| Revision as of 04:27, 26 September 2023 editZxcvbnm (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers61,816 edits →New Articles (September 18 to September 24): ReplyTag: Reply← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 12:07, 7 January 2025 edit undoCaptain Galaxy (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users13,492 editsm →Translation help | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{ |
{{Talk header|WT:VG}} | ||
| {{WikiProject banner shell| | |||
| {{WikiProject Video games}} | |||
| }} | |||
| {{WPVG announcements}} | |||
| {{WPVG sidebar|shortcut=WT:VG|showarchives=yes}}<!-- | |||
| Archive bot settings (Each parameter must be on its own line) | Archive bot settings (Each parameter must be on its own line) | ||
| -->{{User:MiszaBot/config | -->{{User:MiszaBot/config | ||
| |archiveheader = {{aan}} | |archiveheader = {{aan}} | ||
| |maxarchivesize = 250K | |maxarchivesize = 250K | ||
| |counter = |
|counter = 177 | ||
| |minthreadsleft = 4 | |minthreadsleft = 4 | ||
| |algo = old(14d) | |algo = old(14d) | ||
| Line 10: | Line 15: | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| == |
== Page for ]? == | ||
| Given Shadow of the Erdtree's treatment as a "game" at the Game Awards, I'd say it's more deserving than most of its own page due to its outsized notability. However, I want to be sure that consensus is there before I bother trying to potentially make it. ] (]) 23:30, 15 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| The ] is in danger of stalling out; it's gotten one support and a half-review, but could use some more reviewer attention. Willing to trade reviews for anyone willing to give it a look. --''']]''' 01:51, 8 September 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :I am surprised it doesn't have a page yet. All three Skyrim DLCs have their own pages, so I don't see why Shadow of the Erdtree can't. ] (]) 23:35, 15 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Shadow of the Erdtree was treated as DLC at the Game Awards - they made it clear all DLC, expansions, remakes, and remasters can qualify for any of the awards. | |||
| :Given that the only real in-depth coverage would be in reviews - nothing about new gameplay or development aspects - it doesn't make sense to have a separate article. ] (]) 00:04, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Could there be discussion of the game's plotline? ] (]) 00:22, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::I'd say it depends entirely on coverage; we've got plenty of DLC articles I think we probably shouldn't have, and plenty I think justify themselves. (From the above mentions, I'm not sure that the Skyrim expansions really justify themselves, likewise '']'' and '']'' basically have nothing there indicating separate notability. Versus '']'', which has the benefit of more development info, as well as an outsized influential legacy on other games, it wasn't "just" another DLC.) I would say that '']'' is pretty lean at 3400ish words, so there's not even potential page size issues to consider. I think it makes a lot more sense to build out the info in ''Elden Ring'' and ''then'' decide on a split. ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 00:34, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The other factor to keep in mind is that per ], just because a piece of DLC may be notable due to reception, is there enough unique content that requires a separate article from the main game, or is the DLC better covered under a comprehensive article? For what's there for Erfdtree, one article seems the best solution, unless there is a massive amount of development information that hasn't been found yet (doubtful) ] (]) 01:19, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{xt|"I think it makes a lot more sense to build out the info in Elden Ring and then decide on a split."}} I wish more people followed this guideline instead of assuming notability when starting these articles with barely any content. Gameplay for a DLC is not usually not going to be much different than the base game's even with a couple of new things introduced to it, which just leaves the development, plot, and reception sections. Those could easily be summarized in a paragraph or two within the base game's article, and if it does start to expand, ''then'' we'd could make the decision to split it. For some reason, we've always had this issue with the Souls games, with articles created on ], ], ], and concepts like ] that usually just feature passing mentions cited from game reviews, some of which having merged by consensus and then brought back in almost the same exact state. ~ ] <sup>(])</sup> 14:51, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Yes, agreed, the ''Souls'' area has been a particularly bad area for unnecessary article spinouts. ] ] 18:08, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I'd advise staying on focus to Erdtree for now; if any split-outs (Or the topic of how much should dictate a split-out as a whole) are under question, then I'd suggest forming a separate discussion for this, given this is outside the smaller scope of this discussion and would impact a lot of articles. ''] Considerer:'' ''']''' (]) (]) 18:55, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Erdtree and other DLCs are no different here. I was simply bringing up the fact that the Souls series in particular has always had the problem of having spinoff articles created before they were expanded upon in the article of their respective games. ~ ] <sup>(])</sup> 23:01, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Exactly, it's a recurring issue in the subject area, spanning many years of discussions and some of the same overzealous editors. ] ] 23:25, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Now ] was just created. ~ ] <sup>(])</sup> 16:45, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::Bloated and ] to maximum levels to try to create the illusion of being a necessary split, I see. ] ] 20:26, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::There is consensus here that is largely against these Souls spinoff articles. Should we nominate all of them for deletion/merging? ~ ] <sup>(])</sup> 22:00, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::Unless there is at least one dedicted article to covering it (at bare minimum) , yes these should be merged. ] (]) 22:13, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::From what I can tell, this seems to be a "consensus" of only two or three editors. I don't think that's enough for something that would impact several articles. I also don't think it would make sense to only discuss Souls spinouts when several other video games have something like this, whether it be levels, items, weapons, and more. I feel as if a larger discussion on spinout articles for video game elements in general (not just Souls) would be necessary, rather than singling out one franchise. Either way, I think a larger consensus would be needed than this discussion. <span style="border:#000000;border:2px solid #000000;padding:2px">'''λ''' ]]</span> 22:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::Some of them were already merged in the past and brought back, so there is precedent for this sort of thing. And while ] for other series, it's particularly a problem for the Souls games. ~ ] <sup>(])</sup> 22:38, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::I'd recommend nominating a couple of the worst offenders, and then proceeding from there depending on how that plays out. ] ] 22:45, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::::Yeah, some of them are probably decent enough to keep but certainly not all/most. ~ ] <sup>(])</sup> 22:48, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :┌──────────────────────────────────────────┘<br/>Another new one today ]<span id="Masem:1735066253435:Wikipedia_talkFTTCLNWikiProject_Video_games" class="FTTCmt"> — ] (]) 18:50, 24 December 2024 (UTC)</span> | |||
| ::{{Ping|PrimalMustelid}} I could at least understand Blighttown as it received reception for its poor technical performance, but how is the tutorial level notable? ~ ] <sup>(])</sup> 20:43, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::I'm only making two ''Dark Souls'' locations, both of which I've done based on significant sources. The Northern Undead Asylum is pretty significant in that unlike many other video game tutorials, this particular tutorial has been credited with carving a unique path by not hand-holding the player along the way and throwing a fairly challenging tutorial boss into the mix (at the time, definitely not your average tutorial). It, along with the Asylum Demon, have been credited with preparing players for the wider difficulty of the game, and first impressions are especially important in video games like this. ] (]) 20:57, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Your "significant sources" for Northern Undead Asylum include a greatest bosses list, two strategy guides, and a top ten tutorial levels list by a generally unreliable source (Dualshockers). Even if the other sources are valid, there's no reason why this couldn't be a paragraph or two within the Dark Souls article. Seriously, what is with this series that compels people to try and justify as many spinoff articles as possible? ~ ] <sup>(])</sup> 21:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Those aren't what I consider "significant sources;" they're more supplements to the overall article. What I'd consider significant sources are those written by ''NME'' and ''Goomba Stomp Magazine'' primarily since they both wrote analyses for the Northern Undead Asylum, with ''Arcade Sushi'' communicating similar commentary on the significance of it as a tutorial level. I would consider the main problem with an attempted merge into the main ''Dark Souls'' articles to be that it's a bit difficult to insert into there. If this helps, there aren't any other individual fictional elements that can be spun off into their own articles because of the fact that they lack significant commentary in relation to specific game designs. I do think that a list article for locations in the ''Dark Souls'' series could potentially work as long as there's a development section and reception section for the technical and philosophical aspects of game design, but I'm not really interested in creating list articles at the moment. ] (]) 21:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I really don't think "Goomba Stomp Magazine" is a reliable source. Certainly not one to indicate notability... ] ] 22:50, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::How about this: in the video game sources page, there should be a consensus on whether Goomba Stomp Magazine can be considered a reliable source or not. If not, I will happily redirect or merge the article somewhere into the Dark Souls article (and maybe the locations list if it ever comes to fruition). I’ll leave the source evaluation up to you guys, although I can initiate the discussion if you guys want. ] (]) 22:54, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Sure, but looking at their page, I think it'll be a short discussion... ] ] 22:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::That’s fine with me. If and once there is official consensus that it is not a reliable source, I will merge or redirect the article, no questions asked. ] (]) 23:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::Discussion started ]. ] ] 23:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::Putting notability of the asylum aside, I honestly wasn’t aware that there was a discussion regarding Dark Souls element articles and may have put fuel to the flame by creating the Blighttown article. Bad timing on my part I suppose. | |||
| :::::::::::I suppose that the character articles are a matter of debate, but is having a few spinoff articles really that bad in practice? I can see a few articles like ] passing on the grounds that it has a good amount of significant coverage and therefore would fit awkwardly into the 2011 video game article. I also see someone argue that the bonfire article’s sources supposedly only have “passing mentions,” but a lot of sources in the reception section literally indicate otherwise from the title to the full text. Again, I don’t mind a merge of some of the Souls articles, but some articles have significant coverage to justify independent notability in my opinion. ] (]) 02:41, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::Also, I decided to redirect the Northern Undead Asylum into the 2011 video game article. I’ll figure out what to do in a “merge” process, but it’ll probably entail being part of a “retrospective review” subsection of the overall game from after the 2018 remastered version release. ] (]) 06:06, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::On that note, I would just like to mention that I've always been annoyed by the tendency to make a new article on an element of a game without adding ''any'' of that relevant content to the game's article. For example, we have an article on ] from Tokimeki Memorial, but neither the franchise page nor the individual game pages mention the character at all, leaving the article effectively orphaned except for a navbox that doesn't appear on mobile. ] (]) 12:27, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::Yeah, I'm always surprised by that. I personally always try to link to my article creations as much as I can (within the realms of being appropriate) to help the odds of people actually viewing/reading it. ] ] 17:19, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :You haven't really advanced any argument for it. ''"more deserving than most of its own page due to its outsized notability"'' is just a long way of saying "]". ] ] 01:39, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::If it's something to the scale of '']'' and '']'', I don't see how a separate page for the ''Elden Ring'' expansion would hurt. '']'' may be notable on its own, but idk if the '']'' expandalone would be worth a separate article as it only mildly covered the game and not divulge much on its development and impact. ] (]) 03:44, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Looking at the lost and Damned, for example, shows a ton of unsourced gameplay content, very little development, and very little reception that I question it's need to be sepearate. ] (]) 00:28, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I'd honestly merge and/or redirect a lot of the listed titles unless some more substance can be found. As it stands they're not showing much independent notability of the subject. ''] Considerer:'' ''']''' (]) (]) 14:55, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::To be clear: the DLC passes GNG already, and this feels like you are implying that it's not notable (since you are citing an AfD argument after all). I was never trying to ask whether it was ''notable'', which is rather obvious on its face, but saying that its high degree of critical acclaim merited its own page. | |||
| ::As for the in-universe articles, Souls simply happens to be a very critically acclaimed and analyzed series - it inspired an entire genre after all - with an outsized amount of notable things in their universe. Bonfires as a concept inspired a host of games to implement identical or similar game mechanics, even by testimony of their developers. I don't want to point fingers or anything or reignite the Pokemon test, but I don't see people griping this much about ] or ] despite them arguably being an order of magnitude less important in their respective games than ] or ]. ] (]) 18:44, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::I simply said you hadn't advanced an argument, because...you hadn't advanced an argument. ] ] 18:49, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Yeah. Subjects can pass notability but still be covered exclusively in other, larger articles. That's what ] is all about. ''] Considerer:'' ''']''' (]) (]) 18:59, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I would not oppose to a spin-out article for the DLC, if it has a development section that is extensive enough. Right now I think we can develop the content in the main article first before considering a ]. ] (]) 11:27, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I agree. @], I might have a crack at drafting too to help and see if in that process I can generate good sourcing. The ] argument is a little funny to me because we're talking about a very well-covered, award-nominated expansion to one of the biggest games of the past decade. If we're honestly saying the copious amount of coverage out there in terms of its gameplay additions, potential development history, reviews and discourse around its award eligibility is not independently notable or preferable, I would honestly say that the vast majority of expansion articles in this WP should be merged immediately. ] (]) 03:29, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| :@] Midnight here, but I'll check it out tomorrow. Ping me if I forget to do it within a day. ] <span style="color:#F40">•</span> ] 04:17, 8 September 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :I'll try to look at it this weekend. ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 13:22, 8 September 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::I’ll see if I can look into it as well, though I’m working into the weekend this week. At the very least I may be able to do a source review, if I can find the time. ] ] 17:47, 8 September 2023 (UTC) | |||
| I would appreciate some assistance in creating this draft and bringing it up to a respectable standard. ] (]) 10:49, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Guidance on content relating to of technical and performance issues == | |||
