Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 160

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 155←Archive 158Archive 159Archive 160Archive 161Archive 162→Archive 165

"Characters of ..." or "List of ... characters"

I wanted to raise something that I brought up at the Characters of Halo GAR last month. We have a lot of lists of video game characters, and I've noticed some inconsistencies with the titles "Characters of [game]" or "List of [game] characters", and whether or not they're classed as a list (FL/List) or an article (FA/GA/B/C/Start/Stub). I've listed the relevant FL and FA/GA character articles for comparison.

MsDusa and Masem raised the point in the GAR that some articles "go significantly beyond simply being curated lists"—that "if you can discuss the characters as a whole (not individually) in terms of their development and reception", then the article should be called "Characters of [game]" and treated as a regular article. However, under that criteria, all five of our FLs (with the possible exception of Pokémon) should be titled "Characters of [game]" and re-nominated as GA/FA instead, since they all feature discussion about the characters' development and reception as a whole (in addition to some individual discussion, of course).

I guess the point of this discussion is to answer two questions:

  1. Should articles that discuss characters as a whole be titled "Characters of [game]" or "List of [game] characters"?
  2. Should articles that discuss characters as a whole be classed as lists (FA/List) or regular articles (FA/GA/B/C/Start/Stub)?

I'd love to hear your thoughts. – Rhain ☔ 02:40, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

  • As I commented, I think the naming depends on the nature of the list. If the list is really just a list of characters without must consideration of the grouping of characters as a whole, then "List of characters in X" is reasonable and that should be treated as a List-style article. But when the grouping of characters as generally most of the whole particularly around their development and reception (even if there's more individual details on some characters, and other characters are included but not discussed in part of that whole), then this is at least where the "characters of X" is a notable topic, and thus the naming can be "Characters of X". Whether that's a list or article class for purposes of Featured content, that I'm not sure, but I do think its not a one-size-fits-all solution here. --Masem (t) 02:52, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
This is my understanding of things too, though I don't have strong feelings either way about retaining or changing. Sergecross73 msg me 02:59, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Speaking candidly, I've always struggled with how we handle character lists. It's often been the policy to merge characters with no third-party coverage into a list, and this leads to an equally under-sourced list. Sadly, we run into just as much trouble when we merge a not-quite-notable character into a list. The merge ends up removing the modest development/reception of that character, since it no longer makes sense to go into any detail about an individual character's development/reception when the reception is now about a dozen or more characters, in aggregate. On the other hand, when we create an article about a truly notable character, with a significant development/reception coverage, those articles are usually pretty good. (If not "good".) But the quality of our character lists are somehow undermined by their fundamental structure, many times. I'm not sure that helps the discussion but it's something I've noticed. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:34, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
  • I think that plain and simply they are all lists and should be named and treated as such. If there is enough content to merit a section larger than a list would have, it should most likely be split off to its own individual character article. In my opinion, "Characters of..." implies an essay about the relations of all the characters to each other, not a bunch of names and details, which is what all these articles are.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 04:13, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
  • List articles aren't for going into detail that much, like how List of Pokémon just states their names and moves on. Articles that have the "Characters of" title should do the explaining; what their role is in the series, what the developers did backstage, what people thought of them, what their impact was, stuff like that. I also like how Zxcvbnm puts it, where it also describes their connections and relations between each other and the series or franchise. Lists in comparison are really just counting the number of things within something with supporting references, with an occasional detail or two. Panini!🥪 12:27, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
    Oh, and the specific articles should be judged with the same GA, FA, and FL, standards. "Characters of" should have GAs and FAs, and the other FLs. Nice collapsible table, by the way. I might steal the code for that for something cool on my user page. Panini!🥪 12:30, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
  • I don't care about the naming. Natural English is fine, "Characters of x" doesn't bother me. I do think it's silly that we don't treat it as a "List" simply because it's not named "List" though. It's clearly a list. -- ferret (talk) 13:43, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
  • "Characters of X" is an altogether nicer-sounding name for the pages; whether they should be articles, or lists, is another question. I don't really think most article-type pages really work as articles; for example with Halo there's individual reception for individual characters but especially as a franchise with many, many entries you can't really synthesize a real reception section that can focus on the characters as a whole really works. Unless it's really just a "Characters of <this very limited game or game series>" I don't think they can really work with an article structure, but it'd be great to get some sort of clarity on this: Characters of Halo flip-flopped repeatedly between being cast either way since there was conflicting opinions here about it. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 14:10, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
  • This is a good point. As awkward as it is to aggregate/synthesize a reception section for dozens of characters in a single game, it's even more awkward to do this across multiple games in a series. I think a lot of our reception sections are worse off for it. But even if we were to fundamentally change how we approach character lists, I don't know what I would do differently. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:40, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
  • I think the overarching issue as you identify above is that "Lists of..." articles often become dumping ground for pretty much every character, especially trivial ones that aren't all that important or we can give much info besides plot. For Halo I've tried to restrict the scope heavily to "major recurring characters" so that character who are minor are left off (just because at this point even minor characters can appear in multiple games and novels.) I'm not sure that's really a strategy many other editors try to or want to employ, and it's certainly an arbitrary threshold. I guess the question is, if a game series doesn't have significant secondary coverage of a good deal of its characters so that you're saying more than plot information for a majority of its characters, does it really need a split-off list for those characters? I think as a project we're quite good at dividing articles into sub articles (Development of X! Music of X! Characters of X!) when we'd probably be better off consolidating. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 15:04, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
  • This is something that I believe can only really be solved further up the chain of the wider community between lists and articles (and the distinction between GAs and FLs). We had a very related discussion at GA Talk page about this issue with no result (where have literally articles on seasons of the same shows both GA and FL. Thus trying formalise something within this project will just be feel instr creepy when we do not know what to do generally.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 08:33, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
I see your point, but that feels like a very different conversation. Every other project has some consistency with similar lists ("List of X characters" and FL), so this discussion in particular feels like a project-specific thing. – Rhain ☔ 10:02, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
Thinking about it again, I can understand the point that the names of the lists should either be "Character of X" or "List of X characters" per WP:CONSISTENT. But I do not think it is best to formalise whether it is a list or article due to the widely varying landscape between one single game to huge franchises (so should be decided on a page-by-page basis IMHO). Regards  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 21:17, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
I hear what you're saying and I appreciate your view, but I fail to see what the "widely varying landscape" is; articles about single games and big epic franchises both seem fairly similar to me, at least in their construction. One of the few differences I've noticed is that some franchises separate the characters by their first appearance, but ultimately the content is still pretty similar. I'm yet to see an article that isn't consistent with the rest. – Rhain ☔ 14:19, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Vote

We seem to have a range of opinions and stray thoughts, so to get a clearer answer, it may be easier to put this to a vote. Here are the apparent options:

  1. "Characters of X" should discuss characters as a whole (example) and be considered an article; "List of X characters" should simply list/discuss characters individually (example) and be considered a list.
  2. All articles should be named "Characters of X" and be considered articles.
    1. All articles should be named "Characters of X" and be considered lists.
  3. All articles should be named "List of X characters" and be considered articles.
    1. All articles should be named "List of X characters" and be considered lists. (This is how film, television, anime and manga, comics, literature, and toys ​do it.)

I understand that are more general concerns about the content and even existence of such lists, but before getting to that I think it's important to decide how they should be named and classed, otherwise we'll end up with even more inconsistencies. I'd love to hear your thoughts. – Rhain ☔ 03:00, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

  • I don't think there's any need to vote on anything. This doesn't seem to be a problem to solve, just an interesting quirk. Even if a standard was agreed on, the boundary between "mostly a list" and "article about a collective" is blurry for most such articles anyway. Readers understand both forms of naming; what's the big deal? The only time consistency is an issue might be for multiple character lists within the same series - i.e. it might be handy to ensure Pokemon evolutionary lines are titled similarly. SnowFire (talk) 18:02, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
WP:CONSISTENT proves why this is more than "just an interesting quirk". You don't need to care about it personally, but the project should be consistent, especially with article titles. – Rhain ☔ 01:43, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
You are using the word "proves" in a very... interesting... way. Anyway, per the linked page, each criteria is more a "goal" than a requirement. And even if it was seen as a requirement, it is specifically about "similar" articles. If two situations are in fact different, then there's no expectation of consistency between them. Per the "Option 1" voters below, there really is a difference between the listiest style of this article and the articleist-style of this kind of article. There's a large misty border territory where either style of title can work (hence my original "why even care, both work" comment), but the fact that both styles are supported is due to an actual difference that's being reflected. Anyway, if you want a vote, I'll suggest Option 1 as the closest to the status quo, but I just don't think this is that big of a deal. It's a quirk, not a true problem. SnowFire (talk) 18:33, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
I don't really think that there is a "misty border territory", though: with the exception of Pokémon, we don't really have a "listiest style" characters article, since that violates WP:VGSCOPE#6; they need to have a "focus on their concept, creation, and reception", which ultimately makes them "articleist-style". Some may be a little more fleshed out than others, but from what I've seen, none have more than a "Development" section before the list and a "Reception" section after it. – Rhain ☔ 02:34, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
Personally, I think Pokémon is the outlier; if any other game or series had a list of character names with very little information, it would be removed, but Pokémon is (apparently) notable enough. "Forcing them to meet the same criteria" is not a bad thing, just as "forcing" 4X, Master Chief and Ocarina of Time to meet "the same criteria" isn't—the criteria is designed for a variety of articles, it doesn't pigeonhole them a specific way as you seem to suggest. – Rhain ☔ 14:24, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
@Alexandra IDV: What would you say is an example of "Pages that are more of lists"? – Rhain ☔ 02:34, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
  • FWIW, I'd choose Option 3a. I was leaning towards Option 1 until I discovered that every other medium uses "List of X characters" (with very few outliers). It makes sense that we would do the same. I've yet to see a single VG characters article that isn't actually a list; even those with extensive development and reception information (like Overwatch) are still lists—a separate section or two of relevant information does not change that. – Rhain ☔ 14:24, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
  • I think Options 1 or 3a make the most sense. I think the bigger question is (since it's come up repeatedly) what is the threshold for when a video game series should have a list of characters at all? It might be a broader topic but it also feels like it's relevant here insofar as there's a nebulous divide when something should be a character list versus article, so defining it from the barest edge might help. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 22:03, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
    • A list of characters should only be appropriate if 1) the game qualifies for a series page, which generally has been on the metric of having 3 or more notable (blue linked) games, 2) if the characters are generally consistent between games (this would not include Far Cry, which has a handful of recurring characters but by no means a common cast) and 3) such a list cannot otherwise be kept within the main article under WP:SIZE. --Masem (t) 22:10, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
  • I vote for Option 3a. Generally speaking there doesn't seem to be much reason for this project to be an outlier, and not putting the "List" name seems to be an end run around it being classified as a list. A spade should really be called a spade.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 01:00, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Certainly option 3a to keep consistency with other project areas. There is no compelling reason why our articles should be structured or rated differently. OceanHok (talk) 05:41, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Decide on a page-by-page basis as I have previously explained in the above section. Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 21:19, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Decide on a page-by-page basis per Spy-cicle's suggestion. I also agree with SnowFire's position on the issue at hand. This is a quirk, not something that needs fixing or must be standardized across the board. Other film and TV wikiprojects may provide a point of reference and sometimes said references can even be instructive, but much like how video games are a different and distinct form of media in its own right, there is no mandate that the VG Wikiproject can't set its own practices on how to handle aspects of a subject topic or is obliged to copy every SOP adopted by other Wikiprojects and vice versa. To illustrate examples, the VG Wikiproject have articles, even ones that are GA-class or above, about what I consider to be non-standard topics that have no real equivalent in other projects like expansion packs, downloadable content, development of <insert game name>, even fan translations. If we must set a MOS SOP on this topic area, if only to unambiguously define the points of difference between how a "List of XXX characters" and a "Characters of XXX" should be written, then Option 1 is the most sensible option. PS: Characters of Overwatch is not a good example when there are recent peer-assessed ones, like Characters of Final Fantasy XV. Haleth (talk) 15:27, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Since there doesn't seem to be enough of a consensus to change the status quo, I guess I should raise my final point: to those who voted for Option 1 or on a page-by-page basis,​​​​​ would you then logically support the changing of the God of War, The Last of Us, Red Dead Redemption 2, and Uncharted lists (among some others) to "Characters of X" and stripping them of their FL class? I'd put this to a larger vote before making any drastic changes, but just wanted to clarify your stance. – Rhain ☔ 05:09, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Comment: Just to note, the God of War character page is already titled Characters of God of War and has had that title for many years, but that would be unnecessarily drastic to strip them of their FL class "for consistency". --JDC808 ♫ 08:07, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
I'm aware; I was referring to renaming and reclassifying the other three, but of course only doing the latter to God of War—it appears to be the odd one out. But I'm not actually making any changes, so don't stress. – Rhain ☔ 08:11, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I think the title should be whatever the main article maintainers think fits the best. They'd know better than any of us from afar. SnowFire (talk) 05:59, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
    Ooh, a hidden ping! That's cool, I've never seen that before. "Strip" puts things harshly, but if this discussion is deciding on making bold changes then yes. If they were judged with FL criteria then it should be removed, but if they were judged with FA standards but simply at WP:FLC would it be possible to just switch over their ranking and keep their featured content status? Panini!🥪 11:26, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
    I certainly didn't mean for it to sound harsh; I'd prefer to make the change if it means the articles are consistent with the rest of the project (though I'd have preferred the opposite). They'd need to undergo a new FAC (or GAN) as the FL criteria doesn't quite match for a simple conversion—though, considering these specific lists in question have already undergone the FLC process, the required changes presumably shouldn't be too significant. – Rhain ☔ 12:04, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
    I'd support all four of the articles you've highlighted being changed/renamed to "Characters of xxx". All four look fine as far as quality is concerned, so a GAR or GAN should be filed in conjunction with the potential act of renaming to determine whether it already qualifies as GA under the relevant criteria and replace the FL rating. But I'd suggest that you proceed only if you are one of the primary authors/maintainers of said articles in current times since you would be most familiar with how the topic should be treated compared to a bystander. PS: I note from its talk page history that Characters of God of War was originally nominated for GAN back in 2013, but at the time some editors chimed in and argued that it should have been treated and nominated as a list, with the reviewer ultimately failing the nomination. It was later nominated and accepted as a FL instead, but the article in its present form is way more detailed and developed in its prose then what its current title might suggest. Haleth (talk) 03:24, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
    Comment: As the creator/primary editor of the God of War characters page, yes, it was originally nominated for GA, but failed due to it being considered more as a list (which of course passed as an FL). In regard to your "present form" comment, it wasn't much different back then when it passed FL. The main difference between then and now is that more info has been added due to another game being released, and just some refining here and there. --JDC808 ♫ 08:07, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Please, just leave it all be as is. Sergecross73 msg me 12:01, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
    You don't mind the inconsistency? (Perfectly valid if you don't, of course—there are other things to be worrying about.) – Rhain ☔ 12:04, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Don't change anything. By enacting a guideline which dictates how these articles should be categorized, it will coerce editors into writing new articles and modify existing ones in a way to avoid article demotion, acquire promotion, or otherwise meet expectations within that category. I think writer's freedom goes miles here to encourage article improvement. Readers won't care about the classification. TarkusABtalk/contrib 19:10, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 1 with decision whether to be an article or list made on a case-by-case basis. Additionally, strong oppose Option 2 (where Characters of X would be mandated). I also don't see for the people who voted for "case by case basis" how that is different from Option 1? Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 13:57, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Changing table on Euro Truck Simulator 2

