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
Sources talk
  Search engine
Wikidata Guide
Reference library talk
  Print archive
  Web archive
Newsletter talk
  Current issue Draft
Article alerts
Deletion discussions
Essential articles
New articles
Recognized content
  Good article Good content
  Featured article Featured content
Requested articles talk


New articles - 5 May[edit]

28 April

29 April

30 April

1 May

2 May

3 May

4 May

5 May

Salavat (talk) 03:15, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

New articles - 12 May[edit]

2 May

4 May

6 May

7 May

-- what a shame that it was deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siberix (talkcontribs) 21:24, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

That's what happens when articles don't come anywhere near meeting the WP:GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 23:15, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

8 May

9 May

10 May

11 May

12 May

Salavat (talk) 02:58, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Um, who wants to take a shot at dealing with copyright and video games? --Izno (talk) 03:13, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
    I briefly looked at it and I don't even know where to start. The subject is definitely of interest, as there are a lot of misconceptions and legal cases related to video game copyright specifically... but this article needs a lot of work ^_^; ~Mable (chat) 08:59, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

IP - Xbox One BC is not 'really emulation' so can be in infobox?[edit]

I had reverted this once, on the general idea that we do not include emulation and backward compatibility in infoboxes, only ports. The IP inserting has made a new argument in their edit note, here. In interest to avoid edit warring I've left the edit to stand for now. -- ferret (talk) 15:50, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Umm, the link the IP provided literally says that X360 games are run in a special X360->X1 emulation wrapper, customized to each game. It's a wonky sort of emulation, but it's still the X360 game itself being played, it's just in a custom emulator version instead of a standard emulator like the Nintendo VC. Should not be in the infobox. --PresN 16:35, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Pretty much my take, but if the IP had been right in some way, it would have affected many articles. -- ferret (talk) 16:37, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
That's been my understanding of it as well. Sergecross73 msg me 16:58, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Same with the above - it's not equivalent to the work to make a port nor a remaster/remake, which are cases we would likely list in the infobox. BC compat is definitely something to add to to the article's prose and to appropropriate lists/categories, but shouldn't be in the infobox. --MASEM (t) 22:07, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Agreed. Wasn't this written down in the documentation too? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 00:11, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Re-establishing what platforms should go in infobox[edit]

Currently the wording at the infobox template says for the platform field The unabbreviated console or operating system family for which the game was specifically developed. This includes dedicated ports, but not games in emulation or services. There seems to be enough confusion that I believe we need better clarification.

To me the platform= field (and subsequently what affects the developer=/publisher=/distributor= and release date fields) should be limited to:

  • The platforms the game was planned for and released on, even if the release came months later (as often the case for Aspyr and their macOS ports)
  • Platforms the game was ported to in an official capacity by the dev/publisher or IP holder, even if not at the time of release (as many of the indies for the Switch are now, as well as games like Bayonetta/Vanquish on the PC).
  • Remakes or remasters of a game, if they don't merit a separate article. (for example, the Ico/Shadow of the Colossus remaster is a separate article, and so the dates of that remaster are not given in the individual article's infobox. However, for something like Bulletstorm's remaster, still in the same article, that is documented in the infobox) (See note below)

What should not go in the infobox:

  • Games run under emulation or as-a-service/cloud streaming; this includes Xbox One BC compat with 360 (and similarly Xbox 360 BC with Xbox Original), Virtual Console games, PS Now service games, and more. Effectively, if there is no significant creative work added to the title to make it run in emulation/service, it shouldn't be listed.
  • Unofficial/fan ports/emulation
  • Games re-released as part of a larger collections (See note below)
  • Reboots (as they will typically have their own page)

