Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Shortcut: WT:VG
WPVG icon 2016.svg WikiProject
Video games
Main page talk
Threads are archived after nine days.
Manual of style
Article guidelines talk
Templates talk
Sources talk
Assessment talk
Reference library talk
  Print archive talk
  Web archive talk
  Top video games talk
Newsletter talk
  Current issue Draft
Article alerts talk
Pages for deletion talk
New pages talk
Article requests talk
Essential articles talk
Featured content talk
Good content talk
Recognized content talk


eSports MoS starter issues for consensus building[edit]

This seems to be the recommended path so let's see if we can get a consensus on basics. TimothyJosephWood 22:44, 8 July 2016 (UTC)


Would it be helpful to develop MoS guidelines for eSports related articles?


  • Don't see any valid reason to not do this. eSports will continue to grow over time, and it's best to have guidelines and policies for it sooner than later. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 00:32, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I don't see any reason why not. --ProtoDrake (talk) 05:11, 9 July 2016 (UTC)



  • Abstain as proposer. It will be assumed that any oppose votes here count as blanket opposes on the following and if this is not supported no further discussion will be proposed by myself. TimothyJosephWood 22:44, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Did we not just have a discussion about eSports pseudonyms and real names? It wouldn't hurt to actually mention and summarize that discussion. Some players are better known by their real names and others by their pseudonyms—it doesn't need to be a "rule" across the board. czar 06:32, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
This discussion from last November appears to be the correct thread. There seems to be some level of consensus that either Name (gamer) or Name (video game player) should be used as a disambiguation. May be helpful to add these two choices only and see if we can agree on one or the other.
I see no immediately discernible consensus on article titles generally. TimothyJosephWood 12:23, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
I'd take another look as there is much more than disambiguation discussed in that link. The whole point of that discussion was the same point as this one: whether to use nicknames or real names or a combination of both. It was established that First "Nickname" Last is likely against policy. There is existing policy in place for all of this. The choice between using using the real name or nickname should be based on the common name, which is to say its current usage in the reliable sources, and not some kind of blanket rule for always real name or always pseudonym. And special capitals in a name are to be avoided per trademarks style rules. czar 23:44, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

MoS placement[edit]

Should any eSports MoS recommendations be placed as a section in the existing MOS:VG or spun off into its own page?


  • Support Start in the existing MoS and separate if it gets cumbersome. TimothyJosephWood 22:44, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
  • As Timothyjosephwood said, start it out in the existing one and seperate it if it grows too big. Anarchyte (work | talk) 04:08, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - Begin it as an extention to the current VG MoS. It can grown from there. --ProtoDrake (talk) 05:11, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - I can't imagine it being that large for now--Prisencolin (talk) 00:39, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Agree with all of the above. Split it if it becomes too large. JAGUAR  17:02, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Spin off[edit]


Player names[edit]

Should articles on eSports players carry the title of their given name or their pseudonym (with redirects going either way)?

Given name[edit]


  • Support as this seems to be the practice already adopted by most existing articles. TimothyJosephWood 22:44, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
  • WP:COMMONNAME would apply here. We don't call Meat Loaf Michael Aday normally do we? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 00:34, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Support as the pseudonyms are normally their common name. Anarchyte (work | talk) 04:07, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - Best to treat them like entertainer psudonyms, and use them as the main identifier. We can be perhaps more nuanced in the main text if need be. --ProtoDrake (talk) 05:11, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Adhere per WP:COMMONNAME; pseudonyms are usually the most recognisable in this case. JAGUAR  17:03, 18 July 2016 (UTC)


  • Follow commonname as always. Pseudonyms are fine if they are best known under that name. If it's unclear which name is more familiar, either can be used, though some consistency in teams or specific games is probably a good idea. ~Mable (chat) 13:06, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
  • What Mable said and what I said above. The article naming criteria (policy) overrules this proposal. We shouldn't default to either the pseudonym or the given name: we use the name that is invoked most often in our reliable sources, whether that's one or the other or something else entirely. (And as a naming conventions caveat, we never put the pseudonym in quotations between the given name, even if that's what sources use.) This is covered in the previous discussion as well WPVG's thoughts on disambiguating such names. czar 05:50, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Notability Guidelines[edit]