Hello! So I"m starting a conversation here to spark a discussion on the talk page of Euro Truck Simulator 2 for which I've already started. I'm wanting to simplify the table on the Euro Truck Simulator 2 page so that it provides the information a reader might be wanting from a table for the map DLC, when the DLC was released and what countries it added/expanded. Due to the amount of detail currently in the description part of the table I'm wanting to gain consensus to make sure I"m not removing any other information that might be useful to be in the table. If this counts as canvassing then I will remove this discussion from this page. Discussion is here: Talk:Euro Truck Simulator 2#Change table ― Blaze The WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 16:01, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Request for feedback: Embodiment of Scarlet Devil

Hi! This is a request for some help and review, since I recently did a massive expansion for Embodiment of Scarlet Devil. This is the first time I've tried to improve a WP article to this degree, so if anyone could give a scan over and give any help that would be great! Thanks -- Kettleonwater (talk) 02:54, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

New Articles (November 1 to November 7)

Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements
 A listing of all articles newly added to the Video Games Wikiproject (regardless of creation date). Generated by v3.8 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 14:09, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

November 1

November 2

November 3

November 4

November 5

November 6

November 7

About fan cruft and readership

In my home wiki (zhwiki), There is one editor who stubbornly adds details like "list of available weapons and the damage they deal", "list of available modes", "list of rewards of each challenge", "list of the stats of each playable characters". The article in question (in zhwiki, of course), is Call of Duty: Mobile. We have confronted him on why he insists to add these fan-only content to articles. He responds with these main arguments:

  • Wikipedia is for readers' sake. We should write what our readers want to read.
  • Our readers are not here to read about those sh*tty general and vague information on gameplay, development, and reception. They want to read more.
  • Wikipedia has no firm rules. What I write is useful to them. What they really need is what I write here.
  • I can definitely say that you will suffer from your decisions (to delete these things), readership will definitely drop drastically.

One thing for sure is that the last argument (about readership dropping) is true. According to the pageview analysis, once we delete those fan-only contents, the readership drops drastically (those contents exist during October-December 2020 and July-August 2021).

Is there really a good point of balance between reader satisfaction and fancruft? Milky·Defer >Please use ping 08:31, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Who cares about dropping readership? Wikipedia is not for-profit and every other point that editor brought up is better handled by dedicated Wikias. Maybe this sort of thing doesn't exist in the Sinosphere? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 09:33, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
I'm sure if we wrote a load of gossip on any page the readership would increase. That doesn't make it suitable material. We don't care if an article gets more views or not. We care about having an encyclopedia. That being said, we aren't zhwiki, and have no control or basis there. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:48, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Exactly this. The idea that we should alter our content to court readership goes counter to the entire concept of this project as a non-profit, general-audience encyclopedia. Wikipedia is simply not the right venue for what that editor wants to write - if the Chinese edition of Wikibooks allows video game strategy guides, that may be an option for them.--AlexandraIDV 09:52, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Completely agree with all the points raised so far. Perhaps encourage the editor to create a dedicated Wiki for the games/series instead, if one doesn't exist already. Damien Linnane (talk) 09:54, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
This sort of dedicated Wikias do exist in the Sinosphere. However, almost every one of them eventually went bankrupt or died in darkness without anyone knowing their existence. Mostly, there are three most well known wikis in the Sinosphere: Wikipedia (not even counting its sister projects), Baidu Baike, and an anime-centered "Moegirlpedia". Milky·Defer >Please use ping 10:03, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
Wikias aren't necessarily required for lists of gameplay concepts. Good ol' classic FAQs work as well. As long as the concept of a game guide or FAQ exists, that kind of thing isn't required to be preserved on Wikipedia. Nor is it relevant at all for a general audience. If I come to Wikipedia for info on a game I don't know about, I certainly don't care that it costs 900 Florbians to buy a Hyper-pulse Rifle or something, unless I actually got deeply into the game. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 20:37, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
If for no other reason, Wikipedia is unsuitable for fancruft because of its commitment to de minimis copyrighted content. A gallery alone makes Halopedia's article on the Warthog better than the one here, and next to no one is viewing ours. You can't be all things to all people and if you tried to target specialized users with details to capture all possible viewers to a page you'd probably end up turning off and aware other readers who wouldn't be able to easily find the information they are seeking. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 22:29, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Japanese-exclusive video games and console names

According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Video games, it states that English terms are preferred over non-English equivalents unless it is important for context. This includes NES vs. Famicom. However, I notice in a lot of articles for Japanese-exclusive games, the Japanese name of the console is used nearly exclusively, with no reference to the English name of the console. I understand that this is for context, but I wonder if it is confusing to some readers. What is the ideal way to go about it?

  1. Refer to the Japanese name exclusively, since it is a Japanese-exclusive game
  2. Same as above, but include a "the Japanese name of (popular English name)" somewhere
  3. Use the common English term for it, dropping a "known as the (popular Japanese name) in Japan"
  4. Use the common English term for it exclusively

I just started editing Wikipedia, so I am not sure how to go about it. Thanks. --DreamOfDog (talk) 07:44, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

In my opinion, just the Japanese term is fine and accurate. Sometimes, the different console versions were flat incompatible, and other times they required some minor shenanigans for importers to use. So if a game is Japan-exclusive, it's fair to say it was for the Famicom / Super Famicom / etc. since you can't plug a Famicom cartridge into an NES without a converter, and a native NES cartridge was never made. Luckily, most consoles released since 1995 or so have used the same name internationally, at least. If a reader isn't familiar with what a Famicom is, a wikilink will clear up the confusion, but you definitely shouldn't say "made for the NES" because it wasn't. SnowFire (talk) 08:55, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Agree with SnowFire. The Japanese consoles with which this happened were usually fundamentally different devices from their Western counterparts. Western sources generally use the Japanese names as well. Calling it simply "the Japanese name of" is inaccurate so the ideal way to go is #1. Also....welcome to Wikipedia! TarkusABtalk/contrib 09:36, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Video game law and IP

Hi! I have been working on articles about video game law with a main interest in IP / reverse engineering / fair use / idea-expression. I have created a few articles and even made some others into good articles. If anyone else wants to help they can look around at Category:Video game law and Category:Video game copyright law. It is a lot of work so if you have an opinion on any of these then we can try to work on something together. Jorahm (talk) 19:11, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

New Articles (November 8 to November 14)

Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements
 A listing of all articles newly added to the Video Games Wikiproject (regardless of creation date). Generated by v3.8 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 15:39, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

November 8

November 9

November 10

November 11

November 12

November 13

November 14

This conflict is stupid. Please keep reading.

Some users keep going back and forth on Super Mario Bros. 35 (about monthly) on proper tense and lead description:

There is also conflict on whether or not the Gameplay section should be explained in the past or present tense. Any thoughts from anyone on which one is correct, or at the least, better? Panini!🥪 13:45, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Clicking randomly through Category:Inactive massively multiplayer online games shows both are used somewhat inconsistently, but "was" appears to be the more common. I don't know anything about SMB35 -- is it completely unplayable since they've ended online functionality? If so, I'd go with "was". If it's possible to still play a single player mode, "is" sounds reasonable. — Czello 13:56, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Panini!: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Video games#Verb tense says the following: Use the present tense when describing a subject that continues to exist. For example, a 1984 video game and console both continue to exist as long as copies of both are in circulation, but both a canceled video game and a discontinued online game exist only in the past tense. So if there is any playable component of SMB35 (a singleplayer or local multiplayer mode, etc), go for present tense except when describing the no longer available modes; but if the game is no longer available at all, use past tense consistently.--AlexandraIDV 14:02, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
This. The 'X was a YYYY video game' is what is most commonly used and what your MOS requests be used. I adjusted the article accordingly. Also pinging @Damianlewis21 who was involved with this recently. IceWelder [✉] 14:31, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
I can say for a fact that SMB35 is no longer playable at all. ― Blaze The WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 14:41, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Definitely should be "B". SMB35 is completely unplayable at this point, so it should be discussed in past tense. --Masem (t) 14:46, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
I'll add that SMB35 is also no longer downloadable - there is no (legitimate) way to get a copy of the game at this point. And if you do manage to get a copy, or still have it installed on your Switch, it simply won't boot - it says the services for the game are no longer available. I support the "was" syntax. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:22, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I support version A. "Was" implied the game is lost in some way. The data still exists, it just can't be accessed, hence "discontinued". I'm sure that were someone to hack the game, they might be able to still access it somehow, so it's not something that formerly existed.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 03:19, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
    I don't see how was implies the game is lost. Even if it did, most normal people can't access the game. For all we know, Nintendo deleted the data that's required for the game to run and is only on the switch if you already downloaded it. ― Blaze The WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 03:24, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Video game sales comparisons

How do we feel about this comparison of Shin Megami Tensei V, Persona 5, and Persona 5 Strikers sales? It is my opinion that we should only bring up other games' sales when we have an RS making the comparison and that it may otherwise even constitute WP:SYNTH, whereas Muur makes the argument that it is relevant because SMT and Persona are by the same developer and because reviews of SMT5 tend to bring up P5. Thoughts?--AlexandraIDV 01:10, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Short answer: Agreed. Mildly longer answer: In generally probably the only valid comparison would be to direct predecessor and sequels. -- ferret (talk) 01:19, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
I would generally agree: we should not compare sales of individual titles to other individual titles unless 3rd party sources specifically talk that comparison. It would be different if we were talking the overall SMT/Persona series articles, where it is reasonable to list out all game sales that we can. --Masem (t) 01:20, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
I agree, but at the same time, with the way websites compare Persona and SMT these days, I feel like this is very possible it's covered by RS's soon. It doesn't appear they have yet, but it's seems pretty possible it happens eventually. (The sales figures have been out for less than a day, and unreliable sources are chattering about it a fair amount.) Sergecross73 msg me 01:33, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Unsure about the title of a new template

I noticed a template called J.C.Staff video games was recently created. The issue I sew is that J.C.Staff is an animation studio which has creates cutscenes for multiple video games though the current name of the template could imply that had a much more substantial role in the development of the game than they actually did. Personally I think the title should be changed.--67.70.100.169 (talk) 23:46, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

The template was created from a split of a large J.C. Staff template. I nominated it for deletion citing lack of strong relationship between the games. TarkusABtalk/contrib 02:21, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

New Articles (November 15 to November 21)

Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements
 A listing of all articles newly added to the Video Games Wikiproject (regardless of creation date). Generated by v3.8 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 12:47, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

November 15

November 16

November 17

November 18

November 19

November 20

November 21

Can we have more explicit VG infobox guidance?

