Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 178

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 175Archive 176Archive 177Archive 178Archive 179

New Articles (January 27 to February 3)

Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements
 A listing of all articles newly added to the Video Games Wikiproject (regardless of creation date). Generated by v3.20 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 13:49, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

January 27

January 28

January 29

January 30

January 31

February 1

February 2

"Wait, why is that one tagged for WPVG? Oh. Gamers." --PresN 13:49, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Video Game History Foundation print archive to open next week

Hopefully to augment what's available on Internet Archive. [1] — Masem (t) 14:14, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Are there any obvious collaboration opportunities with the VGHF? I'd be happy to reach out to them to discuss, I imagine they'd be interested in supporting Wikipedia, but I don't have any top of mind ideas. Sam Walton (talk) 22:59, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
It would be very cool to do a collab. Seconding this. Axem Titanium (talk) 07:55, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Now available [2] Masem (t) 17:14, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Genuinely incredible resource. I would strongly be in favor of having this added to our reference library. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 19:55, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
Same here, it's so fun to explore and I can see it being vital to this project's efforts going forward. Harryhenry1 (talk) 05:25, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Per [3] it should be noted their digital content does not have explicit blessing of the publishers, but because they are curating it directlymcompare to internet archives' user submissions, they believe they have a stronger fair use case. This just means you can still use the material and cite original works directly but I'd strongly recommend not linking to the digital archive images directly. Masem (t) 20:31, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

ColecoVision and Coleco Adam Newsletters

I don't know if this may be useful for some working with old video games for the ColecoVision and Coleco Adam, but i came across with this collection of newsletter from that era: https://www.colecoadam.net/newsletters.html Roberth Martinez (talk) 17:01, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Roblox "Criticism and controversies" section

To summarize: I am currently working on substantial overhauls for the Roblox article, with the hopes of possibly getting it to GA status some day (yes, very ambitious, but bear with me here). So far, it's going fairly well, but I'm particularly unsure about what to do with the articles "Criticism and controversies" section. While yes, the platform has been involved in a number of controversies over the years for a variety of reasons, I'm concerned about the due weight of the section at present. Right now, I'm pretty sure it's about a third of the entire article. And while I want to trim it and instead make it a more broad overview section (demonstrated by the new opening paragraph I added) and less specific details on certain controversies, I have no idea what I should or shouldn't cut. I just know that it probably needs to be trimmed. Does anyone have any specific input on what could be done? λ NegativeMP1 00:42, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Per WP:CSECTION, criticism/controversy sections are frowned upon, so I definitely support your effort of trimming and/or moving into a more general reception/impact type sections. But I'm pretty unfamiliar with Roblox, and I'm sure you're already well aware of more general "trim out the stuff that comes from usual Valnet churnalism sources" so I don't have much in the way of specific advice yet. Sergecross73 msg me 01:36, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm already aware of the Valnet churnalism articles about "controversies". The problem is that these criticisms are on serious subjects like the presence of fascism on the platform, child exploitation, sexual content, and more. All covered by high end journalism sites that aren't even specific to video games. So I'm inclined to believe that these controversies have to be mentioned and detailed as being clearly significant. I just don't know how much detail should be given, from a due weight perspective and CSECTION. But I understand that you're not very familiar with Roblox, and I appreciate your feedback nevertheless. λ NegativeMP1 01:40, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
If nothing else, it's still good to lay this all out to show a consensus for this at least. Yes, it's the basics, but I seem to recall ferret, prior to their retirement, having a lot of issues with the page, I believe due to a lot of newbies and passerby editors misguided approaches to writing the article. Sergecross73 msg me 02:14, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
Yeah I can definitely see why. The sources and scattered, poorly written text that I've had to remove (or write) already is egregious. I don't know how anyone up until now let some of that to go unchecked. Especially since it's a vital article and one of our most popular pages. Hopefully I can get it back into shape, but hopefully getting a consensus (or at least feedback) regarding the criticism section is something that needs to happen as part of that process. So here I am. λ NegativeMP1 05:50, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

There is easily enough criticism about Roblox's business model that it merits a separate article, so it should probably be spun off. This is not undue weight, pretty much the entirety of Roblox's modus operandi has been subject to intense critique. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:56, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

The article is only 31 kB (~5,000 words) readable at present, so I don't think there's any reason to split for size alone right now. Subarticles devoted to criticism should also be avoided per WP:CRITS. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 09:33, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
Yeah I don't think making it a separate article is necessary. And my goal here is to try and make the material more compliant with guidelines, not less. λ NegativeMP1 10:05, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
WP:CRITS is a user essay, not a policy. Since it is a personal opinion, please do not cite it as a guideline that must be followed. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:23, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
I don't think anybody did cite it as such. I assumed NegativeMP1 was referring to guidelines generally. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 11:47, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
Yeah by guidelines I meant to refer to things such as WP:NPOV and furthermore WP:DUEWEIGHT. Although there's plenty of essays that people follow anyways because they're meant to give advice, and since I generally agree with that advice, that's why I'm taking it for what it's worth. λ NegativeMP1 16:37, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
No no no, strongly disagree with this one, both due to size and POV concerns. Sergecross73 msg me 11:26, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
You suggest it will be a POV fork, but the criticism of Roblox is in itself independently notable. You don't have to take my word for it:
This suggests it's not just cherry picking the bad stuff like an actual POV fork, but addressing a legitimate phenomenon that has constantly been brought up in the press. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:35, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
Not every thing you can dig up three sources on establishes the need for its own spin-out article. I don't uunderstand how you can be on the wrong end of so many merge and AFD discussions and still not understand this. Sergecross73 msg me 12:16, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
You say it is the "wrong end", but is there some policy I am violating by saying this? That implies I am violating some rule or other. I think everything I say is well within Wikipedia guidelines. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:11, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
I agree that there has been criticism of Roblox but it ends about there; it doesn't constitute sustained coverage. Of the 3 sources provided:
  • The Eurogamer article is about a BBC article on the topic.
  • The PocketGamer.biz article is about a YouTube video on the topic.
  • The GamesIndustry.biz article is about the same YouTube video on the topic.
This isn't sustained coverage of a single topic ("Criticism of Roblox's business model") and in no way establishes it as a standalone topic. They are articles, ultimately, about Roblox. Until the article's size becomes a problem, there is no justification to split and they belong within the current article. I believe quite strongly that it should be contextualised within the "History" section of the article. Since all 3 of these articles (and, obviously, the BBC story) are within 6 months of one another, it sounds like it was a popular topic in 2021–2022. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 21:28, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
I don't policy violations, I mean arguing on the side of an argument that doesn't garner a consensus. Sergecross73 msg me 21:40, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
I think it's worth further investigation; Roblox is less a game and more a platform, which means it has the potential to have a wide array of controversies. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 22:51, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
A problem that rises from any time you plop a "controversy" section or article is that editors will start adding every possible complaint they can document (no matter the source). If we are going to such sections, they need to stick to the very high level controversies that have wide reporting. This was a problem relatively recently with Asaassin Creed Shadows, as while there was one controversy that was discussed at depth (the Yasuke issue), the article drew lots of random ones as well, include the "woke" criticism.. Roblox absolutely has controversies around it's monetization and child safety issues that should be discussed but care should be to make sure that not every tiny criticism thrown at the game is added. — Masem (t) 23:28, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
Saying that the side that has less popularity is the "wrong side" ignores WP:NOTSNOW/WP:UPHILLBATTLE. Sometimes an argument with less support is winnable with a good argument and I have done so more times than I can count on both hands.
Something can absolutely be disruptive if the person fails to understand long after a consensus has been reached, but that's about a single discussion specifically. Holding a particular policy position that is not specifically outlined in the Wikipedia guidelines except by essays written by one or a few individual users is not CIR. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:35, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
Again, not accusing you of policy violations, just bad judgement calls. There have been countless discussions just like this one, where you're the only person advocating a page split/creation, and it's a bit exhausting explaining things like MERGEREASON or SIZESPLIT to a veteran editor for the umpteenth time. You don't seem to mind though, so we'll just keep creating consensus that prevent bad decisions, even if it kind of feels like "taking the long road" sometimes. Sergecross73 msg me 11:52, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

These criticisms are a major aspect of the game, and certainly need to be mentioned in some amount of detail. While controversy sections are typically frowned upon, I think this one is necessary for this article. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:16, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Update: I have done a lot of trimming and condensing on the section. And while I do recognize though that criticism are generally not preferred, I think I've concluded it is probably necessary here, but have attempted to give it fair balancing. I think what I have the area condensed to now is appropriate. Any more feedback would be appreciated, though. λ NegativeMP1 05:22, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Atari moves opened

To progress with the Atari-related suggestions, I have opened two move discussions:

Sceeegt (talk) 22:31, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Luigi death stare

Draft:Luigi death stare is almost ready to become a live article but still needs some ce's on ref placement. If anyone could help that would be appreciated. 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 17:55, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

I feel part of the problem is that this was a singular event: while there was humorous commentary, the best place for such material may be in Luigi's article itself in the context of how people perceive his character.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:08, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
But see WP:SIGCOV, of which this potential article has more of than All your base are belong to us. 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 18:12, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
WP:SUSTAINED and WP:ONEEVENT (which is about people but the concept is still applicable here) are the real concerns. It's stretching points pretty hard as is and seems to be a bit refbombed.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:25, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
Significantly covered events may still be better conveyed within the context of other articles. According to the strict letter of the law (guideline), sure, a concept/event/thing may be quote-unquote "entitled" to a separate article, but that may not be the best environment and setting to properly convey that information with the goals of reader understanding and comprehension in mind. You may find yourself writing better prose and producing a better article if you situate the information within the proper context of another article, which has the added benefit of avoiding redundancy. Axem Titanium (talk) 04:21, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
I don't think its there yet. I don't believe it would survive an WP:AFD or a WP:MERGE discussion. There's just so little substance and so much bloat. Sergecross73 msg me 18:18, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
Agreed with the above. It's ultimately a meme that is better discussed in the context of the Luigi article or Mario Kart 8 than separate. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:27, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
I agree that there is almost no chance of this being a viable article. It's a meme centered entirely within the Mario fandom which fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:44, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
Agree with the other three that it isn't notable to be its own article, and probably wouldn't survive if published. I say just add what you did to the Luigi article and call it a day. Sceeegt (talk) 00:34, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
Yeah, honestly, I don't oppose its current presence at Mario Kart 8, but it's already a pretty full article and there is a lot more room for expansion at the Luigi article. Sergecross73 msg me 01:18, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Atari restructuring proposal!

I made a number of structural proposals for Atari a few months ago and have to reiterate to receive responses. To cut it short: the history of Atari is currently not presented in a good format and only leads to confusion. I have made many edits to improve the situation but I have these additional moves/splits that I strongly think are necessary, in order:

Atari SA is the holding company that owns properties. Its US based subsidiary Atari, Inc. (1993-present) is the game publisher that's still around making Atari/Infogrames titles today, but 1993 refers to its pre-Atari predecessor GT Interactive, and this year in the title is a major cause for confusion. Also, Atari Interactive is merely a legal entity and the existence of this article only serves to complicate things further, therefore the article should be called "Hasbro Interactive", active from 1995 to 2001, serving that period and the games it published which are all listed in the article currently.