I created a set of potential SNGs for eSports over at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Proposal 3, bu no one seems to have commented yet so I'm just putting up a notice here, in case anybody just stopped paying attention to that thread.--Prisencolin (talk) 00:18, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

So I know a lot of you guys aren't very familiar with pro gaming, but if there aren't any major objects to this, can I just move it into WP:NVG?--Prisencolin (talk) 23:44, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
...Are you talking about the one that has zero comments on it so far, here or there? If, that seems like a bad idea. I'd definitely keep waiting for more input... Sergecross73 msg me 00:21, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Honestly, if I would create articles in this field (which I have rarely done), I would just follow GNG. If reliable sources have written something about a person, particularly personal/early life, practices, or achievements, you can write an article about them. But that's just me ^_^; ~Mable (chat) 05:53, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Quality Scales of the Tycoon Games[edit]

I just want to bring a head's up of the three most popular Tycoon games of this year. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 17:54, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I've reassessed the stubs as starts. The articles can't really move beyond start without the post-release information which they are lacking as presently-unfinished games. --Izno (talk) 18:00, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Just taking a cursory glancw, World seems to meet c-class criteria right now, released or not. I dint believe it's true that articles can't move beyond start class before release. If the information is there, even B-class is possible. ~Mable (chat) 00:06, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
The information can't be there for everything pre-release (unless the game was cancelled, etc.), so I would say any such article fails the B class criteria. Regarding start/C, no opinion. --Izno (talk) 11:59, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Similarly, an article on an ongoing series can't describe the manner in which it ends. An article on a country can't describe future wars that country may take part in. Regardless, such articles can get G/FA. I personally don't think a game in development isn't its own well-defined topic. But yeah, getting B-class would be highly difficult ^_^; ~Mable (chat) 13:32, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
There is a rather large distinction on an ongoing series and an in-development video game, and that distinction is WP:CRYSTAL. --Izno (talk) 13:41, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, in-dev games have gotten to B/GA, but only when the "in-development game" was itself the notable topic, as much as the eventually released game. Duke Nukem Forever was the canonical example, where it did not need to be eventually released to get critical commentary, and even make it to GA for a while, but even non-famous vaporware games can do it: see Final Fantasy XV (and Development of Final Fantasy XV, both Bs. In practice, though, I agree- most in-development games are really just article skeletons waiting for release so they can get a real gameplay+plot+reception sections, and without it they can't be B-class. --PresN 14:47, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
(CONFLICT) Both should be described as they are "in the moment", regardless of availability or planned availability. ~Mable (chat) 14:50, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Move cleanup from generation articles[edit]

Can someone move these talk page archives over redirects? Left over from when all of the generation articles were renamed late 2015.

  1. Talk:Video game console (sixth generation)/Archive 1 over redirect Talk:Sixth generation of video game consoles/Archive 1
  2. Talk:Video game console (seventh generation)/Archive 1 over redirect Talk:Seventh generation of video game consoles/Archive 1
  3. Talk:Video game console (seventh generation)/Archive 2 over redirect Talk:Seventh generation of video game consoles/Archive 2
  4. Talk:Video game console (seventh generation)/Archive 3 over redirect Talk:Seventh generation of video game consoles/Archive 3
  5. Talk:Video game console (seventh generation)/Archive 4 over redirect Talk:Seventh generation of video game consoles/Archive 4
  6. Talk:Video game console (seventh generation)/Archive 5 over redirect Talk:Seventh generation of video game consoles/Archive 5
  7. Talk:Video game console (seventh generation)/Archive 6 over redirect Talk:Seventh generation of video game consoles/Archive 6
  8. Talk:Video game console (eighth generation)/Archive 1 over redirect Talk:Eighth generation of video game consoles/Archive 1

Thanks -- ferret (talk) 01:35, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

✓ done czar 21:12, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

New articles - 15 July[edit]

New articles from the past week. This post has been made to help raise the visibility of new articles that fall under this project.