| :There's already a much more developed draft in existence. See ]. I'd recommend working on that instead, though either way, you're not going to be able to move it out of the draft space and publish it until it's actually announced/revealed/named. ] ] 12:43, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| The article '']'' contains the text: ''The GOG.com version was subsequently released onto Steam in 2016, but the client-based DRM of Steam has caused that version to suffer from stability and compatibility problems not seen on the original digital version provided by GOG.com.'' The editor originally provided a link to user discussions on the Steam page for the source for this statement. I haven't been able to find any guidance on when an article should (1) address a game's technical or performance issues; and (2) where those issues are not covered by secondary sources, refer to user generated sources. Any help on this would be appreciated. ] (]) 08:35, 12 September 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::Even with that, when Nintendo makes the announcement, the bulk of that info will be immediately outdated by the actual details Nintendo provides and the new sources that report that. The only aspects that even in the current Switch article that would be kept would be when word of the next console was being announced, none of the rumors detailed of its specs and features. Either of these draft articles are immediately going to be out of date when that announcement comes so it seems like doing a lot of work for no gain at this point. ] (]) 13:04, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Agreed, that's the very reason why I haven't personally contributed hardly anything to the draft myself. I specifically recall trimming 90% of that sort of content from the 3DS and Vita articles after they were announced and released back in the day. But still, if either were ever to actually get published, it'd certainly be the longer, better sourced one. ] ] 13:16, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Cheers, I was not aware of the other draft. ] (]) 21:50, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::No worries. That's the tricky part of doing drafts for unnamed things - you never know under what name someone may have made one. ] ] 22:31, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Any tools that could be used to check for this sort of thing besides manually trying to find them? ~ ] <sup>(])</sup> 00:34, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::If there are, I'd like to know. Though then again, half the hassle is ''others'' not being aware of the draft too. I always hate the thought of working on a draft for months, only to be away from Misplaced Pages when something is announced, and people rushing together a junky stub instead of publishing the long-term draft... ] ] 00:47, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I suppose you could do a wildcard search through draft space for "Nintendo" or something.. '''] <sup>(] • ])</sup>''' 09:09, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::If there was an announcement regarding the official unveiling date, it would probably then be the time to move it into the main space and link it in the ] page infobox so that anybody looking to get bragging rights moves the established article instead of making a new one. ] 18:16, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Someone help the old guy clean up some stuff == | |||
| :] is the relevant guidance in this case. Technical and performance issues should only be mentioned when they are detailed by reliable sources. In this case, the performance problem may not necessarily affect all users, so the testimonials of a few players are not necessarily definitive or correct. The performance issues should also be something major so it's not putting undue weight on a minor topic. When a game is borderline unplayable at launch and sources talk about it, that could be included. If it's a patch that introduces a performance problem that is quickly fixed, maybe not. ] (]) 08:40, 12 September 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks, that's clarified my thinking - appreciate your help in pointing me in the right direction. ] (]) 09:06, 12 September 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::@]: hi. It is worth noting that Caesar 3 is not a new game in any way at all: it is a game which was released in 1998, so naturally after so much time, bugs and incompatibilities are very likely because of the games’ extreme age. The version on Steam is just a DRM-free version that was modified by GOG way back in 2010, but fundamentally all it is, is a CD copy patched to the latest patch and then minor startup bugs fixed and the DRM removed to ensure it launches with no CD. The game is entirely unsupported and is provided on a “best efforts” basis, meaning any user reports are the only thing that can be used , as there is no development by anyone, other than “does the game start on modern windows? If not, fix the bug”, which is done primarily by GOG. Does this change anything for you in this regard? Thank you. — ] (]) 12:29, 12 September 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::The actual facts of a situation don't matter much to Misplaced Pages; ultimately the only thing that matters is if ] thought it was a serious enough problem to write about. ] ] (]) 19:35, 12 September 2023 (UTC) | |||
| While reassessing Stub articles, I've come across a few things that probably need the attention of someone more active and more familiar with the processes. | |||
| ==New Articles (September 4 to September 10)== | |||
| * ] - no sources cited, so no notability established. Should probably be merged with ] | |||
| * ] - removed from ] as it was redundant with the cover image (i.e., conveys the exact same information and thus is an excess non-free image). It is now an orphan file and should probably be deleted. | |||
| * ] - too many non-free images. I removed most and those are now orphan files | |||
| ** ] | |||
| ** ] | |||
| ** ] | |||
| ** ] | |||
| It's been over a decade since I've initiated a merge, FfD and many other administrative processes, and I don't remember the details. As I'm also on very sporadically, I honestly don't think I could properly watch over them. Is someone available to help with these? (] <sup>]</sup> 01:06, 22 December 2024 (UTC)) | |||
| {{main|Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements}} | |||
| :The orphan images will get cleaned up automatically after 7 days. -- ] (]) 02:07, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| <small>A listing of all articles newly added to the Video Games Wikiproject (regardless of creation date). Generated by v3.15 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --''']]''' 12:51, 12 September 2023 (UTC)</small> | |||
| ::Hey @]. I'm not very active. So someone else here will have to do the honors. Looks like the images are on Commons. The ]'s editor ] may be an . So we got a probable ]. However, assuming the article's subject is notable, then perhaps Judd Cobler can contact the ] so we can use the relevant images. ] 17:43, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Ah, I see what you mean. That explains the state the article was in; they at the least didn't know how to edit an encyclopedic article. It looks like it has since been cleaned up to a better state. The images have been tagged as missing evidence of permission, so looks like they will be dealt with soon. (] <sup>]</sup> 04:47, 28 December 2024 (UTC)) | |||
| Came across an article that should probably be merged with its series (]) or deleted: ]. It has been tagged for not citing sources since 2015. I did a good faith search for sources: general google search, Google News, Google Scholar, Google Books, Google Newspaper, and JSTOR. Only found a MobyGames page, a review on a defunct Mac website (Mac Reactor) and a mention in an issue of MicroTimes magazine, which I cannot find a digital copy of the issue. So it clearly doesn't meet ]. (] <sup>]</sup> 04:42, 28 December 2024 (UTC)) | |||
| *'''Articles deleted/removed:''' ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ] | |||
| *'''Articles redirected:''' ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ] | |||
| *'''Categories deleted/removed:''' ], ], ] | |||
| *'''New categories:''' ] <small>— {{u|Dimadick}}</small>, ] <small>— {{u|Dimadick}}</small>, ] <small>— {{u|Resoru}}</small> <small>(newly tagged - originally created 11 years ago)</small>, ] <small>— {{u|Dimadick}}</small>, ] <small>— {{u|Mika1h}}</small>, ] <small>— {{u|NinjaRobotPirate}}</small>, ] <small>— {{u|Trivialist}}</small>, ] <small>— {{u|Waxworker}}</small>, ] <small>— {{u|Waxworker}}</small> | |||
| =='']'' has removed the video games calendar search from its website!== | |||
| <div style="line-height:1.4em !important"> | |||
| Sad news. When I try to look up the GBA calendar search under "2004/4", all of a sudden I get a 404 error shown . In face, all the video games that Famitsu had from NES to the Nintendo Switch have been completely erased from history along with their calendar schedules from their website! I suppose that means we won't have to look up any Japanese video games for their ''Famitsu'' scores anymore. Now what? --] (]) 00:03, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| '''September 4''' | |||
| *{{Article status|C|Craig the Brute|NegativeMP1}} <small>(was previously a userpage)</small> | |||
| *{{Article status|Start|We Are OFK|IgelRM}} | |||
| *{{Article status|Start|Connections (2023 video game)|TrademarkedTarantula}} <small>(was previously a draft)</small> | |||
| *{{Article status|C|BattleBit Remastered|GeneralHamster}} <small>(newly tagged – originally created 1 month ago)</small> | |||
| *{{Article status|Start|Endoparasitic (video game)|NegativeMP1}} | |||
| *{{Article status|Start|Shrek: Fairy Tale Freakdown|Angeldeb82}} <small>(was previously a redirect – un-redirected 3 years ago)</small> | |||
| == Happy Holidays From the Wikiproject Video Games Family == | |||
| '''September 5''' | |||
| *{{Article status|C|Ship of Harkinian|FlotillaFlotsam}} | |||
| *{{Article status|C|Arthas Menethil|Zxcvbnm}} <small>(was previously a redirect)</small> | |||
| *{{Article status|Start|Garrett (Thief)|Zxcvbnm}} <small>(was previously a redirect)</small> | |||
| *{{Article status|Start|Ominous Horizons: A Paladin's Calling|Zxcvbnm}} <small>(was previously a redirect)</small> | |||
| *{{Article status|Start|Sam Fisher (Splinter Cell)|Zxcvbnm}} <small>(was previously a redirect)</small> | |||
| *{{Article status|Stub|Deep Rock Galactic: Survivor|Czar}} | |||
| *{{Article status|Start|EA Sports WRC|Unnamelessness}} | |||
| ] | |||
| '''September 6''' | |||
| *{{Article status|Start|Foretales|NinjaRobotPirate}} | |||
| *{{Article status|Unassessed|Grand Voyage|LucaLindholm}} | |||
| *{{Article status|Start|Katsuya Terada|Frater perdurabo}} <small>(newly tagged – originally created 17 years ago)</small> | |||
| *{{Article status|Stub|Lunar Rescue (1988 video game)|Muchness}} | |||
| *{{Article status|Start|Plug In Digital|NinjaRobotPirate}} | |||
| *{{Article status|Start|Tempest Rising|Cortador}} | |||
| Our Christmas cards get cheesier every year... happy holidays everyone! Glad to be a part of this great project. ] <span style="color:#F40">•</span> ] 23:53, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| '''September 7''' | |||
| *{{Article status|List|List of video games with LGBT characters: 2020s|PanagiotisZois}} | |||
| *{{Article status|B|Bomba Patch|Skyshifter}} | |||
| *{{Article status|Start|Vitor Vilela|Skyshifter}} <small>(newly tagged – originally created 2 years ago)</small> | |||
| :Yeah me too with my first good article nomination passed and been contributing to as many as hundred articles with most of them relating to video games. ]<sup>]</sup> 02:28, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| '''September 8''' | |||
| :Looks awesome! ] (]) 14:50, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *{{Article status|Stub|Kowloon Nights|IgelRM}} <small>(was previously a draft)</small> | |||
| :Happy Holidays! ] ] 17:37, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *{{Article status|Start|Bangladesh Youth Development & Electronic Sports Association|Shakib69SH}} | |||
| :Happy Holidays everyone! :D ] (]) 17:45, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *{{Article status|Start|Earl Boen|68.200.109.230}} <small>(newly tagged – originally created 18 years ago)</small> | |||
| :Happy holidays! ''] Considerer:'' ''']''' (]) (]) 18:19, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *{{Article status|Stub|Jimmy and the Crawler|Roklif}} <small>(newly tagged – originally created 9 years ago)</small> | |||
| :Happy holidays! It's been a pretty good year. ] (]) 19:51, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *{{Article status|Stub|Krondor: Tear of the Gods|Thomgibbard}} <small>(newly tagged – originally created 16 years ago)</small> | |||
| :Happy Holidays to all that read this! I can only hope things get better for all of us. ]] 20:46, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *{{Article status|Stub|Krondor: The Assassins|Coldetritus}} <small>(newly tagged – originally created 14 years ago)</small> | |||
| :Happy holidays everyone, and thanks for the productive year. Shout outs to @] for their work on Pokémon-related topics, @] for their character work, @] for their help this year, and @] for their awesome work and spirit. Everyone who was a part of this project did an awesome job this year! ] ] 20:17, 27 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *{{Article status|Stub|Krondor: The Betrayal|Kirkhigdon}} <small>(newly tagged – originally created 14 years ago)</small> | |||
| :Happy holidays! ] (]) 18:54, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *{{Article status|Start|The Riftwar Legacy|Weskey5644}} <small>(newly tagged – originally created 13 years ago)</small> | |||
| :Happy Holidays everybody. ] (]) 19:10, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Happy Holidays to all, from my holiday apartment in Milan. --] (]) 10:00, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Happy Holi- oh my God. (and a Happy New Year!) ]<sup><small>TM</small></sup> <small>(])</small> 21:24, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ==Discussion at ]== | |||
| '''September 9''' | |||
| ] You are invited to join the discussion at ]. ] (]) 14:50, 26 December 2024 (UTC)<!-- ] --> | |||
| *{{Article status|Start|Pikmin Finder|Captain Galaxy}} | |||
| *{{Article status|B|The Sims 2: University|Vaticidalprophet}} <small>(was previously a userpage)</small> | |||
| *{{Article status|Start|Enchanted Portals|Cortador}} | |||
| *{{Article status|Start|Roto Force|NinjaRobotPirate}} | |||
| *{{Article status|Start|Six Ages 2: Lights Going Out|NinjaRobotPirate}} | |||
| == Good article reassessment for ] == | |||
| '''September 10''' | |||
| ] has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the ]. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ] (]) 23:51, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *{{Article status|B|The Sims 2: Nightlife|Vaticidalprophet}} | |||
| *{{Article status|Unassessed|2020 Chicago Huntsmen season|Nitsua99}} <small>(newly tagged – originally created 2 years ago)</small> | |||
| *{{Article status|Start|Reality Lab|SteveLacey}} <small>(newly tagged – originally created 18 years ago)</small> | |||
| *{{Article status|Start|Ride 5|NinjaRobotPirate}} <small>(was previously a redirect)</small> | |||
| </div> | |||
| == Greg Martin (artist) == | |||
| == Proofread request for article "List of video game modes" == | |||
| ] was created today and I'm unsure if it meets ]. The existing sourcing is bad, but I did find and . I don't know if I'd consider them "substantial" sources, which is why I'm wondering if ARTIST would apply. Thoughts? ] (]) 00:21, 27 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| I would greatly appreciate proofreading and suggestions. Thanks! https://en.wikipedia.org/Draft_talk:List_of_video_game_modes#Suggestions/_Preparation_to_be_Accepted] (]) 21:57, 12 September 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :He is an artist though? ] (]) 00:37, 27 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == New Metacritic design, platform-specific links broken == | |||
| ::That's not what he's asking. Did you actually read ]? ] ] 00:42, 27 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Doesn't seem notable to me. There should be something else besides reports of his death. --] (]) 01:14, 27 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I don't really think NARTIST alies here. I think NARTIST only really applies if someone significantly contributed or is mostly responsible for a really, really important work. I don't think the cover art for Sonic the Hedgehog counts as a really, really important work. I And even if he met an SNG, I don't think an article should exist if there is literally zero significant sources forethat subject to work off of besides a few sentences. I cond Mika1h's comment. <span style="border:#000000;border:2px solid #000000;padding:2px">'''λ''' ]]</span> 01:17, 27 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Thank you all for the advice! The article is now at AfD: ]. ] (]) 19:50, 27 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Since yesterday, ] has a new design. As part of this, the site has changed its overview format from one page per platform per game to just one per game. For example, '']'' currently links to the following platform-specific URLs: | |||
| <pre> | |||
| https://www.metacritic.com/game/playstation-3/grand-theft-auto-v | |||
| https://www.metacritic.com/game/xbox-360/grand-theft-auto-v | |||
| https://www.metacritic.com/game/playstation-4/grand-theft-auto-v | |||
| ... | |||
| </pre> | |||
| If you access any of them now, they will lead you here: | |||
| <pre>https://www.metacritic.com/game/grand-theft-auto-v/</pre> | |||
| Regardless of which link you used, the platform shown will be the PlayStation 4 (97/100 at 66 reviews). The score shown by default seems to that generated from the most reviews, regardless of whether it has the best score (see where the lesser score has more reviews). This effectively breaks our links for the vast majority of multi-platform games. The platform-specific scores can still be found on the overview pages with all reviews, but again under a new link scheme. Previously, you would have accessed them like so: | |||
| <pre>https://www.metacritic.com/game/playstation-3/grand-theft-auto-v/critic-reviews</pre> | |||
| Now, this was changed to: | |||
| <pre>https://www.metacritic.com/game/grand-theft-auto-v/critic-reviews/?platform=playstation-3</pre> | |||