I've noticed a trend of editors doing driveby edits to articles to add exhaustive list of credits to {{infobox video game}}. The template documentation suggests not filling out the designer/artist fields on modern, AAA titles, but this really doesn't dissuade people and I think we need to have firmer rules to justify whether or not names get included. Per MOS:INFOBOX I would recommend avoiding including personnel unless they are a) independently notable, and b) their role is significantly discussed in the body (not just "this person did this"-type stuff.) Given the general search terms, I wasn't able to find a thorough discussion about this stuff in the VG archives, so pointers to that discussion or thoughts on the above sentiment would be appreciated. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 22:37, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

I've mentioned this before too, but was largely hand-waved away by people who haven't experienced it before. But I see it all the time, especially on Sega related articles it seems like. I support what you're trying to do. Sergecross73 msg me 22:40, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable infobox credits of individuals unlikely to become notable and unmentioned by sources is information that does not help the reader. -- ferret (talk) 22:51, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
I disagree. This creates unnecessary maintenance work. A person can be independently notable without having an actual article about him. And you have to argue with other editors regarding what count as "significantly discussed". Sometimes they may have an important role but no one bother to write about it in articles that don't interest anyone. The cleanup work needed is massive as well. OceanHok (talk) 03:16, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
As OceanHok said, this would require massive cleanup work. It would necessitate going through hundreds, maybe thousands of articles solely to remove credits from infoboxes, which I feel many users would be against. It would just be arbitrarily leaving out information that might intrigue readers; it might not be helpful for you, but it could help others, who, for example, may take interest in seeing how the development staff of a franchise changes over time. I have seen screencaps of these infoboxes on other websites where people discuss who is listed, so people obviously read them. Some of these credits also have references attached to them, so we'd also have to make sure to add them into the body lest we undo someone's research. Condontdoit296 (talk) 06:17, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
The last major discussion on this topic is this one, I believe. Axem Titanium (talk) 09:04, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
This isn't about creating unnecessary maintenance work, it's about stopping driveby edits (Condontodoit296's edits are exactly what prompted this discussion—the edits adding the content are the unnecessary maintenance work, not the removal.) Wikilinked and contextless information cluttering up infoboxes is not helping readers, or at the very least you have absolutely no evidence to prove that assertion. Content in infoboxes should mostly be referenced and mostly already part of the body copy per overarching MOS guidelines. I'm just insisting we actually follow those rules and expressly note that in our own MOS, and the basic principle that the rest of Wikipedia functions on—the more information you clutter templates or fields with, the less useful it actually is for most readers. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 12:46, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
I see where you're coming from. I have always thought that adding credits into infoboxes was a perfectly inoffensive way to contribute; they weren't reverted, and I've even been thanked by admins and major contributors for it. I follow the template and only add those who are in lead positions, which is usually one or two people--hardly what I would call clutter. But if these kinds of edits actually go against the manual of style, or if there is a better way to go about it, then I agree that we should make the guidelines more clear. Condontdoit296 (talk) 21:10, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Automatic 'find video game sources' links in Talk page headers is now live

Announcement: some of you have probably already noticed that the Talk header box found at the top of some Talk pages now incorporates the video game sourcing links from template {{find video game sources}} at the top of VG Talk pages. This happens automatically whenever a Talk page header is found on an article belonging to WP:WikiProject Video games.

In these cases you will see the following section included in the box generated by the {{Talk header}} template, just above the archive links and archive search box (example shown is for "Grand Theft Auto"):

The {{Find video game sources}} template has been around since 2010 when it was created by Datumizer, with further improvements by Hellknowz and others. What's new, is that you'll be seeing more of it: instead of the old, generalized "find sources" links you used to see in every Talk header, now you'll see the VG "find sources" links in the header box, as long as the article belongs to the project. (One other project is seeing similar changes: WP:WikiProject Medicine now has medical links in the Talk header.) Some examples of how the new feature works:

  1. Talk header exists + article is part of VG project ⟶ VG links included; e.g., see: Talk:The Legend of Zelda, or Talk:Super Metroid;
  2. Talk header + project Medicine ⟶ medical links included; e.g.: Talk:Giardiasis, Talk:Amoxicillin;
  3. VG project, but no talk header on the page ⟶ no "find sources" links; e.g.: Talk:Borderlands 2;
  4. Talk header, but no med or VG WikiProjects on the page ⟶ standard links; e.g.: Talk:Havana syndrome, Talk:Hyderabad.

Note that in cases #2 and #4, you can force the header to output VG links by adding the |domain= parameter, and in case #3, you can tack them on separately (even when there is no header) by adding template {{Video game sources notice}} to the page. You can also suppress the VG links, if desired. For details, see the template documentation.

The technical team involved in this launch includes Sdkb, Wikmoz, and Mathglot. We hope you enjoy the enhanced presence of "find video game sources" links in Talk headers of articles belonging to the VG project. Your feedback would be appreciated, including any bug reports, feature requests, or questions at Template talk:Find sources; or, if you prefer, below. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 07:41, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

@Mathglot: This is cool but why incorporate into {{Talk header}} instead of {{WikiProject Video games}}? Many pages don't have the header. TarkusABtalk/contrib 08:54, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
Because the way it was before, there were links in the Talk header template already, but they were generalized links, the same as you'd get on top of random articles like Talk:Uzbekistan. Since the template {{Find video game sources}} already existed, it wasn't hard to switch from the general links to the more targeted VG links.
If you wanted to incorporate it into the Project template instead, that is certainly possible technically, although it's not typical (maybe even unprecedented) to have that sort of material in a Project template. But there's always a first time, and if there's no guideline or higher level consensus ruling it out, that could certainly be done if you decided to have a discussion or an Rfc and achieved consensus in favor of it. Mathglot (talk) 09:14, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
I too would be in favor of incorporating it into the project template, since that one is used on the talk pages for all video game-related articles.--AlexandraIDV 21:28, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
If there's interest, project members should drive this, in whatever way you think is best, whether in a new section, an Rfc, however you want to do it. If you end up with at least several editors who are in favor so it's not a waste of time, we can create a mockup of how it might look, so you'd have something concrete to look at and discuss, and how to tweak it so it appears the way you want it. If you get something that achieves consensus here, it could be added to the project template. If you get to a point where a mockup seems worthwhile, ping me, and we can go from there. And there's WP:NODEADLINE, so no rush or anything if you're busy with other project tasks; you can pick your own timing.
One niggly little issue: while adding the links to the project template should be quite straightforward, removing the links from the Talk page template is another matter, since the links are there by default. It would be easy to switch the links in the Talk header template back to the "vanilla" links (instead of the VG ones) but removing them entirely so they *only* show up in the project template might not be so easy. At worst, you'd have two sets of links on those pages that have both a Talk header *and* a project template: the VG links in the project template, and the "vanilla" links in the Talk header template. (The template header links can be suppressed with a parameter, but you'd have to add the param to each article TP where you wanted to suppress them.) But, first things first: let's see whether there's a consensus for a new approach. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 11:00, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Incorrect or incomplete information on "Oh Shit!"

Moved to Talk:Oh Shit!
 – Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 15:52, 23 November 2021 (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.

The page for Oh Shit! states that the game was developed for ZX Spectrum and later ported to MSX. I can't find any evidence that it was ever released on ZX Spectrum at all. All the citations refer to the MSX port only. I did some digging and found a game titled "Oh Shit" for ZX Spectrum but that was an unrelated text adventure and not a Pac-Man clone. If there is a ZX Spectrum release of this game, can someone cite information about it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.23.222.227 (talk) 13:30, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

  • The game is listed in several ZX Spectrum game databses[1][2] as having been released in 1984 for ZX Spectrum 48K; there is no source in the article for that. The fact it's not on MobyGames, and that I cannot find a single screenshot, video, ROM, boxart, or any information beyond what is in the Wikipedia article, it's hard to conclusively rule out citogenesis. Also yes there is a separate 1991 ZX Spectrum game also titled "Oh Shit" that is a text-adventure, not that it matters here.[3]. On the balance of things, I lean towards this game not having been released on Spectrum, and all the information online having been falsely propagated from a single original error. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 16:06, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
I've just spent half an hour trying the same. No image, screenshot, ROM or promo material. I agree. Doesn't exist on the Spectrum. - X201 (talk) 16:58, 22 November 2021 (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.

Odd University class project(?) in the VG area

Hello all! I stumbled across what appears to be a class project involving creating video game drafts - ordinarily that'd be beneath notice, in some cases these are getting moved to mainspace, or attempts have been made to do this. I thought it best to post here to get subject-matter-expert eyes on the situation.

So far I've found PICO_PARK, Draft:No_Time_to_Relax and User:Idkmyid/sandbox (the first obviously made it to mainspace, the second had an attempt made at doing so it seems). If you check the first revisions, the editors disclose that they study at the same institution - it appears that the "create a small personal bio" was some sort of initial task(?).

I'll leave it to y'all as you will know better than me what the best course of action is :) firefly ( t · c ) 11:13, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what to make of this as their institution does not appear to have a "Wikipedia class". For now, I draftified Pico Park and reported several copyvios on Commons. Regards, IceWelder [✉] 11:30, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Cloud streaming game lists?

I'm talking about List of Amazon Luna games and List of Stadia games. What did we decide about this? I thought we decided against having lists like this because it was too similar to "List of Steam games" (hence, no "List of OnLive games" or "List of GeForce Now games") but I can't find a discussion about it. If we haven't decided yet, shall we have the discussion now? Axem Titanium (talk) 20:23, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

New Articles (November 22 to November 28)

Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements
 A listing of all articles newly added to the Video Games Wikiproject (regardless of creation date). Generated by v3.8 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 12:28, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

November 22

November 23

November 24

November 25

November 26

November 27

November 28

I not sure if we need List of games with support for high-fidelity image upscaling as an article. At the very least the colours used for the comparison chart should go since they are very distracting,--67.70.101.149 (talk) 23:08, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Agree. In principle, each of these technologies purports to apply to all games (whether or not they actually do is another story) so this list will quickly become unmanageable as their respective companies continue development. Further, the term "high-fidelity image upscaling" appears to be entirely invented from whole cloth on Wikipedia. I propose merging the prose to a section in Image scaling#Applications and nuke the list under WP:NOTDIR grounds. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:04, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
Agreed. Sergecross73 msg me 18:06, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Related to the above, I found a few lists similar in kind to the above (i.e. a list of games using [insert extremely common middleware]). They can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Video_games#List_of_games_using_SDL and below (5 total). Axem Titanium (talk) 20:26, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater Featured article review

I have nominated Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:57, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

"Luigi series"?

I was looking at List of best-selling video game franchises, and noticed that "Luigi", linking to List of Luigi video games, is treated as a game series. But is it actually one? Luigi's Mansion certainly is a series at this point, but I'm struggling to find any sources discussing a "Luigi series" rather than treating these as individual games that happen to feature the character. Am I missing something, or should I AFD the Luigi list (or redirect it to Luigi#Appearances) and remove the series from the list of franchises?--AlexandraIDV 06:52, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

IMO: Luigi's Mansion is a series and could get its own series page, but "Luigi" in general is not. The list of Luigi video games should be deleted, as well as the corresponding infobox. The category should be merged up to Category:Mario spin-off games, although Category:Luigi's Mansion can then be created.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 07:57, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, move List of Luigi video games to Luigi's Mansion (series) and remove the games that also have Luigi in the title but aren't really related. Or move them to a brief section in Mario (franchise) IMO. SnowFire (talk) 08:02, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
Given the prominence of the other games in the series as well, I'd say a move to Luigi's Mansion (video game) is in order, so as to make the series article the primary topic. It would likely be such a change in scope that a simple move would not suffice though, the list article would have to proceed through AfD and a new Luigi's Mansion series article should be made. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 08:09, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
Eh, WP:NOTBURO. Articles change scope sometimes, and this is a very closely related scope, so definitely no need to go to AFD (and the revision history is needed for copyright compliance anyway). I don't really agree with a switch either on the "Luigi's Mansion" article title, the series article is currently very shallow and pageviews suggests that the game has far more views than the series article. SnowFire (talk) 08:33, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
The first and third game have almost the same pageviews, showing that the first game is not the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. And anyway, the List of Luigi video games is not a true series article as it does not summarize the series, it is a pure media list. Due to this, if it were moved it would need to be nearly entirely rewritten. In such a case, I'm not sure attribution is particularly necessary. Perhaps instead it could be merged into List of video games featuring Mario as a WP:ATD.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 10:29, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
Honestly, I think moving it to "List of video games featuring Luigi" is sufficient. No need to AFD, merge, or rescope the page IMO. "Luigi" is not a series and should not be treated as such on pages like "List of best selling series" but this particular list is fine. Axem Titanium (talk) 22:33, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
I agree with they suggestion since I see I see the other games featuring Luigi as relevant enough to mention but not in a way to imply there are all part of the same series.--67.70.101.149 (talk) 10:28, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
"List of video games featuring Luigi" sounds like a very bad idea. Do we have to list every Mario Kart entries, Smash and all the sports game that also include Luigi? They also "feature" Luigi, sometimes as a playable character as well. I would support repurposing the current page into an article about the Luigi Mansion series, whereas other games can be mentioned in the Luigi character article. OceanHok (talk) 11:28, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
I would also oppose "games featuring Luigi" because there's no clear cut-off point, and would be in favor of turning this into a Luigi's Mansion series page.--AlexandraIDV 14:05, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
I agree with the opposition for "...featuring Luigi". I can accept the list being moved, so I have listed it at WP:RM to more definitively settle this issue. Please render your votes at Talk:List of Luigi video games#Requested move 6 December 2021. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 09:50, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
Wow, the second I go off to ANI we start talking about my favorite video game franchise. Re OceanHok, to answer your question about your list problem; List of video games featuring Mario was torn down by 30k bytes a little while back for a similar reason, and now only contains games where he is the main character or plays an important role/is playable. If we did this for Luigi, it would contain Luigis Mansion games, some other spinoffs, and probably the Mario & Luigi if we wanna get frisky. There wouldn't be a point for having this list that List of Luigi games already suffices with. That being said, is Luigi's Mansion not the only thing pulling the weight to result in this Luigi franchise being on the bestselling franchise list? From the references, it lists it certainly seems like it, because I doubt Mario is Missing! is doing too much. Why not just keep it as Luigis Mansion instead? Panini!🥪 13:32, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
I agree with Panini. The title is not the only thing that determines inclusion criteria for a list. The already extant "List of games featuring Mario" seems to be doing just fine with their locally established consensus for inclusion. "List of Luigi video games" is arguably even more imprecise than "featuring Luigi". Axem Titanium (talk) 21:45, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Help needed with List of retro style video game consoles

An IP editor (using a proxy it seems) has been continually deleting my additions to the list, saying that only "officially licensed" games/consoles are allowed on Wikipedia. I assume this is incorrect, given that things like Final Fantasy VII (NES video game) exist. That said, if I am wrong, I would like some clarification. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 09:03, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

