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 37.163.43.189 (talk) at 14:29, 3 September 2022 (→‎Should this lead provide detailed information, quoting people?: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconVideo games Project‑class
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles
ProjectThis page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Help needed

Hi. I've been doing an expansion/rewrite for Arc Rise Fantasia, and I've just finished with the plot section. And...I'd really really really appreciate someone else having a look to perhaps trim and tidy it, but I've completely reached my limit with how bonkers and needlessly convoluted it is. If it ends up being a top-down rewrite, that's fine I don't care. This plot can just go die in a hole. ProtoDrake (talk) 22:42, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ProtoDrake: Yeah... I would recommend you trimming it down, if it's causing you so much trouble. Roberth Martinez (talk) 23:09, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Remind me if it looks like I forget, but I can help with this article next week. Sergecross73 msg me 00:21, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Sergecross73:Hey there! Are you going to help with the plot section of Arc Rise Fantasia? Just a reminder :) Roberth Martinez (talk) 21:17, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blockbuster rental lists

I haven't been getting answers to the two questions I posed in the Jagged 85 cleanup thread, so I'm turning one of them into a proposal: I propose deleting the Blockbuster Video rental lists from all the "[year] in video games" articles. Cat's Tuxedo, who added all these listings, indicated in the Jagged 85 thread that the only reason he has for thinking Blockbuster's lists represent the most popular rentals of the time is that initially they used the heading "Top Ten Video Game Rentals". While it's understandable that one might jump to the conclusion that these are store rental records from that heading, it hardly contradicts the more natural interpretation that these are just lists of the games Blockbuster was hyping at the time. Said interpretation is also supported by the following:

  1. The lists routinely include games that hadn't been released yet, and in some cases were never released.
  2. The "Top Ten Video Game Rentals" heading was dropped in favor of "Hot Sheet!" or "Hot Rentals".
  3. The lists offer no figures or other data. They're just bare lists of ten games for each platform.
  4. The lists were typically published at the beginning of the advertising section which ends each issue of GamePro.
  5. The month each list is labeled with is the cover date of that issue of GamePro.

Moreover, even if we pretend that it's possible that thousands of people rented unreleased games through Blockbuster, and that Blockbuster would publish formal rental figures under magazine cover dates with garish headings like "Hot Sheet!" and no indication that these are rental figures, these lists still seem rather useless. The fact that they are labeled with the cover date means we don't even have any idea what month they were really compiled, just a best guess.

Pinging Cat's Tuxedo and TheJoebro64 as possibly interested due to their participation in the Jagged 85 thread. Martin IIIa (talk) 23:23, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In light of the points raised, I have no objection to the lists being deleted. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 23:55, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would even posit that the rental figures of one specific company – even one as major as Blockbuster – might not be suitable for our year lists? That's subjective, though, and I think the points raised are enough reason to remove them. It sounds like advertising to me. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 06:14, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That would align with the music content area's stance though, which documents things like national album/song charts, but not company-specific charts like iTunes or Spotify charts/stats. Sergecross73 msg me 12:05, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'll go ahead and remove them. Thanks for the responses, everyone. Martin IIIa (talk) 15:22, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with BB excluding the lists if that's the only source. But in following from music articles, if secondary sources had reported a game as a top rental from BB, that can be mentioned but to the secondary source. Masem (t) 15:29, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently there is, better yet, a list of top rentals for all rental chains compiled by the Video Software Dealers Association. Unfortunately at the moment we only have that info sourced for four months of 1996 in video games. I'll try to keep an eye out for any coverage of that info in reliable sources. Martin IIIa (talk) 15:38, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Should we mention Nine Hours, Nine Persons, Nine Doors in Rupert Sheldrake?

Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake#Popular_Culture_section, for the interested. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:08, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sheldrake is important to 999 and the rest of the Zero Escape games, but I don't think the reverse necessarily would be true - we can find some sources that are about ZE and mention Sheldrake, but could we find good RSs that bring up ZE while discussing Sheldrake?--AlexandraIDV 20:12, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like it would be WP:TRIVIA. Wikipedia is not TVTropes and does not need to list every instance of someone being mentioned in media, unless it made a vast impact, and I'm not sure that was the case with Zero Escape. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:15, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Review thread...I don't know, but there's a lot.

Following on from a suggestion made above, I've decided to create a review thread. Things have been...complicated in the world over the past several months, so it's not all surprising that there's been a bit of backlog building up. But I think it's best to set to and make sure we've all got some idea of what ones still need tackling.

FAC
GAN
PR
Article assessments

As per usual, there is a backlog at the Request board, pushing six to seven years now we're in 2022. My noms in the list above are Orta, Sacnoth and DQIX. I'm already reviewing Forza Horizon 3 GAN. ProtoDrake (talk) 15:49, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A great deal of the request board should be purged. Many of the entries simply link to Mobygames or even archive.org searches, rather than presenting the exact sources that would represent in-depth coverage per the request board's instructions. If a game linked to mobygames for 6-7 years still hasn't been created, the bottom line is no one who reviews that board or works to create articles felt the sourcing was there. We certainly have plenty of people who regularly create stubs for older games, and yet these don't move. -- ferret (talk) 17:02, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree. There's really no realistic expectation that someone is going to come along and create an article for an inconsequential 20 year old edutainment game that scraped by the bare minimum of the GNG. I dont care if we delete it or not, but I don't think any real importance should be placed on it. Sergecross73 msg me 17:07, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think the requesters should at least explain to people what the game is and why they are significant. Simply putting down the name of the game and then adding a bunch of sources next to it is not enticing to anyone who is looking to create articles. I believed most editors have no intention of clearing that backlog anyway, especially when the requesters themselves don't even bother to explain why they should be created. OceanHok (talk) 16:15, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Donkey Kong Country was promoted to FA just today, so it can be crossed off this list. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 18:07, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I decided to assist with Dragon Quest IX, Crash Bandicoot: On the Run, and Trails (series).Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 21:14, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Resident Evil Damnation