| This begs the question: Do we need to update these links for ''all'' game articles? Do we need to mark them as dead? Should either of these be a bot task? ] []] 10:17, 13 September 2023 (UTC) | |||
| == Problem with ] (should be topic, not theme) == | |||
| :My guess is that it should be a task for a bot to update all links to the correct format. It seems like it would be simple to do a find and replace and it's not a case where the link actually died. ] (]) 10:39, 13 September 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::I don't think it's as easy ans f&r because you'd want to merge some citations on multi-platform games, archived refs would need to be re-archived, and I already found where the name-in-link was changed with no working redirect. ] []] 13:36, 14 September 2023 (UTC) | |||
| : It's not a big deal. All the info is right there on the main page now. The only thing missing is the autogenerated text ("mixed or average reviews"), which can still be accessed from that page, even if you need to manually click on each platform to see it. I didn't like the new interface the first time I saw it, and I had visions of having to restore hundreds of broken links. I think it may make things easier for us, though, because of how central most of the information is. If they just fixed it so that the autogenerated text appeared for all the platforms on the main page, it'd be perfect. ] (]) 03:11, 14 September 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::If NinjaRobotPirate doesn't think it's a big deal than neither do I. ] <span style="color:#F40">•</span> ] 03:21, 14 September 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :Would be a good thing for people to go through their articles at their convenience and fix, but yeah it's not a critical issue to fix. ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 13:55, 14 September 2023 (UTC) | |||
| See analysis at ] (posted there as the issue affects few more WikiProject-related cats). TL;DR ] should be renamed to ]. Please comment there, not here. TIA. <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</sub> 04:18, 27 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Alphabetical order at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Video games/Requests == | |||
| == '']'' FAC at risk of archival == | |||
| Is it possible to put everything In Alphabetical order at ] instead of month/year added? I think that would make it easier to navigate.(my opinion) ] (]) 10:57, 13 September 2023 (UTC) | |||
| Hello everyone, I hope y'all are having a good day. Earlier this month, I ] '']'' at FAC after working on it for quite a while, and so far it's only gotten one support and might be archived within the next few days due to inactivity. If anyone would be interesting in reviewing the article and leaving comments, that would be greatly appreciated. I'm also open to review exchanges if requested. <span style="border:#000000;border:2px solid #000000;padding:2px">'''λ''' ]]</span> 22:05, 27 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I am not sure I'd support this, because the date listing emphasizes that the older ones have been waiting longer and should be done sooner. I don't see an obvious purpose behind an alphabetical listing (and it can be searched with Ctrl+F) ] (]) 20:06, 13 September 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm not opposed ''per se'', but the list is pretty long, and I wouldn't think it's worth the time and energy to make that change. (Unless you waited until the list was trimmed way down...but I don't know how likely that is either - never seems like the Request Board ever catches on all that widely...) ] ] 21:08, 13 September 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::I do think that retro games should have their own section. The sheer amount of ] older games that have been added is liable to drown out the newer titles and make it intimidating to tackle the list. ] (]) 22:04, 13 September 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::It could probably use another review and culling of unlikely article creations again. In the past there have been editors who <strike>spammed</strike> added a lot of rather "iffy" articles idea suggestions on there that are unlikely to ever be created (and/or be in a pretty iffy state if anyone attempted to create them.) ] ] 03:29, 14 September 2023 (UTC) | |||
| : ] is a semi-curated list of recently released games. You can sort it by a number of different headers, including title, release date, number of user reviews on Steam, and genre. I also listed most of the info you need to write the article. ] (]) 03:51, 14 September 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::This is a fantastic idea! As an article creator of indie games, this is particularly useful for me to leverage. ] (]) 04:48, 14 September 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *Can we address the elephant in the room that the overwhelming majority of the entries are 1980s computer games that were added by two editors, one of whom is banned. These games are virtually lost to time, only covered by contemporary sources that are difficult to acquire. ''*Nobody*'' has any desire to work these requests, so they just accumulate and clog the list. I do understand a lot of work was put into compiling those entries, but its becoming difficult to discern which requests may be different and worth pursuing. '''I propose''' moving 1980s computer games to its own section on the page. ]<sup>]/]</sup> 17:43, 14 September 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:Yes, this is what I was alluding to above. I support this. I know that personally, I keep a list of drafts I'm actively planning on working on...and then another list that are essentially "abandoned ideas" that I don't really realistically see myself doing anymore, but I still keep around because I hate to delete the work I did in source hunting. Maybe we need to do something like that? Some sort of old/stale/abandoned/unlikely type section? ] ] 17:58, 14 September 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::Perhaps the list should include a sort option for release year. I want to avoid arbitrarily splitting the requests if possible. I think this way, everybody wins. If we reorganize the list as a table too, it can be sorted alphabetically or by date added. | |||
| :::{| class="wikitable sortable plainrowheaders" | |||
| |- | |||
| !scope="col" | Requested | |||
| !scope="col" | Article | |||
| !scope="col" | Release year | |||
| !scope="col" class="unsortable" | Sources | |||
| !scope="col" class="unsortable" | Notes | |||
| |- | |||
| | {{dts|2023-09-14}} | |||
| | ] | |||
| | 1985 | |||
| | | |||
| | Put notes here | |||
| |- | |||
| | {{dts|2023-09-14}} | |||
| | ] | |||
| | 1996 | |||
| | | |||
| | Put notes here | |||
| |- | |||
| | {{dts|2023-09-14}} | |||
| | ] | |||
| | N/A | |||
| | | |||
| | Put notes here | |||
| |} | |||
| :::I will volunteer to do this. I have some upcoming time off work in the coming week. What do people think? Courtesy ping {{ping|BOZ}} ]<sup>]/]</sup> 19:16, 14 September 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Although not strictly a requests page, I have made ] as a way of cataloguing independent sources for specific games that could possibly one day be used to build articles. I have been thinking that the VG space could use something like that too (as either a replacement for, or in addition to ]). I definitely don't have the time to put that together, unfortunately, but if you want to use any ideas from my userpage that would be fine. :) ] (]) 19:28, 14 September 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I was going to recommend a table like this, especially considering the ability to organize by release year and request date. Maybe we could add an additional way to organize, such as the console it released for? I think that would also inspire people to take a look at it. ] <span style="color:#F40">•</span> ] 16:24, 15 September 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::(I would like to mention that Shigeru Miyamoto released in 1952. It's release was overlooked at first but it started to be recognized as a cult classic somewhere around 1977.) ] <span style="color:#F40">•</span> ] 23:32, 19 September 2023 (UTC) | |||
| '''Update''' | |||
| *I have completed the first steps of revamping the VG Requests page. I replaced the old list with a sortable table, so you can sort by date requested, article title, release year, or original platform. I have started entering in the release years and platforms, but this is taking time. This brings me to my next point. | |||
| :The list is long. There are 484 requests on the page as of today. There's a large chunk that are 1980s computer games, another large chunk that are modern indie games, and then "the rest". | |||
| :I just want people to know I'm going to go through the list and remove low effort requests. That is, requests that don't provide enough sources so someone can easily complete the request without having to worry about GNG and finding more sources. Some requests only link to questionable sources, or websites that have barely any information. And some requests only link to Moby Games or Metacritic, and the critics they used are few in number or unreliable. Stuff like that. ]<sup>]/]</sup> 04:14, 19 September 2023 (UTC) | |||
| == Input needed in discussion at ] == | |||
| :Nice work. MobyGames has an API, it might be easier to go through and extract the year/platform information from that. Though I support the removal of low effort stuff regardless. ― <kbd style="font-size:85%">] ] ]</kbd> 11:46, 19 September 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :Good work ] (]) 11:47, 19 September 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :It looks incredible Tarkus! | |||
| :I do agree with you striking ones without enough linked sources. I support just removing them from the list if there aren't enough sources without even checking to see if there's more out there, just for the sake of bringing down the count in this refresh. ] <span style="color:#F40">•</span> ] 15:36, 19 September 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :I am so ok with seeing the requests getting pared down. It's been a bane for me for years. Especially with the five year old requests ln there. ] 23:10, 19 September 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::I want to give a special thank you to {{user|Mir Novov}} who finished the grueling work of adding in the original platforms and release years. The request page is now a lot more useful and I implore everyone to check it out. ]<sup>]/]</sup> 06:27, 21 September 2023 (UTC) | |||
| There is an ongoing discussion at ] regarding which of the two proposed lead sections would be better. Input in the discussion would be appreciated. ] (]) 17:49, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Input on possible name change of an article == | |||
| == Nomination of ] for featured list removal == | |||
| As the article belongs to the ], I thought I share my thoughts in here. I recently reworked the article about the German Computer Game Awards (]). I already opened a topic about a possible name change at the talk page a couple of months ago and got no response (the options are now outdated though). | |||
| I have nominated ] for featured list removal. Please ] on whether this article meets the ]. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are ].<!-- Template:FLRCMessage --> 🍕]🍕 (]) 05:37, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Your Wikiproject Video Games New Years Resolution == | |||
| There is currently one non-german source that refers to the award as the German Computer Game Awards while the German Games Industry Association ''game'' also uses that translation on their official page. Examples that translate the original language into English are the Czech Game of the Year Awards or Slovak Game of the Year Awards. | |||
| ] | |||
| I'm aware that I recently did a "non-productive post" above (as my haters call them) but I thought this would be fun. After all, who ''doesn't'' love an icebreaker? I don't! | |||
| What's your Misplaced Pages-related resolution for 2025? '''What new projects, achievements, or goals do you want to get done in the new year?''' Then we can look back and see both the people who conquered their goals and the people we should leave behind for 2026. | |||
| Can anyone share their thoughts on this? Or maybe tell me what steps I should take on other than using a talk page? I have no previous experience on renaming / moving articles. Thanks! ] (]) 23:29, 17 September 2023 (UTC) | |||
| * 2024 was a pretty lame work year for me. I'm going to get ] to GA in 2025, I promise. I'm certain one year is enough cushion for me to actually do something. ] <span style="color:#F40">•</span> ] 04:04, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I think that, as well as , is good enough to invoke ]. You have to start a ] discussion on the article talk page if you want it to be seriously discussed. ] (]) 02:52, 18 September 2023 (UTC) | |||
| * I'm hoping to finally get '']'' to GA this year. ] (]) 04:19, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * Outside real-world stuff, finish bringing the '']/Project Zero'' series and its entries to GA status (don't think I'll try for a GT as my last two GTs were very neatly stalled by the sudden creation of an article with insisted inclusion) --] (]) 07:53, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::If anything, it should be "German Computer Game Award" (singular) per the award's site features. ] []] 08:20, 18 September 2023 (UTC) | |||
| * I don't have nearly as much time as I had during the pandemic. But I'd like to take a couple more articles to GA or FA. Areas I'm still interested in: historic games, historic game developers/studios, and anything related to the ] task force. ] is next on my docket. I'd also like to keep encouraging other peoples' good work, and continue discussions about how to adapt to the collapse of quality video game journalism. ] (]) 18:12, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * Keep expanding the quality coverage of ], both by removing and merging superfluous content, and by improving the quality of pre-existing articles and bringing them to Good and Featured status. Hoping to get at least one or two more of the species lists up to FL this year, though I'll hopefully complete more than that. ''] Considerer:'' ''']''' (]) (]) 00:37, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * The music world hasn't been holding my interest lately, so I'm planning on continuing to focus on WP:VG related stuff. I plan on splitting my time between more retro stuff (90s ] stuff like the ] games) and new stuff (like everything ] once that's finally revealed.) ] ] 16:40, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Gameplay of Pokemon == | |||
| ==New Articles (September 11 to September 17)== | |||
| {{main|Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements}} | |||
| I was relieved to see such as strong consensus at ]. It's not that we can't find sources, but that it duplicates the same types of content you'd see at ]. With that said, I wanted to check if anyone felt similarly about ] or ]. ] (]) 18:17, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| <small>A listing of all articles newly added to the Video Games Wikiproject (regardless of creation date). Generated by v3.15 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --''']]''' 20:12, 18 September 2023 (UTC)</small> | |||
| :I'm generally against any of these gameplay/reception/awards type article spin outs. These two examples are much better written and sourced than the ''Pokemon'' was, but I'm still not certain a separate article is required... ] ] 19:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Articles deleted/removed:''' ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ] | |||
| ::At first blush looking at the above, I'd lean towards saying "no" to standalone articles. From base principles it's highly unlikely the ''gameplay'' of a game is notable ''independent'' of the coverage of the game itself (or a lot of the coverage leans into ]-type stuff) but also I don't see where the level of coverage makes sense for a general encyclopedia. I don't need a blow-by-blow of all the quest types in ''WoW'', for example. ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 19:57, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Articles redirected:''' ], ], ], ], ], ] | |||
| :::Agreed. I was surprised someone felt the need for the ''Dragon Quest'' spinout too. They're fine games, but they're pretty straightforward, ] type games. ] ] 20:31, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Categories deleted/removed:''' ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ] | |||
| ::::Looks like someone wrote it in 2010 and it hasn't gotten much more than 50 edits of any kind in the 15 years since. --''']]''' 20:36, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Templates deleted/removed:''' {{tl|AC Monza sections}} | |||
| :I do believe those are probably better off merged/redirected back to the target. I'm not seeing much in the way of a valid split-out rationale for these that would indicate their gameplay is standalone notable. ''] Considerer:'' ''']''' (]) (]) 00:55, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''New categories:''' ] <small>— {{u|Waxworker}}</small>, ] <small>— {{u|Waxworker}}</small>, ] <small>— {{u|Waxworker}}</small>, ] <small>— {{u|Jotamide}}</small> | |||
| *'''New templates:''' {{tl|D4DJ}} <small>— {{u|Willy2312}}</small> | |||
| It kind of echoes my feelings on ]. So much of it is redundant to what's already present at ], and it feels like it'd be better served being merged back into it, or have the EarthBound 64 stuff expanded upon. - ] (]) 20:06, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| <div style="line-height:1.4em !important"> | |||
