Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games: Difference between revisions

Example A
Example A
Release	Linux, MacOS, Microsoft Windows, PlayStation 4, Xbox One NA: October 31, 2020; EU: November 7, 2020; Nintendo Switch, PlayStation 5, Xbox Series X/S WW: 2021;

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 22:14, 23 December 2020

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks

AfDs

Goodboy Galaxy (0 participants)
Double Eleven (company) (1 participant)
Backflip Studios (1 participant)
HLSW (3 participants)
Vii (3 participants)
Small Worlds (presentation) (3 participants)
Petpet Park (2 participants)
List of Android games (9 participants)
Brent Pendergrass (4 participants)
Avimator (1 participant)
Spaceballs (demogroup) (1 participant)
List of Skibidi Toilet episodes (12 participants)
Gnasher Shotgun (5 participants)
Football Madness (6 participants)
A Date with Death (4 participants; relisted)
Giant Squid (company) (2 participants; relisted)
The Wizard Sniffer (6 participants; relisted)
Melon Dezign (1 participant; relisted)
The Wayward Realms (1 participant; relisted)
Haytham Kenway (10 participants; relisted)

Merge discussions

Other discussions

No major discussions

The dreaded 9th Gen discussion...

I'm going to link this discussion in from other related talk pages but its probably a good idea to either reiterate if we should wait on creating the 9th Generation of home video game console page for at least a few months (give time for the press to figure out where they sit and likely if the Switch sits in there as well - keeping in mind the strong industry rumor of a Switch Pro that may hit in March), or if we can do it now There is reasonable sourcing to do it now, but I wouldn't call it a open-and-shut case to call this 9th gen, given how many are calling the Xbox line a half-step. I also raise the possibility if we do it now that the Switch itself may be both an 8th and 9th gen system, but that's a harder call.

If we want to take the step, we can, but again, knowing that "we" are partially at fault for the current console numbering system we probably want to be careful going forward. --Masem (t) 00:59, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We should totally wait a little bit. It's just gonna be a mess of people getting angry over a topic where nothing is final. Le Panini ^Talk 02:18, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit: I've changed my mind, but I still believe there will be a lot of controversy on the talk page n' such.) Le Panini ^Talk 15:52, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do it now, the sources calling Xbox a half step are fake news sites too.2600:1003:B00A:4979:F575:6AA5:AEB7:375C (talk) 23:48, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thats...not one of the issues that are holding things up here... Sergecross73 msg me 02:56, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's going to be anger no matter what you do, why delay the inevitable? Major industry sources such as CNET and IGN say they are next gen, even mainstream media sources such as CNN and NBC say it too. There's no reason to delay it, though I would say it would be smart to tentatively exclude the Switch until we figure out the media consensus on that. 50.200.31.90 (talk) 00:20, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An issue is still the Switch. We don't know how its going to be classified yet, and the approach to describing the 9th gen could be affected by that, which is why its a question of waiting. --Masem (t) 00:21, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that the Switch would still be pretty solidly 8th gen (although possibly could be included on the 9th gen page with a table header indicating 8th gen if the rumoured "Switch Pro" doesn't happen) because I've not seen any sources calling the Switch "next gen" in the same article as describing the Series S/X and PS5 as "next gen". AsmodeanUnderscore (talk) 09:50, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't you say the same thing about the sixth generation and the Dreamcast? flarn2006 [u t c] time: 23:17, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely ***don't*** think we should wait; no one outside of Wikipedia is any doubt that we are now in the ninth generation. I am still confused as to what the issue actually is - do people seriously think PS5 is actually part of the eighth generation along with PS4? News sources don't seem to reflect this confusion, and some even explicitly refer to the ninth generation - [1]. The fact that Wikipedia doesn't have an article on ninth generation seems a bit strange to anyone outside core editing community. Kidburla (talk) 14:05, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To be brutally honest, I think the big issue is the Nintendo Switch. Yes XBSEX and PS5 are the ninth generation competitors. But is the Nintendo Switch and WiiU both 8th generation? Is the WiiU 8th and the Switch the first 9th before the others? Is the Switch both 8th and continues being Nintendo's entry into the 9th gen or is Nintendo putting out a new console (Switch Pro or whatever else) to compete with Sony & Microsoft into the 9th gen? Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 20:13, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There’s no issue with identifying parts here and there, the problem is that reliable sources rarely outline the entirety of a "generation", so there’s always arguing and bickering over it. WP:OR and WP:SYNTH issues arise all over the place. As simple as certain you may think it is, there others who feel the same confidence over their very different version. And if there are no sources that outline it completely, the arguments just run circles over and over again without a consensus. Sergecross73 msg me 02:56, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussions will have to happen soon, no doubt. I think it all comes down to whether sources are saying anything different now that they’re out. Now that they’re out, are sources saying anything different? Honest question - I haven’t been reading many of the new console release/review type articles. Sergecross73 msg me 02:56, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with trying to delay this until at least the new year, once we've seen multiple consoles on the market for a while. We're still at the mercy of third party sources but at least it will be clearer. Jontesta (talk) 19:37, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As an interesting point all related to the Switch, Kotaku has an interesting way of putting this in this article [2] that because Nintendo has generally been "off the rails" compared to Sony or Microsoft, the console generations become easier to define by only looking at Sony and Microsoft's platforms (starting from the 7th onward). In other words, if there was more support on this idea in other articles, it becomes easy to frame both 8th and 9th gen on just those two consoles, and then say, for both, "The Nintendo Switch also considered a console of this generation, (crossing into the 9th)/crossing over from the 8th)." or the like. But, and this is why waiting a few months will help, this would need more sources to support this idea. --Masem (t) 23:13, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's no need to wait for this, it's clear that PS5 and Xbox Series X are 9th gen, while the Switch is cross 8th-9th gen. Kettleonwater (talk) 15:44, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These so-called "generations" are largely a construct of what we perceive in our own minds – an unofficial way for us to organize something doesn't have standardized organization. It's all subjective, and there is a strong case to be made that these labels run dangerously close to original research. That being said, in cases like the Switch, there is no rule that says generations can't overlap one another. As far as how these consoles are positioned against their competitors, it makes a lot of sense to call the Switch a 9th Generation system that happened to have an earlier release. Had the Wii U been just a little successful, Nintendo would've stuck it out longer and released its next generation closer to Sony and Microsoft. The date a generation begins and ends is something we make up ourselves. What defines a generation should be how the products are positioned against each other when sold at market. Not arbitrary cycles of time that video game companies don't even adhere to themselves. 143.59.28.175 (talk) 21:37, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I've always personally considered Switch a ninth-generation system for this very reason, and the fact that most sources these past three years have labeled it as eighth-generation appear to stem largely from Wikipedia itself making the initial call. Considering that Switch's sales have still been riding high (with indications that it's on track to outsell PS5/X|S this holiday) and that Nintendo themselves have given no indication that they're in any hurry to replace it, it appears to me that its intended competition was always meant to be the PS5 and Series X|S and that its release was premature (explaining both its relative lack of power and the hardware being "undercooked" in terms of things like Joy-Con quality control). Remember, Switch's development and release also coincided with new leadership at Nintendo after Iwata's death, with their initial new CEO Tatsumi Kimishima in a hurry to replace the Wii U and get the Switch out as soon as possible; this is why Wii U's final year was so desolate, as a large number of intended Wii U games had been pulled to be retooled as Switch releases. Had Wii U fared better in the market and/or Iwata survived longer (as he was determined to ride the system out for as long as possible), Switch likely would've been held off for at least another year, but its early release shouldn't change the fact that it was always meant to be among the Gen9 lineup and that Nintendo is in it for the long haul with Switch. VinLAURiA (talk) 20:52, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hold up on one point. "Wikipedia itself making the initial call" about Switch and the 8th gen... Much like with the very topic of 9th generation, we waited before reaching a consensus that sourcing at the time was placing the Switch within the 8th generation. In fact, we waited well over a year before making that call, to try to avoid leading sources on. Now in comparison we have infrequent editors arguing we should "make the call" after mere weeks. -- ferret (talk) 21:57, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Infrequent editors? That's some subtle ownership right there. No one is making big edits and blowing a hole in current consensus without testing the waters. This is just a discussion looking into if any of the points above hold merit. 143.59.28.175 (talk) 06:02, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

HUNDREDS of reverts have been performed in respect to the Switch's generation and the ninth generation by drive by editors. It's a simple fact. We've had to delete or redirect unsourced Ninth generation articles so many times that several full protections were required. This isn't a new issue. -- ferret (talk) 14:22, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll rephrase. No one here is making big edits. I'd love to talk to you about the merits of the points made above. 143.59.28.175 (talk) 16:46, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you agree. I think the story of the Wii U is key here. It was a console – like any system – intended to have a long life. Sales were awful and the plug was pulled. Nintendo shot ahead to their next generation with the Switch. Even if it was released to market along side the PS4 and Xbox One, Nintendo clearly meant for it to be their prizefighter versus the PS5 and Xbox Series X/S. Because overarching "console generations" is a made-up concept, we can define a new consensus here as to what that means. I propose these categories not so heavily be defined by release dates. More importantly, what defines a generation should be how the products are positioned against competitors in the marketplace. It's clear the Switch is in the fight for the long haul and meant to be Nintendo's entry into this so-called next generation. 143.59.28.175 (talk) 06:23, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's original research, considering that the other way to approach this is that with generations normally having been 5 years in the past, MS and Sony decided to do a mid-gen referece (Xbox One X + PS 4 Pro), leaving Nintendo the one that had to go to a complete new console line 5 years after the Wii U. I'm not saying this is any better of an explanation we can source, but the argument you present is all OR and why we can't just make our guesses here, we hvae to see what's going on with how the marketplace actually functions. Note that "console generations" was not something made up before Wikipedia came along (8-bit, 16-bit generations in notation existed), but it was our labeling of it and specific divisions that got sorta set in stone and why we're being really cautious here. --Masem (t) 06:39, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'm happy to engage with your ideas here. What specifically is original research on my end? That the Switch is really "meant" to be a competitor to other 9th gen systems? Well it competes against anything being sold by retailers right now whether you'd consider those other products 8th or 9th gen. And it is the next generation of Nintendo system after the Wii U, Nintendo's consensus "first" 8th gen system. That generations are/were normally 5 years is pretty irrelevant. Generations aren't consistent. These companies define what they want to sell when they want to sell it based on what they feel consumers want to purchase. They aren't following some absolute calendar that says a generation begins and ends on a particular date. That's original research: labeling what belongs in a generation simply because it doesn't follow the dates of the others or preconceived notions based on the past. Release dates might be part of the equation, but more important to capturing the definition of a generation is classifying major steps or stages in a product's evolution. It's why we don't call mid-gen iterations a full generation. That's because there is no such thing as the Eighth Generation of Video Game Consoles. There is only Nintendo's 7th Generation Console, Sony's 5th Generation Console, and Microsoft's 4th Generation Console…all of which are direct competitors…which is a much better and verifiable way of categorizing how generations of specific consoles relate to each other. These real generations cross over with one another. Lumping them all together under these made-up labels actually isn't verifiable. 143.59.28.175 (talk) 10:30, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The original research claim that the Wii U sales were so bad that Nintendo dropped it quickly and rushed into the Switch; that's not supported at all, though we do know that the failures of the Wii U played heavily of how they designed and sold the Switch. For all purposes, the Switch appeared to be "on time" as a next generation console (Wii U in 2012, Switch in 2017).

