Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 179

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 175←Archive 177Archive 178Archive 179Archive 180

New Articles (April 21 to April 27)

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 v3.20 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 16:51, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

April 21

April 22

April 23

April 24

April 25

April 26

April 27

Hooray, new Good Topic! Note though that with the creation of an article for the Oblivion remake, the Oblivion featured topic is in danger unless that makes it to GA in a few months. --PresN 16:51, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

  • "Vampire Survivors-like" seems far too early for a topic given an extreme lack of consensus across sources for a name (souls like took a while to develop too) , and what is signifies is already at bullet hell and the VS game page. Masem (t) 17:05, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
    Will also note that Skywind was un-redirected with absolutely no effort put into incorporating any of the coverage that's happened since it was BLAR'd. This article should probably be re-redirected unless these sources are incorporated since it's not really helping anyone as it stands. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 17:21, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
    Yeah, I was quite shocked to see a regular create such a low-effort article. I've redirected it. We have WP:DRAFTs for a reason. Sergecross73 msg me 17:29, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
    I also think the article should be redirected, but I think it is best to leave the status quo as is until the AfD discussion for The Elder Scrolls Renewal Project is settled. silviaASH (inquire within) 17:41, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
    The article existing is not the status quo. It was a redirect for the last 9 years, and lazily created 3 days ago. I'm not really following why that needs to be retained for a semi-related AFD... Sergecross73 msg me 17:59, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
    The AFD is on the page that Skywind was split from / redirected to. I'd call that more than semi-related; the outcome of the AFD directly determines whether there's an article there to merge content back into or not. ~ A412 talk! 18:04, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
    Zxcvbnm un-BLAR'd it right before nominating The Elder Scrolls Renewal Project for deletion, and then made their deletion nomination statement without acknowledging this, saying Note that Skywind and Skyblivion already exist as articles and are obviously notable, but I'm not seeing the same level of notability for the mod team. They were called out on this in the discussion, but since they're basing their deletion rationale off of the asserted notability of those projects, I think it's best to leave both of those articles standing for the time being so that AfD participants are able to easily assess the notability of the articles, and by extension the validity of the deletion rationale, for themselves. silviaASH (inquire within) 18:05, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
    I see now. Alright, whatever helps us move us in the direction of getting rid of these junk articles I guess. Sergecross73 msg me 18:14, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
    I should have probably added the sources exist template to the article after un-redirecting it - to that I say, my bad. However, I am simply going by WP:NEXIST, which states that the current notability in an article does not matter as long as sources exist to potentially improve it. Taking a potentially notable article down seems, to me, to not make sense. Wikipedia should encourage improvement of articles, not delete them if they are not up to an arbitrary standard. I will say that I am fine if it has to be redirected to Skyrim modding as with the former parent page, but redirecting articles makes them tremendously less likely to be improved; a typical user will assume a redirect is not notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:21, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
    I just don't understand why you'd put it out there half-cooked - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 19:41, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
    Me neither. And then allude to it existing like it has been there all along in the AFD nomination mentioned above. All around confusing stuff. Sergecross73 msg me 19:42, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
    It is clear that any further defense I might put forth would be utterly pointless, so I put my money where my mouth is and improved the article. Now the argument of not improving it, or the article not being notable, should hopefully be moot. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:16, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
    Here's the thing, just because there are sources that may demonstrate the ability for a topic to have a standalone page doesn't mean a standalone page is required (NOPAGE). To me, with what bits are given for Skyblivion and Skywind may make them seem notable, a full picture of the notability of these mods and the team makes far more sense as a single article, giving a much stronger weight for overall notability and comprehesivenesd. There's no SIZE issue pressing when the topics are combined. That type of holistic thinking is necessary, not just blindly creating articles on a topic that is closely related to an existing topic Masem (t) 21:50, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
    Will note also that Skyrim modding already exists as an article. I see no reason why a subsection akin to that at Pokémon fan games cannot be created and the various disparate articles merged there per Wikipedia:NOPAGE. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 22:29, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Gothic (video game)#Requested move 21 April 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Gothic (video game)#Requested move 21 April 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Valorrr (lets chat) 22:47, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Nomination of SuperTuxKart for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article SuperTuxKart is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SuperTuxKart (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

TzarN64 (talk) 17:11, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Presage Software

Does any see amy more sources for Presage Software? I was thinking of creating a page for that company.

I found these (with IceWelder's help)

Timur9008 (talk) 11:09, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

"Mario Kart 6" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Mario Kart 6 has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 April 30 § Mario Kart 6 until a consensus is reached. TzarN64 (talk) 15:51, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Sonic the Hedgehog 3 (film) has an RfC

Sonic the Hedgehog 3 (film), which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. silviaASH (inquire within) 23:39, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Nomination of Steve's Lava Chicken for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Steve's Lava Chicken is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve's Lava Chicken until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

TzarN64 (talk) 00:33, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Mario Kart topic

Hey guys, I’m currently working on a Mario kart good topic, and I was wondering if anyone would like to help collaborate to make this project a reality. Here is my progress so far, I successfully nominated MKWii for GA and 7 is next:

edit | discuss
Mario Kart
6 articles
Super Mario Kart
Mario Kart 64
Mario Kart: Super Circuit
Mario Kart: Double Dash
Mario Kart DS
Mario Kart Wii
Mario Kart 7
Mario Kart 8
Mario Kart Tour
Mario Kart World

TzarN64 (talk) 00:53, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Nice to see that you're improving Mario Kart Wii might be GA rn, but the 3rd paragraph at reception section reads awful. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 00:59, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
I’m not completely done with these articles yet and there’s still room for improvements. Any feedback will be greatly appreciated! I’ll rewrite the reception later. TzarN64 (talk) 01:03, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
Great to see someone working on our coverage of such an important series (Mario Kart  5 is even listed as a vital article). Out of curiosity, do you plan on taking any of these articles to FA? I think it would be great if we had some Mario Kart representation among our FAs, but I know that some people avoid the process because of how taxing it is. QuicoleJR (talk) 01:43, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
If I had to choose an article to be my first featured article, it’d definitely be Wii since it is my favorite game of all time. But it would definitely need more work, so for now it’d do as a GA. TzarN64 (talk) 01:45, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
I also agree this is a worthy choice for a good topic considering how long running and perennially popular the series has been (the fact that Mario Kart World was announced as the major launch title for the Switch 2 is a testament to that). But you're missing a game. Mario Kart Arcade GP should also be included. Especially since arcade cabinets for the DX are is still in continuous production after 12 years, a ridiculous figure in the modern arcade world. It's notable in its own right. oknazevad (talk) 05:30, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
Arcade GP is more of a spin-off than anything. I personally would not count it if the scope of the topic is just the main series. λ NegativeMP1 05:39, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
Yet the above list contains Mario Kart Tour, which is also a spinoff. Including both for consistency is all I suggest. oknazevad (talk) 05:53, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
Okay yeah, fair point. If Tour is included then GP should be included too. λ NegativeMP1 05:56, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
Going by the navbox, there is also Mario Kart Live: Home Circuit, Blue shell, Rainbow Road and Baby Park that seem to have been omitted here. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:35, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
We could cut the last three if we initially make the main topic List of Mario Kart games or something Cukie Gherkin (talk) 11:17, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
Yes, that is true. I'm just talking about if it was going to be a comprehensive Mario Kart good topic, which this claims to be. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:42, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
Tour is considered mainline, which is why i brought it here. Arcade is just a line of spinoff games. Tour has its own original tracks, characters, and music. TzarN64 (talk) 11:40, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
Is it actually mainline though? There are some sources calling it a spin-off: [1], [2], [3] --Mika1h (talk) 13:29, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
Pretty sure Nintendo does treat it as mainline, which is why they added tracks from it to MK8D. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 13:50, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
Both nintendo and Wikipedia treat it as mainline, so I guess it deserves to be in this GT? TzarN64 (talk) 14:07, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
It probably needs further evaluation and discussion. Up until recently, most of the Mario Kart articles were in pretty awful shape and not well maintained. I was quite surprised by it when I cleaned up a couple a few years back. I wouldn't trust any WP:EDITCONs as particularly well thought out. Sergecross73 msg me 14:21, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
Arcade has its own original tracks and characters too. Pac-Man, most notably (since the arcade game is a co-production with Bandai Namco). oknazevad (talk) 17:41, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
Mario Kart 7 failed it's GA nomination. Any ideas how to fix it? TzarN64 (talk) 04:07, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
Are you not understanding the reviewers reasons for rejection? Sergecross73 msg me 04:10, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
After reading the review notes on Talk:Mario Kart 7/GA1, it seems like the bulk of the reviewer's issues boil down to the article not being very well written and some statements not being properly verified. I would start by polishing up the prose and either removing or adding better citations to the statements they pointed out. silviaASH (inquire within) 04:39, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
I already gave you pretty clear reasons as to why I failed the article: It was not ready for GA. The sourcing is bad, the writing is bad, and an entire section needs to be rewritten. I'm not sure why you have to come here asking for ideas on how to fix it when I attempted to be as clear as possible in my review about the problems with the article... λ NegativeMP1 16:05, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
Mario Kart Wii has been sent to GAR. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 20:38, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

New Articles (April 28 to May 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 v3.20 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 21:01, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

April 28

April 29

April 30

May 1

May 2

May 3

May 4

I'm always a little confused about the difference between an set index article and a disambiguation article. --PresN 21:01, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

I put Slayaway Camp up last week but didn't see it in last or this week's report. What happened there? ~ A412 talk! 21:36, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
Hmm, looks like it got messed up in the 1.0 Bot report; it said the article got an importance rating added on one day, and then the class rating got moved from Start to B the next day, but it seems to have missed it getting assessed as a new Start in the first place. Maybe because it got created as a draft and then moved to article space that same day, I've seen that confuse the bot before, and my script relies on that page to know what articles are "new", even if it double-checks a lot of the other details. --PresN 01:54, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Polygon sold to Valnet, most staff laid off.

[4] including several senior writers.

Valnet is a huge warning flag from an RS standpoint so we'll have to watch to see if it's quality goes too far down. Masem (t) 15:44, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Wow, that's a huge bummer. I've been reading reports of Fandom gutting Giant Bomb too, but I don't think they've been putting out much usable input lately anyways. Sergecross73 msg me 16:09, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
Can confirm. Dan Ryckert did an unlisted stream last night stating that new leadership at Fandom basically wants them to pivot away from video content entirely and focus on guides. Seems like the folks up top have no idea what they're doing, so I wouldn't be surprised if the remaining staff decide to finally jump ship. Sad to see. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 17:06, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
Updated the sources page to flag the sale but also that we don't know yet if there's going to be editorial deterioration so articles should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis (basically the same bucket as Kotaku). There might still be good articles in the future (in terms of reviews & reporting) but I'm assuming editors will have to weed out the crap that is Valnet's standard to find them. Looking at bsky, it appears that a lot of editors (including the EIC) were impacted by the layoffs and this occurred while the union was in negotiations with Vox Media. Sariel Xilo (talk) 16:31, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
I know, NOTAFORUM, but that really sucks. Scribolt (talk) 16:50, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
Given that it's Valnet, almost certainly will be unusable dreck. Archive your sources! Axem Titanium (talk) 03:21, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
I saw the Kotaku headline and came to see if someone else had opened a discussion. Thanks, everyone, for keeping an eye on the everchanging game journalism landscape. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 17:37, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
We are quickly running out of sources to use. It's a shame, Polygon was one of the better sites. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:34, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
It is a bit frustrating seeing a lot of the "traditional" sources dying, while at the same we're unable to reach consensus on newer outlets (such as aftermath still being inconclusive after multiple discussions). I don't know what our reliable sources list will look like 5 years from now, but something will need to change eventually... CurlyWi (talk) 18:54, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
Similar to Aftermath, there's Remap (former Vice people), which should also be listed as reliable... --Mika1h (talk) 19:14, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
I would support adding Remap as a reliable source. In addition to Vice, they also have writers with credits from Electronic Gaming Monthly, the Financial Times, and The Guardian. I also think we should have added Aftermath by now. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:24, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
Discussions about source reliability should take place on WT:VG/RS where they can be archived and easily searched by future editors, not here. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 19:43, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
This. But also, I think pretty valid concerns were raised about Aftermath. If there are no sources, there are no sources. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:53, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
I will note that there has been an active proposal to add Aftermath for a while now, but nobody watches the Sources page. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:54, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
As someone who watches the sources page, the problem is that nowadays it takes a lot of research effort to properly evaluate a source. It's easy to call something out as unreliable based on obvious red flags. But it's much harder to convincingly argue that a source is reliable. With the slow death of real magazines, enshittification of established online sources, growth of short-form content and an endless stream of blogspam websites (now filled with LLMs "content"), it's just so incredibly tedious to evaluate anything. Search results are useless, no one posts credentials or references, everything is filled with SEO, hype and algorithm-pleasing filler, etc. —  HELLKNOWZ ∣ TALK 21:48, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
Journalism and reliable reporting is dying in all fields, it's making me wonder if our RS guidelines have to be lowered due to all the points you brought up. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 01:33, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
To add my extensive spot checking (1 article from 2016) shows that Polygon is archived fine at Wayback so there's no need to panic about any sourcing rescue, though nothings been said about old site content yet. Masem (t) 19:54, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
To add, from this article with the new owner they have no plans to remove old Polygon articles. Masem (t) 13:30, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
Huge fucking bummer between this and Giant Bomb. Pouring one out tonight. The work continues tomorrow... Axem Titanium (talk) 03:31, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
Copied over the sources page update to WP:POLYGON at RSPSS, just as a stopgap. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 04:49, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
@Aaron Liu: the answer your question in the edit summary of Special:Diff/1289024999 won't affect anything; just answering here if you were curious. I had linked Digital Spy because it was the only other place on RSPSS itself that mentioned Valnet—so not for any special reason or anything like that. Linking WP:VALNET instead works just as well. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 16:06, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
Makes sense! The summary for that does not mention Valnet, though, nor does the Digital Spy article mention an affiliation with Valnet. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:10, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
Thank you so much for pointing that out! I had seen Valnet in the summary for WP:DIGITALTRENDS—and WP:DIGITALSPY is right above it (and they're both in "generally reliable" green). Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 17:19, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Maddy Myers, an editor at Polygon, made a short statement on the podcast she co-hosts with Jason Schreier and Kirk Hamilton. Figured I'd post the exchange for anybody who doesn't listen.

Maddy: I still work there. I still have a job at Polygon.com and I still have several coworkers that are remaining there, but not nearly as many as I used to have. From what I understand, it was Vox Media that did the layoff officially. At least, in terms of which side claims credit for it, it's Vox that laid off the entirety of the union, and then some folks that weren't in the union were also not brought over. Since coming there, I've spoken to Valnet a few times. Been trying to get back a few people back, and have managed to get at least one person back. It's a work in progress. The site's very small but hoping it will get bigger again soon. All I can really say is, it's me – I'll be doing the same thing at Polygon that I did before. Really lonely right now. Really weirdly empty Slack.
Jason: Maybe there will be room in the future for us to us to get into this and media a bit more but now, I think it's safe to say that things are still active happening and there's a lot of balls in the air, so we'll avoid prognosticating so much. We have no idea what's going to happen in the coming days or weeks.
Maddy: It's really raw right now.
Kirk: This directly affects you in a way it doesn't affect me or Jason and, like you said Jason, it's ongoing and we'll see when it's time to talk about it. This is a real shame. Both because of all the people who lost their jobs and because I really liked Polygon and the version that existed of it until last week.

Obviously doesn't seem great. This is at 3:00—5:30 on "GTA VI Delay and More Clair Obscur: Expedition 33". — ImaginesTigers (talk) 18:05, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

It looks like Nathan Grayson at Aftermath is putting together a story on Valnet's impact on Polygon ("if you were also offered a polygon contractor position, get in touch. working on a story about how valnet is changing the site." on bsky) so hopefully we'll have more concrete details soon. Sariel Xilo (talk) 20:46, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film § Would snippets from this YouTube interview be usable?

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film § Would snippets from this YouTube interview be usable?. silviaASH (inquire within) 02:54, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

List of best-selling game consoles by region

Hi all. I found this list today but I'm not sure if this is notable. I should also note this page has been also edited by the now blocked User:Maestro2016 (per edit history [5]) so the sources on this list need to be heavly checked. Would appreciate any advice. Timur9008 (talk) 13:34, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

New Articles (May 5 to May 11)

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 v3.20 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 15:35, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

May 5

May 6

May 7

May 8

May 9

  • None

May 10

May 11

--PresN 15:35, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2025 May 12 § Template:Sonic the Hedgehog chronology

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2025 May 12 § Template:Sonic the Hedgehog chronology, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. silviaASH (inquire within) 18:41, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Unreleased Halo games

I saw this was recently created by User:Famous Hobo and rather than creating a talk page comment on a new article I thought I'd solicit wider opinions here. There are sources that talk about most of these games, some glancingly, some more in depth (particularly the Peter Jackson Chronicles project) but I'm unaware of any significant sourcing that talks about these projects in aggregate, and whether thus it meets notability guidelines. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 17:56, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

I think most of this content belongs on the main franchise page under the relevant heading (nothing wrong with an extra few paragraphs summarising some info from cancelled entries). And yeah, I doubt that this meets the sustained, in-depth coverage threshold required to meet the GNG. It's very funny to me that a game with this description—Bungie and Wingnut were unable to coalesce their ideas for the game, and Halo Chronicles was abandoned without an official announcement—is "unreleased". If that's unreleased, I have several unreleased musical theatre shows. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 18:47, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
So I’m traveling today and won’t be able to discuss in-depth for a while. Here’s what I’ll say. I recently saw the Unreleased Sonic the Hedgehog games article and got reminded of an article I read on Polygon about canceled Halo games. I figured I’d try my hand at making something similar, especially since I’m interested in canceled games. None of the individual games met notability standards (the closest may be the Halo MMO and even then that’s stretching it) so I felt the best place would be to consolidate them into one article. I suppose I got a little hasty and if the members of this project deem that the article does not meet notability standards then I won’t object (ironically it would end up being a “cancelled” article about cancelled games). Famous Hobo (talk) 19:00, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
If others agree it doesn't meet GNG, it still wasn't a waste of time by any stretch. There's some great sourcing here that can make that section on the main article very comprehensive. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 19:13, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
I personally like the approach, I think it really just comes down to whether enough there's enough sourcing and content to sustain its own article. It's a good idea for a franchise like Sonic, where there's tons of games and commentary on it. It wouldn't appropriate for something like a Unreleased Bubsy games. Halo is a bit of a grey area stuck in between, in my opinion. I think it's possible though. Sergecross73 msg me 19:15, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
If the Polygon article you mention discusses cancelled Halo games in a group or as a concept, then that might help. λ NegativeMP1 19:29, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
I do use that Polygon article as a reference quite a bit throughout the Wikipedia article. It’s mostly just a summary of the info that was already publicly known, with the sole exception being the Nintendo DS game since new info about it came out recently. I also decided to not include the Certain Affinity unnamed project that’s mentioned in the Polygon article simply because it’s so bare bones. I have no idea what the pitch was even supposed to be. Famous Hobo (talk) 19:37, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
The Polygon article alone honestly makes me pretty confident in the articles existence. It proves that there is at least some discussion of Halo games as a group. The Vice article also seems to provide some coverage, though it not much. Given the level of detail and research put into the article and the fact there's some coverage of unreleased Halo games as a concept, there's probably enough to warrant a sub-article. And I don't necessarily think splits or sub-articles need to meet GNG if other arguments for their existence can be made? λ NegativeMP1 20:06, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
Agreed. It needs some beefing up, but I think its fine to retain while that's done. Sergecross73 msg me 20:09, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
The topic of cancelled Halo games looks to me to pretty soundly meet GNG. I don't see any deletion-worthy problems with the article. silviaASH (inquire within) 20:03, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Need help improving plot section of ENA: Dream BBQ article

Hello, I am requesting help on improving the Plot section of the article for ENA: Dream BBQ, as I believe it needs major cleanup to comply with the MOS:VG (and possibly the WP:MOS in general).

Also, I have a question about the style: Since it's a plot summary, should we refer to ENA (the character) or the player?

Thanks in advance! 1isall (talk) 22:35, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

If ENA is the character I don't see a reason to refer to the player in the plot summary. Wyll Ravengard (talk) 13:03, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
I would say "the player takes the role of ENA." This enables me to mention ENA and the player interchangeably. There are exotic cases, usually found in metafictional games, where the distinction of the player and the protagonist is explicit and important. Care should be taken in those cases. MilkyDefer 13:17, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
I agree there. Look at the plot summary for Deltarune; it has some mentions of the player and how they play a role in the game (being prompted to create a vessel, it being discarded and having to play as Kris, etc.) However, could you give me some examples of phrases in the Dream BBQ article that would require this? 1isall (talk) 13:20, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
I boldly provide my version based on my understanding of the original section. MilkyDefer 15:17, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for being bold, but you ended up introducing present tense phrasing, in-universe language like "has the ultimate goal", omitting verified events, and even causing cite errors. Why don't we just try to improve the original version instead? 1isall (talk) 15:46, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
My bad, present tense is actually what we're supposed to use. 1isall (talk) 21:59, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Writing_about_fiction#Plot_summaries_of_individual_works 1isall (talk) 22:00, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
Then yes but only if the narrative refers to the player too. That's different. Wyll Ravengard (talk) 17:09, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
True, as I believe that the player is almost never involved in the narrative of ENA: Dream BBQ. 1isall (talk) 17:28, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
I feel that the section invests too much in irrelevant details. Since the ending does not change there is no need to mention smaller deviations from the canonical route. Also a lot of minor plot details, including finding the witches, dealing with the "strange man" who is "planning to steal properties," are unnecessary. MilkyDefer 13:07, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
Yeah, we definitely need to find these unneeded and redundant phrases and details to keep this thing clean. Alternate routes should stay, but should also be less detailed. 1isall (talk) 13:11, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
As an aside, please refer to this draft and see if there are any sources that should be implemented: User:Cukie Gherkin/ENA Dream BBQ - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 15:49, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Mortal Kombat: Deception

Mortal Kombat: Deception has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 19:16, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Should we mention publisher's statements in the lead paragraph?

Recently, there is a push to remove general statements about a game's sales in the lead, especially statements from publishers regarding the game's performance. See talk history on Forspoken, Star Wars: Outlaws, and Dragon Age: The Veilguard, games that essentially missed their publisher's expectations. One of their viewpoints is that publisher statements are too "vague" to include in the lead. Since some editors are kind of removing these types of information systemically across articles, I would like to ask WP:VG project members that, in general, is it ok to say a game missed their publisher's sales expectations in the lead paragraph? What policy would it possibly fail with their inclusion? OceanHok (talk) 09:25, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

A lead should be a summary of the article. If a publisher has indicated—through statements or shareholder calls—whether a game was a success/disappointment, and this has been reported by reliable third-party sources, then it matters just as much as how the game was received. Honestly, all of this recent controversy around sales numbers—similar to Assassin's Creed Shadows—seems a bit like culture war crap to me. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 10:10, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
A few follow-up thoughts. For Forspoken in particular, the article is pretty bad—C-class right now. If someone took some time to build out the lead to be representative of the entire article, it wouldn't be nearly such a big deal to include that it was a commercial disappointment to the publisher. I added Veilguard's commercial disappoinmtent to EA to the lead—a fine game but a bad DA game (IMO). Instantly a bunch of people started warring over it. Game does well? Rightists/anti-woke crowd want it off the article. Game does poorly? Leftists don't want to cede ground to anti-woke and insist it doesn't go in. Problem goes both ways here.
Compared to critical reviews, how much money a title generates for a publisher is a much bigger indicator of whether it will get a sequel. If Veilguard does get a sequel, reviewers have already started tying this to an increased push for live-service elements. Not including this context in the lead is absolutely baffling to me. Not including that multiple reviewers tied Veilguard's commercial response to the subsequent layoffs, also baffling to me. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 10:25, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
I agree with the sentiment that Forspoken is a pretty bad article. As someone who knows nothing about the game, I wanted to read our article to understand why the lead debate is so controversial, but the article completely misses the mark on telling the reader about the reception of the game, or why there might be controversy. ~ A412 talk! 17:17, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
Yes, I haven't participated in that dispute because I was asked to intervene as an admin at one point, not an editor, but generally speaking, it had looked like something that could have been worked through with relative ease with a few experienced editors who knew how to handle these sorts of things, though I'm unsure if they ever really got there or not. Sounds like...not. Sergecross73 msg me 17:21, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
I'm rather surprised this has been contentious lately - how well something was received is a core component to covering a subject like a commercial product, and commentary about it missing/meeting/exceeding company expectations is a core component of that. We need to keep it within the bounds of following WP:PRIMARY. (Ubisoft says "Game met expectations"", Ubisoft says "Game was the greatest blockbuster event of the 20th century" is not) but it very much so belongs in an encyclopedia.
Its a crucial aspect that, if covered by reliable sources, needs to be covered in the article. And by extension, if following WP:LEAD, should be covered in some capacity in the lead as well. Sergecross73 msg me 12:57, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
I agree this should not even be a controversial topic. Publisher's comments give context to sales information. A game can sell a billion copies and remain a massive disappointment by its publisher. I recommend we add this specifically to our MOS guidelines to establish a wider, project-based consensus, but more input will be appreciated. I am asking the question in a more general sense, because delving deeply into the politics of these individual articles derail the entire discussion (see the very long Forspoken talk page history). A broad consensus will be very useful in laying the framework for the lead, even in pages about contentious subjects. OceanHok (talk) 16:01, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
I agree that this kind of thing should not be controversial & the MOS should be updated. However, given the track record of the discussions on those pages, I think we'll need the rigmarole of an RfC (probably at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Video games) & not just a discussion here. Sariel Xilo (talk) 17:05, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
Updating the manual of style would be a good solution. Publisher statements can provide valuable insight into a game's reception.
While we're at it, it would also help to add some info on how to use player counts for sales sections. It feels like publishers and publications are using them more often to measure performance. This might need to be a separate discussion, though. Vestigium Leonis (talk) 19:27, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
I've mentioned this before but individual projects do not have authority or ownership over article content. I think we should update MOS/VG when appropriate, but it isn't a way to impose content preferences over others, nor are style guidelines (MOS is for style, not content) a way to forum shop or bypass the consensus process. BMWF (talk) 09:08, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
Please assume good faith. We're all just having a discussion and brainstorming on a current issue in the content area. There's nothing wrong with that, nor is it reasonable to read the above and somehow suggest there are OWN or forumshopping issues going on here. Sergecross73 msg me 13:19, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
It isn't a faith matter. It's statuatory misuse of both WP:PROJ and WP:MOS which states projects have wrongly used these pages as a means of asserting ownership over articles, such as insisting that all articles that interest the project must contain a criticism section or must not contain an infobox, or that a specific type of article can't be linked in navigation templates, and that other editors of the article get no say in this because of a "consensus" within the project. BMWF (talk) 00:10, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
No one is doing that. We're just discussing an issue, nothing more. Stop disrupting that. Sergecross73 msg me 01:10, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
It is obvious you are pushing for systemic changes. Discussing the same issue across three distinct talk pages is not feasible and results in low participation. OceanHok (talk) 03:33, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
I'm rather surprised this has been contentious lately The starter of the Forspoken discussion was topic-banned due to GamerGate-type behavior. BMWF (talk) 00:42, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
And I'm very against all the culture-war-POV-pushing stuff. But I'm talking about direct commentary on sales and commercial performance straight from the publisher. Sergecross73 msg me 13:28, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
These matters are linked when culture warriors are selectively using (largely meaningless) publisher commentary to push WP:OR conclusions not supported by sources, and/or give undue weight to such statements in a way that isn't consistent or neutral. BMWF (talk) 00:18, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
Great, but that's still not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about accurately adding a summation of a publishers commentary on the commercial performance of their product, and that is appropriate. Sergecross73 msg me 01:15, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
I agree with what ImagineTigers said. Sales numbers are fine, but they are a little contextless. A large sales volume on a blockbuster title isn't as big of a deal as an item that was done cheaply or wasn't expected to do well. It almost always has an effect on whether or not the game gets a sequel or whatever. If a publisher (or anyone really who worked on a game) chooses to release a statement on this, and third parties comment on it, then that's fine for an article. If it's in the prose of an article, it's quite often suitable to summarise that in the lede. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:44, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
Publishers' expectations are mostly irrelevant to understanding a game's reception. The past few years have seen studios closed even after shipping critically acclaimed, commercially successful (in the sense of break even) projects. That's because publishers expect 5x or 10x returns on the money spent. "Missed expectations" is nearly meaningless. It's fine as a brief mention in the article, but doesn't really inform readers in the lead. We'd want multiple reliable sourcs to report on the outcome in an unambiguous way – "the project was commercial failure" is different from "our conglomerate didn't meet our shareholder expectations of quarterly revenue growth". Shooterwalker (talk) 18:05, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
I do not think it is up to us to judge the nature of investor's calls, or how realistic the expectations a publisher is. As long as multiple reliable sources support the statement, it should be ok to include it in the sales section and therefore, the lead paragraph. OceanHok (talk) 03:33, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
Include in the article, definitely. Include in the lead, I wouldn't be 100%. And either way, I would make it clear that the expectations relate to the parent company's financial goals. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:28, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
Honestly, much of the time, it'll really come down how much reliable source commentary is available. A mere passing sentence of mundane commentary on performance may not be lead-worthy, while situations of ongoing commentary/developments, let's say, something like Final Fantasy 14, would be a glaring omission not to mention in the lead. But that's always going to be balance that has to be considered when writing a good lead. Sergecross73 msg me 17:07, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
I really like the FF14 example, unlike some of the WP:OTHERSTUFF examples, since it shows a) how to incorporate it well & b) inclusion is situational. I don't think a blanket "always include in leads" or "always remove from leads" works; the lead is always going to be dependent on the body of the article which is based on what reliable sources say. If the reception section highlights a game received great critical reviews but the publisher says it missed the mark, then that contrast can be important which means sometimes it is warranted to include in the lead (based on RS). Unfortunately, with the ongoing collapse of games journalism, we might not receive as much analysis of publisher statements by RS (ex. with Veilguard there were some articles that criticized EA's statements on blaming the sales results on the lack of live service). Sariel Xilo (talk) 17:34, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
Agreed - when we find examples of how things are done, it's best to find examples of WP:GAs, WP:FAs, or other articles where it's clear the content has been heavily reviewed and discussed. Just because someone can observe something on a page, doesn't make it correct, or optimal, of a choice. And similar to what you were saying too, there are many many games where publishers simply never comment on a games sales or performance. It's often not mentioned in leads because it's not even in the article, because we have no RS commentary on it to begin with. Sergecross73 msg me 20:06, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
I agree with both of you actually. TR2013 doesn't need it because it became the best-selling game in the franchise and that is perhaps more significant than it not meeting (initial) expectations. For games that ultimately sold well (Resident Evil 7, Rayman Legends), I don't think it hurts to mention (very briefly) that initial sales were slower than expected, but the general impression on their sales are no longer defined by their respective publishers' negative sentiments, which lost their significance over time. For games that underperformed for real (with no follow-up sales information whatsoever), we should definitely include it. Forspoken, The Veilguard, Outlaws fall under this third category (for now). This is what the real WP:DUE weight is. Distorting it intentionally to achieve a political goal or push POV, however, is unacceptable. OceanHok (talk) 17:53, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
Agreed - there's often going to be multiple correct approaches. Someone elsewhere mentioned Super Mario Sunshine as an example of a game that didn't mention its initial underperformance in the lead. I have no problem with its omission from the lead. It's not a terribly common sentiment - honestly I'm not sure I even knew that it initially underperformed and I'm a big Nintendo fan. But at the same time, if someone chose to write something like "Despite Nintendo's view that the game initially underperformed, steady sales in subsequent years lead it to being the third best selling game on the Gamecube", I wouldn't have a problem with that either. (Or whatever is correct according to reliable sources - that's was just meant to be a quick and dirty hypothetical sentence.) Sergecross73 msg me 20:25, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
I agree with Shooterwalker that publisher commentary such as "missed expectations" is nearly meaningless, and that it doesn't add anything to the lead. NutmegCoffeeTea (she/her) (talk) 03:38, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
No per Shooterwalker and NutmegCoffeeTea. I checked almost 100 games from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_in_video_games#January–March and didn't find any similar examples meaning it isn't common. They only mention critic reviews, awards won, and sometimes big sales thresholds. Body is fine. Wyll Ravengard (talk) 13:34, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Sales numbers are usually (not always, but usually) due in the lead, particularly when there is a notable milestone passed. However mere publisher estimates (especially things cherrypicked from investor calls), without any sales number, are almost never WP:DUE because it isn't material for a general audience. The above three articles were/are all major GamerGate targets by the "Anti-Woke" and "Anti-DEI" crowds which has come with a lot of IP vandalism as well as transparently partisan attempts to portray them in a negative light via WP:OR and WP:UNDUE weight. BMWF (talk) 00:33, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Why would it be undue? It is not up to us to decide what's intended for a general audience. Our secondary reliable sources do, and we cover what they say. If multiple mainstream media cover that a game surpassed or missed expectations, that it is due for the lead and the sales section. Companies are legally obliged to give accurate information to their investors. Sales figures/milestones are not entirely indicative of a game's success, when the opinions of their developers/publishers are not factored in. And why would sourced information be WP:OR? Politics are mostly irrelvant to how a game is commercially received (some games did very good commercially, some did terribly), but pages of contentitious subjects should not get a free pass just because they are contentitious. The nature of such edit is uncontroversial. OceanHok (talk) 05:17, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
Making the lead accessible for a general audience is site policy Make the lead section accessible to as broad an audience as possible. Due for the lead is also significantly different than due for a sales section. The lead does not contain everything that might be due for a mention somewhere in the right section of an article body, only the most notable aspects. Vague publisher remarks without any sales data are not that, especially when they are being used to push WP:OR conclusions that aren't supported in reliable sources. BMWF (talk) 09:08, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
If you are using WP:LEAD as your rationale, then publisher's statements give the most accurate representation of a game's success at a glance. There is nothing vague about it. You either surpass it (sales were great), perform in line with it (sales were good enough), or miss it completely (sales was not good enough), while sales figure alone do not give this information. Also, what is this "OR conclusion" you keep talking about? As long as the written text is supported by a reliable source, it is not OR. Why would it be OR if it is mentioned in the lead, but not OR when it is only limited to the sales section? OceanHok (talk) 11:52, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
No they don't. See Super Mario Sunshine, Halo, and Resident Evil 7. A large percent of the most successful games of all times technically missed expectations at some point. BMWF (talk) 00:42, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
This is the same problem from the opposite direction. As I explained above, it is absolutely important to a game as a subject if it did not meet the publisher's sales expectations. I have seen you argue on the basis of OR multiple times and I am quite sure you don't know what that policy means. Others have repeatedly provided you with sources for information, so definitionally not OR ("information without a reliable source") and you've jumped to objecting based on another policy.
If a publisher says, "This game was a commercial disappointment", it should be written plainly within the lead. It is our job to provide context for the game's development, release and post-release, which includes that information. This protects Wikipedia from both parties: fans aiming to suppress negative context (i.e., at Veilguard) and opponents intending to cast it in a bad light (i.e., Forspoken). — ImaginesTigers (talk) 08:36, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
It isn't the same problem. It's adherence to Wikipedia policy which is WP:WEIGHT. No publisher has said This game was a commercial disappointment which is a strawman, and just because a publisher says something doesn't mean it is lead worthy. Super Mario Sunshine, Halo, and Resident Evil 7 all missed publisher expectations but it is not in their leads, and there is no concentrated partisan effort to put that into their respective leads because one, that would be undue, and two, these games are not being targeted by culture warriors. They are very successful games, though if they had LGBTQ protagonists GamerGators would undoubtedly claim that they were "flops" while attributing undue weight to anything they can find to force WP:SYNTH conclusions. BMWF (talk) 09:08, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
As I said, now jumping to another policy... The pattern is holding.
Not gonna pointlessly debate other articles I didn't write, but this isn't what weight means. A publisher stating that a game didn't meet their expectations is not a minority viewpoint or a fringe position. It is a plain, encyclopaedic relevant fact about the game as a subject from the party responsible. It is context, especially if it impacts the future of the series (as in Veilguard) or the company (again, like Veilguard). We don't need exact sales numbers to indicate commercial performance. I'd argue that sales numbers are less useful than a publisher outright stating whether it met their expectations. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 10:12, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
The conclusion itself (meeting/missing expectations) is directly usable and sourced to multiple RS, so no SYNTH is involved. The information is very DUE because the publisher is the sole stakeholder concerning a game's commercial performance. Sales are irrelevant to the general public, but it is very relevant to the company which seeks to profit from their investment. Also, how do you arrive to your conclusion that they are "very successful games" without considering the perspectives of their publishers and without knowing their budget or marketing costs? Your arguments fall apart when politics are taken out of the equation, and politics alone is NOT a valid reason to remove legitimate content from the lead. OceanHok (talk) 11:52, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
I'm trying to work out what the options would even look like for an RFC, but the viewpoint expressed by BMWF is so far apart from my understanding of policy that I don't feel it can even be included as an option. Would this option say, for example, "Do not ever include commercial performance in the lead. It is UNDUE or OR or SYNTH"?
We should include the information universally. For every GamerGate person who wants to add it to Forsaken, there's one who wants to remove it from Assassin's Creed Shadows's because it's been the most successful AC game for Ubisoft in a long time. All removing this does is make our content worse. If someone edits an article to say a game was a "flop" when a publisher only said "didn't meet our expectations", we have processes to deal with that.
As another example of this issue going both ways, have a look at the industry context I added around the post-release layoffs to the final section of Sales and post-release on Veilguard. Looks like User:Shooterwalker removed that with an edit summary that still makes no sense to me. There was no information in that edit that was synth or interpretation. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 12:42, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
Not to speak for Shooterwalker, but I think using "interpretation" was meant to explain what the second part of that section should be, interpretation (or more precisely , commentary and analysis) from RSes on the situation; the only claim they made was that poor organization of content can lead to inadvertent OR and SYNTH. I don't think any of the individual content was necessarily removed, just reworded. Masem (t) 13:09, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
I see what you mean. After looking over the article again, I realise I was unnecessarily harsh (and blind). The new "Completion and release" section is a good way to cover the post-release events. Shooterwalker, please accept my apologies. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 14:06, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
That was definitely my goal. I keep an open mind about exact wording, but I tried to distinguish the development process and internal personnel changes from the actual reception of the game itself. There was definitely some WP:SYNTH. (Particularly bad was when editors tried to add layoffs that happened before the game's release to the reception. The timeline doesn't even make logical sense.) Shooterwalker (talk) 18:08, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
I am very confident there was no synth in the sentences I wrote—they were discrete, stand-alone facts supported by citations. If that is synth, everything on Wikipedia is synth. I won't speak for the other content you removed in the same edit. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 18:43, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
It's my turn to apologize. It's not meant to be an attack on all editors building that section. Sometimes a fact gets deposited into a section in passing, and after months of additions, it grows into something that isn't quite right. Either way, I hope that the re-organization can focus on separating development (the process and people involved in making the game) from reception (opinions about the game as a creative work). Shooterwalker (talk) 16:27, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
This discussion has gotten pretty long-winded for what already seems to have a pretty clear consensus, but I'll repeat my two cents from when this issue was raised on Serge's talk page. I wrote a bit of a long comment there, but my opinion overall is that yes, it is appropriate to include a summary of a publisher's assessment of a game's success- provided that it is DUE and covered in third-party sources, and, ideally, that other perspectives on how well the game did, critically and commercially, and in terms of their cultural impact, are included. The perspectives of the publishers are inherently biased; what is "a hit" or "a failure" to them is not necessarily the same as a hit or failure from the perspectives of the critics, the developers, the players, or the culture at large, and as such care should be taken to put any such comments in context for the lay reader and include other opinions where possible. I recognize that this will not be possible for every single article, but this is the ideal in my opinion.
But, yes, in a balanced article that appropriately covers all significant perspectives on a game's success or lack thereof, it is generally a no-brainer to include a publisher's comments during their investor meetings as part of that. Such comments are, especially these days, nearly always going to get RS coverage with respect to big triple-A titles, and so Wikipedia should follow in covering them when they do. silviaASH (inquire within) 02:21, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
This is specifically about lead due, and I'm not seeing a consensus for that. The answer is frankly it depends on the article and the respective situations. If the publisher's comments attract some sort of controversy, then perhaps it could be lead due, but generally no. Not everything due as a brief mention in the body should be in the lead especially when it's stuff that concerns shareholder expectations of quarterly revenue growth which is far removed from commercial success (see The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker, which does not put it in the lead, for an example on how this should be done). NutmegCoffeeTea (she/her) (talk) 04:18, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
Maybe I'm misassessing consensus here since the discussion has been kind of a clusterfuck of one user (edit: for clarity, I was referring to BMWF) WP:BLUDGEONing the conversation and my eyes kind of glazed over from that. Anyway, given that the lede reflects the body, my opinion on what should be in the body of the article and what should be in the lede is pretty much synchronous. If it's a good idea to put it in the body, it's reasonable to put it in the lede, unless other information is deemed to take precedent in the course of summarizing the article body in the lede. I don't think we really need a rule for this or anything. silviaASH (inquire within) 07:00, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
Echoing my comment above, but I agree with Shooterwalker that publisher commentary such as "missed expectations" is nearly meaningless, and that it doesn't add anything to the lead. I'll further add that given that these attempts at POV pushing are largely isolated to games described as "woke", that this would be a good opportunity to consider a CT designation for "culture wars in video games" or "culture wars in media". GENSEX was originally spun off from WP:CT/GG which was for Gamergate, and it might be time to combine them back together. NutmegCoffeeTea (she/her) (talk) 03:38, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
However, like for example Concord, if there are significant ramifications of something missing expectations (in this case, the game pulled and the developer shuttered), that absolutely should be discussed in the lede. Masem (t) 04:42, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
RS noted that sales of Outlaws contributed to Ubisoft's change of release strategy (link correction), while sales of The Veilguard prompted EA to commit to prioritizing shared world/live service stuff in the future, both of which can have far-reaching consequences. EA's comments also sparked discussion among the press and industry veterans, so its comments received more SIGCOV than usual. Removing legitimate information from the lead paragraph just because they are contentitious topics is also POV pushing and WP:CENSOR, not to mention the reason behind why they are designed as CT is not relevant to the actual discussion here. OceanHok (talk) 06:48, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
The same source links Tomb Raider's (the most successful one) publisher expectations miss to a restructuring,[6] but none of this is in the lead. Companies telling investors that they will focus on X or Y happens in every single earnings call because of quarterly guidance. It isn't lead material. Sleeping Dogs is another example.[7] I am a cis woman who thinks Lara Croft is cool, but if she were replaced with a butch lesbian we would see the same culture war editing to turn the lead into a POV battleground via undue focus on investor details that aren't relevant to success. NutmegCoffeeTea (she/her) (talk) 11:43, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
WP:OTHERSTUFF-based arguments rarely convince people. I see this question along a spectrum: include all detail (anti-woke), include some detail (middle ground), include no information (anti-anti-woke). Compromise serves readers better—briefly providing commercial context in either direction neutrally and as reported by sources. We should be quite happy to piss both groups off. Standard policy applies when settling on disputed wording, and if someone is disruptive, we have mechanisms for that; discretionary sanctions can apply or be extended to culture-war-associated games if needed. While Forspoken may have disappointed the developer, AC Shadows was a massive success. For Dragon Age: Veilguard, I agree that including information about redundancies is too much detail, but IMO it's ridiculous to fight over including "but did not meet Electronic Arts' commercial expectations" alongside critical reception in the lead. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 12:47, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
As an aside, the current article for Dragon Age: Veilguard does mention commercial impact leading to a change in a project: the game was re-envisioned as a single-player title following the success of EA's Star Wars Jedi: Fallen Order (2019). The success of SW:JFO is important enough for the lead, but not Veilguard's own commercial performance itself — ImaginesTigers (talk) 13:14, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
Using WP:OTHERSTUFF really contradicts your initial argument that it should be dependent "on the article and the respective situations"... The suggested text is also no more than a phrase in the lead, so your concern about WP:DUE is overblown. We have no issue adding them to non-CT articles until you two come along (there are numerous counterexamples). Info suitable for the body is acceptable for the lead, and info suitable for non-CT article is usually suitable in CT articles unless proven otherwise. OceanHok (talk) 16:11, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
I trust other editors to work out something that is accurate and proportional for the lead. I want to double down that the article body is correct and captures the complexity of reporting the game's commercial performance: DA:V had high performance compared to other single player titles from EA (the publisher) and BioWare (the developer), while still factoring into a disappointing quarter of earnings for EA when combined with the commercial performance of EA Sports FC 25. This led EA to make a (perennial) comment that they don't really love the financial returns from single player games. My opinion leans towards this being too much for the lead. But if any of it does go into the lead, we want to report this very carefully so as to not bias one part of the outcome or another. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:25, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
@Shooterwalker: This is a very reasonable position and I acknowledge the good work you did cleaning it up. I didn't realise the page was under full protection. Seeing how recent those problems are, I don't have a lot of confidence in our capacity to improve without further issues. I'll abstain from any future changes; I have watchlisted the article and will keep an eye for poor editorial conduct on the page when protection is lifted (e.g., unexplained content removals; emphasis on EA expectations vs positive indicators compared to other games). I'd be grateful if WPVG admins could do the same (Masem, Sergecross73).
To the regulars on this article: Please don't fight over the article, folks—removing 10–30 words about positive sales indicators or adding 10 about negative sales expectations isn't worth a CTOP slap/trip to AE. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 19:02, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
Agreed. To add to the above, just noting that Sergecross73 and Masem are both WP:INVOLVED in this or related disputes. Sergecross73 has offered some strong opinions above.[8][9] Masem has offered some lighter opinions, and is frequently involved in Gamergate content disputes on Shadows which reliable sources link to "Gamergate 2.0" together with Veilguard.[10][11] NutmegCoffeeTea (she/her) (talk) 13:44, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
No personal attacks, and comment on contributions and not editors. Masem (t) 14:00, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
Ah, it isn't a personal attack or an implication of wrongdoing. I'm just pointing it out because of ImaginesTiger's "I'd be grateful if WPVG admins could..." comment. NutmegCoffeeTea (she/her) (talk) 14:09, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
I would characterise your comment as an anticipation of bad faith from two administrators of extraordinary community standing. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 14:38, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
I don't need you telling me when I am or am not involved, thank you. Sergecross73 msg me 22:26, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

There is currently an active RFC related to this topic that no one has participated in yet: LINK. - 61.8.155.24 (talk) 10:57, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Discussion on Veilguard

Hello. An editor has opened a discussion on the heading titles of Dragon Age: The Veilguard. Please join if you are able. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 18:46, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

An additional question has been added regarding whether to include commercial information in the lead. It has been made into an RFC. As the article is currently locked for 30 days to facilitate this discussion and prevent edit warring, your participation is greatly welcome to gather consensus and avoid future conflict. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 12:55, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
My apologies for the repeated messages. A survey has been added regarding the final disputed content. I again encourage participation to solicit a range of perspectives to avoid future disputes. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 16:06, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Bioshock FAR

I have nominated BioShock 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. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 22:10, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

RFCs to vote in

There are currently 3 video game related RFCs if anyone wants to participate: Forspoken, Dragon Age Veilguard 1, Dragon Age Veilguard 2 2A00:FBC:EEE0:76E3:EDDB:357F:5AAE:3E73 (talk) 10:01, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Mario Party GT/FT

I think we should probably hold a discussion on making the Mario Party series a potential Good (or Featured) Topic and get the relevant articles up to GA and/or FA statuses.

Some of my suggestions include expanding on the development sections with interviews from the developers, adding legacy sections as needed, expanding on some reception and gameplay sections, and so on, using other GAs and FAs from the Mario, Sonic and Final Fantasy series as models. Also, some of the GAs for Mario Party (i.e. Mario Party 4 and Mario Party 5, which were nominated back in 2008) don't come close to meeting modern-day GA standards, but I could be wrong.

If there are any other suggestions or thoughts about this proposal, please let me know here. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:37, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

I did my share. But if multiple editors organize something specific I'd happily join in tackling one or two more. Panini! • 🥪 00:04, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
I did my civic duty and checked whether Mario Party-e had the sources to have an article, and I only found two reviews, so it won't need an article for the topic. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 00:39, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
I thought I would work on a project to take all 12 main Mario Party games as listed below up to GA and/or FA status while updating some of them to current standards and then make the main series a GT or an FT. Here's a template on how we should organize them:
edit | discuss
Mario Party
12 articles
Mario Party
Mario Party 2
Mario Party 3
Mario Party 4
Mario Party 5
Mario Party 6
Mario Party 7
Mario Party 8
Mario Party 9
Mario Party 10
Super Mario Party
Super Mario Party Jamboree
Based on this template, we have four GAs, three B-class articles and six C-class articles (including the main series one). Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:48, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
I feel like we may as well include all Mario Party games, as doing so would add two FAs, one GA, and two non-GA/FAs, which would make it a lot easier to potentially get the topic from GT to FT. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 04:47, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
I agree. There really isn't much of a difference between the mainline games and most of the spin-offs anyway. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:16, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
I should note that Mario Party 4 and Mario Party 5 are GAs from 2008 and probably need to be cleaned up to reach today's standards. The latter also has several CN tags, while both have references in the lede. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 12:22, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
While I'm currently busy in real life, coordinating the GAN Backlog Drive, and have some Wiki articles that I want to work on, at some point I'll take a look at these two articles and try to get more to GA status. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 12:28, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
  • If y'all follow through on this topic (with spinoffs?) to the halfway point, I'm good for one or two. Same for the other Mario series. czar 22:01, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

About an independent Pokémon articles

Is it OK to create an independent Pokémon articles? Because, as you guys know, I absolutely love Pokémon so much. Sparkschu Itai (talk) 13:27, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Absolutely, it's just that it has to be supported by reliable secondary sources that provide significant coverage on the topic. The significant coverage can occur in articles not primarily about the Pokémon, but it's expected that any coverage you cite for reception should be fairly substantial. I.e., you should not cite a source that just says a Pokémon is "cool" and does nothing to elaborate on that. It's also important that a Pokémon have a lot of coverage in reliable sources, at least a few strong sources discussing them to a significant capacity to start. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 13:34, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
So you mean I can't make an articles, just for saying "this Pokémon is so cute!!". Instead, I need to find a trust-worthy articles to create a page about my favorite Pokémon. I get it now... Sparkschu Itai (talk) 13:44, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
By now most Pokemon that are notable already have pages, and most that aren't have been merged. It will be very difficult to create a new standalone page that can survive AfD, and usually just wastes a great deal of people's time including the author's. If making notable articles was a ski slope, a Pokemon article would be black diamond difficultly. It's possible, but you have to make sure you have a full and total understanding of notability before attempting it. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:43, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
So in conclusion, I just can't make a random Pokémon articles without any reliable resources. I understand now. Thanks! :D Sparkschu Itai (talk) 13:50, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
If you feel like working on a Pokémon article, hit me up and I'll tell you what I think the likelihood of its notability is (as I've looked into a lot of them already). - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 15:30, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
Ooohhh!! That sounds interesting!! Sparkschu Itai (talk) 15:32, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Specific section advice for writing a game developer biography?

Hi all, I'm currently planning to rewrite the article for Jonatan Söderström soon, with the goal to make it into a GA. However, I don't have much experience writing BLPs (I've made a few before but they weren't super detailed), let alone ones on video game developers. And I don't know how far the examples of biographies on developers currently listed at WP:GA/VG would get me considering a lot of them are fairly old (the closest example to Söderström there is probably Phil Fish which was promoted eleven years ago) and the standards for quality articles on Wikipedia is always changing. MOS:VG and MOS:BLP aren't of much help, either, besides the latter's examples of what not to do with writing biographies in general.

Anyways, I'm primarily looking for section specific advice. Life and career (as the same section, there's almost no coverage of Söderström's personal life to warrant the two being separate) I think will be straight forward for me to write. I know a lot about Söderström and his works and a certain one (two) of them has been one of my pet projects on this site since I joined. But what's getting me is how to handle a "Artistry and influences" section and what exactly it should cover, if "Legacy" sections belong in BLPs about video game developers, and if a "Works" section should be called either that or Gameography. Furthermore, should the last part include only games that are mentioned in reliable sources or should it strive to be as complete as possible and include primary sourcing (e.g. his blog posts)? Should the section be written as a table that mentions the release year and the genre of each game if applicable? And yes, there is enough sourcing about his career to warrant all of these hypothetical sections and also establish WP:NBIO (the current version of the article doesn't necessary do him any favors). I just don't know what belongs in each section. Any advice or feedback is appreciated. λ NegativeMP1 04:19, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

I don't really write video game designer bios, but I have written a lot of bios on academics (...albeit not ones I put up for GA or anything). With that disclaimer out of the way...
"Influences" in the sense of predecessors are fine to mostly primary source. Just be careful not to end up in a WP:PEACOCK-violating self-congratulation fest. One asterisk is that the kind of people who write about a person's artistry tend to be a self-selected group who think there's artistry to be found, which can color things too positively if you're not careful. Similarly, be sure to qualify any comparisons - a designer saying he was inspired by Star Wars is fine. A designer saying his work equals the grand scope and scale of Star Wars but better, presented without the "designer saying" part as fact, is problematic. Or I guess David Lynch for a better example in this case.
"Legacy" is rather high-falutin' for living people. Shigeru Miyamoto uses "Impact" which is probably better, although it has a vague activist vibe. If you find that you're stretching for material, probably better to merge this section with something else though, I would wager that most designers probably don't merit such a section.
I would say "Works" is fine. "Gameography" isn't wrong but that's a rare word. Some people love tables but the simple, classic bulleted list is often just fine and actually better, like cast lists. If he did a lot of small works, then bulleted lists also compress to a multi-column view easily. The more-complete version is probably fine, as long as it's not ridiculous (e.g. unpublished college projects or the like). It may also be worth separating out works by the kind of contribution, at least if it varied. SnowFire (talk) 20:54, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
Agree with all of this. To add, having properly formatted references (if using a cite template) and including things like images (if possible) and more minor things like portals and additional categories can make articles seem more well-written, even if it's more in the background. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 00:03, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
Thank you both for the advice, although this does raise a couple more things:
  • With Söderström's works, he was highlighted for making works of so many different genres in a short amount of time. So that's why I'm split on whether or not a table that lists the game, the year it was made, and its genre should be used. The genre and release year of each game could significantly improve a readers understanding of the topic at hand. But on the flip side, finding a sourced genre for every game would probably be very hard. I do agree that a basic bulleted list would be cleaner.
  • I could probably merge any hypothetical "Impact" / "Legacy" section into his career, although if I recall correctly, I did find coverage about how he was revered by critics and other aspiring game developers. And one of his works, Hotline Miami, was critically acclaimed and fairly influential. Obviously, this kind of stuff wouldn't be elaborated on too much - due weight and all, his career goes far beyond just that game. But these are the kinds of things that I feel could warrant a section of the sort.
λ NegativeMP1 00:00, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
I'm in a bit of a rush right now, but Neil Druckmann is a good sample article. I'm certain Rhain keeps an eye on it. Quick responses:
  • Gameography is fine. "Works" better defines a list of things that include more types of media (and video games is just one type). SnowFires comment is noted, but I disagree, because I just do idk. More later
  • I'm certain you won't need a legacy, since he hasn't had a broad influence or impact on the medium (even if he was a major player in top-down shooters, that's still rather niche in the larger scope of the field). Any achievement you can likely merge into his career
  • Just like a musician article will list all of their unknown EPs prior to their breakthrough album, you too can list his small stuff (to the extent that it's mentioned somewhere; in a primary source at the very least)
  • A table or not is your preference I'd say. But I would organize the game list into timeline order instead of alphabetical
Artistry and influence is a must, but right now I've got like 8 minutes and realllly gotta go. I know you're genuinely going to work on this so I'll definitely come back and give more specific and detailed advice at a later date. Panini! • 🥪 12:24, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
I forgot to add that "Works" is preferred over "Gameography" per a 2021 discussion. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 01:59, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
boo👎 Panini! • 🥪 00:43, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

New Articles (May 12 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 v3.20 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 16:02, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

May 12

  • None

May 25

Hey, the 1.0 bot broke, so they turned it off, and normally when that happens when it comes back there's a giant backlog of updates that come all at once. In this case that's missing, so I think they're just lost. Feel free to add in your own articles if missing if you care! --PresN 16:02, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Gonna make a 2 hour lost media YouTube documentary titled "The May 12-24 Articles That Were Never Found" Panini! • 🥪 18:43, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
I would watch that. (I once watched a 45 minute video essay on elevators in video games) QuicoleJR (talk) 01:31, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
The bot run this evening made a super-long post, so I think they've been found now! --PresN 02:08, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
Well there goes my view count momentum, thanks a lot. Panini! • 🥪 04:52, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Invader (artist)

Invader (artist) has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 13:13, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Ember Sword's Cancellation

Ember Sword was taken offline, after its Early Access began last December. My question is: how do we lead it? Do we say "Ember Sword was a planned MMORPG" or do we say "Ember Sword was an MMORPG" - considering that it was at least partially released prior to cancellation? BOTTO (T•C) 14:15, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

If it didn't make it to a full release (here, it got to an open early access state), I think "planned" is right, because they clearly didn't finish their plan. Of course, I can also see the logic that since it had some type of public release in the form of the early access, its hard to say that as being only a "planned" game. Think it is an edge case that happens so often its hard to set a precedent for. Masem (t) 14:22, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
@Masem: You're a diamond for giving me this feedback. I went ahead and added "planned", to reflect that the game as a whole wasn't released. BOTTO (T•C) 01:51, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
I think that reads right. Its a odd situation that could go either way. Masem (t) 02:07, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Game Informer online archive now available from issue 1

[12] thanks in part from the VGHF Masem (t) 17:10, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

WP:NPERSON question

Game developer Jes Negrón has been listed on WP:VG/R for a while. in checking the sources, I have become unsure if she actually meets WP:NPERSON, as much coverage about her appears to involve WP:ONEEVENT. As such, the lawsuit she filed may be the notable topic. While she continued to work on indie games, the coverage after the fact appears to be largely about her game "Good Bones" rather than herself necessarily, and I am not sure it is enough to show that Good Bones is notable. The question is whether she should be removed from the list, replaced with the gender discrimination suit itself as a requested article (though it may just be better to spin out Criticism of Riot Games due to the already WP:UNDUE size of the section in their article) or kept due to coverage not mentioned on the list. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:54, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Definitely against any "Criticism" articles per WP:CSECTION/WP:POVFORK. (I've never understood how "removing a large section in favor of an entire dedicated article" is supposed to fix an WP:UNDUE issue. The issue doesn't go away just by moving it...) Sergecross73 msg me 17:07, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
In this case it may be better to spin out the discrimination/harassment allegations rather than all criticism, because those have a very outsized amount of discussion in the media. Maybe Riot Games gender discrimination and sexual harassment controversy, though it's a little wordy of a title. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:17, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
That...doesn't help with any of my concerns above... Sergecross73 msg me 17:26, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Sokoban

Can more experienced editors take a look at the situation at Sokoban? It's pretty far removed from standards expected by this WikiProject's Manual Of Style. MimirIsSmart (talk) 07:38, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for StarCraft

StarCraft has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 15:38, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Saeko article improvement

Looking for any interested editors to help improve the Saeko: Giantess Dating Sim article. In particular, if there are any interested editors proficient in Japanese who can add or translate additional information from Japanese language-sources already in the article or listed as potential sources on the talk page (particularly to expand the reception section with opinions from Japanese reviewers), and/or double-check that all the information already in the article is properly verified by the sources used, it would be a great help. Thanks in advance! silviaASH (inquire within) 05:56, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Densetsu no Stafy (video game)#Requested move 25 May 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Densetsu no Stafy (video game)#Requested move 25 May 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPathtalk 09:29, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Marvel's Spider-Man

Not sure if this is the most appropriate forum for this, but wanted to have a discussion before starting a formal RM.

Marvel's Spider-Man is currently a disambiguation page linking to the character, a 2017 TV series, and the video games. I'm struggling to believe that Spider-Man (video game series) is not the WP:PRIMARY TOPIC for the title Marvel's Spider-Man. I am aware that there have been numerous discussions about this in the past, with the most recent one I could find being this RM in December 2023. I will address some the concerns already raised there.

There was debate about where Marvel's Spider-Man is the common name for the games. As far as I can tell, the games are commonly referred to both with and without "Marvel's" in their title. One editor brought up WP:NATURAL, which states that Using an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources, albeit not as commonly as the preferred-but-ambiguous title, is sometimes preferred. This favours using the full title.

There were concerns that Marvel's Spider-Man is ambiguous as it could refer to anything related to Spider-Man, including the character itself, therefore causing confusion; however, I'd say it's very unnatural and unlikely for someone to use that term to search for just the character, and the only other item mentioned in the dab is the TV series. I think the video game series is clearly the primary topic over the obscure TV series.

Some editors brought up the point that there is precedent set by articles such as Marvel's Guardians of the Galaxy and Marvel's Avengers (video game) to use Marvel's in the title. There is even such precedent within the same franchise as the Spider-Man games — Marvel's Wolverine.

I propose that all the Insomniac Spider-Man articles (Spider-Man (video game series), Spider-Man (2018 video game), Spider-Man 2 (2023 video game)) should be moved to titles with Marvel's as more natural disambiguation. This also aligns with WP:CONSISTENT with the other games mentioned above, the article List of accolades received by Marvel's Spider-Man (referring to the 2018 game), as well as Template:Marvel's Spider-Man and Category:Marvel's Spider-Man. Additionally, all the articles always use the full title with Marvel's in prose.

-- 9ninety (talk) 14:28, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Look, it's really not our problem that Marvel or the developers did not name it "Spider-Man: The Video Game". It's best to err on the safe side here because "Marvel's Spider-Man" is so incredibly vague. A person who wasn't familiar with the games would not assume it referred to the games, and this is a general encyclopedia, not a comic book fan wiki. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:34, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
I'd say a person not familiar with the games probably wouldn't search such a specific title as Marvel's Spider-Man. How is it incredibly vague? No one would really search for the character with that term, it's completely unnatural; and the only other piece of media it refers to is the 2017 TV series. Between them, the video game series is clearly the primary topic. If Marvel's Spider-Man also refers to other things, that's not shown by the current disambiguation page, nor has anyone brought up what else specifically it could refer to. 9ninety (talk) 14:54, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
I think the 2017 TV series is actually a potential alternate primary topic. It's far from obscure, garnering around 500 views/day. That in my opinion completely discounts this entire argument on a policy basis, regardless of what I believe about its vagueness. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:51, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
Even if the TV series is an alternate primary topic, that doesn't means the games still shouldn't be moved to Marvel's Spider-Man (video game) etc. for all the other reasons I've detailed above. It's better than using the year as disambiguation, and a large amount of the cited sources use the full title.
Additionally, searching "Marvel's Spider-Man" on Google returns plenty for results for the video games, while I couldn't find anything about the TV series on at least the first 6 pages. 9ninety (talk) 16:51, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
"Readers are stupid so we shouldn't use a thing's name for its article title"? Huh? "We don't use the game's title because we aren't a fan wiki"? Huh? This is silly. WP FILM would have a fit if you tried to change Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992 film) to Dracula (1992 film). It's not the work's name. That one wracks up 50k views a month, so don't think it's "confusing" anyone. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 08:35, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
I agree that it should be moved to Marvel's Spider Man (video game). It's strange to me that we use the full name in the article; have dozens of references using the full name of the game; but insist from a strange procedural perspective to drop an entire word from the title and add the year. Using the full name is clearer, simpler, and will aid people to recognise the game who come from search engines. Really unusual to see Wikipedia out of step in this way. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 08:32, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
These absolutely should be at "Marvel's..." as both representing the true title as well as the means to include natural disambiguation (at least, that keeps the disambiguation problem between the games and series and not the comic book character and its own franchise). Masem (t) 12:24, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
I say go ahead and start a move request. Personally, I think the game series should be moved to Marvel's Spider-Man, and then that article should have a hatnote, saying:
This page is about the video game series. For the first game in the series, see Marvel's Spider Man (video game). For the animated series, see Marvel's Spider-Man (TV series). For other uses, see Spider-Man (disambiguation).
We don't need a disambiguation at Marvel's Spider-Man, because that specific title only refers to those two things, and anything else it could refer to is adequately covered by the regular Spider-Man disambiguation. Obviously the other related articles should be moved in accordance with this convention. silviaASH (inquire within) 12:24, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
The arguments against "Marvel's" at the old requested moves (at Talk:Spider-Man (2018 video game) and Talk:Spider-Man_(2018_video_game)/Archive_1#Requested_move_14_June_2017) never made a lick of sense to me - people say it's just "branding", and maybe it is, but who cares? We include "branding" all the time elsewhere when it's part of the name (look at the titles of articles on sports stadiums for one obvious case), and "Marvel's" seems both an official and a common name. But I'm not an expert on the series. Note: If you want a successful RM request, I recommend doing some heavy COMMONNAME analysis - e.g. search Google web / books / news with a neutral search like "Insomniac" + "Spider-Man" and then examine how sources call the game. That should give you a hint for if you're on the right track. SnowFire (talk) 16:13, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
@SnowFire: What sold me was just looking at the article titles in the references. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 18:54, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
Update: I've now started a formal move request, see here. 9ninety (talk) 15:24, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
Primary topic shouldn't have 'Marvel's' in the name. 199.255.150.243 (talk) 01:54, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
Why not? Harryhenry1 (talk) 02:03, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

FNaF World update

This article is out of date because it fails to acknowledge update 2 in its entirety, for example it states that the game has 40 characters when due the aforementioned update 2 it now has 48 characters. For evidence There's a 157% speed run of FNAF world where all characters must be collected, which ends up totaling to 48.

I am asking for help to edit this article because I've played the game using game jolts freeware and I needed help with a section and I did not want to use fandom. I don't know how to edit and would like help.FNaF World 2600:1700:7A72:6A10:60A6:B013:8893:4C99 (talk) 04:33, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Update, I was somewhat wrong there is one sentence of update 2. It is minimal and I still wish to improve it because others have expressed the same issue. 2600:1700:7A72:6A10:60A6:B013:8893:4C99 (talk) 04:40, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Good Featured article reassessment for New Super Mario Bros.

New Super Mario Bros. has been nominated for a good featured article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good featured article status may be removed from the article. 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 02:43, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Its a Featured Article. GamerPro64 04:22, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

New Articles (May 26 to June 1)

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 v3.20 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 12:15, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

May 26

May 28

May 29

May 30

May 31

June 1

Big list today- May 26 is, I assume, when the 1.0 bot found all the articles it had skipped the week before when it was turned off. --PresN 12:15, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Resident Evil main series

Hi! There's been some debate about which games are considered part of the official main Resident Evil series, and which are just spin-offs, etc (mostly because of trying to determine after how many games in the series the player returns to Raccoon City). I think Capcom is clearly positioning the 9 numbered games as main series, while a new user is insisting that ALL canon games should be considered as such, otherwise we're supposedly "removing" them from canon. On the other hand, our own unsourced wiki template includes Code Veronica and Zero in the list of main games, which seems like a bit of a compromise, but also seems controversial from the outside. Solaire the knight (talk) 11:25, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

You might want to leave a link to the discussion to make it accessible to the project's users Tintor2 (talk) 11:57, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
Main thread and page history. I was a bit puzzled that a new user with only 5 edits was clearly having a dialogue with me too boldly and even trying to teach me how to work in wiki projects, but I don't know if this is enough to check users in English Wikipedia. So I just warned them about continuing the edit war instead of an active discussion or meaningless debates about wording and tried to write here to attract more experienced users as intermediaries. At this point, a compromise version of the article has been created by a third user, but the question of "which games are considered part of the main series" remains open, since the user also suggests that the wiki version was simply copied from the Fandom wiki. Solaire the knight (talk) 12:08, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
I'd recommend moving this to the series article. Article talk exists for this reason and broader community consensus can't reasonably be reached on a user talk. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 12:21, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
This has already led to edit wars that ignore the discussion, mutual accusations, and a lot of tension in general, so I'm not sure we could achieve any kind of consensus without involving outside users. Solaire the knight (talk) 12:27, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
You made the right decision soliciting further views here, but my point was just that you should have invited that to the series article (as you have done now) instead of a user’s talk (as you did initially). — ImaginesTigers (talk) 13:22, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
Ah, that's what you mean. I didn't expect it to go this far at first, so I didn't think it would be best to open a general thread to work out some kind of consensus. It looks like that's going to have to be done soon anyway, because I've learned once again that even small issues can lead to heated arguments anyway. Solaire the knight (talk) 13:33, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
Speaking from the Monster Hunter series (also Capcom), Capcom does not necessarily think games are mainline or spinouts, but simply go by the target they want, but we still use the more popular sorting between mainline and spinouts due to the fact that this is how RSes often call them. This sounds like a similar situation for RE, in that most RSes would appear to consider there are only (now) 9 mainline entries (with their various remakes) and then all the spinouts. Masem (t) 12:31, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
Yes, it also reminds me a bit of GTA, where Vice City and San Andreas are some of the most significant games in the series, but Rockstar for some reason never considered them the 4th or 5th games. But if GTA has its own timeline nuances, then here it seems that some users believe that the status of a spin-off or a game outside the main series for some reason imposes a label of non-canonicality or inferiority on the game. Although Requiem is actually a direct continuation of Outbreak, which was always considered a spin-off. Anyway, for now I think a good compromise is to simply mention the games by release date without any reference to the main series or spin-offs to avoid pointless arguments. Solaire the knight (talk) 12:39, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Angry Birds (video game)

Angry Birds (video game) has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. (I am not the one who nominated it for GAR, it was nominated a week ago, I'm simply finishing the incomplete process) λ NegativeMP1 17:53, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Femc Reloaded Project

An article which may be of interest to members of this project—Femc Reloaded Project—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. silviaASH (inquire within) 00:54, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

FYI, more input could still be used here, there's not quite a consensus yet. Sergecross73 msg me 19:47, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Neowiz

I have written an article for Neowiz Holdings and also a draft for Neowiz. Originally I thought it would be best if each has their own article as they are technically different companies, but recently I have been thinking that it would maybe be better to merge the two articles. Any opinions? Itdoesntmatteranymore (talk) 14:37, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

It is probably best to move the article to Neowiz and incorporate any missing information from the draft. I don't see very much information concerning the holding company as compared to the game development company. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:17, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
I added all the missing information into the Neowiz draft. Do you think it is good in its current state? Itdoesntmatteranymore (talk) 20:06, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Removing refs to the official game site as an advertising source

Am I the only one surprised by the removal of the link to the official game site as an advertising source? Especially in a situation where the link is used to show the official positioning of the game in the series? Moreover, as a result, the news about the announcement of the game on a journalistic resource receives more authority in the description of the announcement of the game than the official website of the game itself. Which, by the way, probably refers to the previous one as the official press release. Maybe I don't understand something in the rules, but in my opinion, such a deletion is clearly excessive and could potentially lead to the definition of any official resources of game series, developers or publishers as advertising. Solaire the knight (talk) 01:55, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Courtesy pinging Popcornfud, who has also responded about this here. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 02:07, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
It's not surprising. Wikipedia is generally meant to be written by third party sources, and first party sources are often abused and used as promotional tools to sell a product. I'd similarly remove a link to a bands Spotify account to source what number an album was, on the same grounds.
That aside, is there really no other source that can verify this? It's a new Resident Evil. Surely every video game website in existence published an announcement article, and at least one numbered it? Sergecross73 msg me 02:05, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
Yeah, it's already verified by another source; this was the reason it was removed. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 02:09, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
Are you saying that if this was the only source, no one would remove it? Solaire the knight (talk) 02:11, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
I'm not saying anything; I was just answering Serge's question. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 02:14, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
In that case, I apologize. I'm just used to articles quoting official websites, twitters, press releases, etc., if they need official information or a position from the creators. I don't think that the game's positioning in this case is some kind of conflict of interest or controversial information.
There are other sources, I am shocked by the situation itself, when we trust the retelling of the official position of Capcom more than the official position of Capcom expressed by them themselves. I'm also potentially afraid that without an official website the information could be removed again, as I used it and another source to end the long-running conflict and show that the company itself considers the game to be the ninth in the series. Solaire the knight (talk) 02:11, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
This is all pretty standard, normal, common Wikipedia stuff. It'll be fine. Sergecross73 msg me 02:44, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
We generally rely on third parties repeating information from the primary source to show that that information is likely true (while Capcom's likely not going to lie, when you start getting to indie games there could be a bit of truth-stretching), and that the information is DUE for inclusion. Masem (t) 03:30, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
Hi, I'd recommend reading WP:PSTS, which discusses and defines primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. In this specific case yes, it does seem silly to cite a third-party that Requiem is the ninth game in the series instead of Capcom directly, but it's not so much about the specific fact being cited so much that it's following a general rule: use secondary sources instead of primary whenever possible. It's not always possible, and sometimes it feels trivial, but we cite secondary sources because they can provide context: is it true, is it important, and what does it really mean. In this case, sure, the cited primary source says that it's the ninth game in the series. It also says that "a new era of survival horror begins in 2026". These are not both facts! The source is a promotional primary source, and we don't want to rely on it if we can avoid it, even for what seems uncontroversial. For RE, that this game is the 9th game is generally accepted- but there are series where the publishers says a new title is the Xth game in the series but most other sources say it's the X+1th, because the publisher is trying to pretend that a game they didn't publish doesn't count as the "main series". So rather than argue every single thing as being a "fact" that can be comfortably cited to a first-party advertisement... we just cite secondary sources. If it matters, they'll cover it, and if they don't cover it, maybe it doesn't matter or isn't a fact. --PresN 03:00, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
I understand what you're trying to say, but as I wrote above, I didn't cite information that could be a conflict of interest or cause doubt in its purity. I even ignored the potential implication that the remake trilogy is the new canon for modern new RE games, since the models of the destroyed Raccoon City were based on locations from the remake trilogy. Honestly, I don't even think this fact required sourcing, since the number nine is literally in the game's informal title. But I had to look it up because the article was in an edit war over different understandings of what the main series is, to the point where one user was almost on the verge of arguing that calling the game a spin-off would negate its canonicity.Solaire the knight (talk) 03:39, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Requesting assistance regarding Deltarune and the MOS:VG/PLOT word limit

Basically, as is well known at this point, Deltarune chapters 3 and 4 recently released and I'm one of the main people monitoring the page right now. Due to the new episodes, the article now has four prose plot summaries. This in of itself is not an issue as this is expected from an episodic video game, but all four of these summaries go over the MOS:VG/PLOT limit of 300 words per plot summary of this kind of game. To get specific, Chapter 1's summary has 306 words, Chapter 2's has 391, Chapter 3's has 322, and Chapter 4's has 377. Note that I am not counting the separate "alternative route" sub-section, which actually helps reduce 2 and 4's plot summary length and should stay as it is. 1 can probably be given slack given it's barely above the limit, but the others need to be trimmed and I want to trim them. But I can't figure out what details or words could possibly be cut at this point, and I'm starting to think the word limit provided by the MOS for video games is too strict given that each individual chapter is about the length of Undertale. I'm seeking either assistance with finding things to trim and get the summaries back in shape, or if some sort of special case could reasonably be made for the plot summaries to be the size they are now despite the MOS since, again, each chapter may as well be the size of a whole game. I'm sure the episodic video game plot limits were designed with Telltale-like games in mind, and not something like Deltarune. λ NegativeMP1 23:53, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Honestly, this is part of why I wonder if splits wouldn't be worthwhile. Like, eventually, even if we accept that the plot summary has to ignore the MOS, what happens at chapter 7? Is it just going to be a gargantuan plot summary? That's not even accounting for route deviations or potential multiple endings either. Do we just keep compressing it until only the very basic details are left? That idea I feel would make it an insufficient plot summary. Assuming that there's dev info and reception that could help each chapter stand alone, I think it's a worthwhile thing to consider. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 00:48, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
Thinking about what the plot summaries will look like by Chapter 7 isn't even something I thought of—good lord. But I don't think splitting the article is a solution either way, it's clear that Deltarune is one game, just an absolutely massive one that's already been in the making for over 6 years. And the individual chapters don't get much critical reception on their own I believe and dev info on each chapter is extremely scarce. I also think it'd make a reading experience worse. λ NegativeMP1 00:53, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
I wouldn't really mind if Deltarune were split into articles by episode. I mean we already do that for TV series, so there's no reason a sufficiently long and similarly structured video game couldn't be. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:59, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
Again, if enough reception or dev info for them could be found. But then that leaves the question of what to do with the main articles plot summary (which it would still need) and that circles back to this issue. λ NegativeMP1 01:03, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
Easy: provide a truncated plot summary and a see also for the specific chapters' plots. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 02:23, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
...Except that my whole point here is that I'm struggling to find ways to make the episode plot summaries on the main page shorter than they already are. And we'd have to assure comprehension of the game's plot and characters remains intact and not split across a ton of different articles, too. λ NegativeMP1 02:42, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
Well, we have to make sacrifices to an extent. It's a question of how you do it, and providing only a summary of the premise with a separate pager to cover the different chapters' stories is one way to go about it. For a show as big as House (TV series), they manage to make a featured article while summarizing the plot in fewer words than Deltarune, even with only four chapters available. I certainly don't deny that that would be challenging, but a lot of TV shows get a lot of their plot summarization done through episode pages or lists. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 02:51, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
I think on the plot page we can link to the chapter base articles as a See Also link, and the main page's plot section should be an incredibly brief summary, like to the level where chapter 1's dark world can be essentially summerized as "they discover a dark world where they meet X and X character, and learn about Y". It's not great, but considering the bigger story it's about all we can justify. Again, the actual meat of the story can and should be descripted on individual chapter pages. So long, and thanks for all the fish (talk) 08:11, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
I mean, it's all assuming there's enough to justify it. In the scenario of multiple chapters, there could still be an article about Deltarune as a whole. Another option would be to do a "List of Deltarune chapters" page. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 01:01, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
I think the reason the current plot is so massive is that the game is not quite finished yet. Currently, nobody knows what is important to the main plot and what is not so we include everything regardless - is the "vessel" creation and discarding part important? Maybe yes, but it is not mentioned ever after. Speaking of chapter-based games, Ace Attorney (or visual novel) articles do the plot section pretty well, and I think there will be an answer when the game is actually finished. MilkyDefer 11:52, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
That could be cut now, and then included again if it turns out to be important later.  novov talk edits 11:55, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
I created the "alternate route" because it already stretches across chapters; a separate section under every chapter would be redundant. So I don't really think it makes sense to count as part of the chapter subsections, especially as future content may not be so easily divisible along chapter lines.
To be honest, I think cutting them down to 300 words each may be doable (especially for Chapters 1 and 2) and would probably make the article read better. It's just a question if we want to be Sisyphus and constantly battle new contributors adding minor details which accrete and cause the word count to increase. Personally, I don't find that an enviable task and I don't like constantly shooting people down, so if a better solution exists, I'd be in favour.  novov talk edits 11:54, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
Just to fully clarify in case it wasnt clear, I brought up the Alternative route subsection as something that actually helped the plot summary and should absolutely exist, and I thank you for adding it. I don't think it should be discussed as a thing that needs to be trimmed given that it isn't an episode and just describes what is effectively a gameplay mechanic.
I'm going to keep thinking about this for a while and see if I can figure out a potential solution towards the actual plot summaries as they are, though. λ NegativeMP1 17:38, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Not-E3 reminder

With Summer Game Fest starting this week, this is your annual reminder not to rush to create articles on new games unless there is significant info about development or first hand impressions about it. Stubs about games that only have announcement and gameplay details are not great to have. Masem (t) 19:31, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Seconded. If anyone really feels the urge and needs to satiate it right then and there, create a draft instead. silviaASH (inquire within) 19:59, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
I've found that creating redirects to the franchise/dev studio can curb others from rushing to create an article more than if it were simply left redlinked. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 00:47, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
Seconding SilviaASH's second (wait, no...) For anyone who has questions about drafts: Help:Userspace draft and Wikipedia:Drafts. We've made good progress reducing the amount of VG stubs. I'd hate to see that progress undone. (Guyinblack25 talk 03:46, 11 June 2025 (UTC))

New Articles (June 2 to June 8)

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 v3.20 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 15:24, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

June 2

June 3

June 4

June 5

June 6

June 7

June 8

--PresN 15:24, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

It seems that the update forgot Call of Duty: Black Ops 7. λ NegativeMP1 19:55, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
Added - yeah, my script gets confused sometimes when an article is created and moved on the same day. --PresN 21:14, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
Category:Video games with multiple endings is a recreation of Category:Video games with alternate endings, no?--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 07:10, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
I wasn't aware of that. Now that I am, I would G7 the category, but other editors besides me have gone and populated it so I wouldn't feel right doing that. If someone wants to CSD it I won't object. silviaASH (inquire within) 07:17, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
Pinging @OceanHok as they added the category to a large swath of pages and may want to weigh in here. silviaASH (inquire within) 07:20, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
I was not aware about it as well. I personally think it is a defining feature for some RPGs/narrative-focused games/interactive dramas. OceanHok (talk) 11:33, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
Hm, yeah, that's along the lines of what I was thinking (though I wasn't quite sure how to word it). There are definitely quite a lot of games, like Undertale or Dishonored, where the multiple endings, and their gameplay and narrative implications, are commented on extensively in sources. Might not be worth adding to the article about every and any game that has the feature, especially since there's some where the impact of the multiple endings is very minor (like getting a slightly different ending cutscene if you picked up 100 percent of the things or whatever) but this can be hashed out on a case-by-case basis. silviaASH (inquire within) 16:43, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Year in first sentences of video games.

Hello, due to a discussion over at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Video games, I was wondering, why should we have the year in the first sentence of video game articles? 1isall (talk) 22:43, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

It's fine to get more people commenting, but there's already been a lot of discussion and I'm not really sure what else you're really expecting to hear on the matter beyond what's already been said... Sergecross73 msg me 23:47, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
I just wanted to hear WHY the MOS:VG advises the original release year being in the first sentence. 1isall (talk) 00:30, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
You can read the original discussion that led to that MoS change here (and previous discussions here and here). – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 00:42, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
Thanks, Rhain. 1isall (talk) 00:45, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
Hello again, WikiProject Video games. Per the same discussion mentioned before, the consensus is:
  • the year can be in the first sentence, e.g.: Super Mario 64 is a 1996 platform game...
  • or later in the same paragraph (I copy-pasted this from Super Mario 64), e.g. Super Mario 64 is a platform game developed and published by Nintendo for the Nintendo 64. It was released in Japan and North America in 1996 and PAL regions in 1997.
  • but not both, e.g.: Super Mario 64 is a 1996 platform game developed and published by Nintendo. It was released in 1996.
May I make a substantial change to the following bullet point to reflect this consensus? (I copy-pasted this from Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Video games#Section-specific advice.)
  • Include the original release year as part of the introduction to the topic. Other dates, or more specific dates, may appear elsewhere in the lead but should do so only as part of summarizing the topic.
Thanks. 1isall (talk/contribs) 01:12, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
P.S. I'd also let somebody make the change for me if they want to. 1isall (talk/contribs) 01:46, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Space Invaders at FAR

I have nominated Space Invaders 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. Z1720 (talk) 02:21, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

New Articles (June 9 to June 15)

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 v3.20 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 18:17, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

June 9

June 10

June 11

June 12

June 13

Redirected, since it's not so much a series but a film and an untitled sequel announcement for next year. Might be good to keep an eye on it though, as it looks like this IP has recreated it before. Sergecross73 msg me 20:11, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

June 14

June 15

I'm out of town next week, so y'all will get a double-post the week after. --PresN 18:17, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Got notified for the Skate 2025 page, so here I am. I also recently made an article about a Russian game Smuta, which is currently labeled as "of interest" of this project on the talk page. Dabmasterars (talk/contribs) 19:29, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
I'm still on the fence regarding MoonJet's revival of Ling Xiaoyu. There's some discussion, but a lot of it feels like grabbing mentions where the titles of the articles are longer than the mention...--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:43, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Change to a part of the MOS:VG

Already being discussed at the MOS page linked below. No need to split the discussion. If anyone has interest, comment there. Sergecross73 msg me 21:48, 19 June 2025 (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.

Hello, WikiProject Video games. May I please have your attention to this matter? Per this discussion I mentioned a while back, I would like to make a substantive change to the following bullet point that is listed in MOS:VGYEARINLEAD:

  • Include the original release year as part of the introduction to the topic. Other dates, or more specific dates, may appear elsewhere in the lead but should do so only as part of summarizing the topic.

The consensus from that discussion is that:

  • the year can be in the first sentence, e.g.: Super Mario 64 is a 1996 platform game...
  • or later in the same paragraph, e.g.: Super Mario 64 is a platform game developed and published by Nintendo for the Nintendo 64. It was released in Japan and North America in 1996 and PAL regions in 1997.
  • but not both, e.g.: Super Mario 64 is a 1996 platform game developed and published by Nintendo. It was released in 1996.

May I please make that change to the bullet point to reflect this consensus? 1isall (talk/contribs) 20:34, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

I support this change. Most readers would assume that the third example is an error, and MOS guidelines should reflect not just Wikipedia's editorial standards but also what's intuitive to read. silviaASH (inquire within) 20:42, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
Why are we starting a second discussion on this? It should be kept at the first one, that people are still actively commenting at. Sergecross73 msg me 20:54, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
This isn't a second discussion; it's just a request for this whole project's consensus to implement the change. 1isall (talk/contribs) 21:04, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
Certain users from the other discussion agreed with this change. Now I want to see if anyone here agrees, too. 1isall (talk/contribs) 21:40, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
You don't need to drag this out any longer. It's largely the same community of editors watching both pages. You had the MOS discussion, got agreement, so just make the change. TarkusABtalk/contrib 21:43, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
Okay, okay, you're not wrong to find this unnecessary. I'll just go and do it now. Feel free to reword it if needed. 1isall (talk/contribs) 21:46, 19 June 2025 (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.

Requested move at Talk:Luigi#Requested move 13 June 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Luigi#Requested move 13 June 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 04:02, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Mana (series)#Requested move 5 June 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Mana (series)#Requested move 5 June 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPathtalk 14:40, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Free access to books on video games

This looks like it might be useful to some of you: https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/partners/16/

If you find a WP:Notable good source in this collection, and we have a Wikipedia article for the source, please tag the talk page with {{Wikipedia Library}} to increase the likelihood that other editors will find out that they can use good sources.

Good luck, WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:39, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Ive used McFarland before so it works but what books are published by them? GamerPro64 04:36, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
At least 83 video game-related books, according to their website. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 07:46, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Call of Cthulhu: Dark Corners of the Earth

Call of Cthulhu: Dark Corners of the Earth has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 15:55, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Edit warring on Kayli Mills and 2024–present SAG-AFTRA video game strike

There is edit warring on Kayli Mills and 2024–present SAG-AFTRA video game strike. Seanlaraway has been misrepresenting sources, along with PrimaP0li, who began editing shortly after and making the same kinds of edits as Seanlaraway. Your input is appreciated at Talk:Kayli Mills#Edit warring on SAG-AFTRA strike and conflict of interest. lullabying (talk) 23:48, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Portal:Video games

Is there a general guideline regarding which articles should include the portal template? I only found one discussion in the archives, but it didn't result in a clear consensus. Itdoesntmatteranymore (talk) 08:30, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure its all but abandoned, and only kept as a historical thing. Pretty sure that was the consensus that developed many years back. Sergecross73 msg me 13:03, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
Yeah I honestly just remove the thing now when working on pages if it's there, it's usually pretty unsightly.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:06, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
Is there some source for that consensus, which I can link to in order to avoid arguments? Itdoesntmatteranymore (talk) 13:57, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
There was a movement to outright delete that Portal back in 2023: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Archive_171#Portal:Video_games, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Video games. Unfortunately, it didn't succeed, but there wasn't a lot of internal project enthusiasm for this Portal existing at all, and readers deeply do not care (the page views on Portals are abysmal compared to the number of incoming links). This isn't quite the same as answering your question, of course. I'd say that Portals (any) are never a high-value addition to an article, yet there's never been a consensus to fully deprecate them entirely, so... gray area. Up to the article maintainer IMO and both mass-adding or mass-removing it would be discouraged. SnowFire (talk) 14:15, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
Those were the discussions I was alluding to, FYI. Sergecross73 msg me 14:32, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
The main concerns with regards to removing Portals was that there were too few editors to maintain them any more, which was remedied by the introduction of a fully automated portal. I think it's now totally fine and gets hundreds of visitors a day, so clearly there's interest in it.
I would suggest only putting a link to the portal in high-importance general knowledge articles while leaving them out of any more specific article. It makes perfect sense for it to be in Video game console, for example, but maybe not in Clair Obscur: Expedition 33. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:45, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
Okay, that helps. Thank you all for your answers! Itdoesntmatteranymore (talk) 18:00, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

"Sonic Generations (3DS"

Hello, I've recently requested a split of Sonic Generations on its talk page. I want to split "Sonic Generations into "Sonic Generations (3DS). More inormation can be found on said talk page.

But I've not gotten alot of supporters or opposers to support or oppose me, and I've recently just created a draft and submitted it for review. So if anyone's want to help, you can help support or oppose me on the split at Talk:Sonic Generations, and also improve my draft at Draft:Sonic Generations (3DS) . Thanks you!--PawPatroler (talk) 01:12, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Begging for support when the discussion isn't going in your favor probably doesn't help your case, FYI. λ NegativeMP1 01:32, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
Since the user now edited this comment, see this revision of how it was originally worded, in-case anyone is confused as to what we were talking about. λ NegativeMP1 02:37, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
This is a direction violation of WP:CANVASS. Sergecross73 msg me 01:33, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
And as I said before, submitting a draft for article creation while the discussion is still going is incredibly poor form. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 01:39, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:With Authority!#Requested move 21 June 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:With Authority!#Requested move 21 June 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPathtalk 11:39, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Tetris (Electronic Arts)#Requested move 20 June 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Tetris (Electronic Arts)#Requested move 20 June 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPathtalk 12:11, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Stormind Games' page

Hi everyone, I'd like to ask for your feedback regarding the potential creation of a Wikipedia article about Stormind Games, an Italian video game development studio founded in 2016. While the studio had some earlier recognition for its work on the Remothered series, its more recent projects significantly increase its notability: in June 2024, the studio announced A Quiet Place: The Road Ahead, an official video game based on Paramount Pictures' horror film series, in June 2025, 2K publicly confirmed a collaboration with Stormind Games for the development of Mafia: Old Country, marking the studio’s involvement in a major AAA franchise.

Both announcements have been covered by reliable, independent sources including IGN, GameSpot, and Eurogamer (I can provide references if helpful). Additionally, there is already a Wikipedia article about Stormind Games in Italian, which could serve as a starting point or reference.

Given these developments, I believe Stormind Games may now meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for organizations and video game companies. Before submitting a draft via Articles for Creation, I wanted to ask if anyone here has thoughts, objections, or advice—especially in terms of coverage, reliable sourcing, or potential conflicts I should keep in mind. Thanks in advance for your guidance! EneaCirce (talk) 09:39, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

If you have any WP:COI you are required to declare it. Also keep in mind that you will need to have several sources (in any language) that are specifically about the studio rather than one of its games, are significant coverage, and aren't interviews. This seems promising, but more should be demonstrated or it will never be accepted. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:59, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
For a company to have its own article, it needs to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. Notability isn't inherited, so announcements for their games won't satisfy notability requirements for the company itself. Sergecross73 msg me 14:05, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
I specified the conflict of interest! In the Italian page there are several articles of primary sources that can be used. Don't you think that having worked on A Quiet Place and being involved in the last Mafia are still useful elements to make the entry encyclopedic? Thanks EneaCirce (talk) 14:16, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
Unfortunately for en.wiki, we need third party, independent coverage of the studio itself, not its products. Just having worked on notable games does not infer the studio is notable. Masem (t) 14:22, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
Don't shoot the messenger. I didn't write CORPDEPTH, I'm just telling you its the current standard for companies. If you create the article, it'll likely be nominated for deletion, and if you can't argue that CORPDEPTH is met in that discussion, your odds aren't looking great. Sergecross73 msg me 14:25, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
I don't want to shoot the messenger! lol
Maybe I can prepare a draft in my sandbox and let you all check it? EneaCirce (talk) 17:35, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
@Sergecross73@Masem@Zxcvbnmin the end there was already another page, but it was rejected more than 2 years ago (much less contributions, much less articles, much less activities): I updated, corrected and improved it. Can you let me know if it could work now? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Stormind_Games EneaCirce (talk) 10:33, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

New Articles (June 16 to June 29)

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 v3.20 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 15:23, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

June 16

June 17

June 18

June 19

June 20

June 21

June 22

June 23

June 25

June 26

June 27

June 28

June 29

I'm back! Double-length feature today. --PresN 15:23, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

As always, thank you for keeping this going! Sergecross73 msg me 15:27, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Nonspecific inclusion in the schedule?

On List of video games in development, The Legend of Heroes: Trails Beyond the Horizon is listed under January as "TBA", despite it not having an explicit release date. Would it be better to put it under "Unscheduled releases", until we have a firm date? BOTTO (T•C) 13:52, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

If the month is confirmed, I would think it's better as is. Regardless, it doesn't seem like we have a release month without a date very often, and I imagine it'll be resolved soon when it gets a date. Sergecross73 msg me 14:05, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
Yeah, there's no reason to be extra vague if a specific month was announced. — Dissident93 (talk) 16:37, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
@Dissident93: That tracks. I reckon it's not common for studios to announce release months, which is why we're left with a tentative frame that's "hanging loose", if you will. BOTTO (T•C) 12:50, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
Not common at all in my experience, as most studios would wait until an exact day is agreed upon before announcing it. — Dissident93 (talk) 14:51, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:To the Moon#Requested move 26 June 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:To the Moon#Requested move 26 June 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. CNC (talk) 12:42, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Dates investigations

Those are FA but there's no specific date on when the companies were founded. If given a specific date, they could run for TFA in 2028 and 2029 respectively on the anniversary of their founding. Even a month range rather than a specific date would help. Harizotoh9 (talk) 19:41, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Rockstar was December 1988. Trying to find more detail. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 19:49, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
I'm not confident in what GameSpot says there, and I can't find it corroborated elsewhere.
Rockstar formed in the subsequent restructuring. I'll keep digging. I've shot an email to Rockstar's PR team too. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 19:59, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
I think you are confusing Rockstar North, the developer in Scotland, with Rockstar Games, the publisher in New York. As the author of the former article, I don't think there is a single founding date (or even month) for Rockstar North. It was a continuous process with one man adopting a coporate moniker, making a publishing deal, and releasing his first game (in October 1988). This is not uncommon, and I think that's okay. I also already scheduled Rockstar North's TFA for when Grand Theft Auto VI releases. With Toys for Bob, the story is similar: Two fellas start working on games together and retroactively took that year as the founding year for the studio that grew out of their partnership. There isn't even a record for a separate studio name until 1994-ish, and there was no corporation until 2002. Sometimes, there just isn't a fixed founding date. IceWelder [✉] 20:58, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
Even when we have an exact date for companies that grew out of un-codified projects like that, it's still misleading- id Software was founded on February 1, 1991. Which ties it up neatly, except for the fact that the same people, working in the same house, had released Commander Keen in Invasion of the Vorticons in December 1990 under that name, as they had already decided to change names from the unregistered "Ideas from the Deep" they had been using. And the decision to form the team and start making the game happened back in October. So from a legal perspective, the founding was February 1, 1991, but that's the least important date for when the company was "founded". --PresN 21:59, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
Eh, that's the date of incorporation. Sure, if you (and your sources) consider this the official start of the business, it may well be put as the founding date, but that isn't the only possible interpretation of that word. In your case specifically, is there a better date to use? The company, at least per its homepage, sets its start in 1991. IceWelder [✉] 13:18, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
Oops – I completely misread what the person was asking. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 22:24, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Ef: A Fairy Tale of the Two

Ef: A Fairy Tale of the Two has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 17:49, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Hidden Palace Zone

This is just to inform you; rather you want to support or oppose me about purposed split on Sonic 2, you can go to Talk:Sonic the Hedgehog 2 for more information. You can also help on this draft if you want...--PawPatroler (talk) 18:59, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Standee#Requested move 10 June 2025

An editor has requested that Standee be moved to another page, which may be of interest to this WikiProject. You are invited to participate in the move discussion. This discussion has been open for nearly a month and would benefit from your expertise! --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 17:54, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Kris (Deltarune) has an RfC

Kris (Deltarune) has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. consarn (grave) (obituary) 00:13, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Ray Chase (voice actor)#Requested move 15 June 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Ray Chase (voice actor)#Requested move 15 June 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 05:58, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Baltimore Business Journal

Does anyone know how access the Baltimore Business Journal archives?. (pre-1996, without the sub) I want to find articles relating to Bethesda Softworks and use those sources for that page. I'm not sure if its available via the Wikipedia Library. Gale Research has Washington Business Journal but not Baltimore Business Journal. Timur9008 (talk) 09:58, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library gives access to ProQuest; searching by publication shows it has "Full text coverage Jul 2, 1999 (Vol. 17, no. 6) - Dec 31, 2004 (Vol. 22, no. 34)" & "Citation/Abstract coverage Jan 06, 1986 (Vol. 3, no. 30) - Dec 31, 2004 (Vol. 22, no. 34)". Otherwise, Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request might be helpful if you need a copy of a specific article that you have some basic details on (title, date, etc) but can't find via the library. Sariel Xilo (talk) 20:12, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
Thanks! Timur9008 (talk) 13:36, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
Looks like Gale Research does have Baltimore Business Journal (not sure how I missed that). No articles on Bethesda though. Timur9008 (talk) 12:12, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Can a port become a first party title?

@RCPolygons: added this edit to PlayStation Studios. In a nutshell, it claimed that because Nixxes Software did the Xbox port of Arrowhead's Helldivers 2 and because Nixxes Software are a PlayStation Studios company, that makes the Xbox version a first party PlayStation title. I removed it due to our longstanding consensus that it's the primary developer that matters(Arrowhead are independent), not who did the port. So, I've bought it here for comment and to hopefully show RCPolygons that it's not "goal post moving for stupid console wars" and that we are as "professional" as we can be about these things. Anyone disagree with me removing the edit? - X201 (talk) 11:34, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

I've never seen reliable sources consider the port's developer as a defining aspect of the original game. We judge who made the original game. Masem (t) 13:10, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
Okay, I'm very confused. How can a game for one console possibly be a first party game for a console from a different manufacturer? Isn't a game published for the Xbox by Microsoft a first party Xbox game, and a game published for the Xbox by anyone other than Microsoft a third party Xbox game? Is the Atari 7800 version of Mario Bros. considered a first party NES game because Nintendo made the original game? Martin IIIa (talk) 01:49, 5 July 2025 (UTC)
Usually games themselves are not classified as first or third party, but the development studios themselves. Which is further why the edit in question made no sense. Masem (t) 02:42, 5 July 2025 (UTC)
I've seen plenty of mentions of first and third party games. Maybe it's not recognized English by scholars, but the definitions are very intuitive, and certainly "first party games" is a less clunky term than "games developed by first party development studios". I'll put that aside, though, and rephrase my question: Is Nixxes Software then considered a first-party developer even in the context of developing games for the Xbox? Martin IIIa (talk) 14:32, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
No. In the context of developing for the Xbox, they are a third party developer. They're not under Microsoft's umbrella. Who else they're owned by is irrelevant. Similarly, Sonic Adventure may have been a first party game for the Dreamcast, but Sonic Adventure DX is a third party game for the GameCube. silviaASH (inquire within) 14:57, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
Yes, exactly. My experience is the same as Masem and Silvia. Sergecross73 msg me 15:17, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Draft for Super Mario RPG (remake)

Surprisingly, the remake of Super Mario RPG has not gotten an article. I started a draft, but it needs a lot of work. If anyone could help, that would be appreciated.

Draft:Super Mario RPG (remake) 22ManzanaBoy (talk) 17:49, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

@22ManzanaBoy:The reason why there is not article for the NS remake of Super Mario RPG is because all the info about the remake can easily be fit into the main article of the original Super Mario RPG for SNES. Take Live-A-Live for example. Roberth Martinez (talk) 18:32, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
Seconded. We generally don't have separate articles for these faithful remakes that don't really do much other than improve the graphics. Sergecross73 msg me 16:02, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
If you don't feel like helping or don't think this is necessary, that's totally fine. I was just trying to get an old project that I'd lost interest in off my hands. If this isn't worth an article, no worries at all! 22ManzanaBoy (talk) 22:55, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Averaging out reviews in rating box

I've made a suggestion to removing a standard in the reviews infobox about a month ago which I believe violates WP:STICKTOSOURCE, specifically that "Source material should be carefully summarized or rephrased without changing its meaning or implication." By suggesting the magazine or any other publication gave an overall rating when there was one, would be against this standard. As we've made similar discussion with averaging out scores for other publications since, I suggest applying the same standard I suggested on the talk page. The discussion can be found here. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:09, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

New Articles (June 30 to July 6)

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 v3.20 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 22:30, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

June 30

July 1

July 2

July 3

July 4

July 5

July 6

--PresN 22:30, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Hey, this is the first time I've appeared on one of these; I didn't know I got a ping. Sick. I'm doing this again. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 22:33, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
Obviously it's partly vanity driving the thought PresN, but any thoughts on the feasibility of a "Articles promoted" bucket? Could be cool to see. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 22:34, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
I've considered it, but never got around to it, partially because the post already is pretty long every week. I'm not opposed if people want it, though, it wouldn't take too long to do. --PresN 22:49, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
I'm growing concerned to how much the current consoles' games lists are becoming documenting of *every* game for the platform. With the relative ease and low cost of publishing (compared to pre-digital consoles), documenting every single game release is becoming more a catalog rather than a encyclopedic list. The problem is how one discriminates between key/core releases (like for the Switch, titles like Super Mario Odyssey, Breath of the Wild, and key third-party games, and all these indie games, several that lack blue-link articles. Until we can work out a means to cleanly discriminate between these two, I think these lists will continue to grow unwieldly so this will be a problem sooner than later.
(Pre-digital, because the cost of making cartridges or printing optical discs was prohibitive, and generally required the console maker's blessing, listing out every game known to be available is reasonable; its the low barrier to entry that digital consoles have that make this a problem today) Masem (t) 02:20, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
We could take a sort of "assumed low-level importance until proven otherwise" stance with video games. I wouldn't not include every release on Wikipedia but we can directly encourage whoever adds it to show its notability when it's created.
Things from certain studios can be given an immediate go ahead (Sega, CD Projekt Red, etc.).
Games which have informational content about them would be the next tier below notable game studios. The greater variety of those content sources would be seen as more important to document. My reasoning is that if something creates interest outside of the usual gaming crowd there may be more unique characteristics to warrant that interest.
Ex:
AAA/AA Games > Game received coverage from gaming news sources (ex: Kotaku) and non-gaming news (ex: Washington Post) > Game received coverage from gaming news sources (ex: Kotaku) > Game with no coverage.
Another factor we can use is the best-selling/popular sections of these platforms. If a game is in the best sellers category on itch.io for example it shows that at some point people saw it as notable. Some sites even have the ability to show how many downloads/purchases a game has which we can use as a hard metric for notability (ex: games with 100,000 downloads is considered notable).
I think this would help us keep on top of games which should have our efforts vs those that may just need to be put in a single article that lists game releases. ValWinter (talk) 18:34, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
Perhaps we could separate the list between Switch games with physical copies and digital-only Switch games? The latter would still have the issue of bloat to address, but the former would at least ensure a shorter list with a strict criteria. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 18:41, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
I think the simplest solution would just be to delete any redlink entries in the lists that do not have reliable sources. If an entry has sourcing, then an anchor can be created for a redirect. Splitting lists into digital and physical releases, as Cukie Gherkin proposes, also sounds like a good idea. silviaASH (inquire within) 18:44, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Archive_179&oldid=1302820627"