| :Personally, I am very fond of these types of articles and the amount of depth they lend to angles on these works. "Gameplay of" articles do tend to be terrible to source tho, and the "Gameplay of ''Pokémon''" article never reached the quality I would hope for it. "Gameplay of ''Dragon Quest''" is particularly odd to me, as it hardly explains mechanics unique to the series and it's pretty short. At least ''Pokémon'' has a swath of fairly unique mechanics that I believe would be really useful to describe in-depth. Perhaps it'd be more of a Wikibooks kind of deal tho, if that project ever worked out. ~] (]) 09:43, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| '''September 11''' | |||
| *{{Article status|B|The Sims 2: Open for Business|Vaticidalprophet}} <small>(was previously a userpage)</small> | |||
| *{{Article status|Start|Fae Farm|NinjaRobotPirate}} <small>(was previously a redirect)</small> | |||
| *{{Article status|C|The Sims 2 (Game Boy Advance video game)|Cat's Tuxedo}} | |||
| *I'll defend ] as save for a few areas, I've made sure it is sourced to reliable secondary sources talking about these gameplay elements to a reasonable depth (of course, most of the that came from the period while there was attention with the Overwatch League and helping viewers understand rules); it also helps alleviate size issues. I consider it compariable to ] which due to similar attention via tourneys has had its rules/gameplay evaluated in depth. For those reasons, I think ] is a reasonably fair split from the main WoW article (which covers more of how big and significant it is to the industry) and just needs a bit more sourcing to make it better. But key on these is the use of secondary sources to show that the gameplay or rules have been discussed beyond simple coverage of the whole game itself. The Pokemon gameplay article had problems with very little sourcing along those lines (though you'd think that should be possible with how big the franchise is). The Dragon Quest case, that seems rather more difficult given the niche of JRPGs. (Common features of JRPGs and CRPGs in general, however, are absolutely fair game in the genre articles). ] (]) 14:00, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| '''September 12''' | |||
| *{{Article status|C|Atari 8-bit family software|Fourohfour}} <small>(newly tagged – originally created 16 years ago)</small> | |||
| *{{Article status|Start|RDCWorld|Soulbust}} <small>(was previously a userpage)</small> | |||
| *{{Article status|Start|Mythforce|NinjaRobotPirate}} | |||
| === Live service games === | |||
| '''September 13''' | |||
| *{{Article status|B|Apple Inc.|212.53.104.xxx}} <small>(newly tagged – originally created 21 years ago)</small> | |||
| *{{Article status|Start|Chants of Sennaar|NinjaRobotPirate}} | |||
| I decided to take ] to AFD based on what appears to be a consensus here. The problem is that "X series" and "Gameplay of X series" have the same scope, just with more ] detail. Masem brought up some points about splitting the gameplay from the Blizzard games, and while I disagree, I think it's worth discussing. I disagree that "Gameplay of WoW" is any less of a redundant fork. But I do see how these games are actually multiple releases and updates over several years. Despite World of Warcraft not being a game series, its history is longer than many game series, with more ] than many series. And yet it doesn't have a "series" article separate from the original release. | |||
| '''September 14''' | |||
| *{{Article status|Stub|Shiren the Wanderer 6: Toguro Island Exploration Record|Adkuate}} | |||
| *{{Article status|Unassessed|Princess Peach: Showtime!|LilianaUwU}} <small>(was previously a draft)</small> | |||
| *{{Article status|Start|Dancing Stage EuroMix|LABcrabs}} <small>(was previously a redirect)</small> | |||
| *{{Article status|Start|Under the Waves|NinjaRobotPirate}} | |||
| TLDR: "Gameplay of X series" is redundant with "X series", but long-running live service games might have several expansions/updates without having a separate series article. Is there a way to rename / move these article titles to improve their scope and viability? ] (]) 17:49, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| '''September 15''' | |||
| :In my mind, the main and perhaps only reason one would ever write a "gameplay of X" article, is when that game or series is played competitively. In such cases, the gameplay is very important separately from the games as commercial products or pieces of art on their own. Graphics and music, development and reception, it all falls away as irrelevant in that field, and you get a fairly separate topic to describe. I don't know if this really makes sense with live-service games. I wouldn't create "Gameplay of Fortnite", I think I would create "History of Fortnite" instead, as this would still be about the product as a whole, not just about its gameplay. ~] (]) 09:28, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *{{Article status|Unassessed|Carth Onasi|Haleth}} <small>(was previously a redirect)</small> | |||
| ::It really depends on the live-service game. I don't think that in terms of any specific mode of Fortnite like Battle Royale has changed significantly over the years, but that there are gameplay elements that come and go during its seasons, so an article here like ] makes sense (in addition to the fact this is also documented in reliable sources). Whereas with Destiny 2, there are significant lasting changes with most of its expansions (also covered by sources) so in that case, the individual expansions serve this (Though in that case, most of those due need a trim). | |||
| *{{Article status|C|Kyle Katarn|Haleth}} <small>(was previously a redirect)</small> | |||
| ::Separately, because of how Fortnite transitioned from a single idea to Battle Royale to a metaverse platform, the main Fortnite article is more a history of the product and less about the gameplay changes. ] (]) 13:05, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *{{Article status|C|Agatha Knife|Vrxces}} | |||
| :::My first reaction to @] and @] is that we might have a separate article for long-standing games with lots of post-release support. I agree that "History of Fortnite" or "Fortnite seasonal events" is a better article/scope than Gameplay of Fortnite. Maplestrip focuses more on competitive games, which is a valid point. I'd say there's a big overlap between competitive games and games-as-service, or other forms of post-release support. | |||
| *{{Article status|Start|EA App|Epicamused}} <small>(was previously a redirect – un-redirected 1 month ago)</small> | |||
| :::I still feel strongly that "Gameplay of X" is too redundant in scope. But a game with lots of post-release support over many years, like Fortnite or even WoW, might still deserve an additional article to document its evolution. Maybe "List of X expansions" or "List of X updates" or "List of X special events"? I'd be a little nervous about ] here, but for a game with a decade of history and lots of discourse about balance and updates, it's in the right direction. The spirit of my suggestion is supposed to be similar to ], without setting a precedent that every game gets such a list. ] (]) 15:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ** Non-notable. Redirected. ]] 20:33, 18 September 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Key is how reliable sources treat the live service aspect of the game. WOW, Destiny 2, Fortnite, Overwatch -- all have gotten reasonably good coverage of how the game changes, whereas Apex Legends or Valorant may have had that at the start but has significantly waned relative to these.<span id="Masem:1736024145240:Wikipedia_talkFTTCLNWikiProject_Video_games" class="FTTCmt"> — ] (]) 20:55, 4 January 2025 (UTC)</span> | |||
| *{{Article status|List|List of video games with PS1-style tank controls|Spellbinding Nitwit}} | |||
| :::::What do you think is a better title for these types of articles? The problem with ] is nearly any notable game would also have secondary sources that cover the gameplay of the game, making it really subjective if we should have one article or two. ] (]) 16:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *{{Article status|Start|Mr Love: Queen's Choice|Philafrenzy}} <small>(newly tagged – originally created 4 years ago)</small> | |||
| ::::::"List of X seasons", "List of X seasonal events", or "X seasons" or "X seasonal events", the latter if there are sources that broadly discuss the games seasonal structure. ] (]) 16:32, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ==New Articles (December 29 to January 1)== | |||
| '''September 16''' | |||
| *{{Article status|Start|Gerda: A Flame in Winter|IgelRM}} | |||
| *{{Article status|Start|SaGa: Emerald Beyond|ProtoDrake}} | |||
| {{main|Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements}} | |||
| '''September 17''' | |||
| *{{Article status|Start|2023 Formula One Esports Series|Tamás Szüts}} | |||
| *{{Article status|Start|F-Zero 99|Boyohboy231}} <small>(was previously a redirect)</small> | |||
| *{{Article status|Start|Ghostrunner 2|OceanHok}} <small>(was previously a redirect)</small> | |||
| *{{Article status|List|List of Brawlers (Brawl Stars)|V.B.Speranza}} <small>(was previously a draft)</small> | |||
| </div> | |||
| ::]. ]. ] 20:20, 18 September 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ---- | |||
| ] seems like a very notable list. --''']]''' 20:12, 18 September 2023 (UTC) | |||
| <small>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. --''']]''' 20:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC)</small> | |||
| ::Maybe! We've had "21 years ago" 3 other times- ], ], and ], but I haven't checked where in the year range they actually fell. --''']]''' 15:43, 19 September 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::I checked out of curiosity, since this would also make the winner the oldest article recognized by WPVG: | |||
| :::* '''WarGames:''' First edit 06:01, 24 January 2002 | |||
| :::* {{color|#732b14|'''Apple Inc.:''' First edit 08:19, 3 November 2001}} | |||
| :::* {{color|#85817f|'''Demoscene:''' First edit 10:27, 11 October 2001}} | |||
| :::* {{color|#c7ab0e|'''George Lucas:''' First edit 14:50, 2 July 2001}} | |||
| :::I'm curious why George Lucas the article is recognized by the project at all. He's only tangentially related to video games due to the property he's made (it would be as if JK Rowling was under the project because of all the Harry Potter games), and the word "video game" isn't even mentioned in his article. Am I missing a better connection between the two? | |||
| :::According to these stats (if I'm wrong about Lucas), that would also make ] the first honorary member of WPVG. ] <span style="color:#F40">•</span> ] 16:11, 19 September 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Lucas really shouldn't be tagged, as you mention, and I've removed it. Apple Inc. does seem valid as they've become a pretty huge player in the gaming space, albeit not in the realm more traditionally covered by game journalism (and Misplaced Pages, for that matter.) ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 16:20, 19 September 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Therefore: | |||
| :::::* {{color|#732b14| '''WarGames:''' First edit 06:01, 24 January 2002}} | |||
| :::::* {{color|#85817f|'''Apple Inc.:''' First edit 08:19, 3 November 2001}} | |||
| :::::* {{color|#c7ab0e|'''Demoscene:''' First edit 10:27, 11 October 2001}} | |||
| :::::] is the first honorary member of WPVG! ] <span style="color:#F40">•</span> ] 16:47, 19 September 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: In terms of the gap from when it was created to when it was tagged: | |||
| ::::::* {{color|#732b14| '''WarGames:''' 24 January 2002—19 March 2023: 21 years, 1 month, 23 days}} | |||
| ::::::* {{color|#85817f|'''Demoscene:''' 11 October 2001—24 December, 2022: 21 years, 2 months, 13 days}} | |||
| ::::::* {{color|#c7ab0e|'''Apple Inc.:''' 3 November 2001—13 September, 2023: 21 years, 10 months, 10 days}} | |||
| :::::: So you're right, Apple has had the largest gap so far from creation to tagging. --''']]''' 17:00, 19 September 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::The ''oldest'' VG article overall will likely be ] itself. The history goes back to March 2001 where some kind of merge occurred, so it will have been even older than that. ] []] 21:33, 20 September 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ←) Any opinions on ]? Keep as is or redirect? Sudden announcement and release so lack of significant coverage. I believe there will be a slow and steady release of reviews, but still seems like it will stay a small article that can neatly fit on ]. ] 18:43, 19 September 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Articles deleted/removed:''' ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ] | |||
| :I think it's fine as a stand alone. I've seen a lot of coverage, and there's a fair amount of sourcing and content on the articles. My two cents - an attempt to merge it would likely lead to drawn out discussions that would result in the article being kept. ] ] 20:19, 19 September 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Drafts deleted/removed:''' ], ], ], ], ] | |||
| :I would say that the game has definitely received enough coverage to meet GNG. ] (]) 17:41, 20 September 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Articles redirected:''' ], ], ], ], ], ] | |||
| *'''New categories:''' ] <small>— {{u|TrademarkedTWOrantula}}</small>, ] <small>— {{u|TrademarkedTWOrantula}}</small>, ] <small>— {{u|AHI-3000}}</small>, ] <small>— {{u|AHI-3000}}</small>, ] <small>— {{u|Mika1h}}</small>, ] <small>— {{u|TrademarkedTWOrantula}}</small> | |||
| *'''New templates:''' {{tl|MPL Philippines}} <small>— {{u|WIZ*ONEI}}</small> <small>(newly tagged - originally created 6 months ago)</small> | |||
| <div style="line-height:1.4em !important"> | |||
| == 3O requested - Notability met for Defold? == | |||
| '''December 29''' | |||
| *{{Article status|Stub|Atomic Betty (video game)|Timur9008}} <small>(was previously a redirect)</small> | |||
| *{{Article status|C|Go Home Annie|Kiksam}} <small>(previously a draft: accepted ] submission)</small> | |||
| *{{Article status|Start|Highway 2000 (video game)|Mika1h}} | |||
| *{{Article status|Start|My Little Pony: A Maretime Bay Adventure|AmericanBaath}} <small>(was previously a redirect – un-redirected 5 months ago)</small> | |||
| *{{Article status|B|What the Car?|Vrxces}} | |||
| '''December 30''' | |||
| Please see ], looking for a relatively quick support/oppose discussion on whether sourcing has reached levels appropriate for ]. The question is whether enough sustained sigcov has been found. Unfortunately there is a LOT of non-independent sourcing here, but I think we've gotten a good set of sources lined up. The article needs carefully handling due to very heavy COI editing. -- ] (]) 18:22, 19 September 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *{{Article status|Start|Sher Machado|Skyshifter}} | |||
| ==The Day of Sigma== | |||
| *{{Article status|C|Vostu|Sondesol}} <small>(newly tagged – originally created 17 years ago)</small> | |||
| I've been trying to expand ] but I'm kinda not sure about something. Once the player beats the game, they have access to a 30 minute episode based on the villain's past. Should I elaborate about the episode's plot somewhere like the plot section? Cheers.] (]) 22:01, 19 September 2023 (UTC) | |||
| '''December 31''' | |||
| == Pokemon Scarlet and Violet: The Hidden Treasure of Area Zero == | |||
| *None | |||
| '''January 1''' | |||
| There is currently a ] on the talk page as to whether or not this DLC deserves an article now that some of it has released. I myself am abstaining from the vote since I don't want to be spoiled from the plot of the DLC. ― ]]<sub title="Discord Username" style="margin-left:-22q;">blaze__wolf</sub> 19:06, 21 September 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *{{Article status|Stub|Chō (Tsuki Amano song)|Michellesusanto}} <small>(newly tagged – originally created 14 years ago)</small> | |||
| *{{Article status|Start|Miniatures (video game)|ThanatosApprentice}} <small>(previously a draft: undrafted by original creator)</small> | |||
| *{{Article status|Start|Sorry We're Closed|Vrxces}} | |||
| *{{Article status|Start|Space Fishermen|MimirIsSmart}} | |||
| *{{Article status|Start|Talon Warburton|174.231.54.74}} <small>(was previously a redirect)</small> | |||
| </div> | |||
| ---- | |||
| The 1.0 bot fell down for a while due to some template/category changes, and I'm not going to be home for the next normal run day, so rather than make some mega-post on the 13th I'll cut it in half and post some of it now. --''']]''' 20:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Good article reassessment for ] == | |||
| :Perhaps I can blank out the plot for now as a compromise? ] (]) 19:09, 21 September 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ] has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the ]. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ] (]) 23:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == |
== Featured List Removal for a relevant article == | ||
| Hi everyone, | |||
| I have nominated ] for featured list removal. Please ] on whether this article meets the ]. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are ].<!-- Template:FLRCMessage --> ] (]) 23:18, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| I noticed that occasionally open source games use the {{tp|Infobox software}}, as in '']'' for instance. Shouldn't these use {{tp|Infobox video game}}? It lists more technical information, which might be more suitable for an open source (or open software) game, but I do not see the benefits of listing coding languages, stable releases, etc. Thoughts? ]. ] 12:44, 22 September 2023 (UTC) | |||
| == Translation help == | |||
| :A great deal of such examples were done by Shaddim and Codename Lisa, both indef blocked by the community at this time and much of it since reverted. However this particular case was switched from Infobox VG to Infobox Software back in 2007... by another indefinite blocked user. I don't have a strong feeling on it, it can be looked at case by case, but the short answer is it's a video game using a different infobox to provide fields that have been judged unnecessary or inappropriate for video game articles (on basis of MOS:VG and {{tl|Infobox video game}}). I would say take a look at the ''secondary'' sourcing. Is it focusing on the game as game? Or as a project/development effort? The article is drenched in primary and unreliable/userg sources right now. -- ] (]) 12:56, 22 September 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::I would tend to argue that with true open source projects, fewer of the fields in the VG infobox will be able to filled in (no publisher, rarely any individual credits, etc.) while the software infobox is more complete. You get unusual situations like ] which got commercially published later and thus has a VG infobox. | |||