After its copyedit, a user, Nyxaros, suddenly reverted most of the edits. Please see Talk:Resident Evil: Damnation#Reception for the discussion. Tintor2 (talk) 15:09, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Romancing SaGa: Minstrel Song

It's happened again. I know this is bringing up an issue that happened previously, but an article for the Minstrel Song remake of Romancing SaGa was split into its own article. AKA, the information was copy-pasted into an article that looks like a Wikia. Also, the "move disucssion" wasn't a discussion at all as there was no proper proposal that we could interact with here, and the user who proposed/made the split and the two who supported it all came into existence at the same time. I'm calling shenanigans. Opinions/help appreciated. ProtoDrake (talk) 12:29, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article was also formerly split by a banned sock from 2021 by the way. It seems almost certainly like ban evasion and sockpuppetry so I don't think any action is necessary besides reporting it and waiting for the ensuing ban. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:49, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. It's almost certainly Suriwashi block evading. ferret, you blocked them last time. Do you agree? Sergecross73 msg me 14:23, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A report would be good, but I've no idea how to do this properly. I looked at the instructions and just got nervous. --ProtoDrake (talk) 14:25, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry about it. Unless ferret tells me I'm way off base, I'll probably just WP:DUCK block him. It's a rather specific scenario. It's hard to believe two relatively newbie editors would have the same interest of doing this the same way... Sergecross73 msg me 14:38, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to revert this, @ProtoDrake. I'm still working through the CU but over 7-8 blocks are incoming, this guy is everywhere. Confirmed as AquilaXIII. -- ferret (talk) 15:18, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sweeping complete, all of Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of AquilaXIII needs reviewed really. -- ferret (talk) 15:37, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Video Games Publishers

A submission was declined on 23rd August 2022 for Numskull Games. This is quite a reputable publisher who has a close working partnership with Spike Chunsoft. Is there anyone out there who has experience with Video Games publisher pages? The sources used here do seem in-line with other Publisher articles on Wikipedia. (Rising Star Games, Wired Productions, Super Rare Games for example are all existing with similar sources cited.) Markflynn000 (talk) 09:54, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Other people will probably chime in but I wanted to stress that a reputable company can still absolutely fail Wikipedia's notability criteria for corporations, because trustworthiness and notability are two totally different things. I can run a neighborhood plumbing company that always does the job incredibly well, but if local newspapers have not mentioned me beyond my own advertising or passing trivial mentions, I would not merit a Wikipedia article, it would simply be WP:PROMO for my company. All I saw with the current sources is simple announcements without WP:SIGCOV. If others disagree, however, they are welcome to mention the sources I am missing. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:13, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think the confusion on my part is largely stemming from other publishers existing on the platform following almost the same criteria. Hence my post here to try and determine if there's something else the original page could use based on others experiences... Markflynn000 (talk) 10:49, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just because something is "there" doesn't mean it is notable or would stay on Wikipedia if given a WP:PROD or nominated for deletion. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Articles for Creation is just a way of confirming up front if it's acceptable rather than waiting for the inevitable AfD. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:08, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying it's impossible, but it doesn't really help that they're mostly just distributing and not developing or publishing most of their games. That's not going to lead to very good coverage, as there's probably not a ton to say about them. This aligns with the current status of the rejected draft, where you couldn't even really write in paragraph form because it's mostly just a listing of disparate factoids. It's just a bit under-developed. I'd look to some better examples for help. Look for WP:GA articles like Rare (company) or Monolith Soft for guidance, not the fringe examples you listed above. Sergecross73 msg me 11:20, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"it doesn't really help that they're mostly just distributing and not developing or publishing most of their game"
Numskulls most recently fully published title (Final Vendetta) has a lot of coverage from big sources (Gaming Bible, The Mirror, The Star, NME, Nintendo Life) etc, from previews, to reviews, to features on its soundtrack. Could that help the pages chances? I was under the impression that I needed to try to keep the page company specific. I think the biggest level of confusion is stemming from some of our sources being deemed 'trivial' whereas by that nature every single games publisher on Wikipedia should not be using PR related news beats. Which in itself is where almost all games news originates from. Is it possible to have guidance on this?
It's not that I couldn't write in paragraph form... I wrote in that style based on the similar companies that I saw had approved pages... To me it made sense to look at what similar companies were doing rather than monoliths such as Rare and well, Monolith. I could also add sections dedicated to partnerships with Independent studios and Spike Chunsoft similar to how the Rare page is structured if you think it could be beneficial.
Appreciate the advice. Markflynn000 (talk) 11:55, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think the primary issue is, whether the sources are mainly about the game or the company developing or publishing it. Final Vendetta does not have an article yet, but it's undoubtedly notable and should have one. In those sources, the publisher is only mentioned in passing and the announcement is that the game is getting something like a boxed release. Sources that would indicate notability for the company would need to be predominantly about the company itself. I can't really find anything like that, since it's largely just "Numskull Games announces X" where the article is about what they announced. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:26, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like we are arguing semantics slightly.
Final Vendetta is a product of Numskull Games, its marketing, distribution and coverage is as a result of the efforts of Numskull Games. How can that be undoubtedly notable when the publisher is not? The game does not exist in its current state without the publisher.
As a games publisher press will be solely related to game launches (games press don’t often write about companies individually unless lets face it, they are bought or acquired, you will see in the draft that Numskull Games was mentioned as a company when it was created, in fact this article is actually referenced in Rising Star Games verified Wikipedia page too [3] in the references). Numskull Games in its current form can really only provide press for its game launches (such as with Final Vendetta, where it was digital and physical distributor), partnership announcements (like w/ Spike, Limited Run Games) etc. I can provide these for more titles & others if that will help the pages chances. Markflynn000 (talk) 13:05, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of the creative aspects of video games, the publisher has little input into them so we rarely give the publisher much attention. Hence just claiming they had a major role in marketing the game doesn't help. We need independent secondary sources that talk about the published more than a name drop as part of a game release. Publishers like Limited Run Games have that as there has been interest in their release model. Masem (t) 13:11, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We aren't talking purely creative or marketing. We're talking physical production, adding the product to digital store fronts, selling it to wholesale and retailers. Can you explain how Final Vendetta is notable but the company isn't? Markflynn000 (talk) 13:38, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any sources that go into depth about this distribution and marketing? It is assumed that distribution and marketing is always part of a game's release making the publisher's role trivial, and hence non notable. The cases of pubs like Limited Run, Devolover, or Annapurna all have in depth discussion of the unique roles in financial and development support, or marketing, or distribution. That is what you need for thus publisher. Masem (t) 13:45, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to touch on this point some too. Take Anonymous;Code for example. It's an interesting game with an interesting development history. But Numskull didn't make the game or make any decisions on it. They're merely distributing it in Europe. There's really little relevant there as far as notability or content goes for Numskull. And I think that's kind of a recurring situation... Sergecross73 msg me 13:38, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Sergecross73 You are credited in the edit history of this page. Can you explain what is different about this page that makes it suitable for approvable? It's genuinely very confusing at this point, given all the responses above. If someone is able to explain the distinction it'd really make this clearer. Seems random at the moment. Markflynn000 (talk) 14:04, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you're referring to this edit, I believe that was just me cleaning up after an editor who was spamming an unreliable source (Nintendo Soup) back in 2019. I don't think I was really checking the article over for notability when I did that. I'm not 100% certain that article would survive a deletion discussion if it got proper scrutiny, honestly. Like I said, I think you should focus less on trying to emulate these D- level articles that may not be safe themselves... Sergecross73 msg me 14:26, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think the likes of Atlus West are worth comparing to. They are known for their approach to localizations and the care they take over them. If Numbskull also have a reputation for things like that, and it can be sourced, that would be something to raise them above being just a publisher. - 13:44, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