Note Considering both the remake/remasters with separate pages, and standalone game collections (ala Atari Vault or The Disney Afternoon Collection), I'm wondering if a field "Related titles" or the like might be useful to include in the infobox to help editors find where the game has been released as to help avoid editors from adding these extraneous releases as part of the separate game. I realize that this might be a bear on some Atari 2600/Sega Genesis games considering how many collects of these their are, but it can also be useful. Obviously, this information should be corroborated in the prose. --MASEM (t) 16:05, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Sidenote: can we also add something along the lines off that platforms are not synonymous with distribution channels? From time to time I see a mention of PlayStation Network or Xbox Live in the platform field. Availability on PSN/XBLA does not mean it can be played on every PSN-connected console or Xbox 360/Xbox One however. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 09:07, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Absolutely this should be affirmed.
I would also affirm that when referring to systems that editors should consistently use within an article the name of the release system at the point of the game's release, rather than the updated name. This is the whole OS X/MacOS situation that I've seen editors updating 5-8 year old games to change "OS X" to "macOS". We can all blame Apple for its stupid naming system but this is the best way for us to handle it. --MASEM (t) 16:54, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Dev bios[edit]

I started expanding the Iga article, but I also found that many dev bio pages are very small, and sometimes include out dated information. It seems that dev bio pages have far less importance than the actual game pages themselves. The only one I particularily care about expanding is the Iga article, the rest I just expanded since I had an easy source and the pages were tiny. I won't be working on most of them from here on out. Here's a short list of the pages I've expanded.

Harizotoh9 (talk) 21:10, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

  • This is because helpful, reliable sources about their careers outside of just what games they've worked on aren't that common. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 23:46, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
There's plenty of sources and interviews. Any of their contributions to the games they work on can be included in their article. Such and such was producer for such and such game, they wanted it to be this and that, and then they wrote this, then was sad when it didn't sell well, etc. That's all notable. It has to tie back into the person's bio and not get too off topic talking about the game. I think it's mostly just because the focus on improving articles is the game articles primarily. Genre and dev bios are less important.
I don't think we've ever gotten any of them to FA status have we? Shigeru Miyamoto would be perfect to bring to FA status. No way that doesn't have enough sources. It's even considered a vital article. Harizotoh9 (talk) 19:35, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Miyamoto's article wouldn't even pass GAN, at its current state. The entire thing needs a complete re-write. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:05, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Oh totally. But it's just an example. There's more than enough sources (even multiple books, documentaries) for Miyamoto's article to be turned into FA status. Inafune and Igarashi probably have enough sources too. Someone just needs to hunker down and write it. Harizotoh9 (talk) 21:22, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
For Miyamoto, definitely, however I don't think you could say the same for Igarashi or Mizuguchi. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 00:43, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
I'd assume if we had more access to Japanese sources and their proper translation, a lot of these could be easily expanded upon. --MASEM (t) 00:54, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Whenever there's a new game, the producers often act as spokespersons. They've been in this role for so long, there's countless news stories and interviews. I think there's enough for FA status for a few of them. Also, the site shmuplations has many translated dev interviews, going back decades. Harizotoh9 (talk) 01:52, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Satoru Iwata is one of my favourite articles on WP, and one of the only that I've seen skip GA and go straight to FA. – Rhain 01:59, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Oh, Iwata. I ahd totally forgotten about that article. I forgot he was at first a programmer. I knew him mostly as the Nintendo president. Harizotoh9 (talk) 09:35, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Alien: Isolation[edit]

Not sure if this is the right venue to put it here, but more eyes are needed at Alien: Isolation concerning undiscussed genre changes made by IP user. The discussion related to this issue is at Talk:Alien: Isolation#Genre changes. Thanks. – Hounder4 23:30, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Popular pages report[edit]

We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, Community Tech bot will post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of WikiProject Video games.

We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:

  • The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
  • The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
  • The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).

We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of WikiProject Video games, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.

Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Opinion saught - appropriateness of a "List of Overwatch events" article?[edit]

With Overwatch, there have been four competitive seasons, and several unique events, all which have gained far more than trivial coverage from sources. As such, I'm thinking if it would be appropriate to have a page "List of Overwatch events" simply to document the timeline of these seasons and events, briefly summarizing anything special, as to allow ease of cross-referencing for a researcher. I would see this in comparison to something like the list of expansions that have been applied for Hearthstone (again all which can be readily documented) which we have in Gameplay of Hearthstone.

