Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 67.70.24.141 (talk) at 23:57, 15 September 2021 (→International game releases). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Merging List of works by Shigeru Miyamoto into Shigeru Miyamoto

I removed the extraneous entries per the above discussion and this list is now down to under 40 entries (~1 page of screen height). I think it might be worth merging back into Miyamoto's main page. Most game directors have their works list on their page itself so you can see it easily without needing to navigate elsewhere. I don't think the WP:SIZESPLIT reasoning outweighs the benefits to keeping the info in one place in this case. Axem Titanium (talk) 03:27, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dissident93, Electroguv, Indrian, and Rhain: As recent editors on this list, any input on this topic? Apologies for ping. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:52, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're always welcome to ping for a response. I'd support such a merger with the caveat that we simplify it even further by just listing their role instead of having checkmarks on top of it (which is something that film director articles tend to have but seems tacky to me). Basically it would look like it does on Hidetaka Miyazaki's article, but I'm not sure if other editors prefer such minimalistic tables like I tend to. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:58, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Dissident on the ping, the merger, and the table. I'm familiar with the simpler method at Neil Druckmann and Bruce Straley and I think it makes more sense for games (though I don't feel too strongly either way). – Rhain ☔ 23:00, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just passing by, but I think the simpler method is better. It's more similar to filmography tables, and it doesn't require a forgetful reader (i.e., me) to scroll back up and down to keep track of which column is which. I also agree that a merge looks warranted. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 23:19, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Same here as regards the ping, it's a matter of course. As for the merger, I think that the issue needs to be considered beyond the question of simplifying the material's presentation. According to WP:AUTHOR's criteria of notability, a biographical article should underline the impact of the article subject's contributions to a recognized medium, as opposed to a citation of their assorted contributions, and, per WP:SUMMARY, the notability of the major subtopic (i.e. Miyamoto's softography) warrants standalone coverage. As it stands, the primary article about the creative professional seems to fufill the impact overview prong, and describes the career milestones of Miyamoto's work in extensive detail, so the inclusion of an embedded list would just come down to a derivative reframing of the information already stated in the body, essentially amounting to padding. Thinking in terms of the filmmaking analogy that has been suggested, this case bears comparison with the examples of Akira Kurosawa and James Cameron's articles, wherein the citation of works is either rendered as a separate article (as in the Kurosawa entry) or as an abridged article section giving only the directorial credits with reference to an isolated list of works (see Cameron's article). Methinks that the second avenue is particularly well-judged as a given model, as it doesn't overwhelm the reader with a barrage of items of information and manages to outline the essentials of an artist's career while suggesting that there is further substance within the separate topic about that person's body of work (as is clearly Miyamoto's case). So I'd suggest considering the merit of those alternative scenarios rather than going with the merger option headfirst. To put it otherwise, I'm rather inclined to think that less is more in the case at issue. Electroguv (talk) 08:03, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good, I agree with merging. If the lead paragraph is gonna merge with the table, please mention his Creative Fellow role nowadays. It'll help explain some gaps. Panini!🥪 12:19, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merging is fine by me. Indrian (talk) 14:34, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all the feedback everyone. I've completed the merge. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:28, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Merge: Twin Famicom, Famicom Titler, and Nintendo Entertainment System

Hello editors. It has been proposed that the articles Twin Famicom and Famicom Titler be merged into the article Nintendo Entertainment System. And at least one of those articles is within the scope of this WikiProject. If you would like express support for or object to the merge then you are strongly encouraged to do so at the talk page for Nintendo Entertainment System. Thank you! --SmartAn01 (talk) 17:48, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New industry award to track?

The International Game Developers Association (IGDA) ran the inaugurial Global Industry Game Awards (GIGA) in association with part of Gamescom this last weekend. (See [1] and [2] for example.