| ::I would say that we should follow approach like selection of date or English variety - don't change it from what the original author had included without engaging in consensus for that change on the talk page. ] (]) 13:14, 22 September 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::@] If that's how we should do it, for this particular case the ''original'' infobox was the VG one. But the change over was long long ago. -- ] (]) 13:31, 22 September 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::If the change was made yesterday and the user indef blocked, changing it back is fine, but with the age of that change, it is still better to seek consensus to change. But I do think that it is best as a page-by-page decision of which infobox gives the better "picture" of what the game is. ] (]) 14:13, 22 September 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :With the Freeciv example, what is the benefit of the software infobox? Stable/beta releases is arguably something we shouldn't cover ''at all'', and certainly don't cover for games, stuff like the git repo is irrelevant since there's already an official link for the site on the page, the languages are irrelevant unless significantly covered by secondary sources, etc. Seems like bloat that would be solved with a video game infobox in this case. ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 20:12, 22 September 2023 (UTC) | |||
| == Using box art images == | |||
| Hi, I'm wanting to edit the ] page to include an image of the back box art, but not sure how to navigate it regarding copyright and licensing. I've posted on that talk page, but just to paste it here for ease: | |||
| I want to add to show the back cover for the game. I am aware that the game cover itself is likely copyrighted material, and I also am not sure how the licensing works being derived from GameFAQs as well. I saw that there's ], but am not sure how simple or nuanced it would be to add an image from another source. | |||
| Thanks :] <>< ] (]) 11:26, 23 September 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :Unless there is some significant discussion from sources about the back cover of a game, we never include back cover art. The front cover is used for identification of the game and is allowed, but that's it. --] (]) 13:23, 23 September 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::Masem and @] - got it, thank you for letting me know. | |||
| ::@] my reasoning was that it contains some information about the gameplay so would be a direct source to show, and in general would just be more data to show to 'flesh out' the article. However with reasoning given by others, yeah I won't do that - I'll just try and source the information otherwise. | |||
| ::Thanks! <>< ] (]) 19:33, 25 September 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::Let's say the back of the box says "Contains over 40 rad levels!" and it's the only place that info is stated, you can technically source it to the game without actually using the image in question. It's fairly rare that the back of the box has useful information (at least compared to, say, the manual) but in any event, the image itself doesn't have to be used. ] (]) 19:44, 25 September 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :Why did you want to do that? ] ] 14:02, 23 September 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :There's pretty much no reason to ever add back cover art unless it's specifically discussed, that would go against fair use (using the minimum copyrighted images necessary). ] (]) 17:21, 23 September 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :MobyGames is permitted as an external link via template (which has a cover database). ] (]) 23:32, 23 September 2023 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| As in the article link, ] has been nominated for deletion. Bringing up here and at the Square Enix WikiProject so general and specific input can be brought. I'm not sure how to go with this, and the tone of the nom kinda threw me off speaking honestly. If it ends up being deleted, all well and good, but comments required. ] (]) 12:52, 25 September 2023 (UTC) | |||
| == Portal:Video games == | |||
| I'd like to float a discussion here to the project, regarding the maintenance and continued existence of ]. With over 110,000 incoming links, it is one of the most linked subject specific portals and garners relatively high views compared to many others. Unfortunately, "relatively" means those 110,000 links result in only 200 views a day. A few years ago, much of the portal infrastructure was revamped and automated, so that the front pages would not require constant maintenance. However, it still requires various subpages to be populated and updated. The FA and GA sections stay up-to-date because they feed off our own maintained project subpages. However, the "Selected Pictures" are fed by a subpage that doesn't seem to have been maintained since ~2008-2009. The DKY list seems to have not been updated since it was created in 2016. The "This month in video gaming" subpages appear to have gone unmaintained since ~2008-2009 as well. The "Selected Topics" haven't been updated since ~2012-2014 (This one is difficult to check as it requires looking at dozens of subpages). The "General Images" carousel is fed by just 5 pages and essentially static (Early history of video games, History of video games, History of arcade video games, History of video game consoles, Video game). | |||
| This project is, nominally, responsible for maintaining this portal. So the question is... do we want to? Are we going to? If the project has a consensus that this portal will not or is not maintained, I plan to submit an MfD for it's deletion. To be clear, this discussion itself cannot result in the portal being deleted. It's to gauge where the project sits before going to the wider community for MfD. -- ] (]) 15:28, 25 September 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :I find portals in general to be pointless, and unmaintained ones even more so. I'd be in favor of deleting this. --''']]''' 17:21, 25 September 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::Same. I feel they're like categories as in editors greatly overestimate their use by general readership. Most people probably don't even know they exist. ] ] 18:53, 25 September 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::Seconded. I've never seen a point in portals and I wouldn't be mad if they were deprecated project-wide. Let's start by deleting this one. ] []] 22:07, 25 September 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :It is never discussed. It is not maintained. It serves no purpose. Delete. ]<sup>]/]</sup> 19:28, 25 September 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :I agree with deleting it. It's clearly not serving its intended purpose, both in terms of features (a lot has changed in video gaming since the various sections were maintained) and in terms of readership. ― <kbd style="font-size:85%">] ] ]</kbd> 21:35, 25 September 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :'''''Down with the portals! Revolution!''''' per nom. ] <span style="color:#F40">•</span> ] 21:48, 25 September 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Keep''' Maybe it's running on fumes, but 300 views still means 300 people believe the Video Games Portal is an interesting thing to click on. The philosophy of Misplaced Pages is to ], which means, why not do the maintenance other people didn't? You'd be making those 300 people happier rather than saddening them that the portal is now gone. ] (]) 22:01, 25 September 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:Being bold is about making edits you want to make without agonizing over it, because they can always be fixed if there's an issue. It's not "do things you don't want to do and don't want to volunteer for". If no one is doing the work, it languishes and is a disservice to anyone clicking on it. People click because we have over 110,000 articles that show a highlighted navigation box saying "Go here!". It's unfortunate all we know is they clicked and not how disappointed they were. -- ] (]) 22:06, 25 September 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:I keep re-reading ferret's original comment trying to figure which part of it would inspire this sort of response. They're laying out a case for its overall irrelevance and deletion, and you suggest ''they'' clean it up instead? What? ] ] 22:20, 25 September 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :I agree with the others. Never knew the portal(s) existed, and it appears that this portal is relatively unknown by even Misplaced Pages users, judging by the fact that it has only 200 views a day despite over 100,000+ pages having a link to it somewhere. Seeing that it has hardly been updated in years. unless someone intends to steward it for a long time in the future, I would delete it/mark it as historical. ] ] 22:14, 25 September 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :Delete it. Anything salvageable can be moved into the WikiProjet page instead (or perhaps ]), although I'm not sure there's even anything to salvage. (Alternatively, redirecting to ] is acceptable, with it being a hard redirect that only a DRV could reverse.) ] (]) 00:53, 26 September 2023 (UTC) | |||
| * It has so many inbound links and still gets some views, and it is a pretty nice "front page for video games on wikipedia". Maybe we should just remove the sections whose maintenance cannot be automated. <span style="background:black;padding:1px 4px">] ]</span> 04:11, 26 September 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ==New Articles (September 18 to September 24)== | |||
| {{main|Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements}} | |||
| <small>A listing of all articles newly added to the Video Games Wikiproject (regardless of creation date). Generated by v3.15 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --''']]''' 20:26, 25 September 2023 (UTC)</small> | |||
| *'''Articles deleted/removed:''' ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ] | |||
| *'''Articles redirected:''' ], ], ], ], ], ], ] | |||
| *'''Templates deleted/removed:''' {{tl|Blood (Monolith Productions)}}, {{tl|Red vs. Blue}} | |||
| *'''New categories:''' ] <small>— {{u|Waxworker}}</small>, ] <small>— {{u|Waxworker}}</small>, ] <small>— {{u|Waxworker}}</small> | |||
| *'''New templates:''' {{tl|The Crew}} <small>— {{u|WikiPediaAid}}</small> <small>(newly tagged - originally created 2 months ago)</small> | |||
| <div style="line-height:1.4em !important"> | |||
| '''September 18''' | |||
| *{{Article status|Unassessed|Defold|EttorePancini}} <small>(was previously a draft)</small> | |||
| *{{Article status|C|The Sims 2: Pets|Vaticidalprophet}} <small>(was previously a userpage)</small> | |||
| *{{Article status|Stub|Eggy Party|Mx. Granger}} | |||
| *{{Article status|Disambig|Mortal Kombat 1 (disambiguation)|67.70.25.175}} <small>(was previously a draft)</small> | |||
| *{{Article status|Draft|Unnamed Nintendo console|TheJoebro64}} | |||
| '''September 19''' | |||
| *{{Article status|B|A Case of Distrust|Vrxces}} | |||
| *{{Article status|Stub|PBA Bowling (1982 video game)|Timur9008}} | |||
| '''September 20''' | |||
| *{{Article status|Start|Pokémon Scarlet and Violet: The Hidden Treasure of Area Zero|Visokor}} <small>(was previously a redirect)</small> | |||
| *{{Article status|Start|The Elder Scrolls VI|ElijahPepe}} <small>(was previously a redirect)</small> | |||
| *{{Article status|Stub|Neo Geo Pocket Color Selection|Cyberlink420}} | |||
| *{{Article status|Start|Sims Community|Dinosimscommunity}} <small>(was previously a draft)</small> | |||
| '''September 21''' | |||
| '''September 22''' | |||
| *{{Article status|Start|Mega Man X DiVE|Tintor2}} <small>(was previously a redirect)</small> | |||
| *{{Article status|Start|Laya's Horizon|IgelRM}} | |||
| *{{Article status|Stub|Mike Bilder|RylanMalk}} <small>(newly tagged – originally created 25 days ago)</small> | |||
| *{{Article status|Start|Pokémon and pornography|Skyshifter}} | |||
| *{{Article status|C|Pokémon doujinshi incident|Skyshifter}} | |||
| *{{Article status|C|The Legend of Heroes: Trails Through Daybreak|Dissident93}} | |||
| *{{Article status|Stub|Tsukasa Tawada|Spacedog7}} <small>(newly tagged – originally created 16 years ago)</small> | |||
| *{{Article status|Start|Wanted: Dead|NinjaRobotPirate}} <small>(was previously a redirect)</small> | |||
| '''September 23''' | |||
| *{{Article status|Start|2023 Overwatch League playoffs|Pbrks}} <small>(was previously a redirect)</small> | |||
| *{{Article status|Start|Decarnation|NinjaRobotPirate}} | |||
| *{{Article status|Start|Star Trek: Infinite|TurnipWatch}} | |||
| '''September 24''' | |||
| *{{Article status|Start|Touch! Generations|Zxcvbnm}} <small>(was previously a redirect)</small> | |||
| *{{Article status|Unassessed|Boatmurdered|FlotillaFlotsam}} <small>(was previously a redirect)</small> | |||
| *{{Article status|Unassessed|Haven Park|Vrxces}} | |||
| </div> | |||
| ---- | |||
| ::I'm..uh...no expert on the subject matter, but should those two similarly themed 'Pokemon'' articles be merged? ] ] 22:28, 25 September 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::I translated the doujinshi incident page from ja.wiki. IMO, it's independently notable, having had a great impact on the doujinshi industry and receiving significant coverage in Japanese. If it was merged, I think it would be a little strange for the ] article, which is a more general topic, to talk so extensively about a specific 1999 incident. At the moment, I think it has enough content to be its own article. <big>]</big> ] 22:41, 25 September 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Gotcha. Both are pretty short, so I just felt like the "content area" was being spread a bit thin is all. ] ] 23:12, 25 September 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::::While I am unsure if there's a good place to merge them right now, I think we'd be far better off with a ] article that includes such subject matter within it than an article like that with such a limited scope. It would be structured in the same way as others from ]. ] (]) 04:23, 26 September 2023 (UTC) | |||
| There are some weird redirects after the creation of recent Sims 2 expansion articles: ], ], ], ]. Should their ]? --] (]) 00:08, 26 September 2023 (UTC) | |||
| Hello, I am writing here to request help with some source title translations. I am currently working on implementing the suggestion on the ] for ] and one of the suggestions is for the non-English sources to have translated titles. I currently have all the non-English sources on ]; containing 28 Japanese sources, 3 Spanish sources, 1 Finnish source, 1 French source, 1 Brazilian Portuguese source and 1 Indonesian source. If anyone is able to provide help with this that would be very much appreciated. Hope to hear back, ]] 12:07, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Yeah... that's uh, not really the way it should have been done. {{u|Vaticidalprophet}} this isn't really proper. The old pages should be moved back, and then a proper histmerge done. -- ] (]) 00:13, 26 September 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::Sure, yep -- do whatever needs doing. There's not many good non-admin ways to manage the histories here, so my intent was to move them out of the way while working on the articles (which I originally only intended to take a week or so) then request histmerges once that was done. I still expect the whole series will be done in a couple weeks or so, so I was still planning on making that req once it was finished. Having said that, to make it clear, currently the main ] article needs those histories pointed there for attribution, because it was made of merging those versions -- I'm not sure it'd be proper to do the histmerges right now while that article hasn't yet been rewritten? Genuinely 'not sure', to be clear. | |||
| ::<small>Also, is there some way to turn off notifications for these without muting Pres?</small> ]] 00:29, 26 September 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::<small>I've just added a bit to the script to not tag specific people, with your username included, so next time you won't be notified. --''']]''' 00:44, 26 September 2023 (UTC)</small> | |||
| :::Wait, sorry, to explain the situation in further depth: | |||
| :::*] was created by merging all of those old versions into a single article (with no further edits to listify), so it needs their histories pointed there for attribution | |||
| :::*The re-split articles have no content from the old versions | |||
| :::*The main list is still "all the old versions straight down in order", though once the series itself is finished it'll be rewritten into a true list | |||
| :::My understanding of how attribution works is that the histories should be pointed at the list, at least currently. Is this correct? ]] 00:37, 26 September 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The proper thing to do would have been the far simpler route: instead of splitting its history, the old article should have been retained and recreated. I'm pretty sure that, as long as a page isn't outright deleted, attribution can still occur without the page necessarily being ''pointed'' at the target, simply by using boilerplate templates to indicate as such. ] (]) 04:27, 26 September 2023 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 12:07, 7 January 2025
| Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks | |
AfDs
|
Other discussions
No major discussions
Featured content candidates 
Reviews and reassessments 
|
Articles that need...