8 July

9 July

10 July

11 July

12 July

13 July

14 July

  • Has already been redirected, and rightfully so. Sergecross73 msg me 13:09, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

15 July

Salavat (talk) 11:40, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Just a friendly reminder to all WP:VG participants that if you create an article with content you find interesting, nominate it for DYK! I feel we're kinda under-represented on the main page given the size of this project and would love to see more video gaming-related content there. Hell, I'll even QPQ such pages just to speed up the process Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 00:01, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
I've had one article at DYK for over 2 weeks now. Here's the link if you wanna take a shot at it. Anarchyte (work | talk) 03:03, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

RFC on whether Japanese names of people (without Wikipedia articles) mentioned within a video game article should be footnoted[edit]

Please review this RFC on whether Japanese names of Japanese people (without Wikipedia articles) mentioned within a video game article should be footnoted: Talk:Sonic_the_Hedgehog_(1991_video_game)#Should_Japanese_names_of_subjects_without_Wikipedia_articles_be_footnoted.3F WhisperToMe (talk) 20:33, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Endgame series[edit]

There are a couple of articles about the Endgame series, but they are inconsistent and badly linked, and the series itself seems to have been canceled. Please see Talk:Endgame: The Calling#More than just this page.

I am very far from being a regular player of video games, let alone an expert, so I'm not going to undertake these adjustments myself, whatever may be necessary. That's why I'm throwing the ball into your court, videogeeks :-) .

--Thnidu (talk) 04:58, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Rare Replay[edit]

Hi all, in case it slipped your radar, I wanted to announce that the Rare Replay good topic is finally complete: 32 articles based on the 30 titles included in Rare's recent 30-year compilation. Since it'd be nice to have it squared away by its one-year anniversary (Aug 4), here are some opportunities to review, if you are interested:

czar 20:13, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Replace List of video game exclusives (eighth generation) with contents from User:Rukario-sama/sandbox (As of July 18, 2016)?[edit]

List of video game exclusives (eighth generation) was established after List of video game exclusives (seventh generation) and they don't have real purpose. Initially the seventh game exclusive list was created when the exclusive column was removed in List of Xbox 360 games (according to its edit history) but it has returned for a long time now. I thought it's silly to have the video game exclusive list to remain exist as it just consist the stripped down table versions of List of PlayStation 4 games, List of Wii U software, and List of Xbox One games where non-exclusive game lines are removed. When I read the Talk:List of Xbox 360 games#Proposal for improving the exclusivity information I thought this video game exclusive list could be very useful if it's replaced with the table that's devoted to the exclusivity information of each game of its generation. I've already made a list in my sandbox User:Rukario-sama/sandbox. It has every games of the 8th gen consoles but incompleted due to lack of cleanup (massive game duplication and "unknown" cells) but I think it's enough to deploy a replacement. It will attract more editors and will be completed eventually.

Read more at Talk:List of video game exclusives (eighth generation)#Purpose of this article?.

Aye or Nay? Rukario-sama ^ㅈ^ -(...) 22:55, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Help: Popular Pages[edit]

It looks inactive, so should we revive it? If we do, should we use bots to maintain it? If we don't revive it, should we take it off the WPVG sidebar? If we keep it on the sidebar, should we give a rational as to why it's on there?

What do you think? Catfrog (Edits 🐸 Talk) 00:24, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Inactive? I was about to agree until I saw new titles on there such as Pokemon Sun and Moon and No Man's Sky. Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Traffic statistics, on the other hand, hasn't been updated since 2011. JAGUAR  18:57, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Well, the chart says the last time it was updated was to give figures for March, out of date, yes, but not really "abandoned" yet. I find the page interesting, though I have no idea what it would take to get it up and running. Sergecross73 msg me 19:08, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Ah, I see now. It looks like it used to be updated on a monthly basis by Mr.Z-bot, but I suppose the onus would be on the bot's owner or somebody who is super-savvy with programming. JAGUAR  19:23, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
I hate that these don't get updated anymore, especially because I really want one made for another project so I have a better grasp of what articles are most important in that scope. I would love to see what the situation is in VG as well, so I hope someone could do something about this. Spoilers: Pokémon Go will be at the top ;) ~Mable (chat) 12:32, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • This appears to be the bot's latest repo, for anyone interested czar 23:21, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Work: Cherry Tree High Comedy Club[edit]

