Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 169

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 165 ← Archive 167 Archive 168 Archive 169 Archive 170 Archive 171 → Archive 174

NES/Famicom and SNES/Super Famicom lists

General consensus appears to be to merge the Famicom list and not create a Super Famicom list. Notes in subsection. Sergecross73 msg me 19:04, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Starting up this discussion on behalf of NakhlaMan - he asked me and I wasn't sure of the answer.

He points out that:

Meanwhile:

So, there's three paths forward:

  1. This is okay as is.
  2. Let's create a Super Famicom list (Nakhla is willing and wanting to do this.)
  3. Let's merge the Famicom and NES lists.

Input? Thoughts? I'm neutral, just trying to facilitate discussion. Thanks! Sergecross73 msg me 16:34, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

We treat the NES and Famicom as a single system so I don't see why we'd have a separate list for Famicom games. Merge 'em. JOEBRO64 16:48, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Merge them. While there's regional difference, they are for the most part the same system. -- ferret (talk) 17:06, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Merge them into one. That's my vote as well... Roberth Martinez (talk) 21:51, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Famicom games are not NES games, if anything there should be a Super Famicom list separate from the SNES list. It would be more confusing to merge the Famicom list onto the NES to those who only want to just search for Famicom games. If you're going to merge the Famicom list with the NES list then you might as well merge the Famicom Disk System list as well cause otherwise you have "NES" games missing from the list. My vote is having a Super Famicom game list be created. Bro3256 (talk) 00:33, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
We can just add another column for the Japanese release date. If the game has a different name on the Famicom, we can just mention the name in the title columns. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 01:58, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Merge em all. Major WP:OVERLAP issues. Also salt/protect as we’ve had this discussion multiple times before. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 01:49, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
A majority (though not a huge one) of SFC/SNES games are japan only. Same goes for FC/NES games. I've previously had trouble when systems were merged (for example when looking for the best selling famicom games) so I'd vote towards having a separate SFC list. It's kind of murky, but I think saying that the Famicom is just a regional variant is a bit reductive. 136.244.59.231 (talk) 04:42, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Famicom list deletion is entirely unnecessary. The Famicom was a crucial part of Japanese gaming culture, and as previously stated by Bro3256, both the Famicom and the NES have pages on Japanese Wikipedia. We have a list of games that released on the Famicom Disk System as well, which would create complications as some of those games only released on that AND the NES, but not the base Famicom. At that point, you may as well merge the Famicom Disk System page onto the NES page, and maybe the Satellaview onto the Super Nintendo Entertainment System and the 64DD onto the Nintendo 64 page. And speaking of peripherals, why don't we completely trash the List of 32X games as well. Tom gordon (talk) 18:02, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
I must agree. The Famicom and NES were two related consoles. But in the end we can't just merge these articles. The Famicom was notable in Japan in it's own right and there are too many differences, such as some games being Japan only releases, just to merge these articles. Blitzfan51 (talk) 18:59, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST. Also, the Japanese Wikipedia has different policies. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 19:12, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
I'm curious where all these new/relatively new and very low edit count commenters are coming from. -- ferret (talk) 19:03, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Yeah. I was wondering about that too. Might be socks. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 19:09, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
WP:Don't be rude. I'm a real guy, in fact! Tom gordon (talk) 19:12, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
I assume it's either WP:SOCKPUPPETRY or WP:MEATPUPPETRY - probably some Reddit group or fansite sending in the rescue squad. FYI, it's extremely suspicious when a bunch of newbie editors fly into the same discussion with the same stance that doesn't cite any sort of Wikipedia policy. I'm neutral in my stance and even I can see it pretty easily. Sergecross73 msg me 19:17, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Yup. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 12:41, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Merge them, and include a column or two that indicate Famicom and/or NES exclusivity.or availability, as to make it us easy to sort by either subsystem. --Masem (t) 19:20, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
    Ouch, sorry, just a newbie, not a sockpuppet or a meatpuppet. I just like videogames. Blitzfan51 (talk) 22:59, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
    But i did read up on it and yeah your other stuff exists point is quite valid. Blitzfan51 (talk) 23:02, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
    also, don't be rude is an essay not a guideline.(although i do appreciate it when no one is rude) Blitzfan51 (talk) 23:04, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
I feel merging these into one NES list is the best approach. Regarding the concern of being unable to find which titles are Famicom-only, a very simple solution is to click one of the sort options on the table as on the Super Nintendo list, as this'll prioritize Unreleased/Cancelled titles in alphabetical order.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:15, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
However, now that i look at it, IP user 136.244.59.231 has only one edit and it's here. He might be a sock. Anyway i can see everyone's point and i would like to merge the article now. Blitzfan51 (talk) 23:21, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
I tend to find these platform lists extremely long and unwieldy, and simply for that reason I like seeing them split where possible. The NES games list actually looks very nice to me, while the Famicom list is extremely long. For the field of collecting, the distinction matters a lot, and for regular consumers even moreso. The hardware difference might be minor at best, but the cultural context and even the physical shape of the objects listed is completely different. I think keeping these two split is the best choice. I am not concerned about overlap between different lists. The distinction between PAL and NA might weaken my argument, though. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 07:57, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
To be honest, I think it may be worthwhile to keep them separate and to make a Super Famicom list just for the sake of improved readability. I legitimately wouldn't be opposed if we did this practice for other platforms, especially ones where the list is so big that it has multiple lists. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 09:07, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
We're not a database; I imagine Wikidata is used for actually drawing the correct list out programatically. Readability should be our number-one priority when it comes to extremely long lists, as an encyclopedia. That's how I feel, at least. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:58, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
I was thinking of getting rid of some of the list entries in the unlicensed games section (mostly in the after lifespan subsection). I just don’t think many of the bootleg games are noteworthy (besides the ones with an article). Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 12:18, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
I agree. I think the two sources used for that table aren't suitable for Wikipedia; removing everything except for those with either an article or a dedicated citation seems like a good idea. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 13:14, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
The current article structure doesn't seem unreasonable to me. My impression is that there were more significant differences between Famicom & NES releases than Super Famicom & SNES releases due to the existence of things like the Famicom Disk System, so such a structure might be reflecting a real-world difference. More generally, while I can see the argument for One Massive Table if everyone was cultured and used widescreen desktop monitors, it's worth remembering that half our readers read on mobile. For mobile-readable tables, it's best not to make them stretch too far horizontally. If someone wants to mock up a merged table that doesn't lose information and isn't much wider than the existing tables, maybe go ahead and merge, but as is, the current structure is reasonable. (Plus, in the name of brevity, having a shorter list that cuts out the Japan-only games can be friendly.) SnowFire (talk) 05:22, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Unless there's any other input, I think it's time to read a consensus of all of this... Sergecross73 msg me 22:40, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Does that mean reach a decision? Because at this point we need to reach a decision ASAP. NakhlaMan (talk) 00:50, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Yes, correct. I'll review and close the discussion tomorrow. Sergecross73 msg me 00:59, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Consensus - Merge NES/Don't create SNES

My read on the situation was:

  1. No change - (1) SnowFire
  2. Create Super Famicom (5) - Bro3256, IP, Tom Gordon, Maple, Cukie
  3. Merge NES - (7) Joebro, Ferret, Roberth, Pizzaplayer, Masem, Kung Fu Man, Blitzfan

So, just strictly looking at votes, there a weak consensus to merge the NES/Famicom lists and not create a separate SNES list. As far as weight of arguments go, the merge stances are largely valid arguments related to redundancy, while the "create" stances vary in quality. Cukie and Maple make valid points, but Tom's stance is largely a "what about" WP:OSE violation, while Bro's argument seems like it could pretty easily be rectified with what's suggested in this discussion. When you factor in reasonable concerns about sockpuppetry and WP:SPAs too, I believe we have a consensus to merge.

That said, do we have any takers on doing the merge itself? Sergecross73 msg me 19:04, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

I would love to help. Could you point me to the page about proper formatting for this merging? I am still learning and I admittedly initially changed my vote because I got scared when sockpuppetry accusations were made. By the way did you get my apology on your talk page Sergecross73? Blitzfan51 (talk) 01:00, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
Yes, and I apologize for the accusation - the fact that you are still here, and had rethought your original stance, shows that you appear not to be a sock or SPA. As far as formatting goes, let's see what others have to say. This isn't the sort of list article I typically deal with personally. Sergecross73 msg me 14:53, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Talk:WarioWare, Inc.: Mega Microgames!

There's a discussion on this talk page about splitting the games Paper Airplane Chase and Bird & Beans into their own articles (or a companion article). It's presently mostly supportive of this idea, but:

  1. The merge discussion is very old
  2. I don't think there's anyone who's willing to set up the articles.

What do?? - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 19:33, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Further reading section at Zork

A 'Further reading' section was recently added by Airborne84 at Zork with a citation to a contemporary magazine article (1983, no archive link available), with the justification that the purpose of 'further reading' sections is to list any additional sources not used in the article for readers to check out if interested. This doesn't match my understanding of why a source would be added there, but maybe I'm wrong. Additional opinions would be helpful at Talk:Zork#Further reading. --PresN 03:31, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Fighting chracter AFDs

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anna Williams (Tekken), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gouken and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack (Tekken)

Opinions requested so that the afd will run quickly. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 13:05, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

The only way an AFD is going to run quickly is a snowball keep (none of these are snowball), or you withdraw. Perhaps you need to switch to using merger discussions rather than AFDs if you're second guessing their submissions? Or at least, use merger discussions instead for ones that are on the edge. That takes the edge of a deadline off. -- ferret (talk) 13:23, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
Those two other afd nom wasn't mine btw. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 13:25, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
Then doubly so, it's unlikely they will run any quicker with this notice. That said, you did start this current effort of review of fighter characters ;) Perhaps it's time to start a new approach and maybe address this at a franchise by franchise level? Create a working section for one of the franchise listing the "probably not notables" and work through them, submitting for merger or AFD as preliminary discussion indicates. -- ferret (talk) 13:29, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
It all started when I saw dozens of people ranting at Reddit about video game character articles (now I cannot find them, probably archived). Im not sure how it works but I think I prefer afd, sometimes it gives headache. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 13:39, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
I'm curious, what were they ranting about? Sergecross73 msg me 13:50, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
On how bad the articles are. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 14:38, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, what sub-reddit was this in? I would like to try and find those threads to see what you're talking about. MoonJet (talk) 05:56, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, pretty much what ferret said. Plus, if you do it outside of the context of an AfD, it's more collaborative, and others may find people who can find proof of notability. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 13:41, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Not to mention when you have so many AfDs going off at once, it's easy to get bogged down fixing one and then unable to fix another. And when you do fix the other one and try to restore it, you run into a problem where people point at the AfD and try to force it back in, resulting in a situation I expected and am dealing with right now.
I'll be frank: we need a lot of articles cleaned up terrible, and others just plain removed. Far too many are overloaded with, and I loathe this term, 'listicles', which in my definition are just short quips that aren't actually saying anything about the character or their reception, and trying to 'fake' notability through Death by a Thousand Cuts. As for AfDs I do strongly feel they should be a nuclear option: if conversation fails, then that route should be taken if you absolutely believe it does not satisfy notability.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:51, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
I think ultimately, the best approach to a mass AfD is to not participate unless you're !voting to keep the article. The longer an article takes, the clearer it becomes to these nominators that it's in their best interests to just have one discussion per character list to get this done all at once. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 16:09, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
Now hold on, I think like Glator and Beemer genuinely want to clean up some of the articles on here, and while I don't necessarily agree with everything done I do think it is doing some good too: a lot of these articles are a mess and many of which haven't been touched in years. I think now that we've established there's a problem that needs to be fixed we might consider organizing a task force or similar so people can be organized and attempts to find sources can be done before dropping the hammer on articles. It can also help bring attention to articles that we may not be aware of so we can put in the muscle to fix them if needed.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:15, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
I'm not accusing them of acting in bad faith or even being wrong about most articles. Rather, I'm saying that it would be more efficient if this was a discussion on the list. I feel like the AfD process is catching some stray examples of notable characters, whereas slowing down and just having that discussion would still snipe the non-notable articles. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 16:32, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
If anything, I think AFDs should be saved for the most egregious cases. Otherwise, let people know some of these articles need fixing, as Kung Fu Man suggested. The current AFD on Sarah Bryant only re-enforces my viewpoint on this. If only Niemti didn't damage these articles as much as he did, there wouldn't be this much scrutiny, and hence, all these AFDs on them. MoonJet (talk) 06:13, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
Mass AFDs are a terrible idea for everyone involved, both people preferring deletions/mergers and those preferring keep. Unless it's a mass of very very clearly non-notable stuff tightly related, like some SPA came and created an article for every single episode of a webtoon, most Mass AFDs can never result in anything but a "No consensus", which serves no one. For the deletion/merger people who believe the topics are truly non-notable, they have to do further work and more AFDs on individual basises. For those wanting a Keep, you then have to fight off all those same AFDs. No one should ever be encouraged to submit mass AFDs. And to be clear, I mean an AFD covering multiple topics. We're not dealing with Mass AFDs here. We are simply seeing a momentarily-extra-busy-AFD season, and not even that crazy of one, as the nominators are mostly restraining themselves to 5-7 topics a week, which is more than fair. -- ferret (talk) 17:17, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
I agree. Multi-target AFDs always devolve into a morass of no consensus. The advantage of individually nominated articles is that participants who have the time to comment will often tailor their response to the actual article at hand. If you don't have the time to individually comment, then simply don't participate. This is a blip in the grand scheme of the normal rate of AFDs, not a "clog". The advantage of AFD over a talk page merge discussion is that it's better attended and ultimately more binding in its result. Sometimes, deletion is cleanup. Axem Titanium (talk) 05:08, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
The thing of it is, AfD is a fine approach early on, but it's kind of weird that, since we know we have enough people who would participate in a merge discussion, that the user just decided they would go ahead with AfDs anyway at this point. - ~~`~

Fighting game character list merge discussions

Hi, I'm doing merge discussions just to get this all out of the way in what I think is the cleanest and most efficient way, mainly ruling out characters from having notability issues more than anything else. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 09:15, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Discussions

(copy pasted) I think if we support or are neutral about the articles, leaving it blank will be better than putting support for most of them. I think Oppose is relevant here sonce most of the articles are notable. Regards. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 09:45, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

