately after making their account. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:10, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
Agreed. -- ferret (talk) 22:19, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
TFD'd. Axem Titanium (talk) 23:30, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Sharing my personal collection of gaming magazine articles

Hello. I want to ask experienced editors some questions about the Reference Library you have here. I have a large collection of magazine articles about my favourite games on my WebArchive account:

https://archive.org/details/@retrojabba

I would like to know how to share them with Wikipedians who can put them to good use.

All of the articles come from British, American & Australian gaming magazines. They are structured in chronological order, so a reader can easily see how a game was covered by journalists right from the first news reports. Here's just one example, Quake 2:

https://archive.org/details/quake-2-articles

There are more than 220 articles, including interviews with developers, guides, reviews etc. Another notable example is Max Payne series:

https://archive.org/details/max-payne-series-articles_20220926

In all, I have articles about more than 60 games released between 1992 and 2020. Many of them don't have a featured article badge in English Wikipedia, and even if they do, such articles can still be expanded using sources from my collection.

However, I don't know how and where I can post the links, or if it's even allowed. I see that there's a subsection in the Reference Library where Wikipedians list magazines from their possession, like this one about XBN:

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Reference_library/XBN

The problem is, my collection of articles is too large to be listed in this way. I toyed with an idea of posting links to my WebArchive page on discussion pages of separate articles, but quickly discarded it as such an action, especially from my new account, will surely be considered a link spam and may even get me blocked.

Is there a place in this Project Video games portal where I can post links to my archives of articles? I spent years hoarding information about those games and don't want to see all of my efforts go completely to waste. It'd be great if Wikipedians who are as passionate about those games as I am could easily view these articles and use them as sources. LonelyStreetSigns2003 (talk) 08:09, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

That's pretty cool. You would not be blocked for adding legitimate reference links to Talk pages. I recommend using the refideas template near the top of the talk pages (example). I think that would be best. You could also create a subpage in the reference library like Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Reference library/Reference collections by topic and list them there, but I don't think everyone checks the reference library. I'm curious what ideas other people have. TarkusABtalk/contrib 09:03, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply, TarkusAB. I'll try adding links to talk pages as you suggested. How should I name them? Will "96 magazine articles about Alien: Isolation" on that game's talk page suffice? LonelyStreetSigns2003 (talk) 11:23, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
Sure TarkusABtalk/contrib 15:33, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
interesting. do you have gameinformers or nintendo powers? if so, how many? Blitzfan51 (talk) 19:12, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
I have 22 Game Informers published between 2002 and 2009. I never acquired any Nintendo Power issues as I'm not interested in Nintendo games per se, just in the N64 ports of Quake 2 and Toy Story 2. I extracted articles about those two games from Nintendo magazine scans I had downloaded from Retromags.com LonelyStreetSigns2003 (talk) 10:18, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

God of War Ragnarök

Can somebody review this? It is not my GAN, but I think it is high-priority because of the FT removal nom, so review please. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:03, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

AFAIK, an open GAN is enough demonstration of good-faith effort to hold off any Good/Featured Topic delisting procedures. The FT coordinators aren't going around maliciously delisting topics that are actively being worked on, the moment the deadline passes. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:13, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
OK. QuicoleJR (talk) 12:53, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Might be picked up quicker if someone were to trim down the wildly over-detailed plot details... — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs)

Thexder 95

Does anyone have access to any of the unlinked reviews listed for this game at Mobygames[24] or any other sources to add to the article Thexder 95? 8.37.179.254 (talk) 18:47, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

You might find them on archive.org, just search the magazine collection there. For example PC Player isn't linked on Mobygames but you can see the date is Jan 96, and archive.org has all PC Player magazines from 1996. UVL is another great resource, it has Génération 4 review listed that Mobygames doesn't: [25], and archive.org has a scan: [26] --Mika1h (talk) 19:32, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
Oh, that is nice! Thank you. 8.37.179.254 (talk) 20:33, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
Here is one you can use. [27] Timur9008 (talk) 05:33, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Thank you, I will add that! 8.37.179.254 (talk) 19:23, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Keep in mind that you are using bare links for all these citations. Given how long you have been editing Wikipedia, I strongly suggest becoming a registered user, which will allow you to use WP:VISUALEDITOR, including its built-in citation tool, and receive notifications such as pings from other users. (I see others have already mentioned this but it doesn't hurt to stress how vastly more convenient it is to have an account). ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:11, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Important

We need to get Fire Emblem Engage to GA, or the Fire Emblem featured topic will be demoted. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:17, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Well its gonna be a quickfail GA because the gameplay sections needs to be expanded. I would describe it as if there were no previous games and this was the first one. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 14:24, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
I meant make it ready for GA. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:57, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
FYI, that complaint has been fixed. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:35, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
There is no deadline. Even if it is demoted, it can always be re-promoted in the future. The Night Watch (talk) 01:51, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
The article as it stands now is very, very far from being a GA. The gameplay section and the reception section are very underdeveloped. OceanHok (talk) 14:54, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Really? I just expanded the gameplay section. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:14, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Please take a look at other video game GAs. In fact, just take a look at Fire Emblem: Three Houses and Fire Emblem Awakening, or any article in that GT. There is a substantial gap in quality between Engage and the rest of the topic. OceanHok (talk) 17:23, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Take it slowly. Why the hurry? There's not need to get the article into GA status so quickly. The FE topic won't lose that status anytime soon... Roberth Martinez (talk) 21:55, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Sonic the Hedgehog 2 FAC