Please give your responses regarding these three proposals. Sceeegt (talk) 16:49, 22 January 2025 (UTC) @Masem and Shooterwalker: re-tagging. --Sceeegt (talk) 16:52, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

For the rename bits, you'll probably want to show that it meets WP:COMMONNAME to be persuasive. Sergecross73 msg me 17:38, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Then you're not understanding the context. Atari Interactive and Hasbro Interactive are technically separate entities. GT Interactive is a defunct company that is separate and distinct from the later Atari Inc. There is no common name involved here at all. Neither is the '1993' or '2003' something that could be common name as it is simply a disambiguator created in a Wikipedia context. Sceeegt (talk) 17:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Okay, then provide sources that prove that, or anything you're proposing to change. My point is that we write Wikipedia according to what source reliable sources can verify, so a personal monologue won't get you very far. Give people a reason to support (or deny) what you're proposing. If it were a simple, common knowledge situation, where people could answer you off the top of their head, it probably wouldn't be organized as it is in the first place. Sergecross73 msg me 18:00, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Your mistake here is that you're viewing this as content, but these are not content but merely titles i.e. names of articles. I am not making any proposals here for changing content. And the reason this is organized like this in the first place is due to Atari's history being jumbled up in real life. Sceeegt (talk) 18:06, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Okay, then I oppose because you can't provide any evidence that this is the correct way to go. Sergecross73 msg me 18:27, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
I'm sorry but that's a shortsighted response. You're sticking with the sourcing argument but that doesn't apply in this case with these proposals. Sceeegt (talk) 18:38, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
I don't have a strong opinion, but for what it's worth, it seems to me that there's two different proposals about two different articles being floated here, one being a rename and one being a split, and discussing them together like this leads to these confused discussions. Sceeegt's right that whether to cover Atari Inc / GT Interactive in one article or two is fundamentally an editorial decision (WP:SPLIT/WP:MERGEREASON) (the sources discussing GT Interactive by that name are the ones in the article), but Serge is also right that whether to title the Atari Interactive article its current title or Hasbro Interactive should be based on WP:COMMONNAME considerations. ~ A412 talk! 18:57, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Fair enough. I have therefore just opened a merge (and subsequent renaming) proposal on Talk:Atari, Inc. (1993–present). It will deal separately from the Atari/Hasbro Interactive proposal. Sceeegt (talk) 19:07, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Regarding your final sentence: this is a different case entirely. 'Atari Interactive' serves solely as a legal name, one of the subsidiaries of Atari SA. It is not the Atari or the brand. Therefore it can't be COMMONNAME to begin with because it is not marketed or branded as such, it only exists in the background. 'Hasbro Interactive' on the other hand is a brand and name that was indeed around at the time and what the article is mostly about. Sceeegt (talk) 22:25, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Okay, so Atari is a big mess. I wrote a bunch of stuff about the original '70s Atari, so I'm familiar with the subject, at least. Lets walk through the history of Atari:

  • "Atari, Inc." covers 1972-1984 (plus two odd paragraphs for then till 2009)
  • "Atari Games" covers 1985-1999, when its owner Midway Games stopped using the name and renamed it Midway Games West. It lingers out to 2003 when Midway Games West shut down.
  • "Atari Corporation" covers 1984-1996, when it effectively stopped existing. I think we're all good for these three.
  • In 1998, the remnants of Atari Corporation were sold to Hasbro Interactive, which had been founded in 1995. They stayed there as a brand name (Atari Interactive) for publishing retro titles until Hasbro sold off Hasbro Interactive to Infogrames Interactive in 2001. Infogrames Interactive, which was named GT Interactive before 2000, confusingly, essentially renamed itself to Atari, Inc. in 2003 (this isn't literally what happened in government filings, but the technical details are confusing and dumb), thereby resurrecting Atari from a retro brand to an actual company.
  • Now, this is where the problem lies. The Atari Interactive article, despite being a brand name that Hasbro/Infogrames used from 1998-2005, actually includes everything Hasbro Interactive did, starting in 1995, including a large number of titles they published under the Hasbro name- only 8 of ~160 titles were "Atari" branded. This is confusing and wrong. It also has a few paragraphs for post-2005 when "Atari Interactive" was no longer a thing, which is also confusing. I agree with Sceeegt- the article should be renamed to Hasbro Interactive and the text should take care to distinguish that it had Atari Interactive as a brand name for some retro titles, but the company itself was not named that.
  • Then we have "Atari, Inc. (1993-present)". This is a mess of an article, but I don't think it needs to be split or renamed. GT Interactive was founded in 1993, was bought by Infogrames in two phases in 1999-2000 and renamed to Infogrames Interactive, and was renamed to Atari, Inc. in 2003. There's a lot of Infogrames (global) merging other things in there, but in essence it's been one company from 1993-today, and its name for the last 22 years has been Atari. I wouldn't split it up unless the article was long enough to justify separate articles on the pre/post Infogrames buyout.
  • Atari SA... is actually just fine. It's clear that it's about Infogrames proper, which owns a bunch of subsidiary stuff and was renamed to Atari SA in 2009, and not about the US-based publisher Atari, Inc.
  • The games lists are a little messy, but I think it's mostly because the ledes don't consistently define what they're talking about.
  • Tl;dr: Support renaming Atari Interactive to Hasbro Interactive, as that's the topic and the name of the company for the time period. Oppose splitting up or renaming Atari, Inc. (1993-present), though it needs a rewrite for clarity. --PresN 20:26, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Your summation of the pre-1985 period of Atari is not correct, largely because Warner Communications and its successor, Time Warner, never sold Atari to anybody. It sold off pieces of the company over a period of about a year until only a holding company remained. I don't think it matters for this proposal, which is focused on later periods of the Atari brand, but just in case someone is relying on this further down in the conversation, the actual sequence is as follows:
1972: Atari, Inc. is incorporated in California. The new corporation absorbs the assets of the existing Syzygy Company, a partnership between Nolan Bushnell and Ted Dabney.
1976: Warner Communications incorporates WCI Games, Inc. in Delaware for the sole purpose of acquiring all of the stock of the California corporation Atari, Inc. Atari, Inc. is subsequently merged into WCI Games, Inc., which is renamed Atari, Inc.
1984: Warner Communications sells certain assets of Atari, Inc. related to it's consumer electronics and home computer businesses to Tramel Technologies, Ltd. Tramel Technologies renames itself to Atari Corporation. Atari, Inc. renames itself to Atari Games, Inc.
1985: AT Games, Inc. is incorporated jointly by Namco and Warner Communications. Ownership is split 60-40 between Namco and Warner Communications. AT Games subsequently purchases the coin-operated games division of Atari Games, Inc. and is renamed Atari Games Corporation. Atari Games, Inc. is renamed Atari Holdings, Inc.
1992: Atari Holdings, Inc. is merged into its parent company, Time Warner, bringing a final end to the Delaware corporation originally established as WCI Games in 1976. Indrian (talk) 03:56, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
Thank you. I know we've had some disagreement over the need to adhere to legal details too rigorously, but the above post you're responding to is so full of fundamental errors as to be useless. Folks unable to read what's already properly describes (and, most important, sourced!) in the articles need to stay away from commenting on what the articles should contain. oknazevad (talk) 17:21, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
...number one, rude, and pointlessly so. Number two, I wrote a single line about the pre-1985 Atari for context, a subject we're not even talking about. The distinction between "Warner sold Atari in 1984" and "Warner sold off all of the relevant parts of Atari over the course of a year but legally the shell of the company existed, doing nothing, until 1992" is meaningless as far as a discussion of "what to do with a pair of articles about Atari starting in 1998". --PresN 18:05, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Weak support I have stumbled around in this topic area, and I believe Sceeegt has discovered many of the same issues. I am not confident that this is the solution. But I'm willing to believe this would be a step in the right direction. I am starting to believe that the history of the Atari brand (Trademark/wordmark/name) may actually be a notable separate article. And it may be a good article to clarify the history of who controlled the name, while keeping the actual articles about those different companies separate. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:04, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Comment: @PresN This is anecdotal but should count as an example of confusion: the first time I came across Atari, Inc. (1993-present), it took a while for me to figure out what it is and how it relates to the also existing Atari Corporation and the Atari Games from that same era of time. This is why I think keeping 1993 in the title is a bad choice. The company was (GT Int.) was not named or affiliated to anything Atari in '93.
@Shooterwalker The Atari brand/name already has an article which is at Atari, or do you mean something different than that? Sceeegt (talk) 02:49, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
I do think if we made a small timeline inset for the various Atari articles to help with identifying ownership and branding, it might alleviate the confusion to readers. Masem (t) 03:12, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
Some sort of template could help. I just think it probably needs a main article. There are enough reliable sources about who owns / has owned the Atari Trademark that it would definitely have WP:SIGCOV. If someone is willing to help, I could probably help put it together. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:43, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
We have Atari which covers all of this Masem (t) 16:52, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
It doesn’t really though. Instead, it just tries to give miniature histories of each Atari that are pretty redundant with the company-specific articles (and a quick glance shows a lot of errors too because it has not been rigorously edited like the company articles). This is the article space to cover the Atari brand for sure, but it needs a complete rewrite. Indrian (talk) 17:02, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
Sure, I don't think the article is perfect as it currently is, but we have an article about the Atari brand that should cover how all the different companies that had theirs hands on the brand over time. For one, we still could absolutely use a timeline or flow sheet for this. Masem (t) 18:08, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
Can you elaborate on the game list and the difference between Infogrames '(global)' and Infogrames Interactive? It's important to remember that legal names (if it applies here) shouldn't be applied strictly here because it wouldn't be COMMONNAME. To the regular person, we only see one brand name called Infogrames without knowing what division or subsidiary or whatever made it. Because Atari and Infogrames have effectively been brands made by different entities over time, I support the status quo of having an Atari since 2001 game list and an Infogrames game list showing anything that was branded as Infogrames. Sceeegt (talk) 02:18, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Discussion opened up at WT:VGCHAR regarding character list and ratings

I've opened a discussion here regarding character lists and some concerns regarding quality ratings on the wikiproject. Please feel free to participate. Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:38, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Mortal Kombat

Mortal Kombat has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 12:03, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

New Articles (February 3 to February 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 v3.20 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 01:17, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

February 3

February 4

February 5

February 6

February 7

February 8

February 9

--PresN 01:17, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

That one game will win Game of the Year 2025 for sure. The graphics are incredible and the sound design is fantastic. Panini! • 🥪 06:09, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Comments on merge discussion

The merge discussion at Talk:Pokémon fan games#Pokémon Essentials Merge Discussion has been open for a few months now with one oppose and one support. Since consensus doesn't seem clear yet, comments on this discussion would be appreciated so the discussion can be closed with a clear consensus. Any and all thoughts are appreciated. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 03:26, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Characters of Sonic the Hedgehog page image discussion

A user has opened a discussion as to whether or not the page image for Characters of Sonic the Hedgehog should be replaced with a different image. If anyone is interested, comments are invited to help achieve consensus on this matter at Talk:Characters of Sonic the Hedgehog#New image proposal. silviaASH (inquire within) 20:57, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

They haven't been getting much input, probably because it was a bit difficult to get a read on the situation. I've tried to outline the question a little more clearly. The discussion is here now. Please take a look/re-look, and give your thoughts. Thank you! Sergecross73 msg me 18:32, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Template talk:Video game reviews additions

Should we add RPG Site (rpgsite.net), TheSixthAxis (thesixthaxis.com), DualShockers (dualshockers.com), TheGamer (thegamer.com) and Twinfinite (twinfinite.net) to Template:Video game reviews? They all seem to be regularly used by Metacritic. Helper201 (talk) 19:02, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Are all of those on the usable list at WP:VG/S? I feel like some aren't... Sergecross73 msg me 19:16, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for the link Sergecross73. RPG Site and DualShockers are listed as reliable on there, TheSixthAxis and Twinfinite are listed as unreliable and TheGamer is listed under "situational sources". So, I think that provides a good case for adding RPG Site and DualShockers and I guess not TheSixthAxis and Twinfinite. I'm not sure in regards to whether we can add TheGamer given its listed as a "situational source". Helper201 (talk) 19:27, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
Correction, DualShockers is actually listed under "situational sources". Helper201 (talk) 19:36, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
Support adding: RPG Site (listed as a reliable source), DualShockers and TheGamer. Under the notes section on Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources#Valnet I don't see anything that would make the latter two unusable. It should also be noted that Hardcore Gamer is listed in this section and that is included in Template:Video game reviews. Helper201 (talk) 19:45, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
I would support adding RPG Site, I use them periodically for indie game articles. Regarding the Valnet sites, I believe Hardcore Gamer was considered reliable *before Valnet bought them* which is why they're still included in the template. As of the last discussion on them, we're waiting to see if their quality declines under the new management, but they're still okay (for now). I wasn't involved in the other Valnet discussions but I believe dualshockers and thegamer were never considered to be particularly high quality sources (i'm not supporting or opposing adding them, just recapping what I believe the current consensus is). CurlyWi (talk) 19:56, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
Definitely support adding RPG Site. They're a very reliable source. I see no harm in Hardcore Gamer either per the above comments. I am iffy on the others. I'm usually a fan of TheGamer, but I'm admittedly unsure of granting it special exception compared to other Valnet sources. I have no preference either way, but I will say TheGamer definitely tends to be the strongest in terms of quality out of the Valnet sources I've seen, at least out of those that cover video games. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 03:19, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for the responses CurlyWi and Pokelego999. Pokelego999, do you have any specific thoughts regarding adding DualShockers? Helper201 (talk) 17:09, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
I feel it's a pretty borderline source, and very weak. I wouldn't include it as a major source since it's about the level of the Rants, which are easily the lowest quality usable sources we have. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 17:33, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
If I remember correctly, DualShockers was because of it using sources that are well and truly on the unreliable list e.g VGChartz - X201 (talk) 08:31, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Why is there no page for Fallout Shelter Online?

