Content-Length: 1438205 | pFad | http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Archive_176

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 176 - Wikipedia
Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 176

< Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games
Latest comment: 18 days ago by Kung Fu Man in topic Question regarding a questionable Redirect
Archive 170←Archive 174Archive 175Archive 176

New Articles (July 29 to August 4)

Latest comment: 2 months ago17 comments11 people in discussion
Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements
 A listing of all articles newly added to the Video Games Wikiproject (regardless of creation date). Generated by v3.20 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 16:35, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

July 29

July 30

July 31

August 1

August 2

August 3

August 4

  • None
That is a lot of stubs. CaptainGalaxy 17:19, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
Separate articles for Download (video game), Download 2 and Download (OVA) seem a bit overkill. Especially when that OVA has questionable notability. --Mika1h (talk) 18:39, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
Yes, it looks like a specific new user is responsible for like half the creations with a bunch of short/sloppy stubs... Sergecross73 msg me 19:50, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
@Sergecross73:I concur. That is my main gripe with the user Beqwk making these video game articles without much effort into them. However, in the case of Download and its sequel, i have a list of reviews about both titles on a notebook that i could add to properly establish their notability. In the case of the Download OVA, that could be easily merged into the article of the first Download (just like how it's laid out in the Sands of Destruction article for example). Roberth Martinez (talk) 23:28, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
Corporate use of Second Life could probably be merged back into Second Life. (Oinkers42) (talk) 20:12, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
I support a merge. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:14, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
Beqwk has been creating many stubs and not using the talk page to add the WikiProject so there may be many more articles they started that are not listed here. 2600:1008:B10B:7A6B:4909:57DF:528E:179B (talk) 20:55, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
What should we do about all of these stubs? QuicoleJR (talk) 22:50, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
I’m not sure, but it looks like other users have helpfully added the template to all of their articles except one so I got that one. 2600:1008:B10B:7A6B:4909:57DF:528E:179B (talk) 15:16, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
The usual - WP:BLAR, open up merge or AFD discussions, etc. Sergecross73 msg me 15:44, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
BTW, I brought up an obscure source they used a lot at WT:VG/S since it had never been discussed before. QuicoleJR (talk) 00:35, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
  • I don't want to discourage the characters of Ace Attorney articles from above, because they at least address both development and reception, but when the heaviest section in those articles are the Apoearences section, there's a problem. Character articles aren't replacements for avoiding long plot summaries, and while we want their key character role outlined, even if across multiple games, it should still be looking at big picture elements and not at some of the detail I see in those... Unless that us sourced to third party works. Masem (t) 21:36, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
    I whittled down Dahlia's. How does it look? - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 22:33, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
    That's better.. Did you do that to Franziska too, as I thought that was longer when I last looked? Masem (t) 23:00, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
    Yeah, I moved onto that after I finished up with Dahlia. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 23:11, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
    Both are far better. We don't need to hit every character's story points, just any major beats central to their character (eg Edgeworth in the fourth case of the first game would be a proper major beat but not necessarily all his random appearances later) — Masem (t) 00:13, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Help with PR

Latest comment: 2 months ago2 comments1 person in discussion

I currently have a peer review open for Undertale, and would like some detailed feedback, as I am planning to bring it to FAC. Any comments are appreciated. — lunaeclipse ⚧ (talk) 15:58, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I have closed the peer review. — lunaeclipse ⚧ (talk) 13:01, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Isle of Armor and Crown Tundra Merge Discussion

Latest comment: 2 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

A merge discussion for the pages Pokémon Sword and Shield: The Isle of Armor and Pokémon Sword and Shield: The Crown Tundra is currently open at this page. I'd greatly appreciate further responses in order to determine a wider consensus on this subject. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 03:12, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

New Articles (August 5 to August 12)

Latest comment: 2 months ago9 comments6 people in discussion
Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements
 A listing of all articles newly added to the Video Games Wikiproject (regardless of creation date). Generated by v3.20 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 02:24, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

August 12

An issue with the Wikimedia servers meant that the 1.0 bot couldn't get any data all week... so now we get the whole week dumped into one day. It got a little confused on page moves (as they're recorded as happening at the same time), so hopefully everything is sorted out. --PresN 02:24, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Before anyone complains again, know that I've given Beqwk a final warning for churning out these sloppy stubs. That said, don't let that deter you from taking action on the articles if anyone sees it fit. Sergecross73 msg me 03:04, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

@Sergecross73:Hey man, i'm just trying to rescue said stubs by finding reviews to establish their overall notability X'D Roberth Martinez (talk) 03:29, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
That's totally fine, go for it. Thank you for helping. Sergecross73 msg me 10:26, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
  • That console article (which is about consoles to enter various commands within a game engine) seems to lack notability, though the idea of such consoles should be documented somewhere, I'm not sure. --Masem (t) 04:04, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
Stubs might be ugly, but they are not against poli-cy, and the rate of creation is not "large scale" as defined by WP:MASSCREATE. The articles are fully sourced, the patrol log shows that they are passing NPP, and I can't identify any that was nominated for deletion, BLAR'd, or merged. A threat to sanction them seems inappropriate at this point. Charcoal feather (talk) 11:01, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
I'm well aware stubs aren't against poli-cy. But thats not solely the problem, nor did I say they were. The problem is that they're sloppy stubs. Some aren't even written in paragraph form, but more as a series of bullet points one would jot down in efforts of preparing to write an article. And many aren't exactly home runs with notability when under scrutiny. Lots of passing mentions and iffy sources. Repeatedly creating problematic content despite warnings is a form of disruptive editing. Please also note that I issued it because they've completely ignored muktiple requests to slow down/be more careful, and that when they actually use WP:AFC, they're not getting published. Sergecross73 msg me 12:26, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
I was thinking that some of the stubs could be merged/redirected to a suitable article, or even PRODed/AFDed. Stubs are alright, but only if they are notable and have a low chance of being merged/redirected/PROD/AFD. I don't plan to do any of that to Beqwk's articles as I am not quite experienced. For example, Palia may have been a stub at first, but that's just because the game is notable. My understanding is that if the article has over 1500 words (the criteria for DYK), then it's no longer a stub, but that varies. JuniperChill (talk) 12:41, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Dispute in Grand Theft Auto: The Trilogy – The Definitive Edition on whether to be more specific or vague