Given that we've gone through in the past to remove some of the lesser known awards, I ask if this if this award would be different given that it is by one of the larger organizations in video games rather than some small entity. (I've documented they do these awards but haven't made a separate page for them yet). --Masem (t) 05:26, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wasteland: Possible Good article?

The article for Wasteland (video game) is solid, in my opinion. I'm thinking of nominating it for Good article status. I wonder if editors more experienced with video game articles think it is a worthwhile nomination. What do you think? Vivatheviva (talk) 17:06, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

From a very quick first glance, the sourcing in the gameplay section is rather spotty and the reception section is a WP:QUOTEFARM. The development section could probably use some expansion using the Retro Gamer source mentioned on the talk page. Regards, IceWelder [✉] 17:15, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@IceWelder: I've been trying to get my hands on the Retro Gamer source, but I can't find a copy. I'll keep digging around. As for the gameplay section, what is ideal sourcing for gameplay? Thanks for your insight! Vivatheviva (talk) 17:26, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Vivatheviva: As to the gameplay sourcing, previews and reviews can do, the manual if there is one can give you some detail stuff if needed. No wikis. --ProtoDrake (talk) 17:56, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@ProtoDrake: Excellent. Thanks for the tip! Vivatheviva (talk) 18:00, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Retro Gamer issue was uploaded in full to Issuu. You probably won't be able to cite the URL but the magazine easily works without it. IceWelder [✉] 18:09, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, great. I'll get on that. Thanks! Vivatheviva (talk) 18:20, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Vivatheviva, It's on the right track! I might give you some comments before you go for GA. Please remember that User:Saynotodrugs12 is the article's top editor (well, User:SNAAAAKE!! is up there too but they've been banned for a while now), so make sure you consult with them before nominating. Panini!🥪 14:25, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Panini!: I'm new to this process, so thanks for the heads up! Also, I would love your comments. Vivatheviva (talk) 15:27, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for entries at a new table at Indie game

at Indie game#Successful indie games, I've started a table to list those games that are confirmed to have sales of 1 million or more (this is a starting cutoff - it may need to be pushed higher if many examples exist of that). Note that this should be sales confirmed through RSes - not only mentioned by twitter and not repeated in RSes, and not estimates like Steam Spy. Me and other editors have added major examples, but if anyone knows of other indie games that would fit this criteria, please add as appropriate. Again, if there's too many entries on this, I'm going to cut off the lower bound minimum (looking like this may be 2 million now) but to at least collect data, 1 million seems fair. --Masem (t) 23:45, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Digimon Survive release date

Digimon Survive was claimed to have been delayed to Q3 2022, however this was a misunderstanding by the sources. Toei stated the game had been delayed to Q3 2022 yes, but this means fiscal year, not actual year. in the report where toei stated that's when the game would release page two explicitly states that the time period they are reporting their earnings on is Q1 2022 with that period covering being April - June 2021. that means Toei's Q2 2022 is July - September 2021 and their q3 is october - december 2021. im listing here as people keep listing the game with a 2022 release date when nothing has stated this outside of people misunderstanding the difference between fiscal year and actual year including the sources. I brought here because ive already reverted this three times back to 2021.Muur (talk) 18:14, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We should rely on reliable, third-party sources to interpret these projected dates, not perform our own analysis or calculations of what fiscal dates might mean. So we've got "Fiscal Year 2022 Q3 and Beyond" from Gematsu and "Q3 2022" and "a release window of July 1 – September 30 2022" from NME, although Nintendo Life says it might be sooner. Woodroar (talk) 18:44, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Considering all of the other sources says 2022 and Nintendo Life theorized that the rating could suggest it may come out earlier we should change the date back to 2022 on the Digimon Survive page until we get something more concrete regarding a 2021 release.--67.70.24.141 (talk) 20:00, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
the sources are wrong though like I said. and really, toei have nothing to even do with the game in the first place. they maek teh anime and have nothing to do with the video games. bandai's official website still only says 2021. the sources misunderstood toei's report and didnt read it properly. toei anitmation stated "q3 2022" which is the period I stated and bandai still list 2021 on their site. 2022 is just going with misinformation from one source reading the report wrong and the rest doubling down on it. like I said, toei literally state in their report that q1 2022 is april - june 2021. there's no "might", toei literally said it. "2022年3月期第１四半期決算（連結）this translates to "First quarter financial results for the fiscal year ending March 2022 (consolidated)". they say 2022 and assumed, and assumed wrong.Muur (talk) 20:08, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The gematsu source does state that "Fiscal year 2022 ends on March 31, 2022.". so gematsu have pointed out the game will release in late 2021 or early 2022, based on that we should prob change it to "TBA" since it could be either year. what gematsu have sated here is that fiscal 2022 ends in march 2022, so going backwards thats jan - march 2022 (q4) and october - december 2021 (q3) like I said. gematsu's source actually backs up what I said.Muur (talk) 20:14, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Final Fantasy Tactics