A lot of people have already given good advice from other angles so I'll just put this off to the side. It appears that you have declared a connection to the company so it behooves me to point you to Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing#Articles about companies and organizations. Having a Wikipedia article is neither a badge of honor nor a promotional tool. Your COI declaration means that any text you add will be more scrutinized than most to root out any hint of self-promotion. If you still wish to continue, I would search for third-party sources (i.e. no self-published press releases or game website articles that are lightly edited press releases) that describe the unique role that Numskull Games plays in the development process that is not merely the routine business of game distribution. Routine mentions in articles that Company X published this do not establish notability unless they actually make note of some unusual and noteworthy aspect of the business. Finally, notability is not WP:INHERITED from notable products that the company has published/distributed, nor is it inherited from notable people involved in the company. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:49, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Numskull (or Numskull Designs) (2012): Designing, manufacturing and distributing licensed gaming, movie and music merchandise globally.
  2. Numskull Games (an offshoot / label of Numskull) (2019): Publishing, marketing and distributing unique video games digitally and physically.
  3. Quarter Arcades: Creates replica range of Arcade cabinets by renowned collectors.
  4. TUBBZ: Range of duck-related collectible products.
  5. Pin Kings: Premium hard enamel pins covering brands in pop culture.
  6. 4 other brands [3]

Sega Retro resource

I'm sure many of you already know about this resource and/or have contributed to it, but I wanted to ping Sega Retro as it helped immensely with a recent article. The site contains in-depth information about any number of obscure Sega games and has done the grind to collate a bunch of useful sources (with handy PDFs attached to the page you want). E.g. see here the entry on a paint program called Art Alive! which includes 21 reviews plus a couple of manuals and print ads.--Coin945 (talk) 11:42, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sega Retro is one of a family of "Retro" projects, the others are Sonic Retro and NEC Retro, though NEC appears sort of neglected. They all pull from the Retro CDN scan depository which if you aren't browsing already, you are missing out. TarkusABtalk/contrib 15:29, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source question

Hi. I recently saw a source called TheGamer being used on Space Channel 5 to source the recently-announced movie adaptation. I did assume it was, but my edit was effectively reverted without actually using the undo button. Quite aside from all the problems SC5 faces with questionable representation of sources I've seen happening, is TheGamer actually usable as a source? I also saw it being used for Panzer Dragoon II Zwei. TheGamer don't seem to use anything original, and seem to me more like TheExaminer or N4G than anything reliable. I couldn't find anything on the project source page about it. Opinions? ProtoDrake (talk) 14:48, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is on the page, you must have missed it. It says "News posts and original content after August 2020 are considered generally reliable." ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:58, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Current consensus is reliable as ZXCVBNM notes, though I disagree. I believe all Valnet properties should be treated situational at best, i.e. ScreenRant and GameRant. My personal recommendation to anyone who's working on sourcing for GNG is to give up if Valnet appears in their primary 3-5 sources. -- ferret (talk) 16:19, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in the same boat. I use them sparingly only when I have to. They churn out a lot of garbage and clickbait through those outlets. Sergecross73 msg me 17:16, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's on my list of sources of last resort. Other outlets will do a higher quality job in virtually all cases. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:26, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all the input all. It's good to know. Don't think I'll do anything about SC5, because I don't want to find myself in disputes with fellow editors over ultimately trivial details (Lord of Fantasy and Haleth seem gifted at pushing my buttons). But I'll be able to judge my responses better with future occurrences. --ProtoDrake (talk) 18:48, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But you still can't help but be passive aggressive about it, in a discussion that is unrelated to the grievance you took up with me on my talk page. I've fixed my mistake, so you can calm down now. I was simply interested in salvaging whatever viable content that is unused from the bold redirected article as per WP:ATD. Also, I was not the one who added the citation for "TheGamer", so don't lump me together with an editor who clearly has competence issues. If you still have a problem with using that source, just find an alternative RS that also reported the same thing. Haleth (talk) 17:21, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New Articles (August 15 to August 21)

