Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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.
ProjectThis page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

TruckersFM[edit]

Hi everyone,

Any thoughts on TruckersFM, an in-game digital radio station? It has some sources but I'm not entirely sure it's notable enough. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 10:16, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a case of a game community, nominated: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TruckersFM. IgelRM (talk) 12:40, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Soetermans: In case you missed the AFD, could use your input. IgelRM (talk) 10:38, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

American Truck Simulator discussion[edit]

I could use another voice of reason at Talk:American Truck Simulator#Update to DLC map required. With my one bold edit, removing primary sourced gameguide material, I am accused of having a vendetta against maps (???), edit warring (the article hasn't been edited since at all) and being disruptive. Weird ad hominem attacks too. Input would be very appreciated. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 08:05, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I feel the best position is somewhere in between. I agree the pre-edited article seems to be a bit bloated, redundant, and overly reliant on primary sources to provide superficial information like content and feature updates that is outside of WP:VGSCOPE. I think it was correct to be WP:BOLD to remove some of the details on minutiae about geography and the million trucks added to the game. I think there was a little bit of overenthusiasm in the cuts. There could be better compromise on preserving some key regional updates including work editors made to create a chart and graphic to summarize those updates. These are short, effective, and convey detail in a way that is not WP:EXCESSIVE. It may be good to raise a conversation when removing these things as they are not as easily restored which is what WP:CONSENSUS is. I empathize with you though; I feel like WP:VG has a more active user base and rigorous standard and experienced editors in that space can sometime clash with niche or enthusiast users maintaining a page who are putting passionate work into something that isn't quite encyclopedic. I also feel there was a bit of misinterpretation of WP:CONSENSUS here too: when there are disagreements, these sort of conversations and compromises need to be had to prevent an edit war, which hasn't happened yet. I hope this input helps. VRXCES (talk) 07:06, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree that most of what was removed was game guide content. However, then things got somewhat WP:BITEy with Soetermans's reasoning for why he took it out. He stated it in a very matter-of-fact way, then argued angrily when that was questioned. Editors have to be understanding that people may not get why things are deleted due to certain policies, especially when other editors expended a great deal of work on it, and work through the issue rather than immediately branding other users as zealous fans or vandals. The statement "I could use another voice of reason" also suggests a stance of looking down on non WPVG members as unreasonable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ () 07:29, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I might be misunderstanding here, Zxcvbnm, but you think this reply is bitey and I argued angrily? I have not said anything about others being "zealous fans or vandals" either. This is not helping and you are misconstruing my words. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 07:52, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And no, non-members aren't unreasonable, that particular uncivil editor is. I haven't been edit warring, there was no consensus and one edit isn't disruptive. So asking for another voice of reason? Yes, please. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 07:57, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That one was not, but the reply to the comment afterwards could come off as such. You responded with "I don't believe in consensus, because there was 14k of characters of primary sourced gameguide material?" in essence brushing off their entire contribution as cruft to be disposed of. Their entire argument was that you unilaterally deleted it without sufficient explanation and just pointing to various policies. I'm not saying you were wrong, but it would've been better to initiate a discussion on its removal and justify every deletion with an explanation (and you could always direct them to Wikibooks, which does accept game guides). ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ () 10:18, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for explaining. I will take your feedback into account. We seem to disagree a bit on civility though, I think jumping to conclusions right away that I "do not believe in consensus" because of one bold edit is an exaggerated and inappropriate response, let alone the nonsensical accusation of having a vendetta against maps. Regardless, the gameguide material wasn't their contribution to the article though, they've made five edits in total to it. I've left a message here pointing to the discussion, if my input is needed on the actual discussion please notify me, I've removed it from my watchlist. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 15:16, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Revert persistent edit-warrior attack". Can someone please step in here? Sergecross73, Ferret, Masem perhaps? Others, Zxcvbnm, Vrxces? soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 18:52, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the content again and commented at Talk:American Truck Simulator. I agree with Soetermans that the discussion there could use input from experienced editors who understand Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Woodroar (talk) 19:03, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Woodroar chimed in with "removing WP:GAMEGUIDE/unsourced/primary sourced content", which was revert once more by Fanx: "removing content and 65% of the sources while claiming material was unsourced does you no credit as a Wikipedian. It's beginning to look vexatious. It's certainly disingenuous". An uncivil response, straight away with the "does you no credit". WP:DIDNTHEARTHAT it's gameguide material and frankly, in my opinion, toxic that it is somehow "vexatious" and "certainly disingenuous" that others disagree with them. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 08:24, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Protected both articles and warned Fanx directly. -- ferret (talk) 13:14, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Returnal (video game)#Requested move 24 February 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – robertsky (talk) 15:08, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New Articles (February 26 to February 28)[edit]

