Revision as of 16:01, 27 June 2013 edit84.26.108.111 (talk) →Emulator Notability← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 16:26, 8 January 2025 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,302,013 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 177) (bot | ||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{ |
{{Talk header|WT:VG}} | ||
{{WikiProject banner shell| | |||
{{WikiProject Video games}} | |||
{{to do}}<!-- | |||
}} | |||
{{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( |
|algo = old(14d) | ||
|archive = Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive %(counter)d | |archive = Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive %(counter)d | ||
}}<!-- | |||
Archive index bot settings | |||
-->{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn | |||
|indexhere=no | |||
|target=Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive index | |||
|mask=Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive <#> | |||
|mask=Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive Kirby | |||
|mask=Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive Neopets | |||
|mask=Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive RuneScape | |||
|mask=Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive RuneScape/Archive <#> | |||
|mask=Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive WikiProject Massively multiplayer online games | |||
|mask=Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive WikiProject Massively multiplayer online games/Archive <#> | |||
}}<!-- | |||
Archive box | |||
-->{{archives | |||
| box-width = 250px | |||
| image = File:Nuvola filesystems folder games.png | |||
| style = background-color: white; border-color: #aaa | |||
| index = Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive index | |||
| auto = short | |||
| bot = MiszaBot II | |||
| age = 12 | |||
| search = yes | |||
}} | }} | ||
] | |||
] | |||
{{Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Video games/Sidebar}} | |||
== |
== 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) | |||
: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) | |||
== 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. | |||
* ] - 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)) | |||
:The orphan images will get cleaned up automatically after 7 days. -- ] (]) 02:07, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::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)) | |||
== 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. ] <span style="color:#F40">•</span> ] 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. ]<sup>]</sup> 02:28, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:Looks awesome! ] (]) 14:50, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:Happy Holidays! ] ] 17:37, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:Happy Holidays everyone! :D ] (]) 17:45, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:Happy holidays! ''] Considerer:'' ''']''' (]) (]) 18:19, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:Happy holidays! It's been a pretty good year. ] (]) 19:51, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:Happy Holidays to all that read this! I can only hope things get better for all of us. ]] 20:46, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
: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) | |||
:Happy holidays! ] (]) 18:54, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
: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 ]== | |||
] You are invited to join the discussion at ]. ] (]) 14:50, 26 December 2024 (UTC)<!-- ] --> | |||
== Good article reassessment for ] == | |||
] 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) | |||
== Greg Martin (artist) == | |||
] 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) | |||
:He is an artist though? ] (]) 00:37, 27 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::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) | |||
== Problem with ] (should be topic, not theme) == | |||
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) | |||
== '']'' FAC at risk of archival == | |||
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) | |||
== Input needed in discussion at ] == | |||
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) | |||
== Nomination of ] for featured list removal == | |||
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 == | |||
I've just removed ] from ] because it's hopelessly out of date. I don't visit ], but it still gets over which is probably more than most personal games blogs. If someone fancies themselves a bit of a newsie, like putting out headlines, and '''commits to it''', go update it and un-orphan it. Having a picture of Peter Molyneux on ] for over two years straight is shockingly embarrassing. - ]]] 22:05, 10 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
] | |||
:To anyone thinking of doing this; it needs more than one person on it. Its not as easy as it looks. - ] (]) 15:55, 17 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
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! | |||
:I'm tempted to start looking after the page again, and as X201 mentioned, it would be great if someone wanted to help me with it. Where was the page orphaned from? I'll readd it there once I've updated it. ] (]) 10:43, 27 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
:Never mind, took a look and found the edit. Will start updating it now. ] (]) 10:51, 27 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
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. | |||
== What is a Development section supposed to be? == | |||
* 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) | |||
Sorry if the answer is obvious somewhere I haven't looked. | |||