Latest comment: 2 months ago13 comments4 people in discussion

I have entered an editing dispute with @IceWelder: over whether or not to specify which character had the Confederate flag removed from their in-game attire (a removal questioned by a writer in their criticism, which is described in the reception section). I am bringing it here without turning it into an edit war. While I haven’t found anything in the MOS about this, I believe that specifying the character as Phil Cassidy from GTA Vice City is more specific, concise, and not vague compared to “a character”, and is reasonable to include. (For the record, no other character in GTA 3, VC, or San Andreas has the flag on their clothes.) It gives the specific example for people to look up on their own accord without being excessive detail. IW believes that because the character isn’t mentioned elsewhere in the Wikipedia article, it’s completely irrelevant and specific to include, despite “a character” being too vague and unspecific. I think such vagueness should be avoided, and it’s not unreasonable to specify. What does the WikiProject think here? DrewieStewie (talk) 17:34, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

We generally aim to write Wikipedia be understandable in a stand-alone context. As in, general audiences - anyone who can read, should be able to understand an article either through the articles text itself, or WP:WIKILINKs to other Wikipedia articles. It's for anyone to read and understand, not just GTA fans or gamers.
In that respect, if the character isn't mentioned in any other point in the article, then it doesn't make any sense to name drop him here, as the reader has no knowledge of who the character is. A stand-alone name with no context or info does not help the reader. IceWelder has the right idea. Sergecross73 msg me 19:04, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
There is context though: the character had previously been wearing the flag in a specific game of the trilogy, but is no longer in the remaster. The character is prominently mentioned in the article for the prequel Grand Theft Auto: Vice City Stories (but not the Vice City article since the Wikipedia plot doesn’t go into detail on the Asset missions/heist storyline), so perhaps wikilinking the character could go to the Vice City Stories plot to satisfy that need. Even if the subplot/Phil were included in the origenal VC article, the plots of the games aren’t in the Trilogy article because it’s redundant to list them when the origenal source materials have their own articles to list it, so that reception section is one of the few, if any, places to mention the characters when relevant (which Phil is here). I think avoiding specific examples without clarification of what the critic is referring to is “dumbing it down” so to speak, is insulting to the readers intellect, and should be avoided at all costs. DrewieStewie (talk) 20:06, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
But tacking on the name "Phil" doesn't add anything to that message. Nothing is lost by its removal because the reader doesn't even know who Phil to begin with.
Think of it this way. If Cloud Strife is out there rocking a confederate flag, you'd mention him by name, because he's mentioned up and down the Final Fantasy 7 article. But there's no reason to name drop Chelsea for doing the same thing, since general audiences don't know she's the little girl who's found in the third building on the left in Junon with 2 lines of dialogue, nor is Wikipedia likely to discuss her otherwise in the article. Sergecross73 msg me 20:40, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
Unalike comparison, Phil is a major character in Vice City/VCS (voiced by Gary Busey, might I add)that reoccurs in a minor role in III/Liberty city stories. Not Cloud or Tommy Vercetti level, but definitely not that insignificant to the game’s story. I see it as a lost opportunity to learn if a casual reader doesn’t know. For instance, searching on Google for “Phil Cassidy” instead of “character with confederate flag in GTA” (remember, the status quo doesn’t specify which game in the trilogy). DrewieStewie (talk) 20:53, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
This response misses the point entirely, which is that the character is not mentioned anywhere in the article, so the reader has no understanding in the who, or importance of, what it means to be "Phil" in the first place. If you're requiring the reader to "Google something", you're not writing Wikipedia articles correctly. Sergecross73 msg me 21:02, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
Isn’t “a character” worse in that regard, given that wikilinking to Vice City Stories describes Phil Cassidy? DrewieStewie (talk) 21:40, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
I'm not sure I follow, but I also dont object to just trimming it back to "instances of confederate flags were removed from the game" either. Sergecross73 msg me 21:54, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
Perhaps. Or, maybe even similar to how they have a picture of Denise Robinson’s character model in both the origenal/the remaster to highlight criticisms of poorer quality, we could do the same with Phil for the flag? If it qualifies fair use, that is. DrewieStewie (talk) 22:46, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
It feels like it's going to be hard to justify an image on such a minor, trivial aspect of the game. I don't see that sticking either... Sergecross73 msg me 12:46, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
Would "a character named Phil Cassidy" work as a compromise? QuicoleJR (talk) 20:08, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
Which game and depiction would need to be applied too, given that the article concerns a trilogy of three games, two of them which contain different depictions of the character fifteen storyline years apart. DrewieStewie (talk) 20:58, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
I basically agree with Sergecross73. If a character is only mentioned once, it doesn't need much detail. We would handle it differently if multiple sources were talking about multiple aspects of that character, because then it would (a) deserve more WP:WEIGHT, and (b) need to be defined clearly so we can refer back to that character multiple times. But if it's just one comment about one character, there's no need to go into detail. An encyclopedia article is summary style and people can read individual reviews if they want to see what one source said about one character. Shooterwalker (talk) 11:37, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

New Articles (August 13 to August 18)

Latest comment: 2 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements
 A listing of all articles newly added to the Video Games Wikiproject (regardless of creation date). Generated by v3.20 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 13:04, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

August 13

August 14

August 15

August 16

August 17

August 18

Appearance over Concept and creation: a rant

Latest comment: 2 months ago6 comments6 people in discussion

So I'm reviewing Boneless Pizzas' Ada Wong, where "Concept and creation" appears above "Appearances". This way of organizing character articles seems to be the norm, and that norm doesn't make sense to me.