What are you trying to accomplish here? All an article needs is one person to nominate it for AFD and it has to go through that process. Most of these haven't even been nominated. TarkusABtalk/contrib 09:52, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm gleaning which articles may be nominated for AfD so I can work to improve them before they are. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 10:08, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
The quality of the articles has nothing to do with the notability. TarkusABtalk/contrib 10:14, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
Improving sourcing, I think that's implied from the context of the discussion. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 10:15, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
The sources just need to exist, which the nominator should be checking WP:BEFORE nominating. You're asking people to assess fifty articles, so you're going to get cheap assessments not worth a damn and low participation. Waste of your time and everyone else's. TarkusABtalk/contrib 10:38, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
I'm using it to gauge what articles to work on, and I'm doing it in response to seeing multiple articles nominated that I feel didn't go through the process of checking sources thoroughly enough. You're not being forced to participate, so I don't understand why you're so bent out of shape over this. Multiple users have expressed interest in dealing with the abundance of articles in the fighting game space that are built on poor foundation, so I'm taking action to merge what appears to lack it and fix what may be salvageable. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 10:44, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
I think it is a waste of time. How about this. I'm going to list all the articles that are vulnerable to AFD. Sodom (Final Fight), Vega (Street Fighter), King (Tekken), Soma Cruz, Guy (Final Fight), Rolento, Maki Genryusai, Rachel Amber (unrelated but controversial, with an article full of passing mentions), and perhaps also Alisa Bosconovitch? I haven't checked DarkStalkers and Samurai Showdown yet but will soon. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 11:18, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
I really don't understand why you believe that an AfD is a quicker method of acquiring consensus. EDIT: Misread. I mean, I think that's also a fine approach, but the discussions I'm also hoping to encourage more work be done to find good sources for notable articles. There are a lot of articles I've seen that are obviously more notable than others, but because their notability is self-evident, there's just not a ton of work put into proving the notability. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 11:31, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
It's kind of shocking Soma Cruz survived this long with such threadbare mentions. Maybe because it was a Good Article. Anyway, RIP the Aria of Sorrow Featured Topic. I'd go further and say Alucard (Castlevania) is also in serious danger of being merged to List of Castlevania characters. I'm just not coming up with anything substantial for him either. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:03, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
A cursory look at Google Scholar shows there's papers discussing Alucard, and to be frank I would be utterly surprised if alongside the Netflix anime he was considered not notable.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:36, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
The only ones I expanded back when Netflix streamed a Castlevania series might have more potential now too. Also, I kinda feel Dracula too considering his alternate persona from Lords of Shadow.Tintor2 (talk) 20:01, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
I feel we are getting a bit off track here. I do think these discussions might be good to help flesh out some consensus on what does and doesn't fly, and can help determine articles that may simply need folks to WP:BEBOLD and merge, letting editors possibly touch them up later in case references are found or discussion happens down the road.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:10, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

I never got to play a Castlevania but I did watched its Netflix series. That's why I tried expanding covering Drácula and Alucard some years ago . Still, finding those Big sources primarily focused on the cast is challenging like when you showed me the scholars focused on Roll. I'll try searching at least about Alucard.Tintor2 (talk) 21:30, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

New Articles (April 24 to April 30)

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 v3.15 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 15:08, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

April 24

April 25

April 26

April 27

April 28

April 29

April 30

I have some concerns about the "Mario Brothers Rap" and its notability. If it is notable then parts of it should be merged into the Super Show article and SMB movie article as I don't believe there's enough there for it to stand on its own. But who knows, maybe it is notable. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 15:18, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
I agree that it doesn't stand on its own. Only the latter paragraph of Concept and History is worth saving and merging into the Super Show article, the rest is fluff. ThomasO1989 (talk) 16:24, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
The article has been redirected to Super Show article. Closely reviewing the aforementioned paragraph in the original article and its sources, nothing there was really worth noting other than it was featured in the SMB movie and performed by someone else. I've already added that information to the SS article proper. ThomasO1989 (talk) 17:45, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
Category:Mat Dickie was created for the game designer but only 1 of his games has an article. --Mika1h (talk) 16:07, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
Both this and the Mario Bros Rap article were created by User:Jeffhardyfan08, who was recently blocked for essentially WP:CIR. It would be worth going through all of his article creations to clean up his mess. Axem Titanium (talk) 16:27, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
I'm feeling rather iffy about the article for Vanille. We've had something like this cropping up before. --ProtoDrake (talk) 18:50, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
What are the issues? - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 19:11, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
@Cukie Gherkin: There's little to no development information outside the voice acting, which uses a source I'm not sure is admissible. And it seems as though some of the reception bits are really reaching out to find something to expand it to any degree. I raised this because previous articles for Vanille, Fang and I think Snow were merged into the main characters article due to lacking substantial notability. Pinging @PresN: for opinion on this. --ProtoDrake (talk) 19:39, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
I do not think that notability is a factor when it comes to commentary that comes from a primary source. As far as the reception goes, I feel that I was able to gather at least five articles that are either about Vanille explicitly or that discusses Vanille in a significant way, the latter in a peer-reviewed journal. The experiences of Cuylenburg because of fan response to her performance is also significant. Finally, the Vanille article was merged in a state that was significantly less content than what is here now, so it being merged then wouldn't have any weight, as the merge was based on the article then, not the article now. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 19:43, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
For reference, when I merged the article in 2021, it looked like this. As to how it is today... eh. Like, it's longer and uses more sources, but it's really wordy and repetitive to get that length. The development section is mostly about Cuylenburg's experience with voicing the character, not the character herself, which is fine but leaves it disjointed without any development info on Vanille for it to be a part of. The reception section is basically three paragraphs of reviewers either liking that Vanille's so positive or finding her annoying for the same reason; you could summarize most of it in two sentences.
If you cut out duplicate and repetitive wording, you could rewrite the article to be half the length and still use all the same sources, which would be 3 or 4 paragraphs + appearances section (which doesn't count and also needs to get cut down to way less plot summary). Is 3 or 4 paragraphs long enough to be worth its own article? I know we mostly focus on "does X article meet the notability criteria", but purely from a "what's the best way to organize this information" standpoint, I don't think there's enough meat there for Vanille to be its own article instead of a big chunk in the "Characters of" article. Tl;dr I'd merge it. --PresN 20:14, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
I don't think it's an accurate summary to say that the reception is either "annoying" or "likably positive." There's straight up multiple articles about covering her accent and how it affected how people received the character, like in-depth analysis of her voice. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 20:24, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
@Cukie Gherkin: It takes more than voice commentary. As an example, look at Fran (Final Fantasy), Rikku, Faris Scherwiz, Celes Chere or Lunafreya Nox Fleuret. All articles that are comparatively small, but they have far more content and far less verbiage than Vanille's article. It's not about "she has so many sources so she must be notable", but about the quality of the sources and whether you can have a descent-sized article without bloat. --ProtoDrake (talk) 20:32, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
I am talking about voice reception, not voice dev info. As far as quality of sources go, all are either RSes or experienced journalists providing significant coverage. Being a short article does not factor into notability. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 20:35, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
@Cukie Gherkin: I wasn't talking about voice development, and I know size isn't a crutial issue. The articles I linked above, more than half are about the same size as the one you created for Vanille, just...beefier in terms of content versus words. Regardless, if this article is to be kept, the prose needs trimming down and tidying up. --ProtoDrake (talk) 20:37, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
As an aside, bringing up Fran (Final Fantasy) is a terrible example, if only because her concept and creation section is one half general creation info that applies to most FF12 characters or voice acting. I would argue that Vanille has more non-VA creation info that's directly about her, and that Fran serves as an example of an article that pads content way more than Vanille's. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 21:01, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
@Cukie Gherkin: While I admit Fran's a little weaker than other articles, using general statements isn't a deal breaker from my experience with articles about this kind of topic, so long as the whole thing isn't based on general statements. The main thing I was doing was picking a sort of random assortment of other FF GAs as examples. To be honest, Character articles are becoming a real problem on Wikipedia in terms of their notability and sourcing. --ProtoDrake (talk) 21:10, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
I would agree with you, but I don't think that Vanille fits the bill. The only real issue is that creation info is lacking outside of voicework and that the reception is a bit repetitive (and has been pared down by now). Otherwise, there's at least four sources in the article that are from reliable sources that all cover her reception significantly, far more than the average article. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 21:17, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
I'm not sure if List of Super Mario 64 ROM hacks, mods and ports should have its own article. Most of the content in the article could easily be merged into List of unofficial Mario media or the main Super Mario 64 article (especially since most of these hacks are mentioned in the latter). I'd say that the list article mostly overlaps with the main Super Mario 64 article (more specifically, the fan projects section). Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 14:03, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
I think it should be merged into the unofficial Mario media article. Beyond the overlap, that's a terribly imprecise title, and making it more precise would probably just dwindle it down to "Unofficial Super Mario 64 media", which would fit as a subsection into the existing unofficial Mario article. Sergecross73 msg me 14:12, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
I have started a merge discussion. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 14:35, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Several open discussions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources

There are several discussions that urgently need input as to whether sites are reliable sources, any assistance would be welcome. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:26, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, I too was going to mention that more input would be helpful. There seems to be an influx in recent weeks of people asking for input without really putting much effort into building much of a rationale of their own, and those tend to stall out. Sergecross73 msg me 19:38, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Robotron X

Does anyone have access to any of the unlinked reviews listed for this game at Mobygames[1] or any other sources to add to the article Robotron X? 8.37.179.254 (talk) 15:02, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

You can usually find scans by searching for the publication and the date of the publication. For example, [2] - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 15:12, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
Great, thanks, I will add that one! 8.37.179.254 (talk) 17:23, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
Fort Worth Star-Telegram review you can use [3] Timur9008 (talk) 17:53, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
Nice, thank you! I will use that as well. 8.37.179.254 (talk) 18:07, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Help Request

I'm working on improving Super Kirby Clash, and I would like someone to help with the plot section. Anyone who knows the whole plot, please put it in the article. Thanks, QuicoleJR (talk) 22:00, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

The FANDOM article has a full plot summary. See also Template:Fandom content. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:08, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
OK. Will get around to that soon. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:37, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Untitled review thread

Time for another Review Thread. No real clever name for it though. And, as always, the Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Requests is backlogged all the way back in 2017 so I recommend checking it out to help bring down the requests.

FACs
GANs
Peer Reviews

GamerPro64 05:37, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

I recommend "Untitled review thread". Panini! • 🥪 15:14, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
I've actually got one, possibly two more articles on the way as is.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:30, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
A breakdown of current FACs for potential reviewers:
The Night Watch (talk) 15:36, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

I'll do a Sonic 2 source review. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 16:10, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

I've done an Image and Source review for Tunic. --ProtoDrake (talk) 17:28, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Breath of the Wild and "dog-petting"

More input here would be welcome. Thank you. Sergecross73 msg me 20:30, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Harvest Moon: 2007 or 2014?

I created a discussion in the Harvest moon talkpage whether the series is actually a 2007 or 2014. considering that there is overlap in the previously named HM series: Season of Stories. I humbly request more input on the situation, please click on the link: talk:Harvest Moon (2007 video game series)#2007 or 2014?. Thank you.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 18:05, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Nintendo 64 technical specifications is still being merged

Over a year ago, there was a merge discussion that resulted in a consensus to merge, yet there really hasn't been any progress on the merger. Thanks, Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 12:43, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Did you consider making the merge yourself? I would help, but I don't know how to merge stuff. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:47, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
That's the thing... I don't really know how to merge stuff either. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 14:24, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
Makes sense. Hopefully someone will finish that soon. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:27, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
Makes sense in a way - both are massive articles and it'd be a lot to parse through- a big problem with the article to begin with was the lack of sourcing. Sometimes, when it takes more than a month, I just boldly redirect. People can still look at the page from the page history to do a more complete merge later. I'll probably do this if there aren't any takers from this discussion. A year is way too long. Sergecross73 msg me 14:35, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
Can we talk about Nintendo 64 programming characteristics while we're at it? I suggested it should be merged as well at the tech specifications merge discussion and got some agreement, but not a full discussion. I suppose it could be bold-merged at the same time unless there are specific objections. Axem Titanium (talk) 16:29, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
Redirect without merge. This article is a hotpage of random bits of N64 reception thrown together in weird ways. 90% of it isn't even what the article title purports to be about. Most of it is duplicative. -- ferret (talk) 18:15, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
Fully support this too. Sergecross73 msg me 18:29, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
Redirect or merge, don't care which. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:08, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
I support a merge. Blitzfan51 (talk) 21:17, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
I also support merging it. Roberth Martinez (talk) 01:19, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Article title issue

I believe the article Space Ace (SNES) should be moved to Space Ace (1994 video game) since the original Space Ace came out in 1993. Is someone agrees can they please move the article. 65.93.193.94 (talk) 20:39, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

I think the fact that they're only one year apart, and the fact that the game is exclusive to the SNES, is cause enough to disambiguate this way in order to avoid people who may be confused. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 20:45, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, it's not 100% the case that disambiguations have to be by year. Still, it may be better to move it to Space Ace (SNES video game) to clarify. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:01, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
They are over a decade apart: 83 & 94... --Mika1h (talk) 22:44, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
Ops read that wrong we definitely should use the year then.--65.93.193.94 (talk) 23:59, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
I don't think there's any merit to using year over platform here. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 00:17, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
Even if it was just a year there would still be no reason to go with platform. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 18:05, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
There is a problem in that the original Space Ace was ported to the Sega CD in 1994. But the SNES 1994 game is completely different. TarkusABtalk/contrib 18:11, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
That's another good reason, though my next reason would be that there's no reason to go with year over platform. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 19:25, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
No reason? Year is preferred over platform in MOS WP:NCVGDAB. TarkusABtalk/contrib 21:14, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
It says to use platform if going by year would be ambiguous. Someone who is familiar with Space Ace for SNES will be more familiar with the fact that it's an SNES game and not its year of release, and there were multiple Space Ace releases in 1994. This is blatantly a good example of why to use (SNES video game) instead of (1994 video game). - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 21:23, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
Agree that using the platform to disambiguate makes more sense in this case. Regardless of established naming conventions, the whole point of disambiguation is to make it clear to the reader what subject the article covers, and the year of release does not accomplish that in this case. Martin IIIa (talk) 13:27, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Pinball articles

Are pinball machines covered by this project? - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 21:02, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