And I can tell you that from economic analysis of the consoles, there is absolutely the idea of console generations (and not specific to manufacturers). There is strong agreement from the academic literature that you can group sets of consoles into generations based on common hardware features and/or sales periods, and this is how economics have looked at the console market and its interesting properties. What is the novelty when it comes to WP is how we've numbered them, that we named the home Pong machines and the like as a first generation, and so on, and which has become a numbering used by media sources. That's not to say there was a consistent method in academics as well with the generations, that was a mess too. So it is because we know that we've created the system that the media has adapted that we're not rushing forward with naming a 9th until we have a good picture of what they consider the 9th to be, and that's why its rather important to know how they will treat the Switch. Its clear that the Xbox and PS5 are part of this shift, but the Switch's role still remains vague, whether it is actually in competition with them anymore or just a different console in the same time period. --Masem (t) 14:35, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That the Wii U was Nintendo's worst selling console by a large margin and drove them to move on quicker is consensus by industry watchers outside Wikipedia. That notion has more outside support than the criteria we use to even define what a generation is. There is no such thing as "on time" because these moves don't follow a predetermined calendar. The only generations that verifiably exist are the ones between consoles of the same manufacturer (e.g. NES to SNES. Or PS2 to PS3.) If we are to group consoles between different manufactures together, there needs to be stronger criteria than release dates. One day Sony may release the PS9 three years before Xbox Vista and the Nintendo Thingamabob but continue selling it all the way through with these competitors. So far this is how Nintendo is positioning itself with the Switch. It's fair to say that since all the following are true – that the Switch is Nintendo's latest, next full gen console after Wii U; not getting a replacement at the same time as PS5 and X/S; and competes in the market at the same time as these competitors – that it is a 9th gen console because release dates alone don't matter. If these verifiable criteria were used to define a generation instead of just questioning ambiguous release dates, it seems a lot of heartache would be washed away as to when a new generation article could be published. It would be clear cut. I'd argue one company's next generation can start before another company's and they still be considered of the same general generation. 143.59.28.175 (talk) 17:26, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First, I can tell you, given that I wrote a significant portion of the Switch's article, that the presumption that Nintendo moved on quickly from the Wii U to the Switch is a guess. It may not be wrong, but there is nothing hard evidence wise directly from Nintendo's mouth that says this. We know that after the Wii U was out, they were already working on the next console (just as the Wii U was in progress right after the Wii was out, and the Wii just after the GameCube was out), and that in the year prior to the Switch's release they did sunset a lot of Wii U stuff earlier than they had compared to past transitions. But we have no RSes even calling out this was a rushed transition. Nor can I provide ones that say this was an ontime transition (though I know I can point to sources that talk about the Xbox/PS console refreshes as extending the generation). My point here is we have no reason for the exact timing on the Switch that we can use to enter into the definition of which generation it falls into.

Second, why it is a mess is why we're waiting to see what the media comes to terms with for this generation, which will take a few months. Perhaps the Switch is so far off the rails that this new gen is only the Xbox and PS5 because AAA games are only developed for those two (and PC), leaving the Switch with its own line of titles, to which point we have an answer. But if they still compare and contrast the games on all three, then all three are part of this generation. We (Wikipedia) aren't going to define this ourselves but wait for the media to give us enough of a comfort direct to make the call. Yes, at some point we could be at a point where the console releases are so spread out that its impossible to tag cleanly, but again, we'll let the media decide for us at that point. --Masem (t) 17:44, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to agree the reason why the Wii U was moved on from probably can't be verified with a first party source. But although there is a lot of industry commentary regard this, the reason Nintendo moved on to Switch is irrelevant. It is the verifiable fact that Nintendo moved on at all that's important. Moving on to their next generation is a generational leap as we would define it with any other system, right? When they specifically do this isn't so important as that they make such a change at all. I get the sense we agree on some points a little more than our discussion lets on. We both seem to agree that defining a generation isn't as clear cut by when a system gets released. And how consoles are compared and contrasted to their peers based on market position is pretty important to determining if they are of the same generation. But we are not beholden to waiting on what the media says because the media are not the gatekeepers of what defines a generation. We need to define generations based on verifiable criteria. Console makers already define this for us. If console makers 1) have released new hardware wholly unique from their own previous generation, 2) are not launching an immediate replacement against their latest competition, and 3) directly compete against theses competitors with their latest offerings, it seems that is a better definition of a generation than the originally researched definition currently used. 143.59.28.175 (talk) 19:53, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"But we are not beholden to waiting on what the media says because the media are not the gatekeepers of what defines a generation." Actually, we kinda are. We are beholden to what sources say. We don't define it ourselves, or at least we try to avoid doing so. Please read WP:V, and more importantly, WP:OR. -- ferret (talk) 20:05, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And in the same frame, we don't want to follow manufacturers here as they are very much financially dependent sources that have a vested interest in having these consoles be called 9th gen. --Masem (t) 20:13, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying we are using the wrong sources. Media commentary isn't a primary source and is no more authoritative than water cooler talk. I'm suggesting we find that authoritative source. Use what manufactures define for themselves as separate generations. It's their industry we're talking about after all. It's not controversial to say the Switch is Nintendo's next generation after Wii U. So why do we make up that they are both a part of the entirely made-up label of "Eighth Generation"? I feel like counter arguments are really picking at technicalities on supporting points I'm making. I'd love to discuss the heart of what I'm getting at: the merits for and against defining a generation by how consoles are positioned against competitors in the marketplace rather than making up labels based on how closely their release dates match up. 143.59.28.175 (talk) 21:03, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Manufacturers are primary, dependent sources and can't be used. Case in point: the whole situation around the TurboGrfx-16 advertising itself as a "16-bit" console. (We classify it that way now as in retrospect, most media and academic sources agree it falls alongside the SNES and Genesis). We'll take their word on their specifications which only they can tell us, but in terms of the "generation" their console is in, that's for the industry at large to determine, and that'll be first set through the media sources. --Masem (t) 21:08, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Per WP:PRIMARY, that’s not the sort of thing we use first party sourcing for. Otherwise, feel free to search for the “authoritative source” of all this, but the whole reason this debate is currently happening is because it doesn’t exist (or can’t be found, and if we can’t find it, you’d probably be hard pressed to call it the authority on the matter). Sergecross73 msg me 21:13, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While the position of Switch by Nintendo and from the media is a factor, it should not be a primary factor on whether there is a 9th generation. SYSS Mouse (talk) 02:45, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So to come back at a point Kotaku made earlier and to what the above IP has been talking about, Kotaku has just published another article in the same vein, that Nintendo themselves ignored generations with the Switch as they wanted to get away from the Wii U quickly. [3]. This comes back to a concept that has been floated that the Switch can't be classified as either 8th or 9th gen (compared to the Xbox One/PS4/Wii U or Xbox Series X/S/PS5 comparisons) and instead floats somewhere between them. This also semi-aligns on this interview with Xbox Phil Spencer in which in talking the "tribalism" of the console wars, it pretty much the Xbox vs the PS5. I'd like to see more media place the Switch in this foggy position between generations before we go that way, but that feels the right direction. --Masem (t) 23:49, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To add to this, this Wired article [4] has also a similar idea that "Nintendo is being Nintendo" since the Wii as a means to ignore the Switch from the generation consideration. I'd like to see more as that would really help to define the ninth better, but this also makes defining the Switch's position a bit more difficult. --Masem (t) 20:50, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And a third concurring point: GamesRadar "Games of the Generation" covering the best 8th gen game purposely omits the Switch, delegating their games to a separate article. [5] They state "As the Nintendo Switch defies the typical generation divide". More and more, taking the Switch completely out of the generation classification (leaving just PlayStation + Xbox as the primary drivers of what a new generation is) makes the segregation of 7th/8th/9th tons easier. --Masem (t) 00:51, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I concur it's really bias and inappropriate for Wikipedia to arbitrarily categorize the gaming consoles into generations like this. Most other Wikipedia articles would've categorized them by decade e.g. 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, 2000s, 2010s, 2020s... I truly think that's the best way to organize the article. Even having this new "Current" generation as it is currently in the article is bias as it's implying that the Nintendo Switch isn't current, which it is. -- ProfessionalCost (talk) 02:45, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again, prior to WP's creation of these articles, there was the concept of generations, like the 8-bit generation of consoles and so on. It is a natural way to group them that already existed to a point. What WP created was being more explicit on that and defining the numbering scheme, and this is where we are being very cautious. When the Switch came out, we watched and saw no one out in the media rushing to call it a 9th gen system, so we are keeping it 8th gen at the current time even though yes, it is still a current system. But there may be ways to deal with that. --Masem (t) 05:35, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree 8-bit and 16-bit categorizations were used back then. I actually think having an 8-bit, 16-bit, etc. categorization is much more appropriate than this made-up 2nd gen, 3rd gen, etc. terminology. 8th gen vs 9th gen is arbitrary, but 8-bit vs 16-bit is not. A console being 8-bit vs 16-bit is a fact.

I actually think the idea of categorizing consoles into arbitrary generations should end going forward. Unlike what may have happened in the past, the console makers are under no obligation to release on a similar schedule and trying to arbitrarily categorize them like this is just problematic and inaccurate. Trying to keep this made-up numbering scheme is just going to cause more problems since there WILL be many more consoles in the future that won't clearly fit into this made-up numbering scheme. -ProfessionalCost (talk) 22:42, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not going to be our decision to make, we have to follow how the industry approaches it. It is clear there is a 9th gen but its full shape is not yet known (why we're being careful here before defining it). There may not be a 10th gen if MS goes in the direction it has been speaking about, but we will follow what happens, not make that decision again. --Masem (t) 22:45, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you're not connecting to or acknowledging the foundation of the point being made. "We have to follow how the industry approaches it." Numeric generations do not exist. No one in the industry uses these terms. If the industry – the real industry, not the gamer blog industry – approaches anything remotely close to grouping competing consoles together, they do it by comparing what systems are currently competing against each other at market. "It is clear there is a 9th gen but…" No, it is not clear at all. The "Ninth Generation" only exists on Wikipedia. The only verifiably chronology here is the number of generations a company by itself has put out: Nintendo's 7th, Sony's 5th, and Microsoft's 4th. At any moment, the made up labels used to fit past or present consoles together can be blown out of the water by a company doing exactly what Nintendo did with the Switch. It isn't an argument to project into the future and say Sony or Microsoft would never do this. We just don't know. There are no written rules, and we shouldn't be documenting these things as if there are. --143.59.28.175 (talk) 04:38, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Both MS and Sony have called their newer consoles offerings in the ninth generation (though MS is also clear that the Xbox Series X/S is their fourth generation of their own console line). Nintendo has spoken of generations but tends to use the term as much as the others (either for consoles overall or for their own offerings). This numerical designation is used by the industry and by the journalism around the industry, today. As of maybe 15 years ago, the numerical system didn't exist or wasn't agreed upon until Wikipedia "created" it and set it in place, but regardless of what happened then, today there's broad agreement that we're moving on from the 8th gen to a 9th gen of consoles across industry and media. --Masem (t) 14:52, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(comment rewritten) One thing that you might not have considered is that each generation has technology difference that stands difference from previous consoles, after the 16-bit:

Fifth Generation: 3D graphics
Sixth generation: Textures, early online gaming (in case of first xbox)
seventh generation: Online gaming, blue-ray and Full HD
Eighth generation: ?? (It could be argued that online distribution could be one)
Nineth generation: ray-tracing

SYSS Mouse (talk) 02:33, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To give an example, GameFAQs has moved on and defined a 9th generation. [6] SYSS Mouse (talk) 02:38, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, while this probably counts as original research, I always felt like Switch being Gen9 along with X|S and PS5 fits into the existing pattern:

Generations across the "big four" (only cartridge/disc systems, no single-game systems like G&W; bold for console, italic for handheld)
Company	Gen3 (late '80s)	Gen4 (early '90s)	Gen5 (late '90s)	Gen6 (early '00s)	Gen7 (late '00s)	Gen8 (2010s)	Gen9 (2020s?)
Nintendo	NES	Super NES Game Boy	Nintendo 64 Game Boy Color	GameCube Game Boy Advance	Wii Nintendo DS	Wii U (New) Nintendo 3DS	Switch
Xbox				Xbox	Xbox 360	Xbox One (X)	Xbox Series X\|S
PlayStation			PlayStation	PlayStation 2	PlayStation 3 PlayStation Portable	PlayStation 4 (Pro) PlayStation Vita	PlayStation 5
SEGA	Master System	Genesis/Mega Drive Game Gear	Saturn	Dreamcast

Again, I recognize this most likely counts as original research, but the only real outlier to this cycle has been Nintendo ditching the Wii U early to get a head-start with the Switch. Unusual, but not unprecedented. Dreamcast similarly launched three years before the GameCube and Xbox did (after the Saturn's underperformance outside of Japan, much like the Wii U), but it's still counted as Gen6 the same as those are. What muddies things up this time is the unprecedented mid-gen upgrade during Gen8, with the PS4 Pro, Xbone X, and New 3DS and so I've seen people argue that Switch should be put in that same "Gen8.5" as those. But unlike those (and not counting the small handful of New 3DS-exclusive games), Switch is a brand new platform meant to have its own full library of games the same way PS5 and X|S are, rather than just a beefier version of an existing platform. VinLAURiA (talk) 10:24, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your dats are wrong: Gen 5 would be mid 90s, Gen 6 would be late 90s, Gen 7 was mid 00's SYSS Mouse (talk) 03:41, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Those are more about the general timespan of a generation as a whole, not when they kicked off. VinLAURiA (talk) 09:07, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A possible generation solution

Based on Kotaku, GamesRadar, and Wired articles, along with other metrics we can go by, it is quite possible to ignore the Switch as a "home console" due to Nintendo being Nintendo, such that the 8th gen is clearly defined by the PS4, Xbox One, and Wii U, and the 9th gen defined by the PS5 and Xbox Series X/S. The Switch would be included in both but marked as not belonging to either generation specifically due to Nintendo releasing it "off schedule" from the others. This wouldn't change much of the 8th gen article (Switch would still remain listed as is) outside of establishing this, while the 9th gen should include the Switch again alongside the PS5/XBS/X tables. I'd still want to wait until January to affirm if any more press opinions on this come about. --Masem (t) 01:00, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not going to be our decision to make Why would you say this? It's completely within our extremely limited editorial discretion to not merely mimic industry marketing and instead use our existing paradigms for splitting content. Namely, it would be perfectly logical to summary style split from History of video games (e.g., 2010s in video games or History of video games (20XX–20XX), similar to History of the Philippines). Summary style from our existing history article is a far better approach than the cat/mouse game of numbering generations for the industry to use. It would work the same way for any other theme in the overall history, e.g., given popular coverage comparing consoles, cover within the parent article; create a section if it becomes a standout feature of an era; split out if warranted by an over/disproportionate abundance of coverage; use generic article titles unless expressly titled by reliable media. czar 01:59, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- This is clear possible solution, but it would be DUE to still respect that we have to consider the console generations as this is far too accepted in the media. The generation articles should be strictly limited to consoles considered by RSes to be part of those generations and not because they fall into the same years as those generations. Eg, jumping to the Seventh generation of video game consoles, this would eliminate pretty much everything from "Handheld systems" and beyond, leaving only the major features of the seventh generation and comparison of the three consoles 100% included in the seventh gen. What we'd then need is just a "History of video games (xxxx-xxxx)]] series as you suggest, which point out where the generations would come into play but then would list out other consoles that were introduced in that period. --Masem (t) 18:00, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Including handheld consoles within the framing of the home console generations has always been shoed in purely based on date ranges. I'm all for restructuring it, and especially purging console generations of handhelds (and removing the mention of a generation from their articles as well), outside of cases with clear reliable sourcing. This goes for dedicated / microconsoles as well. -- ferret (talk) 18:24, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Having good "history of video game" subpages obviates the need for many of the generational splits. E.g., the common name for fourth gen or that 198X–199X split is "16-bit era". Rescope it and the article still covers the "generation" but is freer to focus on the entirety of that period of time, other context, post-90s nostalgia, etc. Basically the answer is sitting right in front of us—just a matter of rescoping to be more about summary style history splits than tables comparing three consoles every "generation". czar 00:45, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm playing on this idea, so this is all brainstorming and trying to find faults or issues that maybe there's ways to work around.
    Do we want "History of video games?" (Which I would take to be inclusive of not only console HW + SW, but also computer, arcade, mobile and other types?) or do we just want "History of console video games?" (to cover just the HW + SW of consoles) or even just "History of video game consoles?" (to focus only on the HW?) From a high-level, we still do want a broad article and necessary subarticles that cover the history of video games as a whole, but when taking how to summarize the history of any of the broad categories (arcade, console, computer, mobile), you likely want an article(s) that focuses more narrowly on that as there's threads specific to that area that are irrelevant to others. These histories do touch at times, obviously, but they aren't as intertwined to be easily covered in depth in one series article.
    
    Focusing strictly on the console history line, while we do have some clearly defined periods for things like 8-bit and the like, once we're past the 64-bit it becomes more diffuse. (There's certain no equivalent "Bit" term for the Xbox One/PS4 consoles). That doesn't mean that we can't create the year range sub-articles to work around that, but those years are still likely to be influences by the introduction of console generations to a degree. EG, we will likely have a period to cover 2012 (Wii U) or 2013 (PS4/Xbox One) to 2019 (ignoring the Switch so as to cover up to the PS5/Xbox Ser X/S). We'd have one to cover 1987-1993 in title but clearly note that as the 16-bit era.
    
    We would still need to recognize that there are console generations, but these would be far reduced articles from the current generation articles, simply to identify the major consoles considered part of that generation; eg if in Fourth generation of video game consoles, only the four consoles listed in that table and nothing else. This gives us the wiggle room to place Switch as both 8th or 9th if that's how it comes out. What's important then is that in a History of video game consoles (1987-1993) we'd likely have a section called "Console Hardware", then the first part of that would be dropping the main link to the Fourth Generation article and brief explanation w/ pictures and then move into the other consoles of that period including the handhelds. What basically we're doing is dropping the pretense that just because a random console was released during the period that one of the major consoles of a specific generation was released, that that console must be considered part of that generation. From the economic research papers I've read and used for other parts, only a few dominate consoles really make up the defined "generation", there were other products but if they had little market impact, they typically were not considered part of the generation, just a console released around the same time.
    
    There's probably more ideas around this approach that I have, but this is just to see if this approach has legs. It makes sense, but may seem disruptive to others. --Masem (t) 19:59, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    So, I really liked this idea on first reading it. The more I think, the more I'm conflicted, so instead of weighing in, I'm just going to ask some questions and (more than anything) make some comments.
    If we were to have an article along the lines of "History of video games (2013-2019), it isn't quite possible to just ignore the Switch from that. Instead, an article with that name would simply begin by talking about why that delineation was made (these big important consoles came out), and then say something to the effect of, "Nintendo's flagship console the Wii U was succeeded by the Switch on XXXX." There's no need to ignore anything in that instance, right? The consoles could all have their own sections, moving roughly chronologically, and including a section for the midpoint refresh/hardware boost.
    
    If that wasn't what consensus went with, and there was a clear preference for decades — "History of video games (2001-2010), for example — then it would require so much more work by editors. It would be near impossible to preserve most of the current structure without seriously reworking it. But then, when the next consoles came out, debate would arise over when it would need to be separated again. So, the question here is: for your idea (and I do understand you're just free styling), the question that has to be absolutely answered here is, how do we future-proof it to minimise discussions like this in the future?
    
    Excited to hear what you/anyone think/s! ImaginesTigers (talk) 20:41, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Masem, my take: (1) As a general encyclopedia we still want a general History of video games as a broadest strokes overview of the medium (even broader than it is now, with less focus on generations and more focus on conditions/patterns, i.e., what the era was about). I think you're talking about a History of video game hardware, though, similar to the relationship between History of film technology and History of film. I'm honestly less concerned about History of arcade games, etc., as those are just summary style splits from Arcade game, not necessarily splits from the general history article, though any major theme in arcade history (e.g., early 90s rise of fighting games) should necessarily play into the general history (e.g., relation to 16-bit era). Region is a big intersection here. Regardless of wherever else we cover Britsoft, ZX Spectrum deserves substantive weight in discussion of that era even if its story has minimal relation to the U.S. narrative of competition between juggernauts. Same for Commodore/Apple II/PC gaming—we cover it elsewhere but a natural consequence of moving from gens to overall eras is to not confine an era to being about three/four U.S.-centric consoles.
    
    (2) I wouldn't wedge the Xbox/PS2 era into a specific name like 128-bit and I wouldn't be that concerned about the date ranges just yet. While historians like clear breakage points, I think these "eras" are more about the heyday of this or that, with some lead-in and ramp-down period for each. Again, building out from the existing "gen" articles, asking what technological advancements or cultural themes were mainstays of the era, and building sections around the heyday of each rather than around extended console definitions. Individual console articles exist for that information. That the 60GB PS3 edition was discontinued is not pertinent to a history of the general era.
    
    (3) I'm not really following the argument on the Switch and what "gen" it is. The answer seems academic and unless sources discuss it, I don't think it matters to the general reader who wants to understand the time period. If two history subarticles split at the year 2021, for instance, I would hope that the Switch is covered in relation to consoles both pre-2021 and 2021+ because that's how sources would discuss its influence. (I think this is what @ImaginesTigers is saying.) Moving to your example of 4th gen, what are the defining themes of that era? "Console hardware" doesn't strike me as a theme/section. "Console war" does and a component of that is the marketed (and actual) hardware processing power, not necessarily a full spec comparison. The comparative element doesn't need to be invented—it already exists in the narrative and we just need to cover it. (It's criminal that both our fourth gen and 1990s articles do not have any discussion of console war...) As for the comparison tables and whether random consoles are included, that's for editorial discretion, but I would recommend repurposing the gen articles rather than creating parallel articles, as they'll end up merged in the end. There might be a rare exception.
    
    And yes, doesn't seem like "decades" would be a good approach, though there is plenty to merge from Category:Video games by decade. czar 22:18, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    On point 3, I'm already saying that the generation articles should be repurposed outside of the history; they should only be there to examine the generations as best defined from economic and academic analysis. (Hence removing all but the key home consoles of those generations). Everything else those articles articles have placed elsewhere in this scheme.
    
    To come back around to the first point there's two aspects here: First, we really need a better top level "History of video games" archive that looks at everything from a a super high-level and then comes back to hit key narrative points that float across the enter industry. As you say, here the generations don't have as that much importance but the interplay does: Nintendo becoming the dominant player after the '83 crash; the Sega/Nintendo console war, stuff like that. There's an interesting exercise I could see us doing as to take each year from 1975-ish onward, listing the known major events, and pulling together what are key narratives from that to serve as a single page "History of video games" article.
    
    And that goes to the second factor: We could then break that up into "History of video games (XXXX-XXXX)" and where each sub article can have detailed sections on the major branches - arcade, console, computer, etc. and note industry overlaps as needed. Whether that breakup is based on 5 year splits, 10 years splits, splits based on the generation factors, or the like, that's something else to decide. Alternatively, we could start from the "History of video games" and then break that to overview articles on 'History of arcade games" , "History of console video games", etc. (which may exist in other articles already). Where there is sufficient information, like for consoles and computers, *those* could be broken down further to year basis, again whether that's 5-year, 10-year, or other measure.
    