* 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) | |||
* 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 == | |||
But are these sections about the game's development or the marketing campaign (or both)? Are ] or ], for instance, proper, mentioning announcements (with dates), promotion and all that about cover art? Doesn't seem to have anything to do with how the games were built, which "development" suggests to me. Something like ] or ]'s are more what I'd imagine. | |||
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) | |||
Any clarification is appreciated. ] ] 07:41, ], ] (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... ] ] 19:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:Basically the production of the game.] (]) 08:06, 18 June 2013 (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 ]-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) | |||
:::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) | |||
::::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) | |||
: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) | |||
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) | |||
: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) | |||
::Pretty much. Sometimes Marketing/release type stuff is just merged into Dev sections if there isn't a whole lot to be said, or if no one's bothered to document much of it. (I tend to focus on more obscure JRPG's and 90's video games, 2 areas where there's not always a ton of this sort of information available. In those cases, I usually have the 2 merged. I imagine this is common, as I see it across many articles.) ] ] 12:52, 18 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::Yep, I was concentrating on Hulk's examples, which would be better off having their Development sections renamed as Marketing because that's all they contain. - ] (]) 13:07, 18 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
::::Yes, I fully agree. I was going to say that myself too, but forgot to - Thanks. ] ] 13:46, 18 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
*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) | |||
:::::Thanks for clearing that up, guys. That's as I figured it should be, but not as it is in quite a few articles. I suppose video games attract all kinds, not just those aware of the Wikiproject MoS (I hadn't seen it in the sidebar myself when I asked, I looked across the top). I'll fix those two later, if nobody beats me to it. ] ] 18:57, ], ] (UTC) | |||
== |
=== Live service games === | ||
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. | |||
I was working through some categories and came across ] which is an article about a football management game that has been miscreated as a category. Before moving it to article space, there needs to be a decision about whether it's notable or not - and I'm not the person to make that call! I'm guessing probably not, although they claim over 100k users. There's a related article at ] with similar notability concerns - seems to have been created by ] as a user page and then moved by ] to article space. Given that they are made by Planetarium Games this looks like a ] doing ] ]ising - could someone take a look who knows more about video games than me? TIA. ] (]) 14:57, 18 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
:The ''Manager'' article was ]. And ''Football Star'' was ]. - ] (]) 15:50, 18 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
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) | |||
== ] == | |||
: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) | |||
::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). | |||
::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) | |||
:::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. | |||
:::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) | |||
::::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> | |||
:::::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) | |||
::::::"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)== | |||
If anyone has some time, '']'' is at FAC. --] ] 17:52, 20 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
{{main|Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements}} | |||
== Niemti 3.0 == | |||
<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> | |||
Guys, I'm really starting to lose my cool with that uncivil rude person. is annoying enough, but when you actively start with disruptive editing, I'm done. Overlinking to ] twice, unlinking to ] in the lead, undoing piped links <nowiki>]</nowiki>... And the fact that he only rarely writes down anything in the edit summary is also really getting on my nerve. Is there anything we can do about him and his attitude? --Soetermans. ] / ] 12:47, 21 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
:He gets brought to ANI frequently, but usually every time, there's minimal consensus, as it's always split between the people who work with him, and find him difficult, and people who haven't, and think everyone's being mean to him, not giving him a chance, or think his contributions outweigh his terrible attitude. Its up to you if you want to spearhead something like this; I'd help support people in it, I think his condescending attitude is terrible and detrimental to the project, however, I won't lead the effort, these discussions always lead to so much wasted time in these inane arguments with him. There's endless dramatics, long winded rants, and every single person on the project is to blame except for him. ] ] 13:33, 21 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