 A listing of all articles newly added to the Video Games Wikiproject (regardless of creation date). Generated by v3.17 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 18:20, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

February 26

February 27

February 28


On time, every time. The 1.0 bot hasn't run for the video games project for a few days; I've put in a bug report. Will be a big catchup whenever it runs again. --PresN 18:20, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nintendo naming issue, possible citogenesis?[edit]

Hi people! I've been investigating the Nintendo and the "Nintendo Koppai"/"Karuta" name, at Talk:Nintendo#Karuta vs Koppai, and I'm suspecting an ancient citogenesis case since then, b/c I can't really verify "Koppai" in any of RS sources before 2005; and seeing appearances of that in sources post-2005, I'm having doubts. It actually seems also that the company wasn't founded as "Karuta/Koppai", but renamed to that in 1950/1951. Looking at some Nintendo docs I see the company itself saying, paraphrasing, "Showa 25: changed company name to 任天堂かるた".

I invite people to weigh on Talk:Nintendo#Karuta vs Koppai. Thanks! - Sleeps-Darkly (talk) 17:48, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Randy Linden, new article[edit]

Hey folks,

This has been on my todo list for a long time, but we finally have an article for Randy Linden, author of several seminal ports and emulators. Would appreciate any scrutiny and improvements as it's been a good long time since I've written a BLP from scratch. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 03:42, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Thumperward, I just went over the article. It was already in pretty good shape. The section headings (Console games, 32-bit era, Recent work) was a bit clunky in my opinion, I made that into a more standard 'career', but maybe that can be divided further into subsections. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 22:20, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ehhhh. I think that bunches too much stuff into one section; there are some pretty clear epochs in Linden's career and I think having them as separate sections worked for that (also I feel pretty strongly that including sections like "career" or even worse "biography" in a biography is an anti-pattern). Also, I'd have preferred if the YouTube links that were removed were incorporated into the article body as with the other interviews, rather than just removed; for now they include unique material that isn't present in the article. But thanks for going over it and all the cleanup that was performed. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:02, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not opposed to other sections or subsections, but before, the article makes no reference to 32-bit systems or what they are. And of course, those can be console games as well, the name of the previous section. The section "32-bit era" went up to March 2017, way past what is considered the fifth generation of video game consoles. "Recent" is a WP:DATED term. I looked again at the article to maybe use years (19xx to 19xx) as simple subsection headings, but the timeline isn't clear. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 08:34, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Final Fantasy articles[edit]

I think it's important that we examine some recent Final Fantasy articles, particularly Opera House (Final Fantasy VI), Triple Triad, Active Time Battle, and World of Ruin. Now, for me, I think Triple Triad is probably fine, but the others are really shaky. The shakiest article of these, in my opinion, is the Opera House article. Looking at the sources, they are quite limited. Two just have the opera house mentioned in lists, with only one source actually being about the scene. Not that GNG requires that, but it certainly helps. The real issue with Opera House for me, however, is the fact that a non-trivial number of sources, even the one that's about the opera house, is more about Celes' character than anything else. The Opera House, as a setting, is a lot less significant than Celes' song. Even the Undertale reference is a reference to Celes' scene. Of "setting" articles on Wikipedia for video games, I would argue that it's by far the weakest and most tenuous article.

As for World of Ruin, I'm on the fence about it - it's pretty weak in its current state, but I haven't looked deeply into more sources, so I'm unsure. My first impression is that the World of Ruin seems like something that would be iconic and receive significant coverage, but based on the article as it exists, what's there wouldn't convince me. Active Time Battle I have no idea how to approach. It certainly could be notable since it may have influenced other games, but the article in its current state doesn't really show off that notability.