The IP editor said that the article only contains officially licensed consoles, which they are correct about. That statement has been at the top of the article since it was created and seems to be the consensus and purpose of the article. - X201 (talk) 09:41, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
The statement doesn't make sense though - it is a clear violation of WP:OWN. Just as much as you can't demand that a biography article not contain unflattering information or a list of Disney characters only contain mice and not dogs. There is nothing about notable, unlicensed consoles that should disqualify them as it is in the public's interest to know. If they should be marked as licensed or not, that's fine, but that would not necessitate their removal, which is what the IP is doing unilaterally.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 09:45, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
I think you're approaching this wrong. This is about that article's scope, not about censoring information. The scope of the article appears to have been "licensed products only" nearly since it was created. You added something outside the established scope, and were reverted, so you should get consensus to change the scope. TarkusABtalk/contrib 09:57, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
1) If that is the scope, it is not actually stated in the title of the article. The title includes all consoles in its scope. 2) It is so narrow as to be totally arbitrary. I don't understand why consensus would be needed for something that obviously violates Wikipedia policy. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 12:03, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
The title doesnt need to define the scope, and it should be concise. Instead as long as the lede indicates the scope, that's fine. eg List of video games notable for negative reception is very careful in the lede to dismiss shovelware, mobile titles, and indie games, among other aspects. --Masem (t) 13:05, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
It's just a standard inclusion criteria type set up. Just start of a discussion about changing it. Like myself, I don't think most people are necessarily against changing it, we're just saying that it needs to be changed before you can start applying it. Sergecross73 msg me 15:36, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
Okay, I have created the discussion on Talk:List of retro style video game consoles if anyone wishes to state their opinion. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 18:58, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

New Articles (November 29 to December 5)

Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements
 A listing of all articles newly added to the Video Games Wikiproject (regardless of creation date). Generated by v3.8 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 14:19, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

November 29

November 30

December 1

December 2

December 3

December 4

December 5

Whoops, ran the script Sunday night and then never actually posted the results. --PresN 14:19, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I always look forward to this being posted every week. It never fails to disappoint. ― Blaze The WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 14:22, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I see someone recreated Final Fantasy III (2006 video game). The previous time this was discussed was in 2008(!). Here is what the article looked like at the time (at a different title). The new article is basically a forkout of stuff from the current Final Fantasy III. Do we still feel the same way as before about a merge? Axem Titanium (talk) 22:01, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

  • I don't see why an old merge discussion from 2008 should have any bearing on whether a page about the 3D remake should be spun out or not in 2021. The 3D remake has been repeatedly ported and re-released after its original 2006 launch on the DS, and each subsequent release has attracted further reviews and commentary well into the 2010s. Someone also added a Metacritic score for the recently released Pixel Remaster of the original FFIII on the reception section, but did not write any prose based on the 10 2021-published reviews aggregated by Metacritic. So the only problem that needs a solution, in my opinion, is that the reception section for the original FFIII needs to be expanded with prose about reviews for its Pixel Remaster. If anyone insists that FFIII should be GAR'd because the prose has changed, then so be it. Haleth (talk) 00:31, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
  • While I don't think we necessarily need spin outs for every remake/remaster/reworking, I don't have a problem when it's got a lengthy sourced development section and/or info on how it differs from the original game. And the 2008 discussion, while completely fine, only had like 4 participants in a 3 to 1 consensus. It's not some sort of rock solid consensus that would be difficult to overturn a decade later. It's of course best to discuss prior to attempting to change consensus, but between time elapsed and the different article title, I imagine the creator was unaware of the prior version entirely. Sergecross73 msg me 00:40, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
  • In reviewing the page, I considered whether it should be reverted/merged back into the main article. But the current version seems high enough quality that it seems fine as a standalone article, particularly given how different the 3D version is from the original. Just my two cents. DocFreeman24 (talk) 00:59, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Considering that Steam sells the Final Fantasy 3 Pixel Remaster (based on the NES version) and the Final Fantasy 3 3D Remake (based on the NDS/PSP version) separately, I think there's pretty good cause for separate articles. Reception is definitely different between them. SnowFire (talk) 20:43, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Featured Article Save Award for Wii

Featured Article Save Award nomination at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Wii/archive2. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:38, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Regarding a potential Metacritic template

Not too long ago, a {{MC film}} template was created for film articles. Given that, I've been thinking: should we consider creating a {{MC video game}} template for video game articles that have Metacritic as a source? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:20, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

It would definitely be more complex for games, since most have multiple Metacritic pages for different platforms—and, to make matters worse, some games have different qualitative descriptions depending on platform (e.g. Grand Theft Auto: The Trilogy – The Definitive Edition has "mixed or average" reviews for two platforms and "generally unfavorable reviews" for another two). – Rhain ☔ 03:41, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
Agreed with this. I also think this is wordier than what we'd usually want in video game articles since we typically use tables that list scores. Also... I think reception sections more than any other parts of WP articles about entertainment media have a problem with being really dry and repetitive (I am also guilty of this), and having a boilerplate template just encourages that.--AlexandraIDV 07:19, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
I see. Maybe we could also try using the {{Cite Metacritic}} template where appropriate in the inline citations. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:23, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Listing mountable games for Garry's Mod

I and another editor have a disagreement about whether it's appropriate to include a list of mountable games for Garry's Mod; you can see our discussion here. I'm not an expert in Wikipedia's various guides and rules (though I try to learn a little each day), and because of that I can't fully rebut their points. I was hoping some outside opinions could help clarify this. Our points of disagreement are whether the game's own list of mountable games requires an additional source, and whether the feature of mountability is notable to warrant inclusion at all. On the first point, I have trouble believing that a book would need a secondary source for a quote from the book's own text, which is essentially what this is - but I could be wrong. On the second point, IceWelder has me at a disadvantage - I had trouble turning up secondary sources discussing mountable games, although I did find this. However, most of the mountable games are notable enough to already have their own Wikipedia pages, and I'd be fine with the list only including those entries. I believe that would be within the scope of the brief summary called for in WP:GAMEGUIDE, although IceWelder disagrees with me. Tisnec (talk) 22:08, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

You can figure out whether it's "game guide content" if the content would only be of interest to people who play the game in question. In the case of a list of mountable games, only a few need be mentioned as an example to satisfy the curiosity of a casual reader. For example, "the game lists 29 mountable games, including Counter-Strike, Half-Life 2, and others." An entire list, however, is only of interest to a player, so it's pure game guide content. I'm not sure if a secondary source is needed to discuss that gameplay aspect - since Garry's Mod is already obviously notable, it can still pull from primary sources including the game itself.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 22:59, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Merging List of games with support for high-fidelity image upscaling into Image scaling

Per the above discussion, I have proposed to merge List of games with support for high-fidelity image upscaling into Image scaling. Please comment here if you would be so kind. Relatedly, following the deletion of a number of similar lists, I have also nominated List of games with ray tracing support for deletion. Axem Titanium (talk) 04:55, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

@67.70.101.149 and Sergecross73: members of previous discussion. Axem Titanium (talk) 02:00, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Transfer from Cube Escape to Rusty Lake

Good afternoon, I've made a suggestion here for a page transfer and a rewriting of the page itself. Being part of this project I post here a link to the talk. -PersiaF |Talk|Contr| 14:51, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

I commented there. Basically, I think this entire thing is moot. Rusty Lake and Cube Escape can exist at the same time as separate articles, and there is no need to merge them. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 15:05, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

New Articles (December 6 to December 12)

Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements
 A listing of all articles newly added to the Video Games Wikiproject (regardless of creation date). Generated by v3.8 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 16:43, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

December 6

December 7

  • None

December 8

December 9

December 10

December 11

December 12

Not 100% on Moguri Mod or Star Ocean: First Departure, to be honest. --PresN 16:43, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, last week I already raised concerns at the original Star Ocean (video game)'s talk page because I didn't like how they heavily hacked up a WP:GA to make two iffy quality articles. There hasn't been much discussion yet. As I said there, it's not even that I fully oppose a split, I just don't like how they're implementing it. It could probably use some attention... Sergecross73 msg me 17:25, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing this up. Would not have seen it otherwise. I think the split is not conducive to a good reading experience and I opposed it at the discussion. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:00, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, as much as I'm usually of the mindset that we should not let GA/FA stuff dictate/limit what articles we create, in this case, I felt like the split was really hacking up a well-written and organized article into two shabby ones. Sergecross73 msg me 21:18, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
As far as older Bethesda Softworks games, Hockey League Simulator 2 is the last game i will create a page for. There is no information on the other games(Vortex etc).(aside from using one source). I will also remove the red links from List of Bethesda Softworks video games. Timur9008 (talk) 19:09, 13 December 2021(UTC)

Requesting feedback on a peer review! (Embodiment of Scarlet Devil)

Hi! Recently I have tried to improve the quality of the page of the 2002 bullet hell shooter Embodiment of Scarlet Devil (from Touhou Project), and have put it on peer review (Wikipedia:Peer review/Embodiment of Scarlet Devil/archive2). If you could give me any feedback for improvement, it would be very much appreciated! Thank you Kettleonwater (talk) 17:25, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Alan Wake II#Requested move 12 December 2021

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Alan Wake II#Requested move 12 December 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 16:13, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Digital Monster (virtual pet)

So I'm now confused. Yesterday, bandai announced they had sold 14 million virtual pets since 1997. ([https://www.famitsu.com/news/202112/17244887.html source). but on this article were stating theyd sold 14 million by 2004, and 25 million by 2005. obviously that can't be true if theyve sold 14 million by 2021Muur (talk) 20:39, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

We should use the old sources. This reminds me of the conflicting information regarding Power Rangers merch sales figures.Timur9008 (talk) 12:32, 18 December 2021(UTC)
the source stating 25 million doesnt even seem reliable you know.Muur (talk) 21:18, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Input request: Balan Wonderworld

Hi. I've just finished an expansion/polishing of Balan Wonderworld. I'm planning to take it to GAN in the future, but if possible I'd like another pair of eyes before I do anything further with it. I'm a little cross-eyed since there's an insane amount of information related to its production for such an...underwhelming product. --ProtoDrake (talk) 21:25, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

@ProtoDrake:Yeah, why not? I could keep an eye on it... Roberth Martinez (talk) 22:44, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, it's an interesting article. I created it in hopes that it would be the next Nights into Dreams or Sonic (and it was NOT.) But there's been a bunch of pop-up editors that have contributed to it. Some were suspected of POV pushing too positive, and others too negative. So I'm sure there's some irregularities in there if anyone does a deep dive. Sergecross73 msg me 22:54, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

request: Draft:3D stop motion game

hello one wikipedia volunteer KylieTastic said something about my draft: "You could ask at an interested project such as Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Animation."

unfortunately my draft is rejected but is there anyway to accept my draft? draft address: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:3D_stop_motion_game — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.52.60.213 (talk) 10:09, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

3 Reviewers have already rejected it, and with good reason. Even outside of it not meeting our standards for having an article, it's very poorly worded. I have a hard time following its message. This is far from ready for being published. Sergecross73 msg me 13:00, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
I don't think even "stop-motion video game" would have sufficient coverage to make an article. But if we had an article regarding video game graphic styles (as to distinguish from cases like pixel art to 3D rendered and the gamut inbetween), the overall coverage of stop-motion could fit into that. --Masem (t) 13:26, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

there are plenty of dictionary and encyclopedia about 3D stop motion game i hope you read this i think wiki should have something that is in dictionary address: https://100.daum.net/encyclopedia/view/47XXXXXb2346 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.11.169.5 (talk) 14:16, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Stop motion#Stop motion in other media would be a better place to write for now, or by making a new section called "Stop motion in video games", assuming there is something. Per WP:SPLIT, it can be split off if the section becomes too big, to its own article. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 17:23, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

i made a new section "Stop motion in video games" as what you told me this time and i did not send submission. draft address: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Stop_motion_in_video_games

Regardless of the location, you really need to rework that content before it's published. It's a mess. I'm not trying to be mean. I'm just saying it's fundamentally difficult to read and follow. Sergecross73 msg me 22:29, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Can you recheck my draft? the writing has been changed. address: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Stop_motion_in_video_games

Yeah, I'm sorry. I love the enthusiasm, and I do think that an article could be written on the topic, but what you have here just isn't ready. There seems to be a real lack of English proficiency here, either due to it not being your first language or just a lack of experience writing in English. What you have now is better than it was, but it still reads (and is formatted like) a grade-school essay on the subject. It needs more fluidity, instead of, for example, taking a sentence to define 3D, a sentence to define stop-motion, and another sentence to combine the two. And then another sentence to add "game" to the definition. It reads like you're trying to pad out the article to make it longer, which would be better accomplished by finding more sources to show more than just that stop motion 3D games exist, but that they are a category of game design, how they relate to stop motion as a whole and how doing it in games is distinct from in films, different types of stop motion in games, etc. Right now, it's just stretching a definition as far as you can and then listing some games that use the technique, which just isn't an article. As-is, I agree with the above, that it could and should be a paragraph in Stop motion#Stop motion in other media instead. --PresN 00:30, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

New Articles (December 13 to December 19)

Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements
 A listing of all articles newly added to the Video Games Wikiproject (regardless of creation date). Generated by v3.8 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 00:34, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

