Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 262: Line 262:
::::May I ask how you stumbled upon this discussion with only 11 prior edits, none of them related to templates or [[WP:VG]]? [[User:TheJoebro64|<small style="color:red">JOE</small>]][[User talk:TheJoebro64|<small>BRO</small>]][[Special:Contributions/TheJoebro64|<span style="color:#D18719">64</span>]] 21:18, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
::::May I ask how you stumbled upon this discussion with only 11 prior edits, none of them related to templates or [[WP:VG]]? [[User:TheJoebro64|<small style="color:red">JOE</small>]][[User talk:TheJoebro64|<small>BRO</small>]][[Special:Contributions/TheJoebro64|<span style="color:#D18719">64</span>]] 21:18, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
:::::I mean they make a good point, especially when you consider franchises like Kirby that are primarily handheld. [[User:(Oinkers42)|(Oinkers42)]] ([[User talk:(Oinkers42)|talk]]) 21:27, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
:::::I mean they make a good point, especially when you consider franchises like Kirby that are primarily handheld. [[User:(Oinkers42)|(Oinkers42)]] ([[User talk:(Oinkers42)|talk]]) 21:27, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
::::::To answer the question above I recently had a power outage so my IP was reset. As to how I found this, I am a video game fan and found this page some time ago so I often keep an eye on discussions here out of interest and sometimes chine in on ones that interest me.--[[Special:Contributions/67.70.24.37|67.70.24.37]] ([[User talk:67.70.24.37|talk]]) 21:38, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Revision as of 21:38, 26 July 2022