    And on point 2 of mine, yet another way to avoid some problems with "8-bit era" and trying to match years is simply to have standalone articles on the "8-bit era" which only serves to say what that period was defined as, and explain representative consoles and games from it, and its legacy, but it should not look like one of the generation articles. We can easily do the same with 16, 32, and 64-bit eras. It would be a 3rd layer of organizing information, but these multiple layers feel a better way of avoiding the shoehorning that we're stuck with now. --Masem (t) 22:37, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still skeptical on Switch being listed as eighth-gen at all. Its internals and the actual form factor of the system (the mini-tablet itself) places it in a handheld space, but with a TV-enabled dock and detachable wireless controllers that allow it to act as a home console. If anything, I would say it's a ninth-gen handheld, but one more along the lines of what Sony's handheld offerings were with the PSP and Vita's console-like capabilities - the PSP having a video-out port and the Vita having a separate, controller-enabled model for TV-only play - than the positioning of Nintendo's own handhelds in the past. Similarly to the Switch sharing some of the Xbone/PS4's space despite being "a generation ahead", Sony's handhelds had some library and lifespan overlap with the previous generation's home consoles due to being only marginally less powerful (the PSP and Vita were in the ballpark of the PS2 and PS3 respectively, the Vita TV model essentially being a tiny PS3), rather than how Nintendo had previously positioned their own handhelds, which generally focused on wholly unique libraries with very few multiplats due to a hardware target more in line with two generations prior (3DS roughly on par with the GameCube, DS with the N64, GBA with SNES, and so on).

The difference between Switch and both companies' previous handheld approaches is that Switch doesn't have a more powerful home console counterpart within the same generation acting as the target for the "big" games, meaning Nintendo had to abandon their previous handheld strategy for a more Sony-like approach in order to remain competitive but doesn't have a "big brother" rendering its console-like features redundant as the PS3/PS4 respectively did for the PSP/Vita. As a result, Nintendo's marketing necessarily focuses more on the Switch also being able to act as a home console as well as a handheld due to having to serve both roles at once in the market for them, even if its capabilities as a "hybrid" console aren't truly anything new. The fact that the Switch Lite - Nintendo's "dedicated handheld" this generation (and the closest thing there is to a "PSP 3"/"Vita 2") - only ditches TV output yet retains all its other features (including controller connectivity) and sees no drop in power compared to the main Switch model really demonstrates how much the Switch is more a ninth-gen handheld that serves as a console, rather than an eighth-gen console you can take with you. It's Nintendo's unification of their console and handheld teams that puts it in that hybrid position, but I still wouldn't call it eighth-gen. VinLAURiA (talk) 10:52, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Building off Czar's concept...

So if we go from what Czar suggested and building on ideas, I can see us having series of articles as follows:

Video Game history series:

History of video games
- History of video games (YYYY-YYYY)
- History of video games (YYYY-YYYY), etc.
  - With the "YYYY in video games" linked in each

Video games by hardware history series:

History of arcade games
- Golden age of arcade video games
History of video game consoles
- History of video game consoles (YYYY-YYYY)
History of computer games
- History of computer games (YYYY-YYYY)
History of mobile games
(possible VR and others)

Console generations (limited to just home consoles)

"Era" articles, to describe not only hardware but the nature of the games of these periods and their legacy today

8-bit era (which needs to be distinguished from 3rd gen)
16-bit era, etc.

In any of the Year-range based articles, I don't know how exact the year range is to be defined, if its fixed on every 5 years, every 10, or a range that makes sense, but I think each would be best broken out by covering the major "events" for that area of that year. So if we are in the console history, and we're talking the year 2006, we can cover the PS3 and Wii's release, as well as the release of the "minor" consoles the HyperScan and V.Flash. (Handhelds, microconsoles, and other equivalent systems would go here too). Only thing here is that we'd want to avoid making these read like proseline and look for narrative threads. An example would be at 2008 if we start talking mobile gaming, as that's the year the iPhone came out and the app store. While that started the mobile gaming trend, it wasn't until 2009 when Apple introduced in-app purchasing that made mobile gaming take off; you'd sorta want to connect those type of dots if you can. What we can be free to do is outright ignore the console generation timeframes as guidance for the year ranges on those articles.

This might seem a bit complex but we have a lot of this already in place outside good detailed history articles (those are hard to write, I know, and the last most of us volunteers want to do since it requires the most research). There's content shuffling of course, but not so much erasure of existing info. --Masem (t) 16:41, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In summary style, subarticles only need to be created when warranted by length. So something like 8-bit era might replace the need for additional, dedicated third gen and History 1983–1989 articles, i.e., redirect all three to the same place unless one's sourcing warrants splitting out from the other.

That second column (arcade games, computer games, mobile games) feels separate from this conversation, as those have to do with how their parent articles are organized, not how the general History of video games overview is structured. czar 06:13, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind that the first column is meant to cover *all video games*, so while 8-bit is a major component of the 1983-1989, we cannot ignore that there were non-8-bit games (or at least games without the 8-bit aesthetics) coming from computer software during this time. That is, I'm seeing the fourth column being more about the aesthetics and concepts of games in those bit eras and their legacy today (eg impact on indie games, retrogaming) rather than necessarily a "history" style article. The generations articles themselves remain specifically forcused on home console hardware and their economics/market factors. Basically, what I'm presenting here is not four different spinouts of "history of video games", but two major spinout series- one that breaks up by years, and another that is specific to the platform types, along with two supporting series of articles that take the weight off the emphasis on console generations that have been bogging down the history articles in the past. --Masem (t) 18:50, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I need a name for an article

So I'm currently trying to create an article about the current controversy in the Nintendo community, with mostly a focus on #freemelee but also the stuff with Etika joycons and GilvaSunner. However, I don't have an approprate name for the article itself. Does anyone have a good suggestion for the article? Captain Galaxy 15:36, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Galaxy, Maybe Nintendo controversies and redirect Controversy in Nintendo. Le Panini ^[🥪] 15:45, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of Nintendo would follow the other articles in Category:Criticisms of companies. Criticism for their lack of support for fan events and such could fall into that, although it should preferably be prevented from being given the WP:UNDUE treatment by putting it alongside other criticisms. One prominent issue that comes to mind is their use of conflict minerals. I believe an article solely about #freemelee would run afoul of WP:NOTOPINION._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 16:20, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, be careful. This is scary territory. The melee fans are upset. Le Panini ^[🥪] 16:24, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gamers are mad all the time. “The game isn’t good enough”. “The game was delayed”. “The company won’t let me do whatever I want.” “The developers removed the digital boobies from my anime game.” It’s always something. This is nothing new or noteworthy. Last year Nintendo fans were raging because there weren’t enough Pokemon or whatever in their upcoming game. It’ll be something else next month too. Sergecross73 msg me 19:29, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(That's actually a fair point.) Le Panini ^[🥪] 19:38, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, We generally don’t want to even be naming sections with the word controversy, let alone entire articles. I’m not entirely sure there’s a collective article here anyways, it sounds like a number of unrelated events of fans whining about a company being protective of their intellectual property. Sergecross73 msg me 18:50, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Talk:Nintendo where a similar argument about a separate article for controversies related to Nintendo have been been brought up and refuted. Basically, Nintendo may have issues they get criticized by fans for, and are well known to be overly protective of IP, but unlike Electronic Arts where their business practices have been discussed and criticized in mainstream sources, most of the criticism at Nintendo is fan-derived and not well documents, so we should not be making separate articles for it. --Masem (t) 19:00, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think that there is an article to be found here, you're just going to have to trust me here. I'm currently creating the article in my Sandbox so you're going to have to give me time on it. Once I'm done with then you can review it and likely shut it down. I think this specific outrage is worthy of an article because of how quickly it spread into other none related gaming avenues, such as The Game Awards. I'm currently also not struggling for notability either if that helps, with over 10 different notable website, some of which giving there own opinion on the situation such as Nintendo Life. However, I'll give the draft a bit of time just to see how long the outrage continues for. Captain Galaxy 20:09, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If the sandbox being referred to is User:Captain Galaxy/sandbox it will need quite a bit of work since I don’t see any evidence form reliable sources that there is a 2020 Nintendo boycott.--65.92.160.124 (talk) 21:19, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That was just a placeholder name because I for some reason forgot the word controversy or criticism at the time and couldn't think of a good name, which is why this request even exist. Captain Galaxy 21:28, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So far it seems like the stuff in that draft would be better off integrated into The Big House (tournament)#The Big House 10 where it would be much better off._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 00:00, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A potential article about Slippi might be a good host to it as well. (Oinkers42) (talk) 00:05, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@(Oinkers42):@Zxcvbnm: I'd be down for either. I think I should fix up the Sandbox article first, but it seems the general consensus is for the information to be split into other articles. Captain Galaxy 00:19, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Upon learning The Big House article exists, I agree. Sergecross73 msg me 01:39, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think creating a synthesis article on multiple Q4 2020 Nintendo controversies is a bad idea. The copyright controversy and the #FreeMelee controversy are largely unrelated. I am fairly neutral on "Criticism of [company]" articles, though. I could see #FreeMelee working as a standalone article, but I might give it a bit more time. For now, a new section in Super Smash Bros. in esports might be a better idea. Ninendo's applications of copyright have always been covered there. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 10:03, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some new editors need a gentle introduction to wiki-notability

I think they are probably under 20, so someone who is under 30 or so or someone who spends a lot of time with people under 20 is a lot more qualified than me to welcome them in a way that will "reach" them.

The article, which is almost certainly going to die at AFD, is Smileghost (Innyume) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). All of the contributors probably need a nice Wiki-welcome, along the lines of "most games can't have an article, but here's how you CAN help..." or something like that. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 🎄 04:34, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Be careful to not bite new users. Maybe recommending them to articles for creation might work. (Oinkers42) (talk) 12:52, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Among Us Crewmate and Impostor and Their Notability

Recently pages were created on the Crewmate and Impostor from the game Among Us. The pages were nominated for speedy deletion shortly after the pages were created, but it was prevented. Now, they have been nominated for a full deletion discussion (See here for Impostor discussion and here for Crewmate discussion). I believe that the Crewmate and Impostor are notable, not just because of the surge in Among Us's popularity, but the fact that they've become highly popular characters. Their are hundreds of newspaper articles on them, and many which focus solely on the characters themselves. The deletion, however, claims that they are not inherently notable. Any thoughts? Squid45 (talk) 18:50, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You should be making your arguments at the respective deletion discussions, not here. That said, as you join those, you should read up on WP:NOTINHERITED, as some of your stance, and much of the article content, seems to rely on a premise that is not considered valid in deletion discussions. Just because the game is notable doesn’t mean it’s characters are. Sergecross73 msg me 19:01, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To explain further the issue, while there probably are lots of sources about both characters, its all tied too strongly with talking about Among Us directly; there's no separate coverage of the characters distinguished from the gameplay in these sources. Thus they are inappropriate splits from the Among Us article. --Masem (t) 19:07, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As per Mr. Game and Watch, they're just empty shells of characters, aren't they? They aren't Mario, with personality, significant coverage, and history, they're just jelly beans. Le Panini ^[🥪] 19:08, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, exactly, just like Steve from Minecraft too - the games are wildly popular, but since the characters are more or less empty shell avatars, they don’t really end up getting the attention they need to meet our notability standards. Sergecross73 msg me 19:12, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The "shell character" is an excellent way of distinguishing these types of characters from the more "crafted" ones. --Masem (t) 19:15, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New Articles (December 7 to December 13)