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 v3.13 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 20:41, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

August 15

August 16

August 17

August 18

August 19

August 20

August 21

PresN 20:41, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soda Popinski (2nd nomination) was relisted at DRV. Please comment to generate a more thorough consensus. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:45, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

War of Rights AfD

Hey folks, I'd appreciate if any video game experts can take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/War of Rights. My understanding of WP:VG/RS is that a lot of video game sources out there aren't reliable for Wikipedia's purposes, but I'd love additional eyes on the sources being shared there so I can withdraw the AfD if applicable. Thanks! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:09, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure if you are even supposed to be posting this. My understanding is that AfD's have strict voting rules, particularly with the issue of canvassing. AfD's are literally advertised at the top of this project page, along with GA/FA/article review nominations. It's really up to individual editors to choose whether they wish to participate in any given discussion, so it shouldn't need individual editors to purposely draw attention to an AfD unless it is necessary to provide context for another discussion, like an ANI thread or deletion review. Haleth (talk) 17:26, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is perfectly fine. It's a neutral request for experienced editors to give an opinion on the sources presented, as he (the nominator) is planning to withdraw IF they are reliable sources. -- ferret (talk) 17:27, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Canvassing is only a targeted request towards certain users, although if you are uncertain an AfD should be done you can always just add a notability tag and move on. If you are at the point of doing an AfD you should hopefully be certain it's not notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:11, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Specifically, a targeted request towards certain users with the goal of a specific result. This is simply a request, by the nominator, for experienced editors to help vet the sources that have been presented in the course of the AFD in regards to reliability. -- ferret (talk) 18:37, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Haleth: Ferret is right on the money above; I tried to make sure the message complied with all four green stipulations at WP:INAPPNOTE.
@Zxcvbnm: Before I nominated the article for deletion, I did several combinations of Google searches with relatively fruitless results... with hindsight, I was clearly not searching with the right terms. (Even the comprehensive Vice article didn't appear!)
Regardless, I came here as there are clearly more resources out there on the game than I found, and I'd love to get this project's opinions on whether enough of them qualify as significant and reliable sources that count towards the notability standard. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:47, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The top 10 most cloned videogames

Some video games were so influential they spawned entirely new genres. Some of these genres have distinct names, others are called "____ clones", and others still are on Wikipedia with the suffix "(video game genre)". Generally the original developers created sequels/ports of the game which can live in a "(video game series)" or "(franchise)" article, but also if a core design mechanic became copied by numerous others devs there should be way to house them all under the same roof. I'm listing here the 10 articles in Most Clones Videogames article by Den of Geek so we can explore how these genres are represented on Wikipedia (which ones require their own articles?) and perhaps create some consistency: --Coin945 (talk) 19:00, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Space Invaders - Fixed shooter [redirect]
    fixed shooter (Q96146284) --Jean-Fred (talk) 17:15, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Pac-Man - Maze chase game or Dot eat game (Japanese name)
    List of maze video games Ben · Salvidrim! ✉
    maze chase (Q11322721) --Jean-Fred (talk) 17:15, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Qix - Line-drawing puzzle game OR Puzzle arcade game OR Qix (video game genre)
    Qix#Clones Ben · Salvidrim! ✉
  4. Tetris - Falling block puzzle game [redirect] or Tetris clone [redirect] or Tetris (video game genre)
    falling block puzzle game (Q10308060) --Jean-Fred (talk) 17:15, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Defender - Side-scrolling shooter [redirect]
    scrolling shooter (Q1037904) --Jean-Fred (talk) 17:15, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  6. World Of WarCraft - MMORPG
  7. Commando - Run-and-gun shooter [redirect]
    run and gun (Q60480500) --Jean-Fred (talk) 17:15, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Kung-Fu Master - Side-scrolling beat 'em up [redirect]
    side-scrolling beat 'em up (Q2281709) --Jean-Fred (talk) 17:15, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Donkey Kong - Platform game
  10. Chess - Computer chess or Chess (video game genre) or Chess in video games
    Chess is not a video game genre, or a series of clones, it is just a real-world game that has several dozen digital versions. Computer Chess is not about a specific computer game adaptation of Chess, it is about the history and concept of the ability of computers to play the real-world game of Chess. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉
    Note: Currently we have List of chess software and Comparison of chess video games--Coin945 (talk) 19:48, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Please note: Lunar Lander (video game genre), Snake (video game genre), Monopoly (video game genre) and Olympic games (video game genre))