I would say no, they are considered mechanical games, not video games. They would normally be covered under WikiProject Games, but it is inactive. Pinball video games are, of course, covered. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:15, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
There's a Wikipedia:WikiProject Pinball that deals with this subject specifically. Its parent project is Wikipedia:WikiProject Games (which is also WP:VG's parent project). ReneeWrites (talk) 21:16, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
Gotcha. I was asking because, while looking for stubs to improve, I ran into some pinball articles, and I wanted to double check before removing the project banner (such as Judge Dredd (pinball)). - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 21:19, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
Most likely that article had the WP:VG tag because the article also talks about a video game version. Judge Dredd (pinball)#Digital version. It's probable that it could be spun out to a separate article if notable, but right now both are talked about on the same page. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:25, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
Might be worth removing the template all the same. It's hardly discussed in that article and feels akin to a movie article mentioning a video game tie in.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:31, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
I created Judge Dredd Pinball with a WP:VG banner so now everyone is happy. It can be expanded into a full game article; it's standalone notable, it just needs someone to do so. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:41, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Request for feedback on Skullgirls

I'm interested in bringing Skullgirls to WP:FAC eventually, so I've opened up a peer review in preparation for a potential nomination. Any suggestions for improvement would be greatly appreciated. Thank you! Wani (talk) 03:08, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Feedback wanted on merge discussion of End Poem

I would like people to weigh in on the ongoing merge discussion, which has not gotten much attention. I am not going to argue if people think it should be kept as-is, but I was skeptical that it could be separated from Minecraft in a way that made sense. It is literally part of the game's "plot" as it were and most of its attention stems from its use within the game. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:38, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

New Articles (May 1 to May 7)

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 v3.15 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 12:42, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

May 1

May 2

May 3

May 4

May 5

May 6

May 7

Minecraft (film) was actually in a weird spot. The main page had been moved to a different title but the talk page was still at the old one. So I had to move it and then tag it as WIkiproject videogames. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 13:46, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
I'll add Team Rocket to this list, which also happens to have a talkpage discussion ongoing that people might be interested in looking at. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 13:51, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

List of Kirby characters

Any suggestions on what to do with this crufty, barely sourced dumpster fire of an article? QuicoleJR (talk) 22:24, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Fix it yourself. Deletion is not cleanup, and there is a potentially notable article there, even if right now it's almost entirely fancruft. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:43, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
I wasn't saying I was going to delete it. I was just wondering if anyone wants to help. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:58, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
Your post seemed like you wanted to get rid of the article entirely, but if you want suggestions on how to fix it, it badly needs context for why each character is important. Major characters should be given explanations of their design and reception from reliable sources and minor ones should be removed. (I don't see why a shopkeeper or doctor who is a minor background character should be listed). ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:03, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
I know this is off topic, but did we ever gain a consensus regarding the titles of character lists? I know we started a discussion about it a year and a half ago, but did that go anywhere? We still have non-consistent list titles such as Characters in the Mario franchise and List of Sonic the Hedgehog characters. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 01:26, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
If you are well-familiar with the Kirby franchise, the best thing you can probably do is trim out all characters that aren't really primary characters or icons of the series (probably half of those bosses and half of those supporting characters). Try to find citations that talk about characters specifically, but those are hard to find and you'll likely have to use reviews for this instead. You could maybe turn the "Enemies" section into a paragraph or two if you can find a good source for them. I'm sure you could remove 3/4th of the Right Back At Ya! list too; we're not a Kirby fanwiki here. Because sources are never really designed for these character lists, you really need someone who knows the franchise decently well to cut away at it. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:16, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
I did my best to trim it down to only the meaningful characters. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:32, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
Side note: There are a ton of redirects to the list that go unmentioned in the list. Some weren't even mentioned before I purged the list. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:34, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
I really like the way you trimmed it down! Now honestly the main thing left to do is finding citations. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 18:14, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
I'll handle the redirects. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 13:41, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
@QuicoleJR I assume the Kirby games have reoccurring enemies like how the Mario franchise has goombas, koopas, etc. If that's the case, I would organize them into a subsection called "Enemy characters" that contains bullet points that briefly cover what they do and any notable information (much like what the Mario characters list does). Panini! • 🥪 14:48, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
I've played a few kirby games and seen videos of people playing them, there are a lot of reoccurring enemies in the games. Heck practically every enemy you encounter has been in every other game (aside from ones that are new like the Awoofy or some of the bosses which are new to the series) ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 14:51, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
I'd say Kirby enemies aren't that notable compared to the iconic Mario enemies. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 14:58, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
I would agree since i don't know the names of half of the Kirby enemies, but who knows, maybe they actually are. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 15:00, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

A bit of a problem

I've been noticing that we keep having consensuses to merge articles, but they never actually get merged. They sit in an archive from a couple of months to a year and then someone brings it up and we come to the same consensus. I don't think anyone on this wikiproject knows how to merge articles. We need to recruit someone who does know how to merge into this wikiproject. Blitzfan51 (talk) 01:12, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

People in this Wikiproject know how to merge. Remember that Wikipedia is a volunteer-based effort so many things take time to occur, and that's OK, there is no deadline. TarkusABtalk/contrib 01:35, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
There's plenty of regulars who know how, they're just not interested in doing it, because it's time consuming and not of interest to them. We're actually one of the most active Wikiprojects in existence. But we're also a group that already has their own projects to work on. It's no different than if someone started up a section that said "Let's clean up those Mario characters and Zelda characters articles." There probably wouldn't be much interest. And it's not that we don't have any Nintendo fans around here. It's more like we just don't have anyone looking for ideas on things to work on. We've got our own things we're already focusing on. Sergecross73 msg me 01:49, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
Well, I'm glad you're volunteering to perform these merges, @Blitzfan51:. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 03:23, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
People know full well how to merge, it's just a time consuming/unrewarding process compared to writing new content. So basically, WP:SOFIXIT if you believe that there are too many merges left undone. I wouldn't characterize it as a hyper-complex process. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:00, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
I do think merging can be a quite complicated/difficult thing to do well, as it's often about integrating a bunch of content into an existing article naturally and with an eye on weight. But there's no shortcut on doing it well. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 06:25, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
And the important bit that usually gets forgotten, keeping the edit history as intact as possible with appropriate templates on the talk page. - X201 (talk) 07:31, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
Is there a way for a regular editor to keep the edit history of a merger intact? Or should we simply link back to the origin of the merged content? ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 07:48, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
@Maplestrip: I've found the {{Copied}} template to be quite useful for that, although it does require that an editor know which versions of a page are being coped.--Gen. Quon[Talk] 16:21, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
Very well. I will find the guidelines for merging and see what I can do. Blitzfan51 (talk) 18:06, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Series article logos problem

I noticed that User:NoHeffThing has been adding a bunch of logos to series articles which is fine but he/she uploads them to Commons and in some cases they don't include a license tag or don't seem to pass the threshold of originality. Like this one: File:Samurai-shodown-logo-white-750x400.jpg. Problem is when the logo is deleted from Commons the logo/image that was replaced has been deleted because of WP:F5. For example the current logo at Corpse Party could be deleted any day now, and the previous promotional artwork featuring characters has been now File:CorpseParty.jpg and there's no way to know what that image looked like and where to find it again, or who the original uploader was (caption in the article history being the only clue). Maybe admin can restore them? Mika1h (talk) 12:42, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

I would recommend moving them to Wikipedia, probably starting with the Corpse Party one. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:43, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
The problem is they require a source as well. The uploader is claiming the logos are their own work. Without sources, they should simply be allowed to be deleted and the uploader informed about Wikipedia policy. If they cannot follow policy going forwards, they should be blocked, not allowed to continue. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:54, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
You can always go through WP:REFUND. – Pbrks (t • c) 16:06, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
If no one gonna upload them i might as well then NoHeffThing (talk) 15:19, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
@NoHeffThing: Yes, but you are uploading them to Commons without understanding how Commons and licensing works. Files uploaded to Commons must be free to use. In some cases, logos are too simple to be copyrighted, meaning they can be uploaded to Commons and tagged with the license {{PD-logo}} and {{Trademarked}}. If a logo is not simple, then it cannot be uploaded to Commons. Moreover, you have been uploading files and not adding a license. Without a license, they will likely just be deleted. – Pbrks (t • c) 15:39, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
idk man I didn't think uploading a silly little logo to wikipedia would be this needlessly complicated NoHeffThing (talk) 17:23, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
@NoHeffThing: Yes, unfortunately, we must obey copyright law. – Pbrks (t • c) 03:08, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
eh I ain't sure how this copyright thing works. If ya can help me get my uploaded files fit for uploading then it'll be awesome NoHeffThing (talk) 07:38, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

I notified NoHeffThing that we are discussing something that directly relates to them. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:02, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

@NoHeffThing: And pinged them just in case. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:23, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
Hi guys NoHeffThing (talk) 15:17, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
Press "upload a non-free file" in the file upload wizard any time you are dealing with images or logos from a game, then follow directions. That's basically it. I personally think it's dumb that the "upload your own file" button is so much bigger - it's supposed to make people want to upload their own stuff more, but usually has the effect of making people upload copyrighted images to Commons assuming that is the default. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:55, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
yeah man idk I just wanna upload some logos if no one else ain't gonna do it I might as well lmao NoHeffThing (talk) 08:51, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Eurogamer going to 5 star reviews this week

Presently EG reviews were scoreless with some games recognized as "recommended" or "essential". But that wasn't working for them, so they are now shifting to 5 stars. Masem (t) 16:06, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Alone in the Dark

Hi WP:VG! I'm currently trying to improve the Alone in the Dark article, and while I've worked on pages about music and television before, video games are a new wiki-realm for me. As such, if I make any bone-headed mistakes, please don't hesitate to reach out and let me know. Just wanted to give you all a heads-up.--Gen. Quon[Talk] 16:24, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

To give you some tools, @Gen. Quon, the video game reference library and video game search engine should help you find verified reliable video game sources easier. Panini! • 🥪 03:11, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
Excellent! Thank you for the heads-up!--Gen. Quon[Talk] 13:27, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
I added some French magazine articles to the talk page. --Mika1h (talk) 15:21, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
These are great finds! I'll get to work adding them into the article.--Gen. Quon[Talk] 16:57, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Updating Template:WPVG announcements

I was thinking that we should update Template:WPVG announcements. Perhaps replacing the FYI section with a Merge discussions section that would automatically add merge discussions for 30 days before removing them. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 17:45, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Remove genres columns for big lists of video games?

Hey guys I just thought I bring this up, for some lists for consoles like Dreamcast, OG Xbox, etc, they had genres columns now I did remove genre columns for GBC and N64 but I am little scared to remove genres for DC. So I am just wondering should we get rid of genres columns for all the consoles minus the Virtual Boy since the libary is so small that it doesnt clutter the list. NakhlaMan (talk) 03:29, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

I support it. They're rarely sourced and so many games blur the lines between genre anyways... Sergecross73 msg me 03:36, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, it just sounds like it'd end up causing edit wars or ambiguity. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 06:11, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
Like why I mean some people just want to look at the title of the games themselves not the genre if people want to know the genre of the game they can just click on the game they want. Plus it looks super clunky on mobile. NakhlaMan (talk) 06:24, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
I don't see the need for genres in game lists. Just takes up space, and sourcing can be a nightmare (speaking from experience trying to reliably source a genre for this thing). --ProtoDrake (talk) 07:57, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
I've supported this for years. Any reader who actually cares can just click the link. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:21, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
Absolutely. Support, support, support. Woodroar (talk) 19:34, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
I also support this. A lot of lists will end up being more efficient in terms of WP:SIZE without losing any relevant information. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:51, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

New Articles (May 8 to May 14)

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 v3.15 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 12:58, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

May 8

May 9

May 10

  • None

May 11

May 12

May 13

May 14

OGR / Online Game Review release date sources

Normally I'd post this to WP:VG/S, but the topic needs a bit more eyes. I've not really seen this source before and we don't appear to have it listed. @Venky64 is currently on a fairly rapid editing spree to replace otherwise-reliably-sourced release dates of older games with different earlier street/store dates based on OGR archives of "daily news" type write ups. This impacts ~200-250 articles and infoboxes over the last 2 days, so if someone has an opinion or can take a look... I find the rapid replacement of release dates generally a concerning activity when an unvetted source is being used. -- ferret (talk) 22:48, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, should absolutely be discussed before adding it to so many articles like that. I've never even heard of it before... Sergecross73 msg me 22:55, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
Hi! Sorry for the confusion!
https://web.archive.org/web/19961222035952/http://www.gamezone.com/
It seems as though this was a website used directly by GameZone as part of its "news" section in 1996, which itself has historically been deemed by Wikipedia to be a reliable source due to its use in academia and in other discussions as seen in the WikiProject for video game sources, among other things. I accessed the site through GameZone's internal links. Venky64 (talk) 01:09, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
It is also worth noting these sources were often used to place sources where there were none - I left PC Gamer's articles mostly untouched (swapped approximately two when the daily archives went on to clarify something PC Gamer didn't mention, eg, when both of them reported something such as "we expect x game to be in stores tomorrow", but OGR followed up by saying, ex, Shadow Warrior 1997 (full version) has arrived in stores, four days after both of them posted the former statement on the same day. Other swapped sources (approximately two of them) include GameSpot, which itself has had a history of issuing release statements one or two days after IGN's initial article. The vast majority were mostly meant to replace sources that were not there before. Venky64 (talk) 01:15, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
As a first step, I would strongly recommend that you refrain from making any changes to release dates that are already cited, as you did here and here (among others). Can you elaborate as to why you think OGR should be considered a reliable source? Axem Titanium (talk) 01:22, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm a little confused- you say above "It seems as though this was a website used directly by GameZone as part of its "news" section in 1996", but when I go to the archived GameZone site you link and hit news, I see this, which has... seven links to other site's news pages, including GameSpot and six sites that don't exist any more like OGR. If that's what you mean, then I don't think that GameZone, in 1996, linking to OGR as one of several "news" websites confers any reliability on that site. OGR looks to have been a stream of "news", rumors, and tips emailed in, which I'd personally be hesitant to trust for to-the-day release dates. Their aboutus page does say that they had a publisher who also published a magazine, but that's about it that matters. --PresN 01:42, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
It is a part of Air Age Media. Here are its credentials: https://web.archive.org/web/19970227062946/http://www.ogr.com/about.html
The publication has been recognized via awards administered by several other sites such as Netguide, Microsoft, and Interplay. It is run by a set staff and none of its content is user-generated. It sources information directly from the developer and publisher. Is there anything else notable about this page that could conceivably denote its reliability? Venky64 (talk) 01:48, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
Developers and publishers of the games being covered have also had exclusive interviews on the site: https://web.archive.org/web/19970227062931/http://www.ogr.com/specials.html. They are also granted access to previews of games prior to their release: https://web.archive.org/web/19970227062850/http://www.ogr.com/previews.html. Venky64 (talk) 01:52, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
I just want to remind everyone that the concept of a "street date", the date on which a video game becomes widely available in a particular region, is a relatively new phenomenon and many games released in the 80s and 90s cannot be reliably traced to a singular release date. Even press releases from that era that announce a game's release may variably be referring to the ship date, the master date, the "release date", or even just the publish date of the press release itself, with little evidence to distinguish between these possibilities. OGR seems to be reporting sightings on store shelves, which is yet another possible "release date", but who knows if specific retailers broke street date or if there was even an enforced street date for that release. I would advise caution in using OGR as definitive, above and beyond other sources. Axem Titanium (talk) 02:07, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
So should the final consensus be to use it when there are no better sources in its place? Venky64 (talk) 02:15, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
I would go so far as to say that its use should be accompanied by a note suggesting that future editors look for a more reliable source, but that's just my opinion. At the very least, it should never be used to override an existing sourced date. Axem Titanium (talk) 02:51, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
Just chiming in here as an editor who's dealt with a large number of old computer game release date issues. OGR is a good source for release dates and was a major game news site on the early internet. Release dates for 1990s games from sites like GameSpot and IGN are generally false (or corrupted over time by site updates), and I would always favor a source like OGR over those. If possible, cross-reference with online articles from Gamecenter, Computer Games Magazine, PC Gamer or Next Generation from the same era, but OGR had a good track record with release dates. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 07:58, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
Maybe reducing the infobox date to a month for unknown pre-2000 games would alleviate the unlikely notion of a singular release day. IgelRM (talk) 14:06, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Alien Earth

Does anyone have access to any of the unlinked reviews listed for this game at Mobygames[4] or any other sources to add to the article Alien Earth?