Hello - I have been doing some work on this article. What would be appropriate steps to take from here? Is there an example article template so I can better fit with other video game articles? I have a sandbox for this article, too: User:Catfrog/sandbox/Cherry_Tree_High_Comedy_Club Catfrog (Edits 🐸 Talk) 00:21, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

  • I just provided some guideline fixes to the article, but a good way to improve the article is to find a similar game that reached GA or FA status, and try to emulate what you see. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 05:47, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Yes, thank you! I will continue to work on this as the days go by, to the best that I can, until it is something I will be proud of. Catfrog (Edits 🐸 Talk) 05:57, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Dota 2 featured article nomination help[edit]

So I nominated Dota 2 as a featured article candidate a week ago, but it's seen little activity regarding comments. Could any of the more experienced project members with a focus on those who normally work with FA nominations help and provide their opinions? Any help would be appreciated. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 08:42, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Early history of video games[edit]

Since Czar's similar post above went so well, just thought I'd let everyone know that the good topic nomination of the Early history of video games is still up and needing reviews: a collection of 12 articles, all written/rewritten by me over the past year, covering every single article on Wikipedia about video games pre-1972 (when the release of the Magnavox Odyssey and Pong started off the commercial video game industry). Come check out a bit of history! --PresN 20:42, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

I hope to be able to take a look at this topic once I get home next week. I've put some minor work into these articles as well (to be fair, more on Commons than here :p), and I'm really badly that these articles have come this far. Amazing work > u < ~Mable (chat) 00:32, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

PS-themed book needed[edit]

I'd like to know if someone's got access to the duology of Pix'n Love books about the making of the PlayStation titled La Revolution Playstation or to Revolutionaries at Sony, an earlier work by the same author containing much of the same information. The reason why I'm after one of these is that they are chock-full of valuable info tidbits that I could use in beefing up an article about a certain early PS title. Any help would be much appreciated. -- Electroguv (talk) 15:34, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Video game TFAs[edit]

Wh-what's going on? By my count, there have been three video game-related TFAs this month. Is someone on the TFA committee asleep at the wheel? Are there proportionally more video game FAs being promoted than other topics? I'm not complaining; I'd just like to know if anyone has any insight on this phenomenon. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:19, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Well I had to get Nights into Dreams... on the main page on its 20th anniversary (5 July), and Satoru Iwata's death was on 11 July, so at least two of the three video game TFAs had to be up there for important anniversaries. That could explain why so many are appearing, not to mention the TFA process is looking dormant as well... JAGUAR  20:23, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

I think I heard that there's been a push for more FA articles about video games for the front page. Honestly I kinda enjoy people getting upset about the frequent amount of them. GamerPro64 03:01, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

While video game related I don't think Iwata should be in the same boat since he was a programmer and later a president of a video game company.-- (talk) 03:24, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Mischief Makers should have ran next June for its 20th anniversary. It was picked early I guess, and I didn't realize it was supposed to be next year instead of this one. So much for planning ahead czar 04:38, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Is it just me, or are "three" same-subject TFAs in one month considered a lot? Because I could swear that there are at least six or seven articles on boring plants that appear on the main page every month. JAGUAR  11:37, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, on an average month, 3 articles from the same domain is 10% of all TFAs for that month. I'd be hard-pressed to argue that video games encompasses 10% of all things on Wikipedia. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:17, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
We're sitting around 30k articles. Out of 5 million, that's 0.6%. --Izno (talk) 18:46, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
What percentage of all Featured Articles are video game related? I would assume that that would get closer to 2% or something. 10% is definitely a bit much, though that just means other wikiprojevts should step up their game ^_^; ~Mable (chat) 21:47, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
WP:VG has 208 FAs, and Wikipedia has a total of 5785 FAs, so that's 3.5%. I did the maths. That's not too bad actually! JAGUAR  22:10, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
By that measure, two per month isn't surprising, and a month with three was to be expected eventually. Keeping it with one or two per month is probably more balanced. To be fair, I personally do like seeing more culture than nature on the front page, but opinions may differ. That's the beauty of this whole project. ~Mable (chat) 22:19, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Historically, VG articles have been on the main page about 13 times a year over the past few years, roughly one a month (~3.5%!), and pretty evenly too. My perception was that this pattern was a relic of about 8 years ago, when having VG articles any closer together generally resulted in curmudgeonly complaints on the main page's talk page. That hasn't been true for several years now, and perhaps the "new" coordinators (since the start of 2015) simply aren't sticking as closely to the pattern if they have TFA requests they can fulfill. --PresN 23:15, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Suggested merger for the stuff packs articles in The Sims[edit]