@Zxcvbnm: since he worked on these articles. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 21:41, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like the wrong forum for this sort of discussion. It feels like you're making an AfD argument, but not in a deletion discussion? So nominate them for AfD if you believe they aren't notable - I will of course give the reasons they are. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ () 22:07, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But I'm not proposing an AfD for all articles, I am talking about a recent batch of articles, all of which I believe were posted in an incomplete state, and multiple possibly non-notable. Furthermore, considering how often AfDs where the goal is to merge are called out for being the wrong venue, I posted it here to gauge people's views on the issue. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 22:22, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am more than a little flabbergasted that they would be characterized as "in an incomplete state". With all due respect, your apparent high bar of inclusion is so far beyond Wikipedia's standard one as to be in the stratosphere. Soon I'm expecting people to demand that articles be FA-quality before they're even made.
I subscribe to the idea that Wikipedia is a work in progress. Stating offhand that the article will never be expanded or completed doesn't make an awful lot of sense to me. Anyone can edit an article, and we have no idea who will do so in the future. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ () 23:17, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't argue that being incomplete was a justification for deletion. As someone who was just mischaracterized in another discussion, I would ask that you not jump to conclusions, especially such a bizarre conclusion as claiming I said that they will never be expanded or completed. Whatever you think people are saying is not the case. My own text in this discussion explicitly said that the World of Ruin may prove notable. My point was that multiple editors found themselves of a similar mind on these, namely being unsure that these articles were notable enough, that to me it suggests that they are being split out before notability has been adequately established. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 23:22, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really sure what you want to do with a list of vaguely connected articles. If they aren't notable, then either boldly redirect them, or propose a merge/redirect/deletion. I agree that some of these articles are borderline notability, but the forum is for individual articles, not something us undefined as "recently created Final Fantasy articles". We don't require things to be completed to be in mainspace. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 23:18, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of these need to be separate articles except Triple Triad. Just because something is marginally notable doesn't mean a separate article is warranted, these don't demonstrate any reason why they have to be, or should be separate. These articles existing is just repeating content or is detrimental to other articles, they're likely stuck in the state they are in right now permanently. For example, Active Time Battle is summarized in Recurring elements in the Final Fantasy series, a well standing, existing good article where the material belongs. I already gave a source examination when these articles were first made as to why I don't think the Opera House should be its own article. I agree that World of Ruin likely needs more examination, as the current state the article is in is not the best and doesn't demonstrate much. λ NegativeMP1 22:29, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. As I said before, notability is not the primary issue here, it's readability, redundancy, and comprehension. Either the articles lack crucial context to understand them, or they repeat so much of other articles to establish context that it's mostly about the other thing. It's better to merge intimately related concepts into larger articles so the reader can benefit from increased understanding and readability. There's no need to break things up into "notable" least publishable units. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:39, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Third'd. Many of these fail points of WP:MERGEREASON, which is another important aspect to be considering alongside the GNG when creating spin out articles like this. There's some good content here (outside of feeling a bit drawn out at points), but it doesn't need to be located at its own article. Sergecross73 msg me 21:45, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To appease objections on venues, I've elected to go through the articles and open discussions on their talk page to ideally find evidence of notability. I've opened a discussion here. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 00:20, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO, notability was clearly established for... pretty much all of them besides World of Ruin, which I admit is shaky, but I've found a few more sources for the latter that I've placed on its talk page. Hopefully that appeases concerns over its notability. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ () 00:31, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please link merge/deletion discussions as they are created for these. I think it's probably appropriate to keep them separate. A merger of "Opera House" into Celes Chere seems reasonable too, seeing as it is "her scene." I don't believe there's a larger problem happening here; these four were created in a short timespan and it sounds like no new ones have been created since. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:47, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll do that so long as the discussion isn't archived. I'm not in a hurry to merge or redirect any of these, mainly because it just makes it easier to find sources for each individual one. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 20:16, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I don't think there's a venue issue. This is the most trafficked video game discussion page; it's the best place to get eyes on something (video game-related) that's not intended to get a deletion outcome. There's multiple articles in question so having a collective discussion at any one of their respective talk pages is doable, but would be strange. If there was only one page, the discussion thread on a low-trafficked talk page would languish for weeks and you'd just need to post a notice here anyway. Complaining about venue feels like WP:NOTBURO to me. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:54, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not bringing it to the actual articles in question risks alienating a subset of editors who are not necessarily WP:VG regulars. It will therefore become a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. It is not bureaucracy, but rather the reason why the consensus process exists the way it does. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ () 22:09, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This can be solved by simply notifying those talk pages of a centralized discussion. Note that a Project talk page is a broader consensus than a single article talk page typically. -- ferret (talk) 22:25, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't exactly strike me as likely - these are relatively new articles, there's not going to be some sort of established, long-term non-WP:VG members maintaining them already. There's also nothing wrong with just doing some brainstorming at the Wikiproject level and holding follow up discussions based on how that goes too. Sergecross73 msg me 22:44, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is Super Jump Magazine a reliable source?[edit]