This is the last one on my list, so thank you very much to everyone who has helped me out with them! 8.37.179.254 (talk) 21:38, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

PC Player, PC Games, Power Play --Mika1h (talk) 22:33, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, that is great! 8.37.179.254 (talk) 14:33, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

ESRB re-rating of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion Featured article review

I have nominated ESRB re-rating of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:08, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Further description: this article was merged yesterday due to a talk page discussion, but the FA project feels that, since it was an FA, it needs a larger discussion before delisting/merging. --PresN 13:24, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Or at least, it needs a FAR to accomplish delisting of the FA, if that is the conclusion (that step was missed in the original discussion). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:26, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
I can't believe that such an article even exists, let alone that someone took it all the way to FA status. No offense but how in the world was something like this someone's passion project? Sergecross73 msg me 14:42, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Since they were responsible for various other Elder Scrolls pages, one of which also got merged back in 2013, I can assume they were a large Elder Scrolls fan and got carried away somewhat. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:17, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, digging through the talk page history some, it looks like it was controversial even back then. Sergecross73 msg me 15:37, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Not FA but along the same lines, Controversy over the use of Manchester Cathedral in Resistance: Fall of Man was nominated for merge as well. TarkusABtalk/contrib 15:39, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
And Development of Grand Theft Auto V, although in that case I disagree with the merge. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:25, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

4X

This article may need to be moved to WP:FAR. Please discuss on the talk page. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:20, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Alone in the Dark (Part Deux!)

I've been workin' on Alone in the Dark for awhile now, and I think it might be nearing GA standard. Anyone here willing to give it a quick and unofficial look-over? I doesn't need to be too fancy; I just want to make sure that I haven't overlooked anything obvious, since this is the first video game article I've focused considerable time on. Thanks!--Gen. Quon[Talk] 22:31, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Move suggestion: Adventure (1980 video game) to Adventure (video game)

Exactly what it says on the tin. Adventure (1980 video game)#Requested move 16 May 2023. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 17:06, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Newsletter

Is anyone working on this? Just want to know. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:40, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Besides a few users pitching in with no intention to stick around, no. I've explained this more in my message on Thibbs' talk page. Panini! • 🥪 23:23, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
I'd say with Thibbs gone I don't think it can be brought back. GamerPro64 01:17, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
Now, I wouldn't say it can't, more so that it's unlikely it can continue onward to the same degree of quality. I expect nobody to be able (or at the very least willing) to match the work that Thibbs has done with it, to justify it returning. Which brings me to an idea to consider: should it ever be brought back? Should the newsletter and its associated pages be archived permanently to preserve his legacy? Panini! • 🥪 01:41, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
Id say we sunset it at this point. GamerPro64 01:59, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
It's weird to suggest that it can't ever be brought back. Maybe someone else will come around with a similar enthusiasm for it to take up the mantle. There's no need to foreclose that possibility by prominently condemning the pages as historical. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:04, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Split handheld versions of games into separate articles?

For games that were developed for handheld consoles and PC or desktop consoles, the handheld versions are usually worse and written by a different developer. Distinct enough that I believe the handheld versions better be addressed in separate articles. 94.191.137.9 (talk) 10:31, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Like, it's heavily situational to the game. Sometimes a handheld version has 100% different gameplay, in which case it should have a separate article if notable. If the handheld is simply a port, then it should be bundled with the console version. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:34, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Things having an article or not is extremely inconsistent also seems to be often rely on what the supposed reliable sources say even if it's not true. A great example, though it's not quite what the OP was getting at, is Azure Dreams where the GBC version is closer to a remake or even could be called a sequel. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 12:33, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
I would only do it if 1) the handheld game is significantly different from the platform, not just a pared down version and 2) you can find different reception and development information for that game. A notable example where this is validated is Over the Hedge (Nintendo DS video game). A counter example is Ghostbusters: The Video Game, where the Wii version is known to use more cartoon-y animation due to the tech limitations, but there's no reason to separate the article since the game plays the same otherwise. Separation should be a last resort after trying to keep the portable version with the main console version. Masem (t) 12:42, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
As others have said, its all situational and comes down to how different the games are. WP:MERGEREASON probably documents a lot of the scenarios where there shouldn't be separate articles. Sergecross73 msg me 14:38, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
What about Need for Speed: Carbon - Own the City? The game plays similarly but has a different story overall and game mechanics are altered to a degree. Blake Gripling (talk) 04:16, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Nominate Sega Japan's official encylpedia website for WP:VG/S

The title says it all I am not sure if this this the correct place for it, but attached below is a website source from Sega Japan that is VERY reliable because it has an index for all Sega systems with every game released in Japan as well as the release dates and price which I think beats even using Allgame links or even IGN refs. So I am thinking of adding this to the master reliable source list anyone agree?

セガハード大百科｜セガ SEGA NakhlaMan (talk) 04:45, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

This is a place to vet secondary sources for reliability. Sega's own sites will always be primary sources in reference to themselves. -- ferret (talk) 04:53, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
To expand on ferret's comment, I would recommend reviewing WP:PRIMARY. Typically, secondary reliable sources are always preferred over primary sources. I don't believe any primary source should be added to VG/S. Their reliability is implied by the fact they are a primary source. - Skipple ☎ 05:43, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
Oh ok all good sorry didnt know that. But still its a GREAT primary source though. NakhlaMan (talk) 06:00, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
Couldn't it be added to "Primary/affiliate sources" section?--Gen. Quon[Talk] 18:03, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
That section is (or at least should be) for cases that are not obvious. There are countless other primary sources not listed, both active and defunt, that are similar to that Sega website. TarkusABtalk/contrib 18:56, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Request for discussion of moving Inverted Castle

While it doesn't rise to the level of an official move request, I'd like to request people weigh in on whether the article should be moved to a wider name. Both to slightly increase its scope and ease notability issues with the current subject. There may be an argument for it to be a broad article about its usage in Castlevania in general, but the SotN version is easily the most notable. (And also whether the target should be "Dracula's Castle", as with the FANDOM page, or "Dracula's castle".) ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:17, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

IABot Usage

Hey there, recently I had made an edit to The Legend of Zelda article using the InternetArchiveBot and I thought that the resulting edit was quite large. I just wanted to make sure edits like this are fine to make. Many thanks to anyone that replies. CaptainGalaxy 01:21, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

That edit seems fine to me. MilkyDefer 05:35, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Verb Tense in the MOS/Video games.

Copy of my topic at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Video games#Verb Tense.

The Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Video games § Verb tense section is contradictory to the main Wikipedia:Manual of Style § Verb tense section.

The main MOS states that present tense should be used in articles, even when the product or work has been discontinued. It provides the example of the following:

Flappy Bird is a mobile game developed by ... (not Flappy Bird was a mobile game)

However the MOS/Video Games states that past test should be used for cancelled and discontinued video games, or 'subjects that no longer exist'. I'll illustrate why this is not correct in my opinion through some examples:

Sonic X-treme was a platform game in development for the Sega Saturn, but was canceled before release.

In my opinion this is incorrect use of past tense, as the name "Sonic X-treme" still refers to a game that had work started on it, i.e. there is a prototype or some pseudo-code of a game which exists and is referred to by the name "Sonic X-treme". The game doesn't stop being a game or stop existing purely because it wasn't released. My opinion is that the correct use of tense is:

Sonic X-treme is a platform game that was in development for the Sega Saturn, but was canceled before release.

A further example is:

Glitch was a browser-based massively multiplayer online game launched in 2011 and discontinued the next year.

The concept of "Glitch" still exists and "Glitch" still refers to a video game, the only difference is that people can no longer play the game. Therefore I suggest that the correct tense is:

Glitch is a browser-based massively multiplayer online game launched in 2011 that was discontinued the next year.

What are people's opinions on this? Geordannik (talk) 09:55, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree. It is a video game that was developed, finished and published and was available during a certain window of time. It might not be available, it still exists, even if nobody can access it. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 10:21, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
I agree with the current MOS. The fact that it's no longer a game does not mean it doesn't exist as software. It's simply not playable via normal means, making it not a game. A game that was playable at some point can, conceivably, still exist. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:44, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
I think there may be a difference between videogames that are no longer sold/available but still available to play vs software as a service games. Using Geordannik's example, Flappy Bird is still conceivably playable if you have a device that has the application installed on it. It still exists in that sense. But with something like WildStar, that game ceases to function without NCSoft's servers available to play it on. The game, in effect, no longer exists. Does the software/code exist? Sure. But the concept of the game no longer does and I think it may be appropriate to use past tense in that scenario. - Skipple ☎ 14:38, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
Holding a discussion in two places is really going to muddy consensus building. I recommend you close one discussion and point readers to the other. -- ferret (talk) 16:25, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Call to arms for referencing: List of Eidos Interactive games

The list has more than a hundred items but only one reference when I checked it, I subsequently added about 30 sources but it could use a lot of help. Thanks, Merko (talk) 20:29, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

New Articles (May 15 to May 21)

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 v3.15 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 14:38, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

May 15

May 16

May 17

May 18

May 19

May 20

May 21

Good lord so many articles nuked. I should be able to get Rugal up to GAN over the next few days, dude's got a surprisingly large number of appearances to go through.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:09, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Nice. The remaining fighting game articles that needed to be take care of are Siegfried and Nightmare, Guilty Gear, 3 Overwatch articles (Pharah , Kiriko (Overwatch) and maybe Winston (Overwatch)) and Dead or Alive (DOA articles is very hard to clean up and determine their notability) then I think we're done. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 23:52, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Looking closer at the redirected articles shows that a lot of these were redirected before May 15, sometimes even April. There might be a bug in the script since a lot of these redirects shouldn't be here. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 18:50, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
Nope, the 1.0 bot (and therefore the script) doesn't care when they were merged, they care when the talk page template was updated- and a lot of these got left behind until this past week. --PresN 19:59, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Is Fuga: Melodies of Steel 2 actually notable? I was expecting it to pass easily but over 10 days since release and still nothing... --Mika1h (talk) 15:34, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

No. That about sums up Little Tail Bronx all right. It needs to be merged to the notable Fuga: Melodies of Steel as a "Sequel" section. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:46, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
That is weird, that doesn't seem like the type of game to completely fly under the radar. I see some previews out there, but reviews seem sparse. Sergecross73 msg me 15:59, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
I am not so sure about both USG Ishimura and Liberty Island (Deus Ex). Feels like they can be easily merged to Dead Space (2008)/Dead Space (2023) and Deus Ex. It seems like they rely mostly on one or two in-depth sources, and then reviews of the main game or pass-by mentions from other sources. While they may pass GNG, there are not really enough substance for them to exist as a standalone article. OceanHok (talk) 16:35, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
1000% agree. We've got to stop with these crufty video game level spin outs. We're not a fan wikia. Sergecross73 msg me 16:37, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
For the record, they aren't 100% done - the sources still have enough to fill an entire section of "Level content" with what you actually do there. I just wanted to demonstrate enough reception that proves they pass GNG beyond a shadow of a doubt. So, there will be "substance" there (or can be). ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:39, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
It is fairly insulting to hear articles I've done indepth research on called "crufty spin out" though. Were the articles actually read at all? ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:41, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
These are spin-out articles. They should really be spun out when they are truly ready. These articles are only of interest to a very specialized group of people, and do not give general readers sufficient context to fully understand it. Even though sourcing is here, they don't really generate a significant amount of standalone commentary like say "Suicide Mission' did. There is also no proper justification as to why we need a standalone article for them. The reception sections are mostly "X wrote place Y/level Z looks cool", which also work perfectly fine in the main game article as well, since they are part of the main game. If they exist simply because sources are there, we can create a lot of articles (e.g. "Tsushima (Ghost of Tsushima)", or, "America (Wolfesntein II"), but that is just silly.
Also, is there a legitiate reason why Baker House should exist as a standalone article, even when we already have a spin-out article with Baker family? OceanHok (talk) 17:19, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
I am simply directly following WP:LABELFICTION guidelines. They state that fictional elements are acceptable as long as "such narration must employ out-of-universe style and include real-world descriptors. Characters should not be presented as if they are real persons, fictional settings should not be treated as a real place, and so forth. Since such articles are presented with a mix of elements related to the fictional narrative alongside elements related to conception, development, and reception, editors must be sure these articles clearly define the fictional aspects with out-of-universe language to avoid confusion." This describes how the articles are laid out - largely about the creation and reception of the fictional world.
If Tsushima was talked about independently at length as a level, it would fulfill WP:FICTION and be sufficient for an article, independent of the actual game. This is Wikipedia policy. I do not see "fictional elements cannot exist" anywhere in this policy. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:35, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
The Baker House is also independently notable - both the character and the location pass WP:GNG individually of each other. I'm not sure how combining them would assist things, and would lead to something unwieldy like "The Bakers and their house". ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:40, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Remember that just because something may appear to pass the GNG, it us not required to have a standalone article if inclusion in a larger article is more comprehensive and provides a stronger case for passing the GNG. My read of some of these level articles is that they just barely meet the GNG particularly given little weight on development and piece-part reception (bordering on the listicle issue). That us not to say let's rush to delete or merge them, but instead food for thought on future articles. Masem (t) 17:46, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
I'll see if I can expand development a lot more instead of going on to new articles. Because the information is there. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:53, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Made a proposal to merge Sweden (song) into Minecraft – Volume Alpha here. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 17:10, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
I would say that the area articles are of varying validity. Baker House is pretty weak, definitely spun out too soon. I think the Ishimura article is fine, and Liberty Island seems fine, though it also seems kind of light. Of the three, I'd say that Ishimura is clearly a notable subject. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 22:00, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Feedback requested on Talk:Dead Island#Requested move 29 April 2023