:If editors have a major problem, RFC/U is the only first stop that will get some type of traction towards anything remotely enforceable. Niemti doesn't have to participate, but it is understood that failing to participate in an RFC/U can be detrimental to the situation later. That said, I'm looking at the linked edit and while I don't agree with all the changes, they are neither "wrong". It's more OWNership than being disruptive and that's really really hard to bring any type of enforcement on. --] (]) 13:38, 21 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
::We're just coming out of a fruitless RFC/U. <span style="13px Sylfaen;color:white;background-color:#000000;padding:0 3px 0 3px;">''':)''' ·]· ]</span> 13:39, 21 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
::{{EC}} They've attempted to do an RFC/U on him before, and he refused to participate, and nothing really came from it. That would be even more of a waste of time than going to ANI... ] ] 13:40, 21 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::Okay, well, at least that step of the DR process is done, but again, what the above link is showing is far from anything that ANI would look at even with an RFC/U. Basically, you're asking for a court martial for a jaywalker (as there's elements of what he's accused of that everyone else does sometimes, like lacking edit summaries.) And even the civility level is far from an enforcable problem. --] (]) 13:59, 21 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
::::I'm not a fan of his, but this kind of thing has come up over four times to my knowledge, with no results except bringing in more bad feeling on both sides. This is getting...sickening. --] (]) 14:25, 21 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
::::Civility is enforceable- I've never rescinded my standing promise to block him for ever-increasing amounts of time for uncivil behavior. Thing is, he actually toned it way down after the first block- not that he gained any more respect for other editors or rules, but he hasn't gone off on invective-riddled tirades since. I check his contributions on occasion, but do let me know if he starts crossing the line on that. --''']]''' 16:08, 21 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::::Thanks for the support guys. Masem, you're right, this alone is no reason to take action. The other day he told me "learn to read" and now this. I guess I was just venting a bit. For now I'll just continue editing, and see if he gets nasty once more. At least then I know what to do. --Soetermans. ] / ] 16:13, 21 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
::::::It's easy to get worked up, I've been there with other editors. The easiest way to respond - short of not responding at all - is likely to drop a polite message on his talk page asking him to be careful of his word choices but offering to compromise on the issue. He is a benefit in some areas, so we don't want to lose that. I'm not giving him a free pass, just that we're not at a point that I can see any uninvolved admin saying action is needed. --] (]) 16:18, 21 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::::::I guess you're right. I think that is especially frustrating, considering the time and effort he spends on Misplaced Pages. And thanks for your edits, ProtoDrake, I just saw ''TLoU'' again. Let's see if he listens to you. Niemti doesn't think ] should be linked. I just , I wonder how long they'll stay. --Soetermans. ] / ] 16:23, 21 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
*'''Articles deleted/removed:''' ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ] | |||
== Dead link == | |||
*'''Drafts deleted/removed:''' ], ], ], ], ] | |||
*'''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"> | |||
(Sorry for broken English) Hello! I found the of ''Dragon Quest IX'' was redirected to Nintendo.com. However, some articles used a subpage of this site ({{URL|http://dqnine.com/#/iwata/}}) as references. I never visit this page, but I think it should be an valuable interview. dqnine.com seems a ]-based site, and thus, web archive is unavailable. So how to fix that dead link (or can read the context), thanks!--] (]) 13:09, 24 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
'''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''' | |||
== PlayStation 2 at FPC == | |||
*{{Article status|Start|Sher Machado|Skyshifter}} | |||
*{{Article status|C|Vostu|Sondesol}} <small>(newly tagged – originally created 17 years ago)</small> | |||
'''December 31''' | |||
There is an image of the ] up for Featured Picture status. If you can please '''Support''' or '''Oppose''' its candidacy ]. ] 17:24, 24 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
*None | |||
'''January 1''' | |||
== Article requests consensus requested == | |||
*{{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 ] == | |||
Over at the ] user ] and I have agreed the lead paragraph needs a reword. We're looking for a consensus on the new lead and would like to hear any other opinions on it. ] (]) 19:36, 24 June 2013 (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 == | |||
== Talk:Zack Fair#Jesus Christ Denton == | |||
There is an ongoing discussion with ] in ] regarding the addition of an image without content about it. The user appears to be quite informal just by reading the section title so more comments would calm down the situation.] (]) 00:41, 27 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
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) | |||
== Emulator Notability == | |||
== Translation help == | |||
There's some emulators that clearly have enough notability to have pages, many that clearly don't, and a lot in the middle. What should be done? I fear that if you strictly apply the 3rd party notability standard, then a lot of pages for emulators would simply be turned into redirects. | |||
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) | |||