When to move draft articles

Has the VG community formed any sort of consensus on when it might be appropriate to move a draft article for an upcoming game? I've been working on Draft:Kingdom Hearts IV since it was formally announced in April 2022, and I think it passes WP:GNG by the sourcing alone, but it still is undated and has no indicated platforms of release. Don't want to make a move out of the draft space if someone would come back around and move it back. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:07, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel (as an experienced editor here) that it's good enough for mainspace, you can move it yourself. And I would tend to agree KHIV's page is sufficient for mainspace. --Masem (t) 16:16, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You can also submit it to AfC. There are a number of people who are AfC reviewers and have a better idea of when an article is ready for mainspace. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:40, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I should clarify, I have a host of experience judging/evaluating drafts and moving them, particularly for TV series and films, so no AfC necessary, I can make a move myself. The crux of my question was if VG community had set any parameters for allowing upcoming games (because I know every E3/State of Play/Game Awards/Nintendo Direct there are posts cautioning on article creations for newly announced games) in the same way TV and Film have WP:NFTV and WP:NFF respectively, using the start of filming as a guidance for moving. But it sounds like there really isn't and I appreciate Masem's comment, so I may move the article in the coming days. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:42, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, nothing more than the usual "does it meet the GNG" and "can it be merged to a series or earlier entry if there's little to be said" standards. Your KH4 draft easily clears that standard in my opinion. Sergecross73 msg me 17:49, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As long as it is more than "the game was announced...", ideally with a decent development start, in addition to the GNG factors, then it should be fine. This is definitely the case with the KH article you have. --Masem (t) 17:52, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks all. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:46, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pinging Masem Favre1fan93 Sergecross73 Zxcvbnm. I undid the archiving of this discussion, as I'd like to hear all of your thoughts using a very recent example which I discovered just a couple of days ago.
I refer to the page history for Citizen Sleeper. The entirety of its contents are two infoboxes, a one-sentence long lede, and two sentences for the reception. It does have an extensive list of references, all of it unused but placed under "Further reading", put in by the article's original creator, who appears to be unable or unwilling to make further contributions to flesh out its prose. After I became aware of the article's existence from the Wikiproject's weekly lists, I decided to move it into draftspace. My reasoning is that while the sourcing does indicate that the topic has the potential to be a standalone article, the actual article that was created is a very bare bones stub and to be blunt, I expected a better effort from another experienced editor. Other editors could also contribute to a public draftspace article too, if they have the time or motivation to do so.
Two weeks later, it was moved back into mainspace from draftspace, with zero improvements being made to expand it into a proper short article at the bare minimum. The rationale I provided for the draftspace move was noted but not accepted, with the list of unused sources under further reading referred to as a justification. So, what are all of your thoughts on this, within the context of the expectations and norms of the Wikipedia community? Anyone who consider themselves part of the editor "community" can and probably should take the initiative by doing their part to expand subpar articles whether in draftspace or mainspace, even if they are not personally interested in the topic, but at the same time I can't help but feel that some editors just expect others to clean up after them? Should it be sent back into draftspace again? Subjected to AfD? Merged into a tangentially related topic? Nothing to see here? Haleth (talk) 10:51, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why would you not ping @Czar to this? The only real bar to accepting a draft should be whether the topic is demonstratably notable with reliable secondary sources. Some consideration to whether or not it's clear UPE/COI/SPAM or COPYVIO as well. Unless, seeing this in mainspace, you would still considering PRODing or AFDing it as failing GNG, there's no point in draftspacing it. Draftspace hides articles from interested editors, as it doesn't pop up in normal searches, and also removes the ability to attract editor views through links, etc. I often have difference of opinion with Czar about notability (As do you and me), but "It's a stub" is not valid rationale for draft moves. "expect others to clean up".... Yes, to a degree. It's a collaborative project. Finding dozens of sources was work already, putting that work to paper for others to continue is valid. -- ferret (talk) 14:26, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is a good reason why I wanted to reopen the discussion, because of situations like these. Take, for instance, this diff here with @Sergecross73's decision to draftify Sign of the Sun because it was not ready to be published, due to the fact that there's hardly any content and the game was barely defined, but do note that no concerns about its notability was ever raised. While there were more sources listed for Citizen Sleeper, that still doesn't change the fact that it reads like an unfinished draft. The difference here is that Sign of the Sun was slightly expanded by its creator following draftication, and was later reintroduced back into mainspace after going through an AfC reviewer, whereas the original creator of Citizen Sleeper boldly moved it back into mainspace without making any improvements. I didn't ping Czar because I was preoccupied with getting the attention of specific editors who previously participated in said discussion and he was not one of them, but that is irrelevant anyway since no one else besides yourself have bothered to leave a comment and continue the discussion. Haleth (talk) 16:58, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, when I did that, the article looked like this. There was no meaningful content present, and the sole review presented, a hastily copy/pasted quote from a review - was rendered meaningless because they hadn't hardly even been defined to begin with. It was "This is a video game and one reviewer didn't like it", without even defining what the game was. No description of gameplay. Not even a vague note on genre. I don't do this much - mostly the extremely short articles created by a couple editors around here - but these sorts of articles are pointless. No one is informed by stuff like that. And they're incredibly obscure, so there's no reasonable suspicion it'll get better naturally either. Sergecross73 msg me 17:28, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, I'm not particularly supportive of the article created by Czar, and I'm kind of surprised he is too, with the high standards he usually has. But at least that article was for a game released a couple months ago with a ton more modern, readily available sources. Something like that is more likely to garner attention from others and get better naturally over time, unlike a game that has managed to go multiple decades without ever event attempting to be created. Sergecross73 msg me 17:37, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, I didn't restart the discussion to specifically scrutinize Czar's approach to article creation, but rather the issue of when is it appropriate to draftify an article that is in its present state clearly lack meaningful content for mainspace, and when it is appropriate to be moved back to mainspace by the original creator or AfC reviewer. I am sensing that your opinion on whether an article that is rushed or unfinished should remain in mainspace, hinges on whether the subject could be objectively assessed as obscure or otherwise? Haleth (talk) 04:00, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Czar's draft had 21 reliable secondary sources, which we can probably safely assume had probably been vetted by Czar. Despite the stub content, this clearly sets a passing score for GNG, and leaves tons for other editors to work on. Is it short? Is it a stub? Unquestionably, but a lot of research and effort is completed and there's almost no chance whatsoever it will go to AFD.
Sign of the Sun had 3 sources, and no further reading or content. This would be the bare minimum to maybe pass GNG, so the idea that it belonged back in draft for longer isn't that far of a stretch. Even now, after the attention brought to it due to this section, it only has 5 sources, which is unlikely to be deleted at AFD but honestly is less than I prefer to see.
The primary bar for an article is GNG. If notability can be demonstrated, a stub is fine. Would it be nice if it's more? Sure. But if the sourcing is there for the rest of us, that's half the battle. -- ferret (talk) 15:11, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I will add that I did Sign of the Sun because it was on the Request page. (and will be working on reducing the backlog there) Timur9008 (talk) 18:26 ,23 July 2022 (UTC)
Yes, but it's much more important to write coherent articles than it is to reduce that backlog of these super obscure games of little consequence. Sergecross73 msg me 15:29, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'm with SergeCross here. I'll reiterate that it still isn't about whether an article about the subject should be written in the first place because notability was never the issue here. It's whether draftspace is the best course of action in dealing with incoherent articles, and if editors like Czar are well within their rights to resist calls from other editors to at least improve their creations beyond a bare minimum stub length that is devoid of meaningful content, then I question why we even have a draftspace system or guideline procedures in place for articles to "incubate" in draftspace to begin with? Hence, "when to move draft articles", or should articles ever be moved into draftspace on any grounds at all? Haleth (talk) 17:05, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty much all of my draftspace moves are related to WP:N and WP:V calls. I guess I have nothing else to add here. It's certainly not really a WP:VG level question, you're asking why we have draftspace at all while forgetting WP:ACPERM. -- ferret (talk) 17:14, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oculus Quest & Quest 2 in video game infoboxes