Coin945 (talk) 19:00, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would be very careful of using Den of Geek for an RS for this purpose. Also being from 2011, this doesn't b account for a lot of mobile games (eg Flappy Bird). --Masem (t) 19:05, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's not meant to be comprehensive, but an opportunity to look at some case studies. I analysed other media for the genres they spawned and potential article titles. Definitely think there's a place for Flappy Bird clone.--Coin945 (talk) 19:08, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You need to be really careful with what you are prposing as genre names. Whike there are a lot if Tetris clones, the genre is properly tile-matching game. Masem (t) 19:13, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think that Tetris has been so influential that the 'genre' deserves its own article, rather than stuffing it into an article with other games like Bejeweled which operate very differently and don't have the exact same lineage. We actually already have Category:Falling block puzzle games for this genre.--Coin945 (talk) 19:24, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You need to show sourcing exists, not that there are a lot of clones. Eg we can get away with GTA clones due to numerous sources discussing it like a genre. Or Soulslike for dark souls styled gameplay. Some you are proposing I am doubtful that sourcing exists for those terms in depth. Eg as discussed above Tetris in classified already as tile or falling brick game. Masem (t) 19:39, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That being said, I'm absolutely willing to consider that there might be enough sigcov in RS'es and academic research to make Falling block puzzle game into its own standalone genre article, spun out from its "parent" genre Tile-matching video game. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 19:52, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That or that we need to identify these categories like falling-brick, match-3, and merge style in sections on Tile-matching video game... but thats beyond the scope of this discussion ...though several possible categories Coin has identified could be added to broader genre articles in that same manner Masem (t) 20:34, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't particularly think any of these are generally considered their own genre. They do happen legitimately sometimes, but I think most of those instances are already taken care of - Soulslike, Metroidvania, etc. I don't particularly think any of these need to be created, and suggestions like Chess or Monopoly as a genre are particularly confusing to me. They already fall under the banner of a digital board game. Sergecross73 msg me 19:58, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It could also be that many of these genres were created such a long time ago and have evolved over the years that it no longer feels like platformers are 'Kong-style games' as they were originally called [3], but just part of the platform game genre. This was a time when video game literature was still in its infancy and larger historical significance of game genres and broader trends in mechanics wouldn't have been as acknowledged. For comparison, Metroivanias became popular in the 2000s while Soulslikes began after the game's release in 2011.--Coin945 (talk) 20:15, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
References

References

  1. ^ a b Altice, Nathan (2015). "Chapter 2: Ports". I Am Error: The Nintendo Family Computer / Entertainment System Platform. MIT Press. pp. 53–80. ISBN 9780262028776.
  2. ^ "Gorilla Keeps on Climbing! Kong". Computer and Video Games. No. 26 (December 1983). 16 November 1983. pp. 40–1.
  3. ^ From the Platform game article: "Donkey Kong spawned a number of other games with a mix of running, jumping, and vertical traversal, a novel genre that did not match the style of games that came before it, leaving journalists and writers to offer their own terms.[1] [1]Computer and Video Games magazine, among others, referred to the genre as "Donkey Kong-type" or "Kong-style" games.[1][2]"
In the very short period after a games release there may be a number of pieces that call them X clones...but if such games continue to evolve but the term never comes up again then its probably not a recognized genre term. Eg. They may have been "tetris clones" but clearly other terms have been used. Note that I have no problem with pages like the list of Tetris variants. On which dozens of notable versions cane out, even though that is not a formal genre. Masem (t) 20:25, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • My stance on the video came concept of a 'clone' is ambivalent, but I don't think Den of Geek should be used as the only source, or the primary. I've used it once or twice for interviews, nothing more if I could help it. Besides, we already have a Video game clone article which can be expanded and sourced. I agree that it's a topic that merits discussion, just not splitting off into its own articles except when they go beyond the scope of clone such as Serge's examples above. --ProtoDrake (talk) 20:10, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The point that our coverage of genres is all over the place is well taken, though this particular list is a little nonsensical in terms of defining genres—maze games existed before Pac-Man, MMORPGs predate WoW by 13 years (and were a natural extension of MUDs, which go back 13 years prior to that), and Chess isn't so much a genre as it is a game in and of itself. Also odd to talk about game clones and not mention the most famous ones by that name, Doom clone and GTA clone, and much more so roguelike, which is still the name of the Rogue (video game) clone genre. --PresN 13:08, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with the above that if we're going to start pages on "clones", there needs to be enough news coverage and preferably scholarly analysis to do it. Many games typify a genre for a time and other games are referred to as that (such as "Halo clones" and the attempts at "Halo killers" back in the 2000s before Call of Duty) but that doesn't mean that the game itself is standalone notable outside of its own existence to such a genre-defining degree we need an article. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 17:03, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Images in navboxes part 2

Seems like the other discussion on this was archived, but should other forms of images (in this case, non-logos) also be removed from navboxes like at Template:Sega Genesis? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 17:19, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, for the same reason. Why does every case of this involve the same editor? -- ferret (talk) 17:58, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone ahead and removed the images from the rest of the game hardware navboxes. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 10:38, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback on the Antimatter Dimensions draft?

This is a draft I have been working on. Unfortunately there are not that many good resources on the game. Most of the relevant information is in the fan-made wiki.

I tried my best to describe the outline of the game. I did try to make sure most major parts were included. Unfortunately that's pretty much the only section of the game which appears to be documented. Most of the aspects of the game is community-based, and there is pretty much nothing online from any publishing, nevermind reputable ones.

I'm sure this article can be made better, but resources have completely stumped me.

This is the right talk page for asking about this, isn't it? If not please direct me to somewhere better. Tungster24 (talk) 18:44, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tungster24 The most severe issue is that not a single reliable secondary source is in use. The custom google search at WP:VG/S may help you find something, but most likely the game is not notable and does not pass WP:GNG. (I've actually played it). -- ferret (talk) 18:47, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I looked through all of the resources, and then looked at the ones in other languages with the equivalent of "Antimatter Dimensions" in their language.
The only thing I found was a single source talking about the very beginning part of the game. Well... if I find something relevant, I'll try to add it. Tungster24 (talk) 19:24, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
From the existing sources, and a general search for sources, the game seems non-notable. Wikipedia is not a promotional tool whether for yourself or others, so no matter how good a game is, it requires mentions in reliable sources that Wikipedia cannot provide on its own. That is the job of the game's creator and how well they can market it or otherwise make it better known. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:41, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I Oppose this article creation. It looks like a neat game with a dedicated fan base. But until it is covered in third party reliable sources, we can't write an article about it. As Zxcvbnm said above, it's the job of the game's devs to promote their game, not us.--Coin945 (talk) 02:51, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right. Can I keep it as a draft? Tungster24 (talk) 12:38, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    YOu could as a memento of your work, but unfortunaly it looks like it won't become a mainspace article anytime soon and will have to stay in Draft-land.--Coin945 (talk) 13:37, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Drafts are eventually deleted if left as-is. Per WP:STALE, you should also not keep a draft in your userspace if it has "no potential" for a viable article. You can always just save the WikiMarkup in a document somewhere on your computer in case it ever becomes notable and request deletion of the draft. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:43, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How should we handle Seasonal updates?