The move of the series article to primary is currently deadlocked, it would be great to get more feedback on whether it should happen now that Dead Island 2 has been released. Thank you. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:05, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Super Kirby Clash

I started a peer review request for this article in the hopes of taking it to GA. Please give your thoughts. Thanks, QuicoleJR (talk) 16:00, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soma Cruz

Opinions requested at this GA article being sent at afd for notability issues. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 11:47, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Most of the regulars follow the alerts at WP:VG/D, so you don"t generally need to notify us here. Just an FYI, no big deal. Sergecross73 msg me 16:34, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Feedback on Jonathan Blow article at Peer Review welcome

I've listed the Jonathan Blow article for peer review at WP:PR, feedback is welcome! I'm looking to take the article to WP:GAN this year. Neuroxic (talk) 17:18, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Sheesh. A lot of peer reviews these past two months. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 17:20, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Cosplay images

Pinging @Kung Fu Man: as I noticed they removed images of cosplay on various character articles, and think it'd be fair/in-bounds to notify them about this discussion. I re-added it to the Mercy article, but stopped short of adding it back to the other articles it was removed from (that I noticed) because I figure a discussion would be better.

(Note specific to the Mercy article): The Witch cosplay image is also useful in this specific context, because that cosplay is mentioned in the article, and having a visual of that helps show that the character has multiple outfits/skins.

They were removed for being "fluff" and "padding" as the articles don't have explicit mentions as "notable aspects" of the characters. I don't quite understand how cosplay images in a Reception section is fluff. (Even without an explicit mention in the article), it's a visual representation of a fan response to a character (or reception), and that is apt for inclusion in that section in my opinion. None of these articles spammed images of cosplay, just one to make them have more of a visual component.

So I guess the question here is do we need to have these mentions of cosplay be explicit in the article? Because I can see other editors wanting to exclude that information (on the grounds of that being "fluff" or "fancruft") when in the prose, perhaps.

Or is there any previous discussion on this that can be linked to as guideline/policy/suggestion?

At the end of the day, I don't really see the issue with including these types of images. I like using the giant repository of images we have as a sister project and trying to find images that are perhaps less likely to be used, and including them in articles where appropriate. Soulbust (talk) 20:46, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

The main problem is two fold. Niemti added cosplay images en-masse to wikipedia articles as a means to "fluff" the reception section and make it appear larger than it actually was (see also his overuse of block quotes). Additionally, cosplay is now such a large matter that, conceivably, we could have almost every character article have some degree of cosplay shown with a free use image. But unless cosplay is a notable matter for the character, these aren't adding anything to the reader's understanding of these articles.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:52, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
VG char images are generally devoid of visual information outside of one non-free shot of the character. A free image of cosplay - of reasonable quality of course that the character is instantly recognizable - is mostly gravy for the reader without being purely decorative. I really don't see the problem if we're aching for more than one image. On the other hand, if the article already is pretty full of images (free and non-free used appropriately) , then yes, that extra cosplay image is not really necessary. Masem (t) 21:07, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
Our good friend Niemti added so many pictures of scantily clad trade show models, young women dressed as video game characters. It was iffy back then and it's downright inappropriate now. Not saying that's the case with Mercy, but it left a really bad taste in my mouth. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 21:16, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
I've never had much of a liking for cosplay images used in this way, particularly for characters that don't change much visually over a series' lifetime or don't have any notability attached to them within the cosplay scene. Also agree with Masem's point about cosplay images being superfluous in an article with plenty of images already. If the character is truly popular with cosplaying, I don't see a reason that shouldn't be mentioned in the text as part of fan popularity, provided it's properly sourced, but images seem to be going a step too far. --ProtoDrake (talk) 21:45, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
I understand it being perhaps superfluous when there are already images (it can seem a bit spammy otherwise). But I don't think it'd be going too far. Particularly, I'd figure most would rather have a cosplay image only in the case that the character's cosplay presence is properly cited in the text/prose.
With that in mind, I don't understand why these images wouldn't be appropriate in Reception sections (these sections make the most sense, maybe the only sense, for their inclusion – for the reason I mentioned in my initial post).
I mentioned this to Kung Fu Man on my talk page pretty much right when I made this post on this talk page, but I didn't know about Niemti. Or at the very least, I don't recall when/where I would've interacted with them or their edits. And I certainly didn't know this lore, so to speak, about their addition of cosplay images. I also don't think it makes a difference if the character's look changes all too much throughout a series; I can see images favoring either or. For example, if it does change then we could have an image of multiple cosplayers (but still in one image) showing off the different looks. And if doesn't change, then the look is probably cited as iconic and a cosplay of that iconic look can also be shown through an image.
I don't know if this should be an official/semi-official guideline (I actually would argue against such a thing) but I think a good sort of general understanding would just constitute something like if the cosplay info is properly sourced and mentioned in the text, then in that case it'd be okay to include cosplay imagery in such a reception section — particularly when the article doesn't have too many images already.
One last note for now: I checked the FA-level character articles. The Jill Valentine article has a pretty apt usage in its Reception and legacy section. I think Cultural impact on the Master Chief article (as an example of the others) could benefit from a cosplay image in that vein. There are, after all, 45 (maybe up to 122 (once they get properly fully categorized/organized)) images of such cosplay on the Commons. Soulbust (talk) 01:43, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Small thing on the subject of Jill, but the version of the article that passed here should be considered if it's to be used as an example, as there there was only one cosplay image, and it was directly tied to the article.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:56, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Yeah that's fair. I have no issue if we're gonna end up with a would be nice to have the image directly tie to the article or be an example of something the article mentions type of consensus. I just think there should be an open door for other usages where appropriate and am of the mindset that cosplay images aren't the type of thing we gotta necessarily have a hard set "this usage is ok always" and "this usage is not ok always" approach to. Soulbust (talk) 02:17, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
100% agreed that whatever route we take on cosplay images, they should be tasteful and avoid sexual connotations. If it is a character that already starts out hyper sexualized from the video game, then there is likely no good cosplay image for them. Masem (t) 02:24, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
I agree they should be tasteful but in the case that character is known for being sexualized (either originally in the game, or perhaps through later media depictions) I don't think we should avoid sexualized cosplays necessarily. Mainly because Wikipedia isn't censored, so as long as that sexualized cosplay is in context with the prose then that'd be okay in my opinion. But obviously, not every character fits that description, so yes I do agree with the sentiment that like this cosplay doesn't really have a place on the Pikachu article, for example. Soulbust (talk) 02:40, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Yes, that's a good example. I'm thinking more along the lines of Rikku from FFX-2, who wears a still-family friendly outfit which with just a few changes in the real world could be seen as sexually alluring. Masem (t) 12:44, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
My understanding was that cosplay images were only appropriate when there was some noteworthy, reliably sourced commentary about a character being popular in cosplay circles. I generally remove them (without issue) when it's randomly plopped in an article without any cosplay commentary. Sergecross73 msg me 01:52, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Try as I might, I can't think of an argument why an accurate cosplay would be actively detrimental to an article. It certainly takes more time to make a decent cosplay than to write a "10 best ninjas in video games" listicle, or an article based on social media debates of shipping 2 Overwatch characters, as was added to the Mercy article. As long as it's not something that looks nothing like the character, it can help demonstrate fan reaction to the character. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:47, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
I agree with Sergecross73, Cosplay should represent one thing: the representation of a cosplay community. So the content in the article should match up with the images provided. And I have a suspicion that once we make it free-game, a community of cosplayers will want to advertise themselves through Wikipedia.
In my humble opinion, I think images of cosplayers no matter how "close" to accurate and well done they are, unfortunately, are still not replacements for the Non-free content they attempt to imitate and will never be able to reflect all the information a Non-free image has. I am also in the firm belief that all images should reflect the content of the article and a potential problem of WP:UNDUE if we do not have any context of why these images are there. It can imply a bigger unverified impact of the character. Considering how we scrutinize list-ratings for notability, I'm surprised its the opposite with unverified fan-made content. Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 11:03, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
When game developers themselves often don't have a set design for a character, the argument that cosplays aren't necessarily 100% accurate is moot. You will often see vastly different art styles for character designs and concepts between games, if the character isn't redesigned entirely. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:19, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
I don't think its moot at all. If you only value the general design, sure. But images speak a thousand words, and cosplay and the actual non-free character presentation share two different set of thousand words. For one, video game characters are "fictional" therefore, I don't agree that any real-life interpretation of them (especially one curated by fans). I also don't believe it should be up to us to interpret how accurate it is. Kind of like how VG cover art provides promotional information that makes it irreplaceable to anything else like for example a fan-drawing of the box art, no matter how accurate.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 12:17, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
"It can help demonstrate fan reaction to the character." - Sure, but we need reliable sources to make such a claim in the first place. We don't allow the use of photos alone to verify anything else on Wikipedia, so I don't think this is any different. Sergecross73 msg me 14:35, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Yeah I don't think anyone is trying to justify or provide a rationale for cosplay images to be added as a way to verify any information. I'm in agreement that I can't find any detrimental impact a cosplay image would have on an article (And yes, for full clarity: that means on an article that has the proper appropriate context within the prose that would allow for it to make sense to include such an image). I understand the issue with maybe potentially some cosplayers wanting to promote themselves through it, but wouldn't we just deal with that the way we deal with anything else that seems promotional? Which is to just remove it, replace it with something more fitting (when applicable), and warn the user? Soulbust (talk) 01:47, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
I don't think you're quite following what I'm getting at. My point is more that we don't allow anything in articles without sources. We don't add prose without a source. We don't generally allow for categories to be added to articles if there's no sourced content regarding said category. And we shouldn't add cosplay photos unless there's sourced commentary about cosplaying being a noteworthy aspect of the character. We don't use the rationale of "Well, this picture of a cute girl dressed up as Tifa Lockhart exists, and that's all the proof I need to show that it's important enough to the fan reaction to include." We'd only include it if, for example, IGN wrote an article noting the prominence of Tifa cosplaying at Square Enix events or something like that. Sergecross73 msg me 03:45, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
Nah I get what you're saying. I mean, I've stated earlier that I agree with the concept of only really including cosplay images in spots where it's appropriate (and that appropriateness is contingent on if it's relevant to the prose - which should be sourced properly, therefore allowing for the image to have a relevance to properly sourced text).
Maybe I misinterpreted your "We don't allow the use of photos alone to verify anything else on Wikipedia" statement, but I agree with the actual larger point that we should have such images have sourced commentary. But I don't necessarily think that commentary it needs to be exclusively about the cosplay, like in the case of a prominence of cosplaying of the character. If the cosplay can clearly display the character's design and the image's caption notes the relevance to the character design (AND of course, those elements of the character design are sourced in the text), then that to me is also an apt and relevant usage of the cosplay image. Soulbust (talk) 05:36, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
  • I'd personally think cosplay images aren't really needed at all unless there is discussion in the article around the cosplay in question (or at least discussion around the character being the subject of cosplay or their popularity in the cosplay community). We should be asking ourselves whether a cosplay image provides any additional value to the reader that isn't already conveyed by an image of the character itself. Using Kasumi (Dead or Alive) as an example - I'd keep the image of the cosplayer on stage at the Tokyo Game Show as its demonstrative of Kasumi's popularity. But the image of the random cosplayer in the "character design" section? I'd say it adds little to no value.
And, frankly, I wonder if there's also BLP privacy concerns we should be considering here. I doubt having their photo plastered on Wikipedia for thousands to see are what most cosplayers have in mind when they agree to have their photo taken at a convention. Most cosplayers are not public figures or notable. Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 03:15, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
I understand what you're saying, but I disagree with you saying that the character design section image adds little to no value. The image itself that is used is flexible (as in, it could be perhaps replaced with another quality image that properly conveys what the caption is trying to say), but the importance here is that it goes hand-in-hand with the caption. And it is a good visual representation of the caption, as well as the relevant content found in the prose. I find that important as it adds an element of visual design to the article, which helps the overall reading flow a bit. Maybe it's that I view adding an image as more of just the image. Like the caption has to be relevant as well. I think all this is in-line with what WP:IMGCONTENT states.
Your point about the BLP privacy concerns is a good one I had not really considered before. I'm honestly not too sure what we would do about that, but lots of articles use images of people not considered public figures or "notable" (I'm supposing at least notable to Wikipedia, as in they wouldn't pass WP:GNG if an article was to be made about them). But I don't know if that's entirely relevant? Or at least I'm not sure if that's a criteria that needs to be cleared for that image to be used. But I am admittedly unclear as what to do with a potential BLP privacy concern relating to using cosplay images. Soulbust (talk) 05:50, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
It is a legal (and moral) gray area, and discussed in depth at c:Commons:Photographs of identifiable people. TarkusABtalk/contrib 08:03, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
I agree with other editors who said that cosplay is only really appropriate if the article talks about cosplay, verified in reliable third-party sources. WP:IMGCONTENT says that an image should be used for "directly depicting people, things, activities, and concepts described in the article". Shooterwalker (talk) 15:16, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

