Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
No? I've never heard of that rule. Axem Titanium (talk) 03:02, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Pre-RfC on Talk:Tetris

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Content dispute at Talk:Forspoken regarding sales

[edit]

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Proposal to replace one of our goals

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

[edit]

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)[reply]

Reliable sources noticeboard discussion

[edit]

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

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

[edit]

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)[reply]

RfC on Tetris

[edit]

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)[reply]

New Articles (March 31 to April 13)

[edit]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Glad you are back. CaptainGalaxy 11:12, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

RfC on Forspoken

[edit]

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)[reply]

Awards tables on "YYYY in video game" articles.

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Template:WWE video games reorganization proposal

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Evil Empire (company)

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Standardizing best-selling video game lists

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I agree. Sergecross73 msg me 22:11, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okie, gonna put a notification of the discussion on all the list talk pages. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 22:14, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
I think that's reasonable Cukie Gherkin (talk) 22:50, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request for input at WP:NCVG talk

[edit]

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)[reply]

New Articles (April 14 to April 20)

[edit]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Are there negative reviews to be found? Cukie Gherkin (talk) 16:58, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

exA-Arcadia

[edit]

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)[reply]

Doesn't seem to like a notable subject for an article. Should be probably AfD'd. --Mika1h (talk) 11:43, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

VentureBeat and GamesBeat split

[edit]

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)[reply]

That seems reasonable. Should we also open a reliable source discussion on it? - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 16:56, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Opinions requeuested Dabuz and Zackray

[edit]

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

WP:NOTGUIDE as it applies to sources

[edit]

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)[reply]

Can you point to an article where this came up? - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 16:20, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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 to disqualify sources:
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games&oldid=1287041489"