December 13

December 14

December 15

December 16

December 17

December 18

December 19

Not included: a whole bunch of page moves from (visual novel) to (video game), which was agreed upon long ago but never done across the board. --PresN 00:34, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Regarding this since the main article for Kanon is at Kanon (video game) should the category Kanon (visual novel) be moved to category Kanon (video game)?--65.93.193.134 (talk) 01:14, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
I listed it at WP:CSR. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 01:40, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Wow, no wonder I got a handful of Wikidata changes of English Wikipedia site link from my Chinese Wikipedia watchlist.
By the way, speaking of visual novels, they are hard to establish notability using English sources. However, if we look at the Japanese sources, they are relatively easier to establish. Is it possible to write an article using Japanese sources only? I recently authored and successfully promoted Marco & The Galaxy Dragon (Q85873991) to GA status in Chinese Wikipedia, but a Google search shows that there are no usable English sources at all. I am not familiar with how notability works in English Wikipedia, though. Looks like visual novels are getting popularity in the west, and (as a community heavily influenced by Japanese anime culture) we are delighted to collaborate on visual novel articles in the coming years. Milky·Defer >Please use ping 15:56, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
I forget which Wikipedia alphabet-soup guideline says it, but it doesn't matter what languages sources are, as long as they are reliable in how Wikipedia defines it. The only hurdle is simply being able to read and understand the sources. Any language is fine. Sergecross73 msg me 16:00, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
WP:NOENG TarkusABtalk/contrib 16:01, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Mmm, being able to use non-English sources is vital to Wikipedia to combat anglocentric bias. I like to write about manga and often use Japanese sources myself.--AlexandraIDV 16:12, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Basically; yes, if something is notable in another language Wikipedia, it's by default notable in the English Wikipedia. I assume the GNG works the same way in every Wikipedia. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 19:17, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
I've always been told that is not true due to other languages having different notability guidelines than English Wikipedia. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 19:58, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
You're both right, in a way. Other language Wikipedia's often have looser standards, it's true. I think Zxcvbmn is more specifically talking about MilkeyDefer's situation above. I think his sentiment is saying something more like, for example, three solid Japanese reliable sources would save an article at an AFD in the same way 3 solid sources from IGN, Polygon, and Eurogamer would, which is true. Sergecross73 msg me 20:18, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
It all happened the other day when someone who specializes in writing eroge articles notified me that Euphoria (Q10847068) has been deleted half a year ago due to notability problems. He provided some sources from a Japanese eroge magazine. Although I am not sure whether it would be enough to file a deletion review request, but if he manages to improve the corresponding article in Chinese Wikipedia good enough I may consider giving it a shot. (In Chinese Wikipedia, this game meets the notability threshold because it has an anime adaption. This special notability criteria is an official guideline in Chinese Wikipedia but not here.)Milky·Defer >Please use ping 12:20, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I recall an editor arguing extensively about the game over at WT:VG/S too. If I recall right, the problem was that they kept on trying to argue the game was notable through the use of sources that no one else agreed were reliable sources. I'd look through those archives before pursuing - if no further sources have been found, it still wouldn't have a chance. Sergecross73 msg me 13:23, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
I have introduced some of the Japanese sources we found reliable in WT:VG/S. Hope that would be helpful. Milky·Defer >Please use ping 17:25, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Edge of Eternity

If anyone has a minute, could they take a look at Edge of Eternity (video game)? It's a JRPG-inspired PC game. I haven't a clue what they're talking about in the reviews when they mention stuff like "active-time battle" or other features from console games/JRPGs, so it would help if someone could make sure that I didn't screw up. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:51, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

There's Active-Time Battle FYI. Sergecross73 msg me 19:30, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Why don't we list performers?

I'm watching the The Game Awards this evening and looking up some of the developers and studios that are mentioned here on Wikipedia. I noticed that unlike other media, particularly film and TV, we don't list the voice cast or performers in our articles about video games. Given that games are an industry larger than TV and film combined (and IMHO at least as culturally significant) this feels a little unequal. Not to mention that these performances can make a break a game. So why is this? I searched the archive of discussions here, but can't seem to find a conversation (or guideline) on why things are the way they are. Ckoerner (talk) 01:45, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

We list performers when they have been recognized in secondary sources, since most video games use non-notable game actors (and Nolan North). We don't list them all out but only those that are documentable and generally notable. So like for "The Last of Us II" they should be named, but not your random JRPG. --Masem (t) 01:52, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
No comment yet, but this is essentially about WP:VGSCOPE #11. -- ferret (talk) 01:53, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
Thanks @Ferret. That's a helpful pointer to the rule, but I still don't understand why it is a rule. The guideline says it’s, ”not appropriate" to list performers. If you take a step back from just the video game corner of the encyclopedia it makes finding information on entertainment inconsistent across the various media for readers. Movies - cast, TV - cast, radio shows - cast. Heck, even musicals list the casts for each production(!). Every other form of popular culture includes this information in a dedicated section.
Masem’s own joke about Nolan North acknowledges that for many people these performers are a household name. A really good example is Ashly Burch, who’s an example of a crossover performer. We list her live action, animated, and video game credits on the article about her, but on the article for one of her most well-known roles we don’t even mention her name?
While I agree that "most video games" don't use notable voice actors, many do. I'd also wager that if we cast a very wide net most video games wouldn't even be notable enough for a Wikipedia article because most video games are standing-in-line-time-wasting mobile or relatively non-notable games. :)
That said, I think especially in the last few decades, a large percentage of games documented here would benefit from an equal, consistent listing of performers. Most plays never make it to Broadway, but Wikipedia lists the cast for the notable ones that do.
I poked around and am trying to understand. The three examples in the guideline #11 are around a decade old. It looks like the exemption was removed in October of this year, but I can't seem to find the conversation around this (help wanted!). I found this old RfC that kinda fizzled out from back in 09, and another short conversation in 2013.
To summarize, I'm trying to understand is why was this decision made and ask if it makes sense to revisit this guideline? I think it would be better to specify when it makes sense to add this information to encourage more consistency across the wiki and you know, knowledge. Games where the voice cast adds a meaningful amount to the entertainment, with reliable sources to back them up should have a list of notable cast members. Ckoerner (talk) 18:29, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
I know you're looking for some indepth answer, but Masem and Ferret pretty much covered it. Most of the performers/presenters aren't notable, and there's little value in listing off non-notable names without context. It has nothing to do with industry size and there's no requirement to handle things equally between industries. Sergecross73 msg me 18:35, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

I completely forgot about that discussion from 2013 (and I started it lol). But anyways, I include the cast for the God of War games, albeit except for like "Solider 1", so only the actual characters. Although it's always in prose form instead of a list within the respective articles and it's presented as "Kratos (voiced by Christopher Judge)" with every other character there after omitting the "voiced by" part in the parenthesis. And there's always generally some mention in the development. I've also done this formatting with the Destiny games. --JDC808 ♫ 12:45, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

SaGa remake articles out of nowhere

Hi. I've been alerted through a screenshot of the SaGa 3 DS remake, along with what seemed to be sweeping deletions. I reverted as there was no description as to why that had happened, then I found out that the user responsible Suriwashi has created articles for both the DS SaGa remakes (SaGa 2, SaGa 3), and the Romancing SaGa remake (Minstrel Song) I'm extremely sceptical about whether these articles can stand on their own, plus they look as if they need rewriting to say the least. Input please. (pinging @Alexandra IDV:, @Sergecross73: and @PresN: for specific input). --ProtoDrake (talk) 22:42, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the same editor who did a really poor job of splitting the Star Ocean (video game) article into a remake article too. I don't even know if they're inappropriate splits conceptually really, they're just so sloppily done, and at least with Star Ocean, they don't really circle back to do a better job once it's brought to their attention either. I asked them to slow down on their talk page at least. I support redirecting any of them for the time being. At least until they find someone who will help them do a better job. (At least at Star Ocean, the people who support him are mostly even less experienced than them, and are honestly likely sock or meatpuppets, as they all mirror the same flawed OSE arguments.) Sergecross73 msg me 01:49, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
Remakes only should have separate articles if and when there is sufficient information to discuss the development aspects specific to the remake, and even then that's not always necessary (eg: The Day of the Tentacle's remake is in the original game's article as there's essentially no other changes beyond remastering and the like. We want separate articles for significant remake updates that can be documents such as RE2 Remake or FF7 Remake. While SaGa and Star Ocean are by no means unknown JRPGs, they aren't anywhere close to the coverage these other examples get to express much news to cover the details of remaking them. --Masem (t) 01:58, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
I don't disagree, but I feel like there's been some bad precedents set in recent years that are leading this editor astray. (Stuff like Wind Waker HD and Skyward Sword HD.) Even I haven't been fighting against them because there's so many of them. But I don't mind them as much if they're well done. But these recent Star Ocean/Saga/Wild Arms splits are so rough that I think it's forcing a discussion on it... Sergecross73 msg me 02:06, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
I like to err on the side of having a page over not having one since WP:NOTPAPER. Even if remasters haven't changed a ton, if they got a new crop of reviews about them then I think they are arguably GNG passing and notable. It's when a game is a 1:1 port to another platform or didn't get enough reviews to even pass notability standards that I think it shouldn't have an article at all. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 03:24, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
Those reviews can be included on the original game's article if there's little else to talk about the remaster itself, as that avoids repeating plot and gameplay details. The GNG is requirement to have a standalone page, but it doesn't require a standalone page if the GNG is met. --Masem (t) 03:25, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
Correct. While articles must pass the GNG, passing the GNG doesn't necessarily protect an article from being redirected or merged. Sergecross73 msg me 03:53, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
I've compiled a bunch of evidence of abuse of multiple accounts for this user at User_talk:Sergecross73#Sockpuppet_patterns. Axem Titanium (talk) 05:05, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
Yikes, that's pretty damning. (And let me be clear, my earlier tentative support for the Star Ocean one was more conceptual than anything, in that form it very much should not have been split. If it is to be split there should be some effort to not just copy and paste the content from one article to another.). ZXCVBNM (TALK) 05:16, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
No worries. I don't oppose splitting remakes in principle. I just didn't think it was warranted for readability/flow reasons in this case. Axem Titanium (talk) 05:36, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
Like, preferably there should be a significant lengthening of the Super Famicom reception so that the article is not just a hollowed-out shell if the other reception is removed. There's a review from Nintendo Life that goes on for numerous paragraphs about the SNES version and only a single line is mentioned there. Hardcore Gaming 101 also essentially reviewed Star Ocean on SNES and can be added for sure. Mobygames has at least one contemporaneous review and there are probably more out there. These are the things that make me feel like the SNES version can stand on its own but only after some work is done. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 07:56, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
Why was Final Fantasy III (2006 video game) redirected back to the page for the original FFIII? It wasn't "undiscussed", we've already had a discussion about it a few weeks back, and no one has voiced any serious concerns about the new page or the original. If anyone has any concerns about the GA status of FFIII, please do a GAR or relitigate the issue here. Or better yet, expand the reception section of the original FFIII page with reviews for the recently release Pixel Remaster version. Haleth (talk) 02:20, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
It's the same editor who split these past articles, so it's worth throwing into the discussion as well. Sergecross73 msg me 04:14, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
To be honest, I just went through Suriwashi's recent contributions and just went down the list rolling back one by one. I must have done that one too without realizing. At any rate, I agree with Sergecross that a more thorough discussion is warranted. Axem Titanium (talk) 06:23, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment Suriwashi is checkuser blocked with four confirmed socks: DinosaurPlaneteer, FlyingChancla, JAMendoza, Alexaclova112330. Suriwashi is suspected to be AquilaXIII, and there's evidence of older but unconfirmable socks. -- ferret (talk) 07:00, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Hellish Quart

I recently created a draft for Hellish Quart, a new sword fighting game. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you, Thriley (talk) 17:52, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

So far, so good. Good job on using reliable sources. While it passes the WP:GNG in the most basic sense, I think you'll probably just want to expand it a bit more before publishing. Articles that brief are sometimes targets for deletion, merging, or redirecting. Sergecross73 msg me

Enlisted (video game)

Someone from this project may want take a look at whats happening there. A very enthusiastic new editor Dysphorid (talk · contribs) has made over 150? edits there in a pretty short time (well, ≈7.5 hours), but may not be familiar with normal WP style and MOS.
I've given them some advice on their talkpage and suggested they come here for guidance.
Regards, 220 of ßorg 13:46, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Most of the edits seem to just be fancruft and should probably be reverted. It's really not a lot of actual content that was added, they just saved their changes seemingly every few words. They will probably be better off directed to the Enlisted Wiki for that kind of stuff. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 15:29, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
Also if they continue to keep editing the page without responding, as they seem to be doing now, it will definitely fall under disruptive editing. Frankly they are adding almost nothing of encyclopedic value, just excessive listings of statistics. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 15:38, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
I added such information because either the developers outright brushed away the facts of what they released and changed information without telling people, or that they fail to notice when a player of their project notices small unmarked changes that can spiral into something terrible later down the line. This game here is in Early Access where certain critical information can change over time; An example would be the pricing to what the game sells as "premium" squads and normal "campaign" unlocks. The main purpose was to have one central hub of all correct information that was released about the Enlisted project - but if this information was misplaced, please direct me to where it can be archived. The Fandom page would not be a correct place to add this information. When this game comes out of Early Access, the way to unlock EVERYTHING in the game could change, which would be beneficial to have a reference to compare it to. Dysphorid (talk) 20:24, 25 December 2021 (UTC) Dys
If there were promises or the like made by the developer that they went back on, we need secondary sources to talk about that, WP cannot be used to make that argument (eg see WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS). There's a lot of games where the dev or pub changes something and fans get upset, but this never gets picked up by sources we consider reliable, and thus we can't talk to them. And also, WP is not a game guide. If you want a place to list out all the content, you can use Wikia/Fandom for free to do that, but we try to cover games from a non-gamer standpoint. --Masem (t) 21:32, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
The information also must be cited, and what Dysphorid is adding is entirely original research. In other words, if it's too minor for the gaming press to cover, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia. Changes that the gaming press DOES cover can be shown in the Development section to document how the game changed over time. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 00:59, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
I appreciate the input from editors here. Regards, 220 of ßorg 02:24, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

SG-1000 release date information

Jeremy Parish posted this on Twitter a bit ago. I'm with my family over Christmas so can't make many edits myself right now, but thought I'd mention it.--AlexandraIDV 15:37, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

If you somehow read this mister Parish, thanks a lot! This info will serve a lot for us here :) Roberth Martinez (talk) 16:36, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
P.S. — I'll provide a link to the sources Jeremy shared on his Twitter feed + another fellow on a respone he did to Jeremy as well regarding the last ever SG-1000 title launched. Roberth Martinez (talk) 16:45, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Opinions needed on Rabbid Peach merge

I would like opinions on the merge of this character article into the main article. Hopefully there can be more people participating so it will not end up in No Consensus again. I for one wasn't here for the original debate. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 00:35, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Skyward Sword merger discussion

Inspired by our recent discussions about some of the remake/remaster article splits made by an editor (who turned out to be like 5 editors socking), an editor started a semi-related merge discussion regarding Skyward Sword HD at this location. While I have taken a stance on it, ultimately, more than anything, I'd really just like to get some actual consensus on it either way. It's been casually discussed here and there since the article's creation without any real consensus. Any input would be appreciated. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 02:00, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Addition to Featured Article list

On the project page, there's a list of featured articles, I don't see Golden age of arcade video games which was featured October 6, 2004. Can we add it, perhaps under Industry and development or Other related? — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 18:48, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

@Frecklefoot:, The featured list page on the project page does not contain former featured articles like Golden age of arcade video games, as it has since been demoted on March 21, 2006. (Oinkers42) (talk) 18:54, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
That makes me sad. But thanks for the further light and knowledge! — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 21:13, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, we used to keep a list of former Featured and Good articles on their respective pages, but they were dropped a long while back because they were frequently nowhere near their former status, so calling something a "former featured article" was implying they were somehow better than other, better articles, and there didn't seem to be any interest in fixing them back up moreso than other articles, so it was just record-keeping for its own sake. --PresN 02:38, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

New Articles (December 20 to December 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 v3.8 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 17:33, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

December 20

December 21

December 22

December 23

December 24

December 25

December 26

New Articles (December 27 to January 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 v3.8 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 13:40, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

December 27

December 28

December 29

December 30

December 31

January 1

January 2

  • Are the titles "20XX in downloadable songs for the Rock Band series" correct grammar...? – Pbrks (t • c) 15:52, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I'm always curious what effect this weekly posting has on people, so I can tell y'all that the inclusion of Category:1940 in video gaming this week made me realize that a) Nimatron was created 2 years ago and I didn't notice and b) that it described the thing as not only a real computer but the first computer game, which offended me so badly that I rewrote it and just put it up for GAN. So... I guess just letting y'all know that I do read this when I post it and I do appreciate seeing people react to all the new articles and categories. --PresN 03:49, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Thanks for this lol. Interesting read. Axem Titanium (talk) 06:08, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
    • I definitely appreciate these a lot - it's difficult to keep track of all new articles otherwise, unless someone adds a link to it from something on my watchlist. Also ha, yeah, I've certainly done some "wow, this article is so bad that I gotta do a complete rewrite right away" stuff, too.--AlexandraIDV 14:29, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I find it interesting that someone tried to create an article for the Roblox game, Natural Disaster Survival. It's currently on List of Roblox games so it's probably only baseline notable since the inclusion criteria for that list states, "All entries on this list must be notable (having their own articles) or backed by reliable secondary sources." So if it's there and doesn't have its own article already I don't think it would be notable enough for its own article. (i'm still a bit surprised Adopt Me! has its own article) ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 19:05, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Category:ARPG MMO hybrid games feels weird. I'm not even sure what it's supposed to refer to. Also Category:Auto-runner games? User:Zxcvbnm do you mind sharing your thought process behind this one? I, a person who plays a lot of games, recognize that auto-runners and endless runners are slightly distinct but I'm not sure it's worth splitting this hair on Wikipedia... Axem Titanium (talk) 06:08, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
    I simply noticed that there are some runner games which are not endless runners, but would still be classified as such. Like Super Meat Boy Forever, which was formerly simply classified under a platformer game despite receiving critical attention for its switch to a runner game format from a typical platformer. It would not be able to go in the endless runner category but I thought it should be classified as something. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 09:00, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
    Fair enough. How do we feel about Category:ARPG MMO hybrid games? I have no idea what this actually means, even by looking at the category members. There's no main article. What is this? Axem Titanium (talk) 07:36, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
    Sounds like it's just MMORPGs with action elements... I don't play MMOs so I don't have a great grasp of that entire sphere, but I'm a little doubtful that it's something that should be its own category.--AlexandraIDV 14:31, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Feedback on Category:Doujin soft renaming discussion

I could use some feedback on the discussion I started for renaming of Category:Doujin soft. It seems both the !voters so far misinterpreted what I was trying to do. That is to say, I have no problems with Category:Doujin soft remaining a category, but the current one contains only games and should be renamed accordingly. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 10:34, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello,
Please note that Reader Rabbit, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 10 January 2022 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team

Again? Who cares about video games?! Panini!🥪 03:09, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
I care about video games! Unless it's EA, then it can just fade into nothing as long as it's not Need for Speed. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 14:21, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

New Articles (January 3 to January 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 v3.8 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 20:24, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

January 3

January 4

January 5

January 6

January 7

January 8

January 9

I wonder if Trump Castle II is truly notable or not. If it is it needs to be cleaned up a little bit. The IP who created it probably meant well as they seem to be making constructive edits. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 20:56, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
It gives four pretty decent refs, so probably squeeks by. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:59, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Wordle requested move

There's a RM at Talk:Wordle (video game)#Requested move 12 January 2022 right now concerning whether the disambiguator should be "video game", "game", "online game", or something else; posting here to get more opinions on the discussion. It's been moved 5 times already with 3 different disambiguators. The main question is whether Wordle qualifies as a video game or not (which would determine whether WP:NCVGDAB applies). Thanks, eviolite (talk) 16:35, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

A new suggestion to move the article to Wordle without a disambiguator has recently been proposed. Some editors here have already weighed in before the new proposal was made so they may want to weigh in on it.--65.93.195.118 (talk) 23:48, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation by platform for multiplatform video games?

This discussion sprung up when attempting to find out a target for The Incredible Hulk (2008 video game), which needs to be moved so it is not ambiguous with its handheld version. Usually the platform would be added to the disambiguation, but this game was released on numerous platforms, with the PS3 and Xbox 360 arguably being equal in prominence. All WP:NCVGDAB has to say on the subject is "Any other disambiguation will likely be a rarity for a video game title." But I think that this should be further clarified instead of being hand-waved away since I have run into various instances of this being an issue (often in the case of licensed games that use the same title over and over). ZXCVBNM (TALK) 03:11, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Can you point us to the other standalone article that covers a game titled The Incredible Hulk released in 2008? I don't see it linked in either the lede of the article you linked to nor {{The Hulk}}. As far as I can gather, the article covers all the multiplatform 2008 releases, and games with the same title released in other years are properly disambiguated by year. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 03:26, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
I see now that it is a proposed split. I think titling one The Incredible Hulk (Nintendo DS video game) and the other The Incredible Hulk (2008 video game) would be fine, with hatnotes, as the multiplatform release is clearly the "primary" subject for "2008 Hulk game". Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 03:30, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
The one example that has been consistent is Over the Hedge (DS game) (covering the DS version) and Over the Hedge (video game) covering all other platform versions, as, like the Hulk game, the DS version was significantly different in gameplay from the other platforms. --Masem (t) 03:27, 13 January 2022 (UTC)


  • The one point that sounds like it would need resolving between my idea and Masem's example, is wether the right disambiguator would be (Nintendo DS), (Nintendo DS video game), (NDS video game), (DS video game), or (DS game). My reading of NCVGDAB clearly uses (Nintendo DS video game) as the example, so Over the Hedge (DS game)'s disambiguator would require a fix as well. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 03:33, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Sure that could be done; I was just pointing out the example that seemed to match the Hulk game, where all but one or two platform versions are essentially the same. This assumes that the other platform version gets significant coverage. A counterexample to this is the Nintendo Wii version of the Ghostbusters game, which did vere from the other versions by its cartoonish art vs the realism, but the gameplay was essentially the same and doesn't need distinguishing from the base game. --Masem (t) 03:37, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Per the MoS, I'm most partial to (Nintendo DS video game) myself, though I'd be fine with (Nintendo DS) too. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 03:56, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
  • How about (2008 console game) and (2008 handheld game), if this was a case of multiple platforms for each? If the handheld version is just Nintendo DS, then that solves that.--Seggallion (talk) 06:47, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Except it had a Windows release (computer is typically defined as different from "consoles"), and there is no reason to use "handheld" instead of "Nintendo DS", per the criteria on precision. (Unlike if, say, the article covered a DS & PSP version or something). Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 07:40, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
The thing I am most partial to myself is (2008 multi-platform video game) for the home console version and (2008 Nintendo DS video game) for the portable one. (With "handheld" only being used if it was somehow released on multiple handheld platforms). If the 1994 one didn't exist, I'd be fine with ditching the year, but I think that it's necessary. The 1994 one was also a multiplat title. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 12:33, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
(2008 Nintendo DS video game) is unecessarily long, there is no other Nintendo DS game by that title. (2008 multi-platform video game) there is no precedent for using "multiplatform", and that is kind of ambiguous anyways. Just title it (2008 video game) as that it the "primary" use for that, and add a hatnote to the DS-specific article. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 15:07, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Can we really call the console version a "primary topic" though? The way I see it, they are separate, but equivalent games. I don't see why a portable game is automatically a "lesser" game because its graphics are in 2D - a big chunk of my favorite games are portable ones. I'd support this line of thinking if the multiplat home console version really was the clear primary game. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 16:34, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Considering the console version has more coverage compared to the DS version, it's fair to assume that when general audiences search for an Incredible Hulk game from 2008 (on Wikipedia or otherwise), they'll be thinking of that one first and foremost. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 17:28, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
There's also Batman Returns (video game) and Batman Returns (Atari Lynx game); though I personally think the former ought to be further split between Konami and Sega versions, that's a discussion for another time. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 00:10, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Super Vadimka

PROD removed without comment by author (and article pumped full of cruft too); sent to AfD. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 20:16, 15 January 2022 (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.

Could someone have a look at Super Vadimka? I'm not sure whether there's a salvageable article there. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:55, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't think there is. The sources are bad and the prose is even worse. Sergecross73 msg me 02:58, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Nikkimaria, WP:VG/SE brought no results and a Google search brought up nothing but forums. It looks like it comes from Russian origin, which would explain the relatively faulty prose. Panini!🥪 03:50, 9 January 2022 (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.

Heads up on rather big news

According to Jason Schreier and WSJ, Microsoft is going to acquire Activision-Blizzard. No article I can see yet just tweets [4] but eyes should be on the relevant pages until we can get a good confirmation since this is a huge thing if true. --Masem (t) 13:26, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Would not use as confirmation but a starting article on it. [5] --Masem (t) 13:30, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Yep, one "Microsoft Activision Blizzard" search confirms this. Nintendo Life, Engadget, Times Union, Variety, Video Games Chronicle, etc. Panini!🥪 13:43, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Lego also reconsidered their plans for an Overwatch 2 Lego set. Completely unrelated. Panini!🥪 13:45, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Directly confirmed by MS, if there were still any doubts.--AlexandraIDV 13:54, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Was about to post this. Note also that Phil Spencer is now "CEO, Microsoft Gaming". Don't think I've seem this label yet. IceWelder [✉] 13:56, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Seems like everybody is trying to acquire everybody. Thankfully since monopolies are illegal in the US the video game market shouldn't get to the point where it's all controlled by one company. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 14:16, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

When adding this please make sure it is not finalized and subject to regulatory approval. --Masem (t) 14:24, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Also keep an eye open for people replacing Activision/Blizzard with Microsoft on historic articles e.g 'published by' is historic information that doesn't change because of this deal. - X201 (talk) 15:00, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
And the ever present "Activision = Activision Blizzard". Activision was not (explicitly) bought. The parent company, AB, was. -- ferret (talk) 15:13, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Wait so if Activision Blizzard is the parent company of Activision, wouldn't that mean Activision is technically also bought? Or was the Activision company not part of the deal? ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 15:15, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Hence why I put explicitly there. Yes, Activision (and Blizzard) are part of Activision Blizzard. But people have a habit of adding news about Activision Blizzard to Activision without understanding that's the subsid. -- ferret (talk) 15:18, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
In the same vein, Microsoft would own the company that owns the commpany that owns the company that owns Demonware Shanghai, yet you wouldn't specifically point out that Microsoft bought Demonware Shanghai. IceWelder [✉] 15:20, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Ah ok! SO it would be like how TiMi Studios is a subsidiary of Tencent but Tencent technically didn't make the games TiMi Studios made... or am I getting it wrong? Apologies for not quite understanding, I've been a bit tired lately. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 15:21, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
So far people have changed the Activision article 4 times for this, including changing the parent from Activision Blizzard to Microsoft (pending sale). Activision is still a subsidiary of Activision Blizzard, period. Activision Blizzard will be owned by MS, but it otherwise continues to own Activision. -- ferret (talk) 16:25, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Should the Activision article be semi-protected for a breif period of time? Seems like Activision Blizzard already is. Panini!🥪 16:27, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Yes along with Blizzard Entertainment and possibly King (company). Same issues --Masem (t) 17
37, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
I've requested Activision, I think that Blizzard Entertainment and King are in good standing for the time being in comparison. If problems persist, however, I won't hesitate. Panini!🥪 18:00, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
I haven't seen any of these edits to King yet. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 18:01, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

It is sad that instead of small studios with independent creative streaks we have these big corporate giants.--Seggallion (talk) 08:32, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Wot? There are plenty of small studios with independent creative streaks, look no further than List of indie game developers. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 22:46, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm sure it's been widely noticed already, but it may be worth keeping a close eye because the news is now mentioned in ITN on the main page. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 23:35, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Input on Monkey Island (series) move

It would be very helpful to get more opinions about this move. All of the current !votes there do not believe that Monkey Island series is the primary topic despite getting more than 10x the average views of any other topic. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 18:31, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Quick copyedit request

I have Isle of the Dead (video game) up at GAN and I was wondering if anyone can do a quick copyedit of the page. GamerPro64 18:44, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Taking a look at it right now. ANyone else is welcome to join in as I'll mostly being doing grammatical and spelling related things. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 18:46, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Made some adjustments. Again, anyone is welcome to go over it again with possibly more than what I did. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 19:01, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
I did some copyediting as well. Panini!🥪 21:26, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

2D Fighting Games, 3D Fighting Games, etc, and socking

User:Terence0709 is a confirmed sockpuppet of Suriwashi/AquilaXIII. The main edit that they accomplished before being spotted was to perform a split of three sub-genres from Fighting games without any real discussion, or rather, only self-discussion (A hall mark of AquilaXIII's behavior).