Hi, articles such as Blair Witch include a listing of Oculus Quest and Quest 2 platforms and release dates. The Quest, unlike the Rift, doesn't need to conform to the "Windows, not Steam or Oculus Rift" infobox video game rule because it doesn't require a Windows system in order to be played. Should the listings for Quest & Quest 2 be kept in the infobox or should they be removed in favor of Windows? Venky64 (talk) 15:17, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have used the wording "Android (Oculus Quest 2)" in the past, since OQ runs on Android, but I don't know if this is the ideal way of handling it.--AlexandraIDV 09:47, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Amazon Luna release dates

I have started editing in Amazon Luna release dates into several pages as, but many of these games were made available during the Luna's own "early access" phase before its complete launch to the general public in March 2022. Can I still write in the days/months they were made available for the platform in the infobox? Most of them only specify the month and not the day, and publications don't cover release dates. Release dates for Luna games are exclusively covered by the official Amazon Luna Twitter account. Venky64 (talk) 15:19, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the service was in early access, if the games remained available i'd use the games release date on luna Masem (t) 16:21, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Weaver, software developer article updates

I made a few suggestions to help improve the article for Christopher Weaver, who created Elder Scrolls, but I have a conflict of interest and was hoping someone from WikiProject Video Games could review the requests for me? They can be found here on the Talk page:Talk:Christopher_Weaver#Help_with_Updates. Thanks. Ringside44 (talk) 14:21, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think @IceWelder would be the right person here. Timur9008 (talk) 21:20, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats all!

Congrats everyone on the Paper Mario: Color Splash and Ur-Quan becoming Today's_featured_article/recent_TFAs! Andrevan@ 00:25, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merger discussion for Wii Menu

An article which may be of interest to members of this project—Wii Menu—has been proposed for merging with Wii system software. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. SmartAn01 (talk) 08:27, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New Articles (July 11 to July 17)

Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements
 A listing of all articles newly added to the Video Games Wikiproject (regardless of creation date). Generated by v3.12 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 18:44, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

July 11

July 12

July 13

July 14

July 15

July 16

July 17

PresN 18:44, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Proto Man does not really seem to meet the notability guidelines. There is barely any information about concept/creation, and it relies entirely on listicles for the reception section. I am not too familiar with the Mega Man franchise though, but maybe it should be merged to List of Mega Man characters instead. OceanHok (talk) 05:22, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Moonjet again. I think a few people have mentioned in recent "de-merge" discussions that Moonjet may possibly require a AN discussion regarding their application of GNG to fictional characters. -- ferret (talk) 12:40, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For context, I was the one who boldly merged the page more then a week ago, and it's been in mainspace for a long time as opposed to being a recent creation. After MoonJet reverted me, I can see that they went to work right away to find sources which could serve as evidence that the character warrants a standalone page, so it is done in good faith. The merits of their editing efforts in this instance and whether there is objectively enough significant coverage about the character from reliable and independent sources are up to debate in an AfD or merge discussion, but I don't think MoonJet's actions in this particular instance is disruptive or warrants a drama board discussion. Haleth (talk) 17:14, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

Received a request to merge Advergame and In-game advertising (a B grade article) into the Advertising in video games article on 2 July 2022. Reason: All wikipedia pages refers to same(or mostly same) things, it could be merged under one title. Otherwise they will mainly means same things and eventually at least one of them will become directly duplicate page. ZeusAmmon1. Discuss it >>>HERE<<<. GenQuest "scribble" 02:58, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Having written on those articles, they are slightly different topics. Advergames are those wholly centered around including an advertizing gimmick, rather than simply in-game advertizing like signs on billboard. --Masem (t) 03:50, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merger discussion for Twin Famicom , Famicom Titler , Sharp Nintendo Television , and others[a]