I am hoping to bring Final Fantasy Tactics back to FA standards so that it can be Today's Featured Article on the game's 25th anniversary in June 2022. However, I have never written a video game FA and I don't know if anything is missing in the article. Can some experienced video game writers read through the article and either help fix it up or post their concerns on the article's talk page? If there are any concerns or questions, please do not hesitate to ping me. Thanks, and I appreciate the help. Z1720 (talk) 21:46, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720, I'll take a look and see if I notice anything. I have a few video game GAs so I might be able to see something. Toa Nidhiki05 12:16, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The only immediate thing on a quick glance (not detailed) is that for such an influential game, its development section is somewhat thin, and I would encourage trying to find more articles about it if you can to build it out more. It might be difficult given age and being a Japanese game, but that I would encourage. --Masem (t) 14:12, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720: I've been doing some work on the dev and music sections. Expanded it, and also tweaked the gameplay --ProtoDrake (talk) 14:24, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New Articles (August 30 to September 5)

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 v3.8 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 19:10, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

August 30

August 31

September 1

September 2

September 3

September 4

  • None

September 5

Best way to display complicated publisher information in Infobox video game

Hello all,

Bit of a painting the bikeshed question, but... how should games that have different publishing status by platform (rather than by region) be represented in the infobox? The documentation on Template:Infobox video game says to use {{Video game release}}, but that's really more set up for by-region explanation. This is especially notable for the various games that are released on Windows / Steam / GOG / etc., as Steam will only list a single publisher worldwide (and this is.. probably accurate? Although weird side deals may still be at work, so maybe Steam is Just Wrong in some of these situations, too, but then we'd need a reference for what really is correct.). For a FA example, Zero Escape: Virtue's Last Reward currently lists:

| publisher = {{vgrelease|JP|Chunsoft|NA|[[Aksys Games]]|EU|[[Rising Star Games]]}}

But that is arguably not quite correct, as the bundled re-release of it on Windows was solely done by Spike Chunsoft, at least according to Steam (but the North America PS4 bundle was still released by Aksys!). So should that really be something like:

| publisher = Nintendo 3DS / PlayStation Vita / Playstation 4<br/> {{vgrelease|JP|Chunsoft|NA|[[Aksys Games]]|EU|[[Rising Star Games]]}}Windows<br/>{{vgrelease|WW|Chunsoft}}