I noticed that Fallout Shelter Online doesn’t have its own Wikipedia page. The game was officially released in some regions, like China and parts of Asia, and it's part of the Fallout series. Shouldn’t it have a dedicated page? Riavulllll (talk) 16:06, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Many games that don't necessarily have enough material for a separate page have a section under a franchise page, which Fallout Shelter Online does. As long as the passes the general notability guidelines and there's enough reliable sourcing for a detailed article beyond just that sub-section (see WP:NOPAGE or WP:MERGEREASON), feel free to make the page! λ NegativeMP1 16:58, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
We had a falling out. It's still a bit recent so I'd rather not talk about it yet. Panini! • 🥪 17:07, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with the game and don't know a ton about the franchise, but it could be a few scenarios. It may have been decided that it didn't meet our standards for having its own article (see the WP:GNG.) Or maybe there wasn't much to say and they felt it was best to just have it be mentioned at the series article (see WP:MERGEREASON.) Or it could just be that no one got around to writing it. Editors are generally quick to create articles for major entries in established franchises, but there's often less interest when its a minor spinoff or a mobile phone spinoff. Sergecross73 msg me 17:16, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
I would suggest finding some sources for it, and possibly making a subsection on Fallout Shelter for it as a start. I know TheGamer did an article about its artwork awhile back.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:37, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
Probably not. The sources don't seem great. It should just be a section of Fallout Shelter. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:42, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Super Smash Bros.

Super Smash Bros. has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 23:55, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

New Articles (February 10 to February 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 v3.20 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 21:36, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

February 10

February 11

February 12

February 13

February 14

February 15

February 16

I'll be honest, I am really not feeling Sindel. I brought it up on the talk page, but the sourcing feels really weak and stretched out, not to mention disjointed. Like the gay icon article is just...kinda its own weird island there.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:56, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
But she consistently ranks in the top 30 of best Mortal Kombat character listicles! Sergecross73 msg me 22:01, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
Donald Mustard? The "Not Like Us" guy? Not sure why he was tagged. Panini! • 🥪 01:42, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
I am drawing a complete blank for how you're trying to connect Kendrick Lamar and Donald Mustard. --PresN 03:28, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
"Mustard on the beat, ho!" – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 03:34, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Team Reptile, Lethal League, and Bomb Rush Cyberfunk

Currently, Team Reptile redirects to Lethal League, which had been the developer's only notable game at the time. Since then, Bomb Rush Cyberfunk has been released, so redirecting to just one of their games makes a bit less sense now. I've added links for each game to the other's article, but I'm not sure what should be done about the redirect. Team Reptile doesn't strike me as notable enough for their own article, but would it be appropriate to change the link to something like a disambiguation page that links both LL and BRC? Taffer😊 💬(she/they) 16:27, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

The redirect was listed for discussion after my message, thank you @Zxcvbnm Taffer😊 💬(she/they) 17:02, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Offering my time to research topics if needed

I just figured I'd throw it out there, but if anyone has a topic they're itching on expanding and need sources, I can help find them. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 17:37, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

there is this old visual novel The King of Fighters: Kyo that I can't find anything about it Tintor2 (talk) 17:54, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Easy B or GA article

For anyone so inclined, I made some improvements to Atomic Betty (video game) while reassessing stubs. I fleshed out decent Development and Reception sections. All that's missing is a Gameplay section, a screenshot, and a second set of eyes to review/copy edit to make this B-class or maybe even a GA-class. (Guyinblack25 talk 18:15, 21 February 2025 (UTC))

Expanding Elden Ring Nightreign based on network test

Among other things, I'm considering adding a "Reception" section to Elden Ring Nightreign to detail the initial reactions to the network test (if sources exist, of course). I wanted to pass this by some other editors first, though, because I don't want to put in a bunch of work just to be reverted per WP:CRYSTAL. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gracen (talk • contribs) 21:13, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

I personally think it's fine to be included similar to Deadlock (video game). ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:33, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Should lead images require to add with alt text?

I discovered some of the video game logos or covers lacking alt text for visually impaired people. Ahri Boy (talk) 01:13, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Adding alt-text to images is often recommended when an article is reviewed for WP:GAN, and oftentimes a requirement for WP:FAC. Beyond that, alt-text is fully optional. If you're proposing that alt-text be a requirement, I don't really see how such an idea could be enforced across tens of thousands of articles that have images, many of which we might not even know exist due to this wikiproject's scope. It would more likely than not just lead to alt captions like "A screenshot of X" or "Box art of X" rather than anything actually helpful to readers. λ NegativeMP1 01:44, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
Yeah, "alt text should be present for all images" is very true, but we don't have a way to enforce it across all 40,000+ articles, especially since there's no automated way to create them. --PresN 02:14, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
Actually, alt text should be added for all key images, event cover art. the alt text needs to be descriptive of what is on the cover, not just saying "it's cover art". see WP:ALTTEXT.
That said, mandating it for sub-GA articles isn't necessary but it is a good goal to push editors to do as they improve articles. Masem (t) 02:19, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
Just echoing the comments above, add Alt text whenever possible. All the contributors here have worked hard to craft quality content; why not make sure every part of it is accessible for as many readers as possible? If anyone needs help with Alt text, please feel free to reach out. I'm not active but will make time to help with this. (Guyinblack25 talk 00:23, 25 February 2025 (UTC))

New Articles (February 17 to February 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 v3.20 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 01:45, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

February 17

February 18

February 19

February 20

February 21

February 22

February 23

--PresN 01:45, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Neo Geo (system)#Requested move 9 February 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Neo Geo (system)#Requested move 9 February 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPathtalk 14:38, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Discussion needed at Talk:Video game

We have a couple editors trying to change the long-standing lede image of kids playing Pong at Video game , and probably need more input from the project there. — Masem (t) 04:26, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Feel free to participate at the RfC: Talk:Video game#RFC: lead image -- Some1 (talk) 05:24, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
If you've already weighed in here, I'd appreciate it if you'd stop by again; I'm curious what you all think about having more than one lead image, collage-style. Panini! • 🥪 18:21, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

New Articles (February 24 to March 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 v3.20 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 01:19, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

February 24

February 25

February 26

February 27

February 28

March 1

March 2

--PresN 01:19, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

ROM Downloads as RS

I am bringing this over from the Teahouse by Recommendation of User:Slowking Man. As far as I can tell there aren't any explicit restrictions on citing ROM downloads for games (such as fan translations or own created). I have encountered them at Rhythm Tengoku and List of Creepypastas and just marked them using "Non-primary source needed". An admin in the thread explained that they are most likely copyvio (especially since the former is a fan translation and the latter is based off of Godzilla), but I thought I should ask for additional opinions and maybe add it to the project's sources page. Yes I am a nerd -XCBRO172 (How could you tell?) 04:31, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

I think besides copyright concerns, citing fan translations would be tricky as the inherent nature of translation means details and character names can and have changed (for good or ill) between the different fans doing the translating. Harryhenry1 (talk) 04:51, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
Yes, unless the ROM is wholly the work of a fan creation and free of any IP issues, most ROMs would be possible copyright problems and should be avoided as a source. Masem (t) 04:51, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
Correct, this would be a WP:COPYVIO problem. If you've witnessed this elsewhere, then you've simply observed other errors needing fixing. We can't be linking to rom downloads on Wikipedia. Sergecross73 msg me 15:05, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
I'm gonna chime in and say only (keyword being ONLY) cite links to the ROM if they are provided by the original developer or publisher, like how Gaelco did with the 1993 arcade game World Rally years ago (https://web.archive.org/web/20100608111145/http://www.gaelco.es/pages/hablando/frhablan.htm) for example. Roberth Martinez (talk) 21:40, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Star Wars Jedi Knight: Jedi Academy

Star Wars Jedi Knight: Jedi Academy has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 15:16, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Discussion on the reliability of Noisy Pixel

Anyone interested please see WP:RSN#Noisy Pixel -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:30, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

New Articles (March 3 to March 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 v3.20 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 18:29, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

March 3

March 4

March 5

March 6

March 7

March 8

March 9

--PresN 18:29, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

For those sick of seeing Overwatch on this, I have bad news: I have at least 4 more potential spinouts in the oven for the Good Topic project I'm working on. My apologies in advance.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:13, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
Seems like my several nasty letters didn't reach you in time, then. I'd sum them up here but they're quite vulgar. Panini! • 🥪 05:36, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Wii U

Wii U has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 08:14, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

FAR notice

I have nominated Kingdom Hearts for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the 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" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 08:33, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Whales

Hello. While editing, I wanted to link to the concept of Whale (video games).

This term, sometimes viewed as derogatory, refers to a small number of highly engaged players who provide significant revenue to live-service games. In 2024, for example, League of Legends's game director said that "the vast majority of players spend $0 on a free play game. As a consequence of that, the majority of our revenue comes from a small, single-digit percentage of players" (PC Gamer).

Whale (video games) does not redirect. When I visited to Whale (disambiguation), it provides High roller as a similar term in gambling. Whale (gaming) redirects to Free to play#Comparison with traditional model. The term is mentioned in live-service games under the "Microtransactions" bit (currently unsourced).

I can spend some time on this in the near-future but wanted to first solicit views here on the best way and place to integrate, if good sourcing exists for it. My current, working view is that the right place to bundle it would be within a Free-to-play header within live-service games. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 14:13, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