Also, what would classify as a reliable third party source to give notability to emulators? Most of them might not get much more press than a few blog posts, or an article on an emulation news site. They will largely be ignored by the main stream media. --] (]) 01:08, 27 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
== ] source question. == | |||
:We have ] which can be verified by third-parties but may not have their own page, so we can document them but just not give them a full page. The sources at ] are those that, at minimum, should be used for third-party sources. If all we have are blog posts, they aren't considered meeting even the third-party standard. --] (]) 01:23, 27 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
Hi. So, I want some confirmation and possible discussion regarding edits made last year to ], ], and the ]. A LOT of wordy information was added by {{u|ERAGON}} citing a book called "''The Making of Tomb Raider''" by someone called Daryl Baxter. IMO, it seemed to me to simply repeat stuff that was already present. I did edits on the OG game's article to incorporate the info on an assumption of good faith (I was in a bad mood that day, explanation for some edits that appeared on TR2's article). | |||
:] has a lot of them. ] ended its AFD with a redirect, despite being a major thing with a lot of content in its article. Meanwhile ] still has its article which is only three sentences long, two of which tell you why it isn't any good and not worth bothering with. ] 01:24, 27 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::FYI, I've nominated ] for deletion based on those grounds. — ''']''' (]) — 03:10, 27 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
::::And just as a note: if there are third-party sources but not enough for notability, don't delete the article - add the line to ] and redirect the article to the list, as we can still search on the term. --] (]) 03:20, 27 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
*I'm a big fan of emulation and find these to be somewhat informative, personally, but I'll agree I was very surprised when I saw the plethora of articles on what appears to be non-notable emulators. Most can probably be merged into something like a "list of emulators"; I can only think of very few notable exceptions (Dolphin, VBA & NO$GBA, maybe SNES9x & zSNES, Project64, definitely MAME) for which significant coverage might be found in reliable sources. <span style="13px Sylfaen;color:white;background-color:#000000;padding:0 3px 0 3px;">''':)''' ·]· ]</span> 03:54, 27 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
So far I've made the pages for ] and ] redirect to the ]. A developer for Retroarch left a ] on my talk page, and then reverted it. Now, there is a few sources for that. There is a link from the Guardian which recommends Retroarch. Guardian is a reliable source that can establish notability. ] I think is a blog thing, I'm not really sure if it counts. What do you guys think? I think it's a borderline case. If there were a few more sources, I say it should stay for sure. --] (]) 06:24, 27 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
:That reply was more than unwarranted, you acting in good faith. Frankly, I'm still amazed users would go to such incivility while not even being familiar with our guidelines. The page wasn't deleted, and while there are sources enough to pass it over GNG, it takes one knowledgeable in the field to come up with those. I suggest searches like in the future though. — <small> ] ▎]</small> 10:10, 27 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
:What a nasty response to receive. Please don't be discouraged by their attempts to bully you. Also FWIW, I find the new sources added to the article really weak, and the emulator doesn't show any non-comment hits in the custom WPVG RS search. <span style='font:1em"Avenir";background:#CCF;padding:2px 4px'>] ] ]</span> 14:26, 27 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
::You find the new sources 'really weak'? What are you looking for instead? Linking to oneself like Desmume does? Or bsnes? Or SNES9x? How about you go and delete all those pages while you're at it - you wouldn't have anything left by the time you finish.] (]) 15:02, 27 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::You'll notice that the topic of this section is redirecting and deleting non-notable emulators. As WPedians often say in ], ]. It's quite possible that ] will be deleted or merged once someone takes a look at it. (E.g., see Project64's mention above.) Please also mind what WP says about ] and how we are expected to handle editors found to have one. As for sources, I'm looking for dedicated coverage from ] (]), not brief ''Guardian'' or Lifehacker mentions or CrackBerry.com install tutorials (though it's a start). It has to be enough reporting to sustain an article, however brief, and the current sources just say "I like it", at best. And any removed page can always be restored once supporting sources later appear. Also, we expect ] here, and I highly recommend apologizing for threatening to another editor once you've cooled off. <span style='font:1em"Avenir";background:#CCF;padding:2px 4px'>] ] ]</span> 16:00, 27 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
:You wouldn't have gotten such a reply if instead of being familiar with the 'rules' of this great and dandy Misplaced Pages place you would actually start becoming informed about the subject matter which you deem 'not notable enough'. First of all - RetroArch is not an emulator - if you don't understand that part then you know nothing about it. Learn what an API is, learn what a frontend is - learn that there are already a couple of game engine ports and a media player port and that engineers from every major company are sending me e-mails telling me how much they love the project. I'd wager that is quite 'notable' enough.] (]) 14:59, 27 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