| |
| Shortcut: WT:VG | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Project watchlist | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Page for Elden Ring Shadow of the Erdtree?
Given Shadow of the Erdtree's treatment as a "game" at the Game Awards, I'd say it's more deserving than most of its own page due to its outsized notability. However, I want to be sure that consensus is there before I bother trying to potentially make it. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:30, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- I am surprised it doesn't have a page yet. All three Skyrim DLCs have their own pages, so I don't see why Shadow of the Erdtree can't. QuicoleJR (talk) 23:35, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- Shadow of the Erdtree was treated as DLC at the Game Awards - they made it clear all DLC, expansions, remakes, and remasters can qualify for any of the awards.
- Given that the only real in-depth coverage would be in reviews - nothing about new gameplay or development aspects - it doesn't make sense to have a separate article. Masem (t) 00:04, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- Could there be discussion of the game's plotline? (Oinkers42) (talk) 00:22, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'd say it depends entirely on coverage; we've got plenty of DLC articles I think we probably shouldn't have, and plenty I think justify themselves. (From the above mentions, I'm not sure that the Skyrim expansions really justify themselves, likewise The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt – Hearts of Stone and The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt – Blood and Wine basically have nothing there indicating separate notability. Versus BioShock 2: Minerva's Den, which has the benefit of more development info, as well as an outsized influential legacy on other games, it wasn't "just" another DLC.) I would say that Elden Ring is pretty lean at 3400ish words, so there's not even potential page size issues to consider. I think it makes a lot more sense to build out the info in Elden Ring and then decide on a split. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 00:34, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- The other factor to keep in mind is that per WP:NOPAGE, just because a piece of DLC may be notable due to reception, is there enough unique content that requires a separate article from the main game, or is the DLC better covered under a comprehensive article? For what's there for Erfdtree, one article seems the best solution, unless there is a massive amount of development information that hasn't been found yet (doubtful) Masem (t) 01:19, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- "I think it makes a lot more sense to build out the info in Elden Ring and then decide on a split." I wish more people followed this guideline instead of assuming notability when starting these articles with barely any content. Gameplay for a DLC is not usually not going to be much different than the base game's even with a couple of new things introduced to it, which just leaves the development, plot, and reception sections. Those could easily be summarized in a paragraph or two within the base game's article, and if it does start to expand, then we'd could make the decision to split it. For some reason, we've always had this issue with the Souls games, with articles created on locations, bosses, NPCs, and concepts like bonfires that usually just feature passing mentions cited from game reviews, some of which having merged by consensus and then brought back in almost the same exact state. ~ Dissident93 14:51, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, agreed, the Souls area has been a particularly bad area for unnecessary article spinouts. Sergecross73 msg me 18:08, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'd advise staying on focus to Erdtree for now; if any split-outs (Or the topic of how much should dictate a split-out as a whole) are under question, then I'd suggest forming a separate discussion for this, given this is outside the smaller scope of this discussion and would impact a lot of articles. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 18:55, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- Erdtree and other DLCs are no different here. I was simply bringing up the fact that the Souls series in particular has always had the problem of having spinoff articles created before they were expanded upon in the article of their respective games. ~ Dissident93 23:01, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- Exactly, it's a recurring issue in the subject area, spanning many years of discussions and some of the same overzealous editors. Sergecross73 msg me 23:25, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- Now Blighttown was just created. ~ Dissident93 16:45, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Bloated and bombarded to maximum levels to try to create the illusion of being a necessary split, I see. Sergecross73 msg me 20:26, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- There is consensus here that is largely against these Souls spinoff articles. Should we nominate all of them for deletion/merging? ~ Dissident93 22:00, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Unless there is at least one dedicted article to covering it (at bare minimum) , yes these should be merged. Masem (t) 22:13, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- From what I can tell, this seems to be a "consensus" of only two or three editors. I don't think that's enough for something that would impact several articles. I also don't think it would make sense to only discuss Souls spinouts when several other video games have something like this, whether it be levels, items, weapons, and more. I feel as if a larger discussion on spinout articles for video game elements in general (not just Souls) would be necessary, rather than singling out one franchise. Either way, I think a larger consensus would be needed than this discussion. λ NegativeMP1 22:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Some of them were already merged in the past and brought back, so there is precedent for this sort of thing. And while WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS for other series, it's particularly a problem for the Souls games. ~ Dissident93 22:38, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'd recommend nominating a couple of the worst offenders, and then proceeding from there depending on how that plays out. Sergecross73 msg me 22:45, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, some of them are probably decent enough to keep but certainly not all/most. ~ Dissident93 22:48, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'd recommend nominating a couple of the worst offenders, and then proceeding from there depending on how that plays out. Sergecross73 msg me 22:45, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Some of them were already merged in the past and brought back, so there is precedent for this sort of thing. And while WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS for other series, it's particularly a problem for the Souls games. ~ Dissident93 22:38, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- There is consensus here that is largely against these Souls spinoff articles. Should we nominate all of them for deletion/merging? ~ Dissident93 22:00, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Bloated and bombarded to maximum levels to try to create the illusion of being a necessary split, I see. Sergecross73 msg me 20:26, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Now Blighttown was just created. ~ Dissident93 16:45, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Exactly, it's a recurring issue in the subject area, spanning many years of discussions and some of the same overzealous editors. Sergecross73 msg me 23:25, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- Erdtree and other DLCs are no different here. I was simply bringing up the fact that the Souls series in particular has always had the problem of having spinoff articles created before they were expanded upon in the article of their respective games. ~ Dissident93 23:01, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'd advise staying on focus to Erdtree for now; if any split-outs (Or the topic of how much should dictate a split-out as a whole) are under question, then I'd suggest forming a separate discussion for this, given this is outside the smaller scope of this discussion and would impact a lot of articles. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 18:55, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, agreed, the Souls area has been a particularly bad area for unnecessary article spinouts. Sergecross73 msg me 18:08, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'd say it depends entirely on coverage; we've got plenty of DLC articles I think we probably shouldn't have, and plenty I think justify themselves. (From the above mentions, I'm not sure that the Skyrim expansions really justify themselves, likewise The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt – Hearts of Stone and The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt – Blood and Wine basically have nothing there indicating separate notability. Versus BioShock 2: Minerva's Den, which has the benefit of more development info, as well as an outsized influential legacy on other games, it wasn't "just" another DLC.) I would say that Elden Ring is pretty lean at 3400ish words, so there's not even potential page size issues to consider. I think it makes a lot more sense to build out the info in Elden Ring and then decide on a split. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 00:34, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- Could there be discussion of the game's plotline? (Oinkers42) (talk) 00:22, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- ┌──────────────────────────────────────────┘
Another new one today Northern Undead Asylum — Masem (t) 18:50, 24 December 2024 (UTC)- @PrimalMustelid: I could at least understand Blighttown as it received reception for its poor technical performance, but how is the tutorial level notable? ~ Dissident93 20:43, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'm only making two Dark Souls locations, both of which I've done based on significant sources. The Northern Undead Asylum is pretty significant in that unlike many other video game tutorials, this particular tutorial has been credited with carving a unique path by not hand-holding the player along the way and throwing a fairly challenging tutorial boss into the mix (at the time, definitely not your average tutorial). It, along with the Asylum Demon, have been credited with preparing players for the wider difficulty of the game, and first impressions are especially important in video games like this. PrimalMustelid (talk) 20:57, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Your "significant sources" for Northern Undead Asylum include a greatest bosses list, two strategy guides, and a top ten tutorial levels list by a generally unreliable source (Dualshockers). Even if the other sources are valid, there's no reason why this couldn't be a paragraph or two within the Dark Souls article. Seriously, what is with this series that compels people to try and justify as many spinoff articles as possible? ~ Dissident93 21:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Those aren't what I consider "significant sources;" they're more supplements to the overall article. What I'd consider significant sources are those written by NME and Goomba Stomp Magazine primarily since they both wrote analyses for the Northern Undead Asylum, with Arcade Sushi communicating similar commentary on the significance of it as a tutorial level. I would consider the main problem with an attempted merge into the main Dark Souls articles to be that it's a bit difficult to insert into there. If this helps, there aren't any other individual fictional elements that can be spun off into their own articles because of the fact that they lack significant commentary in relation to specific game designs. I do think that a list article for locations in the Dark Souls series could potentially work as long as there's a development section and reception section for the technical and philosophical aspects of game design, but I'm not really interested in creating list articles at the moment. PrimalMustelid (talk) 21:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- I really don't think "Goomba Stomp Magazine" is a reliable source. Certainly not one to indicate notability... Sergecross73 msg me 22:50, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- How about this: in the video game sources page, there should be a consensus on whether Goomba Stomp Magazine can be considered a reliable source or not. If not, I will happily redirect or merge the article somewhere into the Dark Souls article (and maybe the locations list if it ever comes to fruition). I’ll leave the source evaluation up to you guys, although I can initiate the discussion if you guys want. PrimalMustelid (talk) 22:54, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Sure, but looking at their About Us page, I think it'll be a short discussion... Sergecross73 msg me 22:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- That’s fine with me. If and once there is official consensus that it is not a reliable source, I will merge or redirect the article, no questions asked. PrimalMustelid (talk) 23:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Discussion started Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources#Goomba Stomp Magazine. Sergecross73 msg me 23:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Putting notability of the asylum aside, I honestly wasn’t aware that there was a discussion regarding Dark Souls element articles and may have put fuel to the flame by creating the Blighttown article. Bad timing on my part I suppose.