 A listing of all articles newly added to the Video Games Wikiproject (regardless of creation date). Generated by v3.5 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 00:39, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Articles deleted: Dawn of the Dragons (video game), List of Mophun games, Draft:Scribblenauts Showdown, Draft:GB Studio, Draft:List of cancelled games for Nintendo Switch, Sony Playstaion, Draft:Wiktor Wiewiór, Draft:Spider Mastermind, Draft:Galoxyum studio, Henry Stickmin, Draft:Wandering (Video Game), A Township Tale (2), Draft:Demon's Souls (Remake), GigaMedia Limited, Draft:Imagination Maze Magic, RTGame
Articles redirected: Kaiserreich: Legacy of the Weltkrieg, Loot system, The Ruins of Cawdor
Categories deleted: MacOS massively multiplayer online role-playing games, Ikari no Yousai
Templates deleted: {{Ray series}}
New categories: Sailing video games, Tropico (series), Superhero crossover video games, Video games about mice and rats, Apple IIGS-only games, Video games set in 2021, Video games set in 2022, Video games set in 2031, Red Candle Games, Video games about clowns, Video games about death, Video games about mental illness, Yo-kai Watch video games
New templates: {{Sunsoft}} by Nin91 (talk · contribs), {{Onechanbara series}} by Ultradaiyuusha (talk · contribs), {{Roblox Corporation}} by Le Panini (talk · contribs), {{Cinemaware}} by Mika1h (talk · contribs), {{Orcs Must Die!}} by Engineerchange (talk · contribs), {{Dani Bunten}} by JimmyBlackwing (talk · contribs), {{Tri-Ace}} by JimmyBlackwing (talk · contribs)

December 7

Eric Engstrom (edit talk links history) — Masem
The Labyrinth Plus! Edition (edit talk links history) — Hasek is the best (newly tagged - originally created 14 years ago)

December 8

Decisive Battles of the American Civil War, Vol. 2 (edit talk links history) — BOZ
First Expedition (edit talk links history) — BOZ
Paladin (video game) (edit talk links history) — BOZ
Star Trek: First Contact (video game) (edit talk links history) — BOZ
List of mergers and acquisitions by Embracer Group (edit talk links history) — Mr. Rapture
Steel Thunder (edit talk links history) — BOZ
Ornstein and Smough (edit talk links history) — Zxcvbnm (was previously a redirect)
Fntastic (edit talk links history) — ProWatch19
Knight Games (edit talk links history) — BOZ
Nontan to Issho: KuruKuru Puzzle (edit talk links history) — LucianoTheWindowsFan
Orcs Must Die! 3 (edit talk links history) — Engineerchange
Stealth Mission (edit talk links history) — BOZ
Worms Rumble (edit talk links history) — OceanHok (was previously a redirect)

December 9

None

December 10

Alien Mind (edit talk links history) — BOZ
List of Touhou Project fangames (edit talk links history) — Loafiewa
MSFL Pro League Football (edit talk links history) — BOZ
Ocean Ranger (video game) (edit talk links history) — Ilstrtr75 (newly tagged - originally created 5 years ago)
Visions of Aftermath: The Boomtown (edit talk links history) — BOZ
Altar Games (edit talk links history) — Ostateczny Krach Systemu Korporacji (newly tagged - originally created 11 years ago)
Alexios and Kassandra (edit talk links history) — Haleth
CRSED: F.O.A.D. (edit talk links history) — Teena3D
Evil Dead: The Game (edit talk links history) — MatthewHoobin
Hungry Dinosaurs (edit talk links history) — LucianoTheWindowsFan
Mutazione (edit talk links history) — FlyingKangeroo
Pro Football Simulator (edit talk links history) — BOZ
Super Robot Wars XO (edit talk links history) — Namcokid47
Touhou Luna Nights (edit talk links history) — Loafiewa
World of Horror (edit talk links history) — DaveDaRave19

December 11

Hazelight Studios (edit talk links history) — OceanHok (was previously a redirect)
The Initiative (company) (edit talk links history) — OceanHok (was previously a redirect)
Anduin Wrynn (edit talk links history) — CatcherStorm (newly tagged - originally created 10 months ago)
Disc Room (edit talk links history) — Czar
Haven (video game) (edit talk links history) — Zxcvbnm
Mario Kart: Koopa's Challenge (edit talk links history) — Czar
World of Darkness (edit talk links history) — Forseti (newly tagged - originally created 17 years ago)

December 12

The Callisto Protocol (edit talk links history) — Masem
Capcom Arcade Stadium (edit talk links history) — Smuckola
Level of detail (computer graphics) (edit talk links history) — 68.198.51.80 (newly tagged - originally created 16 years ago)
List of cancelled Sega Genesis games (edit talk links history) — KGRAMR
PuraOre: Pride of Orange (edit talk links history) — Narutolovehinata5
Shady Part of Me (edit talk links history) — Fixer88 (was previously a redirect)

December 13

The Wolf Among Us 2 (edit talk links history) — Gbgbgbgbj (was previously a redirect)
Amazon Luna (edit talk links history) — Amariokart (newly tagged - originally created 2 months ago)
Aveline de Grandpré (edit talk links history) — Haleth (was previously a redirect)
Comparison of PlayStation consoles (edit talk links history) — RandomHashTags (newly tagged - originally created 29 days ago)
Open Roads (edit talk links history) — ElliesPoetry

For the first time in a year, the script has been updated with bugfixes and feature additions! Changelog:

Bugfix: A draft -> mainspace move was previously ignored if the article was then reassessed later in the week
Bugfix: Pages where the talk page tag was removed were showing up as redirects (now ignored)
Bugfix: Category moves showed up as a deletion + creation due to the 1.0 bot misreading them (previously manually corrected)
New Feature: If a "new" article was previously a redirect, the line is appended with "(was previously a redirect)"
New Feature: If a "new" article was actually created weeks to years ago and was just tagged, the line is appended with "(newly tagged - originally created {diff} ago)"

--Pres N 00:39, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nifty! Le Panini ^[🥪] 02:07, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, PresN. Whether I say it each week or not, I do look through these, and I like looking through this each week to find interesting (or problematic) article creations. It is appreciated. Sergecross73 msg me 02:22, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the update, PresN! I love looking at this each week to see what was created, and that 1st bugfix should definitely help me with future articles. Hope your doing well! Captain Galaxy 14:27, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work. I think it is really useful to see trends in article creation, like articles about 80s PC games, and Assassins' Creed and WoW characters. I really love the feature where it will tell you if the article was newly tagged. (Oinkers42) (talk) 14:31, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks once again, the new features are very helpful when reading through particularly the newly tagged - originally created X Ys ago. Regards Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 16:29, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do wonder if it might be a better idea to redirect loot system to Loot (video games) as opposed to Loot box. Anyone have any opinions? --Lightlowemon (talk) 09:25, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Possible StarCraft FAR approaching

Please see Hog Farm's message at Talk:StarCraft (video game) regarding unreliable source usage. -- ferret (talk) 14:20, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If all that it is is unreliable sourcing this could be fixable. GamerPro64 19:14, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GT/FT ideas

So, as part of our assessment drive regarding good and/o:r featured topics, I think we might need to brainstorm some ideas on which topics would be best suitable for it. Thoughts? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:31, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The current rate of how the Paper Mario games are being worked on I could see a Paper Mario Good Topic being an idea. GamerPro64 19:55, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've been doing these games as a side project. Submitted Color Splash, working on Sticker Star. Then again, I've been working on the Kirby series but am still waiting on a response for Star Allies. Le Panini ^[🥪] 20:00, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It also seems that Trauma Center has been being nominated for GA very rapidly. Although good, this rate of nominations does raise my eyebrow. A whopping three were put out today.Le Panini ^[🥪] 20:04, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Le Panini: I apologise if that was a bit much. I'm planning to make Trauma Center a GT, but I got carried away. I've taken down two of them for the time being (New Blood and Trauma Team). Really, I should've waited until at least Kuon's review was finished. --ProtoDrake (talk) 20:10, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's alright, if they're good, they're good. It just seemed to me you were using a TAS or something. Le Panini ^[🥪] 20:44, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mm, ProtoDrake does good work, and I don't think there's anything wrong with nominating multiple articles at once - it's not like he's spamming with tons of low-quality articles. I currently have two (non-VG) GANs up, myself.--Alexandra^IDV 23:56, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree, they have 130-ish good articles under their belt. Props to him, I was just sus on why so many articles from the same series popped up so quickly (note that I just skimmed the articles) Le Panini ^[🥪] 00:29, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have discussed this earlier, but both the Banjo-Kazooie series, and the Sonic the Hedgehog series are really close. (Oinkers42) (talk) 20:15, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All right. Since Crash Bandicoot and Devil May Cry are reaching its 25th and 20th anniversaries in 2021, maybe we can start making them good or featured topics later on? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:32, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Oinkers42), All Banjo-Kazooie needs is for the main article to be promoted and then it's done. Le Panini ^[🥪] 22:12, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If someone commits to a Devil May Cry GT, I can work on Ninja Theory's DmC. OceanHok (talk) 13:49, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Le Panini: I don't know much about the series itself but according to Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Nintendo/Franchises nearly every game in the Fire Emblem series besides Fire Emblem Heroes is a GA. That would make it the 3rd big Nintendo franchise to have all main article in a GA or higher, the others being Mother and Golden Sun. Additionally, ignoring Metroid Prime 4, only Federation Force isn't a GA in it's series. I'll see what I can do with it though. I appreciate what you are doing! Captain Galaxy 22:50, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Captain Galaxy: Fire Emblem is already a good topic, with Fire Emblem Heroes being considered a spin-off, so an addition would be an addendum. Metroid was also a former good topic. (Oinkers42) (talk) 23:55, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ace Combat seems like it's fairly close to being a good topic. It has several B-class articles that just need slight improvement and one GA already. One article, Ace Combat 3, almost reached GA and failed due to lack of time (I assume) the nominator had to work on the article, so a concerted effort would easily put it over the edge as the suggestions already exist. The main issue is the portable games in the series, whose articles are really stubby._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:14, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sakura Wars is also close to being a GT, since all of the main series articles are at GA status. I'm still working on getting the 2019 article to GA as I speak. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:38, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Paper Mario: Sticker Star is getting close too. I tend to write under the same style, and the three articles I've contributed to (PM:SS, PM:CS, PM:TOK) are all under the general format. After this is Super Paper Mario. I'll tale this topic under my wing. Le Panini ^[🥪] 02:09, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why Drakengard isn't a GT already? It seems that all articles (series, mainline entries, Nier games, music) are GA. The GT for Smash can be restored quite easily if someone worked on Ultimate, which is quite comprehensive already. OceanHok (talk) 13:49, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Drakengard GT isn't possible because Nier Reincarnation is unreleased, and 2B isn't a GA or anything much close. --ProtoDrake (talk) 14:44, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is another title that could make a near-future GT. Shadow Hearts. The main series article's the only one left to do. --ProtoDrake (talk) 14:46, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I did most of the 2B article and it is actually very close. It just needs some more ingame dialog sourcing for the fictional biography._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 16:04, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The main entries of the Persona series is a totally plausable good topic, if we could get Persona 5 to good article status. (Oinkers42) (talk) 16:16, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Now that there is a series article for Watch Dogs it is halfway to a possible GT, it needs the series article and Legion to become GA. Also Uncharted could be a potential topic I think about half the articles needed for the topic is good/featured though I am not sure how well the featured list on characters has held up since its promotion in 2010. Regards Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 16:27, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a couple of the suggestions, for reference.