Articles that you have been involved in editing—Twin Famicom , Famicom Titler , Sharp Nintendo Television , and others—have been proposed for merging with Nintendo Entertainment System models. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. SmartAn01 (talk) 04:15, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ New-Style NES , PlayChoice-10

Stray: Good Article Nomination

A user by the name of Rhain has gone ahead and added a substantial amount of quality information to Stray's page. I'm not sure how to nominate it for a good article; can someone review it and ensure it fulfills this criteria? Venky64 (talk) 14:04, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It should easily meet the criteria but a GAN should only be done by you if you are willing to fix any issues; otherwise Rhain themselves should nominate the article. The instructions are at WP:GAN/I#N2. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:52, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Venky64: I plan to nominate it in due time. For now, I feel it's still a little too unstable, considering the game's recent release, and therefore doesn't sufficiently meet the GA criteria. – Rhain ☔ 14:57, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You also seem to use many of the citations from the original reception table in the article, but the table itself has been shortened for some reason. Would it be okay to reinsert them back into the page? Venky64 (talk) 17:41, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
More than ten is excessive and unnecessary. This discussion should be taking place on the article’s talk page. – Rhain ☔ 00:00, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Copies or Units

Something I wanted to bring up ever since an editor changed this at Sierra Pro Pilot 98: The Complete Flight Simulator. [1]. I changed it back to units since that's what it said in the source. Which should we use Copies or Units in Sales sections? or what is stated in the source? Sorry if this feels as a unnecessary topic. Timur9008 (talk) 16:06, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I personally go with “copies” since it’s easier to understand. “Units” is industry jargon that may not make sense to readers IMO. JOEBRO64 16:32, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I also prefer "copies", because 1) I think it's the more plain-English approach 2) "units" sounds like it just means physical copies 3) it's consistent with other media, like copies of novels. Popcornfud (talk) 16:37, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Copies. Units just sound like you're reading off an investor's relations document. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:26, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer "units" for the same reason that some are preferring "copies": it's truer to the standard business lingo which analysts, accountants, etc use, which will make it closer to the source. "Copies" sounds more colloquial, but not in a good way IMHO. Also I think "copies" has more currency in the era of physical copies versus digital downloads. Andrevan@ 19:36, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You think "unit" fits better for download sales than "copy"? Even though people make copies of digital stuff all the time? Popcornfud (talk) 19:55, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think "units" is more general for encompassing "downloads" as well as "physical copies." Technically a download is a copy of a file, so I guess it's not wrong either. Andrevan@ 19:58, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Temperature check: Categorizing video games by creator

This came up in the WP:DISCORD a few days ago (not raised by me!), but wanted to have the discussion on-wiki for transparency, plus I think Discord has disproportionately more category-hostile types that can fuzz a sense of consensus. Are Category:Video game characters by creator and its subcategories valid categories?

The argument in favor of the category is that as long as Template:Infobox character has a value for "creator", we might as well stick it in a category, too. Plus, there's already Category:Fictional characters by creator, so might as well have this for consistency.

I'm not so sure, however. Category:Literary characters by writer is about characters that indisputably flowed from the mind of one person: Agatha Christie wrote Hercule Poiroit, full stop. This is very rare in video games - even Miyamoto had a team when making Super Mario Bros. 1. While gaming media will sometimes discuss the "creator" of a character, this is simply shorthand, and it doesn't have the same implication the literary sense has. Matsuno did not "create" Vaan (Final Fantasy) in the same way that Arthur Conan Doyle created Sherlock Holmes - Matsuno had ideas and an entire team created Vaan. Other writers and artists were involved. Vaan might be unambiguously a Square Enix character and a Final Fantasy character, but he's not 100% a Matsuno character. And that's a "strong" case where Matsuno clearly did have quite a bit of influence; Category:Characters created by Shigeru Miyamoto includes plenty of characters that I would wager to bet that Miyamoto did like 0.5% of the work on, essentially playing the role of "Executive Producer" where he is just signing off on the team's work. Basically, I think this category might be valid for characters from true indie games with one person driving them: Creeper (Minecraft) was made by Notch, Sans (Undertale) was made by Toby Fox, etc. It's not valid for wider projects. For example, we currently have Mortal Kombat characters in Category:Characters created by John Tobias and Category:Characters created by Ed Boon (with many characters in both), but is that accurate? Did Ed Boon really refuse to touch Johnny Cage and made Tobias do all the work on him? Seems doubtful. (And heck, that infobox creator credits the martial artist who originally portrayed Johnny Cage too, Daniel Pesina - correctly, in my opinion, the actor was clearly a huge part of the role, it wasn't just the producer.) And that's a case where the development staff was just 4 people on the first game, which you'd expect to be an "easy" case, but it isn't.