::Its rather ironic that you're lecturing him on this, when you seem to be defining notability as "engineers giving you praise". Please read the ]. That's how Misplaced Pages defines it. ] ] 15:05, 27 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::I don't give a rat's ass about these political dickwaving contests. Go ahead and launch your little crusade and have it deleted for all I care. Do continue 'editing' and 'removing' subject matter you know jack all about. Really makes your 'encyclopedia' seem credible and all that. BTW - you really do have to explain to me how 'The Guardian' qualifies as 'engineers giving you praise'. Seems to me you don't know what kind of nonsense you can think of in your effort to get this page removed.] (]) 16:01, 27 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
:That talk page note seems to indicate a pretty clear COI for that IP editor.... -- ] (]) 14:33, 27 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
::How so? I am just trying to educate you people what our project is and what it is NOT - it is NOT a 'videogame emulator' - it is far more than that and that is why it has gained the popularity it has. If you don't understand the part about it not being an 'emulator', then frankly you don't have the qualifications to be even editing any pages.] (]) 15:02, 27 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::Au contraire, 84.26, you should read about all the things ]. Among other things, Misplaced Pages is not an advertising platform. And as for your project: If it's not an emulator, then why is it full of emulator cores? Sounds an awful lot like ] to me. — ''']''' (]) — 15:22, 27 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
::::Oh, I see. By that same rationale, if the Internet is not a 'porn platform' then why is it full of porn, right?] (]) 15:57, 27 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
::Yes, the editor has very directly identified himself as of the article subject... ] ] 15:19, 27 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
I agree with Masem, don't think emulators apply for any special GNG treatment. They should have reliable independent sources and be the subject of several, such as ]. — <small> ] ▎]</small> 10:10, 27 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
:I do agree, however I think if you applied those standards to emulators, something like 75% of them would fail. --] (]) 12:06, 27 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
::Yea, we should be treating emulators like we would with any other video game. And in that sense, most of them would not be notable- we can say they exist, but we have no reception, development (sourced to third-parties), etc. I know a lot of these are pet projects, but that's exactly the reason that we shouldn't have articles on them but fairly list those that at least have a tiny bit of coverage on a table. --] (]) 15:03, 27 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
My questions are: is this book a reliable source of development information, and if so could the information be incorporated into the articles in a less wordy way? I don't want to do anything on my own beyond what I already did on the OG game. ] (]) 17:52, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
== In The News == | |||
:Hi ProtoDrake. I would say that the book is a reliable source; it is a series of interview transcripts between Baxter and former Core Design staffers. Outside of the book he has interviewed people from the team before for podcasts; there's one of those available . If things are too wordy we can of course edit down. ] (]) 10:21, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
As I've mentioned in the discussion above, the ] section of the Video Games Portal is now up to date, has been re-added to the portal main page, and I will be attempting to keep it current. If anyone else can give me a hand in monitoring and updating it, that would be great. ] (]) 11:27, 27 June 2013 (UTC) |
Latest revision as of 16:26, 8 January 2025
Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks | |
AfDs
|
Other discussions
No major discussions
Featured content candidates
Good article nominations
|
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)
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))
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)
Tomb Raider source question.
Hi. So, I want some confirmation and possible discussion regarding edits made last year to Tomb Raider (1996 video game), Tomb Raider II, and the main series article. A LOT of wordy information was added by ERAGON citing a book called "The Making of Tomb Raider" by someone called Daryl Baxter. IMO, it seemed to me to simply repeat stuff that was already present. I did edits on the OG game's article to incorporate the info on an assumption of good faith (I was in a bad mood that day, explanation for some edits that appeared on TR2's article).
My questions are: is this book a reliable source of development information, and if so could the information be incorporated into the articles in a less wordy way? I don't want to do anything on my own beyond what I already did on the OG game. ProtoDrake (talk) 17:52, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hi ProtoDrake. I would say that the book is a reliable source; it is a series of interview transcripts between Baxter and former Core Design staffers. Outside of the book he has interviewed people from the team before for podcasts; there's one of those available here. If things are too wordy we can of course edit down. ERAGON (talk) 10:21, 8 January 2025 (UTC)