Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Requests

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Video games (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon This 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.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
WPVG icon 2016.svg WikiProject
Video games
Main page talk
Manual of style
Article guidelines talk
Sources talk
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


More ... Help[edit]

Can someone guide the article [[1]] Rogue ( Computer game) forward? I have the screen shots, and would like some guidance as to what to do next... Thanks... (talk) 05:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


Two proposals/ideas:

  1. Group requests by type. (i.e. games, companies, people, etc.) This would allow people that concentrate on certain types to see the requests in that area easier.
  2. Sort by the date originally requested. This way it can easily be seen which requests have been there the longest.

Comments? MrKIA11 (talk) 23:43, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I actually like the idea of sorting by date, highlighting articles which either need creating or removing due to a lack of available sources. Someoneanother 23:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Sort by date: thumbs up. D. Brodale (talk) 23:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
I'll work on it. MrKIA11 (talk) 23:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Done. I grouped them by month requested, but that can be changed. MrKIA11 (talk) 13:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Excellent work, now we have priorities. Someoneanother 15:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
I've started going through these requests and removing the ones which do not have a realistic chance of becoming articles, either due to notability, scope or both. More emphasis needs to be placed on requesters providing some sources and asserting that the article has acceptable materials available to write an article with. A lot of the time redlink is made, perhaps a homepage address is left, then they flounce off and it's up to a would-be article creator to even find out if the subject can realistically be turned into an article. No wonder so many sit here for so long, it's a thankless chore. Someoneanother 23:08, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

New game[edit]

I was trying to request an article for the new sports game EA Sports Active More Workouts but I cannot find it. What should I do?


Hi, this page is to request that articles be made. So if you are requesting that article be made, you wouldnt be able to find it, since it doesn't exist yet. Blake (Talk·Edits) 20:15, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Created a redirect to EA Sports Active#More Workouts for now. If that section gets too large, then we should create a separate article. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 07:48, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Discussion about this page[edit]

FYI- A discussion at WT:VG#To-Do list too large? is taking place which includes the effectiveness and possible future of this page. Input from editors that regularly assist with request would be appreciated. (Guyinblack25 talk 18:16, 19 January 2010 (UTC))

This discussion was archived here. czar · · 21:23, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Spank the monkey[edit]

there is a page for the obscure card game, Spank the monkey, but not a page for the popular flash game! how wierd... can you make a page for Spank the Monkey (flash game) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jowee the Raposa (talkcontribs) 21:54, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

New group of requests[edit]

Just to explain what I've just done here: I noticed that we were beginning to see a good amount of video game buildup at Wikipedia:Requested articles/Arts and entertainment. Much of this is even carried forward from the earlier Wikipedia:Requested articles/Culture and fine arts. Although the layout of the requests page seems to clearly guide most editors to WP:VG/R, the presence of random video game titles scattered on these lists has the effect of encouraging new VG requests on the general "Arts and entertainment" page instead of here at this topic-specific request board. So I've gone through and imported all the most obvious ones. I'm sure I'm still missing some, but I don't have the time to look closely at everything there so I'll save that for a later date. I've also made absolutely no assessment of the requests that were listed there and instead just imported them all wholesale, so I'm sure there are a number that can be weeded out immediately. Some are quite old. -Thibbs (talk) 23:33, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I was just looking back quickly at Wikipedia:Requested articles/Arts and entertainment and noticed the Game design section which seems to be primarily made up of VG designers. I would imagine that most of these should be imported here as well at some point in the future, right? This request page isn't restricted to only game titles, is it? -Thibbs (talk) 12:13, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
That would be fine, this page is for requests for anything falling under the Video Games WikiProject, which is certainly not limited to just the video games themselves. Samwalton9 (talk) 18:42, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
OK I've just made a final sweep of the last of the video game related articles left at Wikipedia:Requested articles/Arts and entertainment (including game designers and other related topics) and I'm pretty confident that I've now located the great majority of video game requests. I've also gone back through the extensive page histories to determine when the requests were made so now I'm basically all set to import them here. Sorry that this took a lot longer than I'd anticipated... I was hoping to get started on fulfilling requests by the end of August but instead I'm just creating more work. Anyway I'm kind of concerned that this new influx of requests will make a big mess of the good work Samwalton9 has recently accomplished and I wanted to hear some input on how best to go about this.
One option is to just dump the requests straight from "Arts and entertainment" to WP:VG/R and then we could start looking for refs, etc. with them in situ. Another option would be to dump them into talk here and then we could migrate the ones that seem promising and leave the others in talk. I plan on removing these requests from "Arts and entertainment" either way, and then I'd like to perform a few slight structural changes there to ensure that it doesn't again become a repository for stray VG requests. But as far as the requests that will be migrated here, does anyone have any views on what would be the best way to handle them? -Thibbs (talk) 03:17, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

So should I just dump them into the main page then? I'm ready to shift them at any time. -Thibbs (talk) 18:30, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry I missed your previous comment when you posted it. I think it would be best to post them here on the talk page first so that we can sort through them and only copy through the ones that are doable. Samwalton9 (talk) 18:42, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
No problem. I'll put them in a collapsible box when I get back home (in a few hours) since there are a lot of them. -Thibbs (talk) 19:03, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Awesome, thanks for sorting through them by the way. Samwalton9 (talk) 19:07, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Glad to help. Thank you for being so active on the request fulfillment activities! -Thibbs (talk) 22:47, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Shifting games out of "Arts and entertainment" Phase 2 - Game designers and Other[edit]

The above requests are so old in some cases that Wikipedia's standards on the use of RSes were much more relaxed and there was no explicit requirement that they be included on the request page. Consequently many of the above requests have no refs. Some effort should be made to look for refs, though, to be fair. I've made some changes at "Arts and entertainment" that I hope will prevent this from recurring quite as badly in the future, and I'd welcome any further ideas on that subject. In the meantime, I suggest that all editors freely modify the contents of the above table. Overstrike entries that lack sufficient RSes, import feasible requests into the main WP:VG/R page, etc. Thanks in advance for your help in this. -Thibbs (talk) 22:29, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Shifting games out of "Wikipedia:Requested articles/Japan"[edit]

Sorry to keep adding instead of helping to reduce, but this is a small set:

I've added a warning redirect to Wikipedia:Requested articles/Japan for all future video game requests there. -Thibbs (talk) 12:32, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Change to intro[edit]

I think this page would be more useful if posters were asked to include links to reliable sources along with their submissions. As it stands, it's almost like we're encouraging non-notable submissions that are bound to be deleted. czar · · 18:30, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I think it needs making clearer, but posters are asked to include links: "When adding a new title, please provide a URL which includes some information on the article you are requesting." I don't see a problem with adding "a reliable source" instead of "URL", but I think the main problem is needing to rewrite/copy-edit the whole paragraph. It seems like quite a messy page start to me. Samwalton9 (talk) 18:39, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

(Transclude Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything)
If you think an article about video games should be added to the encyclopedia and know that it meets the inclusion criteria above, please list it below with URL links to the reliable sources that prove its notability (e.g., reviews or dedicated coverage from IGN or Polygon, but not forum posts, blogs without a professional staff, or "official websites"). Please do not add games or developers that do not yet meet this notability criteria, as they will be deleted. Instead help us work on another current article and remember to add the game/developer if they meet the criteria in the future.

Thoughts? czar · · 19:35, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
I like it generally, though I've just made a couple of wording changes:

(Transclude Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything)
If you think an article about video games should be added to Wikipedia and know that it meets the inclusion criteria above, please list it below with URL links to the reliable sources that prove its notability (e.g., reviews or dedicated coverage from websites like IGN or Polygon, but not forum posts, blogs without a professional staff, or the official website of the subject). Please do not add games or developers that do not yet meet this notability criteria, as they will be deleted; instead help us work on another current article and remember to add the game/developer if they meet the criteria in the future.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Samwalton9 (talkcontribs) 15:57, 24 June 2013‎ (UTC)
I'm fine with this. (If anything, I think "websites like" is redundant, and I'd remove the semicolon to make it easier to read.) If you object, it isn't a big deal to me. Let's give this another day or two for consensus, but I think it's good to go. czar · · 17:15, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
I can see that, and I don't mind either way, I just thought it read a little too much like IGN and Polygon were the only websites we'd accept as reliable, though perhaps that depends on the reader. Happy to give it another couple of days for other opinions. Samwalton9 (talk) 19:33, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Shall we go ahead with this? Samwalton9 (talk) 15:02, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I have now changed the lead. Feel free to tweak it if you think you can improve it. Samwalton9 (talk) 19:04, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Looks good. I'll give it a tweak eventually (when I get to going through the list) czar · · 03:39, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
I think it looks good as well. It's a small change since the previous intro was more permissive and allowed requests on anything whereas this one asks requesters to do some basic RS searching themselves, but I think that's appropriate at least for now given the backlog and lack of coverage for this page. We can always allow requests on any old thing once we've worked the request list down to manageable numbers and are in need of further work. :) -Thibbs (talk) 10:40, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Looking again at this intro I'd like to suggest that we cut the line that says "instead help us work on another current article and remember to add the game/developer if they meet the criteria in the future." The reason I think this would be good is because I think it's unlikely that anybody coming to this page will be experienced or ambitious enough to know how to do that. As I see it this page is for editors who are primarily readers and not editors or for editors who are very short of time or very lazy. None of these classes of people would be interested in working on other articles in my estimation. Any thoughts on this? -Thibbs (talk) 17:32, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I think I'd agree that most readers might not be editors, but I don't see any harm in encouraging them to contribute. Samwalton9 (talk) 17:41, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps we could alter it to something like "If your request has been fulfilled, please take the time to help us work on another current article and remember to add the game/developer if they meet the criteria in the future." It's true what you say that there's no harm in encouraging them to contribute but I feel like the line is kind of naive as it stands. Basically we're saying "Please provide sources along with your request for us to write an article for you or, failing that, please expand other articles for us." There's no real harm in leaving it as is, but we could also change it to a quid pro quo] suggestion. Would that be better? -Thibbs (talk) 17:50, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Hmm I'm not sure. The people submitting articles are, I assume, either unwilling to put time in to Wikipedia at all, or just unsure of how to create an article from scratch. I don't think it's too much of a stretch to remind them they might like to help edit another article. I'm not sure saying "Wait until we've done this, then go edit something for us" is necessarily a better method, especially considering the time it takes for the requests to be fulfilled; I doubt people submitting requests will check back regularly to see if the article has been made and if so go ahead and edit another article. Samwalton9 (talk) 18:06, 30 August 2013 (UTC)


So I've just been through, checked every entry, and as you can probably see from the edit history, have cleared out everything which certainly didn't meet notability requirements. There are plenty left, however, and I've added any sources I found for most of them. I'd like to start going through making the pages but it may turn out that plenty of them still aren't notable enough. If someone can give me a hand going through to attempt making some of the articles I'm sure it won't take long to make the notable articles and get rid of the still non-notable ones. The help would be greatly appreciated! Samwalton9 (talk) 14:29, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I won't be free enough to tackle something like that until at least August, but I wanted to thank you for your work on the backlog. I've been noticing your efforts during the last week and I think you've really done a nice job. You were probably a bit more ruthless than I would have been on some of the suggested topics, but I really think that's what was needed and I'm sure it's more helpful than agonizing over borderline cases. Making a dent in the requests through article creation as you're proposing would be really grand! If you want to get traction for this idea, I'd recommend posting to the main WP:VG talk here. I'll definitely look into it myself in August. Thanks again for a great job, Samwalton9. -Thibbs (talk) 14:56, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello the backlog is still here and its like 3 years now, pls fix it its a mess and i think no one is even patrolling it we need more people to work clearing it and also i see so much high quality video game articles but creating new ones and if they do its usually a tiny stub with no usefulness --Hanz24 (talk) 15:18, 20 April 2016 (UTC)hanz24
Feel free to jump in and lend a hand. -- ferret (talk) 15:28, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Can we order it so the newest submissions are at the top?[edit]

That way arrivers at the page are not bombarded by rejected articles and instead have a list of great ideas that are ripe for article creation.--Coin945 (talk) 14:41, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Rejected articles? Just because the oldest request is from 2011 doesn't mean its rejected. Some people have created articles that have been on there for a while. While it would be nice for the backlog to close its gap, having newer article requests be on top while older ones be possibly ignored might not be the right call. GamerPro64 14:50, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
I disagree. An article that every visitor to this page has seen since 2011, yet noone has chosen to create, is rejected in my opinion. Whereas better article topics are hidden at the bottom of the page.--Coin945 (talk) 14:57, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
If you believe that some article requests are rejected, why not remove them from the listing as well? Also, I find it interesting that you say "better article topics" when you have added a bunch of article suggestions for the past couple of months. GamerPro64 15:05, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
I will not delete other people's suggestions, regardless of how notable I think they are. But it does make sense that if 20 suggestions were originally made in January 2011, and only 3 are left, they are the least-notable of the bunch. And yes, I have added loads of suggestions for articles that are 100% notable. So that's probably what you were referring to. Knowing that notable articles exist is a different ballgame to creating the articles myself. Bringing their attention to video game wikipedia editors is a noble quest, and which is incidentally the whole point of this page.--Coin945 (talk) 15:09, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
I personally think either is fine, though I can't help but think Coin's motivation is solely based on bringing more attention to the boatload of article's he dumped on the list. Not sure if that's a particularly "noble" motivation or not... Sergecross73 msg me 15:22, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
The "boatload of articles I've dumped on the list" are all articles that passersby can easily create. The point of this page is to come, find an interesting topic, then leave to create the article. In the shortest amount of time possible. Sifting through articles that were so tenuous they were rejected in favour of other articles lower down on the list, doesn't do much to help editors find possible article topics. My way - creating a new list of article requests, makes this page ripe once again with many topics that deserve articles. That is not spamming, but instead using this page for its intended purpose.--Coin945 (talk) 15:27, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Let's keep it top-down, oldest-newest, just because every other talk page works exactly like that. I don't see a problem with archiving old requests/proposals either. --Soetermans. T / C 16:26, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Oldest on top, if only for the motivation it may give people to do it themselves rather than wait four years. - X201 (talk) 16:35, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
But maybe, just maybe, those oldest submissions are only still there because they are the least notable out of the bunch, so every passerby skipped over it.--Coin945 (talk) 16:38, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
I have to agree with the other replies, I don't see burying the old requests at the bottom to be a good idea, many of the older requests just need someone to come along and realise they have an old magazine with an additional source, something which is less likely to happen if they don't notice the request. Sam Walton (talk) 16:42, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Indeed. There's a pretty clear cut table of contents at the top, with shortcuts to each month/year, so I'm sure people can find newer requests, should they want that for whatever reason. Sergecross73 msg me 17:26, 4 February 2015 (UTC)


Is there any clear cut policy on whether or not a request gets denied? --Anarchyte 10:15, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

As I said on the removed post, there isn't a clear cut rule but I've only been removing requests which obviously have no chance of being created; that is that they are something like a game released in the last few years which has no reliable source coverage online. You can be fairly sure that something like that isn't suitable for Wikipedia. I don't see any harm in leaving requests with no reliable sources, we only request it so strongly because it helps us a lot, it's really not a hard requirement. Additionally I think we should leave any older or foreign games on the page because it's hard to ascertain whether sources do exist. That's why I've left most old or Japanese games in the list; it's quite likely sources do exist and we just don't have easy access to them. Sam Walton (talk) 10:21, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Redirect talk page[edit]

This talk page has little traffic—any discussion here would not see a wide audience, but should. Is there any opposition to archiving and then redirecting this talk page to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games where more people can participate in discussions relevant to this page? czar 07:06, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Might be a good idea, considering Anarchyte had to wait an entire year for a reply! soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 06:51, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Checking requests[edit]

So... all the requests that people put on that page... do they even get checked/reviewed by other users and the pages are created? Because there are some requests that are still active since June 2014, the pages haven't been created. I just left a request there, so go check it out. (talk) 11:26, 7 September 2016 (UTC)