Banjo-Kazooie

6 articles

Banjo-Kazooie (video game)

Banjo-Tooie

Banjo-Kazooie: Grunty's Revenge

Banjo-Pilot

Banjo-Kazooie: Nuts & Bolts

Sakura Wars

7 articles

Sakura Wars (1996 video game)

Sakura Wars 2: Thou Shalt Not Die

Sakura Wars 3: Is Paris Burning?

Sakura Wars 4: Fall in Love, Maidens

Sakura Wars: So Long, My Love

Sakura Wars (2019 video game)

This is my current project, and I'd say I'm about 65% done. Fix up Super Paper Mario, finish the Sticker Star and Color Splash nominations, polish TTYD, and I'll pretty much be on my way. Le Panini ^[🥪] 00:26, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Paper Mario series

7 articles

Paper Mario

Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door

Super Paper Mario

Paper Mario: Sticker Star

Paper Mario: Color Splash

Paper Mario: The Origami King

Watch Dogs

4 articles

Watch Dogs (video game)

Watch Dogs 2

Watch Dogs: Legion

Le Panini ^[🥪] 22:08, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm currently working on the following (main article that's gonna' need a lot of help is the series one.)

BioShock (series)

7 articles

BioShock

BioShock 2

BioShock 2: Minerva's Den

BioShock Infinite

BioShock Infinite: Burial at Sea

BioShock: The Collection

Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 22:53, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is mine that I'm working on at this moment.

Trauma Center (video game series)

6 articles

Trauma Center: Under the Knife

Trauma Center: Second Opinion

Trauma Center: New Blood

Trauma Center: Under the Knife 2

Trauma Team

I was vaguely thinking of trying to get a Music article done as well, since there's four albums with music reviews together with reception of the music from game reviews. --ProtoDrake (talk) 23:05, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here's something I could do.

The Legend of Zelda

3 articles

The Legend of Zelda: Spirit Tracks

The Legend of Zelda: Tri Force Heroes

I wouldn't mind finishing off the main titles of The Legend of Zelda series for it's 35th anniversary next year. Only these 3 articles are not GA or higher. Captain Galaxy 23:41, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we can also try getting the Yakuza series up to GT/FT. Here's how it currently looks at the present.

Main Yakuza series

11 articles

Yakuza

Yakuza 2

Yakuza 3

Yakuza 4

Yakuza 5

Yakuza 0

Yakuza Kiwami

Yakuza 6: The Song of Life

Yakuza Kiwami 2

Yakuza: Like a Dragon

Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:14, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have been trying to get Lumines into a featured topic for a while if anyone wants to assist with the task.

Lumines

7 articles

Lumines: Puzzle Fusion

Lumines II

Lumines Live!

Lumines Supernova

Lumines: Electronic Symphony

Lumines: Puzzle & Music

Blue Pumpkin Pie ^Chat ^Contribs 16:00, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Late to the party, but Ace Combat is a long way from becoming a GT. Not only are the series article and portable spin-offs in dire need of work, such as basic reception and gameplay info, but lots of the ones marked as B-class are mostly filled with GAMECRUFT and likely need reassesment. Ace Combat 3 is a GAN and I think Air Combat is real close, but that's three out of fifteen pages done. It really needs more work. Namcokid 47 ^(Contribs) 18:34, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

From what I understand, spin-offs don't actually necessarily count towards a good topic, so all the portable games can probably be excluded. If that is the case, it's a lot closer. AC5 honestly seems like it could be put up for GAR right now also, so it's not just Air Combat. The other games all need some work though._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 18:57, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Main Ace Combat series

7 articles

Air Combat

Ace Combat 2

Ace Combat 3: Electrosphere

Ace Combat 04: Shattered Skies

Ace Combat 5: The Unsung War

Ace Combat Zero: The Belkan War

Ace Combat 6: Fires of Liberation

Ace Combat 7: Skies Unknown

This is more along the lines of what I was talking about._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 19:15, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Something that just hit me as a possible GT that could be almost literally no work at all.

United Game Artists

4 articles

Space Channel 5

Space Channel 5: Part 2

Rez

Not sure whether there are more games which would be the work of United Game Artists that need including in such a GT. --ProtoDrake (talk) 19:14, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would not consider that topic complete without Tetsuya Mizuguchi. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 23:06, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It’s worth noting too that some sources consider UGA to be the continuation of Sega AM Annex, whose first game was Sega Touring Car Championship and includes others. There’s an argument to be made that Sega Rosso could also be that inheritor, but I haven’t seen that in sources. Given that, I lean toward AM Annex games being needed as well. Red Phoenix ^talk 17:58, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ace Combat 5 still needs work if it wants to be a GA. Some sections are overly detailed, it needs more citations, and its reception is very weak and needs expansion. I can try doing some work on it today, but real life is preventing me from having as much time on Wikipedia as I'd want to. Ace Combat Zero is also a mainline entry and should be part of this template too, if we're only going for mainline installments. Namcokid 47 ^(Contribs) 19:29, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oopsie, you're right. I've added that in also. (I also re-assessed AC4 as a "C". Granted, they're very low C's, but I wouldn't call them Start class anymore)._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 19:36, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Paper Mario: The Thousand Year Door

I'm working on Super Paper Mario right now ^{(and its not that good condition-wise, so any help would be appreciated)}, but took a look at Paper Mario: The Thousand Year Door. However, I don't think this meets the good article criteria anymore, mainly of which numbers 1 and 2. There is a lot of prose and hard to read content, and goes into excessive detail sometimes. There are also a lot of original research with some parts not having citation. It's also has little info about development, but that's probably only how much is available. Should this be demoted, yes or no? Even if it does, does it really matter if I'm going to fix it later and re-nominate it anyways? Le Panini ^[🥪] 13:13, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the need to voluntarily drag it through all that litigation. If you're already set on improving it, just improve it and move on. The GA process is there to encourage and reward article improvement, it's not like a law of quality or anything. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 15:09, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TarkusAB, That's what I thought. I was thinking "why demote it if I'm gonna promote it?" Le Panini ^[🥪] 15:11, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Potential copyright issues in Ratchet and Clank: Full Frontal Assault

The 'Plot' section of this article was copied verbatim from the Ratchet & Clank Fandom page. Thankfully, the page is licensed under CC-BY-SA, so it's probably possible to leave this up until some editor who feels like killing an hour creates a new one in its place (being copied verbatim in its entirety, I think it's best to just scrap this and start from scratch without even using the original as a reference).

In case you're wondering: the edit that added this 'Plot' section to Wikipedia was submitted on September 27, 2013. Meanwhile, the original source of the material that User:RahulRamdhany (let's call a spade a spade) plagiarized was submitted to Fandom on December 1, 2012.

I just stumbled across this while editing (I decided to check, because the lack of explanation for side characters like the Plumber made me suspicious), so if anyone here who's more knowledgeable about this sort of thing (namely properly crediting the original source) would be willing to help out, I'd be grateful. In the meantime, I've completely removed the offending material and transplanted it into the article's 'Talk' page. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 16:35, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Issue of Edit Warring over at Cyberpunk 2077

I would like to alert the project to this discussion over at Talk:Cyberpunk 2077. Please comment if you are able to thanks. --Deathawk (talk) 15:18, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Video game reviews under-the-hood changes

Your feedback is requested at Template talk:Video game reviews § Current sandbox changes. Izno (talk) 17:35, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Music video game and rhythm game

is there a difference between Music video game and Rhythm game? If not, we should merge the two.Blue Pumpkin Pie ^Chat ^Contribs 20:24, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think there's enough of a difference - or in that understanding the specific differences of the rhythm game genre (eg this IGN article I still have an open tab to populate articles with [7]) to see how vastly different that is from other games that are based around music-as-a-gameplay option. The music game article is right to classify rhythm games as a subgenre of it. --Masem (t) 20:34, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have concrete examples for the differences. Persona 4: Dancing All Night, Thumper and the Hatsune Miku games are rhythm games because the whole point is creating rhythm or adding to the soundscape in a predetermined pattern. But things like many works by Tetsuya Mizuguchi don't follow rhythm game patterns and are more based around the experience of the music like Rez (you add to the music, but it's organic and partly optional), or have non-rhythm gameplay like the Space Channel 5 games. --ProtoDrake (talk) 20:44, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that brings up the class of games like Tetris Connected and Lumines as well. --Masem (t) 21:11, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It would be a good idea to make the Music video game article more distinct. The article isn't well-sourced and at first glance, it looks like someone attempted to make a Rhythm game article instead of a music video game article. It definitely doesn't help that the image to represent music video games is a rhythm game as well. Although I agree with the explanations given here, I think it's important to make it clearer in the article.Blue Pumpkin Pie ^Chat ^Contribs 21:52, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I found a good book that I can the intro chapters via Google Books that makes the clear distinction of music games overall from rhythm games, of which I've tried to incorporate into that article. There's probably more out there but this is a start. --Masem (t) 00:43, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've left sources that might be useful on the Music Game talk page. --ProtoDrake (talk) 00:45, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move: Racing video game -> Racing game

Discussion here. Popcornfud (talk) 03:53, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming and moving of Borderlands (series)

Hello, recently it was proposed that Borderlands (series) be renamed and moved to Borderlands (video game series). Any support/oppose statements are welcome. Link to discussion page is here.SenatorLEVI (talk) 08:21, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Poptropica level list

An RfD about List of Poptropica islands has re-opened a discussion about whether it's appropriate to include a list of levels at the main Poptropica article. Anyone who has applied Wikipedia policies to lists of levels might check-in on the RfD with how to proceed. Jontesta (talk) 17:18, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What does "50 Good or Featured Topics" milestone mean?

Hi, what does "50 Good or Featured Topics" milestone means? Where can I find a list of video game topics? (what is "the topic" on Wikipedia, and how is it different from the regular article?) EchoBlu (talk) 07:54, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! So a featured topic (click there for a full list of all the featured topics on Wikipedia; scroll down to video games) is just a collection of existing articles linked by something. So, for video games, a featured topic would be something like List of Final Fantasy video games (itself containing multiple articles that are at featured or Good article status. They are really flexible. You might not think Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion is a topic, but there are featured articles on its development, the time when the ESRB re-rated it, and both of its DLC. As for what 50 means, it’s simple — this project is trying to get fifty articles to Good or Featured status. I think there are currently 10, unless I'm bad at arithmetic (which, to be fair, I am). ImaginesTigers (talk) 08:15, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@EchoBlu: Yes, pretty much that. A "Featured Topic" is a collection of connected articles, such as a series article and the articles on all the games in the series, which has gone through a nomination process at WP:FTC; one of the criteria is that more than half of the articles in the set need to be "Featured Articles" (WP:FA) or "Featured Lists" (WP:FL), while the rest need to be "Good Articles" (WP:GA). A Good Topic is the same, except that less than half of the topic is featured articles. If you check the bottom of Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Good content and Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Featured content you can see the video games topic that are currently good/featured- we have 30 Good and 10 Featured right now. The goal is basically "make an entire section good content", instead of just "make good articles". --Pres N 15:12, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"its on gog now"