This waiver

Contributions by various editors are now welcome to edit my article in progress: Duck Life. As much as I would love to continue to play a part in this project, I currently have no computer or any device of my own to work and properly cite sources from (I am typing this on my brother's phone.) Despite this, however, my wiki-break will not go unabated (hopefully not), and I will indeed try to continue to make edits on-the-go. By the way, don't hesitate to submit the article for creation if you feel its ready. Thanks for your time. TCFLightyears93 (group chat / contributions) 19:27, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Articles have to pass WP:GNG to qualify as standalone articles. I'm not seeing any from reliable sources that talk about any of the games, or the series itself. I'd familiarize myself with GNG to avoid spending time making articles that will just be rejected or deleted. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:54, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Problems with game titles with specific branding that is debatably not part of the title

So I have noticed that lots of games have specific brand things like "Disney's" or "Marvel's" and some say its part of the title while I think and many others say it is not. So why is this a problem? Well its only a problem when putting games like these for several game lists when trying to put them so I think when it comes to alphabetising titles just like exluding titles with "the/an/a" at the start of the title and just go letter by letter, I think for the purpose of convience and also no one adds the "Disney's" for alphabetizing those titles. Especially since many ignore those anyways when sorting not just games but even movies themselves. Although they will be exceptions like "Marvel Ultimate Alliance" or "Marvel's Midnight Suns" because especially for Midnight Suns everyone refers to as Marvel's Midnight Suns, its mainly issue for Spider-Man PS4 and the GOTG game. So does anyone agree with me? NakhlaMan (talk) 01:00, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

See also User_talk:Sergecross73#Remove_marketing_jargon_from_game_titles?_e.g._Disney's_Aladdin_and_replace_it_with_just_Aladdin,_Marvel's_Guardins_of_the_Galaxy_and_replace_it_with_just_GOTG.. -- ferret (talk) 01:36, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
Please see the above link for more details. NakhlaMan (talk) 01:38, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Proposal to merge Sweden (song) into Minecraft – Volume Alpha

Notifying Wikiproject since there hasn't been any participation since I opened the discussion. The discussion is here. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 02:38, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Samus Aran

Somehow I've only stumbled across the article for Samus Aran for the first time today. It reached GA in 2009, and was reassessed in 2011, but by god has it fallen to the weeds since then. If it was nominated for GAN today, I'd quick fail it based solely on the bloated reception and legacy section. I've already trimmed it down somewhat, but it's still terrible. I was going to ping the top-contributors to the talk page, but there aren't any active ones. Of the top 10 editors to the article, nine have not edited the page since at least 2012, and the other one is (thankfully) permanently banned from editing. Anyway, just thought I'd point out the article needs some work if anyone wants a pet project. I also posted on the article's talk page to see if anyone had objections to it being reassessed for GA yet again. All comments are welcome. Damien Linnane (talk) 02:08, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Soma Cruz, Mileena and also Ayane (Dead or Alive) needed to be reassessed also. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 04:46, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
I think in this case they want to try and save this one if possible my friend. I'd offer to help Damien but I'm knee deep in Capcom right now.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:59, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
A reassessment of those 3 characters may be unnecessary, if they are non-notable. For Soma I think that is very likely; the others I'm unsure, it's hard to see the notability when the articles have been REFBOMBed so heavily in an apparent attempt to pad them. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:05, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
There are tons of GA articles that are full of listicles somehow: Mona Sax, Liu Kang, Sniper Wolf, Starkiller, Kain (Legacy of Kain), Ezio Auditore da Firenze, Wario, Nathan Drake (Uncharted), Max Payne (character), Mewtwo, Trevor Philips (Not broad on its coverage), Kadabra (Not broad its coverage). GlatorNator (ᴛ) 04:46, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
The banned editor I referred to earlier seems to be responsible for many of the listicles you've mentioned. We're going to be cleaning up his mess for years unfortunately. Damien Linnane (talk) 05:12, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
Think I did a decent job of just cleaning up Max Payne (character) at least. Damien Linnane (talk) 05:25, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
I agree that Max Payne's reception is far better. That said, it demonstrates a serious lack of substantive commentary, with everything being a trivial and small list mention. There is a Max Payne series article; it should be merged there. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:07, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
I'd disagree on merging personally. That said those quote boxes should go, they're too often used for padding. Regarding the above list, Mewtwo's notable...but I don't have the time to fix it. If you want to delist for now til it can be cleaned up I have no objections.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:39, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
Did cleaned up Dogmeat (Fallout), not sure if it has sources or books for its reception section. It looks flimsy, anyway I nominated Mona Sax for GAR. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 22:42, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
Dogmeat is notable, yes, though most of the current reception sources should probably be removed. I added a few better sources to the talk page and tagged it as "sources exist". The Escapist article currently in the article is also good and underutilized in reception. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:16, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
Yeah I'm noticing that a LOT across the board. There are some good sources in here but the article for example will focus on the number of the ranking instead of what's being said, and that's hurting things. I do agree Dogmeat should be fine, just a matter of someone taking the time to work on him.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:19, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

I've formally nominated Samus for GAR; see Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Samus Aran/1. Damien Linnane (talk) 13:13, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

New WikiProject proposal

Hello. I have made a new WikiProject proposal that I'd think many of the members here would be interested in. It is called WikiProject Virtual reality and augmented reality. This new WikiProject would focus on VR and AR, which also includes VR and AR video games. Feel free to give your thoughts In the proposal. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 21:51, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea conceptually, I think it'll really just come down if there's anyone interested in doing it. I think the number one reason Wikiprojects don't work out us simply lack of interest and participants. I think WP:VG is one of the few that is constantly active. Sergecross73 msg me 22:02, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, case in point I think the Fictional Character project has died more or less.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:48, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

New discussion on Template:Infobox video game

I created a discussion on the video game infobox, I hope that it can reach a consensus. I'll post it here because I think it is important and relevant. Template talk:Infobox video game#"Based on" parameter. Thanks, Di (they-them) (talk) 23:05, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Updating Template:WPVG announcements/shell to add an automatically updated merge discussions section

For the past couple of weeks, members have started to use the FYI section in Template:WPVG announcements as a means to make other members aware of merge discussions. After seeing this trend grow, I got an idea. What if we replaced the FYI section with a Merge discussions section that automatically adds and removes merge discussion? So, in past few days, I created a draft in my sandbox with the new merge discussions section that automatically updates using Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article alerts/MRG. I also did some other things such as removing redundant sections/links (e.g. the link to the newsletter, the news and announcements section, and the current discussions section), adding some links, and reordering some stuff. What do you think? Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 15:58, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Have not reviewed the actual effort or coding, but if it works, great. I think this was mostly waiting for someone to be willing to do the work, because this is a gnarly bit of template syntax and many just don't want to muck with it. Anything we can successfully and properly automate, we should. -- ferret (talk) 18:31, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Just wanted to wait a day to make sure the section actually automatically updates. Tbh, this was quite easy. Since Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article alerts/MRG and Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article alerts/AfD are pretty much formatted the same, I just copied and pasted the AFD section and changed some stuff. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 15:14, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
I'm all for adding an automated merge discussion notice to the template, but I think there are probably enough non-merge discussions that a manually editable FYI section would still be useful to have. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:34, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
Added. Tested here. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 19:52, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
Woops. Thought you meant DYK, well whatever I'll add it anyways. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 19:55, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
I have readded the FYI section (Though I renamed it to "Other discussions"). Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 20:50, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
@Axem Titanium @Ferret. Pinging. Have we come to a consensus to update Template:WPVG announcements/shell with the changes in my sandbox? Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 14:25, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
I hesitate to say "consensus" so much as there's no opposition. Go forth and conquere. -- ferret (talk) 14:40, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
I have made an edit request. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 17:51, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
Wow we have more open merge discussions than I thought. Maybe its presence on the template would help them along toward consensus though lol. Axem Titanium (talk) 08:09, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Help with Chinese sources for Draft:Amazing Cultivation Simulator

Draft:Amazing Cultivation Simulator has existed for a long time but has not been approved for mainspace. Do any of you know Chinese and are willing to help find sources in Chinese to establish its notability? Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 03:59, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Maybe User:MilkyDefer? Axem Titanium (talk) 08:06, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
I knew it.. I was just not quick enough to avoid being mentioned LOL MilkyDefer 08:16, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
(edit conflict) You have hit the jackpot. It is a bit hard to justify a Chinese source's reliability to English editors, so I will just drop some links.
  • 迪亚菠萝包 (2019-01-04). 登顶Steam全球热销榜：离职西山居后，他们做了这款超级复杂的“修仙模拟器” [Topping the Steam global sales chart: after resigning from Xishanju, they made this super-complicated "cultivation simulator"]. 游戏葡萄 (in Chinese (China)).
  • 争议中成黑马？3人开发《了不起的修仙模拟器》首日登顶Steam畅销榜 [Dark horse amidst controversy? Three-person team develops "Amazing Cultivation Simulator", topping Steam sales chart on first day of release]. 游戏大观 (in Chinese (China)). 2019-01-12.
  • TGDC | 《了不起的修仙模拟器》制作人廖秋钥：独游如何面对口碑崩塌 [TGDC (Tencent Game Developers Conference) | "Amazing Cultivation Simulator" producer Qiuyue Liao: How indie games handle bad reviews]. 游戏大观 (in Chinese (China)). 2021-11-24.
  • 棘皮动物的野望 (2020-12-10). 《了不起的修仙模拟器》评测8分 修仙修道长路漫漫 ["Amazing Cultivation Simulator" review 8/10. The path of cultivation is long.]. 游民星空 (in Chinese (China)).
Note: it is common to use a nickname rather than real name as author. Famitsu, Dengeki, and many Japanese and Chinese sites use fake names. Good luck.MilkyDefer 08:14, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
My recent focus is totk, which I am desperately waiting the cartridge for. It is actually a shame that zhwiki does not have this article yet. MilkyDefer 08:20, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
LOL sorry! Thanks again for your insight on what's a reliable Chinese source. Perhaps you could nominate some of them at WP:VG/S to include in the non-English section? Axem Titanium (talk) 08:27, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
I agree, it would be good to know what Chinese sources are reliable. Right now, it is unclear. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:31, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
Milky has dropped their essay at WT:VG/S. -- ferret (talk) 16:35, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Release dates for 80s games

Can you use the earliest known review date as a release date for a game released in the 1980s/early 90s when no other source is found? Mika1h (talk) 17:35, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Unless that review states explicitly a release date, no. We have no idea when they were given or received a review copy, which could have been well before street date. -- ferret (talk) 17:48, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
So we put the release date as "unknown" then? --Mika1h (talk) 17:49, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
The year is probably the best we can do without any sort of direct source, but even that feels a little WP:OR. If we don't know though, omit rather than a direct "Unknown". -- ferret (talk) 17:51, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
Okay, I don't include release years from now on. --Mika1h (talk) 17:58, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
@Mika1h: Or, before deleting the release dates from a dozen articles, you could consider just being more general in the dates. Chess Simulator, for example, has "(copyright) Oxford Softworks 1989, 1990" on its splash page, so with reviews coming out in November 1990 it would be fine to say that it came out sometime around 1990. Right now, you just ripped out the date entirely, so it could have come out last week as far as the article is concerned. Also, don't forget about Allgame - it had Chessmaster 5000 as 1995, and Chessmaster 4000 Turbo as 1993. Found both of those by checking the internet archive for Allgame's list of PC games: [5]. --PresN 18:18, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
To stress a simple rule, the year of copyright is fully acceptable as a release date barring unknowns from any other source. And that year can come from an instruction manual, box art, or even splash screen. Masem (t) 18:26, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
I didn't know copyright dates were okay to use, thanks for the info. --Mika1h (talk) 18:43, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Talk:Characters of Overwatch#Proposed merge of Kiriko (Overwatch) into Characters of Overwatch

Opinions needed on merge proposal. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 13:22, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Character articles and the video game project

So the last few weeks we've had more of an effort to fix up character articles on this project's end of things, either through the AfDs, merge discussions, or improving what's there. To this end I've been going through and fixing the categorization on quite a few articles across the board, so we can get a better understanding of how many actual video game character articles are currently on wikipedia. Counting the 4 gendered categories, the specifies category, and the Pokemon species category we have about 670 character articles total. Breaking that down:

Now granted a lot of these are probably not worth keeping around, but at the same time we have some characters that likely could have articles made that don't (quite seriously I could probably crank one out for American McGee's Alice if I was bored enough). So it's hard to tell where the final numbers will end up if we got serious and worked on them. But I figured giving some sort of proper scope given the size of the project this late in the game wouldn't be a bad idea either.-- Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:39, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm presuming that there are also lots of List of ... characters articles as well. Some may have have content that makes a good basis for characters that should have their own article. - X201 (talk) 10:01, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
Not that many really. Most of the time now things are being merged into the lists.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 10:13, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
I don't know how to quickly count them, but there seem to be about a hundred such lists: Category:Lists of video game characters. In my experience, these lists can get particularly poor, as they attract more cruft than the focused articles. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 11:41, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
I don't know how much I could dedicate to improving any articles that do have substance (real life, plus a couple of ongoing Wikipedia projects), but I think I could help find sources, and weigh in with opinions on ADFs and merge discussions. I know I created a few (Zero (Drakengard) and Nilin (Remember Me) that could merit an independent second look. I created them in good faith, but that was then. --ProtoDrake (talk) 12:14, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
At a glance, I can't see the notability for Zero. There's one good article, but other than that it's scattered mentions. A List of Drakengard characters would be a far better idea to put Zero and most others, but only as a group. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:37, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
I did that ages ago, Characters of the Drakengard series. It got merged and I didn't bother contesting it. --ProtoDrake (talk) 16:06, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
I have restored it immediately - needless to say I disagree with Czar's assessment of the list's viability immensely and one user's WP:SUPERVOTE should not be a substitute to an actual merge discussion. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:44, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
How is that a "super vote? All he did was make a comment on a talk page in 2016. He didn't even merge it himself. Sergecross73 msg me 16:50, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
That's true, I merged it. --ProtoDrake (talk) 17:06, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
As was your right, or Czar's right hypothetically, for that matter, per WP:BOLD. Completely baffled by these accusations by Zx. Bold editing and "supervotes" are completely different things. Sergecross73 msg me 17:11, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
Okay, maybe it was not the right word for the situation. But at the same time, it should have been brought to a full merge discussion. The article had far too much work put into it to simply tell someone "merge this" and let it stand without informing anyone else. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:13, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
After 7 years, the silent consensus is more than established. No one contesting in seven years more than validates that the call was correct. -- ferret (talk) 17:32, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
And it was merged by its primary writer by a large margin, so there's nothing to cry foul about here... Sergecross73 msg me 17:37, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
I probably would have contested it if I even knew it existed, lol. I had assumed for years nobody ever bothered to make a "list of characters" for the series. But I digress, I think that now that Nier Automata hit it big there is a very heavy argument for it to remain. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:39, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
I will be honest, I don't particularly agree with Czar's analysis and probably would have disagreed if I'd known about it. At a glance it is well sourced and the reception feels like it'd be undue to shove into the series article. Maybe a tidy, some tightening and a check for recent sources in scholar and whatnot could be in order?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:40, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
Since it was last edited in 2016, it needs updating with the most recent Nier characters, especially from Automata and onwards. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:46, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
I'm indifferent to it existing, i just objected to these accusations of wrongdoings. Sergecross73 msg me 17:48, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Honestly, looking at articles (into the B's for male characters), I see a lot of ones that are assume notability that aren't as strong as they should be, and some that are definitely pretty fluffy. Then again, there are some like Corvo Attano that has no reception, but a quick glance shows that there seems to exist reception out there. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 12:34, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm a bit worried about the dismissal of development and gameplay information from third-party sources when a character article doesn't have much reception, as in the case of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doomfist (pinging @Kung Fu Man:). Yes, we want reception about characters, but when there are many third-party sources that are providing sigcov of character's development, or how they play in the game (not how-to guides) which are based on what the developer has said, are important parts of a good character article. --Masem (t) 18:09, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Similarly, I've been chewing over in my thoughts the past day the idea that how third-party RSes receive and review the way the character plays does not factor and unilaterally removing them from the article (such as here at Sombra), and I'm trending toward disagreeing on that. At the very least, it's a portion of gameplay, especially when (for example, as is notable with Sombra) negative reaction to the gameplay motivated major mechanical changes. It feels strange to dismiss how people feel about the gameplay of a character because video game characters have mechanics, they're not strictly narrative, so it feels appropriate to include some reception of their play. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 19:09, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
The point hasn't been to remove development or gameplay discussion but does it count as reception? That's where the problem's coming up. It's being used to argue "this character is notable" because people are talking about their gameplay in the context of the game itself, not in any broader sense beyond it. Like their are some exceptions i.e. stuff like Hanzo (where the Hanzo main meme took off), or with Mercy (the "Healslut" meme and how things evolved around her as a support unit). If the gameplay isn't particularly notable beyond the game itself, how does it help the reader understand a character's importance as a fictional character?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:40, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
Notability is whether significant coverage in independent third-party secondary sources. While character reception absolutely falls under these, development and gameplay commentary from RSes (which are usually going include the thoughts of the devs behind the character) are just as valid significant coverage. We do want to avoid things like devblogs supporting notability absent any third-party sources.
I know there's a thin grey line between good information and the poor type of stuff from listicles, particularly with gameplay. I do agree that gameplay is not sufficient for notability, but if you have reception and development, the gameplay should be sufficient (if using primary sources) to support those sections. (eg in the case of Doomfist, understanding he is a melee-style based gameplay that is based on the history of how Blizzard developed Doomfist, or the changes in his kit reflecting on how OW2 played). Third-party discussion of gameplay at a sufficiently high level is reasonable too. Masem (t) 20:27, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
Okay, with those clarifications I can agree. I can agree it doesn't super help toward notability. My hesitation was more centered on how straight removal of third-party discussion on how playerbase responded to iteration / execution of mechanics felt to imply they had no real place in the article, where I felt that coverage can be useful and thoughtfully included as part of a "Gameplay" or "Mechanics" section, especially if it contextualizes any mechanical changes or motivations for changes. But, yeah, I can agree it doesn't really help on notability. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 01:05, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
I would say I generally agree with the sentiments given by Masem and TenTonParasol here. I hadn't realized this topic had been raised when I started discussion on Reception related to gameplay. This and that discussion have a fair amount of overlap. I also would say that while I think info like the one that got removed on Sombra (as TenTonParasol linked) isn't all too helpful toward the establishment of notability, it can still be included and useful in the Reception section of a character that otherwise has shown to clear GNG criteria and therefore, that sort of gameplay reception info shouldn't be cleared out of an article all at once in the way it has been recently.
Whether the full source that cites the info can be pointed to as helping establish notability is a separate concept and consideration to me. For example, both these sources 12 provide that sort of gameplay reception we're talking about that can be valuable to include in the Sombra article. But only the latter appears to me as a valid example of a source that helps Sombra as a character establish GNG. The former perhaps doesn't have enough SIGCOV, since it is an article about all OW2 characters' gameplays and the discussion it offers on Sombra is only a small fraction of the article. Soulbust (talk) 07:01, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
Another issue to discuss is listicles. Some editors like to automatically dismiss them from helping notability, which I don't think is the right move here. True, listicles are often a one or two sentence blurb on the characters they are covering, but they are, in fact, some that go a bit more in-depth. I'm not saying we should go around and cite every listicle we can find like what editors like Niemti tended to do back in the day, but I also think we should be able to use them to help with notability, depending on the situation. MoonJet (talk) 03:36, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
I'd say 95% of the time listicles are used, they're misused, like finding one with no original thought that just says "this character has existed since 1995 and they do karate" and using it to bolster the number of sources in an article. That's why it's just better to avoid listicles in general unless it offers something really really compelling. There is no rule that everyone's opinion about a character must be included. A few really well researched and reasoned opinions can be more useful. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:49, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, that's what I meant when I said that they often give just a one or two sentence blurb or something. Take a listicle like this, for example. It doesn't offer much, beyond giving the basics of the character. Compare that to a listicle like this, which goes more in-depth with their entries. At most, I would say "use listicles with caution," rather than outright banning them from helping with notability. MoonJet (talk) 04:10, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
Yeah um... even the 2nd one you gave as an example for being "in-depth" is written poorly. For #7: "You guessed it, a token Native American!" So... just how exactly is the character a token Native American? The article doesn't say. Simply being the only Native American in a squad does not immediately make a character bad, but that's what the article seems to imply. Lazy writing in general. #6: "Who else but an Indian would have the hunting prowess to stalk a dinosaur?" I mean, Native Americans are characterized as good hunters for a reason. That doesn't immediately make them a stereotype, but again, that's what the article implies. It's literally just picking characters out of a hat and accusing them of being stereotypes with zero evidence or proof. This is not the kind of content that is in the slightest bit useful. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:30, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Reception related to gameplay

I have noticed that reception regarding a character's gameplay has begun to be removed on some articles. An example here where @Kung Fu Man: removes some information from the Reception section the Doomfist article.

Some of the removed information, I can understand. (The paragraph beginning with "At the time of Doomfist's release, the Overwatch meta-game was favoring 'dive' compositions, using a character that can jump over a great distance like Winston or D.Va." can perhaps be an example of over-detail). But some information I geninely don't understand why it's being removed. The Manual of style here WP:VG states this for the Reception section of fictional character articles:

"This should detail how the character(s) was received by critics. Criticism about the game itself should generally be omitted as the character(s) is the subject of the article."

Some of the info removed, I feel, falls completely in-line with the MoS' instruction to only include how the character was received instead of the game (including here for convience/ease of access/so you don't have to go back and forth between this and the section in question but making small so it doesn't bloat too much): "Heroes Never Die, an Overwatch-specific news spinoff site by Polygon, wrote that Doomfist's style was wholly unlike that of the other characters, and created a "feast or famine" scenario in which the character is only helpful when engaged in risky, aggressive play.1 The site expected Doomfist's release to affect team character selections to maximize Doomfist's strengths, weaknesses, and synergies.2 PC Gamer praised Doomfist's balance against the other characters just prior to his launch. Professional players complimented the addition of a strong, counterable character to disrupt the common, uncounterable characters normally played in the professional circuit. Another commended the idea of fighting game-style combos in a first-person shooter for adding an additional skill ceiling for players to pursue.3 Kotaku, however, considered Doomfist a better fit for a Marvel vs. Capcom fighting game than Overwatch, and bemoaned the character's vulnerability to snipers, low health, and lack of escape options, which made him less threatening or even unrewarding.4 Even as Doomfist's design was neat, Waypoint's critic thought, the character was not exciting or enough of an extrinsic motivator to reclaim players who had dropped out from its player base.5 Other reviewers, however, found simple joy in pulling off punches and combos.6[4]"

Is the concept [of Doomfist only being helpful when engaged in risky, aggrive play] not about the character? Yes it is about the game to an extent, but it is also focused on the character's effect/impact on the game. Two things can be true at once; in this case, that commentary is about both the character and game. How do we approach this sort of commentary? Do we just throw out gameplay-related reception on character articles? Obviously some of it can be prone to over-detail, or in the case of an updated game like Overwatch, it can be prone to becoming outdated due to patches, updated, reworks of the game and/or character over time. (Though in that case, I suggest we can still include such reception if it was about the original, current, or a version of the character that received considerably notable amounts of criticism or attention, not just a standard amount of reporting on a character patch/update. That last one is tricky, but I would point to Symmetra's 2018 rework as an example of such a non-original, non-current version of a character).

I don't necessarily think all of removals on the Doomfist article in question should be restored (there's room I think, for a middle ground involving some reworking) but are the (a) Kotaku source that "bemoaned the character's vulnerabilit[ies]", or (b) the Waypoint source calling Doomfist "not exciting...", or (c) the fighting-game style combos being commended... are these not legitimate critical commentaries on Doomfist the character (regardless if it's as opposed to, or in addition to the game)?

What do we do with critical reception regarding gameplay design elements? (perhaps, particularly for ongoing multiplayer games subject to gameplay-altering updates). If the gameplay reception that was removed is not okay, then why? And is it possible to include something more concrete or definitive on this issue in the MoS — or perhaps include a suggestion on how to approach such information, if we are to be more flexible rather than concrete. Genuine question. Best wishes Soulbust (talk) 22:28, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

What makes his gameplay notable outside of the context of the game? That's the thing that doesn't seem to be getting answered. Did this sort of reception extend into academic analysis for example?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:41, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
Why does it necessarily need context outside of the game? It makes sense that vg writers would discuss a character’s gameplay as it pertains to the game. How they feel about how the character plays in the game is still reception, no? I used the Doomfist one as an example, because I think this concept can be applied in general senses. But for Doomfist, there’s even a commentator opining about the character being unexciting to such an extent that he’d fail to pull disillusioned/disinterested/former members of the player base back into the game? Is that not valid reception to include (as per the MoS) especially considering how we currently include commentary on the fan hype for Doomfist (and how fans even hoped new character reveals would be about Doomfist). Soulbust (talk) 22:51, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
Because you want to first and foremost demonstrate that it's an aspect that is worth mentioning separate of the game itself. With the advent of eSports and high level gameplay, commentary like that is a dime a dozen. It doesn't demonstrate why the character is notable from the others, of tell the reader why he's an important example for study. Is there any examination of his gameplay that gives some importance to knowing about it outside of Overwatch?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:02, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
Why does the commentary on a character being made commonly or being available commonly matter? Wouldn’t this common nature even help out(?), allowing us to be able to include perhaps a consensus view on gameplay of a character that has a wider sample size?
I don’t know if this will make sense but I view reception about a character’s gameplay elements similarly to an athlete’s “player profile”. Obviously there are differences. But take the player profile on LeBron James’ article for example. It includes info on how sportswriters receive or interpret his playstyle in the context of basketball games. Similarly, video game writers write about how they receive or interpret Doomfist’s gameplay (or playstyle) in the context of Overwatch games. Maybe such information can be more appropriately included or worked into the Gameplay sections(?), but they are imo also obviously reception of the character and would fit better in that section. Soulbust (talk) 23:18, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
Don’t get me wrong, how gameplay is examined outside of the game context is nice and very valuable. But ingame context reception is also reception. In some cases, reception about the character doubles as reception about the game and I think that’s okay and doesn’t make it any less valid to include in the character’s article, as long as the prose can focus on the reception’s relevance to the character. Soulbust (talk) 23:23, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
Consensus doesn't seem to agree with you though, because otherwise we'd have far far more Pokemon articles discussing their gameplay in a similar context with similar citations. So stop focusing on how you feel about the thing and more my question: how would you demonstrate this is significant outside of this game and why someone who has never nor will ever play Overwatch should be aware of this in the broader sense? Can you answer that, yes or no?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:28, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
Pokémon articles are its own issue and I am not well versed on the ins and outs of that consensus, only am aware that it has gotten addressed in its own (sort of isolated) manner. I think bringing that up defocuses the conversation. And I am not too familiar with the sourcing on the franchise’s characters to address your assessment that the context and citations would be similar.
Again, this isn’t an issue that I think would be exclusive to Overwatch, even if it’s the franchise I’ve noticed has had its character’s articles be approached this way in regards to gameplay reception. Perhaps we should discuss the Doomfist specific points on that article’s talk page.
But for the general discussion, why is reception about gameplay not okay in a reception section? Where is the policy or guideline that even addresses this, let alone prohibits or discourages this?
I’m not focused on how I feel about this over your question. I’m only offering my opinion as it relates to what is happening and what I am aware of exists. I would need to further review the specific sourcing to better gauge how to “demonstrate (…)” the significance outside of the game.
That said, some articles will be primarily read or accessed by fans or consumers of the topic or subject matter. That’s okay, it doesn’t need to be significant to others, just written in a way so that those others can still understand the article. Soulbust (talk) 23:59, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
I’ll be somewhat busy for up to the next 20 hours or so, so I’ll revisit this discussion later and hopefully other editors can discuss this in the meanwhile. Soulbust (talk) 00:04, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
This is literally just waste of time. Peeps should drop a stick and move on. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 00:06, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
You're free to write about how the gameplay of a character is received, it just really isn't good evidence of a character needing it's own article, because the gameplay stuff is really more about the game itself and can generally be covered as a topic in the game's reception section. It's fine to mention, it just doesn't help much with notability. Sergecross73 msg me 00:24, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
I think we should consider the way that articles like Mario and Sonic the Hedgehog (character) are structured. Rather than gameplay, that is incorporated with the character's backstory into a "characterization" section. Which can include third-party commentary to a degree. These are still rather tighter sections with more high-level stuff.
Also, as a point to Kung Fu Man, you bring up the LeBron article, but what if someone is not familiar with basketball? The same problem exists, but that's why we try to write in a manner that isolates field-specific details for the casual reader while making them available for those in the know. Same would be for a video game character. Its still a matter of balancing general versus detailed info, though, and many of our character articles get too much into the weeds. Masem (t) 03:31, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
Well Mario and Sonic are fictional characters that transcend the medium at this point thanks to all their appearances, though even there you can still cite their real world importance so someone that has never seen them before can get it. In fact right now we're trying to do that with Samus even though she's a very prominent start. Also I didn't bring up Lebron, he did. I wouldn't use a real-world person as a point of comparison for this. The rules are very different there. I honestly was leaning more into the point that thanks to eSports in this sense every character has gameplay discussion to some extent, so a character like Doomfist is hardly notable in that regard.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 05:30, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
Esports isn't the only application for these characters though, and represents only a subsection (sometimes even a niche one) of the playerbase. It'd be nice to include how esports players receive the gameplay, but it'd be more vital to include how general fans and video game media receive that gameplay, especially if we're trying to make these reception articles accessible to readers in a broad sense).
My comparison to LeBron wasn't meant to use him specifically as a point of comparison. I'm more using the Player profile sections on an article like LeBron to try and look toward something that can work here on the video game side of Wikipedia. There are a few FA and GA-class articles to pull from for examples here. Steve Nash, D-Wade, LeBron, Tim Duncan, and Hakeem all work as examples. (I listed those 5 specifically, because they all play different positions; so to continue the comp to VG/OW characters, a DPS, Tank, Support character can all likely sustain something like this that can include Gameplay element information as it pertains to how the character functions in-game AND the reception to those gameplay elements about how the character is perceived by media writers (and/or general players and/or esports players even). Not just a basketball thing either... so if I were to lean more into esports like you, I think it's even more valid to apply this sort of thinking to another sport (even if it's an esport).
And again, why does it matter if the gameplay discussion is present for every character thanks to esports? Why does the widespread availability or presence of this discussion make its inclusion any less valid to cite? That widespread presence is a result of an increased popularity of vg characters in an esports context (and overall context), but how does that make a character with that sourcing less or "hardly" notable? Isn't there a base-level general notability to clear, as opposed to an (I supposed) "exceptional" amount of notability? Soulbust (talk) 06:15, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for linking Mario and Sonic. Those are very good examples, but how would we approach that with game characters that are from games that have a multiplayer component with heavy amounts of gameplay? I think it could work, but I'd have to figure out a way to kinda restructure some things around.
I forget if and where I addressed it, but I do understand your point about what if someone is unfamiliar with basketball (and the equivalent for if they are unfamiliar with the game the character appears with). I think that's a fair point indeed. My take is that we can definitely make the information accessible for general readers (and should strive toward that), while not necessarily worrying about whether general readers will be initially interested in the topic. As in it's totally okay if the information wouldn't appeal to general readers‡, as long as they can still easily navigate the article.
‡I totally agree that we should make an effort to not overload the article/reader with overly specific details, or get too much into weeds. But there's definitely a balance that exists that can provide some, appropriate-to-include specifics. I think that balance might have to be worked out in a more article-by-article manner, however.
I'll see what I can try to do with reworking the structures, though it may take some time. Soulbust (talk) 05:40, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
My point of view: A character's reception can literally only be related to gameplay, there's nothing particularly wrong with that. After all, articles on video game levels or items can exist, despite their usual inability to even have a personality. But they have to really demonstrate that their usage within the game is relevant to a general reader and not just fans, otherwise it will fall afoul of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. For example, if a character has notoriety due to their massive use in esports, it could be relevant, but articles about simple balance tweaks do not show this, yet proliferate greatly due to their ability to gain clicks from fans wanting more information. Wikipedia is not about making articles with only fan interest - so the sources need to talk about more than just their stats or techniques, but why they are important to gaming if they are not meaningful in terms of story. In summation, INDISCRIMINATE can overrule GNG for a character if it cannot show anything more than mere game guide or routine update announcement content. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:56, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
That's a fair point, and the more I consider it in my head, the more I agree with that sort of "let's include reception that demonstrates relevance to a general reader as opposed to being hyper-detail-oriented toward the info dedicated fans would be into" approach. (Though in some, probably just a small amount cases, I think those details can perhaps be included if there is truly an abundance of sourcing delving into how core or vital they are). I guess I posed this concern because some of the gameplay reception I see being removed isn't really falling under WP:INDISCRIMINATE, or isn't really all that excessively detailed/oriented toward fans as opposed to general readers.
I'll use the Doomfist example I brought up. Admittedly, this is again probably better served for the Doomfist talk page, but is this removed section ("Waypoint's critic thought, the character was not exciting or enough of an extrinsic motivator to reclaim players who had dropped out from its player base.") falling under WP:INDISCRIMINATE? I looked at the source and it actually appears to be making the commentary from the writer's critical POV, not what they are interpreting as a general playerbase feel. So couldn't we just tweak that wording and say something like the Waypoint critic (or Cameron Kunzelman) "opined that the design of the character was not exciting enough to demand jumping back into playing Overwatch after becoming a lapsed player?" Something like that is pretty clearly reception on gameplay, but it also (hopefully) isn't overly-specific to general readers, and it talks about more than just stats or technique. I simply don't get how that wouldn't be valid to include? Soulbust (talk) 06:35, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
Here's an example of why this can be a problem. You've been working on Symmetra and removed the GNG template saying it'd been satisfied. However the entire crux of her discussion is as a gameplay element. To someone that will never play this game though, that paragraph explains next to nothing about her significance. It doesn't provide notability on its own, and should be trimmed down. You're prioritizing gameplay, but you literally have sources like this you could cite that can discuss her as a character. And yes I know there's little of that, but there's absolutely no critique of her design or portrayal?
Like if I sat down and wrote an article on Heavy Weapons Guy, my first thing to look for would be to see if there was discussion about his character and portrayl in outside media. "Big man shoots shit with a minigun" doesn't mean a whole lot outside of the game itself by itself.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 06:41, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
EDIT: I don't mean to be harsh, but it's really hard to follow. Can you try to make your messages more concise?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 06:42, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
Yeah I'd lead with Symmetra's depiction of autism as the primary reason she is relevant to non-fans and write a great deal about it. The Wired article about it is a tremendous boon to satisfying INDISCRIMINATE. The griefing done with her is less relevant, only mattering to more hardcore fans. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:58, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
I wouldn't describe my 2 edits that were more technical than content-oriented as me having "been working on Symmetra". I removed the GNG template because the sources are literally there in the Further reading section that help establish GNG. May sources exist would have been a better choice than my general cleanup tag as a substitute to the notability tag.
Either way, entire crux of discussion wasn't only gameplay elements. As has been noted, the autism part of her character was already included. The April 3 version of this article was already clear of GNG criteria. I'm not going to assert it was anything exceptional, but tagging notability wasn't the move here. Sources exist is definitely more apt.
I'm not prioritizing gameplay at all. Not in regard to the Symmetra article. And not in regard to any article. I am simply considering the reception of it as valid, legitimate, and appropriate to include under discussions about a character's reception. You link a source with "you literally have sources like this". Yes, which is why I, on the Symmetra talk page, included the Wired source) and mentioned these sources that were listed in the article's Further reading section (123), as helpful for the article's improvement. I didn't word this explicitly there, but yes, those sources I believe and agree can help the article's discussion of Symmetra as a character beyond gameplay (which again, that gameplay reception is appropriate). But to suggest it wasn't already at least a little bit included (i.e. "entire crux of her discussion is gameplay elements") is perhaps unfair. Soulbust (talk) 23:46, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
I always feel like characters in competitive games (fighting games in particular) should have much more information about the experience of playing them than they do. When I look at an article like Sinatraa and click on the link to Doomfist in the prose, I'd expect to find information on how Doomfist fits into the competitive scene. What is the character's approximate tier and what situations does the character tend to excel at in competitions. This is what I'd consider the character's notability outside of the direct context of the game, much moreso than character design or story. This is something that's been particularly bothering me with a character like Ryu (Street Fighter), for example: what does it actually feel like to play this character? In my mind, I tend to compare it with our in-depth technical documentation on chess (example), which definitely hits the other side of this and is kinda ridiculous, but I think you can see why the heavy contrast bothers me. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:20, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
Well part of the problem there too is *which* Ryu do you describe in that sense? Do you talk about his SF2 incarnation? SF3, 4, 5 or even 6 or Alpha? What about Vs. series? It starts to become a bit of a problem if you're trying to give some in depth analysis. That's not saying that gameplay can't ever be discussed, the issue is more counting towards notability and the weight of that discussion in the article vs the character itself. Even with Overwatch Blizzard loves to completely overhaul characters (ask any Diablo III player) so that information can easily be outdated or inaccurate.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 08:26, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
Yeah that can be a problem here. I'm also not entirely sure what sources are most suitable for this, either. It feels odd though: in these games each character has a completely different gameplay experience/set of moves, and these are beloved for their competitive mechanics. I'd just expect a bit more of a focus on this, even if it's in the abstract. Of course I'm also putting my thoughts here as a counterweight to the idea of gameplay not belonging in these articles at all, which was a surprising take to me. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:35, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
The argument's never been about not having them in there at all, but counting reactions to the gameplay as proof of notability and really how much it should be cited. I definitely feel many character articles, especially fighting games and titles like Overwatch, should discuss gameplay in the body of the article to a reasonable extent.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 08:44, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
As a point of consideration, lets take Brigitte (Overwatch). While not immediately clear when she was added to OW, she later became a core issue around the meta of crowd control groups (the whole GOATS thing), and it was partially her gameplay that forced OW devs to rethink tanks and shields, as well as team composition. In other words, part of Brigitte's notability is the impact her gameplay had on the game's ongoing development and reactions to it. This may be a rare case, but it does happen. I would still consider a character where the only facets being their fictional bio and their gameplay - with no stronger reactions to the character itself (eg as in the case of the various LGBT Overwatch characters) - to not be notable on their own, that's just then overdocumenting the gameplay of one specific element.
Overwatch is probably different from many other fighters, in which there is an ongoing narrative that has been developed, compared to a typical fighter that you get snippets of a larger narrative but nothing consistent. Or to something like TF2, where we have some interesting characterization of each "character" (class) but not a persistent ongoing story. Masem (t) 12:30, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

FFXVI PC

Hi. Coming here for wider opinions. In an interview with ASCII for Final Fantasy XVI, Naoki Yoshida has said and I quote from a translation "In regards to the development of the PC port, we plan to slowly work on it after release [of FFXVI for the PS5].". This is prompting editors to remove the PS5-only category (which may be applicable here) but also to put in Windows and a "TBA" release date for it, which just seems wrong to me. I'm of the mind that we keep the article as if it were PS5-exclusive until a PC version is actually announced with a date, not confirmed to be planned. Opinions? (One other thing, this Game Informer interview has more context from Yoshida on any PC ports) ProtoDrake (talk) 13:55, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

I'd view that as a "plan to" versus an official announcement of "definitely going to". -- ferret (talk) 14:11, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Speaking of which, what's our practice on "console exclusive but also on PC"? Do those games qualify as "console"-only to us? Axem Titanium (talk) 03:39, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
"This widget is red only, but also comes in green!" ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 04:11, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
The "platform-only" categories are for when the game is literally only on that platform. They are not for "specific-console-but-also-other-platform-only" games. Windows has a "Windows-only" category as well. -- ferret (talk) 13:16, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

New Articles (May 22 to May 25)

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 v3.15 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 16:32, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

May 22

May 23

May 24

May 25

The read-replica database has fallen behind the live Wikipedia database by 5 days, so the bot can't see any changes. Whenever it comes back there will be a big update blob for that day. --PresN 16:32, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

The problem seems to have been fixed. (see T337446). Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 13:17, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Merge discussions

Hello. If you look at the top of this talk page, you can see a large number of merge discussions still going on (some of them haven't been commented on since 5 months ago). I encourage members of this WikiProject to vote on or close these merge discussions. Thanks. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 14:14, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Y'know, I was thinking of making a message like this. A lot of old discussions languishing without further contributions. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 14:48, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
I was also thinking of making a message ever since the open tasks template got updated. I even attempted to write one twice, though I abandoned them, thinking that it was too early to write them because the template had just been updated. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 14:57, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Character infobox colors

As our {{Infobox video game character}} was merged some time ago to {{Infobox character}}, I have proposed there that the color parameter be removed: Template_talk:Infobox_character#Propose_removal_of_the_Color_parameter. -- ferret (talk) 15:23, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

New Articles (May 26 to June 4)

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 v3.15 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 14:15, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

May 30

May 31

June 1

June 2

June 3

June 4

As mentioned last week, the bot couldn't update for a few days because of the read-only database getting behind, so now that it's caught up everything in the gap showed up on the 30th. --PresN 14:15, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

As this week is the start of not-3E announcements, u urge editors not to rush to create stubs of newly announced games without additional content like development. Sequels can be included in a series article, for example. Masem (t) 14:21, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
I don't want to sound too WP:BITEY, but Ryan York (talk · contribs) tends to create articles as soon as they are announced, and sometimes even before they are announced. His articles, most of the time, do not adhere to WP:NPOV and are filled with MOS:PUFFERY. OceanHok (talk) 14:50, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
I think Pied Piper of Hamelin in popular culture could potentially be merged into Pied Piper of Hamelin. If all of the unsourced entries were removed from the list, there would only be about 3 left, which could easily be merged into the main Pied Piper article. Should I make a discussion? Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 14:49, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
It's mostly WP:OR - seems like a prime candidate for deletion. A while ago it was in vogue to make "popular culture" splits in order to remove content that should have simply been deleted. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:51, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
I have started a merge discussion. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 15:00, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Old AFD nomination

Dan Russell-Pinson is undergoing an AfD nomination with low participation, and has already been relisted. Please help form a consensus on whether to keep or delete the article. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:24, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Well, it got closed. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:46, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Siegfried and Nightmare

I've seen quite a bit of discussion about it, and it's tagged for notability, but there's never been anything done to it. What do you guys think we should do with the article? QuicoleJR (talk) 18:10, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Split off Nightmare and consider merging Siegfried in all honesty. While there is overlap between the characters in terms of plot, Nightmare is a lot more notable and in different ways. The two shouldn't have been slammed together like they were.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:35, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree. Even if both were covered, I think it should still be under Nightmare. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 19:39, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
Move the article back to Nightmare (Soulcalibur) where it was before (sigh) Niemti moved it to the current name. Then purge or merge any info about Siegfried. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:39, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
I created a move request for the page. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:08, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Archive_169&oldid=1170926337"