My nuanced take is that we should talk about whales as an important part of the free-to-play model, but not necessarily use that term, or even give it a separate article. The term can be seen as derogatory, though it is still one of the most common terms. Putting it in the context of, say, microtransactions would help readers understand why these high paying customers are so important. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:03, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for the input, Shooter. Contextualising alongside microtransactions makes sense. I understand it's a term a lot of people don't like, but yeah it is very widely used. If it did have its own article, what would you name it instead? — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 18:16, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
I'm not sure. I've heard the more neutral "high-value customer", but this applies to customers outside gaming too. I've also heard the term "power user", but this includes other types of software, and isn't always about monetization. If we're being incremental, maybe start by expanding a section in the microtransaction article, and if it grows really quickly, the article title will present itself. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:31, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
Gotcha. So far, I've only seen sources refer to them as "whales". WP:NOTCENSORED may apply regarding the offensive part of it. I will see what is out there and report back in a bit. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 18:39, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
I'll just jump in and say I've never heard the term considered derogatory in communities, in fact there have been variations of it come up in those around mobile games such as FGO such as dolphin for someone that spends occasionally and leviathan for those that spend massive amounts on a title. I feel that could use some sourcing to establish that of course, but Shoot's comment did take my by surprise.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:43, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
From my experience as a former devout League of Legends player, some of my big-spender friends dislike it because it... well, it compares them to a gigantic ocean mammal. "Dolphin" is definitely cuter and fits me (hopefully I qualify with my one-battle pass-a-year purchase). Hell, "whale" is one of the non-person WP:WikiFauna. I'll be curious to see what sourcing says – my current understanding is that the term was borrowed from gambling and considerably predates online gaming. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 20:56, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
It's worth noting that "whale" is not a game industry specific term. It's also used in gambling (see high roller) and marketing in a similar sense. Axem Titanium (talk) 08:18, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
I think you might just be restating what the message you're replying to says – my OP mentions high rollers too. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 11:14, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
I'm not disagreeing with you, just adding my 2p. Axem Titanium (talk) 03:50, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
One quick comment I'd make based on Shooterwalker's comment here is that we shouldn't censor whales, but there is a fair point that if you are talking about how a video game is being monetized and purposely towards the few that spend lots of money on the game, its probably not best to start talking about them as "whales" without any other context even if that's language used by the sources, simply because its not easily a term to know the definition in context. However, a statement like "Dev Q said that their goal with microtransactions was to target high-value customers, or whales." would be certainty a good way to give immediate context to the term. Masem (t) 04:11, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
League reads At the 2024 Summer Game Fest, game director Pu Liu said that revenue is primarily generated by a "single-digit percentage" of players, colloquially known as whales. The only other use quotes a source's whale chasing. If the section contained more material, I'd feel stronger about varying the language up. This works for me from a comprehensibility and a human POV. It's quite literally dehumanising; they're players. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 04:25, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
remember we have or glossary page, where whale is defined. And while it may seem derogatory, it is absolutely a term used by those that work with or study micro transaction-based games (proverbally based on targeting the few whales among all the smaller fish out there), so I don't think trying to mask the term is really appropriate, particularly if no sources treat it that way. (counter example, "walking simulator" has been documented as being a derogatory term initially but the broader consensus has since changed). Masem (t) 18:48, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
Seconding this (and Kung Fu Man too.) I'd work on building up the glossary entry, and using redirect(s) to link to that. I'm unconcerned about it being derogatory, as it has no real documented negative social/political connotations that I've ever seen. Sergecross73 msg me 19:12, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
Makes sense, Masem and Serge. Is there a help page that will explain how I redirect a page to a specific section of an article that isn't a heading? — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 20:56, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
Use #REDIRECT [[page name#section or anchor name]] — Masem (t) 21:16, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
For clarification, I'm not opposed to talking about derogatory terms in an encyclopedic way. I'm just suggesting that the encyclopedic home for this topic wouldn't be at a page about the name-calling, but at a page about the monetization strategy more broadly. (e.g.: microtransaction, free to play, or even high roller given the proximity to gambling). Shooterwalker (talk) 03:01, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
Do you have any examples of its use in a derogatory manner? I've only ever seen it used like that in like message board chatter - the sort of stuff we wouldn't factor into an encyclopedia. Sergecross73 msg me 18:03, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Notability for esports events

Would've asked at Wikipedia:ESPORTS, but that project looks very dead, so I figured I'd ask here. I recently finished improving Pokémon competitive play and figured that I may start planning in case I hit up Pokémon World Championships in the future. The main problem with that article is that it's covering a large number of events from prior years that lack articles (The 2014, 15, and 16 Championships), and no other articles bar 2023 Pokémon World Championships have articles. I checked around, but there's no equivalent policy to Wikipedia:NSPORTS for esports, and from what research I've done for the competitive play article, all coverage on past Championships events seems to be largely Wikipedia:ROUTINE at best, with little in the way of lasting notability.

What should be done in regards to covering esports events in this manner? Should all content be cut bar the bare essentials for past events? Should the events be split out into a list? Into individual articles? I'm not really quite sure what criteria these events are working on for notability, so I wanted to ask for advice on how best to cover these events under the project's scope. Any help with this is greatly appreciated. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 18:06, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

If you can find reliable independent sources writing prose about these events, then you're fine. In my experience, being able to describe how the event went and what happened in it is what you need. Helpful information is what makes the event different from previous incarnations. Being able to describe what happened in the major matches themselves, and how the tournaments fit into the stories of the major competitors, is the other half that makes writing these interesting and fun. Having written Evo 2011 up to Evo 2017 in the past, such competitions can have a lot of details to cover. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:21, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
@Maplestrip Most of them are primarily not covering the battles themselves, bar maybe the final rounds of the tournament, and even then it's minimal. Even then, bar something like the 2014 Pachirisu incident, most of these events lack any actual SUSTAINED coverage, which doesn't help what paltry coverage exists. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 22:43, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
If sources aren't giving full play-by-plays of the finales, then we don't either. If sources are like "X used narrowly defeated Y with this unusual strategy," then that sounds like a great inclusion. I think it's usually only the finale or the highest-few matches that get any kind of description of what happened and that's fine. Something that can be cool, for example, is when a newcomer comes in and makes it to, say, 7th place, but then goes on to be a major figure in the scene from then on. Lots of things like that can make a tournament more historically connected and relevant. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:26, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
To start, the basics should be followed, like WP:GNG and WP:GAMECRUFT. Many of the ones I stumble upon doing even do that. I've never thought the endless tournament brackets were appropriate for an encyclopedia, but I don't edit the area, let alone prominently enough to combat the endless adding of them. Sergecross73 msg me 19:39, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
A nice little table or chart is nice, but yeah, we're not a sports almanac. We should focus on adding descriptions and context instead, it's frustrating to just see lists of names and placements. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 21:40, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
Gotcha. Thank you both! I'll probably try to condense the rankings down to just major winners and such for the time being, and cover what I can in prose. Granted I'll need to research that, but still. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 22:44, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
I've never had issues with brackets as long as the tournament itself was notable like The International, but rosters of mostly non-notable players and a list of results in non-notable tournaments is a different story. Liquidpedia exists for that sort of thing. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 23:47, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Non-English game titles

I'm asking for someone to look into and help with the editing of non-English game titles by User:Ding Chavez. I can determine from my experience that the addition of the French title to The Awesome Adventures of Captain Spirit was incorrect due to the game being published internationally in English by Square Enix. But I struggle with, e.g. The Mysterious Cities of Gold: Secret Paths, published by Ynnis Interactive. This appears to be a literal translation, so Template:EFN should be used in any case like on Japanese games. Regards IgelRM (talk) 19:40, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Unless I'm misunderstanding, if The Mysterious Cities of Gold wasn't officially released as Les Mystérieuses Cités d'Or in France then it shouldn't be listed. We should be avoiding the use of unofficial/fan translations unless it was mentioned by sources or is a part of a franchise that does have an official English name. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 23:42, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
Sorry my post isn't exactly clear. According to the Mobygame entry, it was official released as that in French speaking regions. The question is whether that is relevant for the English Wikipedia based on that some parts were made by France-based companies. IgelRM (talk) 15:46, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
If what you're saying is true, use EFN. If what Dissident says is true, leave it out. (I'm not familiar with this game so I don't know how it was released.) Sergecross73 msg me 17:49, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
There's box art with it so it seems to have been localized in several different European languages per Mobygames. Since it's by a French studio, it can be footnoted like with Japanese names for Japanese-made games. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 15:14, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
Yup, good find. Looks like there's consensus then. Sergecross73 msg me 15:53, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Notice of reliable sources noticeboard discussion

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is EssentiallySports. Thank you. --Left guide (talk) 05:12, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

New Articles (March 10 to March 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 v3.20 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 11:55, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

March 10

March 11

March 12

March 13

March 14

March 15

March 16

"Video games playable in Street Fighter 6" is certainly one of the categories of all time. --PresN 11:55, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

A Durrr Burger article would have turned out particularly lame if made by anyone else, but Johnson524 has done great work with it. Panini! • 🥪 23:14, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
Arguably that article is reaaaaaally stretching it. I'm not seeing much from the sourcing that contributes "significant coverage" particularly in development or reception, just a lot of the fact that Durr Burger pops up frequently in Fortnite and related merch, using weak sourcing (yes, you have sites like Polygon, but this reflects the heavy amount of SEO articles on how to do X in game Y that nearly all major sites do to keep themselves relevant). Masem (t) 00:11, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
Did y'all hear something? Panini! • 🥪 00:14, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
@Panini!: Thank you so much for your first comment! You just made my day x10 better 🙂 Cheers! Johnson524 01:18, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
I do have to echo Masem's concerns, especially regarding character notability. It's clearly had a lot of work done but some of it feels stretched.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:23, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
Yeah, third'd. Sergecross73 msg me 02:28, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
@Kung Fu Man, @Sergecross73, I hear your concerns, but what can I do specifically to improve this page? Cheers! Johnson524 02:31, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
If the sourcing is weak, probably not much. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 02:40, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
The main problem is all the discussion is, well, promotion info. There's no understanding why this character in particular is notable or discussed, and instead it grabs stuff like "iconic" and whatnot which in the long run...really don't say much. There's no meat on this bone at all.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:01, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
@Dissident93: Due to the nature of the article, every single source on the page was verified with WP:VG/S first, 100% of which fall under Reliable Sources. There aren't even any situational sources used on the page. A fair amount of these reliable sources discuss the character as a primary topic as opposed to a passing mention, though some still do. Because of this, I really don't see a sourcing issue. @Kung Fu Man The character has been used in virtually every chapter of Fortnite, had its own official game mode, placed 25th in an Dot Esports best skins ranking, has been recognized as notable by Dot Esports and CNBC (in lead), and was a key part of the 2018 ARG run by Fortnite. I included much of this I guess promotional material to establish notability, and wrote it as neutral to the best of my ability. Would you like to see some of this removed or changed further? If so I'd be happy to continue communicating with you on the Durrr Burger talk page, as I'd love to see the article achieve GA status eventually. Cheers! Johnson524 03:16, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
Promotional material, on its own, does not establish any notability. It can appear in every chapter of Fortnite, certainly, but what does that mean for any real world importance or analysis? Where's discussion to illustrate it matters beyond the scope of just Fortnite itself or understanding it further helps one understand that game? These are things you need to establish for a character article. Right now we know it exists, it's commented as iconic within the scope of Fortnite, and that's about it.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:27, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
I would say that there is a potential (but I can't 100% say for sure) of a List of Fortnite characters, as things like Durr Burger, the Fortnite Llama, and in-game characters like Jonesy and Peely, which if you took the promotional aspects out, the remaining content would be appropriate. Masem (t) 03:55, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
@Kung Fu Man: One of my favorite character articles I've seen, and one that just so happened to be promoted by you as well, was Ditto (Pokémon). The only other Fortnite character article, Peely, wasn't very helpful to gain inspiration from, at least in the context of GA quality, so I turned to other GA articles like this one. From the formatting of the page to even the section headers, you can tell a lot of love and quality was put into the page 🙂 That being said, the main three themes for promotion and reception section of the Ditto article is that the character is: 1. Seen and commented on for its appearance in a franchise-related movie, 2. Commented on by a number of major publishers, and 3. available in merchandise. These three main themes almost entirely make up the notability mentions in this part of the article. I think is completely fine though! That's why I did something very similar for the Durrr Burger article: but instead #1 is a real-life ARG game run by Fortnite instead of Detective Pikachu, and #3 is Legos and Halloween costumes instead of capsule toys to bean bag chairs. The point being these three echo very similar themes of notability with my character article, and I don't see why mine is a problem. I mean no disrespect and I sincerely apologize if I came off that way in any of my statements above. Cheers! Johnson524 03:56, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Well with Ditto the reason its notable is because their analysis of its themes as a character and a species, discussions about how its been used and reactions to said usage, and how players have come to see it due to its gampelay mechanics. Understanding Ditto helps understand Pokemon better, and it has weight itself as a shapeshifter concept in fiction. If Ditto had just appeared a lot and didn't have any of that, the article wouldn't be there (and frankly speaking if merch and promotions alone counted, almost every Pokemon would have an article).

Is there that sort of content for Durrr Burger? Discussions on its use as a mascot? Analysis of that? Stuff like that? Because I looked while we were talking and I couldn't find that.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:04, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
@Kung Fu Man: Not as much as with Ditto for sure, but it's still present. Without listing them off, supporting quotes about the characters impact are mentioned in the design and lore section by EuroGamer, In-game appearances by GameRevolution, and some already mentioned ones in the Promotion and reception section. The impact specifically of Durrr Burger's rivalry with another in-game Pizza business saw support from a number or players in and outside of the game (outside being the subreddit mention), and opposition from the real-life burger chain Wendy's, who repeatedly went against Durrr Burger in conversation and in game. I could potentially find more supporting quotes in the sources already mentioned, I just truly believed that these had already established notability. Cheers! Johnson524 04:18, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
The Eurogamer ref is basically discussing the event; it gives no indication why the character is important. The Wendy's "rivalry" can also be summed up more about the impact of Fortnite than about the character itself. What are your WP:THREE specifically that illustrate this character as important? Like this here you're citing as a source from CNBC when it's just saying it's "iconic" strictly in the context of Fortnite: the article is entirely about that game and its promotion. This isn't WP:SIGCOV for reception.
If you want to look at my work as a guide have three Overwatch character articles above. Look at how the reception sections on those is structure, and what they're saying to help illustrate those characters. OW is close enough to Fortnite for this example to give you an idea of what to look for. And by god I'm not expecting that level of sourcing but at least...something. And I'm sorry if I'm pushing hard, but I respect the work you put in, and I'm hoping I'm wrong and there's some sourcing you might've overlooked, or it helps you understand what to look for so you can write stronger articles for subjects that do meet notability.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:32, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
As someone who supports the idea of articles about fictional concepts, I'd still have to agree with the others that it only has trivial coverage. The main thing that got publicity is an ARG, rather than the fictional burger chain itself. Even if the ARG was notable, that wouldn't count towards this particular article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:48, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
... Must have been the wind. Panini! • 🥪 16:23, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
I could try to look into this guy, but as it stands, I agree that there's not the kind of coverage that is going to help show notability. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 16:34, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
@Panini! These kinds of dismissive comments really don't reflect great on you. -- ferret (talk) 21:50, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
I kid because I know you all can take it :). Happy to assist with the article if it's determined to be of consideration. Panini! • 🥪 22:59, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for MkLeo

MkLeo has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 02:10, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't mean to sound harsh, but I feel like you should finish what's on your plate before opening any more after this: there's still Crash Bandicoot (character) open for GAR at the time and from what I can tell it's mostly done, just needs more contemporary reception?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:26, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
oops completely forgot about that. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 04:30, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
Someone should look over at the Super Smash Bros esports players' articles, like Glutonny. There are a lot of unreliable sources being used. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 06:07, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

id Software and MOS:TMRULES

Our guidelines expressly tell us to capitalize proper nouns, like names. This is something I brought up in relation to id Software (and, by extension, the id Tech engine family) in the past. Just now, @DrakeFruit insists that S&box must be allowed to be called "s&box", because "engines such as id Tech are spelled with a lowercase first letter, it is not against any Wikipedia guidelines". Because of this "other stuff exists" argument, I'd like to raise the question again: Is Id's exemption from this guideline justified, and how does it apply to S&box? IceWelder [✉] 21:40, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Using all-lowercase letters may likewise be acceptable if it is done universally by sources, such as with the webcomic xkcd. id software is universally cased that way. One should look to the sources for S&box, I don't have a good feel on that. — Masem (t) 22:35, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
Casually browsing many sources: the common standard seems to lowercase it. A fair amount do, but its much more frequently lowercased; many mentions of the game in source titles capitalize it, but looking at the source itself its often lowercased there instead. Eyeballing it, it's about 75% lowercase to 25% uppercase. Panini! • 🥪 05:08, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
Hm, right, this sentence often slips my mind because it is hidden at the end of another bullet point way, way down. Perhaps we should make it more prominent. My quick Google search roughly mirrors Panini!'s findings, and the same checks out for "id Tech", it seems. However, I see a greater split for "S&box" vs "s&box", with at least my results favoring the former (approx. 4:1). Do you see a parallel between the two cases? IceWelder [✉] 07:06, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Assassin's Creed Shadows

There's a discussion on Assassin's Creed Shadows here that we could use help resolving. The first question is about whether or not the material on the portrayal of the main character Yasuke should get its own subsection (the relevant material is currently in the subsection Portrayal of Yasuke), and what section it should it go into. The second question is whether or not this should be mentioned in the lead. Truthnope (talk) 00:17, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Your annual reminder that the GDC official Flickr page has tons of Commons-eligible photographs

https://www.flickr.com/photos/officialgdc/with/54403451284 The awards show is a great place to get a cropped photo of some indie devs. Upload the original to Commons, then upload your crop with a link to the original. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:36, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

If you happen to stumble across a pic of Dennis Gustafsson, please let me know! IceWelder [✉] 21:42, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

EA (service) and EA App (application)

From what I understand, EA service is a digital rights management system previously known as Origin, and it is still the same service, and EA service still supports (yet) both new EA App and old Origin applications, so why there is mentioned "EA Desktop" in the lead, which was the name for EA App PC beta? We can distinguish service and its applications as separate things. Eurohunter (talk) 20:49, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

I've moved the page to "EA App" because that is the name of the product the replaced Origin when they dropped the name. There may be services by EA that back most of their games on both computer and consoles, but Origin / EA App is the dedicated launcher for Windows users (hence why EA Desktop also applies). Masem (t) 22:45, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Game Informer is back

They're back, babey! Yes, that includes the print magazine, and the team has returned. The linked letter from the editor remarks that the website and its backlog is coming back online (example: Veilguard pre-release coverage hub). It's all in process, so some stuff might take a hot minute. But, if you're aware of anything that was lost due to the magazine going down, I don't know if anything ended up removed due to dead links, those articles are back in luck! There's also some new reviews and coverage being posted for things that came out or happened during their hiatus and a new 2024 best of list. Good news for us, and for games journalism. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 20:24, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, but that also means that any of the GI magazines that are now available on Internet Archive and Retromags, for example, are going to be nuked at any moment's notice so, better grab those PDFs before they're gone! Roberth Martinez (talk) 21:18, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
The site still seems a little slow for me (on a Mac with Chrome), but once the kinks get worked out, a WP:URLREQ should be made to set all the references from "dead" to "live". Here is the original request Sariel Xilo made back in August when the site went offline. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:28, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
https://www.gameinformer.com/subscribe - looks like creating a free account allows for (some degree of) access to a old content of theirs? Sergecross73 msg me 22:50, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
I think that's for magazine archive access. Old URLs should be live again (for example their Batman Arkham City review here). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:09, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
At the time of my request, only 2 refs linked directly to the digital edition of the magazine (Veilguard issue - https://gameinformer.mydigitalpublication.com/publication/?i=824318) & that link is still dead. Print sources don't require links so there might be more refs that cite the print magazine over the website that weren't found (but also, they don't need to be updated). Sariel Xilo (talk) 16:44, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
I made the request at URLREQ here to have the online citations changed from |url-status=dead to |url-status=live since the online archive has returned. This is separate from any use of the magazine (print or digital) for citations. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:17, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
Right! Mostly added a clarification that access to the magazine isn't really a concern in terms of refs since you & Sergecross73 mentioned that access to the digital magazine has changed. Sariel Xilo (talk) 19:30, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Advanced access

I'm surprised we don't have a page on the general topic of video game release, because as this page stands it's very WP:DICDEF, and I think it should almost certainly be merged, but I have no idea where to. Anyone have an idea? ~ A412 talk! 20:07, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes, that advanced access article is awful (and not the common name for the term either.) It's only existed for like a day. I redirected it to Glossary of video game terms, which is probably where any release stuff should go. Sergecross73 msg me 20:31, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
"early access" has been used too, though the definition here is not congruent with what early access has typically meant. That said I know the early access page has a brief discussion on this approach since it's closely related. — Masem (t) 21:03, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
Yeah, sorry, didn't see that until just now. I'm fine with it redirecting wherever, but it doesn't need a separate article by...any metric. Sergecross73 msg me 21:17, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
Thanks Serge. ~ A412 talk! 21:24, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
But won't impetuously redirecting the article to the wrong glossary explanation do more harm than leaving it as-is? MilkyDefer 06:37, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
As I said, feel free to redirect to early access or wherever else. Sergecross73 msg me 20:05, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello, fellow wikipedians! I am here to announce my new (and ambitious) project to improve Wii U related articles on Wikipedia:

edit | discuss
Nintendo Wii U
6 articles
Wii U GamePad
Off-TV Play
Wii U system software
Wii U Pro Controller
List of Wii U games
List of best-selling Wii U video games

Currently, i have Wii U GamePad as a nomination and Off TV Play is getting peer reviewed for a potential featured list. The main article, Wii U was delisted last week. However, i believe that collabarating together we can all improve the coverage and reliabity of Wii U related arictles on Wikipedia. The Wii U was a failure, and therefore not a ton of attention was poured onto Wii U related articles back when it was relevant. Let me know how you all feel about this. TzarN64 (talk) 04:17, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

At the very least, it seems like Off-TV Play has major WP:OVERLAP issues with the Wii U GamePad. Looking at the sources, I am also heavily doubtful that it passes WP:GNG. Given that only the Wii U GamePad is capable of this feature, and it is not something that was carried across consoles, etc., it should probably be merged to Wii U GamePad#Features. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:41, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
@Zxcvbnm, you think i should just BOLDly merge off tv play then? TzarN64 (talk) 04:54, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
I doubt there would be much backlash if you did. I'm usually the one to oppose merging stuff (i.e. Nintendo DS Lite) so if I think it's too much, I'm not sure anyone else wouldn't. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:55, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
Alright. Thank you for your time! TzarN64 (talk) 05:00, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
Hello, I object to this merge, please stop repeatedly attempting to merge this after such a brief discussion without hardly any participation. Its reception section is written with reliable sources written specifically about the subject with significant coverage. It received detailed coverage by outlets like []Eurogamer]]'s Digital Foundry. I knows there's coverage that the concept help influence the Switch too. Sergecross73 msg me 12:44, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
I do concur with Zx that there's some considerable overlap here given cross tv play is inherently a mechanic intrinsically tied with the Wii U Gamepad; I'm not seeing much sourcing wise that would indicate a necessary split, at least at a glance. Even coverage covering the feature itself is still tied to its use in the Gamepad. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 15:29, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
To be clear, it wasn't "split", it was started from scratch, 13 years ago. Sergecross73 msg me 15:53, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
I understand that. Admittedly that was unclear wording on my part, but what I mean by split is more or less just as a separate article. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 21:38, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

There was not a review at all for Talk:Wii U GamePad/GA1. This might need to be reassessed. GamerPro64 00:13, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

I have just gone ahead and reverted the passing, and returned it to the queue as /GA2. This was not a valid review. I'm sure the article can reach GA, but it needs more than a single word review to show that someone actually checked. --PresN 00:34, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
Yeesh, that's pretty similar to why the Wii U itself lost its GA status. Not sure why people keep thinking they can skip the review process... Sergecross73 msg me 02:12, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
I'm sure this was not an attempt to game the system by bypassing the review; I think we just need to be more proactive with following the GA criteria. Both Tzar and the reviewer are fairly new to editing, after all. To @TzarN64 and @User:Freedoxm, if you have any questions about the GA process, whether that be general breakdowns of how they work or a quick "am I doing this right", feel free to let me know on my talk page and I'll gladly walk you through it. Panini! • 🥪 05:01, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
Freedoxm is currently conducting an actual review of Wii U GamePad at the moment. I was surprised when i saw the article getting passed with hardly an review at all- But i'm unfamiliar with the GA review process and thought nothing that much of it. TzarN64 (talk) 05:07, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
Ok. Thanks! 🗽Freedoxm🗽(talk • contribs) 05:51, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

New Articles (March 24 to March 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 v3.20 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 13:49, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

March 24

March 25

March 26

March 27

March 28

March 29

  • None

March 30

--PresN 13:49, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for 24: The Game

24: The Game has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 18:14, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

New Articles (March 17 to March 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 v3.20 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 18:34, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

March 17

March 18

March 19

March 20

March 21

March 22

March 23

--PresN 18:34, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Little bit concerned on Minecraft speedrunning. A significant part of that is going into speedrun strategies which seems to be overkill, and if that's removed, this is more an appropriate section in a general speedrunning or Minecraft article. Masem (t) 03:13, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
I don't doubt the concept being notable but it may need to be rewritten. I myself am admittedly concerned with List of fictional cats in video games since that seems to fail Wikipedia:INDISCRIMINATE, among other things. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 13:17, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
Second here, considering how Mario speedrunning also doesn't have standalone articles even with more significant coverage from Summoning Salt... MilkyDefer 13:21, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
When I was more active, I would write extensive sections on speedrunning in this article, which has since been deleted. I like the idea of separate articles on speedrunning in specific video games, as it's an activity/community I care about. No one had bothered to write such articles before, I think, but Minecraft being such a singular game makes it a good first article for it. As long as the article follows the sources, I'm not too worried about it going too in-the-weeds on things. I think it's doing a fine job with potential for expansion. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 13:42, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I don't think Summoning Salt would be considered an acceptable source. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:21, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
List of fictional cats in video games seems not necessary or suitable for Wikipedia, but maybe that's just me? soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 06:37, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Wii U GamePad

Wii U GamePad has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 17:44, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

"Switch 2 Editions"

Something I figure we're going to need to come to agreement on in the community: "Nintendo Switch 2 Editions" are their name for Switch 1 games that will have paid upgrades that will only run on a Nintendo Switch 2. From as far as I can tell, the "upgrades" vary per game. For Breath of the Wild, it just appears to be a resolution/frame rate boost, while Mario Party Jamboree appears to be new gameplay additions only accessible on a Switch 2.

Things we'll need to decide on:

  1. Does this count as a "Switch 2 game" when it comes to categories, game lists, etc?
  2. Is this a separate release/platform to be noted in an infobox?

It may be too early to decide, but at the same time, this stuff is getting added and remove across my watchlist already, so I figured it shouldn't wait either.

Thoughts? Sergecross73 msg me 14:40, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

I would say for the first one that Category:Nintendo Switch 2 enhanced games should be created, using Category:PlayStation 5 enhanced games as precedent. Probably should be noted as a separate release on the infobox as well. (Oinkers42) (talk) 14:45, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
As Oinkers said, they're equivalent to PS5 enhanced games. Not a Switch 2 game or a separate release. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:51, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
The key difference here is that Nintendo appears to making you pay for that privilege of the enhanced version, which was not the case for ps5 enhanced games. That throws a wrench into this comparison. Masem (t) 15:28, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
Since it appears all Switch 2 editions require an upgrade, I would say that those switch 1 games qualify as Switch 2 games as well in terms of platform lists. Switch 1 games that are just playable but without enhancements should remain only as Switch 1 games. Masem (t) 14:51, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
Yes, this is the way I'm leaning at the moment. Sergecross73 msg me 14:53, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
I do think they should be listed separately on the main list though. (Oinkers42) (talk) 15:09, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
Well, Nintendo has now confirmed that not all such upgrades will cost money [4] As such that might go against including every such game in the platform. If it is a case when there is significant new content like in Mario party jamboree, that would be fair, but not every enhanced game. Masem (t) 15:50, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
Yes, it sounds like there's basically 3 tiers.
  1. Switch 2 Editions - actual new content or performance boosts
  2. Switch 2 Free Updates - updates that just help with game compatibility or minor hiccups
  3. Games that are just Switch 1 games that run on a Switch 2 (probably majority of the library.)
If this is correct, I'd only consider #1 a "Switch 2" game (which wouldn't be WP:OR if they're clearly tagged with a "Switch 2 Edition" label.) Sergecross73 msg me 15:55, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
I agree with this reading so far. Would like to see how third party games are handled to confirm. Masem (t) 16:12, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
I generally agree with this, with the additional caveat that anything physically released on a red cartridge (regardless of if it has "Switch 2 Edition" in the title) should be classified as a Switch 2 game. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 17:30, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
Agreed. λ NegativeMP1 17:54, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Very list-like stubs

While going through the project's biography stubs, I noticed many that have grown into what are basically lists of the person's work. Just wanted to get people's thoughts as to how these should be approached. If there is room for these to grow as biographies, obviously they should remain as articles. But if the sources don't exist beyond a filmography/ludography, should these be renamed and categorized as lists? I admit I'm working with gaps of knowledge because I don't know what sources are out there for the individuals and that this may have to be approached case-by-case rather than as a broad policy.

A sampling of the larger such pages for reference:

Curious what others think. (Guyinblack25 talk 19:45, 23 March 2025 (UTC))

Simple, if they pass WP:NPERSON they can be expanded; if they fail, they should be deleted. WP:NLIST requires there to be a main article for a filmography to exist. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:58, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. (Guyinblack25 talk 21:29, 3 April 2025 (UTC))

Requested move at Talk:Tetris (Spectrum HoloByte)#Requested move 18 March 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Tetris (Spectrum HoloByte)#Requested move 18 March 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPathtalk 00:10, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Build the Earth#Requested move 30 March 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Build the Earth#Requested move 30 March 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPathtalk 12:51, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Opinion needed on Template talk:Nintendo hardware

The discussion is not going anywhere on Template talk:Nintendo hardware#Further categorization and I could not seek a third opinion. I'm looking for another opinion for this compared to this. Anyone interested in chiming in? « Ryūkotsusei » 12:20, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Question regarding ActRaiser article

I recently noticed that the infobox for ActRaiser lists 4 different genres Platform, city-building, action RPG and god game. Should that be trimmed? 65.92.245.71 (talk) 00:40, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi, do we have any admins watching this page? Could you review this and share your thoughts? Daisy Blue (talk) 18:34, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

A copy of my message to admin Tamzin:

Last month, I removed the review scores that were not supported by any text in a game article, citing and quoting the relevant part of Template:Video game reviews, however this change was undone by Neverrainy with no edit summary. I subsequently removed the scores again and gave the same reason, thinking my previous note may have been lost among the many other edits in between. I also messaged Neverrainy via their talk page, but that topic was soon removed by the user. Neverrainy seemed to have understood the problem and added short review quotes to the section in order to re-add the scores.

This month, there was a very similar incident related to a different game article. I removed the review scores citing the same reason and sent another message to Neverrainy via the talk page, which again was quickly removed. As before, Neverrainy reacted by adding text summaries and bringing back the scores. Another user got involved and removed the text, leaving only the scores. I took to the talk page and tagged both users (assuming I did that right), again explaining that the scores are supposed to support the text, not vice versa. Neverrainy then proceeded to add more scores contrary to the template documentation.

Having written this, I almost feel like the conduct pattern is asking for a thread on WP:AN, but the issue is pretty trivial and I would not want Neverrainy to be sanctioned or discouraged from editing over something as insignificant as review scores for a game. What could I or we do instead?

From having scrolled through Neverrainy's talk page just now, I saw two prior notices (1, 2) about the need for edit summaries, and one warning from an admin referencing Neverrainy's talk page deletions and WP:COMMUNICATE, so perhaps there's more to the problem than what I ran into. Still, does it deserve any action? --Daisy Blue (talk) 16:51, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi Daisy, since you're asking this WikiProject for advice on this topic, I think it would be helpful to copy your message on Tamzin's talk page to here so everyone can see what you're talking about.
To answer your question, I would say that reception sections of recently released games are a grey area since they are often still under construction. It's within your right to remove any review unused in the text of the reception section, with the practical consideration that adding review scores to the box is one of the favorite pasttimes of driveby editors. A populated review box without any text in the reception section is (only slightly) preferable to no scores at all. But the more effective (and more effortful) move is to incorporate reviews into the text yourself. A well-written section is more defensible against driveby review score adders by self-evidently demonstrating its own completeness. Axem Titanium (talk) 02:40, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
Thanks. I copied the message to add to my original on here. I understand where an editor like Neverrainy might be coming from as far as adding the scores, however, I think we should prefer the guidelines and documentation over what might be a common practice (unless that is just a few editors being active at that). When a community member feels that the established guidelines are unfair, outdated or lacking, there should be efforts made to change them rather than defy, right? I agree that me summarizing the reviews as text would be more preferable, however, I'm not a good writer unless I'm in the right mood. It may be that Neverrainy is not either, but if I could get through to them, I would suggest adding to Wikidata when the goal is to add the scores and nothing else. I try to follow the same practice. Daisy Blue (talk) 16:51, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
As an expression of values, yes, I agree with you that Neverrainy should engage rather than deleting comments from their talk page without responding or changing their behavior. As a matter of principle, yes, I agree with you that guidelines and documentation should be followed. As a practical consideration, fighting the tide of unresponsive editors and driveby editors is a good way to burn out your editing passion. There is no deadline. It's ok for low stakes articles like pages on video games to be a little wrong, a little out of step with Manual of Style, for a little while. Maybe there's a long-term problem editing case for Neverrainy, maybe there isn't; I have no idea as I haven't looked into it. The thing you can control is directing your editing energies toward building the encyclopedia in areas where you're not going to be taking three steps forward, two steps back. Axem Titanium (talk) 05:18, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Pre-RfC on Talk:Tetris

I have started a discussion on the talk page for Tetris in preparation for a planned RfC. The RfC is going to be about how Tetris should be defined (as a video game or as a series...). Any preliminary input would be greatly appreciated. Lazman321 (talk) 18:05, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

What exactly is the dispute? Without other context or framing, its equally correct to refer to it as either/both. Sergecross73 msg me 18:12, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
That reliable sources, both generalist and VG-specific, rarely describe it as a series, and whether or not we should follow their example in the lead. Please see the linked discussion and prior talk comments. oknazevad (talk) 20:41, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
I don't understand. Shouldn't we call it a game at the game article and a series at the series article? Like we do anything else. (Sonic the Hedgehog and Sonic the Hedgehog, etc.) Sergecross73 msg me 20:49, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:2016–2017 video game voice actor strike#Requested move 20 March 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2016–2017 video game voice actor strike#Requested move 20 March 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 03:49, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Reliable sources noticeboard discussion

Please see WP:RSN#is VC Gamers reliable?. Left guide (talk) 10:07, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

overly detailed plot summery with barely any sources and barely proves notability

could we get a look at Limbus Company perchance its really long and focuses more on the plot then any notability it has with the reception segment being only 1 sentence long and only having the number of pre registrations it has along with the article only having 6 sources holding up 20,000+ bytes of data it either needs a major rewrite or most of the plot section being flat out removed limbos company!!!! localBluepikmin (whistle the pikmin) 14:10, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Those PC Gamer sources probably prove notability, but yes, a heavy reduction of the game's plot is definitely warranted. Sergecross73 msg me 14:16, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
im a newbie to wikipedia and only really revert vandalism so if someone could do that that would be great localBluepikmin (whistle the pikmin) 14:24, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
I don't think the game is notable personally, but that is why AfD exists. You are free to nominate it if you have checked WP:GNG thoroughly and believe it fails. Otherwise you can slap a Template:Notability on it in the hopes someone else will find something. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:30, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
i personaly think the game is notable just that the article doesnt show enough sources to prove it so ill just slap a template on it and hope someone better at editing then me finds some sources that the article desperately needs the project moon sleeper agents are vast although not many of them write in reputable sources. perhaps we could blame it on ishmael after all the falt lies with her localBluepikmin (whistle the pikmin) 15:41, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
I agree. I ran a bit of a BEFORE searching for sourcing earlier today but I don't think it's there. Not a lot of critic reviews or significant coverage beyond typical churnalism game guide content to establish notability. λ NegativeMP1 04:43, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
The two PC Gamer sources already in the article are both significant coverage here and here. Both are dedicated, many-paragraph articles. I find it hard to believe there's nothing else out there. The article should pretty much be WP:TNT-rewritten, but I think it'd survive an AFD, especially if any other sourcing is found. Sergecross73 msg me 12:56, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
Don't we count two or more articles from the same website as basically just one for the purposes of notability? λ NegativeMP1 16:28, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
No? I've never heard of that rule. Axem Titanium (talk) 03:02, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
I have and I do count them as one source. I thought most editors did, but I guess not?
And personally, I'd only count the second PC Gamer source linked above for notability, as it's the only review clearly based on playing the game (After sinking around thirty hours into Limbus Company). The first source comes across to me as "this thing is out and I know nothing about it, so I watched a YouTube video"—hardly the kind of source we should be using in articles, let alone counting for notability. Woodroar (talk) 12:30, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
I'm with Axem, I've never had "multiple sources don't count if they come from the same publication" ever thrown back in my face at AFD. Nor is "actually playing the game" any sort of requirement for sources. Both of those PC Gamer sources are perfectly acceptable for use. As I often need to remind editors, we're deciding if it scrapes by the bare minimum, not if it qualifies for a GA. This isn't about "shooting for straight A's", its about "could this pass as a D+". Its...probably a D+ article. Sergecross73 msg me 14:17, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
The rule is at WP:SIGCOV. "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability." ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:59, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
Same author I could maybe understand but same organization is ludicrous. Organization is totally undefined in this context. If a researcher at UC San Diego publishes a paper on a topic, does that mean another researcher at UC Berkeley doesn't count for notability? What about the FDA and the CDC? They're both part of the US government, which is an organization. Here's the edit in which this sentence was added, which seems to be from a time when they apparently let anybody make huge changes to a load-bearing guideline without any discussion. I've half a mind to remove "or organization" as completely unenforceable to see what happens. Axem Titanium (talk) 06:58, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:PlayStation VR2-only games has been nominated for discussion

Category:PlayStation VR2-only games has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Jursha (talk) 15:44, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

RfC on Tetris

I have started a new RfC for Tetris at Talk:Tetris#RfC on definition of Tetris. Any participation would be welcome. Lazman321 (talk) 19:26, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Content dispute at Talk:Forspoken regarding sales

Can someone comment in this thread please https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Forspoken#Lead FMSky (talk) 02:33, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Would love to get more input on this one. I am not a participant, but its come to my attention that there's a lot of cross-talk going on here that's kind of getting in the way. That said, I believe some experienced editors should find it hard to apply policy to it if they look into the core of the issue, which is the framing of the developer/publisher's commentary on the game. If a few more could weight in, I think it could wrap this up relatively quickly. Thank you! Sergecross73 msg me 17:31, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
I will provide a concise but very neutral summary: Some editors added Square Enix's comments on sales in the game's lead section (SE called its sales lacklustre). Some editors undo it because they think Square Enix's comment is WP:UNDUE and WP:SYNTH. The actual contested edit is "Square Enix president Yosuke Matsuda said sales of the game overall had been "lacklustre" and posed a "considerable downside risk to [their] FY2023/3 earnings"". I will have to say that without more participants, this discussion is going in circles and are also spilling over to other articles (such as Star Wars Outlaws). OceanHok (talk) 12:17, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

RfC on Forspoken

Following up on the previous thread, a new RfC has been opened in Forspoken regarding the inclusion of publisher's statments on sales in the article's lead paragraph. OceanHok (talk) 17:28, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

New Articles (March 31 to April 13)

Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements
 A listing of all articles newly added to the Video Games Wikiproject (regardless of creation date). Generated by v3.20 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 19:47, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

March 31

April 1

  • None

April 2

April 3

  • None

April 4

April 5–8

  • None

April 9

April 10

April 11

April 12

April 13

Back! The bot broke for a few days last week so I skipped it. --PresN 19:47, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Glad you are back. CaptainGalaxy 11:12, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
Dealt with the Wikidata item for You Me and the Cubes (merged). Can't imagine how many other articles have the Japanese Wikipedia sitelinks being left out. MilkyDefer 14:40, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
Thank you. It's always interesting to skim through the list and see what great (or questionable) ideas people had for articles. Sergecross73 msg me 14:44, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

I can't find the exact date for the European release for Uşas. Sources just say 1987. Harizotoh9 (talk) 17:42, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Awards tables on "YYYY in video game" articles.

Eg like at 2024 in video games

When these were first added, they included only four award programs (Game Awards, DICE, GDCA, and BAFTA). The catagories were also tuned to be awards covered by these four programs in common. Over time, at least three others have been added, the Japan Games, the Golden Joysticks, and the NY Critics. Now I am seeing @Tommybone32: expanding the categories, some are reasonable (like best indie) but also now genre catagories are being added which is just weighing these down.

I think we need to discuss the bloat here, as the table was not an attempt to fully list all the major awards (as it can get complicated as to what's qualified to win in certain awards), but mainly to help give an overview of what generally were the best games of the year, on conjunction with the metacritic.com table.


I really think we need to pare this back down the just the four original shows. Japan is very specific to Japanese games compared to BAFTA which only has one cat for British games. The NY Critics is a very small scale award and not the weight of the others. And given that Golden Joysticks are a popularly contest (user vote) that already makes it suspect.

I am also hesitant on the genre catagories since the goal of the table was to have many empty spaces by selection awards common to all programs. Masem (t) 18:06, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

That's something to consider. It's understandable that you may think there's too much bloat. I do think that whoever had added the awards for New York Game Awards and Japan Game Awards, may have been using the Metacritic Awards GOTY tracker as a popular barometer, since they track these awards for consensus purposes. It's not to say that there's no merit from what Japanese industry may think, as well as the New York Videogame Critic Circle.
Maybe if we pare down to just the five major awards (Golden Joystick, TGA, DICE, GDCA, and BAFTA), then maybe there's weight for genre. But as of now, we can discuss the best course of action going forward. Genre is essentially an important barometer for consensus ideals, especially when you compare the Game Awards with the DICE Awards. Tommybone32 (talk) 18:13, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
Although if we are going to pare down the awards, the one I think that should be eliminated would be the Japan Game Awards and New York Game Awards. Thus, leaving with five awards body: Golden Joystick for the fan voting consensus, TGA for the video game critic and journalist consensus (with 10% fan voting), DICE for industry consensus (both creators and executives, 30,000+ members), GDCA for game developer consensus (with different voting parameter than DICE), and BAFTA Games from British developers and executives consensus.
Are you in agreement with that? That should be the same amount of awards body as in the Film category (Golden Globes, Critics' Choice, the Guilds, BAFTA Film, and Oscars). Tommybone32 (talk) 18:31, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
I still think the Golden Joysticks as 100% fan voted can be subject to too much gamimg(eg why I would never consider the Steam Awards here). The 10% vote that players have in TGA protects those from aggressive fan drives, in addition to that being applied to the panel-selected finalists. Masem (t) 19:08, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
Definitely agree there's a bloat problem here. Definitely good to limit to major awards. Normally I try to look and see how other similar articles handle it, but unfortunately the music world equivalent ones don't have much in the way of consistency among them, and many of the ones I don't maintain have bloat issues too. (I generally only mention The Grammys personally.) Sergecross73 msg me 19:30, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Evil Empire (company)

Hey, I was hoping I could get some input from others as to whether it should be merged to Motion Twin or The Rogue Prince of Persia. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 15:13, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

I dont think it passes NCORP, so it probably should be merged to Motion Twin, since it was a spinoff from that studio (which was notable) Masem (t) 15:19, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Template:WWE video games reorganization proposal

I've posted about this twice at the template talk page, but have gotten no response whatsoever, so I'm bringing my complaint here hopefully to get more eyeballs on it.

This entire template is very poorly organized. It needs a total overhaul into a straight chronological listing, because the groupings are based on a completely false premise, that the reuse of long-running series or event names as game titles make them somehow more related to each other instead of being direct sequels to other games. Look at this template and tell me that there is anyway to tell that In Your House is the direct sequel to the home console ports of WrestleMania the Arcade Game or that the highly regarded No Mercy is a direct sequel to Wrestlemania 2000. I get that it can be difficult to show these things because back in the day Acclaim was inconsistent about whether or not they released the same title on multiple platforms and THQ had a whole thing where each console had its own series. That's why it makes the most sense to do straight chronological order. That would also have the advantage of putting the earliest games at the top, instead of the RECENTISM currently shown. oknazevad (talk) 11:29, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

You can just make the changes, if noone is responding to you then be WP:BOLD. It looks like the template page has had 20 page views in a month so you're not going to get much discussion there. Personally I would agree with you, with a possible addition of maybe segmenting the games by console generation if plausible so it's not just a long list of games with the release year in brackets. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 11:53, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
I like that idea. Just wanted to initiate discussion instead of having to deal with someone objecting after the fact. I'm also going to post a notification at WT:PW just to be in the safe side. oknazevad (talk) 12:06, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
It should have a structure like other VG navboxes, so go edit it. {{Serious Sam}} is a good example. You can use it as a blueprint and add additional groups if Main series and Spinoffs are not enough. --Mann Mann (talk) 14:11, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Standardizing best-selling video game lists

I think it would be good to decide what information should be included in these lists. Template:Best-selling video games for reference. Personally, I believe that the following are indisputably mandatory:

  1. Game name
  2. Publisher
  3. Release date (though I think there's merit to making it "Release year" as the month or day are very rarely important for these lists)
  4. Sales
  5. Ref

Looking through all the lists, the following I think are perhaps less mandatory (though I could be convinced that they should be in in some cases):

  1. Genre(s) (this is subjective and harder to consistently cite)
  2. Developer(s) (I usually don't see discussion of best-selling, say, Sonic Team or Nintendo EAD games)
  3. As of (not sure if the "As of" date needs to be mentioned)
  4. Platform (this is used on Game Boy; I feel that the GBC games should either be their own article or list on the same article)
  5. Regional breakdown (used on Genesis/Mega Drive)
  6. Arcade port (used on 2600's; seems trivial)
  7. Licensor (used on 2600's)
  8. Programmer(s) (used on 2600's)

Also, it couldn't hurt to decide whether there should be standardization of item order. For instance, sales are at the end of some tables, while near the beginning of others. Any input would be appreciated! - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 18:45, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

I generally agree here - I support all of the mandatory items, and dropping most of the rest, except for developer field, which I personally believe generally should be listed. Sergecross73 msg me 19:32, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
Of the existing 5, I feel the developer should also be added, if for games on that system that there are more than a few cases where the dev and publisher aren't the same, for example, on the Atari 2600 game list the developer would be redundant, but not so much on PlayStation 4 list. The other ones are extra noise and not really necessary for any best-selling list. Masem (t) 19:47, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
I think that's fair. What do you think of the order? I personally think it should go Game name/Developer/Publisher/Release date/Sales/Ref. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 22:07, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
I agree. Sergecross73 msg me 22:11, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
Okie, gonna put a notification of the discussion on all the list talk pages. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 22:14, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
I also support Masem's proposal as long as we merge developers/publishers if they are the same (like we do in The Game Awards articles). ~ Dissident93 (talk) 22:39, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
I think that's reasonable Cukie Gherkin (talk) 22:50, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Request for input at WP:NCVG talk

I'd like to request some input at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (video games)#Platform acronyms, regarding one of the guidelines being applied inconsistently. The discussion there hasn't recieved much attention; so far what discussion there is seemed to lean towards changing it, but no change was made, and now there's some disagreement over it. I'd appreciate some more feedback and a consensus on whether to change any guidelines. Ringtail Raider (talk) 02:24, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

exA-Arcadia

exA-Arcadia currently reads like one big sales pitch to me. Can someone else look at this? I'm about to get rid of everything under "Japanese Arcade Manufacturer Business Model Issues" for start, but some other opinion would be welcome. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 11:07, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to like a notable subject for an article. Should be probably AfD'd. --Mika1h (talk) 11:43, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
Agreed. If it somehow survives, then it needs a massive trimming all charts and boxes of information, that feels more like someone was trying to make it an extension of their company/product's own website. Sergecross73 msg me 16:10, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
The person who made that article probably didn't take lessons from the list of Sega arcade system boards here on Wikipedia. It can work but this current incarnation should be nuked and remade from the ground-up. Roberth Martinez (talk) 21:42, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

VentureBeat and GamesBeat split

Wasn't sure where to put this: GamesBeat, the Dean Takahashi & Co column on VentureBeat, has ben spun off and looks likely to soon go live on gamesbeat.com. Is this worth an archive drive for venturebeat.com articles, assuming that older GamesBeat pieces will be deleted and migrated to the new site? IceWelder [✉] 16:42, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. Should we also open a reliable source discussion on it? - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 16:56, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
If there are link rot concerns due to a website migration, Wikipedia:Link rot/URL change requests might be able to help. Sariel Xilo (talk) 22:06, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

New Articles (April 14 to April 20)

Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements
 A listing of all articles newly added to the Video Games Wikiproject (regardless of creation date). Generated by v3.20 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 17:42, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

April 14

April 15

April 16

April 17

April 18

April 19

April 20

On time, every time. --PresN 17:42, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

@Zxcvbnm: I need an explanation (could you elaborate) on your "promotional content" judgement for Love Is All Around (videogame). This does concern me because it is a translation of a substantial amount of work I did in Chinese Wikipedia. MilkyDefer 15:14, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
Maybe calling it promotional was a bit rash, but it does have some POV issues with all its reception being purely positive and therefore seeming like advertising copy. It needs some better balance between positive and negative. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:46, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
Are there negative reviews to be found? Cukie Gherkin (talk) 16:58, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
As mentioned in the article, this game is almost completely ignored by proper game media. Imagine a game going unnoticed by IGN or Gamespot but rather Business Insider. As of the time of my initial writing about two years ago, there was almost no criticism that can be written in the article (rants on forums). This almost still stands true today, but I do find some criticisms but am unsure of their reliablity.
Note: The game later became a fad. Ported to consoles, a Steam award nomination, and tens of copycats. MilkyDefer 05:59, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Opinions requeuested Dabuz and Zackray

Hi all. Opinion requested at these afds. Thanks! 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 14:15, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Proposal to replace one of our goals

I would like to propose swapping out the goal to reach 50 GT/FTs for the project. We have stuck on that goal for 88% for probably years and with the recent demotion of the Guitar Hero topic, I don't think we will be able to hit the goal and think we should go for a more realistic option. GamerPro64 00:43, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Looking back at the last time we swapped goals out, the ones we haven't used yet and which aren't mostly redundant to active ones are 300+ FAs, clear the cover art backlog, and clear the image backlog. Out of those three options, I like the FAs goal the best, although we might want to go with 350+ FAs since we're currently at 290. I also think it is much more doable than the FT/GT one, unfortunately. As for the other two, I think a backlog drive would be more fitting than adding them as goals, especially since this wouldn't be as permanent as the other goals.

TL;DR: If we want to replace the topic goal, I would recommend that the new goal should be 350+ FAs. If you have any other ideas, feel free to share. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:06, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Well, I did see that we had two GT/FTs put up, so it may still be viable. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 16:50, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Sonic 4 meeting 2

Duplicate discussion of indeffed IP. Sergecross73 msg me 15:55, 25 April 2025 (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.

I would like to resolved problems with [User talk:Sergecross73|msg me]], as he saids it's not important to mention the "possiblity of Episode III", but I feel like it is. Can we have a meeting to get things resolved, please? --2601:243:D01:1F20:20A2:1060:A1A7:B5C8 (talk) 02:45, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Tbis is almost certainly the same perish as the now blocked 2601:243:D01:1F20:0:0:0:0/64 IP that posted above.--65.92.245.71 (talk) 02:52, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
Already dealt with.--65.92.245.71 (talk) 02:53, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
I may have spoken a little too freely in giving this person advice. Was trying to be welcoming and all, but I wasn't trying to imply they were welcome to bother every other editor until they got the answer they wanted. Oh well. silviaASH (inquire within) 12:27, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
Your advice was fine, nothing you said would have reasonably caused them to act like that. Sergecross73 msg me 15:25, 25 April 2025 (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.

Sonic the Hedgehog 4

Excuse me, can you help me find a source for the "unused teaser for Episode III'? I have tried, but couldn't find a relible one. It has been found a beta build of Episode II, and I think it should be mention as although Sonic 4 was meant to be 3 parts, it only ended up being 2. I have one more question: can I add it as a [citation needed] if I need to? Can you please respond to my talk page to update me by saying something like, "We have an update"? I added links to Episode I and Episode II. I will add this to the talk pages of both of them later. --2601:243:D01:1F20:D568:6810:EAA7:9416 (talk) 06:21, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
I'm not able to find anything on it online. It might just not be suitable for inclusion. If you find anything that meets Wikipedia's standards, feel free to present it. silviaASH (inquire within) 06:50, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
Unless a reliable source reports on it, it can't be mentioned on Wikipedia. (See WP:VG/S for examples of the types of sources we allow.) For the record, we already have mentions on Wikipedia about Ep3 being cancelled on the Ep1, EP2, and unreleased Sonic games articles. But if you want to write about every little detail known like "leaked cutscenes with Knuckles", you'll probably want to go add it to a fansite line Sonic Retro or TCRF, not here. Sergecross73 msg me 10:49, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
Would this suffice? All I could find on it but still. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 16:34, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
WP:VG/S classifies it as "inconclusive", so... Sergecross73 msg me 21:13, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
@Sergecross73 I've seen it be used and accepted just fine in article reviews before, including FAs and FLs. There's also an active discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources that seems to be leaning toward reliable/situational, though granted that is still in progress. I think it's likely fine to use so long as it's nothing controversial, which this isn't since it's just reporting on something that exists. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 03:10, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
Yeah, the comment the IP keeps adding is a bit drawn out, but it's probably fine for a quick note. Sergecross73 msg me 15:57, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
Found a source: look now.
It is mention in the Unreleased Sonic the Hedgehog games article; why not mention it here, and here here?
Why does the same exact information need to be placed in all three articles exactly? This is, at best, a minor bit of trivia. Your efforts to POV-push that a third episode is still potentially in the works 13+ years later is problematic as well. Sergecross73 msg me 01:16, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

GameBeat going indy from VentureBeat

[5] [6]

While VentureBeat is a generally reliable source, one also has to watch for aggressively promotional material. That said, hopefully with GameBeat being separate, and Dean Takahashi moving to editor, that will help to hold the promotional stuff back. Masem (t) 20:25, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

👀 § VentureBeat and GamesBeat split. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 22:14, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Please help find parents for these old orphans!

Hi! Among the oldest orphans is a significant number of articles on videogames. See the full list of September 2015 orphans here. Here is the list of very old orphaned videogames articles:

* Penumbear Successfully deorphaned! - Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 02:23, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Please introduce links to these orphans in appropriate parent articles and remove the orphan tag when done. Thanks in advance! Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 15:58, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

I have nominated PULSAR: Lost Colony, The Relic (video game), Palm Kingdoms and Pixel Twist for AfD as it does not seem like they are notable and in the case of Palm Kingdoms clear COI. If they are deleted then that would technically "resolve" the problem. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:09, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for looking into this. Yes, deletion solves the orphan issue, of course. Alternatives to deletion, such as WP:Redirect, also do the trick. When an article is orphaned for a decade, something is clearly wrong. Some have to be deleted. But sometimes I find a hidden gem among the very old orphans and that is very rewarding. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 23:50, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Video game "best of" lists database

Hi there - I've made a tool that might may be of interest to editors when sourcing reception from pages. I've put together a database site that so far compiles over 1600 games across over 50 "best of all time" lists from video game publications - mostly magazines. This may be helpful for pages such as List of video games considered the best or other uses. Still a work in progress - if this is remotely helpful or you have any ideas how this might be more functional, let me know. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 11:58, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

@Vrxces: The 2025 Independent listing for Smash Ultimate is listed as a separate game to the other Smash Ultimate listings due to forgetting the period. Also, you seem to be missing some lists. QuicoleJR (talk) 12:16, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
It's a WIP, thanks for picking that up. This is all manually entered so doing it one at a time! ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 12:18, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for making this database, btw. I definitely don't envy all the work this must take. QuicoleJR (talk) 12:21, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
Also, that The Guardian list isn't really a list by The Guardian. They are simply repeating the list given by a book. Therefore, I think the new website should count those as the book like the "best games of all time" article does, instead of counting those as The Guardian. But again, thank you for taking the time to make this. QuicoleJR (talk) 12:41, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
Good pickup! I asked for feedback so no problem at all - this is very useful and welcomed. Appreciate your time taking a look. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 21:37, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
By the way, what do the tags mean? By tags, I'm talking about the things that say "wildcard", "fad", "legacy", etc. I would like to know what they mean and how they are applied. Thanks, QuicoleJR (talk) 21:43, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
Tapping on mobile or hovering over on desktop displays a tool tip for each.
  • Multipliers (ie. X2) indicate multiple publications gave this the same highest rank. I need to fix this to make it not double count lists from the same publisher.
  • FAD is a game that was only nominated within a year of its publication, excluding recent games.
  • LEGACY is a game that hasn't been nominated in the last decade.
  • WILDCARD is a game that has only been nominated by one publication.
  • REVIVED is a game that a publication dropped from its list, but brought back in a later one.
ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 22:32, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarification. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:34, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
No worries, thanks again for your time. Let me know if any element of the site could be improved or done more clearly - otherwise have a good start to the week! ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 23:44, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

WP:NOTGUIDE as it applies to sources

I see WP:NOTGUIDE mentioned somewhat frequently in the context of source evaluation ("this is a WP:GAMEGUIDE source" or similar), and the reasoning has always seemed somewhat circular to me. WP:NOTGUIDE is a policy on wiki content, not source content. So it seems circular that we say gameplay details typically covered in guides should not be included because they lack secondary source coverage, but this is only true when we ignore the sources that cover those details with the rationale that they are guides.

The question is somewhat academic, as I'm not in favor of or proposing to change any sourcing guidelines here - I think most sources people dismiss as guides have WP:PRIMARY / WP:ORGIND issues and should not be used anyways, but I'm curious if there's a non-circular rationale being espoused when people make the argument. ~ A412 talk! 15:24, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Can you point to an article where this came up? - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 16:20, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
Didn't have a specific article in mind, but working off advanced search for GAMEGUIDE in AFD, I think the following are examples of citing WP:GAMEGUIDE about sources, not wiki content:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RB Battles: That sourcing seems to mostly be ProGameGuides and a 'How To' article from Dexerto - see WP:GAMEGUIDE
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pokémon Home: My BEFORE yielded nothing barring WP:GAMEGUIDE content
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Granny (2017 video game): The UsGamer source is thus the only reliable source with decent commentary, but it is a WP:GAMEGUIDE post ~ A412 talk! 16:30, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
I think all those align with my comment below, in that the delete comments felt that of the reliable sources for the article it was only game guide references, which are primary sources and not considered sufficient for notability. Masem (t) 16:48, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
Fair enough. I guess the answer to the question as posed is "Describing a source as a game guide is an argument to WP:PRIMARY more than WP:NOT, even if WP:GAMEGUIDE links to the latter". ~ A412 talk! 16:53, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
I have not looked into the specific sources listed, but I am surprised to hear Dexerto and USGamer articles are primary sources. I have never heard of publishers/developers being involved with guides for their games in publications like those. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 13:51, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
Most of the major gaming sites often publish guide material for newly released games as to try to work their SEO. Polygon dud this for expedition 33 and AC: Shadows, for example. Masem (t) 14:12, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
That's not really a primary source, for what it's worth, just a really low-quality one. Which is still fair enough to be dismissive about, though it might be a bit concerning if our RSes are publishing low-quality stuff that we just have to 'know it when we see it'... ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 11:19, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
Its still game guide material which is primary; it has no transformation content. But as I said, nearly all the major sites do this stuff, among all the quality reporting they do. We just typically don't look to those guide articles to build out our articles. Masem (t) 12:36, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
A published game guide like those from Primo is fine as a source, as long as the text it's used for still is talking about gameplay or plot from a high level detail, and that is otherwise absent in other sources. We don't you use to use the guide to source material that fails GAMEGUIDE. Also would add that such a guide is a primary source so does not support notability of a game topic. Masem (t) 16:23, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
GAMEGUIDE only applies to articles. It should not be used for sources period. Game guide sources are allowed as long as the article content also does not become a pure guide to the game. One thing to keep in mind though is that only using game guides will often violate WP:INDISCRIMINATE due to a lack of indications of importance. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:56, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
Yeah, as long as the guide is a reliable source and otherwise presents no issues with verification, it should be fine to use to verify facts about the subject so long as the content it's supporting is compliant with WP:NOT and WP:DUE and whatever else may be relevant. silviaASH (inquire within) 07:00, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Age of Empires III: The Asian Dynasties

Age of Empires III: The Asian Dynasties has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 13:09, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Archive_178&oldid=1290068968"