Anyway, categories have (well, should have) a much stricter criteria than just any infobox value. What makes a good infobox mention doesn't always make for a good category: categories should be defining, and categories should be unambiguous. I'm not convinced this is so important as to be defining, and it's often ambiguous as to how much "creation" should be credited to any one person. Just credit the company (Category:Sony Interactive Entertainment characters, etc.) instead, only crediting individuals when they are the company, and make Category:Video game characters by company the replacement subcategory of Category:Fictional characters by creator if there's a desire to have a replacement.

I would be particularly interested in hearing from editors who voted to keep the "categorization by fictional location", as that might clarify whether this case is sufficiently different as to be worth nominating at CFD, since Discord (mostly?) agreed that category was sketchy, but see above about how Discord's consensus doesn't always line up with on-wiki consensus. SnowFire (talk) 20:38, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I find crediting a video game character to a singular person to be utterly pointless. In your Poirot example, Agatha Christie came up with the concept of who he was, decided what he looked like, and wrote every thought, speech, and action that he took. Which part of that was the "creation"? Because for most video games, that process involves at least three distinct people - the character designer, the artist, and the game's script writer - and as you note, any one of those three is possibly (probably) a team of people instead, if not all three. Vaan was "created" by Matsuno - except that Akihiko Yoshida actually designed what he looked like, and even our own article notes that he designed him differently than Matsuno had envisioned him. And the story was written by Miwa Shoda based on Matsuno's concept, but the actual script (including all of Vaan's dialogue!) was written by Daisuke Watanabe... and then after it was all written the character design was changed again because Kouhei Takeda did the voice acting and motion capture differently then the design and they decided they liked it enough to keep. Sooo... who created him? Which singular person gets the honor of having Vaan in a "Characters created by X" category?
Well, given that our current fiction-by-x and fiction-about-x category schemes are a morass of strung out nonsense that no humans would (or could) reasonably use because Wikimedia tried to use categories instead of more complex tags, I suppose the only consistent thing to do is to actually stick him in five categories, one for each person that I named. (/s)
Tl;dr: we should delete the entire Category:Fictional characters by creator tree. And then start chop down several other useless trees in the same vein. --PresN 23:56, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you both for reasons already well articulated above. The list of characters to whom one single creator can be attributed to their creation is vanishingly small and would likely not be enough to support categories. Auteur theory as it applies to video games is generally discredited at this point. There is no need to reproduce it in category form on Wikipedia. Axem Titanium (talk) 02:42, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also agree with this. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 12:17, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merger discussion for Wii Fit Plus

An article which may be of interest to members of this project—Wii Fit Plus—has been proposed for merging with Wii Fit. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. SmartAn01 (talk) 06:10, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review of Tender Claws and notability for game developers

The entry for the indie game development company Tender Claws was recently deleted, and I have initiated a deletion review as I think they're clearly notable - but the person leading the deletion review argues that the company is not notable as there is not enough coverage, only of the apps (games, interactive experiences etc) that they have created. Here is the original AfP discussion and the last version of the article before it was deleted.

Are there any guidelines specifically about notability for game developers? I would imagine most developers have little coverage about the company as such as most coverage would be about their games? I would really appreciate people with knowledge of games and wikipedia weighing in on the deletion review and whether or not Tender Claws should have an entry. --Lijil (talk) 13:18, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's only NCORP. It's not really appropriate IMO to shop around about a DELREV. -- ferret (talk) 13:21, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I wasn't meaning to shop around, I am genuinely trying to learn the rules here which are not clear to me. Is there any info about what makes a game developer notable per Wikipedia? Lijil (talk) 13:34, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
.... WP:NCORP. This AFD ran the proper course. -- ferret (talk) 13:37, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New Articles (July 18 to July 24)

Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements
 A listing of all articles newly added to the Video Games Wikiproject (regardless of creation date). Generated by v3.12 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 18:11, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

July 18

July 19

July 20

July 21

July 22

July 23

July 24

PresN 18:11, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Console and Handheld separation in Video game series templates