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sonic the Hedgehog 2/archive1 has been open for three weeks and is yet to attract any substantial commentary, so it's in danger of being closed. If you can leave a review (even if it's an oppose!) please do—I'm more than willing to do some QPQ JOEBRO64 02:19, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

I left a review. Wishing you luck! silvia (BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) (inquire within) 05:01, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Project-independent quality assessments

Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 22:21, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Done (we're technically custom, since we don't support A-class.) --PresN 03:13, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

RfC at Sonic the Hedgehog 2 (film)

I’m going to link to this RfC as there hasn’t been any participation in the last 6 days. Here’s the link: Talk:Sonic the Hedgehog 2 (film)#Hatnote. Feel free to participate. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 15:09, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Astaroth (Soulcalibur)

I withdrew, then un-withdrew. Sorry to cause confusion. BTW, the discussion can be found here. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:58, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Please slow it down a bit. You've (in my opinion poorly) nominated, withdrawn, and re-nominated in the matter of a few hours. Sergecross73 msg me 22:48, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
It was not a fantastic nomination rationale, but the idea behind it was sound, IMO. But yes, I'd try to refrain from withdrawing AfDs unless you are absolutely certain its going to be a SNOW keep or there are some major things that came to light. It makes things harder in the future to deal with poorly sourced articles. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:02, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
I will refrain from withdrawing AfD nominations unless it is obvious I am wrong in the future. QuicoleJR (talk) 23:36, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Part of the problem is that you're firing these off on multiple articles alongside ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ and GlatorNator at once, to the point the reasoning for their removal is barely defined but also the primary editors for the articles in question aren't even being properly informed on their talk pages (in fact I wasn't aware Astaroth's had been revived til I noticed a mention ping from you). Additionally the three of you have been supporting each other's AfDs with votes, which admittedly can be seen as a bit dodgy, given three arguments in a row presenting a snowball merge/delete instead of an actual discussion. AfDs should be done in a manner where editors should be able to respond to each in kind or fix up the related articles if need be, and this is not proving an environment for that.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:44, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
I don't think it's dodgy at all, any talk has been entirely public and I have not been keeping it secret. Also, per WP:NOTAVOTE, simply having more than one person !voting the same thing is not going to work if there is obvious evidence to the contrary. My opinion just happens to align (which makes sense, since it's firmly based in policy). ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:51, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Same as Zxcvbnm. We just happen to have the same opinion, which makes sense, considering WP:GNG. The mass nominations make sense because they are not notable. They just have not been noticed until now. QuicoleJR (talk) 23:54, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
As I said, I believe it can be seen as a bit dodgy. Further supporting my argument that these are not being done properly, Tintor2 is one of the primary editors of Tekken-related characters, and while several have been nominated with him as a heavy contributor for said articles, there is no notification towards him on his talk page of any such AfDs currently ongoing.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:57, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
We rely on a bot for nominations, which notifies the creator of the article, not the "main contributor". QuicoleJR (talk) 00:00, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
I should say that it is good faith to notify major contributors, but it's not a requirement. Not notifying major editors is not a sign it is not being done properly, it is done at the nominator's discretion and the system already auto-notifies the article creator. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:02, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
I told him. QuicoleJR (talk) 00:02, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
And yet you were the one to notify me of the Cervantes de Leon AfD on my talk page, but none of the others.[28] I understand the desire to clean up Wikipedia I really do, but there's a process to these and editors that have worked on them should be informed and able to respond and/or rectify any issues, especially for larger articles. The sheer volume of this approach and lack of notification is not providing that.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:06, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
I am not actually sure why the bot notified you. If there are problems, or people need time to rectify issues, relisting or draftifying is a solution. QuicoleJR (talk) 00:09, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Not entirely supporting QuicoleJr's other nominations. I even disagree with Zxcvbnm about Nemesis afd nom and abstained from voting on Astaroth and Li Long. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 00:22, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Sorry, lately I've no idea what needs to be to pass notability. The Tekken character that might prove be notable Jun Kazama since the recent trailers are giving her a bigger role in the narrative but I'm just guessing. I remember writer Dai Sato once talked about almost every Tekken character to the point that he would like to make a movie starring Asuka Kazama and Lily. There isn't really too much big notability in the games so I think boss characters could make it besides Ogre or Jinpachi. These two are kinda famous for being the hardest bosses in the franchise but I don't know if that helps. Nina Williams happens to be a breakout character so there might be content for her.Tintor2 (talk) 00:56, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
That's the other part of the problem. The reasonings given are bare bone and often "this article is badly sourced" or similar flimsy reasoning due to how fast they were fired off, and it feels overwhelming trying to fix so many at once.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:04, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
I believe many of the nominations have been good, but with that, it's almost like some of the nominators took this as a sign of empowerment, but as a result of that, the nominations are seemingly getting weaker and lazier. But these sorts of things often balance themselves out too - the worse the nomination, the worse the success rate. Hopefully they'll take that as a sign to do better or stop. And if not, editors with particularly poor success rates often get topic banned by the community. Sergecross73 msg me 01:27, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Tintor2 says Nina Williams is one of the most famous characters in Tekken, but her article is filled to the brim with clickbait. So it doesn't have good implications for any of the others. Most fighting game characters in general have a hard time being notable, since they don't get much character development beyond their looks and moves, so it's unsurprising many are getting deleted or merged once the ball got rolling.
FWIW I did a full search for Williams and could only find the most passing mentions and announcements, even in gaming magazines. The most I could find was this and it's just a picture gallery with some goofy captions. I am almost certain she would fail at AfD. Primary sources, like developer interviews, are surely commonplace, but do not count towards notability. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:19, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Interviews with developers where the interview is performed by a reputable source (like Eurogamer or IGN) are not primary, they are secondary. Masem (t) 02:32, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
As far as I'm aware, a secondary source must provide interpretation and synthesis of the original information, per WP:SECONDARY. Some interviews do have enough commentary to show that, but others are purely question and answer sessions with no extra thoughts from the interviewer. I can't see how those are possibly secondary.
And I am leaning towards Nemesis being notable now, but only after finding another article about him that isn't currently in the article. The reception needs a total rewrite. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:36, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Speaking as someone that was never a fan of Niemti's "additions" to articles and recognizes he did swaths of damage to things, it feels like you're pushing too hard in the other direction, especially after the discussion here and the previous one where you wanted to AfD Nemesis (Resident Evil). For example I'm doing a cursory look through Google Books and Google Scholar, and on both finding sources that can be cited in the article discussing Nina Williams that can and should be cited. I also don't hold the same view towards a lot of these sources you do: if something significant can and is being said about the character in the source, and the source is reliable, it should be fine to cite. That was one of the problems with Niemti's additions by comparison: they just didn't *say* anything and bulked articles up. If you feel notability standards need to be increased then discuss that, but sweeping AfDs when those are admittedly meant more as a final solution (I mean hell we have *merge tags* even, talk pages etc where you should seek to work with your fellow editors first), even if you feel this many at once are justified, is not doing any favors.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:42, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
I absolutely don't think standards should be increased. However, it is a constant struggle to fight the tide of clickbait people throw at articles wanting them to be kept, especially when some vehemently believe said things are unshakeable proof of notability without looking at the bigger picture of whether the article is even legible and readable. If you really did find sources, you should probably add them to the talk page, because right now there is nothing. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:04, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
I tend to agree. There's been two extremes here. On one side, you had people like Niemti, who would restore articles, stick a few listicles in the reception section, and call it a day. But on the other side, you have those who vehemently oppose listicles for establishing notability, regardless of context, or worse still, consider anything that is not a full page on the character a passing/trivial mention. We need more of a happy medium.
But yes, it's been overkill lately. In the last month, there's been no less than 10 Mortal Kombat characters in AFD. Some of them being complete nonsense, most notably Reptile and Goro. While Reptile's thankfully resulted in keep, Goro, for some reason, resulted in merge, despite the fact I provided plenty of evidence of his notability (which, by way, none were from listicles). The only counter-argument I got, is that most of the coverage pertains to his movie portrayals. But really that's a good thing, if anything. It shows that Goro has more importance than just being a video game character. MoonJet (talk) 03:30, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

@Kung Fu Man: @Sergecross73: I decided to put a notice on the template, to notify the whole project. QuicoleJR (talk) 11:45, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

The way that message is phrased seems weird. The issue is not that they lack RS - they've got plenty of them. They're just all WP:REFBOMBed with exceedingly trivial mentions, often even name drops in otherwise totally unrelated articles, solely to give the illusion of notability.
Still, I fear the message will just give false hope that these articles can be saved somehow. They were likely created en masse at some point by a particularly ardent fan with not much grasp of GNG policy. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:16, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
I amended the message to mention significant coverage. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:30, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Saying "give false hope that these articles can be saved somehow" atop of your behavior on the discussion pages really makes me feel you should step away or at the very least try to be a lot more objective on these articles Zxcvbnm. At the very least you should assume a lot more good faith on the part of your fellow editors.
That said, I will reiterate that you appear to have a much more narrow view of what constitutes Notability on wikipedia, and a discussion on that would serve a lot better than what is, essentially, trying to bully a system. Ease up on the disdain, accept that other editors may not share your viewpoints, and start a discussion if you want. But this feels a lot more like trying to brute force the results you want instead of what works best for all.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:46, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Agreed. Sergecross73 msg me 03:06, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Okay, I can see how that could be seen as rooting for their deletion. I'll make no further comment besides !voting on any further AfDs that come up, as is my right as a user. However I'd like to stress that I check sources for every AfD I vote on. I do not go in with the mindset of "ah, another character from the series... delete". ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:37, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
I really would argue no further AfDs, and what needs to be done is some form of consensus over what can work as good sourcing. When the dust settles I can now understand an article like the aforementioned Astaroth getting merged, Nemesis or the recently attempt to tag Necrid as non-notable feels very out of place by comparison. We should isolate more where standards should lie and what should be fine to use for articles (case in point, Listcles are clearly bad, but perhaps we should be able to cite what's said in a list entry as character reception?). If we can better define those areas you can get the improvements you want while also letting editors feel more motivated to work on articles. We didn't need Niemti's mess, but the other extreme isn't the answer either.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 06:15, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
The AFDs really do need to stop for a while. It's gotten really tiresome. But I'm not sure if a discussion to try and get a consensus on character articles as whole would come to any real conclusion either. It's been attempted a few times before. I'm really not sure what should be done at this point. MoonJet (talk) 06:06, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm just gonna pile on, but it is honestly really frustrating to see when you, ZXCVBNM, make bad-faith comments against other editors or speak harshly about the quality of someone's editing. Like, I'm sorry, but I can see no other reason why you'd support a Deathclaw article but not a Goro (Mortal Kombat) article besides you having been the one to make it. You have made way too many articles that do a lot of the things you criticize for you to sit on a high horse about this, so please, I'd ask that you stop commenting on editors like you are wont to do. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 06:35, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

You have made your point that I was out of line and I acknowledged it. I don't see the point of further piling on besides WP:BATTLEGROUND. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:08, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
This whole discussion has probably run its course honestly. How to move forward is probably more likely to be solved by AFD participation. Sergecross73 msg me 11:32, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Request for opinions at Commons

Couple of days ago I nominated File:The Legend of Zelda.svg for deletion. After negotiation we agree that we need more opinions. Please leave a comment at the deletion request page. MilkyDefer 14:23, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

New Articles (April 10 to April 16)

Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements
 A listing of all articles newly added to the Video Games Wikiproject (regardless of creation date). Generated by v3.15 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 13:24, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

April 10

April 11

April 12

April 13

April 14

April 15

April 16

PresN 13:24, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

I think Category:Yoshi should be renamed to Category:Yoshi (franchise) as currently the name is very vague as to what its purpose is. Either that or it should be deleted. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 13:30, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
There is no such franchise article currently. When it is created, then we'll talk. I think one is almost certainly needed, since the main Yoshi article is about the character only. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:50, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
That is a fair point, although the category name is still very vague. Also, I'm not sure what warrants a franchise article. Splatoon has its own franchise article (Splatoon) but it's only had 3 games so far (plus an appearance in Super Smash Bros. Ultimate, so maybe we should use that to see what warrants a franchise? But then wouldn't that be WP:OR?) ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 13:59, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
What you want is at WP:VG/MOS#Remakes, expansions, and series articles. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:42, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
Huh, pushing out the Newsletter was helpful after all. Thanks! I'll give that a read and see if I could come up with something. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 14:46, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
"was previously a userpage" that's a new one. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 13:34, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
The script has been identifying that for a while. I always notice since I start all of my article creations as a userspace draft. Sergecross73 msg me 13:44, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, I added it in March 2022, but it's relatively uncommon compared to the previously a draft/redirect tags. --PresN 13:45, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
On Science fiction video game, that seems like a article trying to fitinto a topic, and a topic itself. Perhaps it would be better to make a larger article on "Common narrative themes of video games" to catalog stuff like this. Mind you, I think that this list can also add a bit of historical context to the 1990s and 200⁰s where games started to be more involved in narrative. Masem (t) 17:28, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
Yes, was rather surprised to see that article after there was such a strong community consensus to to eliminate List of games containing time travel very recently. Sergecross73 msg me 17:36, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
This should be redirected to Science fiction... I thought it was interesting that Thus, they are not as popular as fantasy games overall was called out, and fantasy games is a redirect to *drum roll* the Fantasy genre article. As it should be. Most of this game is written exactly as the parent topic is written, except it keeps saying "Video games in this genre" instead of "Works in this genre" -- ferret (talk) 18:27, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
A list of games featuring time travel is not the same thing as an article about time-travel games and I'm surprised you'd think that way about sci-fi as well. The first is not a genre, it's just a list of disparate examples, so of course it got deleted for being indiscriminate. Reliable sources have a strong consensus that "fantasy games" and "sci-fi games" are indeed genres of video game and the fact that they lack an article is more an oversight than the proper situation. Fantasy film, fantasy literature, etc. already have articles with video games being the sole outlier. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:59, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
It's only different in the most trivial of ways. It's very clearly a similar sort of "cross-section of fictional element in video games". This is exactly the sort of reason why I say I have absolutely no idea where you draw the line. You come down so hard on all these character article spin outs, and then go and make completely unnecessary spin outs like this. Your own words taken from the character AFDs you've participated in could probably create the most damning take down of this article if someone brought it to AFD. Sergecross73 msg me 23:37, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
And I don't see how something cobbled together from sentence-long mentions like the character articles is the same thing as an article drawing on several secondary sources with full treatments of the article subject. We'll have to disagree on that I guess. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:41, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
I should mention that the article is not, as was claimed here, a "spin-out". The sci-fi article lacked anything specifically on video games. Ctrl+F for "video game" and it isn't even mentioned. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:47, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
Responses like this miss the point entirely. There's no reason it couldn't have been built into the existing sci-fi article. Your creation is a mere 7k bytes in size including formatting. Sergecross73 msg me 23:57, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
The sources in the Sci Fi article do not look like in-depth coverage of the topic. Sci-fi video games are talked about for more than a few sentences, but not to the level of coverage that I would say that that is a separate topic from Sci-fi itself. (Of the sources used, only 1 and 3 appear to be directly topic related, the others touch but do not go in depth)
I am open to the idea that popular narrative genres of video games (like sci-fi, fantasy, war, etc.) can be located in either Narrative of video games or Video game genre, giving each a paragraph or two with, for example, the impact of that narrative on history of games in the case of sci-fi and fantasy, and identifying a few well-known titles/series in that genre. Masem (t) 01:06, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
There is also this source that has not yet been integrated into the article. It's fair that it's too small right now, but I think it could stand on its own with that book alone as a main source. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:12, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Adding Hogwarts Legacy to Template:Video game controversy?

I question whether the game should be added to the navbox. Unlike most games and other items there, the game itself was almost entirely uncontroversial. The controversy was about Rowling, and had the consequence of causing backlash for a small subset of players. I think it would lead to a slippery slope where every game remotely associated with a controversy is added, like adding Overwatch and WoW because of Activision Blizzard's controversial practices. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:00, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Why are we linking to games at all? I can understand if we have an article about the controversies surrounding a game, but I doubt any AAA games release without some sort of controversy. Crazy to me that we'd link a load of games in that template. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:22, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
Agreed, I don't think we should be just listing games themselves on there at all. (Though, if consensus is against me on that point and we do list games themselves, then it feels like Hogwarts would be fair game.) Sergecross73 msg me 19:42, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
I should also bring to people's attention List of controversial video games, for which I am not sure what the inclusion criteria is. It seems very random, combining large and minor controversies with no rhyme or reason. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:45, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
Wow, that's one awful list. I get why this might be a navigational aid, as it can explain more why a game was controversial than a category does, but I'm not sure listing all games that are controversial without a set guideline of inclusion is helpful. I doubt there's a game out there that hasn't got at least something controversial to it's name. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:51, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
RE: Template. I don't have a philosophical objection to listing specific games on there as a navigational aid. Certainly more strict criteria could be applied and new entries could be challenged via consensus process. I think readers will expect the "most controversial" games to be on the template, whatever consensus determines those to be. RE: Hogwarts Legacy. There's also the antisemitism angle, so it's not just the Rowling stuff. In terms of "games that generated controversy", this game is certainly one of them of all time. RE: List of controversial games. Yeah that list is a mess and could do with a reorganization, perhaps according to the sections delineated in video game controversies. Date alone is, perhaps, not the best organizational method for this topic. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:09, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
The antisemitism thing is also "just Rowling stuff", as far as I know. Goblins that run banks is a part of the overall Harry Potter universe created by her, the game is just copying that and there is no real reason to blame it specifically for that problematic aspect. Per WP:INDISCRIMINATE, Wikipedia should differentiate between actual controversial content and pure hype. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:31, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
Since both the template and the list article exist, I don't see why individual games that don't have dedicated articles to a controversy or a debate should be listed in the template? I would allow that games that don't have dedicated articles to a controversy or debate involving the game but are primarily known for controversy could be allowed on a case-by-case basis (which probably includes Hogwarts Legacy) but would disclude Genshin on the basis that it involves a controversy but has significant reception / legacy / critical response outside of that. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 20:44, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
@TenTonParasol: That would likely necessitate a move to List of video game controversies. Which, IMO, would probably not be a bad idea. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:50, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
I agree with TTP that there's probably too many games on the template and we should come up with a way to pare it down sensibly. I also agree that regardless of the source of controversy, it's undeniable that Hogwarts Legacy generated a lot of it and warrants a spot on the template. A lay reader who is not familiar with Wikipedia navbox policies would be surprised not to find it on there. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:51, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
On the contrary, a lay reader would be confused if they were clicking through "video game controversies" and found a video game that was almost entirely uncontroversial, but faced a small-scale boycott for tangential reasons. Unlike something like Hot Coffee (minigame), which led to the game actually being taken down from shelves and having a tremendous impact on the game industry at large! ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:32, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Remember that we strongly discourage individual controversy pages, so significant controversy about a game may be buried on the game's page (for example I would never break off the launch mess of No Man's Sky to a separate article). So it is possible that a serious controversy will be fully covered by a single game or series article. That said, most of these are arising from player complaints, rather than legit ones, which alone I would not include in the template Nd should likely be trimmed out of the list (same with review bomb) Masem (t) 21:52, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
RE: Axem's comment on video game controversies, I think it might indeed be a good idea to try to section off that list by type of controversy. Would be nice if we could make a section for racist games and a section for overly sexual game, but of course controversial games tend to be so intersectionally. Does anyone have any ideas on how to restructure the list in a way that feels helpful and unbiased? ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:08, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
I don't know if there's a good guideline for this template, but I do think it's a better choice to strip it down a lot to only feature articles focusing primarily on controversy. It would still include specific video games, but I don't think a link to Fortnight is appropriate unless the controversy is split off from it. Now it seems to suggest controversy is the primary subject of the article. I would enjoy cutting the template down and may just try my hand at that now. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 07:09, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
I think I did a nice job trimming it down at least: [29]. I removed each item in individual edits, so you can track my rationale for all of them. Template probably will always need more work, but let's at least try to focus it on articles about controversies. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 07:51, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
After removing even Genshin Impact and Fortnite Battle Royale, the remaining inclusion of Hogwarts Legacy in the template looks increasingly out-of-place. Are we happy with this status quo, do we feel like the template should include more links to video games, or should we remove the wizard game? ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 07:53, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
I have no idea why we'd link to individual games in a template like this. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:59, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

I question whether this navigation template is a good idea at all, but I agree with Lee Vilenski that if such a template is had, it absolutely should not include individual games alleged as being "controversial". Far too flamebaity, it should be on general topics only, and ideally ones strictly to do with video games (Swatting is not a video game controversy). SnowFire (talk) 05:04, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Sourcing question

Hi. I've been long interested in expanding the article for the Sega Saturn survival horror Deep Fear. Most of the work has been finding out who actually developed it. I've found confirmatory sources for Sega's internal studio, ISCO and Highwaystar. The only two I can't properly confirm are SIMS and System Sacom, which I was assuming was a miscredit and removing accordingly. I have since found a potential source for System Sacom , but it's the LinkdIn profile of Teku Kobayashi, who is credited as a planner during his time at System Sacom. I believe LinkdIn isn't usable? And it isn't archivable. Can anyone help with an opinion, or a contemporary source crediting either System Sacom or SIMS? I'd prefer contemporary/interview, since there's a severe case of citogenesis with this info. ProtoDrake (talk) 12:37, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

With my interpretation of WP:SELFSOURCE it can be used to confirm that he worked on the game if the game is directly named in his resume. If his resume just lists System Sacom, and both he and System Sacom are credited for the game, it's still original research to put 2 and 2 together. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:49, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
I've checked Sacom's website and these are the only games listed [30] Timur9008 (talk) 13:02, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
@Zxcvbnm:The Linkdin page says he worked at System Sacom from 1995 to 1998, and to directly quote under that: "I was in charge of the development planner of "Deep Fear" released by Sega at Sega Saturn. I was in charge of the specifications of the player character, the specifications of the enemy character, and the specifications of the boss battle." I just needed clarification, because mentions of System Sacom I found come after the edit to Wikipedia which puts them in. --ProtoDrake (talk) 13:04, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
The developer was listed as ISCO until this diff in 2016. Did you check Japanese Saturn magazines? TarkusABtalk/contrib 23:22, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
@TarkusAB: I've been doing so. I managed to find a Saturn Fan interview with Kodama and Kawai, and recent Famitsu interviews with Kodama about her experience with the production. But the only solid game developer confirmation was Overworks's history page, which states they developed the game when they were called Sega CS2. ISCO's archived page says they did the "movie" development (which I take to be cutscenes) and the PAL conversion, not the nuts and bolts development. I found that edit too, which is why I suspected citogenesis and wanted to confirm with others. --ProtoDrake (talk) 23:32, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

@TarkusAB and Zxcvbnm: Just so this issue's put to rest, I've found interviews within the The Untold History of Japanese Game Developers Volume 3 from exec producer Youji Ishii and co-director Kunihiro Shirahata which confirms System Sacom as developer. --ProtoDrake (talk) 11:06, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Status of articles for Xbox exclusive games

I've created a list of the status of all articles for exclusive titles on the first-generation Xbox. You can find the list at User:Vrxces/Xbox Articles. These articles haven't had a lot of attention due to the lesser interest in the console compared to its counterparts, so I am using this to figure out where to focus my efforts first. If this sort of approach interests you, I'm happy to help create similar tables for other consoles or topics. Just let me know! Vrxces (talk) 02:27, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, that list is certainly quite interesting. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:33, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Thibbs has died

He was a major steward of this project, active in the reference library, the newsletter, and the video game reliable sources custom search engine, which he created.

User talk:Thibbs#Obituary czar 17:29, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for saying something here, I had no idea. That's too bad, I really liked working with Thibbs. Sergecross73 msg me 17:37, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
Damn. I had a feeling he died but I didn't expect the confirmation. I'll miss him. GamerPro64 02:15, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
R.I.P. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:43, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Missing sources at Wario (series) and WarioWare D.I.Y.

Hello, everyone. I recently came across the articles Wario (series) and WarioWare D.I.Y. and noticed that they were missing a lot of sources. It's been this way for a while now; the missing sources template have been there since January 2015 and April 2020 respectively. If anyone here can get reliable sources for these articles, please do so. Thanks! RteeeeKed💬📖 16:57, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Try the custom search at WP:VG/S. -- ferret (talk) 17:02, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
I'll take a look, thanks. RteeeeKed💬📖 21:16, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jun Kazama

Was relisted. Opinions requested Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jun Kazama. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 11:57, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Project Horned Owl

Does anyone have access to any of the unlinked reviews listed for this game at Mobygames[31] or any other sources to add to the article Project Horned Owl? 8.37.179.254 (talk) 15:15, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Found a Los Angeles Times source [32] + The News Tribune source [33] Timur9008 (talk) 18:45, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Awesome, thank you! 8.37.179.254 (talk) 13:52, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Old magazines that covered Game & Watch games

Very specific request, yeah. I recently created Ball (Game & Watch), but unfortunately, the reception is entirely contemporary, either being related to the DSiWare version, the Super Mario Bros. version, or the Club Nintendo version. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 12:29, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

I found a rather general one here, but sadly it only name drops the Ball game. It calls them "incredibly addictive" as a group but not really much else. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:23, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
As an addendum, I am very dubious that Ball passes GNG. It only seems to have gotten a Nintendo Life and IGN review as SIGCOV. I'll let others weigh in but it's really stretching it unless another full review can be found. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:34, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
Come on, man. They're literally asking for help on improving the sourcing. Not everything needs to be turned into a notability debate. You could at least wait until their done trying to improve it before raining on their parade. Yeesh. Sergecross73 msg me 14:05, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
I am totally aware of that, I am just commenting on its current state without making any official debates about anything. There may be reviews from that time period. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:18, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Resident Evil 4#Requested move 21 April 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Resident Evil 4#Requested move 21 April 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 15:10, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

"Air Battles: Sky Defender" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Air Battles: Sky Defender has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 22 § Air Battles: Sky Defender until a consensus is reached. Mika1h (talk) 16:11, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Old reviews for Mega Man X5 PC

I was expanding Mega Man X5 but I couldn't find information about its PC port which was apparently released overseas. Maybe it's cos its an old game so the websites that reviewed the PC port do not longer exist so I wanted to ask if somebody here knows where to find it. Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 15:18, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Apparently it was in fact released in the U.S., not just overseas. That said, only 2 Russian magazines picked it up for review, here and here. (No idea if the 2nd one is reliable, but it does say magazine). ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:02, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll at least grab the first article.Tintor2 (talk) 16:19, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

PC port?

While stumbling across Mega Man X6, I found it strange that the original PlayStation game had its date sourced but not anything about the apparent PC port. I tried checking other sites for sources but they lead me to collections or emulations. I also tried reading the Japanese Wikipedia since it's kinda quite large but even there Wikipedia makes no mention of Microsoft Windows. Could anybody help me to see if there is an actual port?Tintor2 (talk) 19:35, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

The port exists but it's another thing to find any reliable sources for it. It's one of the most obscure Mega Man things out there. --Mika1h (talk) 20:11, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Split at Talk:Five Nights at Freddy's#Splitting characters into their own article

I'd appreciate more participation at this discussion. I have suggested two alternative proposals for this discussion and I'd like some feedback. Thanks. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 18:46, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

do they all meet notability standards? Blitzfan51 (talk) 20:13, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
Almost certainly not, based on what's currently in the main article. Sergecross73 msg me 22:34, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

New Articles (April 17 to April 23)

Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements
 A listing of all articles newly added to the Video Games Wikiproject (regardless of creation date). Generated by v3.15 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 10:25, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

April 17

April 18

April 19

April 20

April 21

April 22

April 23

I'm pretty sure I know reason why Spider-Man (2018 video game) is on here. The article was boldly moved and then reverted as shown here. This causes the script that you use to think that the WikiProject tag was actually added onto the talk page. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 12:15, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
Same thing happened to Spider-Man: Miles Morales as shown here. Is there a way to prevent articles that were moved and then reverted from appearing on this list? Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 12:20, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
There is, it's just rare enough that I haven't done it yet. --PresN 20:35, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Quest time regarding Trinity Trigger developer

I’m asking here since I believe this will get more traffic than the talk page for the game in question. The Trinity Trigger page says that it was developed by FuRyu and published by Xseed Games. The issue is that the article for FuRyu identifies them of the Japanese publisher of the game and that the developer is actually Three Rings, a company not even mentioned on the Trinity Trigger page. Could someone more knowledgeable on the subject please find out what article is correct and fix her mistake? 65.93.193.94 (talk) 21:02, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm not seeing the issue here. The article states that the game is self-published in Japan (FuRyu) and published by Xseed elsewhere. I believe the InfoBox can be updated to be a bit more descriptive if that's where the issue lies. Skipple ☎ 21:09, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
I already went and fixed the problem, so it should be good now. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:13, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
Actually, after re-reading, I do think there is an issue here. The article states that it is "self-published" in Japan which would be Three Rings and published by Xseed elsewhere... So where exactly is FuRyu publishing the game? Skipple ☎ 21:34, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
That seems to be plain wrong, I replaced it with "released". ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:36, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
Article creator here. My understanding was it was being co-developed by Three Rings and FuRyu, published in Japan by FuRyu, and published by Xseed in North America. Took me a while to figure it out myself, and forgot to add Three Rings on there when I was writing it. Sergecross73 msg me 21:38, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Talk:List of Soulcalibur characters#Merge discussions for Hildegard von Krone and Tira (Soulcalibur)

Opinions requested on the merge proposal,since it attract less attention unlike afds. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 04:43, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Is the new Master of Magic notable?

So far the remake is just mentioned in Master_of_Magic#Legacy with no red link. Metacritic: https://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/master-of-magic-remake has 7 critic reviews, it misses https://www.pcgamesn.com/master-of-magic-2022/reboot and a bunch of others (https://www.thegamer.com/master-of-magic-2022-every-playable-wizard-ranked/ , https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/the-master-of-magic-remake-dons-its-wizard-robes-in-december , https://www.pcgamer.com/i-played-this-spellbindingly-complex-4x-classic-and-all-i-got-was-a-lot-of-dead-halflings/ , https://turnbasedlovers.com/review/2022-reimagined-master-of-magic-review/ ...). Seems like it warrants an article? I can try to stub it assuming nobody objects. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:59, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

My guess is that it is notable. It has a great deal of SIGCOV from WP:RS/ ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:33, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. Stubbed at Master of Magic (2022 video game) Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:51, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Help with List of Bethesda Softworks video games

Hello everyone. I've been working on List of Bethesda Softworks video games since 2019. In need help removing the remaining GameFAQs sources with proper one. (e.g Wayne Gretzky Hockey for Amiga source). Timur9008 (talk) 10:00, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

I added the earliest reviews I could find as sources for DOS & Amiga dates. --Mika1h (talk) 13:22, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Thank you. Timur9008 (talk) 13:46, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Subsidiaries list guideline?

Hi. This came to me through an ongoing discussion on the talk page for Square (video game company) about how to represent their subsidiaries and affiliates. Judgesurreal777 asked if a list could be made to sort the problem, and counting actual subsidiaries and studios they founded, I counted fourteen. More if their publishing ventures Aques and Disc Original Group are included. The question I reach is; Is there a guideline I can follow about when to create a list, or whether a list should be created? If not, we'll need to find a way of covering the subsidiaries/affiliates within the article without bloat. ProtoDrake (talk) 22:01, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Would something like Rockstar_Games#Studios do the job? - X201 (talk) 09:51, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
@X201: The thing that caused this was LTPHarry adding quite a bit of detail about some of the subsidiaries where I personally didn't think it was needed. I'm not sure that table would fix that problem. I'm hoping to get the article to GA status in the future, and given the article's size I want to minimize bloat. --ProtoDrake (talk) 14:11, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
That’s the point we were unsure about, and yes, even I felt like I was adding too much. Luigitehplumber (talk) 15:52, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Blam! Machinehead

Does anyone have access to any of the unlinked reviews listed for this game at Mobygames[34] or any other sources to add to the article Blam! Machinehead? 8.37.179.254 (talk) 22:00, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

You are aware of Internet Archive, right? Just searching for the game name usually gets you a lot of magazine hits, like this one (Mega Fun review). I would suggest only asking after ensuring the review you want is not there (and that you don't already have enough to fill the article as is, because quality of content is a lot more important than quantity of sources). ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:44, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Oh, thanks! That looks useful and I will add it to the article. 8.37.179.254 (talk) 14:09, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Controversies surrounding Mass Effect 3#Requested move 19 April 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Controversies surrounding Mass Effect 3#Requested move 19 April 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 18:48, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

City Escape / Sonic Adventure 2 merge discussion

Neutral notice of a merge discussion regarding the level City Escape and its parent game Sonic Adventure 2. Discussion here. JOEBRO64 14:21, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Split proposal at Talk:3D Classics into Sega and Nintendo respective pages

The discussion here has stalled. Please give your thoughts. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:26, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Listicle issue

I feel like we should clarify what a listicle is better, because I feel like there's many different interpretations. To me, a listicle is a low-quality list churned out to get easy clicks without providing much substance if at all. That, or the list is so nonsensical that it doesn't even warrant included (ie, best mustaches or something). However, I've seen people be much stricter, in such a way that I feel goes beyond why listicles were such an issue. The most extreme I've seen is someone identifying an article as a listicle (and thus of little value) for no other reason than the way it's formatted it is in a list. Yet, if you read the article, the format is the staff sharing their opinions on the subject, and providing substance for their contributions. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 10:21, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't know what the correct or best way to define a "listicle" is, for our purposes, but I will say that the linked article does not look like one to me. It looks to me like the editors of a publication each taking their turns to voice their opinion on a subject. Assuming the publication is reliable (it looks like it to me), then that seems like a valid source to include and quote from, if it is relevant in the context of its use. silviaASH (inquire within) 11:22, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
I suppose I could also add: even if something is a listicle, I don't think that necessarily means it can't be used, if the information being cited to it is not dubious or controversial. I think it's more an issue of SIGCOV- if the only source for, say, an indie game, is an entry on a single list article of "top ten ____ games", that's probably by its nature not evidence of notability (and often some of these lists are plainly patently useless collections of trivial details as has already been said). But if used in conjunction with other, notability-affirming, sources, it could potentially be useful to cite a basic fact or an opinion of the writer. I used a list article to support a brief mention of a minor detail in the plot section of Sonic Frontiers. I get the impression that that edit was supported by others, since it's still there and the article was since promoted to GA. It's a pretty minor use to just have a non-primary source of something that can also be verified by playing the game. I certainly wouldn't write an entire The Ancients (Sonic the Hedgehog) article using just it as a source, but in a context like that it's probably fine. silviaASH (inquire within) 11:33, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
I agree. Listicle is not automatically a disqualifier. It's just that when something is "only sourced to listicles" it almost always indicates that there has been an attempt to cover up a total lack of notability. It is agreed upon that most online listicles are a type of content farming technique that seeks any and every facet of fictional minutia, and cannot be an indicator of whether something is notable to a wider audience. Great caution and skepticism should be used around listicles, especially if that's all that is coming up for your sources. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:35, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
Understand the difference between WP:V and WP:N. When people talk about listicles, it's not in regards to WP:V and sourcing little facts. It's about proving WP:N and demonstrating SIGCOV. As the USGamer source is highlighted, let's be clear: That it's a listicle is just an indicator that it's probably a poor source. Anyone who looks at it directly can then confirm it is definitely a poor source. This is being presented as sigcov for the game level City Escape. This listicle is actually "our Favorite sonic games", not their favorite levels. One author chose Sonic Adventure 2. And in the course of that, they give a passing mention to City Escape as what "Sonic Adventure 2 is best known for", after which they immediate say "But actually, I preferred a completely different level." and focus the remainder of their section on Chao Garden. If we're going to do this, can we at least argue with an example that might actually represent sigcov? The entire premise at the beginning of this section is off: This article does not provide any opinion or commentary of City Escape. -- ferret (talk) 13:19, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
While I generally wouldn't call your example source a listicle, I'm not sure I'd call it significant coverage on anything other than maybe the Sonic series in general (which isn't something that needs its notability proven in 2023.) It doesn't really talk about any one thing in detail - it's pretty quick to change topics - and that's likely why it was rejected, not whether or not it was labeled a listicle. Articles like this, (and listicles) are usable, just often not usable to prove notability. Sergecross73 msg me 14:17, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
To be fair I'm not advocating for the source right now in the article, just the nature of the article. I only used it because it was identified as a listicle - "it's not significant" is a solid response. To be entirely clear, I'm not bringing this up in relation to the merge discussion, I am only bringing it up because it was an example of something I've seen that happened more recently. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 14:47, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Archive_168&oldid=1154700397"