I know there are many other games that have seasons and continually new events, but for most of them, they get next to no coverage in the media. Only a few like Destiny and Diablo 3 might have something that approaches Overwatch's, so this is more an exception than the rule. --MASEM (t) 22:39, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

  • "Professional Overwatch competition" would be more in line as an article title with other ones of the same type. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 04:17, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
    • Except this isn't about the professional events. There's the normal competitive seasons, and then there's the special 2-3 week long events, neither which affect professional competition. --MASEM (t) 04:50, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
      • My bad, I misunderstood. In that case, Czar's draft should work. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 02:50, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I have a draft up at User:Czar/drafts/Overwatch seasonal events (feel free to jump in). There are more than enough sources—it just needed more tightening/expansion for mainspace before it fell out of date czar 07:55, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
    • That's exactly what I was thinking about, with the only addition of a lead table for a quick overview of dates and key elements, and as well as mentioning the competitive seasons. I'll look more to that today. --MASEM (t) 13:56, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

All major "games-as-a-service" games, which is basically all major multiplayer games now can easily support an "ongoing development" type articles. Dota 2, League of Legends, Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, Team Fortress 2, Warframe, Pokémon Go, Hitman (2016 video game), are some titles off the top of my head which have significant coverage of updates. - hahnchen 11:54, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

They can support it, potentially, but OW is clearly leaps and bounds beyond most in terms of depth of coverage from sources. If only one or two sources mention the new events (where I think Warframe falls into) that might not be enough for a standalone, and definitely if its only announcements from the devs (For example, the case it seems for games like Duelist or Faeria) then that should be avoided though mention in those articles that seasonal events happen are appropriate. --MASEM (t) 13:56, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
There are enough sources for Warframe.[1][2][3] Warframe has had a ton of coverage since its release, yet our article treats it as a static object. Our games-as-a-service coverage is generally quite poor, even our obsessive SquareEnix coverage skimps on the expansions of Final Fantasy XI. The games-as-a-service model isn't even that new, I voted keep at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Halo multiplayer maps basically arguing for expanded DLC coverage. At Gameplay of Hearthstone, I made this edit hoping that clear subsections for each x-pac could encourage further expansion. An FA quality Gadgetzan section would reference things like [4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13]
I don't think the in depth OW coverage is leaps and bounds above others - because the scope of the events is pretty light (compared to say, an expansion), the coverage is broad but shallow. Yes, go for an ongoing Overwatch article, be open towards others too. - hahnchen 01:34, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[edit]

I was going to use an article from that site as a reference. But the site is dead. No matter, I'll just go to and use the wayback machine! Then I got the message: "Page cannot be displayed due to robots.txt.". So... what? Does that mean that all the 1up articles are just gone forever? They can't be used as references? Because using defunct websites and magazines are fine (no publication will last forever) but I need to actually read them to confirm the information on there.

This is the specific url: [14] Harizotoh9 (talk) 18:56, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, 1up is gone forever. --Izno (talk) 19:12, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
So all that information is gone too forever? Just like that? No archives? Nothing? Harizotoh9 (talk) 19:19, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
As per a month ago, the internet archive is slowly unblocking the archives they've taken of sites that have a robots.txt, so hopefully at some point archived pages will come back- if I remember correctly, the robots.txt file was only put on the site after it was shut down, so there should be archives in existence, if not currently available. --PresN 19:25, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
  • @Harizotoh9: There are other web archives, that already allow archives of sites with robots.txt. The article you were looking for is available on --IDVtalk 19:42, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
@IDV: Wow, that's good to know. Thanks for sharing. sixtynine • speak up • 04:56, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Just another awesome aspect of the Internet and Free Market! SharkD  Talk  01:00, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

FA damaged by robots.txt and site changes[edit]

The FA Flight Unlimited III relies heavily on sources from, which has just rearranged its site and put up a robots.txt exclusion. The sources I used are still online, but in a badly corrupted form. My first question: how would one go about asking to edit their robots.txt exclusions to allow Internet Archive? I know WPVG has had success doing this with GameSpot in the past, so it's not beyond the realm of possibility. If that fails, though, the sources are still online at Which brings me to my second question: has become an acceptable tool on Wikipedia since I last checked? JimmyBlackwing (talk) 12:55, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Keep in mind that over time, is going to ignore post-added robots.txt to allow access to content it had already cached, but we don't have a firm timeline for this. --MASEM (t) 13:25, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Also, yes, after a final, final RfC, is now acceptable for use on WP. --PresN 14:00, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
All good news! I'll contact Flightsim's webmaster before I make a decision one way or the other. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 15:10, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
@JimmyBlackwing: Wikipedia:Using and robots.txt may be of interest if you haven't seen it yet. Gestrid (talk) 02:17, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't think a robots.txt added after the fact has much legal weight to be enforced for the entire past history of the site. So it's good to see that is going to add past versions. However, I do fear that more sites are going to be using robots.txt in the future, and this may hurt archiving projects as and other sites become more popular. They will see it as a threat to the control of their material that needs to be stopped. Harizotoh9 (talk) 21:34, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Update: Sakura Wars[edit]

Hi there, everyone. I've recently finished a large amount of work related to the Sakura Wars series. While not complete, I've created extensive articles on the first Sakura Wars, and its first three sequels 2: Thou Shalt Not Die, 3: Is Paris Burning? and 4: Fall in Love, Maidens. I'm not going to be doing work on the fifth game So Long, My Love for the time being, and I've burnt myself out slightly on this project. If anyone wants to take up these articles, feel free. --ProtoDrake (talk) 21:33, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Unbelievable work, nice job. TarkusAB 01:33, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes, very nice work. Amazing considering so few have been localized in any capacity. Best of luck with So Long, My Love. I did not enjoy that game at all, so I'd be hardpressed to be motivated to help much. But we've already been through the process before, ProtoDrake - you ask for help due to burnout, and then usually end up doing it yourself anyways! ;) Sergecross73 msg me 14:57, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
@Sergecross73: You didn't research four Japan-exclusive games within the space of a month to the point that you're sick of the words "Sakura" and "Wars". I'm not touching the fifth game until I've fully recovered my ability to work on it with my usual quality standards, which could be some time. ;) --ProtoDrake (talk) 21:47, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Cat/AWB help[edit]

Anyone up for helping with a genre recategorization project? Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 April 18#Category:Nintendo DS games by genre We might be able to automate it, but from my spot check, we'll need to manually check whether the games are in the right subgenre categories. I likely won't have the time for a while—anyone else interested? czar 03:20, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

New articles - 19 May[edit]

9 May

10 May

12 May

13 May

14 May

15 May

16 May

17 May

18 May

19 May

Salavat (talk) 09:28, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello Neighbor (video game) has a draft at Draft:Hello Neighbor that only exists because an AFD put it there. The new version is a better start but suffers for the same reason the other article drafted. --Izno (talk) 14:32, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
@Izno (another other editors): I gathered some sources for possible expansion of the article (commented out in the referenecs section), maybe these sources plus the Draft content could be merged to form a sup-stub article? I'm currently lacking the time to do it myself, though. Lordtobi () 15:12, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Possible article topic[edit]

I was thinking about possible article topics for the VG project. Unfortunately, I don't have time at the moment to create an article from scratch (summer classes), but one topic I thought of was Zeldathon. They have received some coverage since they started in 2009. Some (admittedly biased) coverage can be found on the website's press page. Obviously, some of it is from connected sources, but I believe at least some of it is useable. They even got noticed and received some huge donations by Scott Cawthon, creator of Five Nights at Freddy's, during their last marathon, which benefitted St. Jude's. Note that I would be able to help with some editing, but probably not a lot. Gestrid (talk) 15:46, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

If no one does make an article on it, I would probably create one sometime this year (After all, there is no deadline.), but I would still like to know if you guys think it meets our criteria. Gestrid (talk) 15:59, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
I did a simple Google search for "Zeldathon" and didn't come up with any RS hits within the first few pages of results. I mean, its possible that maybe one would have to get more creative than that, but I wouldn't recommend making such an article at this rate... Sergecross73 msg me 14:53, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

First-person party-based "blobbers"[edit]

I want to create a new sub-category of Category:Video games by graphical style for games like Might & Magic and Wizardry that are sometimes called "blobbers". Is it okay to use this term, or is the term too new? Is there another better term? Here is an explanation of what the term refers to. (Ignore the bit about D&D in that article. I don't know what he's talking about.) Thanks. SharkD  Talk  03:45, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Here are some other mentions of the term. SharkD  Talk  03:59, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Blobber = first-person dungeon crawler; from Wizardry and M&M, all the way to Etrian Odyssey and Legend of Grimrock. I've never seen the term "blobber" but it could be a redirect to the genre page and mentioned there. Sounds like there could maybe be either a subcat of Category:Dungeon crawler video games dedicated to Category:First-person dungeon crawler video games, or an independent Category:First-person video games where "blobbers" could intersect with the dungeon crawler one.  · Salvidrim! ·  04:19, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
As I understand it, "blobbers" are all party-based, and the category name would need to reflect this so that readers don't get confused. SharkD  Talk  05:10, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
I added a short definition to here. SharkD  Talk  12:35, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
I created Category:First-person party-based dungeon crawler video games. Several games still need to be moved from Category:Dungeon crawler video games, most likely, since I am not familiar with all of them. SharkD  Talk  22:17, 22 May 2017 (UTC)


Role-playing video game is currently assessed as B-Class article. I was wondering if it could be reassessed to GA or FA class. There are still a few "citation needed" tags here and there, but otherwise the article is pretty comprehensive with over 250 citations. SharkD  Talk  13:08, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Not 100% on what you're asking, so I'll answer a few options:
  • Can someone here just declare it a GA or FA? No- see WP:GAN and WP:FAC.
  • Is it good enough to pass GAN or FAC right now as it stands? Not right this second- a couple dozen cite needed tags, an "update needed" tag in Popularity and notable developers, a few spots where it's unclear whether the cite is for the entire paragraph or just the last sentence, there's a few spots I saw when skimming where it seems like you're using terms that may have been invented for the article as if they're standard, there's a few bald-faced statements like "The premise of most role-playing games tasks the player with saving the world, or whichever level of society is threatened." which I don't have a font size big enough to slap a "citation needed" on, which given that's the 4th paragraph of a monster-sized article doesn't imply good things for the rest of the article... etc.
  • Is it within range of GAN (FAC is a whole other level above that in terms of level of effort required) that you could reach there with some work? Yeah, I'd say so. Granted, I didn't more than skim it, but there's a lot of content there, that seems to be organized relatively sanely, and there's just a few holes to plug in that you could probably get through with some (well, a good deal of) work. --PresN 14:45, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
LOL, I just discovered (and deleted) something worse: "The vast majority of RPG games that were successful were made from Japanese companies, making Japan a dominant country in an entertainment genre in East Asia, along with the Cinema of Hong Kong and the Korean wave, further increasing the prophecy that East Asian products are superior to those of the West." No citation of course. I guess I should read articles more closely, first. SharkD  Talk  19:17, 22 May 2017 (UTC)


I am exploring how to reproduce this list using Wikidata only. I was wondering if it would be okay to add a "setting" parameter to the infoboxes or wikidata records? Right now I don't think any games have such a parameter. The "setting" parameters I used in the list include such things such as "sci-fi", "fantasy", "modern", "historical" among others. Thanks. SharkD  Talk  00:53, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata publication date[edit]

Our article on Star Wolves says the game was published first in 2004 in Russia. The wikidata page says December 2006. Do we list only English publication dates on wikidata? How should this discrepancy be resolved? SharkD  Talk  01:46, 24 May 2017 (UTC)