? This might be a lot less friendly for Wikidata or for algorithmic intake (e.g. Google search a game name + publisher, and if a single VG Release is used in the infobox, Google will understand it properly). Or should vgrelease be expanded to handle weird cases like this explicitly? Or should such technicalities be skipped? Or just use raw text input? I'm inclined to think that the above style should be fine, but happy to hear other's thoughts on this. Pinging User: MaksimFisher on this, who had another idea for how to handle publishers that I don't really agree with as far as using footnotes, but might be worth airing here to see if there's a consensus for it. Note that I suspect that this will be a fairly common issue, as many games have both a PC release (with a single publisher) and a console release with separate publishers by region. SnowFire (talk) 23:22, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If it gets more complicated than one or two publishers due to region/platform, I would stick all the rest into a footnote and leave only the publisher of first printing in there. This is pretty much true for any potentially busy field. --Masem (t) 23:28, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Generally would say Footnote as well, but if you really want to display all... {{Video game release}} is most often used by region, but can be any list of paired data. In a less complex example, you could do:
| publisher = {{Vgrelease|Nintendo 3DS|Chunsoft|PlayStation 4|Aksys|Windows|Chunsoft}}
You could also nest, though this would be a tad ugly, and I'm not sure if the output is considered 100% kosher, though in the in it's all Module:List building the actual lists.
| publisher = {{Vgrelease|Nintendo 3DS / PlayStation Vita / Playstation 4|{{vgrelease|JP|Chunsoft|NA|[[Aksys Games]]|EU|[[Rising Star Games]]}}|Windows|{{vgrelease|WW|Chunsoft}}}}
More often, probably a {{Ubl}} with {{Vgrelease}} nested:
| publisher = {{ubl|Nintendo 3DS / PlayStation Vita / Playstation 4|{{vgrelease|JP|Chunsoft|NA|[[Aksys Games]]|EU|[[Rising Star Games]]}}|Windows|{{vgrelease|WW|Chunsoft}}}}
There's a couple ways. The last is what I'd expect to typically see. Also with the platforms generally bolded. If you use Vgrelease to specific platforms, I recommend linking them, as that prevents Vgrelease from trying to resolve them as country. See my sandbox for quick samples.-- ferret (talk) 23:33, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me! SnowFire (talk) 02:53, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is my opinion that infoboxes should be as simple as possible, since it's one of the first places readers check when opening an article. I'd try to put the primary publisher and footnote any minor ones if possible. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 02:41, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, this isn't so much about minor publishers as it is about cases where the way the major publishers split their duties wasn't a simple region breakdown - in the example above (not actually the cause of the discussion, just a sample), Spike Chunsoft is the publisher in Japan for consoles, and worldwide for Windows, so how to express that (Spike Chunsoft overall is definitely too important to go into a footnote!). The argument might well be that the PC port is then too minor and should go in the footnote - but there's definitely plenty of examples of the reverse, where a game is mostly sold on PC and gets a minor console port, and then what? SnowFire (talk) 02:53, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@SnowFire: Having seen the example at Bravely Default 2 now in your contribs, there's also this path I've seen before:
| publisher = {{Video game release|JP|[[Square Enix]] {{small|(Nintendo Switch)}}|WW|[[Nintendo]] {{small|(Nintendo Switch)}}|WW|[[Square Enix]] {{small|(Microsoft Windows)}}}}
One issue in all these cases is the platforms end up being listed 3-4 times in the infobox. -- ferret (talk) 03:20, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I know this isn't the main point of this post, but I just want to add that per MOS:SMALL, we should avoid reduced font sizes in infoboxes for the sake of accessibility, since they already have smaller text than the article body.--AlexandraIDV 03:55, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point, and see other contributors give valid suggestions. I just don't like seeing platforms be mentioned three (or more) times in unbulleted lists: platforms, releases, and now publishers.