As it'd be a fair amount of work to get this cleaned up right away, I wanted to put before the project whether or not this split has sufficient sourcing to back it, or should they be undone.

If undone, does the mass of category changes need any reversal? The categories could perhaps remain. -- ferret (talk) 13:25, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

The page split should be undone - the individual pages are effective two paragraphs each which would be fine if reincorporated back into Fighting game. I don't think the categories need to be changed since these seem to be legit genres (just that they tie so close with the base fighting game concept not to require sepaarat pages). --Masem (t) 13:29, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Ah this guy again? Is there any IP range block that would be effective? As for the cleanup, I agree with Masem. The categories seem to be fine but remerge the articles. Ferret also blocked another sock of the same user Person077777777 as well as some IPs. I think I cleaned up anything that remained from that but I could always use another set of eyes. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:13, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
(Don't read into my block log too much, I've blocked multiple sockmasters today :) Person077777777 is unrelated to AquilaXIII.) -- ferret (talk) 18:06, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Oops, my mistake then. I guess I was reading too much into the edit history. I might have conflated them with one of the IPs that posted in support of Terence when I was looking for things to revert. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:22, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
What's the "etc" in this situation? 4D Fighting Games? 5D? Panini!🥪 17:18, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
As I posted on his talk page, Category:2D fighting games needs to be reversed and/or deleted. It is straight up unnecessary and was done unilaterally. Platform fighting game does seem to be a legit subgenre though with numerous sources mentioning the term, so I don't think it's an issue to keep that and the category. Like, the fact that it was done unilaterally is still disruptive but there doesn't seem to be a reason to remove it. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 17:28, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
I mean, I created the original category for Category:Platform fighters and found sources to do as such, but I am fine with the new name and page. (Oinkers42) (talk) 17:52, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
One thing is certain though, Category:Platform fighters should not be a redirect like this. Either it's overly ambiguous, and therefore should be a red link, or it's not ambiguous, and per WP:CONCISE should be the article/category name. I personally am leaning towards the original name so if ferret agrees it could be quickly moved there and the category restored, with everything moved back to Category:Platform fighters and the new Category:Platform fighting games deleted. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 18:15, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
I'm fine with anything the project agrees on. I simply didn't want to block the sock and leave things behind OR revert unilaterally. -- ferret (talk) 19:05, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for catching this. I had been irritated with a number of other unrelated-but-still-unconstructive edits coming from this account. Sergecross73 msg me 20:55, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Okay, I have moved the main article to platform fighter and put a merge discussion for the category at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 January 21#Category:Platform fighting games to merge it back to the original category made last year. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 01:49, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Mario Kart 8 merger discussion

Looking for input on whether or not we need two separate articles for Mario Kart 8 and the recently split out Mario Kart 8 Deluxe. Please comment here. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 01:55, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

lul Axem Titanium (talk) 08:03, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

New Articles (January 10 to January 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 v3.8 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 16:06, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

January 10

January 11

January 12

January 13

January 14

January 15

January 16

2 things I noticed, 1, someone attempted to create an article for the Roblox game Bee Swarm Simulator. AT most it should be put on List of Roblox games however I don't think it's notable enough to be put on there outside of spawning the "stickbug" meme. 2, someone had created an article for the new Kirby game. It will probably get an article at some point but at this point it's most likely WP:TOOSOON for an article on it yet. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 16:09, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Can Serious Sam not release a game for like, five minutes? IceWelder's working as fast as he can. Panini!🥪 16:17, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Hello, just saw this. There may be a mistake, why am I listed under A-Train III? I did not create that page, and I have no substantial edits to it, I mistakenly reverted someone else's edit then reverted myself. There may be someone else you are looking for. Garnarblarnar (talk) 17:18, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
@Garnarblarnar: sorry about that; even though you both turned the article into a redirect and then undid that, the 1.0 bot only recorded the second, so it showed up as a page creation (from redirect) done by you. I'll add a note to ignore page un-redirections if it was just reverting something from the same day. --PresN 17:56, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Acquisition of Mojang by Microsoft doesn't seem to have enough content to be a standalone article. OceanHok (talk) 10:56, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Hard agree. Mojang isn't particularly long so there was never a need to split in the first place. The article is filled with word count padding to try to justify an article, between recapping Mojang's history, asides about Minecraft unrelated to the Mojang acquisition, and random factoids about Notch's personal life. What's left is just reworded prose from the existing section at Mojang#Microsoft subsidiary (2014–present). Merge. Axem Titanium (talk) 16:56, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
I agree with a merge (although the Tweet does actually show the reasoning why Notch sold Mojang to Microsoft which I always wondered). ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 17:03, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
I will look into that. IceWelder [✉] 17:05, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Should something be done about the ESL articles? For years now they've been full of primary sources only. I'm not sure if they could be deleted, merged, who knows. I've just always found them to be self-promoting fluff. --Teancum (talk) 20:29, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
Without any research, I would think that the articles could stand on their own. As it stands, though, the articles could/need to be gutted. – Pbrks (t • c) 02:22, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
I mean there is *some* good sourcing, but not for the year-over-year, play-by-play articles. Just yesterday Kotaku wrote a blip on it's sale. --Teancum (talk) 12:05, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Intellivision Amico

Intellivision Amico seems to be at a slow back and forth boil over particular statements that are accused of being COI editing. Talk:Intellivision Amico has a long line of back and forth between a couple logged in editors and several IPs.

I do not have time to wade into this, but it's clear some experienced eyes need to join in and take a look. I see a couple of experienced hands have made attempts but more may be required. Prompted by an IP message to my talk page. -- ferret (talk) 02:43, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Yikes, yeah it's in pretty awful shape. I can try to help work through it a bit, though considering how limited my time has been lately for dedicated content writing and rewriting, it probably needs more than I'm able to offer. Sergecross73 msg me 02:54, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
A quick review suggests this back and forth has been going since 2020. Daltonsatom needs a strong COI look, having spent 85% of their edits on this one topic. -- ferret (talk) 02:59, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
I'm loathe to commit to editing anything nowadays because I'm so sporadic with my editing, but I really, really want to just rewrite the whole thing from scratch and just overwrite it. It reads like an absolute mess. It also feels insane to me that this photo was released by the company, but it seems like it was because it's from a declared COI account, so huh. Nomader (talk) 04:51, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Daltonsatom very likely has a COI, considering they were the uploader of File:Render amicoWhite 3quarterRight NoBG 2K 2021 06 11.png and went through ORTS. Image is too high-quality to be non-commercial. – Pbrks (t • c) 05:46, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Agreed, but I don't think the anonymous IP is innocent either. They seem to be part of some Reddit or forum group that is POV pushing things in an overly negative tone as well. I've started working through some things, but there's still a tonnnnn to fix or rework, far more than I'll likely be able to do, so don't let me scare anyone away from helping. Sergecross73 msg me 18:27, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Just wanted to clarify that I wasn't part of the subreddit, but I found the SEC J Allard information from the /r/Intellivision_Amico subreddit. I have stepped out of editing entirely due to potential COI there. I wanted to upload a blurb about J Allard leaving the company as a Controversy section because it pertains to the console's development, and the user mentioned immediately and completely erased everything I wrote and that started a back and forth that I finally removed myself from. Since that point, that user has completely taken over the page and talk page and have taken it upon themselves to personally police the page, even commenting where other editors deserve infractions, etc. Thank you for any and all eyes that can clear this up and fix this mess. 50.88.235.139 (talk) 21:25, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
If third party sources are covering it, it could probably be mentioned in some capacity, but we need to be mindful of WP:CONTROVERSY and WP:UNDUE. Sergecross73 msg me 21:30, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
I believe the situation with J Allard is definitely as big, if not bigger, than the web portal leak that Ars Technica covered. As an amateur editor I just wasn't sure how to add it properly, but, that didn't make much of a difference, the mentioned user still decided to completely erase my edits enough times that I gave up on that page and editing Wikipedia altogether. Trying to get back into it and will make an account, but still feel bad about the state of that page. 50.88.235.139 (talk) 21:34, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Seems like it's spreading to other relevant pages such as Tommy Tallarico. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 10:34, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I just took a crack at remaking the entire history section of the article-- would love some more sets of eyes on it if y'all have any time. Nomader (talk) 21:56, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. I was planning on doing the same in the coming days. I'll run through it when I get the chance, though as I keep saying, don't let me scare anyone off from helping. My time to mske concentrated efforts on things has been real hit or miss lately. Sergecross73 msg me 22:07, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Trust me, same, I basically do drive by Wikipedia sprees maybe once a month nowadays. I didn't even touch the console specs section either so feel free to dive in (because I definitely won't be, ha). Nomader (talk) 22:42, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I wouldn't normally post back here again for this kind of thing but some more eyes on this talk page would be really helpful, the quantity of content has been high, to put it mildly. Nomader (talk) 18:31, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

New Articles (January 17 to January 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 v3.8 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 01:24, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

January 17

January 18

January 19

January 20

January 21

January 22

January 23

Magicka assessment

I've done a lot of work on expanding the Magicka article and am asking for it to be reassessed as it is no longer a 'Start' class. Thanks Lankyant (talk) 22:02, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I assessed it as a C, but it's a low C. The plot section is far too long and gameplay is partially unsourced/original research. Everything besides plot needs to be sourced for the article to truly get better, otherwise it will likely just get deleted and rewritten later and be wasted effort. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 01:22, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll get on trying to improve it! Lankyant (talk) 02:05, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Citogensis on Grabbed by the Ghoulies

Anyone want to investigate this? Popcornfud (talk) 11:46, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

@Popcornfud: That will be hard to investigate with how long it's stuck. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 12:04, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Last edit is by IP who said "i got the instruction manual it's true". We can't just take their word for it, unless they photographed it and uploaded the proof. Neocorelight (Talk) 12:11, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

The manual is available on archive.org and I can't see anything of the sort. CrimsonFox talk 12:14, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Came here to post the same. The manual only says Cooper. Cite the manual (there's a proper cite template for it) as saying Cooper. - X201 (talk) 12:21, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
It could be argued that it could be removed either way because doesn't particularly matter what the character's last name is. It's important in story-heavy games like Persona 5 where they often get referred to by first, last, or full name throughout the game. But not exactly with a game like this... Sergecross73 msg me 12:19, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Importance scale: Ulala (Space Channel 5)