I do not think it is a good idea to keep console games and handheld games separate in video game series templates, especially with hybrid consoles like the Nintendo Switch. For an example, look at how Template:Donkey Kong is currently set up:

It has the main series divided by platform, regardless on their playstyle. What I propose is division more dependent on the series itself, and how it is generally viewed. A good example would be Template:Metroid with its division more there to separate out the Prime subseries. An idea for Donkey Kong is to either separate out the Arcade style games (Donkey Kong (video game), Donkey Kong Jr., Donkey Kong 3, and Donkey Kong (1994 video game)) into a Classic or Arcade-Style group. Another potential idea is to do separate the games by eras (Arcade, Rare, Post-Rare). I just really want to avoid future conflicts, especially if the console game system and handheld game system continue to merge together. @TheJoebro64: @ArmosNights: (Oinkers42) (talk) 14:26, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It likely depends on a per series basis. Masem (t) 14:32, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, and that is what I am encouraging, but the console/handheld division seems almost unusable nowadays. (Oinkers42) (talk) 14:35, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't see what the issue here is. There were arcade Donkey Kong games, console Donkey Kong games, and handheld Donkey Kong games. Splitting them up both makes sense and aids navigation. The Metroid comparison doesn't work because there was never a concrete division between the handheld and console games as there is with something like Donkey Kong or Sonic, and the Switch being hybrid is irrelevant because it's still primarily considered a home console and you wouldn't call a game that's playable on Steam Deck a "handheld game". (There isn't even an exclusive Donkey Kong game on Switch!) Your central argument - that Donkey Kong '94 is different from the other handheld games and thus should be grouped with those released in a different format - falls apart considering that Donkey Kong 64 is totally different from the Country games but you aren't questioning that at all. As I've repeatedly stated, this is trying to find a solution to a problem that no one is having. JOEBRO64 16:01, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why I proposed the idea of the era separation. Also, future proofing is not really a bad idea. (Oinkers42) (talk) 17:06, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Future proofing" is WP:CRYSTALBALLing, and "era separation" strikes me as WP:OR (not to mention that the "eras" aren't really distinct; Donkey Kong '94 and Country came out the exact same year). JOEBRO64 20:46, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is not really WP:OR when they are distinct and objective, Arcade era is pre-Donkey Kong Country, Rare's era is the games made by Rare (company), Post-Rare is simply everything made after Rare was acquired by Microsoft in 2002. Also, future-proofing is not really WP:CRYSTALBALL, it is just being prepared so a debate like this does not have to happen again. (Oinkers42) (talk) 21:10, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think it makes sense depending on what the series is. It's not something I'd start up for a modern game series, but for ones that started in the 80s and 90s - Sonic, Mario, Donkey Kong - there was a very big difference in perception when it came to their console and handheld games. The Sega Genesis Sonic games are very often discussed together, and both visually and conceptually, I don't think it would be helpful to blend all the Sonic Triple Trouble's and Sonic and Tails entries in between the major Genesis ones. Same goes for all the handheld minor Land entries of Super Mario and Donkey Kong on handhelds being amongst their major SNES entries. Sergecross73 msg me 16:46, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely. For many series that began in the '80s/'90s, like Mario, Sonic, Donkey Kong, Kirby, and Zelda, there's a clear distinction between the console and handheld installments. It doesn't make sense to group the smaller handheld games like Sonic Chaos or Donkey Kong Land alongside the big budget games like Sonic 3 and Donkey Kong Country. For navigational purposes, it makes far more sense to separate them. JOEBRO64 20:30, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Then how do you handle bigger budget handheld games like New Super Mario Bros. and Super Mario 3D Land, also the distinction makes it seem like the handheld games are lesser. (Oinkers42) (talk) 20:40, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are also cases where separation of console and handheld games wouldn’t make sense in the case of Metroid two of the dedicated handheld games are actually part of the mainline series (2, and Fusion).--67.70.24.37 (talk) 21:05, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
May I ask how you stumbled upon this discussion with only 11 prior edits, none of them related to templates or WP:VG? JOEBRO64 21:18, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I mean they make a good point, especially when you consider franchises like Kirby that are primarily handheld. (Oinkers42) (talk) 21:27, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To answer the question above I recently had a power outage so my IP was reset. As to how I found this, I am a video game fan and found this page some time ago so I often keep an eye on discussions here out of interest and sometimes chine in on ones that interest me.--67.70.24.37 (talk) 21:38, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games&oldid=1100623969"