Square Enix has this thing with Nintendo where the latter publishers their game outside of Japan: Octopath Traveler, Dragon Quest Builders 2, The World Ends With You, etc. In Bravely Default 2's case it's 2 platforms, but in some cases it gets ported to many more. I don't think we should we list all of them so many times, every title mentioned uses footnotes just fine. We can mention that in the lead as well, as we did in BD2's article MaksimFisher (talk) 06:19, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See, the examples here just doesn't make any sense to me, where the regional publisher is hidden in a footnote. The entire point of the Publisher field is to say who the Publisher was. Why move it elsewhere? It's not like it's a long digression, either, that needs to be removed for space - it's just a single extra line. If Nintendo published Octopath Traveler outside Japan, then just say so. (Note that in the FA example above, which I was arguing should be expanded if anything, the NA / EU specific publishers were mentioned. If this is a common pattern with Square Enix, well, so be it. Say this at each of the SE / Nintendo published games, don't hide it!) SnowFire (talk) 14:22, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Realistically, a game only has one publisher -- and that publisher may have partners that helps with regional distributions (There are known exceptions here). Its similar to the idea that most games have only one major singular developer (again, with some exceptions), and while there are often handfuls of studios that help, that's just excessive detail for the infobox and why we recommend putting that to footnotes and the body. Remember that we're aiming for a general audience, not gamers, and most people only care about the basic principles here. --Masem (t) 14:43, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I'd think that the general audience would be more interested in the publisher than the "gamer" audience. (The gamers just care about the game, but random people who read the business press might want to know about the corporation that made money off of it - see the very famous mix-up when Nintendo's stock went up after the smash success of Pokémon Go, only for stock traders to realize a week later that it was Niantic who was actually the developer & publisher.) Anyway, I think this could be an argument to exclude publisher entirely from the Infobox (as well as a lot of other "minor" fields like game engine), but if we mention the publisher(s), then I don't see the harm in listing all the publishers. The Infobox is exactly where all these details are expected to be stuffed: it should be complete and accurate. I suppose I will grant that in the cases where the regional distributor is truly minor in role, I can see the argument, but how frequent is that? To go back to the example from the start, Aksys did the English localization of the Zero Escape series, so they're a very notable player in the production of the games - especially since they did better worldwide than in Japan. Excluding them would be a mistake. If the publisher list truly does get long, then it can be a collapsible list. SnowFire (talk) 17:48, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
most of the time the publisher is more relevant than the developers. the publishers even do all the marketing and usually are the ones who own the IP.Muur (talk) 22:39, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Right but this is usually the main publisher where the game is first published. Eg for the Persona games, Altus does all the work where Deep Silver and Sega may have a very small hand in that factor. --Masem (t) 19:46, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
sega are actually worldwide publishers for all atlus games now that they own atlus. not that it matters i suppose in this, just wanted to clarify. it took them a while to start it, but they now are the sole publishers of atlus gamesMuur (talk) 03:25, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sales vs Player Count

I was checking Indie_game#Impact_and_popularity and I noticed Undertale was at 1 million sales, however on the article itself mentioned that the game had at least 3.5 million players with a source from here [1]. I was just curious and wanted to know do we count sales numbers and player counts as equals or mutally exclusive, at least with list like the one Indie Game. Thank you for your answers. CaptainGalaxy 19:31, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sales and player counts are mutually exclusive, in that player counts will include sales, but also can include free giveaways, users that play the game via subscription services, and other factors that don't tie to sales. Also, with that specific list from Ars Tech on the Steam data leak, that's based on effective Steam Spy estimates which we do not want to use for counting sales on that Indie Game list. I do expect Undertale specifically to have sold more than 1M by now but we simply don't have updated valid data for it. --Masem (t) 19:45, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Development/release of Hogs of War

Hi guys, hoping someone might have some insight on this - anyone know where I can find some development or release info for Hogs of War? I took a look earlier, and found some basic press releases and one interview, but not much else. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:02, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is this interview referring to the remake of that game? Google Translate is shaky so it's hard to tell. Panini!🥪 21:09, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's just about the remake. Regards, IceWelder [✉] 21:59, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is a two-page making of in Retro Gamer 103. Regards, IceWelder [✉] 21:59, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(Lee Vilenski). Panini!🥪 22:05, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PSG.LGD

Hello. What is the notability guideline justifying the inclusion of PSG.LGD on the English Wikipedia? Otherwise I think it can be merged into PSG Esports. Please ping me when you answer, and if you have other questions, please leave a message on my talk page. Paul Vaurie (talk) 01:48, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request for review at FLC

Hey all, in addition to video game editing I'm a delegate over at WP:FLC; over there we have a video game list List of League of Legends media, which has been sitting in the nomination list for over 3 months without a lot of attention. The nominator, Gultejp, seems to have vanished back in June, shortly after nominating the list. Normally I'd close the nomination at this point as a lost cause, but it's a pretty solid list as far as I can see that could easily be an FL, so I wanted to ask here first if anyone was willing to either review it or help fix any issues so we can push it over the edge? Also pinging ImaginesTigers, the resident LoL article expert. --PresN 22:38, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll pick it up later in the week if Gultejp doesn't show back up but I won't be claiming the star; it belongs to the list's creator and main editor. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 14:01, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(I will gladly take the credit for doing nothing if you don't.) Panini!🥪 14:20, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've made some changes to the article. Happy to pick up any items that get brought up at FLC. I love stars. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:53, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New Articles (September 6 to September 12)

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 v3.8 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 20:21, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

September 6

  • None

September 7

September 8

September 9

September 10

September 11

September 12

Aunt Arctic Adventure

Does anyone have access to the non-English sources listed in this article? 8.37.179.254 (talk) 20:22, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's listed below? Timur9008 (talk) 15:16, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wish to inquire about the reliability of NME

Last year in eraly October I wrote the article Celeste (video game) in my home wiki (zhwiki), which was promoted to GA in late December. Looking back at the article I wrote then, I find that I may want to further expand the development section. While searching for revelant news I came across a website called "NME". I have never heard of that website and I could not determine the reliability of this site. A quick search in WP:VG/S did not give me the result. The piece of news in question is this. I would like to hear your opinion about this website's reliability.

With regards, Milky·Defer >Please ping me while replying to me... 12:41, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NME is a perfectly acceptable entertainment reliable source. It doesn't usually touch video games (hence not covered in VG/S) but they are well established in covering anything in the world of entertainment and arts, so go ahead and use it. --Masem (t) 12:44, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh that sounds pretty nice. Thank you very much. Milky·Defer >Please ping me while replying to me... 13:18, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
According to its page, NME been around for a very long time, since 1952. Haleth (talk) 13:36, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, its it's a long running print magazine too, that tends to cover music more than video games. Kinda like Rolling Stone magazine. Games aren't their focus, but they'd still be a reliable source for it. In the music world, they'd be comparable to how we at WP:VG would see a GamePro or Electronic Gaming Monthly type source - a veteran of the industry that started as a print magazine. Sergecross73 msg me 15:01, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sergecross73, Dude, it literally says to ping him while replying to him. How will he ever know you responded to his question? Gosh, the nerves of people nowadays. Panini!🥪 17:44, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment

Following a content dispute, I've created a talk page entry on the Mechwarrior Online article to explain my problems with recent additions primarily in relation to sourcing. Any input would be greatly appreciated. Eik Corell (talk) 19:24, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

International game releases

I have a question: is it acceptable to list non-English release dates? I see for games like Persona 5 Strikers, which had a non-Japanese Asian regional release (China, Korea, Taiwan), the release dates aren't listed in the infobox, but for games like Magia Record, they were listed anyway. lullabying (talk) 01:11, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

English regions only, except for the region of the developer. See {{Infobox video game}} for full documentation. Many articles list release dates in the infobox they aren't supposed to. -- ferret (talk) 01:21, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Lullabying, The big three I always go for are North America, Europe, and Japan. Other ones (like Australia, Korea) I shun against. Like ferret said, I only go for Japan because it's mainly Nintendo content that I write about. Panini!🥪 11:28, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That seems like the best solution. The one exception I could see would be if the game in question was created in Austria or Korea.--67.70.24.141 (talk) 23:57, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games&oldid=1044574992"