Someone is trying to add https://www.superjumpmagazine.com/, a video game 'magazine' website as a source to Lemmings (video game). I note it isn't already mentioned at the project's sources, and only one other article on Wikipedia is citing it (Warno (video game)). I'm not convinced it satisfies WP:RS. Can I get some feedback from other people on the source? I note there was an actual magazine called Super Jump which folded in 2011, which appears to be completely unrelated. Damien Linnane (talk) 07:49, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would err on the side of unreliable. While it does have editors, it (a) doesn't seem to care whether it's reporting on pure rumors. See this article which comments on a rumor from a single journalist without caring about or confirming its veracity. (b) Relies solely on freelancers who have no reason to care whether they are being factual or true because they have zero "job security" anyway. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ () 08:15, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good points. I'm thinking the same thing regarding general unreliability. I appreciate the response. Damien Linnane (talk) 22:35, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Goals[edit]

If you check out the main WPVG page right now, you can see that we've hit our goal of 10% of articles B-Class or better, and at 99.7% are almost at another goal of 75% of articles Start-Class or better. Congratulations to all of us who improved articles over the past years! So, it's time to consider replacing them with new goals. For some ideas, see previous discussions here and here.

It feels like only yesterday that we set these goals... it wasn't, of course, because as the invisible comments tell us at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/goals, that B-class goal started at 1597/3093.5 (51.62%) in September 2014, and the Start-class goal started at 15039/22526.25 (66.76%) in January 2014. They were ambitious, long-term goals. The other two were started in November 2020, and will probably also take a decade to finish. I'd like to recommend as a result that we try, if possible, to pick new goals that are achievable in less time, even if that means they're more esoteric, though just "next round number%" is also ok. --PresN 14:32, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The zhwp WPVG has a set of goals (translation) which is similar to our goals:
  • 5 Good or Featured Topics
  • 5% of articles B-Class or better
  • High/Top-Importance articles basically reach C-Class
  • 1250 DYKs
The last goal seems newness. We have 1,389 DYKs and promote ~10 DYKs monthly, thus 1,500 DYKs (around one year) might be OK. But I'm not sure is there a DYK push custom...--For Each element In group Next (talk) 15:38, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be honest I've always been semi-disinterested in DYKs because I don't really get the purpose they serve.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:07, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
May I suggest a goal to clean out some of our backlogs, namely the screenshot and cover art backlogs? (Oinkers42) (talk) 16:18, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:DocFreeman24 has been doing this. Timur9008 (talk) 13:16, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From what I can tell, his edits over the past few months are mainly cover art and not screenshots. A goal or even a drive would help significantly with the almost 9k backlog. detriaskies 18:28, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes this is right, I’ve been mostly focused on cover art so if someone wanted to do screenshots that would be a great addition. Also I’d be more likely to do screenshots if there was an upload tool for screenshots the way there is for cover art. The upload tool makes it sooooo much easier than the manual process. DocFreeman24 (talk) 23:52, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Other goals to throw out there as ideas: <=7500 stubs (we've dropped ~1000 a year for the past 2 years, are at 8906 right now); 300+ FAs (we're at 268 and have been doing about 8/year recently); all Vital Level-5 video game articles C+ (17/175 are starts) or B+ (58/175 are start/C). --PresN 21:00, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those all sound like good ideas. QuicoleJR (talk) 02:38, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We could try getting all Top-Importance articles to B-Class or better. We are currently halfway there, since 30 of the 61 articles are C-Class and none are Start-Class or Stub-Class. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:55, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I like the ideas from QuicoleJR and PresN. Let's balance a few goals that reduce our lowest quality articles, and a few goals that increase our highest quality articles. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:09, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so, the proposed options are:

  1. <=7500 stubs
  2. 300+ FAs
  3. Vital Level-5 video game articles C+
  4. Vital Level-5 video game articles B+
  5. Top-Importance articles to B+
  6. Clear cover art backlog
  7. Clear screenshot backlog

Can we get a vote where everyone picks two options, and then I'll swap in the winners when we pass our 75% start goal? --PresN 15:55, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I vote options 1 and 3. --PresN 15:55, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of good options, so just picking 2 is tough. I'll go 2 and 3. -- ZooBlazer 16:05, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
After consideration, I go with 1 and 3. --ProtoDrake (talk) 16:16, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thinking 2 and 5, with 3 as a very close third. I pick 5 over 3 because it is much less prone to changing, although I like both as goals. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:21, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like 1 and 3. I missed the "nomination phase" here I guess, but I'd support a GA-based option ("x% of articles GA or better") ~ A412 talk! 16:51, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem with that one is that we're currently over 5% with 2428, but thousands from 10%. And just going to an even 2500 would be done in 3 months at our current rapid GA pace. --PresN 17:50, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1 and 6 TarkusABtalk/contrib 17:30, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
3 and 7. (Oinkers42) (talk) 17:33, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
5 and 7 here. Another possible goal is dealing with the former featured gaming articles. Roughly about 34 articles, and some pretty high-importance ones too like the NES. detriaskies 17:50, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe reducing the amount of low-quality articles should take priority, and out of these I think 1 and 3 will accomplish that most expediently, so they get my vote. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 17:57, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe 1 and 3 benefits readers the most. It can be overwhelming to see how many 90s/2000s game articles are just awful looking stubs. Sergecross73 msg me 18:29, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My vote is going to 1 and 3 per what others have said. I'm also already working (or planning) on de-stubbing some articles, so 1 falls in line. λ NegativeMP1 18:37, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm gonna go with 1 and then either 6 or 7. Getting rid of the large image backlogs would be neat. CaptainGalaxy 20:26, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
6 and 7. GamerPro64 22:36, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2 and 6. Skyshiftertalk 23:11, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1 and 2. I think dealing with stubs and getting more FAs are the two most important things to do in the project, as we have numerous articles that are either very close to being Start-class or simply not notable. 1 is also something that could easily be coordinated; for example, let's say that 10 users agree to focus on one letter each, doing what they can to figure out which articles are notable and improving them to at least Start-class. It wouldn't be a quick process, but it'd be a gradual one that doesn't take much effort for each individual stub. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 23:39, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1 and 6. I think this is the most important in terms of what readers will be looking for, especially 1. ― novov (t c) 07:03, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gaming websites stat[edit]

So I found this a while ago but according to the Yahoo search engine [1] there were more than 1452 websites that specialized in gaming back in 1998. I was wondering can this info be put to Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games or Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources? I apologize if this feels like trivia but I'm curious what others think. Timur9008 (talk) 13:37, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It feels like a meaningless statistic, because it's hard to know if it was actually counted by hand or what "specializing in gaming" means. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ () 03:41, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to the GA process of Ruiner Pinball[edit]

Hello to everybody. I hope y'all doing well and had a great weekend! I'm in the middle of taking the article for the Atari Jaguar game Ruiner Pinball to GA status but the main issue holding it back is the development paragraph in the "Development and release" section. To explain the issue: I could only find one source detailing the game's production, that being a anecdotal forum post by programmer Scott Corley at the 3DO Zone forums (https://web.archive.org/web/20150920094658/http://www.3do.cdinteractive.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=3496). I did add other sources that gives more background to Corley as to what was his role at High Voltage Software and i tried searching for more info, but that forum post is really all that i could find regarding the game's development process. I feel that if it has to be removed, we could lose valuable info about how Ruiner Pinball was made. And finding any info regarding the development of Jaguar games, given how unpopular was back in its day, is no easy task. Me and my fellow GA reviewer want more opinions about this issue so, any thoughts are more than welcomed! Roberth Martinez (talk) 21:58, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I cited forum posts from Toby Fox on Megalovania's development and that got through to GA alright. It's much like twitter citations in this regard where it's sometimes the only place such dev commentary exists, so you cite what you can as long as you can prove that is the person making those statements.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:07, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kung Fu Man:Corley introduces himself in the first forum post of the thread i linked above. To quote the post: "And for those of you who are wondering what the heck is going on, I'm Scott Corley, I was at High Voltage Software from the very early days". That is also why i added other sources to back up that claim such as these: (1), (2), (3). Roberth Martinez (talk) 22:32, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then yeah I'd say you'd be fine to cite this from my own GAN experiences.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:39, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AfC Submission Review - Jinggg[edit]

Hi there, I recently submitted an AfC submission about a professional valorant player named Jinggg.

Can someone help me review it or suggest improvements for me?

Thanks! Dulcetia  🗩  08:46, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What are the WP:THREE best sources you have for the player? It's all about quality over quantity, so if you can demonstrate several places he got significant coverage then it will be easier to judge if he is notable. The sources have to be more than just a minor announcement (i.e. that he is joining or leaving a team). Most if not all of them seem to just be updates or announcements. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ () 11:36, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning - I've listed a FAR for the article Pokémon Channel which could use some improvements as listed in the nomination. Grateful for any thoughts or input you may have. VRXCES (talk) 21:29, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pac-Man Museum+ article name[edit]

I asked this on the article's talk page but reposting here for visibility, why would Pac-Man Museum +'s name have a space before the +? Every source used on the page calls it Museum+, with the sole exception of the Nintendo World Report review. Is this a Manual of Style thing? Unless the page creator made it like that for whatever reason and it was never challenged. detriaskies 18:40, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The edit summary at Pac-Man Museum+ appears to explain why it was moved. I disagree with the reasoning (WP:COMMONNAME applies over any perceived "official" naming), but the name has been there long enough I am not sure a reversal is allowed without discussion. Feel free to start a WP:RM asking for it to be moved back. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ () 20:06, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Expose on Gamurs Group publications[edit]

Aftermath just posted a large reported piece on current day Gamurs Group sites (relevant sites to WP:VG/S include Siliconera, Dot Esports, Prima Games, Destructoid, The Escapist, The Mary Sue). tl;dr relevant to us is that their output as of mid-2023 is mostly SEO-driven low-effort content and we should probably avoid it where possible. Think Valnet-adjacent. Primary sources that they report on are still fine, insofar as they're still doing original reporting (are they doing any of that?), but beware of content mill/churnalism. On a more positive note, we should probably discuss Aftermath and Second Wind (former Escapist editorial guys) at T:VG/S as possible additions. Axem Titanium (talk) 23:45, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this. Disappointing stuff. I've been seeing more and more of this sort of stuff on my newsfeed too - "73 Nintendo Switch games recommended for purchase" as if any sort of thought or direction could be put into such a large collection of "suggestions". I haven't really noticed Siliconera do much of that yet at least.
FYI, I like Aftermath, but discussion on them seems to keep stalling out. Participation hasn't been the best though. Sergecross73 msg me 00:27, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aren't most of these situational or riding that edge already? -- ferret (talk) 01:18, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I feel with most editors already aware to avoid churnalism or low quality articles I don't feel it changes much if anything.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:23, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, to an extent, I think the importance lies more in saying "be mindful of the quality of your sourcing." - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 02:47, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Welp, we should probably start talking about moving these all to situational source. Right now, none of them mention this and some of them are listed as 100% reliable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ () 05:42, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I feel that's a moot point and will just lead to editors trying to block them on the grounds of them being situational and not on the context of what's being said. Churnalism and content mill behavior is hardly an isolated problem, if anything it's rampant across almost the sites now (IGN, GamesRadar+, etc). I'd rather advocate certain kinds of articles would be best to avoid for sourcing.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 05:47, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This reporting describes a massive shift in their corporate philosophy, though, not just a few pieces of clickbait here and there. They have essentially gone "all in" on AI-generated spam. I think the risk of it remaining reliable outweighs the potential for a few things to fall through the cracks. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ () 05:55, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I may be mistaken, but reading the piece while Gamurs originally wanted to, the backlash dissuaded them. The only other mention of AI is from the higher ups at Gamurs touting it as "the future" but not using it yet. It's definitely a case to watch, but saying they've gone "all in" feels inaccurate.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 06:12, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure we can trust that they AREN'T using AI in some capacity - with these apparently impossible sorts of quotas. But you do have a point that they only mention SEO content rather than straight-up AI stuff. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ () 06:28, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As ferret mentioned, many of these sources are already "situational" or "reliable but with exceptions/limitations" anyways, so I'm not sure how much has really changed. We could add something like "be wary of AI articles", but honestly we're probably on track to say that about all sources soon enough with the way things are headed. Which is honestly similar to what we went through in the past with userblogs in the early/mid 2010s. We started downgrading a bunch of sources that featured user-blogs, but after a while it seemed like so many websites featured them that it just became assumed to avoid them... Sergecross73 msg me 11:14, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • As we try to address churnalism, it will be tempting to move more and more sources to the situational section, and I don't think that is sustainable. Even some of our best sources are now capable of churnalism. We may hit a point where everything is situational in an industry that's desperately trying to sustain itself through clicks. And then what are these "situations" where a source is acceptable or not? That's the real question, and I don't think it's tenable to say "we stopped using most sources after 2021". Some thoughts:
  • AI-generated content is unreliable, and there seems to be a consensus for that.
  • We will always respect a game review, as long as it's a reliable independent source with editorial review.
  • Previews vary. Are they a real look at a game, or "we haven't had a new Metroid in 4 years" followed by a writer's personal wishlist?
  • News pieces vary. Opinions pieces vary, wildly. I wish I had better observations here.
  • Lists are sometimes good, but usually not. In general, we like editorial lists that are informed by a wide breadth of games (best RPGs of 2023, according to IGN). We usually disregard a list about a niche topic in a single game (best weapons in Call of Duty: Vanguard). There are a lot of lists between those two extremes, but we can start there.
  • News pieces about the audience are at a high risk of being low quality. Sometimes it's an important controversy, but sometimes it's literally trying to generate clicks off of something that is getting clicks on social media.
My overall point is that we may need to offer more guidance about the types of coverage we build articles from, instead of simply saying specific sources became unreliable after a certain date. Shooterwalker (talk) 11:46, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If everything is situational, then it's time for Wikipedia to potentially rethink its notability criteria, but that isn't really a matter for one WikiProject. But as long as online journalism by humans still exists, it's more of a "cross that bridge when we get to it" issue, stuff should not be kept as reliable just out of desire to have more RS existing. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ () 11:55, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But everything already is situational to a certain degree. Spend any amount of time at WP:RSP or WP:RSN and you'll see that's how experienced editors approach it. IGN is an authority on reviewing your yearly Call of Duty entry, but they have no business advising on solving world hunger or giving 401k advice. Everything is contextual. These source lists help solve common problems and get newbies up to speed, but we ultimately still need to approach this like humans with brains, and not computer programs. Sergecross73 msg me 12:07, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If we're talking only about these sources, I think the status quo is fine. Some are correctly marked as situational, and some are correctly marked as reliable. And editors are going to have to keep using their discretion when sources cross into trivia, even for our most reliable sources. Shooterwalker (talk) 12:09, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is an excellent point that the labels "generally reliable" and "generally unreliable" lose the subtlety of. One thing I'll add is that I think the video games area often (incorrectly, IMO) considers blanket source reliability more than it considers WP:ORGIND, and I think this is reflected in Shooterwalker's bullet points about previews and announcement news pieces, which are straight reprints of press releases at worst and reprints with writer personal opinion at best. I think it's a reality we have to accept, and is more accepted outside of VG, that the same publication can publish good original content and non-independent content.~ A412 talk! 17:00, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Shooterwalker's bullet points are a good encapsulation of my thoughts on the topic. I'm a longtime reader of Polygon and I'm frustrated by some of the editorial output, but it's still pretty easy for me as a Wikipedia editor to see which articles are usable and which are not, even as I consider the outlet as a whole to be reliable. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:46, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad other editors see the nuance. I don't want to drag this off topic, since we're discussing what to do about this one set of sources. But I hope we can talk about some general best practices at another time. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:10, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where can I access print sources?[edit]

I want to improve Beat Sneak Bandit, and I've found out that a magazine called Games Master has reviewed it. However, I can't seem to access it online. Where would I go? Thanks, TWOrantulaTM (enter the web) 03:15, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[2] - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 04:10, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably not the answer you're looking for, but you can buy the issue for pretty cheap here. Alternatively, if you register for OldGameMags (requires a donation), the issue will be accessible here. Rhain (he/him) 04:13, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Steam[edit]

I've been wondering it there has been a discussion about having a {{Steam}} template, similar to the ones for movies like IMDb or Film Affinity. I think it could help with consistency and would be a nice addition to the External links sections. NoonIcarus (talk) 03:08, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We don't link to storefront pages, so that would not be appropriate. Linking to something like Moby Games would be the equalivalent of linking to IMDB. Masem (t) 03:29, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds alright. Thanks! --NoonIcarus (talk) 10:57, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pro-Tip: How to archive Tweets in a Post-"X" era[edit]

So the short version is that around June 2023, Internet Archive lost the ability to archive twitter: the site actively blocks outside outlets, and trying to archive tweets directly causes a error to be archived instead. Archive.today can still archive them, but it's not ideal and there's more than a few folks that aren't fans of its service. Now twitter is still a valuable record of developer statements and comments, with many cases it being the *only* citation for someone saying "I made this" or offering developer commentary, and these statements are not always covered in secondary sources. So how can we preserve these for verifiability in case an account goes down or the whole site does?

The solution (for now) is simple: append "/photo/1" to the url. Here's an example:

Now this isn't without flaws: if you notice the URL on wayback changes to remove "/photo/1", but you still need to include that at the end of the URL when you add it to the "archiveurl" line for the Cite Tweet template. In addition this doesn't record threads or responses. So threads with multiple tweets will still need to be manually archived. But hopefully this helps some of you. Keep in mind that the Cite Tweet template itself does not automatically archive tweets, so you may double check any you've used over the years in your own articles. Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:48, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Elon. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:59, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm more of an archive.today kinda guy. IceWelder [] 22:28, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My only concern with archive.today is if it goes down at some point we're kinda screwed. I feel like IA is going to outlive it in the long run.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:31, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, my perception is that archivetoday is less stable in the long run. They seem to shift top level domains every now and then for reasons unknown but could be speculated about. And for some reason they're blocked by my work firewall 🤬 Axem Titanium (talk) 16:52, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would say archive tweets anybody see very important in regards to a particular game both at archive.today and the Internet Archive to have two backups. Roberth Martinez (talk) 00:00, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Articles under "Related" in navbox templates[edit]

Hi, do we have a generally accepted standard of what something must fulfill to be under "Related"? I ask because I saw Super Smash Bros. Ultimate under "Related" for Bomberman's, but since it's not mentioned in Ultimate's article, I question whether it's worthwhile to list it, though I'd argue it's fair to use for, say, Kingdom Hearts' or Tekken's. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 18:04, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If there's a standard, I've never seen it... Sergecross73 msg me 18:09, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I would say playable or maybe stage representation. (Oinkers42) (talk) 18:12, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I feel sometimes it gets excessive with certain brands (i.e. Capcom related navboxes including *every crossover big and small*)--Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:13, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I add things that are related. That's my standard.
If you have to think about whether or not it's related, then it's not related enough. Panini! 🥪 18:42, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think there probably add Super Smash Bros. Ultimate to Bomberman's navbox is because the titular character has appeared in it as an assist trophy which if I have a standard for the related part of navboxes, it would be that articles about subject who have references to non-related series as long these references aren't cameos and anything miscellaneous articles which focused on that series such as characters and other medias and in addition, the creators and other people who have major history with the series can be in my standard so. NatwonTSG2 (talk) 19:16, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd personally say anything that's rather big or meaningful (For instance, Dante being playable in PlayStation All-Stars Battle Royale) but excluding random small cameos and the like (His Mii Costume in Super Smash Bros. Ultimate, for instance) There's probably exceptions but I feel that it's decent as a general rule given how many minor crossovers occur these days. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:59, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New Articles (March 10 to March 17)[edit]

 A listing of all articles newly added to the Video Games Wikiproject (regardless of creation date). Generated by v3.18 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 17:16, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 10

  • None

March 11

  • None

March 12

March 13

March 14

March 15

March 16

March 17


It's back! The 1.0 bot broke for a couple weeks, just for our project. It's now resolved, but it logged only the changes starting on Mar 10, so Feb 29 through Mar 9 are missing. If you wrote articles in that gap, feel free to add them. --PresN 17:16, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How did we manage to have no new articles March 10 or March 11? QuicoleJR (talk) 17:50, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It happens sometimes, not sure if it's a data issue in this case. --PresN 21:20, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what raw data we have to work with, but is it possible to split the "Articles deleted" section into articles and redirects, and into mainspace and draftspace? ~ A412 talk! 17:51, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, easy enough. Redirects are already split out, but we had a lot of drafts deleted this week so it seems helpful to split up deletions. Now done, re-ran it for this week's report and updated above. --PresN 21:20, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is TopSpin 2K25 WP:TOOSOON? soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 19:32, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think so, and I draftified it earlier before it was moved back out without any real improvements, but I'm not going to advocate for a process-for-the-sake-of-process AFD when it's now going to release in about a month. ~ A412 talk! 20:00, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IT'S BACK!!!! Glad to see this return, sucks to hear it went out of commission for a weeks. I look forward to looking at these lists. CaptainGalaxy 22:31, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder: GDC Flickr[edit]

A reminder that with GDC going on this week, their photostream on Flickr uploads everything (still) under a free license compable CC-BY-2.0 license, so this is a good source for developer images, if you can verify identities. This is usually better for the awards night (Thursday) but you can sometimes get a good image of a person lecturing a room, for example. — Masem (t) 01:25, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are any Nintendo folk I'd be interested in using going to be there? Panini! 🥪 04:19, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can search the schedule here and there are a few Nintendo ppl that will be there, but no names I immediately recognize. Masem (t) 04:24, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ooh, Takashi Tezuka! His infobox image is long overdue. Panini! 🥪 04:38, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in mind that the photograph doesn't spend time at every session, through big recognized names that would draw a room, they will be at.
But again, at the awards, they generally photograph every winner and most of the attending nominees, which is why that's a more sure spot. Masem (t) 04:51, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]