I'm currently reviewing Crash Bandicoot: On the Run!, there is a section dedicated to updates. Some of them are substantial, while others are just seasonal events. In this situation. How should we handle them? Depending on what we determine, we may need to update the MOS for these kinds of things.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 20:50, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Usually such things would count as WP:GAMECRUFT unless they are major updates that add significant things to the game. However, Wikipedia is not for exhaustive logs of software updates. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:46, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A little bit of synthesis can also be acceptable in a case like this, along the lines of (for example, I haven't read much) "every month in 2021 saw a DLC update featuring new skins." ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:03, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
if secondary sources cover the seasonal content, then its fine for us to detail it as with Fortnite or Overwatch. but if it happens with no fanfare in the media, it should not be documented heavily and summarized as suggested above. Masem (t) 09:22, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New Articles (August 22 to August 28)

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 v3.13 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 14:33, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

August 22

August 23

August 24

August 25

August 26

August 27

August 28

PresN 14:33, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Expected year in short description for upcoming videogames?

The manual of style states that the common short description for a game is "<year of release> video game" (WP:VG/SHORTDESC). What about upcoming games?

I would argue that since an upcoming game should be categorized with "Category:Upcoming video games scheduled for 2022" and not "Category:2022 video games", it would be coherent to avoid mentioning the expected year of release in the short description.

What do you think about it? ► LowLevel73 (talk) 07:57, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's always a level of uncertainty with the release date of an upcoming game. You can't communicate whether a date is 10% certain or 99% certain in the short description. I recommend just sticking with "upcoming video game", though personally I would've been fine with slightly more specific short descriptions. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:12, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Seconded. Sergecross73 msg me 16:13, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed — and what's more a shortdesc like "2022 video game" might look like the game has already been released. Popcornfud (talk) 16:29, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed as well. Plus it cuts down on maintenance when half of them eventually slip to the following year. - X201 (talk) 15:23, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think that mentioning the expected year in the description would be useful to the reader, if the description manages to communicate some level of uncertainty, like the "scheduled for" in the category name does. What about:
  • Video game set for 2022
  • Video game planned for 2022
► LowLevel73 (talk) 13:53, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Games get delayed all the time. It's not a defining characteristic. TarkusABtalk/contrib 15:33, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any harm going with "Upcoming 2023 video game" as we already have a category for that exact thing. Omitting the year also makes it seem like it doesn't even have a release window. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:45, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

VG Banner - Cover art request tag

I've recently been going through the cover art request backlog and think that the cover tag on the banner could do with being updated. With the increasing number of digital only games and when the digital art is a better option than physical cover art (lack of logos, platform etc.), the wording could be more suitable and clear. I propose simply changing it to "A request for identifying art has been made to help better illustrate the article".

MOS:VG already touches on using alternative identifying art and Category:Video game articles requesting identifying art, which is populated by the tag, is already worded as such. Regarding the tag itself, it could be depreciated and replaced with a different tag to reduce future confusion but may be unnecessary if the wording and documentation is sufficiently clear.

Figured I'd post it here for more eyes before posting anything on the template talk page. CrimsonFox talk 17:57, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If the need is necessary. Most people understand not everything is technically cover art. Not to get sidetracked.but a lot of these requesting cover/promotional artwork are for articles in their stub/start that haven't verified notability. I'm curious if we can have a BOT clear out the request until it verifies notability. Just a thought.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 18:26, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure about the need but I think being consistent with the terminology across the project is important. Regarding the notable articles, there's definitely some that are questionable but not as many as I thought there would be. Even so, I'd much prefer to have the list include articles without identifying art that may not be verified yet rather than rely on someone adding the tag back in later. CrimsonFox talk 19:07, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I dont think it will be an issue. Maybe someone who has authorization to the template can update it.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 20:57, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Done - X201 (talk) 21:07, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Video Game console Generation sales table clutter