User:Lord of Fantasy has multiple times now attempted to assert that Ulala (Space Channel 5) falls under "High" on the importance scale, despite three users having already assigned it "Mid" importance, reverting them each time. User seems to not fully understand how the importance scale works, and seems unwilling to work with others based on previous discussions, so I put it to other members of the project to evaluate the article and assign importance in order to establish clear concensus. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 19:31, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I myself don't understand how the importance scale works really. There doesn't really seem to be anything that helps determine what is "Low importance", "Mid-importance", or "high importance". If there is please show me it so I can understand how the importance scale functions. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 19:35, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Sure. Per Assessment guidelines, for fictional characters, high importance is described as "Elements, mostly characters, that have become cultural icons outside of a series, including company mascots (e.g., Pikachu, Mario, Sonic) and other widely recognized or significant characters (e.g., Luigi, Zelda, Tails, Lara Croft, Master Chief, GLaDOS)". Mid importance is described as "Well known, individually or as list, characters, settings and items typically appearing as the primary protagonist/antagonist, main location, or staple item in a long-running game series (e.g., Fox McCloud, Jin Kazama, Ivalice), or playing a somewhat less major role in a more major series (e.g. Wario, Knuckles, Dr. Wily, Diddy Kong, Epona)". As Space Channel 5 is a comparatively niche series with only a few entries and Ulala has not had a significant or notable presence in media or pop culture, she would not qualify for high importance under the parameters of the Project. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 19:40, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Ah ok. The only other game I know of that that character has been in would be the Sonic & Sega All-Stars Racing series (which technically only has one other entry in the series being the sequel). I would definitely say they are not high importance, especially considering I didn't even know what series that character was from when I played the game (showing how niche the series is). ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 19:49, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Check out the lede for Sega Heroes, also created by Lords of Fantasy. "It was the first mass-crossover Sega video game to not feature Ulala as a playable character". Being enthusiastic is great and all, but is that actually a consensus of concern expressed through the opinions of the reliable sources and reviews cited in the article with regards to the character's omission, or a good example of original research with prose that don't reflect what the sources are saying? If it's the latter, Cyberlink420's concerns about their inability to look at things objectively may not be off the mark at all. Haleth (talk) 12:48, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Even "Mid" importance seems generous. -- ferret (talk) 19:46, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
What Cyberlink said. There's no way that Ulala is a "cultural icon". I think that they are coming in from a bit too devoted fan perspective, they have also asserted Pudding (Space Channel 5) is indubitably notable but I still have found no evidence of that, much less why she would merit a "Mid" importance for a totally unknown character by most people (which they changed it back to). Seems it is getting to the point of WP:IDHT. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:52, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Agreed. I wanted to cut them some slack since they seem to primarily edit on fan wikis and aren't aware of several Wikipedia standards or policies (such as reliable sources or warning notices), but their attitude is making it very difficult to do so. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 19:59, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Excuse me? Where did you get that from? I don’t edit fan wikis and I don’t have an attitude. Thanks for ticking me off again. Anywho, I’ll agree that mid importance is best. --Lord of Fantasy (talk) 21:24, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
I've mentioned this before, but I think we should abandon the importance scale. Vital articles already cover the most important subjects, and everything else creates a lot of pointless conflict. If you insisted on rating things on the importance scale, I'd be hard pressed to think of a fictional character as a high importance article unless they are approaching the level of ubiquity of Santa or Mario. Just having a notable article at all would be an achievement. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:56, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Definitely a stance worth examining separately, but that's a debate for another time. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 19:59, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
With all honesty, I am in favour of the importance scale being scrapped entirely, but since the project is still keeping it, then all ratings and assessments should at least be objectively reasonable. Rating obscure topics like Ulala as "high" is truly stretching it. Haleth (talk) 12:48, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
I'd put the Ulala article as low importance at best. --ProtoDrake (talk) 20:03, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
  • My thoughts echo what ferret said. Even mid seems pretty generous. Both the series and the characters really haven't had a mainstream breakthrough. My vote would be "low". Extremely against "high". I can't see anyone beyond a complete hardcore Sega fan advocating that. Sergecross73 msg me 21:00, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
After some examination, I’m sorry that I brought all this confusion about. For the record, really only a fan of Pudding, not Ulala lol, but I would agree that the scale is ridiculous and should be eliminated for reasons like this. Also, I would simply keep Ulala at "mid importance" for now, for both Japan and Video games to put a feud at rest. I was just going by the individual scales, and I still believe Ulala was a cultural icon, specifically appearing at music video awards, cameos in movies, and expansion from the Space Channel 5 universe as a whole. Again, I apologize, but mid is best for now. Sorry. --Lord of Fantasy (talk) 21:18, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
You are SEVERELY overestimating Ulala's importance in both regards. Ulala has not made a cameo in a movie, she appears as part of the Sega logo before the Sonic film; we wouldn't count Hulk appearing in the Marvel logo as appearing in a Spider-Man movie. She did not appear in an awards show, existing game footage appeared in a sizzle reel. Every other editor here has argued that "mid" is even too high, and I think you need to take a step back and really evaluate whether this is worth continuing to argue for. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 21:27, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
She appeared in Jose and the Pussycats, Runaway Jury, Nate is Late, and the Sega Girls show. And no, I’m not, how about you do some research? Bold of you to only assume I was talking about the one Sonic movie. Why are you acting like this? Lord of Fantasy (talk) 21:31, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Actually, I did do the research, and the only one of those she actually appeared in is SeHa Girls. Josie and the Pussycats was just a standee in a game store (which also had other Sega games there, but I'm not counting that as a Crazy Taxi appearance). The Nate is Late figure was a figurine of an Ulala parody character that was half-offscreen (likely just an easter egg by an animator), not an actual appearance. You'll note that we don't list Steven Universe on Cloud Strife or Sonic's pages. And I can't find anything for Runaway Jury at all. Not every "appearance" meets Wikipedia's standards. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 21:38, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Did you read the whole conversation? No need to single out Cyberlink, no one thinks Ulala should be high importance... Sergecross73 msg me 21:42, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Yes, I agree to that now, and I’m glad you guys cleared this up to me, all of you. And yes, I know some appearances are not valid, but I was just proving a point. Cyberlink came off as arrogant towards me in an earlier discussion today, so we kinda have beef right now lol. And thank you. I think mid importance is best, and I think high is a bit “too high” and low is “too low” now that I look at it. I think mid is best because of her cultural impact and personal merch, particularly in Japan — and how’s she’s semi-significant outside her respective series. Again, I don’t care for the character, and I’m trying not to be biased lol. And yes, she did appear at a handful of music video awards in the early 2000s, you can easily find sources for those on IGN and her Wikipedia page, as well as the Space Channel 5 page. --Lord of Fantasy (talk) 21:52, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
You're still ignoring the conversation. Everybody thinks she should be Low, not Mid; one or two cameos back when the games were new don't change that. And we don't have "beef", nor have I been "arrogant"; I've attempted multiple times to explain Wiki policy and why you keep getting reverted, and you've taken that as a personal slight. Any frustrations in my past messages are purely based on the fact that you refuse to actually listen to what's being said and claim I'm attacking you or insist you're right even when multiple others tell you otherwise. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 22:03, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
You are arrogant, stop starting problems, and not everyone agrees it should be low, they agree that it shouldn’t be high. I’m not ignoring the conversation, and I’m not right, nor are you. Back to the discussion please, I don’t wanna get personal — we’re here to reassess the article and come to a compromise, not to attack each other. Leave me alone. That’s all I have to say. Don’t speak to me again, don’t tag me anywhere on Wikipedia, as I’ve already discussed. Lord of Fantasy (talk) 22:12, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
You can't impose that kind of restraining order, especially during an active discussion. Also, Ferret, ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ, Protodrake, Sergecross, and Nihonjoe have all said "Low, maybe mid", empahsis on "maybe". Please stop intentionally ignoring what's being said. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 22:18, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
You can add me to that list. Ulala should definitely be a "low", nevermind the fact that Pudding appears to be borderline notable. Haleth (talk) 12:48, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
I'd put her at low, though I think mid wouldn't be a bad placement, either. If the article was placed at mid, I'd say it was because of the impact the game had around the time of release and for about a decade afterward. The character really hasn't had a big impact beyond that, so mid would be the highest I'd go. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:11, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
I changed my opinion, but I believe she should me mid, for the reasons you’ve said. I think low is not fair to the character, seeing her early cultural impact. Thanks for joining the discussion though! Lord of Fantasy (talk) 22:13, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
That person was also using multiple accounts and once nominated pudding for GA [6]. 90.149.247.199 (talk) 22:25, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
I never nominated Pudding for GA, which I was against for obvious reasons as it still needs major cleanup. Yes, I have two alternate accounts though, and one is shared with a group of friends at school, but it’s irrelevant to the discussion lol. Lord of Fantasy (talk) 22:33, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Alt accounts are against the rules per WP:SOCK. I suggest you delete any alts, or you run the risk of being banned. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 22:37, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Thank you. --Lord of Fantasy (talk) 22:46, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
@Cyberlink420: Uh.. you are aware that accounts can't be deleted right? ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 23:15, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, wrong choice of word on my part. "Retire" or "close" probably would've been better. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 23:25, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
However, Lord of Fantasy, shared accounts are not allowed per Wikipedia's ToS. See WP:SHAREDACCOUNT. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 23:17, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, I know now. I haven’t used either in a long time, nor do I even remember the usernames or passwords. They’re practically archived on my end. Anywho, back to the discussion. --Lord of Fantasy (talk) 23:49, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

@Lord of Fantasy: On Talk:Ulala (Space Channel 5), you wrote: Currently, the consensus for reassessment is "Mid" for video games.... However, I don't believe that anyone here has said that they believe it should be "Mid". To add an opinion, I also think it should be rated as "Low" importance. – Pbrks (t • c) 23:43, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

It’s from what I gathered — it seemed to be the average consensus at that time. And thanks for the contribution! Lord of Fantasy (talk) 23:49, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Clarification of my original statement: If we're looking to form a consensus, I'd set it to Low for all projects. "Mid being generous" was to insinuate that I thought even that was too high. -- ferret (talk) 23:57, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Ah, okay. Thanks for the clarification. Lord of Fantasy (talk) 00:06, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Both Ulala and Pudding should be "Low" importance but this is entirely too many words discussing a rating that is literally not used for anything. Lord of Fantasy, you seem to have a bad habit of putting words into other people's mouths, particularly by framing it as agreement with the other person and then proceeding to state your own opinion as if it were theirs. It's a really frustrating way to be interacted with and can easily result in accusations of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT (which has already happened more than once). It's clear that you have a lot of enthusiasm for improving "niche" characters' articles, many of which have been redirected at this point. Please (re)familiarize yourself with WP:N, WP:RS, and especially WP:Writing about fiction to avoid conflict in the future over disagreements about whether a character should have an article or not. I would also highly recommend incubating new character articles in Draft space, which I see that you are doing more often now, and using the WP:Articles for creation process to review them before they go live. Axem Titanium (talk) 07:08, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree that we have a textbook case of failure or refusal to "get the point". I note that Cyberlink420 actually went out of their way to offer constructive criticism in a civil and collegial manner on their talk page before this incident. It is interesting that another editor made socking allegations against Lord of Fantasy. While they have denied the allegation and I have no reason not to believe their denial (unless an CU admin finds evidence to the contrary), I did notice a striking similarity between their editing patterns and the new-ish editor who did the GAN, which I have failed. Anyway, I hope they will take our collective concerns and criticisms about their Wikipedia editing and writing on board. Haleth (talk) 12:48, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Both articles fall under low importance. I have to say I don't know much about the characters, and the article failed to explain to me why they have a large cultural impact. Even the reception section, which calls them "iconic", used listicles and reviews of the game as sources, and these are not adequate to demonstrate such strong claim. OceanHok (talk) 13:04, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
I agree with folks here that this should clearly be marked as "Low" importance. Lords of Fantasy, one note for you here -- I have written hundreds of Wikipedia articles on niche video games that I love. They are *all* rated as "Low" importance. I can still love them, it's just an internal assessment thing so we can quickly and easily identify what the most important articles are for improvement purposes broadly as a project. Nomader (talk) 15:11, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
I concur with Nomader. Both with the "low" importance and still being able to love something that's rated as low. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 15:16, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
In fact, my only article I've created so far (Splatoon 3) is rated as low importance, yet I still love both the Splatoon franchise and the article. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 15:18, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Okay, thank you guys for coming to a compromise. I wasn’t trying to be bias or anything...I really don’t like the importance scale anymore...lolz. But now that I have a clear idea of how to properly rank things, I will keep this all in mind later. Like I said, I never cared for Ulala as I genuinely thought she was signing in video game culture — but I’m glad it’s just water under the bridge now. With all this said, I think it’s best that I never touch the importance scale again LMAO! But again, thank you guys for coming to a clear agreement! —Lord of Fantasy (talk) 21:49, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

I invite members of this discussion to comment at Talk:Pudding_(Space_Channel_5)#Is_it_actually_notable? about potentially merging Pudding back into Space Channel 5. Axem Titanium (talk) 10:47, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

It might be worth re-evaluating Sega Heroes as well, as while it's fairly easy to find sources on its announcement and subsequent cancellation, the lack of Metacritic score is a pretty hefty mark against it. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 18:03, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
I did a quick google search on the custom search we have over at WP:VG/RS and found a good little pile of sources that could be used and that currently aren't in it ([7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13]). Only a couple of RS reviews, but a good amount of development stuff and notes about patches, which feels important to a game like this. Nomader (talk) 09:08, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
In my opinion, getting a few reliable reviews is a pretty low bar. If the game can't even clear that bar, no amount of run of the mill update articles will help it. A lot of temporary mobile games tend to be non-notable, this game seems to be no exception. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:34, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
Eh, I think that's fair-- I think it feels like it passes our notability standard, but I wouldn't expect it to be anything much more than a start page article with work. Nomader (talk) 01:34, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
@Axem Titanium: I'm not gonna discuss that since I don't like trying to find if something is notable cause i always fail to do so correctly. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 18:07, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Input on Doom (franchise) move

I would appreciate some input on this move discussion which involves making the Doom franchise primary for that word. So far people have argued that (I assume) damnation is primary, although "doom" is not mentioned there. If people agree with that however, I still think that Doom should be moved. Either way, more input would be appreciated. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:32, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

I think it should stay the way it is. Especially because Doom isn't extremely popular on a worldwide scale. Sultan the Sultan (talk) 05:12, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Okay, I have withdrawn it. It doesn't seem like a very popular idea. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:13, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

New Articles (January 24 to January 30)

Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements
 A listing of all articles newly added to the Video Games Wikiproject (regardless of creation date). Generated by v3.8 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 13:55, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

January 24

January 25

January 26

January 27

January 28

January 29

January 30

Apparently no one ever closed the merge discussion on Talk:Mario Kart 8 so I've gone ahead and closed it as merge since 1, the split has been undone and 2, there's overwhelming support for the article to be merged (yes I know AfD's and merge discussions aren't a vote, however sometimes they end up being one because of how much consensus there is for a specific outcome, and also no one opposed to the merge in the discussion). ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 14:57, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Shining series

Hello to y'all! I just wanted to let anybody interested in the Shining series know that i've left a plethora of sources for every entry made by Camelot to expand the articles at their respective talk pages (though there might be more that i've missed). Those titles being: Shining in the Darkness, Shining Force, Shining Force Gaiden, Shining Force: The Sword of Hajya, Shining Force II, Shining Force CD, Shining Wisdom, Shining the Holy Ark and Shining Force III. Roberth Martinez (talk) 19:15, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Good stuff. I'm unlikely to work on these articles myself, but finding sources is often what takes the most time when expanding articles, so it's appreciated.--AlexandraIDV 15:04, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Archive_160&oldid=1111975271"