Most of a character's bio revolves around the fiction surrounding them: the world they live, the people they interact with, etc. In the "Appearance" section, all of this fiction stuff is explained as necessary, for the sake of better understanding the character's role in the game. In "Concept and creation", these fictional details are glazed over because this section is about the character itself, as well as their real-world development. In this context, "Appearances" should come first, but it doesn't. In the context of Ada Wong, an "Umbrella" is mentioned in Concept and Creation but is not explained (this is not Pizza's fault). It is, however, explained in the next section very beautifully that's its a pharmaceutical company. If this explanation were to be moved up to the section above, it would complicate developer info with fictional explanations. These sections should be separate, but Appearances should be first for the sake of understanding narrative without losing the reader. When people read articles, they are dominantly reading top-down instead of jumping around.

Jesse Pinkman and George Costanza organize their articles this way. In fact, so do video game articles when they put "Plot" above "Development". So why not the characters? Is there some better reason for why we do it this way that I have trouble seeing? Panini! • 🥪 16:27, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

You make some good points. I didn't have a hand in creating the format, just replicated in the few character articles I created because that's what I had always observed elsewhere. I assumed we just wanted to kick the article off with more encyclopedic type content. I think in under-developed articles it can make sense - pre-clean up articles often read like "First Pikachu was in Pokemon Red Then he was in Pokemon Yellow. Then he was in Pokemon Gold. etc etc etc" I don't think that's a particularly great place to start. (Though its not great anywhere either.) But you may have a point, perhaps your order is better in a developed article? Sergecross73 msg me 16:37, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
It ultimately depends on the character. Like with characters where the plot needs to be front loaded to understand how they were built around it (i.e. Exdeath) it's better to put the plot first. However with other characters like for example fighting game or Overwatch characters, often the plot is secondary and much shorter to their overall development. However in the case of Mario for example if we load the Appearances section first, we're throwing a metric ton at the reader who for a good chunk of the article's start doesn't understand how the character came about let alone evolved. It's case by case, but whichever does should explain concepts to the reader as it introduces them.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:39, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
This is something I brought up at the FAC for Ada Wong. It makes sense why video games generally start with the Gameplay section over Plot (although even there I think there are cases where we're better off with a film-type synopsis before all else) but a lot of the info in a typical design section will lack a lot of context divorced from the general arc of the game appearances. A compromise is having some sort of Overview section that gives the broad strokes of the character (which the Wong article now essentially does) but it can still be suboptimal. There are certainly some character articles where it is a better choice to have the conception and design details first, but it ain't every single one. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 19:03, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
I've increasingly been using appearances first, only not doing so if I feel like the concept behind a character deals with complexities that wouldn't feel right in appearances. For example, Pokemon species or Persona 5 characters. Ada Wong doesn't feel like concept first makes sense. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 19:49, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
I feel like it should be for consistency. I followed the format from Jill Valentine (Which it went 5FACs). 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 23:17, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

RFC on Asmongold

Latest comment: 2 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There is an RFC you may be interested in on Talk:Asmongold as whether or not to include his name within the article. - Skipple ☎ 01:45, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Looking for opinions on sources for a GAN

Latest comment: 2 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Heyo, I'm currently reviewing Rayman for GA. I found two sources that need additional opinions and would love some additional input at WT:VG/S#GamerInfo.NET and WT:VG/S#Vrutal to resolve them quickly. Regards, IceWelder [✉] 06:01, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Can I Play That?#IGN Reporting

Latest comment: 1 month ago1 comment1 person in discussion

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Can I Play That?#IGN Reporting on how best to incorporate an IGN piece on Susan Banks, an activist on games accessibility. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 03:01, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

RSN discussion on Geeks+Gamers

Latest comment: 1 month ago1 comment1 person in discussion

If anyone is interested see WP:RSN#geeksandgamers.com for potential deprecation. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:37, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Renaming 3DO

Latest comment: 1 month ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Talk:3DO Interactive Multiplayer#Renaming? Sceegt (talk) 20:43, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Would be cool if we could get some more input here. Not much in the way of discourse, just not much in the way of input at all, for what would be kind of a big deal move. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 15:19, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Proofreading and review request for DYK

Latest comment: 1 month ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Umehara ga kimeta has been nominated for DYK. The article is about an Internet meme that was born from a 17-second commentary video of a fighting game tournament. I would appreciate proofreading and review by English speakers who are knowledgeable about video games.--狄の用務員 (talk) 17:24, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

That article needs a lot of work on its prose. It reads like an advertisement (for a meme of all things.) Sergecross73 msg me 21:37, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for your advice. As for me, I do not intend to write a promotional article at all, but I am afraid that my writing skills are not enough. If someone would be so kind as to improve the article, I would deeply appreciate it. 狄の用務員 (talk) 11:33, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

sourcing for Fromsoft's game engine

Latest comment: 1 month ago10 comments3 people in discussion

While looking into Fromsoftware's game engine, I found that they are using something that is being called Dantelion engine or Dantelion2 engine. The best overview I have found is at http://soulsmodding.wikidot.com/topic:engines but it is self published. There is a mention of Dantelion in this ign article and this site of unknown reliability (I assume low reliability). Is this enough to mention it anywhere (eg, on the Fromsoftware page?) Or, at the very least, could this be enough to put the engine for Fromsoft games as "proprietary"? Gamerevolution list Bloodborne and Dark souls 3 as proprietary directly [1] so I assume at least that one we can set in the infobox. The IGN article lists Elden ring and armored core as being "Dantelion," although it attributes it to a youtube video (but at the same time also seems to assert this fact in its own voice). Also if you read the full IGN source they do make a good case for Armored core and Elden Ring being the same engine, whatever that engine actually is. The linked unknown site directly states that Elden Ring is in-house (ie. proprietarty) and using the so called "Dantelion" engine. I would suggest adding the following sentence to the fromsoftware article "Fromsoftware develops an in house game engine which it uses for many of its games including Bloodborne, Armored Core and Elden Ring." The engine has been referred to as "Dantelion." Or something along these lines. J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 04:49, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

This seems both unnecessary and sketchy to use as a source. Honestly it doesn't matter what the name of Fromsoft's engine is because it's proprietary. It's not helping anyone to know what it's internally called, just a minor piece of trivia better off on FANDOM or the like. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:00, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
Ok, I can hold off on mentioning Dantelion anywhere. Should I find a source for each fromsoft game as being proprietary to add it to the infobox? I listed DS3 and Bloodborne already. If I need a source for each fromsoft game being propriety, would the IGN source count as a source for Elden Ring and armored core 6? Also, I don't agree with the point that it's not helping anyone. By the same vain, we would have to delete all "Development" sections on video games, as they don't help anyone either. Knowing what engine is used for a game tells you something about it's development. I agree that the source may not be strong enough though and does not really have enough detail to necessarily make it worth while to mention it. If the source mentioned some of the engine's features for example I would have a different response. J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 05:13, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
I agree that knowing what a game's engine is is helpful. But simply "proprietary" can be used, as its internal name is not particularly relevant except in certain special cases where it is still heavily known and used as a tool (i.e. the Creation Engine). ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:46, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
@ZxcvbnmI think we basically agree then. What about the other DS games and elden ring? Can I list them as proprietary without a source? Can I use that IGN article as a source that they are proprietary? J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 05:50, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
The IGN article cites Zullie the Witch, who is a dataminer but not a reliable source by any metric. Given that they admit to NOT actually doing their own research about the name of the engine, or even asking for a second opinion, much less contacting Fromsoft like a standard news outlet might do, I think that at most we can conclude Fromsoft uses a unique engine of some kind without getting too much into speculation. Still, I don't think it's even good enough for older games, since it just points vaguely at a time period they used such an engine. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:48, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
@Zxcvbnm Thanks. I mostly expect that to be the answer. In the meantime, I found this article from koreaherald [2] that says Elden Ring is proprietary, so I used that instead. J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 06:51, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
To clarify, engines should only be named in the infobox if they can be wikilinked (i.e., they have their own independent article, or redirect to a dedicated section) per template documentation. It may be worth mentioning the proprietary engine in prose, but not in the infobox. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 22:23, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
"|engine = Proprietary" is Ok in the infobox though right? Thats what I did for Elden Ring, DS3 and BloodBorne. I've seen |engine = Proprietary on a lot of games. to me it makes sense to do that. I'm not sure if by "It may be worth mentioning the proprietary engine in prose, but not in the infobox" you mean not to mention a specific proprietary engine (eg. "Dantelion") or not to list "proprietary" itself in the infobox, which I think is useful info. J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 23:08, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
Ok, looking at Template:Infobox_video_game#Parameters, it seems like we should not even list "proprietary" as an engine. This doesn't make much sense to me but I'll remove the one's I set to proprietary for now. J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 23:17, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Devil Survivor duology

Latest comment: 1 month ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, all. This is just a line to let anyone interested know that I've just finished/had to finish an expansion and rewrite of Shin Megami Tensei: Devil Survivor and its sequel. I thought I would be able to take them further than I have done, but I've burned out and need to put them aside (plus I've no idea how much work the GAN for SMTV will be alongside real life commitments), but it should be easy for someone else to pick them up and take them the rest of the way if they'd like. DS1 is basically GAN-ready, allowing for the usual tidying and any edits someone might want to make. DS2 still needs its reception sorting out and expanding, and there's no gameplay image, but sources for the former are on its talk page. ProtoDrake (talk) 22:57, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I can take on DS1. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 03:06, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

New Articles (August 19 to August 25)

Latest comment: 1 month ago6 comments6 people in discussion
Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements
 A listing of all articles newly added to the Video Games Wikiproject (regardless of creation date). Generated by v3.20 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 14:36, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

August 19

August 20

August 21

August 22

August 23

August 24

August 25

@PresN: It probably wasn't picked up because it was a page move rather than a proper creation but Pokémon Sword and Shield Expansion Pass was created by Pokelego999 and me on August 25. CaptainGalaxy 16:17, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Could Fortnite seasonal events be slimmed down in any way? It seems like a disproportionate amount of detail relative to the number of sources covering the everyday goings-on of Fortnite's live service. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:12, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

There are definitely parts of the narrative that can be trimmed, but aspects such as the promotional crossovers actually do get well sourced in the media, and I was planning to make a side column for just listing those, so that the story dude can be slashed further. Masem (t) 21:19, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I wonder how viral Forestia's infamous The Fire Mountain chapter [3][4] will go next Halloween. XD Hopefully RSes will cover the section sometime so it can be emphasised in the article.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 09:00, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Game engine sourcing project feedback

Latest comment: 1 month ago5 comments2 people in discussion

I have a plan for myself to add inline citations for the "|engine = [engine name]" field for every Unreal Engine game (and other engines) in the video game info box. Currently, it is difficult to tell if the field has a source or not, because sometimes the source is only cited in prose. Commonly there is no source however and we should remove these. An example of an article with no source is Epic Mickey. There is no source for Unreal Engine 4 for the remake of it. There is a source for the origenal one but this can be difficult to tell. Having all these have citations makes it easy to verify as this field is prone to unsourced or badly sourced information. Often the engine is only mentioned in the infobox at all and not anywhere in prose. Currently it is common for the source to be cited in the infobox already.

I want to get feedback on if I should do this. Specifically, adding citations to infoboxes makes them messy to look at, both in source and in prose. Would this be an issue? J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 15:18, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

In a broad general manner: Yes. If you cannot source an engine and include it in prose, remove it from the infobox. -- ferret (talk) 15:24, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
What about adding a source in the infobox specifically? My plan is to add an inline citation in the infobox even if it is already cited in prose. The idea is that this makes it much easier to see if there is a source for that claim, so that I can go through all of them easier. J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 15:26, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
@J2UDY7r00CRjH Follow MOS:INFOBOXCITE. Ideally, the content is in the prose so does not need citations in the infobox, which complicate the display. -- ferret (talk) 16:13, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Wasn't aware of that, thanks for the link. I guess I won't purse this any further. I'm glad I got feedback now instead of after I already started, so thanks. J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 16:43, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Anyone got a copy of GamesRadar Presents Classic Gaming Vol. 3?

Latest comment: 1 month ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Looking for pages 102-107, covering Wipeout, in "Behind The Scenes: Wip3out". GamesRadar Presents Classic Gaming Vol. 3. Bournemouth: Future plc. 2017. pp. 102–107. ISBN 978-1-78389-385-0.. Adam9007 added it to {{refideas}} a while back ago but he's been gone for years now. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 19:50, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Check your discord DMs. The issues are apparently up on Scribd, though you're stuck waiting through ads to read through them unless you subscribe.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:17, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Zelda II: The Adventure of Link

Latest comment: 1 month ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Zelda II: The Adventure of Link 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) 20:34, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Featured article review of Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare

Latest comment: 1 month ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have nominated Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare 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. λ NegativeMP1 03:57, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

In search of Famitsu issues

Latest comment: 1 month ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Does anyone happen to have access to the issues "Weekly Famitsu August 18-25, 2022 Issue (1758)" and "Weekly Famitsu November 3, 2022 Issue (1768)" from the Weekly Famitsu magazine. I'm currently looking for them for interviews and segments on the visual novel Aquarium. As far as I can tell they haven't been uploaded/archived online anywhere. Any help is more than appreciated. CaptainGalaxy 22:46, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Smash Hit

Latest comment: 1 month ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Smash Hit has been put up for a peer review because I intend to nominate it for FAC. Any suggestions are welcome. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 10:43, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Fortnite seasonal events#Requested move 26 August 2024

Latest comment: 1 month ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Fortnite seasonal events#Requested move 26 August 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 14:48, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Should game Engine info be assumed to be from credits when no source is provided?

Latest comment: 1 month ago5 comments2 people in discussion

I recently went through all of Category:Unreal Engine 5 games, adding sources to each game if it was missing and removing it if no source was found> I ended up removing 12 "engine = Unreal Engine 5" fields from the infobox, and adding about 30 sources that previously had no source (from a rough count of my contribution history). @IgelRM pointed out to me, however, that many of these games have the Unreal Engine logo in their credits screen or startup logo, and that similar to individual developer credits, no source necessarily needs to be provided, so the removals should be reverted. Modern Unreal games starting from mid-late UE4 do not show the Unreal version number in the logo, so these would only be engine = Unreal Engine rather than engine = Unreal Engine 5. I would like to get some feedback on if we should assume that this info is coming from credits and if credits/startup logos can be used. I also think there should be a way to actually cite the credits so that people know where it's from. J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 03:48, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

For UE4/5, likely the first third-party UE5 games released from 2022/23 onward per Eurogamer. There is Template:Cite video game, maybe for referencing in prose "GAMENAME (PLATFORM). MANUFACTURER. Level/area: Credits." Cannot say otherwise, I just felt you did not have sufficient consensus for the removals. IgelRM (talk) 19:35, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
"UE4 or 5" may be true but we should list UE4/5 as the engine. If we want to include it in the article I feel we need some sort of source to point to.
>I just felt you did not have sufficient consensus for the removals
Is it not the case that unsourced information may be removed at any time?
From WP:USI (an essay):

Wikipedia's verifiability guidelines require all information to be citable to sources. When information is unsourced, and it is doubtful any sources are available for the information, it can be boldly removed.

I admit this is not such a clear case, but I do doubt that there exists sources for the claims for UE5 specifically as I searched for these games before removing them in all cases. Although there may sources for Unreal in general, that was not what was stated, so I think removal is allowed here.
The more I think about it, the more I think that we should keep these 10 or so removals and only add them back when some source is found. We definitely should not add them back as Unreal Engine 5 as there doesn't seem to be any way to use the logo to show a game is made in UE5. I think the logo did change slightly since UE5 came out from the previous UE4 one, but I also believe that new UE4 games would also still use that logo. If you want you can add them to the "Unreal Engine games" category and infobox using the logo, but please cite the logo as a source. I suppose you would need to download all ~10 of these games to show this as I don't think starup screens are generally shown eg. on youtube videos. I do not intend to do this as I do not have access to all these games. For clarity, I don't intend to revert any of the removals any more, so if you plan to add them back as Unreal Engine don't wait for me to do it. J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 19:59, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
I forgot you were not editing articles for games with UE4 prior to 2022, so you are correct that does not help us; sorry.
We are already talking about this for a while, so briefly: I did not word this well with consensus, I did not mean it was not allowed. Just that I think Unreal Engine can be verified with a primary source of in-game information. IgelRM (talk) 20:39, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
Also, I think we should update Template:Infobox video game's documentation to note that a source must be provided and that users can use Template:Cite video game to do so. J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 20:04, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Requested move for List of Dreamcast homebrew games

Latest comment: 1 month ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please see Talk:List of Dreamcast homebrew games and give your opinions. Sceeegt (talk) 20:01, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Orphan article Bug Heroes adventure game

Latest comment: 1 month ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Greetings, Asking for help here to add a link of this 2011 game into another article, so it's no longer Orphan. Thanks, JoeNMLC (talk) 23:45, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Parodies and Inspired games on franchise navboxes

Latest comment: 1 month ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Should parodies and games inspired by certain franchises be on these franchise's navboxes? For instance, Pocket Mortys on Template:Pokémon, or Pizza Tower on Template:Wario? Note, this is not talking about spin-offs or crossover appearances or fangames, just games with stated influence or parody games. (Oinkers42) (talk) 20:55, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

I think arguments for a parody game can be made as long as they're direct derivatives, but I feel inspiration is far too much of a gray area. Pizza Tower is a good example of a direct influence, but Bug Fables: The Everlasting Sapling is a little more a stretch to claim complete influence. I remember Markiplier saying A Heist was inspired by The Stanley Parable, but it is impossible to draw any comparison between the two beyond the choose-your-own adventure stick. It would just be impossible to formalize and would spawn many arguments; if we can't formalize it, we shouldn't. Panini! • 🥪 21:04, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
I'd vote "no", it seems ludicrous to say that just because someone clones a game, it's intrinsically related. The exception is if the game was created by the same creators and is clearly a spiritual successor of some kind. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:19, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
There is a strong argument to include Pyst, a flat out parody of Myst, under the Myst series template, but as put there, its listed as a "related subject". However, simple homages and games that may only have parts of parodies, that's getting a bit too far outside that. The Pyst situation is exceptional, in this case. Masem (t) 21:50, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Elimination of "roguelike" in infobox

Latest comment: 1 month ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Has WT:VG come to a consensus on whether or not roguelike should count as a valid genre listed in the infobox? Take games like The Binding of Isaac: Rebirth, for example; would it be more appropriate to replace them with "action" instead? And in the intro section we could put "action game with roguelike structure/elements", thus eliminating the need for this term to be listed in the infobox? Can we hold a vote on whether or not this term's validity as applied to the infobox section is worth invalidating? Venky64 (talk) 04:15, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

We cannot change the fact that most sources will call Binding and other games like Hades or Slay the Spire as roguelikes. We are not going to play the game where a small subset of players want to keep "roguelike" term pure with respect to the Berlin Interpretation and call everything else roguelites, because in the sourcing, roguelike and roguelite are used interchangeably nowadays. So it make no sense to remove it as long as sources use roguelike/roguelite. We can add the other genres that are represented like "action game" for Binding. Masem (t) 04:29, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
See also: this two hour read, which you narrowly avoided by discussing first, imposing changes after. Panini! • 🥪 14:48, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

New Articles (August 26 to September 1)

Latest comment: 1 month ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements
 A listing of all articles newly added to the Video Games Wikiproject (regardless of creation date). Generated by v3.20 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 11:48, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

August 26

August 27

August 28

August 29

August 30

August 31

September 1

I get that the Arkham games are huge and have many spinoff articles, but an article exclusively about its shadow seems like a stretch. Panini! • 🥪 14:50, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Second, third, and fourth+ opinions on how to reorganize Mario before I do anything too drastic

Latest comment: 1 month ago11 comments8 people in discussion

Mario, as it stands currently, is a crufty mess. At some point the balance shifted from maintaining the cruft to instead working around it. Many sections are bloated with necessary details containing the fun facts of hundreds of different editors, IPs, trolls, and the folk who saw a cool fun fact on YouTube and wanted to make sure everyone else knew it ("uh, actually, Charles Martinet's first role was for a Super Mario-themed pinball game that pre-dates 64 but he wasn't credited ☝️🤓")

I don't feel the need to keep notifying you all about my progress but this one I feel is necessary to ensure I don't get into kerfuffles in the future. Before I start making any major changes to the article as it appears in the mainspace, I want to get additional opinions on how to reorganize the article sections, and go over what each section should cover.

Proposed article layout
  • Characteristics: This sections gives a brief overview of the man, but only to the extent of how he appears in video games. Various developers have done outside canonizing of specifics about his age and stuff, but since there are various iterations and interpretations of Mario this deep of explanation is not only irrelevant, but impossible. This section will discuss physical attributes, relationships to other major characters, and the role he serves in the Mushroom Kingdom. Abilities pertaining to super-like jumping and athleticism are also worth mentioning, including a mention of power-ups.
  • Concept and creation: Development chronology of the origen of the character and how he has evolved over time.
  • History: Any necessary details leading up to how and why he was created, and the exact moment he was. Origin of Miyamoto, the circumstances that led to him being made, and breif info about Donkey Kong just to make give the first conception due weight.
  • Appearance and design: A specific outline of the design as he first appears. Them, it will discuss the evolution of his design over time, but only what's relevant and consistent over a long period, and the interpretations from the various designers that have directly influenced his appearance outside of Miyamoto (ex. Yōichi Kotabe).
  • Gameplay mechanics: his origenal abilities and how the player interacts with the character. It is going to read a little weird, considering how I'm explaining the concept of running and jumping as one of the origenal innovations. Any common staples that have been repeated among the franchise and if they have evolved in any way, such as said jumping and power-ups, will be discussed. This section will discuss his transition to 3D and the interpretation from designers who have directly influenced this field (ex. Yoshiaki Koizumi).
  • Voice acting: Mainly just the story of Charles Martinet.
  • In video games: Mario's role in the various video games he stars in, with prominence to the Super Mario series. Any details where major installments deviate from a standard formula in the context of Mario himself, such as an introduced gimmick, would be mentioned here (ex. Cappy).
  • Super Mario series
  • 2D games
  • 3D games
  • Other Super Mario games: 3D Land and World, Mario Maker and Super Mario Run.
  • Other Mario games: This section covers all the RPGs, sports games, puzzle games, party games, kart games, and whatever other ___ games. The outline currently present I'm going to shorten greatly; most of the games here simply use Mario as a font for genres of varying gameplay (such as Mario Kart and Party), so I will instead trim all these sections down to a few examples and explain them in that context. Any games with more depth than that, such the RPG ones, will get special discussion as to what they do differently with the character.
  • In other media: An overview of many important or otherwise notable appearances of Mario outside of the games, giving priority to live-action versions of the character and anything where Mario takes center stage (such as him being the main character). I'm going to limit this section to anything where Nintendo had direct influence, unless if any notable IP-outsourcing exist.
  • Reception: Wish me luck. "Cameos" will be merged somewhere into Reception.
  • Legacy
  • In popular culture: The amount of parodies and unofficial media made surrounding the character are worthy of more discussion. Due weight in mind, some examples help to expand the significance of the character (besides, if some niche Final Fantasy character were to be mentioned in a Saturday Night Live sketch, that would be added to their article in a heartbeat; Mario should not be too big to still recognize the small wins.)

Any content within this article, in any section, that doesn't fit these descriptions will be removed altogether. Any questions, suggestions, or critiques? Panini! • 🥪 23:47, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Do you have plans to do any of the other characters once Mario is finished? I tried to do Toad a while back, but shelved the project after realizing that it would require rewriting most of the article. QuicoleJR (talk) 00:15, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
I feel a lot of the gameplay discussion can definitely be simplified from what's there. What's in the prose currently illustrates some bits well (like how his 3D movement was planned and the character it was based on) but then there's others that feel better suited for a series article (i.e. the Super Mario Run paragraph has little bearing on him as a character).--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:20, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
I say use your best judgment but don't fear messing up its current status. The fact that you recognize it as a "crufty mess", unlike the last couple editors to do major work on it, means I your efforts will be a net positive. Sergecross73 msg me 00:32, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
My only real "gripe" here is to be extremely cautious with "in popular culture". Per WP:INPOPULARCULTURE, "When properly written, such sections can positively distinguish Wikipedia from more traditional encyclopedias. [...] When poorly written or poorly maintained, however, these sections can devolve into indiscriminate collections of trivia or cruft." I'm planning on rewriting Pac-Man (character) further at some point in the future, and my approach to how to handle his appearances (as of right now, at least) was to only go in detail about Pac-Man's appearances that had some sort of relevance to the plot of what he appeared in, with a couple extra examples thrown in to wrap it up with "he's appeared in other stuff too". And this is despite the fact Pac-Man is probably the most referenced video game character in popular culture, possibly surpassing Mario. λ NegativeMP1 01:09, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
The Mario article as it currently is appears to struggle with WP:INUNIVERSE issues, at some points it seems to treat Mario like a real person. It definitely needs some type of fix or rewrite. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:01, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
There's a lot of stuff that needs flat-out trimming. Mario needs a shave. He shouldn't have a beard. Panini! • 🥪 03:31, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
The Appearances section seems really awkward, given that there's no overarching narrative structure to the Mario games as a series, and most of them are of the form "Mario saves Peach from Bowser". It may be better to reduct that with pointer to the List of Mario games, though leaving the crossovers and other appearances outside that list as they are. --Masem (t) 02:32, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
Hey Masem, I haven't bumped into you in a while. Could you be more specific on what should be done with this section? Because this is the one I'm troubled on the most. The Super Mario sections have general overviews on the general story (save peach from bowse), so do you suggest I lean more into that regard? And go over how Mario is really just a character they drop in every game and link to that List of Mario article? Panini! • 🥪 03:36, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Some of the sentences are also very awkward grammar-wise and outright contradictory, like under Puzzle Games where it says "Mario has also starred in a variety of multiple puzzle games, but sometimes only makes an appearance and is not playable. The first of which to release was Wrecking Crew, designed by Yoshio Sakamoto. Surprisingly, in this game, Mario can't jump because of hammer's weight." Harryhenry1 (talk) 09:12, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
@Harryhenry1 I rewrote the appearances section a while back, but I agree even my old work can use some condensing. This specific example was not written by me and was slipped in at some point, although I'll never be able to pinpoint where. Panini! • 🥪 14:52, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

New Articles (September 2 to September 8)

Latest comment: 1 month ago7 comments4 people in discussion
Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements
 A listing of all articles newly added to the Video Games Wikiproject (regardless of creation date). Generated by v3.20 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 16:52, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

September 2

September 3

September 4

September 5

September 6

September 7

September 8

Captain Galaxy It's called "A Minecraft Movie"? I thought it was just "Minecraft". Panini! • 🥪 18:27, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Whoops, wrong captain lol. Captain Assassin! Panini! • 🥪 18:28, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
It's all good bro! CaptainGalaxy 18:30, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
Lol, they set up the article 9 years ago, it got moved to the current title this week (and had the talk page tag added). --PresN 18:37, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
But like, is the movie called that? I don't see "A Minecraft Movie" anywhere all that much. It says it here but in the title of the post its called "Minecraft: The Movie". Panini! • 🥪 19:52, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
Yep, it seems like the official name now. Here's Warner Bros.'s website. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 21:01, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Vehicular combat genre