User:Slinkyw has added "its on gog now" to Planet's Edge, Wetlands (video game), and Zephyr (video game). Pretty sure we don't do that? But, is there a way to include this information or should it be removed altogether? 2601:243:1C80:6740:2180:D204:E3B:485D (talk) 14:07, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I know GOG did announce these games, but we really should look for 3rd party sources to discuss the re-release via GOG; that these were older games and are being made available for newer systems is potentially notable but we should want the 3rd party sourcing. --Masem (t) 14:19, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Removed altogether, unless there's some evidence that big reliable secondary sources care for some reason. I'm doubtful. -- ferret (talk) 14:20, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What about cases like the Xbox One version of Haven which doesn't have any reviews listed for it at Metacritic. Should the fact that the game is released on Xbox One be removed from the article? --Mika1h (talk) 17:59, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is where the platform appears to be one of the original target platforms for release. Just because it wasn't reviewed for it doesn't mean it wasn't released officially for it. What we're trying to avoid are re-releases under emulation as GOG games typically tend to be - remasters/remakes yes, but simple retooling to make the game workable from MSDOS to Windows isn't all that much. --Masem (t) 18:17, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gog isn't a platform. Gog is a storefront. The platform would be, generally, "Windows", not Gog. In reality, it's almost always DOSBox emulation, which makes Windows the required platform to run it. -- ferret (talk) 19:30, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Something being on GOG makes zero difference, unless a RS comments that this is a particularly big deal for whatever reason. GOG isn't a platform, so we should just list windows. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:32, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If it's DOSBox, the platform should be listed as MS-DOS, not Windows. IceWelder [✉] 19:35, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The particular edition, sold and downloaded from Gog, is a DOSBox wrapped game. That edition, therefore, requires Windows. They don't sell you a bare DOS version and then you run it in DOSBox yourself. It's an embedded release. Semantics aside, the platform is either DOS or Windows. Never Gog. -- ferret (talk) 19:43, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First, GOG/Steam versions are official versions, they are not releasing them without license holder permission. Second, if we are starting to remove PC emulation releases then these standards should be also applied to console emulation services (Virtual Console, PSN, Xbox). --Mika1h (talk) 19:55, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No one said they were unofficial. But GOG/Steam are not platforms. MOS:VG already covers this. We don't list stores fronts as Platforms, nor do we include backwards compatibility emulation on consoles. Already in the MOS and/or Infobox doc. -- ferret (talk) 20:20, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This wasn't about adding it to infobox but elsewhere in the article, like the Release section. --Mika1h (talk) 20:29, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Old games being re-released on modern storefront can definitely be mentioned in prose in Developpment/Release section (and maybe lede if makes a big splash), as long as you have the coverage in reliable sources to cite it. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 22:14, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Syntax inconsistency re: PlayStation

Hi there. I noticed that the PlayStation articles were the only video game consoles, commonly referred to with the definite article the, not to include the in the first sentence of the article. So, the rest of the article was referring to the consoles as "the PlayStation 4 was [...]", for example, but the lead was beginning "PlayStation 4 is a video game console [...]".

This goes against almost every other I could quickly find. See: Nintendo Wii, Nintendo Switch, Xbox One, Xbox 360, Xbox Series X and S, Gamecube. All of those articles begin with "The". The only exception is when PlayStation is used as an adjective ("PlayStation 4 games").

It felt it was easier to bring the PlayStation series into line with everything else, rather than the other way around. If anyone has any objections, let me know, but it’s strange to be inconsistent in the article's lead sentence with the rest of the article. Anyone know why this might be the case? ImaginesTigers (talk) 14:41, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I know we've had a past discussion on this but I've no idea how to locate it as all of the search terms are ridiculously common words. -- ferret (talk) 15:12, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Abbreviated platforms in the Release infobox

Hello. There's something that has been bothering me a bit.

I have seen the infobox template documentation being referred to as the reason to abbreviate the platforms in the release section, but per the documentation: "Platforms can be abbreviated to fit in one line and should be listed as bolded section..."

I feel like the use of "can" only states that it's allowed, but often it's not neccessary at all. So does it have to fit?

I believe that many articles right now are perfectly fine and not cluttered as they are. What's more, it makes it look neater, consistent and easily readable. What are your opinions on this? MaksimFisher (talk) 03:11, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What "example"? Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 03:17, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to make another point about the previous discussions on the topic, but forgot to delete that part when I decided against it. I have edited it out now, sorry for the confusion. MaksimFisher (talk) 03:28, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can't really think of any circumstances where it would not be preferable to try to keep the header as a single line...? Are you saying that you think something like this example is desirable?--Alexandra^IDV 03:49, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that it looks fine. If it's too long it is desirable to change Microsoft Windows to just Windows, and PlayStation 4 to PS4, but definetly not Saturn to Sat, Dreamcast to DC and Nintendo Switch to NS.

Quite a few of discussions here in the past came to the conclusion that there isn't an official abbreviation for Xbox consoles either.

So, other than the Sony consoles that have official abbreviations (in the logos and everywhere, really), in my opinion it's better to keep it a full word: Sega Saturn > Saturn, Nintendo Switch > Switch, etc. MaksimFisher (talk) 06:06, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I still wish we could somehow merge the platform and release parameters into one, which would help against having to list them twice. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 07:31, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If we only cared about the first released date, delegating the "details" of the other releases (platform and region) to the lede and body, that would drastically simplify matters. --Masem (t) 23:43, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Masem, yeah that's also something I've been a proponent of too. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 00:03, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It would also solve the Wikidata issue, tracking only the single release date rather than the complicated mess we've sorta forced on ourselves (not that the VG infobox uses Wikidata much but this is probably one key step limiting that). --Masem (t) 00:06, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re: (not that the VG infobox uses Wikidata much but this is probably one key step limiting that). Every single field except Release is wikidataified. -- ferret (talk) 00:08, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It pushes into Wikidata (good) but it doesn't pull from, as some infobox templates do, like the one for Arecibo Telescope. Whether this is good or bad, particularly for video games, I don't know, so whether we want that full feature is a question. --Masem (t) 00:27, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Masem: I don't know what you're talking about. Every field in IBVG except release will pull data from Wikidata if available and left unspecified locally. No infoboxes push into Wikidata, that's done by bots who are importing data from Enwiki. IBVG has supported pulling Wikidata since 2016, Special:Diff/733533269. -- ferret (talk) 14:20, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, I thought we had something different. --Masem (t) 15:25, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Only first date" continues to be something that I think might make sense in some cases ("came out in North America on December 1 and Europe on December 2") and not so much in others ("came out in Japan in 1992 and internationally in 2012"), and I know that as a reader I often want to know when a game was released in my region, and that I immediately look to the infobox as a place where I know I will find that information due to it being relatively uniform across articles. I can't see it being a service to readers to make that information less accessible.--Alexandra^IDV 02:54, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- I know that's what we have done but we're the only media that does that. Films are the only other media to use multiple release dates - the first screening and the wide release in major English-speaking regions). We could limit our release dates to the key regions (NA, EU, AUS/NZ, and country-of-publication like JP) in the infobox and forgo platforms as to simply things but I feel as soon as we start that path, we'd have editors also wanting platforms designated too. Or if there was someway to designed the more complex release date from the simple "first release date" that would help too. --Masem (t) 14:39, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Has it really been five years? I still recommend reducing the infobox to the first major release, creating a breakout template for the Development section if lists of release dates by region or platform are deemed necessary (table autopopulated from Wikidata, my liege?), and using relative terms (not lists of dates) when release windows warrant mention in prose. czar 06:07, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- If there was a clean way to do this for all existing game articles so that there would be two date parameters in the template, one for the first release date ignoring platform + regio (eg the one easily tied to Wikidata without extra work), and another to group the other releases as we normally do, then we can use the collapsible list format to show just the first release and expand to show the details, with the nice default that if there's only the one release date, there would be nothing to expand. But this would require editing/touching every infobox vg use to make sure it works correctly. --Masem (t) 18:44, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New Articles (December 14 to December 20)

 A listing of all articles newly added to the Video Games Wikiproject (regardless of creation date). Generated by v3.5 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 23:28, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Articles deleted: Doctor Who: Worlds Apart, Through The Wild Web Woods, Ending-Man Terminator, International Computer Games Association, Draft:MADELA (Video Game), Draft:Mobile Legends: Bang Bang Professional League (MPL), Sunday Driver (film), Draft:Untitled Minecraft movie
Articles redirected: Star Wars: The Best of PC, Video games in education
Categories deleted: Lists of Pokémon episodes
Templates deleted: {{Gamebox}}
New categories: Ace Combat spin-off games, Taito B System games, Taito F3 System games, Taito L System games, Taito SJ System games, Taito Z System games, Video games about genetic engineering, Video games scored by Michiko Naruke, Castlevania spin-off games, Female video game villains, Star Trek video games using TV cast members, Roblox, Air Hockey video games, CP System Dash games, CP System III games, CP System II games, Cancelled Capcom Power System Changer games, Capcom Power System Changer games, Mario Golf, Mario Tennis, Miniature golf video games, Video games scored by Naoshi Mizuta
New templates: {{Dunjonquest}} by Mika1h (talk · contribs), {{The Video Game Barnstar}} by Antonu (talk · contribs), {{Hebereke series}} by Nin91 (talk · contribs)

December 14

Aveline de Grandpré (edit talk links history) — Haleth (was previously a redirect)
The Wolf Among Us 2 (edit talk links history) — Gbgbgbgbj (was previously a redirect)
Amazon Luna (edit talk links history) — Amariokart (newly tagged - originally created 2 months ago)
Comparison of PlayStation consoles (edit talk links history) — RandomHashTags (newly tagged - originally created 30 days ago)
Open Roads (edit talk links history) — ElliesPoetry

December 15

Pretty Princess Party (edit talk links history) — Mgrid16
Omega Virus (edit talk links history) — 68.226.23.240 (newly tagged - originally created 15 years ago)
List of PlayStation Vita games (E–H) (edit talk links history) — NZFC
List of PlayStation Vita games (I–L) (edit talk links history) — NZFC
The Sims 4: Snowy Escape (edit talk links history) — Llewee
Asset flip (edit talk links history) — Zxcvbnm
Deckard Cain (edit talk links history) — Haleth
Desert Falcon (edit talk links history) — Dgpop
The Legend of Sword and Fairy 7 (edit talk links history) — Wikiabitbetter

December 17

Castlevania: The Dracula X Chronicles (edit talk links history) — Zxcvbnm (was previously a redirect)
Grindstone (video game) (edit talk links history) — FlyingKangeroo
Keywords Studios (edit talk links history) — Mr. Rapture
Faery Tale Adventure II: Halls of the Dead (edit talk links history) — JimmyBlackwing (was previously a redirect)

December 18

InkyPen (edit talk links history) — Kiapen (newly tagged - originally created 1 year ago)
Kiki Wolfkill (edit talk links history) — Nathalyruiz60 (newly tagged - originally created 3 months ago)
Paradise Killer (edit talk links history) — FlyingKangeroo

December 19

Alba: A Wildlife Adventure (edit talk links history) — FlyingKangeroo
CoreJJ (edit talk links history) — Prisencolin
Edward Kenway (edit talk links history) — Haleth (was previously a redirect)
Sex with Stalin (edit talk links history) — Devonian Wombat
Back 4 Blood (edit talk links history) — Babypoltergiest (was previously a redirect)

December 20

Autcraft (edit talk links history) — Spacetrain31 (newly tagged - originally created 3 months ago)
Blockeley (edit talk links history) — Greyjoy (newly tagged - originally created 1 month ago)
Jetfighter: Full Burn (edit talk links history) — Angeldeb82
List of SG-1000 games (edit talk links history) — NPI WOL
Mafia Kajita (edit talk links history) — Lullabying
Nintendo Quest (edit talk links history) — Jedidrunkenllama (newly tagged - originally created 4 years ago)

Yes, Pretty Princess Party is GA up there- made on Dec 2, nominated for AfD the next day, then saved by Alexandra IDV who tagged it on the 15th while expanding it, and it became a GA today. --Pres N 23:28, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is Comparison of PlayStation consoles really needed as a standalone? That seems something that should be in PlayStation. --Masem (t) 23:45, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Masem, I'd say it's pure WP:GAMECRUFT anyway. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 00:01, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I gotta say that the ammount of GAN articles waiting to be reviewed is getting ridiculous... Roberth Martinez (talk) 23:56, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It may be necessary to make another Review Thread soon. GamerPro64 04:46, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like these arcade system board categories. They're too specific and none of the boards are notable themselves. Namcokid 47 ^(Contribs) 18:24, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of best-selling PlayStation 4 video games

I don't see many of our more experienced project members in the page history of List of best-selling PlayStation 4 video games. I'm not really a PS gamer and I've only recently started to look at this list as it is being used as justification to try to update other lists that I do watchlist. There's two on going issues right now.

1) An updated sales figure for Spider-man keeps being added. The figure is sourced to an unreliable anonymous Twitter account, who quotes the LinkedIn profile of a former executive. This is completely unofficial and unusable. 2) The list is FULL of Statista sourcing. Statista is known to quote VGChartz and to essentially laundry unreliable sources like them. Unfortunately, Statista now hides their sourcing behind a paywall so I cannot confirm any individual usages, but all usages I have seen in the past before the paywall were cited to VGChartz.

The list needs some serious work by an experienced editor with PlayStation 4 interest. -- ferret (talk) 16:07, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can add it to my watchlist as one of my “don’t let this degrade even further” projects, but I won’t likely have the time to do the initial overhaul. Sergecross73 msg me 16:26, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that's usually where I end up. I have a multitude of lists on my watchlist that are there mostly to prevent further degradation. -- ferret (talk) 16:29, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Possible FA Submission, feedback request: League of Legends

Hey everyone. I think I'm going to tackle my first submission for FA in the next few weeks. I raised League of Legends to GA a few months back, because it was in a really bad spot. There was a lot of cruft, and very little proper referencing, so I added sections about the game in other media, spin-offs, its reputation for toxicity (important), and rewrote most of the article. If anyone would be willing to offer any feedback on the article as it currently stands, I'd be really thankful. It doesn't matter if you haven't been involved in FA promotion — everyone can vote, so everyone's views would be welcome (although obviously anyone with experience would be great). There's a few obvious pain points right now:

I want to remove every citation from Dot Esports. Although it’s valuable for sourcing some smaller games like Teamfight Tactics, and it’s part of our reliable sources, it’s really borderline to me. By the time I submit, claims solely sourced to that website should have their citations replaced or the statement removed.
The section about champions. There's very little reliable coverage about the characters of the game, and their kits. As a result, I'm going to (as I have started to do) focus on coverage related to them, instead of their in-game representation. So, for example, a recent marketing campaign for a champion gone wrong.
The section about esports is underdeveloped. I didn't do too much work to this section for the GA review, thinking at the time that it had its own article. Now, a thorough edit seems prudent, which I don't think should be difficult. Most of League's major representation in the mainstream media (like from The New York Times) tends to be about esports, given that it’s something of a novelty.

I saw Le Panini's recent nomination for Paper Mario: The Origami King, and some if it has been kind of brutal. One editor in particular seemed out of line to me, and I really hope that isn't the norm for FAC, but I just want to be as thorough as possible. Like I said, any feedback you have would be really welcome. ImaginesTigers (talk) 01:51, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would highly recommend a Peer Review before you come in swinging at FAC. Makes things easier for people wanting feedback anyway. GamerPro64 02:02, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I did get a WP:GOCE copy edit shortly before the GA nom, and I think they were pretty thorough. I thought they were maybe too generous about reliable sourcing, so a lot has been changed since then, too. Do you think there are any glaring problems that only a PR could fix? I won't object to it if it needs it, for sure. ImaginesTigers (talk) 03:05, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Think of it this way: Give FAC reviewers reason to feel confident in the article's quality before nominating. Remember that FA is the highest award of quality an article can get, and because there is pressure to "support" or "oppose" that promotion when reviewing, some may not review the article at all if they don't have confidence its been looked over by a few others. GAN is only one person's opinion on a vague set of criteria, and GOCE is more technical/grammar fixes. PRs are good because it's a casual invite to get more eyes looking at the article and offering comments, and the reviewers are not bound to "support" or "oppose" anything. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 04:29, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PRs can also be good because you'll (hopefully) get reviews by people outside of the video game area- FAC soft-enforces this (the coordinators usually won't promote a media article that's only been reviewed by editors who work in that area, they'll wait for at least one outside review), so it's helpful to see what kind of things a non-subject matter expert would get tripped up on. There's often jargon or explanations (mainly in gameplay sections) that rely on prior video game knowledge, and that can be hard to see yourself sometimes.

Also, no, that one reviewer at Paper Mario was a very odd anomaly. For a better recent example, see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sonic the Hedgehog/archive1 - if it's brutal it's because the reviewers really want to make sure that the article is as good as possible. GAN is about clearing a minimum bar; FAC is about not only clearing a bar but making everything as perfect as possible. My #1 advice for FAC (I moonlight as an FAC mentor sometimes) is to go into it expecting to get a ton of feedback, and not to take it personally- no matter how good you think an article is, you're guaranteed to get some strong or lengthy callouts. PRs help mostly by moving some of that feedback to pre-FAC, but most of all take it as a critique of the article, not of your editing skills, and critique coming from a place of wanting the article to be as good as possible, not to tear it down. --Pres N 05:43, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would also say with the exception of that one editor who’s oppose was dismissed as not being actionable in the Origami King discussion the rest of it doesn’t appear to be all the brutal.--65.92.160.124 (talk) 07:01, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks TarkusAB, PresN and GamerPro94. I think you're right — PR is a good idea here, so I've submitted it for review, asking specifically for someone unfamiliar with the game. Obviously, though, I will take whoever comes my way, and be thankful for the feedback. I totally understand wanting the article to be as good as possible — that's the goal here! I'll try not be worn down by the process, but I'm confident it'll be rewarding. Thanks for all the great advice. ImaginesTigers (talk) 15:34, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A possible cleanup task

User:IceWelder is going around converting redirects of "Steam (software)" to the proper "Steam (service)" but as these fill my watchlist, I'm realizing how many of them are for game articles. While there are some legitimate uses, we hardly should be mentioning Steam in game articles themselves (we do not care about storefronts unless this is raised by third-party sources), so there's a possible cleanup task here of stripping mention of Steam from game articles where it is unnecessary (eg where its being used as a place where the game was released with no other function). --Masem (t) 14:42, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree in principle, but this would be a monumental task, since Steam is used (or at least linked to) in 3,000+ articles. It is not something as simple as an AWB run. IceWelder [✉] 18:29, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be down, the problem is there at the time of writing, 2989 main articles that mention Steam by name, not including the service's article itself. You're going to need a lot of help. Captain Galaxy 20:06, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Using AWB it should be possible to narrow down by using "Steam (service)" as a text search for pages in Category:Windows games. (using the work that IceWelder has done). That might miss a few but that should avoid where Steam appears in general discussions on storefronts/distribution (appropriate use). --Masem (t) 20:08, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image request / assistance needed at The Ur-Quan Masters

Happy Holidays everyone. The Ur-Quan Masters is under review for good article status, and is more or less there. It needs an image of the game and for some reason I've always had trouble with the uploading interface. It's an open source game and there are tons of pics that are licensed to the public for non-commercial use. There's also some great images of the semi-notable HD mod (which is mentioned in the article several times, with citations to notable game journalists), and might better illustrate the community-driven nature of the project and its modifications. Adding an image would do me a big favor and help make the article better. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:23, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Klobb edit warring

Can I get some admin eyes on this article please? A group of editors are basically attempting to subvert the AfD process by converting the article to a bare redirect. A day after it became a Good Article no less. I'm fine with the article going to AfD if people think it's not notable, I'd be happy to defend it there. But this kind of thing is just WP:GAMING behavior._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 19:35, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

After the first redirect was contested, it should have become an AfD. I didn't care much for the article when it was pointed out to me, but for now the article should be restored until the nominator initiates a discussion and consensus is established. Edit warring over this is really silly; come on... there are better uses of time than this. ImaginesTigers (talk) 21:09, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No it shouldn't. WP:REDIRECT says: "Somebody made a page for a non-notable weapon in a game. It gets redirected for failing WP:N, then the article creator reverts it, then somebody reverts them, etc." Redirecting is a suitable alternative to deletion. An AfD seems unnecessary here. Namcokid 47 ^(Contribs) 21:25, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The third revert didn't even have an edit summary no less. At this point people are just trying to bruteforce to get their way._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:21, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, there should definitely be be a talk page discussion to see where consensus is, but our redirect policies do not necessitate an AFD discussion. In fact, while AFDs often do end in a consensus to redirect, the primary purpose is to see if an article should be removed entirely as opposed to merely redirected. A talk page discussion is the better way. Also, four editors taking the same position is a consensus, not a brute force attack. Its how Wikipedia works, though I agree its better to gain that consensus through a discussion rather than a small edit war. However, you are the one continually undoing the edits of others ZXCVBNM, so the onus is really on you to present your views and gain a consensus for your edit. Indrian (talk) 21:28, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let's discuss it at Talk:Klobb. ImaginesTigers (talk) 21:30, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, an AfD discussion isn't required. But containing the discussion solely to the talk page when it's essentially a !vote on soft deletion seems to me like WP:GAMING and avoiding the wider array of users who view AfDs as opposed to localized talk page discussions. Right now everyone linked to this bombardment of redirection seems to be voting for deletion, so why not go through the proper pathway for that?_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:52, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Except I do not think any of us wants the article deleted, which is the point of AFD. Klobb is a term that could be reasonably searched for by people interested in Goldeneye even if its not significant enough for its own article. Therefore, a redirect is appropriate rather than an outright removal that would cause such a search to come up empty. It would be a flagrant example of gaming the system if people interested in a redirect went to AFD when deletion is not what they are seeking. Indrian (talk) 22:14, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Talk:Clannad (visual novel)

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Clannad (visual novel) § Requested move 19 December 2020. Question at hand: is (visual novel) a valid form of parenthetical disambiguation for our articles? — Goszei (talk) 19:52, 23 December 2020 (UTC)Template:Z48[reply]

Template question

I recently noticed that we have a template for the StarTropics series which only has entires for the two games in the series. I question whether or not we need a two entry template.--65.92.160.124 (talk) 21:41, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 755: / Line 755: @@
 ::: Let's discuss it at [[Talk:Klobb#Time to establish some consensus.|Talk:Klobb]]. '''[[User:ImaginesTigers|ImaginesTigers]]''' ([[User talk:ImaginesTigers|talk]]) 21:30, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 ::::No, an AfD discussion isn't required. But containing the discussion solely to the talk page when it's essentially a !vote on soft deletion seems to me like [[WP:GAMING]] and avoiding the wider array of users who view AfDs as opposed to localized talk page discussions. Right now everyone linked to this bombardment of redirection seems to be voting for deletion, so why not go through the proper pathway for that?<sub><small>[[User:Zxcvbnm|ZXCVBNM]] ([[User Talk:Zxcvbnm|TALK]])</small></sub> 21:52, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
+:::::Except I do not think any of us wants the article deleted, which is the point of AFD.  Klobb is a term that could be reasonably searched for by people interested in Goldeneye even if its not significant enough for its own article.  Therefore, a redirect is appropriate rather than an outright removal that would cause such a search to come up empty.  It would be a flagrant example of gaming the system if people interested in a redirect went to AFD when deletion is not what they are seeking. [[User:Indrian|Indrian]] ([[User talk:Indrian|talk]]) 22:14, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 ==Discussion at [[:Talk:Clannad (visual novel)#Requested move 19 December 2020|Talk:Clannad (visual novel)]]==