- I suppose that the character articles are a matter of debate, but is having a few spinoff articles really that bad in practice? I can see a few articles like Anor Londo passing on the grounds that it has a good amount of significant coverage and therefore would fit awkwardly into the 2011 video game article. I also see someone argue that the bonfire article’s sources supposedly only have “passing mentions,” but a lot of sources in the reception section literally indicate otherwise from the title to the full text. Again, I don’t mind a merge of some of the Souls articles, but some articles have significant coverage to justify independent notability in my opinion. PrimalMustelid (talk) 02:41, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- Also, I decided to redirect the Northern Undead Asylum into the 2011 video game article. I’ll figure out what to do in a “merge” process, but it’ll probably entail being part of a “retrospective review” subsection of the overall game from after the 2018 remastered version release. PrimalMustelid (talk) 06:06, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- On that note, I would just like to mention that I've always been annoyed by the tendency to make a new article on an element of a game without adding any of that relevant content to the game's article. For example, we have an article on Shiori Fujisaki from Tokimeki Memorial, but neither the franchise page nor the individual game pages mention the character at all, leaving the article effectively orphaned except for a navbox that doesn't appear on mobile. QuicoleJR (talk) 12:27, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, I'm always surprised by that. I personally always try to link to my article creations as much as I can (within the realms of being appropriate) to help the odds of people actually viewing/reading it. Sergecross73 msg me 17:19, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- On that note, I would just like to mention that I've always been annoyed by the tendency to make a new article on an element of a game without adding any of that relevant content to the game's article. For example, we have an article on Shiori Fujisaki from Tokimeki Memorial, but neither the franchise page nor the individual game pages mention the character at all, leaving the article effectively orphaned except for a navbox that doesn't appear on mobile. QuicoleJR (talk) 12:27, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- Also, I decided to redirect the Northern Undead Asylum into the 2011 video game article. I’ll figure out what to do in a “merge” process, but it’ll probably entail being part of a “retrospective review” subsection of the overall game from after the 2018 remastered version release. PrimalMustelid (talk) 06:06, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- Discussion started Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources#Goomba Stomp Magazine. Sergecross73 msg me 23:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- That’s fine with me. If and once there is official consensus that it is not a reliable source, I will merge or redirect the article, no questions asked. PrimalMustelid (talk) 23:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Sure, but looking at their About Us page, I think it'll be a short discussion... Sergecross73 msg me 22:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- How about this: in the video game sources page, there should be a consensus on whether Goomba Stomp Magazine can be considered a reliable source or not. If not, I will happily redirect or merge the article somewhere into the Dark Souls article (and maybe the locations list if it ever comes to fruition). I’ll leave the source evaluation up to you guys, although I can initiate the discussion if you guys want. PrimalMustelid (talk) 22:54, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- I really don't think "Goomba Stomp Magazine" is a reliable source. Certainly not one to indicate notability... Sergecross73 msg me 22:50, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Those aren't what I consider "significant sources;" they're more supplements to the overall article. What I'd consider significant sources are those written by NME and Goomba Stomp Magazine primarily since they both wrote analyses for the Northern Undead Asylum, with Arcade Sushi communicating similar commentary on the significance of it as a tutorial level. I would consider the main problem with an attempted merge into the main Dark Souls articles to be that it's a bit difficult to insert into there. If this helps, there aren't any other individual fictional elements that can be spun off into their own articles because of the fact that they lack significant commentary in relation to specific game designs. I do think that a list article for locations in the Dark Souls series could potentially work as long as there's a development section and reception section for the technical and philosophical aspects of game design, but I'm not really interested in creating list articles at the moment. PrimalMustelid (talk) 21:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Your "significant sources" for Northern Undead Asylum include a greatest bosses list, two strategy guides, and a top ten tutorial levels list by a generally unreliable source (Dualshockers). Even if the other sources are valid, there's no reason why this couldn't be a paragraph or two within the Dark Souls article. Seriously, what is with this series that compels people to try and justify as many spinoff articles as possible? ~ Dissident93 21:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'm only making two Dark Souls locations, both of which I've done based on significant sources. The Northern Undead Asylum is pretty significant in that unlike many other video game tutorials, this particular tutorial has been credited with carving a unique path by not hand-holding the player along the way and throwing a fairly challenging tutorial boss into the mix (at the time, definitely not your average tutorial). It, along with the Asylum Demon, have been credited with preparing players for the wider difficulty of the game, and first impressions are especially important in video games like this. PrimalMustelid (talk) 20:57, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- @PrimalMustelid: I could at least understand Blighttown as it received reception for its poor technical performance, but how is the tutorial level notable? ~ Dissident93 20:43, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- You haven't really advanced any argument for it. "more deserving than most of its own page due to its outsized notability" is just a long way of saying "WP:ITSNOTABLE". Sergecross73 msg me 01:39, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- If it's something to the scale of Grand Theft Auto IV: The Lost and Damned and Grand Theft Auto: The Ballad of Gay Tony, I don't see how a separate page for the Elden Ring expansion would hurt. Command & Conquer: Yuri's Revenge may be notable on its own, but idk if the Red Alert 3 – Uprising expandalone would be worth a separate article as it only mildly covered the game and not divulge much on its development and impact. Blake Gripling (talk) 03:44, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- Looking at the lost and Damned, for example, shows a ton of unsourced gameplay content, very little development, and very little reception that I question it's need to be sepearate. Masem (t) 00:28, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'd honestly merge and/or redirect a lot of the listed titles unless some more substance can be found. As it stands they're not showing much independent notability of the subject. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 14:55, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- Looking at the lost and Damned, for example, shows a ton of unsourced gameplay content, very little development, and very little reception that I question it's need to be sepearate. Masem (t) 00:28, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- To be clear: the DLC passes GNG already, and this feels like you are implying that it's not notable (since you are citing an AfD argument after all). I was never trying to ask whether it was notable, which is rather obvious on its face, but saying that its high degree of critical acclaim merited its own page.
- As for the in-universe articles, Souls simply happens to be a very critically acclaimed and analyzed series - it inspired an entire genre after all - with an outsized amount of notable things in their universe. Bonfires as a concept inspired a host of games to implement identical or similar game mechanics, even by testimony of their developers. I don't want to point fingers or anything or reignite the Pokemon test, but I don't see people griping this much about Galarian Corsola or Klefki despite them arguably being an order of magnitude less important in their respective games than Torrent or bonfires. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:44, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- I simply said you hadn't advanced an argument, because...you hadn't advanced an argument. Sergecross73 msg me 18:49, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah. Subjects can pass notability but still be covered exclusively in other, larger articles. That's what Misplaced Pages:NOPAGE is all about. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 18:59, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- I simply said you hadn't advanced an argument, because...you hadn't advanced an argument. Sergecross73 msg me 18:49, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- If it's something to the scale of Grand Theft Auto IV: The Lost and Damned and Grand Theft Auto: The Ballad of Gay Tony, I don't see how a separate page for the Elden Ring expansion would hurt. Command & Conquer: Yuri's Revenge may be notable on its own, but idk if the Red Alert 3 – Uprising expandalone would be worth a separate article as it only mildly covered the game and not divulge much on its development and impact. Blake Gripling (talk) 03:44, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- I would not oppose to a spin-out article for the DLC, if it has a development section that is extensive enough. Right now I think we can develop the content in the main article first before considering a WP:SIZESPLIT. OceanHok (talk) 11:27, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- I agree. @Zxcvbnm, I might have a crack at drafting too to help and see if in that process I can generate good sourcing. The WP:NOPAGE argument is a little funny to me because we're talking about a very well-covered, award-nominated expansion to one of the biggest games of the past decade. If we're honestly saying the copious amount of coverage out there in terms of its gameplay additions, potential development history, reviews and discourse around its award eligibility is not independently notable or preferable, I would honestly say that the vast majority of expansion articles in this WP should be merged immediately. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 03:29, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Draft:Next Nintendo Console
I would appreciate some assistance in creating this draft and bringing it up to a respectable standard. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 10:49, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- There's already a much more developed draft in existence. See Draft:Unnamed Nintendo console. I'd recommend working on that instead, though either way, you're not going to be able to move it out of the draft space and publish it until it's actually announced/revealed/named. Sergecross73 msg me 12:43, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Even with that, when Nintendo makes the announcement, the bulk of that info will be immediately outdated by the actual details Nintendo provides and the new sources that report that. The only aspects that even in the current Switch article that would be kept would be when word of the next console was being announced, none of the rumors detailed of its specs and features. Either of these draft articles are immediately going to be out of date when that announcement comes so it seems like doing a lot of work for no gain at this point. Masem (t) 13:04, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Agreed, that's the very reason why I haven't personally contributed hardly anything to the draft myself. I specifically recall trimming 90% of that sort of content from the 3DS and Vita articles after they were announced and released back in the day. But still, if either were ever to actually get published, it'd certainly be the longer, better sourced one. Sergecross73 msg me 13:16, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Cheers, I was not aware of the other draft. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 21:50, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- No worries. That's the tricky part of doing drafts for unnamed things - you never know under what name someone may have made one. Sergecross73 msg me 22:31, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Any tools that could be used to check for this sort of thing besides manually trying to find them? ~ Dissident93 00:34, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- If there are, I'd like to know. Though then again, half the hassle is others not being aware of the draft too. I always hate the thought of working on a draft for months, only to be away from Misplaced Pages when something is announced, and people rushing together a junky stub instead of publishing the long-term draft... Sergecross73 msg me 00:47, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- I suppose you could do a wildcard search through draft space for "Nintendo" or something.. Lee Vilenski 09:09, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- If there was an announcement regarding the official unveiling date, it would probably then be the time to move it into the main space and link it in the Nintendo Switch page infobox so that anybody looking to get bragging rights moves the established article instead of making a new one. Fantastic Mr. Fox 18:16, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- I suppose you could do a wildcard search through draft space for "Nintendo" or something.. Lee Vilenski 09:09, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- If there are, I'd like to know. Though then again, half the hassle is others not being aware of the draft too. I always hate the thought of working on a draft for months, only to be away from Misplaced Pages when something is announced, and people rushing together a junky stub instead of publishing the long-term draft... Sergecross73 msg me 00:47, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Any tools that could be used to check for this sort of thing besides manually trying to find them? ~ Dissident93 00:34, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- No worries. That's the tricky part of doing drafts for unnamed things - you never know under what name someone may have made one. Sergecross73 msg me 22:31, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Even with that, when Nintendo makes the announcement, the bulk of that info will be immediately outdated by the actual details Nintendo provides and the new sources that report that. The only aspects that even in the current Switch article that would be kept would be when word of the next console was being announced, none of the rumors detailed of its specs and features. Either of these draft articles are immediately going to be out of date when that announcement comes so it seems like doing a lot of work for no gain at this point. Masem (t) 13:04, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
Someone help the old guy clean up some stuff
While reassessing Stub articles, I've come across a few things that probably need the attention of someone more active and more familiar with the processes.
- MBCGame StarCraft League - no sources cited, so no notability established. Should probably be merged with StarCraft in esports
- File:Hoshiuta heroines.jpg - removed from Hoshiuta as it was redundant with the cover image (i.e., conveys the exact same information and thus is an excess non-free image). It is now an orphan file and should probably be deleted.
- Last Epoch - too many non-free images. I removed most and those are now orphan files
It's been over a decade since I've initiated a merge, FfD and many other administrative processes, and I don't remember the details. As I'm also on very sporadically, I honestly don't think I could properly watch over them. Is someone available to help with these? (Guyinblack25 01:06, 22 December 2024 (UTC))
- The orphan images will get cleaned up automatically after 7 days. -- ferret (talk) 02:07, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Hey @Guyinblack25. I'm not very active. So someone else here will have to do the honors. Looks like the images are on Commons. The Last Epoch's editor Judd cobler may be an employee. So we got a probable wp:coi. However, assuming the article's subject is notable, then perhaps Judd Cobler can contact the Commons VRT so we can use the relevant images. « Ryūkotsusei » 17:43, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Ah, I see what you mean. That explains the state the article was in; they at the least didn't know how to edit an encyclopedic article. It looks like it has since been cleaned up to a better state. The images have been tagged as missing evidence of permission, so looks like they will be dealt with soon. (Guyinblack25 04:47, 28 December 2024 (UTC))
- Hey @Guyinblack25. I'm not very active. So someone else here will have to do the honors. Looks like the images are on Commons. The Last Epoch's editor Judd cobler may be an employee. So we got a probable wp:coi. However, assuming the article's subject is notable, then perhaps Judd Cobler can contact the Commons VRT so we can use the relevant images. « Ryūkotsusei » 17:43, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Came across an article that should probably be merged with its series (JumpStart) or deleted: JumpStart Adventures 6th Grade: Mission Earthquest. It has been tagged for not citing sources since 2015. I did a good faith search for sources: general google search, Google News, Google Scholar, Google Books, Google Newspaper, and JSTOR. Only found a MobyGames page, a review on a defunct Mac website (Mac Reactor) and a mention in an issue of MicroTimes magazine, which I cannot find a digital copy of the issue. So it clearly doesn't meet Misplaced Pages:Notability. (Guyinblack25 04:42, 28 December 2024 (UTC))
Famitsu has removed the video games calendar search from its website!
Sad news. When I try to look up the GBA calendar search under "2004/4", all of a sudden I get a 404 error shown here. In face, all the video games that Famitsu had from NES to the Nintendo Switch have been completely erased from history along with their calendar schedules from their website! I suppose that means we won't have to look up any Japanese video games for their Famitsu scores anymore. Now what? --Angeldeb82 (talk) 00:03, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Happy Holidays From the Wikiproject Video Games Family
Our Christmas cards get cheesier every year... happy holidays everyone! Glad to be a part of this great project. Panini! • 🥪 23:53, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah me too with my first good article nomination passed and been contributing to as many as hundred articles with most of them relating to video games. NatwonTSG 02:28, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- Looks awesome! Aaron Liu (talk) 14:50, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- Happy Holidays! Sergecross73 msg me 17:37, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- Happy Holidays everyone! :D Timur9008 (talk) 17:45, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- Happy holidays! Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 18:19, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- Happy holidays! It's been a pretty good year. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:51, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- Happy Holidays to all that read this! I can only hope things get better for all of us. CaptainGalaxy 20:46, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- Happy holidays everyone, and thanks for the productive year. Shout outs to @Pokelego999 for their work on Pokémon-related topics, @Kung Fu Man for their character work, @NegativeMP1 for their help this year, and @Panini! for their awesome work and spirit. Everyone who was a part of this project did an awesome job this year! Fathoms Below (talk) 20:17, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
- Happy holidays! ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:54, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Happy Holidays everybody. (Oinkers42) (talk) 19:10, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Happy Holidays to all, from my holiday apartment in Milan. --ProtoDrake (talk) 10:00, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- Happy Holi- oh my God. (and a Happy New Year!) TWOrantula (enter the web) 21:24, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
Discussion at Talk:Game Science § RfC on controversy and game's launch
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Game Science § RfC on controversy and game's launch. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:50, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
Good article reassessment for Anarchy Online
Anarchy Online 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) 23:51, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
Greg Martin (artist)
Greg Martin (artist) was created today and I'm unsure if it meets WP:ARTIST. The existing sourcing is bad, but I did find IGN and Engadget. I don't know if I'd consider them "substantial" sources, which is why I'm wondering if ARTIST would apply. Thoughts? Woodroar (talk) 00:21, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
- He is an artist though? Charliephere (talk) 00:37, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
- That's not what he's asking. Did you actually read WP:ARTIST? Sergecross73 msg me 00:42, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
- Doesn't seem notable to me. There should be something else besides reports of his death. --Mika1h (talk) 01:14, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
- I don't really think NARTIST alies here. I think NARTIST only really applies if someone significantly contributed or is mostly responsible for a really, really important work. I don't think the cover art for Sonic the Hedgehog counts as a really, really important work. I And even if he met an SNG, I don't think an article should exist if there is literally zero significant sources forethat subject to work off of besides a few sentences. I cond Mika1h's comment. λ NegativeMP1 01:17, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
Thank you all for the advice! The article is now at AfD: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Greg Martin (artist). Woodroar (talk) 19:50, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
Problem with Category:Video games by theme (should be topic, not theme)
See analysis at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Games#"Theme"_category_problem_started_by_Category:Games_by_genre_or_theme (posted there as the issue affects few more WikiProject-related cats). TL;DR Category:Video games by theme should be renamed to Category:Video games by topic. Please comment there, not here. TIA. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:18, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
Hotline Miami FAC at risk of archival
Hello everyone, I hope y'all are having a good day. Earlier this month, I nominated Hotline Miami at FAC after working on it for quite a while, and so far it's only gotten one support and might be archived within the next few days due to inactivity. If anyone would be interesting in reviewing the article and leaving comments, that would be greatly appreciated. I'm also open to review exchanges if requested. λ NegativeMP1 22:05, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
Input needed in discussion at Talk:Gran Turismo (series)#Lead section
There is an ongoing discussion at Talk:Gran Turismo (series)#Lead section regarding which of the two proposed lead sections would be better. Input in the discussion would be appreciated. Carfan568 (talk) 17:49, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
Nomination of Characters of God of War for featured list removal
I have nominated Characters of God of War for featured list removal. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 05:37, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
Your Wikiproject Video Games New Years Resolution
I'm aware that I recently did a "non-productive post" above (as my haters call them) but I thought this would be fun. After all, who doesn't love an icebreaker? I don't!