In History of video game consoles#Console sales and Home video game console generations#Sales comparison, both have similar tables that I consider difficult to read for the average reader. To resolve the issue, I decided to make this version of the table. I didn't want to step on anyone's toes on this and thought I propose the change here first. Sometimes the most efficient table isn't the most liked.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 22:54, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  console currently being manufactured and sold on the market.
Sales rank Generation
First
(1972–1980) 		Second
(1976–1992) 		Third
(1983–2003) 		Fourth
(1987–2004) 		Fifth
(1993–2006) 		Sixth
(1998–2013) 		Seventh
(2005–2017) 		Eighth
(2012–present) 		Ninth
(2020–present)
1 Color TV-Game series
3 million 		Atari 2600
30 million 		NES
61.91 million 		Super NES
49.1 million 		PlayStation
102.49 million 		PlayStation 2
>155 million 		Wii
101.63 million 		PlayStation 4
108.9 million 		PlayStation 5
17.3 million
2 Telstar
1 million 		Intellivision
3 million 		Master System
10–13 million 		Genesis
33.75 million 		Nintendo 64
32.93 million 		Xbox
>24 million 		PlayStation 3
>87.4 million 		Switch
103.54 million 		Xbox Series X/S
est. 12 million
3 Odyssey
330,000 		ColecoVision
2+ million 		Atari 7800
1 million 		TurboGrafx-16
10 million 		Sega Saturn
9.26 million 		GameCube
21.74 million 		Xbox 360
>84 million 		Xbox One
est. 46.9 million
4 Home Pong
150,000 		Odyssey 2
2 million 		Videopac+ G7400
NA 		CD-i
570,000 		Atari Jaguar
250,000 		Dreamcast
9.13 million
good here ( though the Xbox one numbers went up a bit with recent news related to acts blizzard buyout, though still an estimate). Masem (t) 23:04, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It might just be me, but with the added small text naming each manufacturer, this feels even more difficult to follow. I don't really see the point in classifying "Sales rank", even in the existing tables; most generations only have four consoles anyway, so it's not too difficult for the reader to look at the sales figures and work out the rank themselves—especially when we have tables like this and this which are even easier to parse. In any case, listing by manufacturer instead of sales rank seems much more efficient to me. – Rhain ☔ 23:35, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, I'd nix the far-left column, but otherwise it looks fine. The ranking is implied by the order. Listing by manufacturer might be tricky because not every manufacturer appears in each column. Also, Switch numbers look low here, 111 per nintendo.jp[4] Andre🚐 23:43, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You can see an example of listing by manufacturer here. – Rhain ☔ 23:44, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that's the "confusing" one. It is definitely harder to read but if everyone prefers that one, I'm not against it. This one is simpler though. One thing I like about the by-manufacturer one is that Switch spans 2 generations, which seems accurate. All of the numbers across both of the articles linked probably need to be updated, for 8th and 9th gen. Andre🚐 23:47, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    given where these are used, could not the manufacturer be cut from each cell? the console link still provides that. Masem (t) 00:16, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That would probably alleviate my main concern (though I still prefer the existing tables). – Rhain ☔ 00:23, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The small dates size should be bumped up to 85% per MOS:FONTSIZE. – Pbrks (t • c) 00:25, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think the parentheses are doing anything in either the current or proposed tables. We're here to see the sales. They don't need to be displayed as an aside. Axem Titanium (talk) 07:25, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Masem:, @Axem Titanium:, @Rhain: and @Andrevan:, I made the changes that I believe are reasonable. i also removed the line-height, as it really made things smaller than they needed to be. I'm hesitant to remove the left column. You never want to imply the order of the table, and that's what causes unnecessary things like color-coding cells. The goal should be easy to understand for new readers and those familiar. As far as Nintendo Switch, being the 8th and 9th generation. History of video game consoles and Home video game console generations reflect that the 9th generation has PS5 and Xbox Series X/S. The table can't contradict the rest of the article.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 16:40, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to keep the rank, which personally I don't think is necessary, I think you should at least render the plain digit "1" and not "1st place." I'm confused by what you mean about the unnecessary color-coding of cells, since the cells are already color-coded, which I agree is not really necessary or useful as done - I assume the green means "current" which is fine I guess, but the generations could already tell that info, and IMHO I don't care for the color coding of the gold/silver/bronze, I think it'd look better and easier on the eyes if that column was all the same color. Also, what's the source for the figures. As mentioned, Switch passed 111 million[5][6], PS4 was above that number as well, around 116-117.[7] Since the Switch is still on the market, it has a shot at surpassing the PS4. Both are on [8]. Personally, since Nintendo is keeping the Switch on the market, I think it should be counted as both 8th and 9th generation, in those articles as well as the tables. Andre🚐 16:53, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The colored cells of Sales ranking were a compromise and I have no attachment to them. I removed the color coding and changed the rankings to just "1/2/3/4". So once again, the table reflects the content of the article. So long as the article reflects that Nintendo Switch is not 9th generation then the table will continue to reflect that. So it's not relevant to this topic how Nintendo Switch is recognized as.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 17:58, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for doing that. Looks much better IMHO. And yes I know the chart is based on the article, but this is WT:CVG so if both should be updated, it's fair game to suggest. And don't forget about updating the numbers and adding a source to the table. Thanks! Andre🚐 18:00, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's not fair game on this thread, you'll have to make your own topic about it if you want the change to reflect across the articles and table. And the reason why I'm hesitant to talk about it further is because its been discussed multiple times, and it usually leads back to the status quo. So for now, for this thread, I rather just focus on we can approve the layout of the table (content in them will again, vary based on what the article reflects).Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 18:09, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is fair. Andre🚐 18:10, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That table above... where is Wii U? MilkyDefer 04:04, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good call. It should be added. Andre🚐 04:27, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Video game source

Hello! I noticed someone added information to the Splatoon 3 article using the source "tuppence magazine". I took a look at it and I"m not sure if it can be considered reliable. Heck, when I went to their about us page, there's literally a spelling error on it ("...then flash out your tyoe writer skills...", "tyoe" is meant to be type). I'd like to get other people's opinions on it as it doesn't look all that professional. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 15:30, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unreliable. Can't find the source anywhere in WP:VG/Sources. No credentials or any sort of fact-checking reputation or policy listed anywhere on their pages. Sparkltalk 15:41, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree with you Blaze Wolf, I wouldn't consider this a reliable source, taking a quick look at the page. Their "content club" appears to be a glorified blog style self-submission. I would support adding the site to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources#Unreliable_sources, as websites have been added for much less. Skipple ☎ 15:44, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, unreliable. Appears to be spam (user who added it was "T.Editor10."...), as they have added specifically that website that several other pages as well. – Pbrks (t • c) 15:47, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That username makes it seem like they're paid by that website. "T.Editor" could probably be interpreted as "Tuppence editor". ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 15:49, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Ser Amantio di Nicolao removing all the video game articles from the "Video games developed in Japan" and "Taito games" categories?

I have a problem. Lately Ser Amantio di Nicolao is removing all the video game articles from the "Video games developed in Japan" and "Taito games" categories, and it really bugs me! If he keeps this up, pretty soon none of the video game articles will have any categories left. Can you please do something about the category remover? --Angeldeb82 (talk) 23:23, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Category:Video games developed in Japan is looking pretty populated, so I doubt that's the case. Did you try...asking them what they were doing first? That should be step 1. Sergecross73 msg me 23:36, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ser Amantio di Nicolao better explains his reasoning sooner than later. These edits are extremely petty, if i'm being honest... Roberth Martinez (talk) 23:48, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Probably need to properly @Ser Amantio di Nicolao: ping him then. It looks like he's removing articles based on being in subcats, but I'm not sure these are all diffusing categories. -- ferret (talk) 00:00, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I believe these removals were based on whether or not the "Video games developed in [country]" categories were already present in the company categories in which a given game was included; the problem with this approach is that the companies were often categorized erroneously and, therefore, should not have been the basis for removing the "developed in [country]" categories from individual articles. For instance, Category:Taito games formerly was placed in the "Video games developed in Japan" category, even though not every game published by Taito was developed in Japan (for example, Qix) , so that category should never have been there. This is even more egregious for Category:Sierra Entertainment games, which had the "Video games developed in the US" category attached, even though Sierra didn't develop most of the games it published at all. I have gone through all of the big publisher categories and removed any "developed in [country]" categories in them to ensure that no more mass category removals from individuals articles happen; hopefully the ones removed earlier today can be restored. Phediuk (talk) 00:39, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Angeldeb82, Sergecross73, KGRAMR: Ferret has hit the nail on the head - they're all in subcategories of the parent categories. And unless I've overlooked something, I saw no evidence that any of the subcategories are non-diffusing. That said, I'll hold off on doing any more for now as the edits have been questioned, but that's the reasoning. Should the categories be non-diffusing? --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 00:32, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can you restore the removals you did today? They were based on "developed in [x]" subcategories being present in publisher categories (an old oversight I've now corrected), which is going to lead to problems. Would be much appreciated; thank you. Phediuk (talk) 00:42, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Phediuk: Sure. It'll take a few minutes to set up, but it shouldn't take too long to undo. Or re-do the categories, rather - it'll be easier for me to re-add them than to undo the removal, if that makes sense. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 00:44, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, add them back in whichever way you'd prefer, as long as they're restored. Many thanks. Phediuk (talk) 00:51, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ser Amantio di Nicolao: I think there's plenty of work to do in the WP:VG space for you category wise, but I might suggest as this is a fairly large and active project (Probably top 3, if not top 2, behind MILHIST), you might float the categories you're planning to work on so the project regulars can take a look and see if everything is in order. In this case it brought to light some inappropriate mixtures of publisher and developer regions. -- ferret (talk) 00:55, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with ferret; there's plenty of room for improvement for the WP:VG categories, but in this case, the removals should just be restored. Phediuk (talk) 01:02, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ferret: Sure, I can do that - and I'm always happy to assist on anything else that needs doing. Feel free to ask and let me know. @Phediuk: Lists are generated - I'm beginning the restoration now. Should have it done by the end of the night. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 01:03, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome, thanks for the prompt responses. Phediuk (talk) 01:16, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Phediuk: Sure - any time. I'm usually around, except when I'm not. (Parse that however you wish.) --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 01:28, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the info. I feel grateful that you're doing the restorations. Angeldeb82 (talk) 02:34, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of PC games with force feedback support and Category:Games with force feedback support

I noticed this category being added to quite a few articles recently, apparently based on their inclusion on the list. The list is entirely unsourced and based solely on user-set attributes on MobyGames. Should we keep lists like this? Do we have comparable "List of games with [mundane feature]" articles? It seems unlikely that sources would cover force feedback support for most of these games. IceWelder [✉] 12:13, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not a defining feature as scoped. should be removed. Masem (t) 12:25, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Should this lead provide detailed information, quoting people?

I'm working on improving Return to Monkey Island and a good percentage of the lead clarifies a misunderstanding about the game, quoting the developers from an interview and even adding an even longer quotation in an associated reference.

I think that it would be important for the article to report the clarification, but I also feel that quoting people in the lead is a bit excessive. It is my understanding that the lead should serve as a quick introduction/summary without going too much into details and I've not seen many leads, especially short ones, quoting people.

My question is: are quotes generally acceptable in the lead? Would it be better to simplify the text removing the quotes? Would you move the details elsewhere and, if so, in which section?

Thank you! ► LowLevel73 (talk) 12:54, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Quotes can be used in Ledes but they must be immediately cited unlike other lede material. That said if you are talking about the "final game" stuff and clarification, that is really too fine a detail for the lede. Maybe a few people got confused but tats far better in talking the announcement for the game. It is likely more important that this is the new third chronological game in the series and not necessary holding to the Curse and latter game canon. Masem (t) 13:26, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I am the anonymous user who added the direct quotes to the lede of the article. The third section of the lede is currently dedicated to clarifying a series of misunderstandings and speculations that were spread by certain newspapers but disproven by the developers themselves in interviews, namely that Return to Monkey Island would be the third chronological game, that sequels to Monkey Island 2 would be out of canon, and that Return to Monkey Island would be the "conclusion" of the entire series and/or of the "first trilogy". All these speculations have been declared false by Ron Gilbert and David Grossman and the official website and Steam entry of Return to Monkey Island have recently changed the words "exciting conclusion of the Monkey Island serises" to "new games in the Monkey Island series". The quotes can be reworded as prose, if this is more appropriate for the lede. 37.163.43.189 (talk) 14:29, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games&oldid=1108279341"