I propose that

Be merged into

For those whom are familiar with The Sims topic area, every Sims game since Sims 2 has had stuff packs in addition to expansion packs. Stuff packs are comparably small to other packs that are put out for the game, which leaves little to talk about a stuff pack, even where the stuff packs are all listed within the same game which they were released for. So to even have separate lists of stuff packs for each game is too far a stretch to section things off into their own articles. These are effectively list articles with just a small amount of content within each section. Its not as much article size that's the issue, its the fact that the individual sections average out just a few sentences long. I thought to make things easier to navigate, so readers will be able to read up on stuff packs within a single article. If the articles were to be combined, anyone whom was looking for only a specific games stuff packs could still simply rely on the TOC and click on their desired section, and since stuff packs add littler content compared to other packs, some readers may very well want to read things in a single article. Long story short, I think such a merger would serve as a compromise to keep things that need to be in one place, whilst still allowing readers to read into which stuff packs they so choose. But also that I'm looking to discuss things from the perspective of all video game article editors, not specifically editors of The Sims. —Mythdon 04:19, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps List of The Sims stuff packs as the merged title? Disambiguation can be avoided as this topic would definitely be a list. ~Mable (chat) 04:54, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Sounds a bit more reasonable. Since the word stuff packs originated from The Sims, then you're right, putting the Sims title in parenthesis would falsely imply that the term stuff packs exist elsewhere. —Mythdon 06:43, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
  • The Sims articles are a total shitshow but here's how I think it would be done best: (1) main articles on each major entry (Sims 2, Sims 3, etc.), (2) spin out the "Expansions" section of each, summary style, (3) summarize each expansion in these pseudo-list spin-outs (Sims 2 expansions), which can also carry these "stuff packs". No need to make it more complicated than that. Choo choo get on the merge train czar 10:08, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
    Agreed with Czar. List of The Sims expansion packs and etc. is the right home for these, and would definitely include the expansion packs as well as the stuff packs. I've had my eye on these The Sims articles for a while for merging. --Izno (talk) 12:51, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
    I would even go as far to say that we don't need a separate article - a discussion of what Stuff Packs are should be at The Sims (video game series) ,and then a short table of pack name(s), release date, and one-two sentence description of the contents within each of the game articles. --MASEM (t) 18:29, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
    The expansions need cleaning as well, however, so it's not like the stuff packs couldn't use the same lists as the expansions. --Izno (talk) 09:47, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

New articles - 23 July[edit]

New articles from the past week. This post has been made to help raise the visibility of new articles that fall under this project.

13 July

15 July

16 July

17 July

18 July

19 July

20 July

21 July

22 July

23 July

Salavat (talk) 16:39, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Graphical timeline[edit]

Hi everyone,

I just changed the horrible looking graphical timeline to the neatly {{Video game timeline}}. I went through the what links here page of the graphical timeline and didn't find any other video game-related articles, so hopefully this is it. If you do happen to run into one and you haven't got the time to change it, let me know, I'd be happy to do so. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 09:12, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

COMMONNAME discussion[edit]

There is currently a discussion at Talk:Great Detective Pikachu#Reverting title of page about the use of WP:COMMONNAME: Should COMMONNAME only be applied when the common name has a basis in an official name? I would like to see more participation in the discussion, so if you have the time, please give your thoughts.--IDVtalk 13:40, 25 July 2016 (UTC)