What's your Misplaced Pages-related resolution for 2025? What new projects, achievements, or goals do you want to get done in the new year? Then we can look back and see both the people who conquered their goals and the people we should leave behind for 2026.
- 2024 was a pretty lame work year for me. I'm going to get Mario to GA in 2025, I promise. I'm certain one year is enough cushion for me to actually do something. Panini! • 🥪 04:04, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm hoping to finally get Super Kirby Clash to GA this year. QuicoleJR (talk) 04:19, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- Outside real-world stuff, finish bringing the Fatal Frame/Project Zero series and its entries to GA status (don't think I'll try for a GT as my last two GTs were very neatly stalled by the sudden creation of an article with insisted inclusion) --ProtoDrake (talk) 07:53, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't have nearly as much time as I had during the pandemic. But I'd like to take a couple more articles to GA or FA. Areas I'm still interested in: historic games, historic game developers/studios, and anything related to the Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Video_games/Video_game_characters task force. Kim Kitsuragi is next on my docket. I'd also like to keep encouraging other peoples' good work, and continue discussions about how to adapt to the collapse of quality video game journalism. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:12, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Keep expanding the quality coverage of WP:POKEMON, both by removing and merging superfluous content, and by improving the quality of pre-existing articles and bringing them to Good and Featured status. Hoping to get at least one or two more of the species lists up to FL this year, though I'll hopefully complete more than that. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 00:37, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- The music world hasn't been holding my interest lately, so I'm planning on continuing to focus on WP:VG related stuff. I plan on splitting my time between more retro stuff (90s Sega stuff like the Sega Saturn games) and new stuff (like everything Nintendo Switch 2 once that's finally revealed.) Sergecross73 msg me 16:40, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Gameplay of Pokemon
I was relieved to see such as strong consensus at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Gameplay of Pokémon. It's not that we can't find sources, but that it duplicates the same types of content you'd see at Pokémon (video game series). With that said, I wanted to check if anyone felt similarly about Gameplay of World of Warcraft or Gameplay of Dragon Quest. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:17, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm generally against any of these gameplay/reception/awards type article spin outs. These two examples are much better written and sourced than the Pokemon was, but I'm still not certain a separate article is required... Sergecross73 msg me 19:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- At first blush looking at the above, I'd lean towards saying "no" to standalone articles. From base principles it's highly unlikely the gameplay of a game is notable independent of the coverage of the game itself (or a lot of the coverage leans into WP:ROUTINE-type stuff) but also I don't see where the level of coverage makes sense for a general encyclopedia. I don't need a blow-by-blow of all the quest types in WoW, for example. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 19:57, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Agreed. I was surprised someone felt the need for the Dragon Quest spinout too. They're fine games, but they're pretty straightforward, "meat and potatoes" type games. Sergecross73 msg me 20:31, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Looks like someone wrote it in 2010 and it hasn't gotten much more than 50 edits of any kind in the 15 years since. --PresN 20:36, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Agreed. I was surprised someone felt the need for the Dragon Quest spinout too. They're fine games, but they're pretty straightforward, "meat and potatoes" type games. Sergecross73 msg me 20:31, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- At first blush looking at the above, I'd lean towards saying "no" to standalone articles. From base principles it's highly unlikely the gameplay of a game is notable independent of the coverage of the game itself (or a lot of the coverage leans into WP:ROUTINE-type stuff) but also I don't see where the level of coverage makes sense for a general encyclopedia. I don't need a blow-by-blow of all the quest types in WoW, for example. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 19:57, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- I do believe those are probably better off merged/redirected back to the target. I'm not seeing much in the way of a valid split-out rationale for these that would indicate their gameplay is standalone notable. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 00:55, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
It kind of echoes my feelings on Development of Mother 3. So much of it is redundant to what's already present at Mother 3, and it feels like it'd be better served being merged back into it, or have the EarthBound 64 stuff expanded upon. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 20:06, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Personally, I am very fond of these types of articles and the amount of depth they lend to angles on these works. "Gameplay of" articles do tend to be terrible to source tho, and the "Gameplay of Pokémon" article never reached the quality I would hope for it. "Gameplay of Dragon Quest" is particularly odd to me, as it hardly explains mechanics unique to the series and it's pretty short. At least Pokémon has a swath of fairly unique mechanics that I believe would be really useful to describe in-depth. Perhaps it'd be more of a Wikibooks kind of deal tho, if that project ever worked out. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:43, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'll defend Gameplay of Overwatch as save for a few areas, I've made sure it is sourced to reliable secondary sources talking about these gameplay elements to a reasonable depth (of course, most of the that came from the period while there was attention with the Overwatch League and helping viewers understand rules); it also helps alleviate size issues. I consider it compariable to Magic: The Gathering rules which due to similar attention via tourneys has had its rules/gameplay evaluated in depth. For those reasons, I think Gameplay of World of Warcraft is a reasonably fair split from the main WoW article (which covers more of how big and significant it is to the industry) and just needs a bit more sourcing to make it better. But key on these is the use of secondary sources to show that the gameplay or rules have been discussed beyond simple coverage of the whole game itself. The Pokemon gameplay article had problems with very little sourcing along those lines (though you'd think that should be possible with how big the franchise is). The Dragon Quest case, that seems rather more difficult given the niche of JRPGs. (Common features of JRPGs and CRPGs in general, however, are absolutely fair game in the genre articles). Masem (t) 14:00, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Live service games
I decided to take Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Gameplay of Dragon Quest to AFD based on what appears to be a consensus here. The problem is that "X series" and "Gameplay of X series" have the same scope, just with more WP:GAMEGUIDE detail. Masem brought up some points about splitting the gameplay from the Blizzard games, and while I disagree, I think it's worth discussing. I disagree that "Gameplay of WoW" is any less of a redundant fork. But I do see how these games are actually multiple releases and updates over several years. Despite World of Warcraft not being a game series, its history is longer than many game series, with more Category:World of Warcraft expansion packs than many series. And yet it doesn't have a "series" article separate from the original release.
TLDR: "Gameplay of X series" is redundant with "X series", but long-running live service games might have several expansions/updates without having a separate series article. Is there a way to rename / move these article titles to improve their scope and viability? Shooterwalker (talk) 17:49, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- In my mind, the main and perhaps only reason one would ever write a "gameplay of X" article, is when that game or series is played competitively. In such cases, the gameplay is very important separately from the games as commercial products or pieces of art on their own. Graphics and music, development and reception, it all falls away as irrelevant in that field, and you get a fairly separate topic to describe. I don't know if this really makes sense with live-service games. I wouldn't create "Gameplay of Fortnite", I think I would create "History of Fortnite" instead, as this would still be about the product as a whole, not just about its gameplay. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:28, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- It really depends on the live-service game. I don't think that in terms of any specific mode of Fortnite like Battle Royale has changed significantly over the years, but that there are gameplay elements that come and go during its seasons, so an article here like Fortnite seasonal events makes sense (in addition to the fact this is also documented in reliable sources). Whereas with Destiny 2, there are significant lasting changes with most of its expansions (also covered by sources) so in that case, the individual expansions serve this (Though in that case, most of those due need a trim).
- Separately, because of how Fortnite transitioned from a single idea to Battle Royale to a metaverse platform, the main Fortnite article is more a history of the product and less about the gameplay changes. Masem (t) 13:05, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- My first reaction to @Maplestrip and @Masem is that we might have a separate article for long-standing games with lots of post-release support. I agree that "History of Fortnite" or "Fortnite seasonal events" is a better article/scope than Gameplay of Fortnite. Maplestrip focuses more on competitive games, which is a valid point. I'd say there's a big overlap between competitive games and games-as-service, or other forms of post-release support.
- I still feel strongly that "Gameplay of X" is too redundant in scope. But a game with lots of post-release support over many years, like Fortnite or even WoW, might still deserve an additional article to document its evolution. Maybe "List of X expansions" or "List of X updates" or "List of X special events"? I'd be a little nervous about WP:CHANGELOG here, but for a game with a decade of history and lots of discourse about balance and updates, it's in the right direction. The spirit of my suggestion is supposed to be similar to List of Game of Thrones episodes, without setting a precedent that every game gets such a list. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Key is how reliable sources treat the live service aspect of the game. WOW, Destiny 2, Fortnite, Overwatch -- all have gotten reasonably good coverage of how the game changes, whereas Apex Legends or Valorant may have had that at the start but has significantly waned relative to these. — Masem (t) 20:55, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- What do you think is a better title for these types of articles? The problem with Gameplay of X is nearly any notable game would also have secondary sources that cover the gameplay of the game, making it really subjective if we should have one article or two. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- "List of X seasons", "List of X seasonal events", or "X seasons" or "X seasonal events", the latter if there are sources that broadly discuss the games seasonal structure. Masem (t) 16:32, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- What do you think is a better title for these types of articles? The problem with Gameplay of X is nearly any notable game would also have secondary sources that cover the gameplay of the game, making it really subjective if we should have one article or two. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Key is how reliable sources treat the live service aspect of the game. WOW, Destiny 2, Fortnite, Overwatch -- all have gotten reasonably good coverage of how the game changes, whereas Apex Legends or Valorant may have had that at the start but has significantly waned relative to these. — Masem (t) 20:55, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
New Articles (December 29 to January 1)
Main page: Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Video games/New article announcementsA 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 20:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Articles deleted/removed: Evernight Games, Battle Frontier, Battle Subway, Battle Tower, Gigantamax, Hidden Machine, Pokemon gym, Pokémon League, Polaris (2024 video game), Special attack (Pokémon), Technical Machine, Paul Steed
- Drafts deleted/removed: Draft:Plasma Interactive, Draft:Twentyone, Draft:Amber (developer), Draft:Lost in Cult, Draft:RADAL
- Articles redirected: Amuze, Pokémon Home, Sky (video game), Tekken Hybrid, Cossacks (video games series), List of downloadable songs for the Lips series
- New categories: EZ Web games — TrademarkedTWOrantula, I-mode games — TrademarkedTWOrantula, Science fiction role-playing video games — AHI-3000, Video games about fairies — AHI-3000, Video games about the Yakuza — Mika1h, Vodafone games — TrademarkedTWOrantula
- New templates: {{MPL Philippines}} — WIZ*ONEI (newly tagged - originally created 6 months ago)
December 29
Atomic Betty (video game) (edit talk links history) — Timur9008 (was previously a redirect)
Go Home Annie (edit talk links history) — Kiksam (previously a draft: accepted AfC submission)
Highway 2000 (video game) (edit talk links history) — Mika1h- My Little Pony: A Maretime Bay Adventure (edit talk links history) — AmericanBaath (was previously a redirect – un-redirected 5 months ago)
What the Car? (edit talk links history) — Vrxces
December 30
- Sher Machado (edit talk links history) — Skyshifter
- Vostu (edit talk links history) — Sondesol (newly tagged – originally created 17 years ago)
December 31
- None
January 1
- Chō (Tsuki Amano song) (edit talk links history) — Michellesusanto (newly tagged – originally created 14 years ago)
- Miniatures (video game) (edit talk links history) — ThanatosApprentice (previously a draft: undrafted by original creator)
- Sorry We're Closed (edit talk links history) — Vrxces
- Space Fishermen (edit talk links history) — MimirIsSmart
- Talon Warburton (edit talk links history) — 174.231.54.74 (was previously a redirect)
The 1.0 bot fell down for a while due to some template/category changes, and I'm not going to be home for the next normal run day, so rather than make some mega-post on the 13th I'll cut it in half and post some of it now. --PresN 20:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Good article reassessment for Deus Ex (video game)
Deus Ex (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. Z1720 (talk) 23:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Featured List Removal for a relevant article
I have nominated List of major Super Smash Bros. Ultimate tournaments for featured list removal. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Witsako (talk) 23:18, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Translation help
Hello, I am writing here to request help with some source title translations. I am currently working on implementing the suggestion on the FAC for List of generation II Pokémon and one of the suggestions is for the non-English sources to have translated titles. I currently have all the non-English sources on this sandbox; containing 28 Japanese sources, 3 Spanish sources, 1 Finnish source, 1 French source, 1 Brazilian Portuguese source and 1 Indonesian source. If anyone is able to provide help with this that would be very much appreciated. Hope to hear back, CaptainGalaxy 12:07, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Categories: