Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 90.227.30.140 (talk) at 01:31, 16 May 2020 (→Splitting or renaming Panel de Pon/Tetris Attack). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NAVGTR Awards

Could use some more eyes at this AFD. Been a week and only a few comments. Axem Titanium (talk) 01:49, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup?

So, this has closed as non-notable and been deleted. As such, do we need an effort to remove it from Award tables? -- ferret (talk) 13:18, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sakura Wars GT/FT

edit | discuss
Sakura Wars titles
6 articles
Sakura Wars (1996)
Sakura Wars 2: Thou Shalt Not Die
Sakura Wars 3: Is Paris Burning?
Sakura Wars 4: Fall in Love, Maidens
Sakura Wars: So Long, My Love
Sakura Wars (2019)

While I'm still working on the reception section for the 2019 Sakura Wars before nominating it for a GAN (and eventually an FAC) as well as addressing some concerns for the FAC on the original Sakura Wars (where we have two supports, two opposes and are still waiting for the other reviewers such as TheJoebro64, Spy-cicle, Alexandra IDV, etc. for other comments), I've posted a possible GT/FT box for the main Sakura Wars titles. Any thoughts or suggestions before we can proceed? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:55, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's one support, two comments, and two opposes. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 02:32, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I must have gotten some the numbers mixed up. Thanks for the clarification. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:37, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sjones23, I'll try to get a review in later this week. Sorry I haven't taken a look yet; I was (A) extremely busy and (B) appalled by I'm Aya Syameimaru!'s behavior and wanted to wait until that was resolved. JOEBRO64 17:21, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. I'm sure the situation with I'm Aya Syameimaru! has already been resolved by now. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:52, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, Sakura Wars wasn't promoted. Maybe in about two weeks or so, I'll consider taking it up for an FAC again once all the oppose comments have been addressed. Ian Rose recommended that @Alexandra IDV: might get involved in working on the article. Thoughts or objections? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:39, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ me next time you do a FAC for it, and I'll try to get a review in in a more timely manner--AlexandraIDV 06:27, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:44, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Nintendo leak

Anyone think this will be worthy of its own article? 2TB of top-secret Nintendo files (including source code for the N64, GameCube, and Wii, and potentially game prototypes) has been obtained by hackers and is slowly but steadily being leaked. It's being called one of the biggest leaks in video game history and could have massive ramifications. Some sources: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. JOEBRO64 18:37, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As long as the info is reported through RS, its fine to use. For example, I already added the interesting tidbit why Nintendo used 12-digit friend codes over screen names via a Eurogamer article. But do not add anything directly from these leaks yourself or from forums. Let the 3rd parties get their hands dirty. --Masem (t) 18:40, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think everyone here should know that already. I was just curious because we usually don't make pages for these leaks, it's just that the sheer magnitude of this one is unprecedented. JOEBRO64 18:41, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about a standalone article. I mean, this leak just happened, so it hasn't had time to make any lasting impact yet (if at all). ~ Dissident93 (talk) 23:00, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dissident93, I think the fact that the complete source code for Nintendo consoles escaped into the wild is enough to make it notable. As sources have noted, it means that anyone will be able to duplicate and sell bootleg systems using the code. It's destined to create massive legal showdowns once Nintendo pinpoints who leaked the material and who's pirated it. The ramifications this will have are going to be profound. JOEBRO64 23:17, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I never said it wasn't notable, just that this same info could go in their respective articles without much issue. Justifying a standalone article (as of today) by saying that its legacy is "destined" is still WP:FUTURE, even if it's pretty logically to assume it will have some ramifications in the near future. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 23:23, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It wouldn't be FUTURE because it's not my conclusion, it's what sources are saying. I've started Draft:2020 Nintendo leak, where we can nurture it until it's ready for a standalone article. JOEBRO64 01:18, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Even then, the sources are just assuming and speculating as it's only been a day since the leak. Has Nintendo officially commented on it yet? That would be the first step. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 01:25, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also a new Kotaku article is calling this "unprecedented... Such information would be of great interest to emulation enthusiasts, data miners, and anyone curious about the Japanese gaming giant's notoriously secretive past." JOEBRO64 23:20, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some commentary from Alex Donaldson, one of VG247's editors who's done quite a bit of work for sites we consider reliable: https://twitter.com/APZonerunner/status/1257037165764194305 JOEBRO64 15:06, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Without knowing much about the leak, I just looked at the article you created on this (2020 Nintendo leak), and after reading it, it doesn't seem to warrant its own article. A good chunk of the article is just background on past Nintendo leaks. A summary of the lead could easily just be put into an existing article. Just my two cents. --TorsodogTalk 05:35, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Torsodog. I don't think this needs a separate article. The information should be put in the Nintendo parent article instead. OceanHok (talk) 05:47, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    There's unquestionably enough sources to pass WP:GNG, and just look at what some of the sources are saying. This is significant. Torsodog's claim that "A good chunk of the article is just background on past Nintendo leaks" is 100% false; it's a single sentence to explain how serious Nintendo is about IP protection. This is still ongoing, so more sources will be added. JOEBRO64 11:17, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't oppose having a separate article in the future but the information should be put in the parent article now per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:TOOSOON. The ramification section is only a bunch of journalists guessing what may happen in the future instead of what have happened. As the leak continues, I can only see this as an WP:INDISCRIMINATE list of information rather than a proper article. OceanHok (talk) 14:06, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This has nothing to do with NOTNEWS or TOOSOON (this has been going on for a month), or INDISCRIMINATE (I will ensure the information stays concise and doesn't get overly detailed). The ramifications section, if anything, demonstrates how notable it is because of how seriously sources are treating this. This would be too much to squeeze in another article, so a standalone one is more than acceptable. JOEBRO64 14:22, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The ramifications at this point are WP:NOT#CRYSTAL. Yes there could be. There hasn't been a detailed forensics by experts yet on the information to know the extent of benefit to the industry/damage to Nintendo/etc. Exactly one interesting piece of information has come out of it (the friends code thing). If it becomes Nintendo's downfall for some reason, then probably a separate article is merited but for not, its just sufficient to note the leak at where it makes the most sense. --Masem (t) 14:29, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I do think there is a difference between excited journalists covering a story and saying "this will have big ramifications" and those big ramifications actually emerging. I'm not necessarily opposed to a standalone article, I have no opinion there, just worth keeping in mind. Popcornfud (talk) 14:41, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly one interesting piece of information you're joking, right? JOEBRO64 16:37, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There seems to be a consensus that this isn't the foundation for a good article, and I'd like to back that consensus up. There are a lot of policies that are higher than the General Notability Guideline, including What Wikipedia is Not. The GNG is only a basic, basic, basic threshold you'd need to pass to even consider an article, because you need to make something that's verifiable and neutral. You can't follow that to its absurdity, that anything verifiable and neutral gets an article, because you could carve every topic up into hundreds of micro-articles.
Following the GNG to absurdity isn't just messy for fictional topics, like a game character's hair (which sometimes does get covered in multiple articles), but also non-fiction topics (like a dev who gives an interview that generates 20 reaction editorials). Like, yeah, I guess you could write that article. But isn't it covered better in context? Isn't it better to just improve the main character article with why the hair is so important, instead of trying to inflate it into its own topic? Shouldn't we summarize most controversies in two sentences, and then tell people what happened next, instead of creating a WP:COATRACK of every journalist's two cents about every controversy? There are exceptions to this, but that's for exceptional topics. This advice applies across many micro-topics.
My advice is to be incremental. Include the information about this leak in relevant articles, like Nintendo's history and business, or famous leaks. Wait and see what these "massive ramifactions" are and actually cover what those are when they happen, instead of creating a quote farm of journalists making proclamations about what might or might not happen. For example, if someone takes leaked code and makes an illegal remake, that could be covered in an article about that game. Of if a leaked game hurts sales, that should be mentioned when talking about that game's sales. At most, I could see this rising to a disruption of Nintendo's business, in which case you'd still include it in an article about Nintendo. I'd be shocked if it's more than that, but rather than arguing about it, start writing and see what legitimately happens. I'm gonna let people think about that, because WP:SNOWBALL. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:15, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't agree, but out of respect for the consensus here I've moved it back to draft for the time being. JOEBRO64 18:29, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I find myself mixed on this. While I'd certainly disagree that "exactly one interesting piece of information" came out of this leak, I fail to see the need for an article on this when we have no idea how it would affect Nintendo or the industry or what have you. If the company is greatly affected by this in the future then I'd be all for making a page on it, but as of now I'd argue this should be just a short paragraph in the Nintendo article. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 18:29, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New Articles (April 27 to May 3)

Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements
 A listing of all articles newly added to the Video Games Wikiproject (regardless of creation date). Generated by v3.4 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 19:55, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

April 27

April 28

April 29

April 30

May 1

May 2

May 3

Note: "Unshaken" was created on the 20th but not tagged until the 28th, and made GA soon after, so it's still a very rapid GA either way. --PresN 19:55, 4 May 2020 (UTC)</ref>[reply]

Opinions on primary topic for Apollo Justice

The newly created article for Apollo Justice is not disambiguated. The problem is that I am not sure he is as prominent a character as Phoenix Wright to merit that. I am thinking the primary topic could still be the eponymous video game. Thoughts?ZXCVBNM (TALK) 21:20, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment, there is no need to disambiguate; as the game with the similar name is naturally disambiguated. This should be fine with just hatnotes. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:34, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, no need. The title provides natural disambiguation through the rest of the game’s title. Sergecross73 msg me 22:17, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, an Apollo article... Last time I checked - this may have been a year or two ago, and there has been no new media featuring the character in that time - there was very little coverage of the character in RSs, mostly just within reviews of the video game, so I'm not so sure that a stand-alone article is even warranted.--AlexandraIDV 14:02, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is actually a really good point. There’s only 11 references in the article, and a good portion of them are either first party sources or with titles that suggest that they’re more about the series than the character... Sergecross73 msg me 01:39, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion on a possible article or location for one

Some may be aware that Geoff Keighley is going to be doing a "Summer Game Fest" from May through August as a online replacement to help many of the cons and events that have been cancelled, and he's been partnering with a lot, including Microsoft, Gamescom, numerous others. See the website here for the basics. [6] but for all purposes this is like an extended E3 event.

The event's gotten coverage particularly with some of the big publishers onboard as well as MS + Sony, and so I'm edging on thinking that presenting an article like how we'd typically do an E3 article - in the sense that there's definitely going to be new games announced in the events throughout this period. I was trying to think if there was anywhere else these details could live but , for example, using the current E3 2020 article wouldn't make sense, nor would it be really appropriate on the COVID impact on the VG industry article. So I'm just getting a quick idea if a standalone would be reasons. (I can meet the GNG, that I'm certain). --Masem (t) 03:52, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Masem, you're usually right on things like this, just go for it. If you're really in doubt, just draft it somewhere and leave the link here so others can help. - X201 (talk) 15:35, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's worth a good shot. We're seeing the sources for it. And in these interesting times, it could be as notable an event as any other game conference. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:25, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Creating indexes for task forces?

So, on some WikiProjects such as WP:SQUAREENIX, there's an index page at Wikipedia:WikiProject Square Enix/Index. Is it possible to use index pages for task forces such as WP:NINTENDO and WP:SEGA, using the Square Enix one as a model, or is it unnecessary at this point? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:09, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a lot of work for something that people rarely ever use. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 22:26, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking as the maintainer of the WPSE index page, it's a ton of gnome work for very little benefit. There's no real way to automate it, as any sort of subdivisions on the page are inherently subjective and an un-categorized index isn't very useful, and you'd need a bot to keep the article ratings up to date as there's no template way to do it. The WPSE index is handy to see "oh, most of <x series of games + related articles> is GA+, maybe someone should do the last couple", but you only get that by obsessively organizing and maintaining it. I don't think the effort/reward ratio is worth it for task forces, and frankly there are very few editors who even want to spend the time on it- there are a few of us now maintaining the GA/FA pages for WPVG, but there have been years where it was pretty much just me and this is a way larger project to pull people from. WPSE has it because I'm obstinate enough to keep doing it and we only have ~460 articles; SEGA has twice that and NINTENDO 3x the number. --PresN 01:04, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All praise to PresN for maintaining it for these years. I have to chime in because I love article indexes: it is amazing to have a place to see where the project is strong, what are it’s goals, where is it going. It makes it so I can jump in after a break of a few years and get right back to work, see what needs doing. Yes they are fiddly, and all done by hand, but I must say I have so much respect for the work done, and you must know it has never been in vain. As to whether it’s appropriate for big projects, probably not, nothing bigger than 500-1000, it would get crazy! Making these kinds of lists automated could be a nice technology ask next time they do a survey. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:00, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I also find indices useful, and have set up a page of them for various limited-scope topics I want to eventually bring to GT, and until there is a way to automate this that's probably the way to go.--AlexandraIDV 08:03, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Echoing Judgesurreal in thanks for maintaining the WPSE index. It's clearly an incredible amount of work. Would love to be able to bot/template query an article's quality assessment somehow in the future. Axem Titanium (talk) 05:14, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't use "samples" for describing sound in old arcade video games just because MAME says that.

I've just fixed several articles that made this error, and hopefully I got them all, but I thought I should explain the problem to this project. Frequently, when describing a very old arcade video game from the 1970s or early 1980s, MAME will list the sound as "Samples". This does not mean that the game had its own digital sound samples which it used to play sounds. That would require relatively advanced circuitry, and if the game had such hardware, MAME would describe that hardware and require the ROM images for that sound data. Rather, "samples" means that the MAME emulation currently relies on sound samples that were obtained by digitizing the output of the game's sound hardware. This is generally because this hardware contains discrete analog circuitry which the MAME authors have not yet created an emulation for, perhaps because of lack of time, lack of detailed information, or difficulty in making an accurate analog emulation with reasonable performance. However, the project's eventual goal is to replace all such samples with proper hardware emulation. Just a caveat that one should be careful in using MAME as a historical reference. --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 00:38, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks...though this feels like an oddly specific and rare occurrence to be notifying the whole WikiProject of. If you really feel the need to warn people of this, I’d dig through the page history to see who’s actually doing this... Sergecross73 msg me 00:43, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Upcoming video games

Hey team, a ways back I created Category:Upcoming video games not yet scheduled to capture those games without a year. Consensus seems to be developing at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 May 1#Category:Upcoming video games not yet scheduled that this might be better as a hidden cat that is part of this project. Any objections to my making that change? UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:03, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

UnitedStatesian, what does this offer that Category:Upcoming video games doesn't, besides a longer title? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 18:50, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It allows the separation of the ones with dates (which are currently in Category:Upcoming video games scheduled for 2020 and Category:Upcoming video games scheduled for 2021) from the ones without dates, including those that are probably no longer "Upcoming" (and so may be miscategorized: I'm looking at you, GlowTag). UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:04, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
UnitedStatesian, I still don't see what that changes, unless I'm misunderstanding? Upcoming video games already implies that it does not have a date/timeframe announced yet. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 09:27, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objections to this provided the CfD approaches this consensus. Jalen Folf (talk) 19:01, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It makes sense as an internal category. When it comes time to fix these games without dates, it's good to know which ones still need them. Jontesta (talk) 22:51, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's not needed. The parent category (Category:Upcoming video games)was designed to hold games without a date until they had a date and could be moved into one of the "year" categories. - X201 (talk) 07:40, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, my name is Jordan and I work for Vimeo, which I've disclosed on my profile and at Talk:Vimeo. I've submitted a request here to remove poorly sourced content related to gaming video hosting. Since no one has replied yet, I was hoping someone from this WikiProject could review the request and update the article. Thank you! JS Vimeo (talk) 16:24, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I've addressed this request at the Vimeo page (yes, did a bunch of reworking above and beyond what was asked to bring the article better in line with expected). --Masem (t) 01:17, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone review my draft? Is it publishable?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:De_inferno

I have been told to rephrase the content in my own words. Is there anything else that I need to change?

TheNavedKhan (talk) 20:31, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The deleted copy does not show why the subject (de_inferno) is notable. (Hint: It probably is not.) --Izno (talk) 20:48, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ur-Quan good article nom / image licensing

I've been working on the Ur-Quan article with the help of a few people. They're an oldie but goodie, rated as one of the best game villains, and still mentioned that way this day. I just started the process for a good article nomination, and any help/recommendations for copy-editing would help us stay ahead of the review process.

Another thing that has come up are the use of images. Star Control II was re-released as an open-source project called The Ur-Quan Masters. According to the project FAQ, the content (voiceovers, dialogue, graphics, sounds, and music) may be used freely under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.5 license. I'm not sure where that leaves us with Wikipedia, where the WMF's CC license is 4.0. But either way, we could use some help getting a character image in there, from someone who can navigate the technical and legal aspects. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:06, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anything "Non-commercial" is unfortunatetly not compatible with WMF's definition of "Free", which requires reuse and modification by any end user including commercial ones. So a NC image would have to be treated as non-free. --Masem (t) 18:14, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure this is at GA quality? There's an expansion template at the top of the page, and I'm not 100% sure if the reception is all that great. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 18:38, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's close, when I benchmark it against articles like Astaroth (Soulcalibur) or Ayla (Chrono Trigger) or Edea Kramer or Faris Scherwiz. I've been out of the editing loop for a while, and I'm interested in feedback on what it still needs to make GA quality. I've currently tried to make it a quality-over-quantity type of article, with a tight description of their story and reception. But there's no lack of sources, and I could find lots of discussion if the benchmark really is hearing 10 different reviewers talk about what made them so memorable. Feel free to tell me what the article still needs, because I have the time and the research to keep improving it. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:08, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stub clearing for WP:SEGA

While I've been doing a mass update of the Sega task force page, I've added one of the task force's new goals: inspired by the efforts in clearing out all of the stubs at WP:SQUAREENIX last year, I propose that we should clear out all the stubs for WP:SEGA (79.3% of the 1,064 articles there are free of stubs), if there are no objections, that is. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:33, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So I've actually made Horror game...

As actually noted in RSes, this is the only game genre that is defined by narrative elements rather than gameplay. The key reason I wanted to get this is to provide a landing for Psychological horror game (Also created as redirect). I am sure there's more types of horror games that can be clearly defined besides the three, but I want to be careful here.

An interesting concern is that much of what's int he history of Survival horror's history , prior to Resident Evil, might move to what I've have for Horror gave, leaving a summary there. But Survival horror is a GA so just wanted to check before doing that. --Masem (t) 23:06, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Classifying games gets tricky. Most designers classify games by their gameplay: action, strategy, RPG... There are definitely people who classify games by narrative elements: space games, story games, fantasy games, cyberpunk games, superhero games... Among game designers, I usually see narrative classification described as video game themes or settings. Survival Horror is a weird edge case, but evidently a well-written and well-researched one. I would hesitate to pull apart a good article without giving more thought to this. It's a big can of worms to open, but something we can address with just a little planning and discussion. Jontesta (talk) 00:30, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
With the horror game genre, there's actually details analysis of video game genres that show it and it alone stands out as the only genre called out by theme, and even then its not a clean split. Just that pretty much there's a history of games with horror themes that can be tracked through Alone in the Dark and then to Resident Evil to form Survival Horror as its own specific subgenre (action-adventure + horror), and then there's the "rest" of horror. This is actually well documented in a couple different sources. --Masem (t) 00:42, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Too much plot?

An editor added this large plot summary when the article already had a fair bit of plot information. User:Materialscientist removed it, but the editor added it back, and did so one more time once it was removed. Is this too much plot for one article, or does all the editor's work to play through the game and take everything down in detail mean that we need to include it as they wish? 2601:249:8B80:4050:9DE3:792C:D5F:1B7A (talk) 12:52, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:VG recommends 700 words. This new addition is 1271 words. We don't need that much plot. -- ferret (talk) 13:32, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As ferret says, too much plot. Sergecross73 msg me 14:23, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think at this point this may be considered edit-warring? 2601:249:8B80:4050:61A6:AE6:BC96:71A2 (talk) 13:38, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to say -- the amount of plot actually looks good. But then I realized the 4-paragraph version is the short version. You really don't need much more than that, but I'd encourage the editor trying to add 13 more paragraphs to maybe try something more incremental. A few sentences can go a long way. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:16, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New Articles (May 4 to May 10)

Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements
 A listing of all articles newly added to the Video Games Wikiproject (regardless of creation date). Generated by v3.4 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 14:36, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May 4

  • None

May 5

May 6

May 7

May 8

May 9

May 10

List of Crealude video games doesn't seem notable, right? There's no Crealude article and the listed games don't seem notable to begin with. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 15:35, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, especially since none of the games are notable themselves. Regards, IceWelder [✉] 16:32, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I took some time to check for souces, but alas, 've AfD'ed it. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 06:46, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Some—CxBx-Reloaded, Prism3D, Brigandine: The Legend of Runersia, and List of Crealude video games—have since found their way to AfD. IceWelder [✉] 16:32, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I do think Runersia is notable though. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 06:46, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to have been nominated on TOOSOON grounds only, despite releasing in June. Looks like a solid keep at the moment. IceWelder [✉] 08:36, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is not much to cross-buying, is there? A merge would probably be for the better. IceWelder [✉] 08:36, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Geo-Political Simulator 4: Power and Revolution doesn't look notable for me. Anyone else that found some sources for it? Jovanmilic97 (talk) 07:37, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question about Tomb Raider redirect

Hi everyone,

To my surprise is Tomb raider a redirect to grave robbery, while Tomb Raider is the title of the article for the video game franchise. I see in its history it has been changed several times, most recently in February 2018 by Zxcvbnm. As a video game player and WP:VG member I might be biased, but shouldn't Tomb raider redirect to Tomb Raider? Is the lack of a capital letter R a significant enough WP:SMALLDETAILS thing? soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 06:37, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If someone is searching for "Tomb raider" without the capital "R", the hatnote will direct them to their destination if they are looking for the video game series, but I don't think it should automatically be assumed to be the case. After all, tomb raiders are a real phenomenon and the game's namesake (though probably not in such an epic, action-packed way).ZXCVBNM (TALK) 10:01, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The 1000 Destubbing Challenge

Would anybody be interested in a Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/The 1000 Destubbing Challenge to see 1000 video games articles destubbed? Not a contest but it might be something which works to help improve existing content. If there is more than five people interested I'll create it.† Encyclopædius 11:26, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wanna see what others think of this proposal, but I wouldn't mind joining. I've turn a lot of stubs into B-class or GAs in the past, so I can see myself doing some work for this. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 16:17, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't seem to be a bad idea, to be honest... Roberth Martinez (talk) 16:24, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How would this be kept track of? Will it just be the honors system or something? GamerPro64 17:39, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Genkai Chōsen Distopia

I'd like to have some more comments regarding this deletion discussion. It's been open for about a week now and there hasn't been much activity. Thanks again. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 19:04, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On our video game categories

Briefly tagged above but back after we had agreed to shift from "video gaming" to "Video games" in mainspace, I had moved a bunch of categories in the same manner but this apparently is NOT how you move categories. This recently was noticed and in addition to the whole mess that what I thought was proper category moves, there was concern about the moving creating a naming conflict. All those category moves have been returned back (eg so we have Category:2019 in video gaming). What this means is right now, the "top level" category for the field of video games is Category:Video gaming.

I have discovered for now, this is a acceptable step, as when I look at the history here, some key considerations:

What that had left us was that we appear to have "Video gaming" as the term to describe the whole of the field of video games. In the discussions on reverting the changes I made, I tried to argue that "Video games" is more the proper term based on our reasoning for the mainspace changes: "video games" describes the medium better that incorporates all aspects including the industry parts, where as "video gaming" is more the act of playing games, and more recently has gained a stigma as tied to addictive behavior patterns. This was rejected during the discussion in part due to lack of sourcing for this conclusion (more on that), and that it seemed more nature, akin to "Gaming" and "Computing".

Now, as I've been instructed and cautioned, I'm not rushing back to fix this, I need to collect thoughts and think about the approach, but a key facet that I think we need (VG project) to present is why "Video games" is the right term to describe the top level, and for this evidence of why this is the top level term. I can point to the fact that video games are consider a medium of art, not an activity, so they are worded like "film", "television", "theater", etc. and if you do scholarly searches, "video games" tends to be more common than "video gaming". But again, here's where any type of sourcing that tries to explain the different from quality sources would be great. I want to be able to present a strong picture that in this field, because its seen as an art form and not a pastime, that we use "video games" for the field. Or alternative, that "video gaming" has become passe for reasons. So if any type of sourcing that you see - ideally in scholarly or non-gaming sources to support this - please let me know.

The other factor that will come into play is the complaints that if "Video games" is the top level category, then we would naturally have categories like "2019 in video games" and then "2019 video games" and that could be confusing (ignoring the fact that we have situations like Category:2019 in film and Category:2019 films). Now, if I can show strongly that "video games" is understood as both a medium and "a game involving video" that there's no confusion between "2019 in video games" and "2019 video games", that's one thing. But I also want to be prepared to present an alternative scheme, this being , I think, using "Video games first introduced in 2019" instead of "2019 video games". This not only resolves the matter of category confusion, but also the fact how many times video games can be ported and remade. There might be better alternatives here, but I'd like to have that in a backpocket as well.

This is all just brainstorming, I'm likely not touching anything with this for a good month here. --Masem (t) 19:33, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I honestly didn't support the change to begin with, largely per analogy with 'gaming' and 'computing'. Category:Video games additionally is a good category for someone to find actual video games rather than the entirety of everything else that you might care about in the context of video gaming. Video games first introduced in 2019 Please no, categories lists already get long enough without deciding to add unnecessary text. The confusion you comment above is entirely self-inflicted if one decides "C:Video games" should be the top level. --Izno (talk) 20:16, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • The comparison to gaming and computing make sense if you take the stance that the field of video games is more an activity than an art form. And that's probably where this pivots, and a completely fair point. Which is something I would explore and try to present in the arguments. And again, I don't think the confusion betweeen "2019 video games" and "2019 in video games" is there as been claimed, but I'm just noting this. --Masem (t) 20:25, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure what the solution is either. I'm not opposed to "gaming" as a term, even if it's less used. My priority would be to give the categories more organization. It does make the categories less useful if I click on "games" and I'm not sure if I'm going to see games, or game-related content, or both. I'm open to proposals, if they're not unclear OR verbose. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:42, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I brought this issue up back in the previous discussion. I suggested Category:Video games (topic) for the overall topic and Category:Video games for the games themselves. Axem Titanium (talk) 04:33, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • This might resolve one naming problem but we're still left then with "YYYY in video games" vs "YYYY video games" as a possible name conflict. --Masem (t) 00:13, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 May 2020

There is a new paper mario game!! The Origami King 71.113.133.152 (talk) 13:09, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Izno (talk) 13:23, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
An article has since been created at Paper Mario: The Origami King.--69.157.252.96 (talk) 16:32, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting or renaming Panel de Pon/Tetris Attack

This was brought to my attention today, and I thought this was worth bringing up here. Years ago there was a feud Tetris Attack, known as Panel de Pon in Japan, regarding if the page should be renamed to its original Japanese title or if the two be split into different articles. The discussion was mostly just people arguing about the other's spelling and behavior, and didn't really go anywhere. An IP started another discussion regarding it due to the game being released as Panel de Pon through the Nintendo Switch Online service. There's never been a clear consensus on this, so I thought I should bring it here so that we can all come to one.

Personally, I'm against the idea of this article being renamed or split. It doesn't abide by Wikipedia:Common name, as most sources (both in the article and online) call it Tetris Attack and not by Panel de Pon. Neither of these games have any differences aside from a change in both the name and theme (fairies in Panel de Pon and Yoshi in Tetris Attack), so it feels pointless to split them. It's not like Doki Doki Panic and Super Mario Bros. 2 where there are fundamental changes and alterations to the gameplay itself; aside from a different title and characters, they are identical. Even if we were to split them, would Panel de Pon even be notable on its own? It would need to establish notability by itself, and I don't know if that is even possible. Those are my opinions on it, but I'm curious to see what others have to say. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 23:53, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting the page to resolve the naming issue makes no sense, as it is clearly known to be the same game purposely with asset flips for international release. And I know with the release on the NSO service that Nintendo did make a big deal that this is the first time that Panel de Pon is getting an international release. There is a valid argument to rename to Panel de Pon with this (obviously making it 100% clear it is also Tetris Attack still) but the splitting option needs to be nixxed ASAP; that simply doesn't make sense. --Masem (t) 00:12, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm the IP in question. It's a bit of an awkward situation; Tetris Attack is still the most common title in sources, as noted, but Panel de Pon will be the official international title of the Switch rerelease. I've put up a suggested solution, which is emphasizing both titles in the lead section: "Tetris Attack, also known as Panel de Pon..." I also tried putting both titles in the infobox, but it looks awkward. That gives me an idea: splitting the page is perhaps too much, but what about splitting the infobox?
(To sum up my opinions: strongly in favor of equal emphasis, weakly in favor of a rename, no page split.) --90.227.30.140 (talk) 01:31, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games&oldid=956920223"