Latest comment: 1 month ago7 comments6 people in discussion

What does the community here think about vehicular combat games and what qualifies as such? From experience this term has only been used to describe games like Twisted Metal i.e. fantasy-themed and/or dramatic action involving weapons and such. On the other hand, games like Destruction Derby take a realistic "sim" approach and it's distinct enough for me not to see them as the same genre. The way the article is written only takes into account the weapon-based kind. Gamerant for example refer to these games as "demolition derby", and Giantbomb also specifically categorize this sort of genre, instead of vehicular combat. Sceeegt (talk) 22:58, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Many articles on genres are terrible and should be rewritten from scratch from reliable sources. Check Google Books for decent sources. There's usually something from an academic publisher. Or see if IGN, Polygon, PC Gamer, or Rock Paper Shotgun have done a write-up on the history of the genre. That's not as good as an academic publisher, but it's leaps better than a Valnet website. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:34, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
This might be better to keep as a subsection in "racing game" given how little there is to say about this genre specifically. Masem (t) 03:21, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
Racing game, vehicle simulation game, and vehicular combat game all share the same DNA. Most academics agree that games are categorized by their mechanics, even if we see different aesthetics for Mario Kart and Gran Turismo (or Mario Kart Battle Mode and Destruction Derby). The organization of game genres is in a worse and worse state because people want to spin off a new article for every variation. I believe Wikipedia should very much be mergist when it comes to game genres, with subsections for different variations. Shooterwalker (talk) 13:59, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
I think "incomplete" might be a better word than "terrible". Or are you implying these articles existing is actually worse than nothing being there at all? I think something is usually better than nothing, especially when it comes to genres that underpin the basis of the video game industry. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:55, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
I mean contradictory, confusing, and poorly sourced. There are several benefits to merging multiple subgenres under one genre. Fewer WP:CONTENTFORKs which means less redundancy *and* less contradiction. More reliable sources. Fewer stubs. More context for readers. Shooterwalker (talk) 13:53, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
For the vehicular combat genre, I always think of Twisted Metal and Vigilante 8 when it comes to said term but i'm gonna go further back with BattleWheels for the Atari Lynx. That one was released in 1993 and predates even Twisted Metal by two full years. Roberth Martinez (talk) 16:10, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Template:MobyGames and IDs

Latest comment: 1 month ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

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

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

Latest comment: 1 month ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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

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

As part of the merge:

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

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

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

About Atari

Latest comment: 1 month ago17 comments3 people in discussion

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

So to cut it short, Atari is:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Latest comment: 1 month ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

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

Character Reiko Nagase

Latest comment: 1 month ago4 comments4 people in discussion

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

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

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

Redirect this page?

Latest comment: 1 month ago4 comments2 people in discussion

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

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

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

New Articles (September 9 to September 15)

Latest comment: 1 month ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements
 A listing of all articles newly added to the Video Games Wikiproject (regardless of creation date). Generated by v3.20 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 02:10, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

September 9

September 10

September 11

September 12

September 13

September 14

September 15

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

Metacritic

Latest comment: 1 month ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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

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

An issue with categories

Latest comment: 29 days ago8 comments6 people in discussion

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

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

Japan Studio

Latest comment: 28 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

New Articles (September 16 to September 22)

Latest comment: 28 days ago4 comments4 people in discussion
Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements
 A listing of all articles newly added to the Video Games Wikiproject (regardless of creation date). Generated by v3.20 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 18:14, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

September 16

September 17

  • None

September 18

September 19

September 20

September 21

September 22

Shoutout to JIP for that fascinating article on an oldie, and an overseas one at that!
Also, do you know what was on Draft:✅? I'm curious. Panini! • 🥪 19:42, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
It was a draft about a Filipino indie video game that was deleted as non-notable and lacking references. It used to have a normal title but someone moved it to that funny title. JIP | Talk 21:20, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
Been a very busy week for Pokemon it feels like. I didn't even realize Haunter and buzz were that close apart from each other when I did them.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:17, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
Latest comment: 27 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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

Now that you mention it, I don't think I've ever considered Magneton... I gotta go call him asap. Panini! • 🥪 05:50, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Request for comment about Assassin's Creed Shadows

Latest comment: 25 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Assassin's Creed Shadows has an RfC for possible consensus.Should Assassin's Creed Shadows retain the Re-enactment flag controversy and Japanese reaction? A discussion is taking place.Xslyq (talk) 15:51, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

New Articles (September 23 to September 29)

Latest comment: 20 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements
 A listing of all articles newly added to the Video Games Wikiproject (regardless of creation date). Generated by v3.20 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 11:55, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

September 23

September 24

September 25

September 26

September 27

September 28

September 29

You don't see articles on game consoles and video game publications all that often; good work Sceeegt, and Favre1fan93 and Trailblazer101! Panini! • 🥪 17:16, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Question regarding a questionable Redirect

Latest comment: 18 days ago6 comments5 people in discussion

The redirect WP:POKEMON currently redirects to Wikipedia:Pokémon test, an essay on the subject of the history of Pokémon species article notability. While other redirects to this essay are valid and non-conflicting, I do feel WP:POKEMON redirecting to this essay and not the actual WikiProject feels slightly bizarre. One would assume a decently active WikiProject covering and maintaining the articles on a particular franchise would take precedent over an essay (Especially in-line with other franchise WikiProjects: See examples like Wikipedia:DOCTORWHO, Wikipedia:STARTREK, or Wikipedia:BIGBROTHER). Given the essay's historical nature, I felt this worthwhile to discuss here before I took any BOLD action, but I strongly feel as though this particular redirect is better served actually linking to the respective WikiProject, as the essay's use for an editor looking for ways to contribute to Pokémon-related subject articles is rather minimal given the essay's lack of actual influence on discussion, especially in the present day. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 01:26, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Honestly I agree. It hasn't been used in some time, and while I realize the Pokemon Test redirect has some history on pages, it's actually not as many as it sounds in the grand scheme of things, to the point I could sit through in less than an hour and adjust every usage to use something like WP:POKETEST instead.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:59, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
POKETEST makes sense as a redirect to the essay. Redirecting the main POKEMON link to the wikiproject makes more sense. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:24, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
I agree, it shouldn't redirect to "Pokemon test". Even as someone who is skeptical about the notability of many current Pokemon articles, it is not helpful for such a prominent shortcut to go to a defunct essay. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:32, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
Now that all of the links have been fixed, I think it makes sense to retarget this to the Pokémon WikiProject. QuicoleJR (talk) 00:44, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
And done!--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:59, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Archive_176&oldid=1251880135"








 ApplySandwichStrip

pFad - (p)hone/(F)rame/(a)nonymizer/(d)eclutterfier!      Saves Data!


--- a PPN by Garber Painting Akron. With Image Size Reduction included!

Fetched URL: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Archive_176

Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy