Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 167

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 160 ← Archive 165 Archive 166 Archive 167 Archive 168 Archive 169 Archive 170

New Articles (January 16 to January 22)

Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements
 A listing of all articles newly added to the Video Games Wikiproject (regardless of creation date). Generated by v3.15 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 15:00, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

January 16

January 17

January 18

January 19

January 20

January 21

January 22

PresN 15:00, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

...Quite the influx of "Ultraliga" articles... Sergecross73 msg me 15:03, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
They probably aren't notable. Also, is {{Bulbapedia}} really needed? You can just link to it like you would for an article on another language Wik by doing [[bulba:ARTICLE NAME]]. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 15:08, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
There are much more "Ultraliga"-type articles in my homewiki (zhwiki), and usually they with clutter formatting but without any source and category... --Lopullinen 15:25, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
Is Wenja language really a necessary article? It is the fictional language the NPCs in Far Cry Primal speaks. The article seems very technical for what is ultimately WP:GAMECRUFT. OceanHok (talk) 15:23, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
It is not spoken just by NPCs but by every character. As far as I know there is not a single word spoken in English on the game. I have watched videos and read articles and apparently all interactions are in Wenja. The reason I got into detail is that the language is engineered to look like proto-PIE, so I wanted it to show how they went about to achieve that because it is very uncommon to base anything on PIE and I found that interesting. It was apparent very soon that just a section in Far Cry Primal would not do and the article is not just under the scope of WikiProject Video games but also WikiProject Constructed Languages. I based the article itself in other fictional languages such as Naʼvi language and Dothraki language which are not much less detailed (and note that a detailed article on Na'vi grammar also exists). Those two languages have higher notability as they belong to more widely known commercial products, but I think it is interesting that both languages are basically a footnote to the rest of the book/series/movie; with a corpus roughly 40,000 words long (that's many hours of recordings), Wenja was probably much better developed as a language. So, based on WP:NOTPAPER, I would say that the article is not necessarily necessary but quite probably not harmful either. But clearly I may be biased. Qoan (say it!) 16:18, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
I haven't gone over the article or its sources, but WP:DOESN'THARM is not a reason to keep an article. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 16:29, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
True, but I think it is obvious that I did not mean it in that way. I meant that the article in my opinion meets the criteria for verifiability and notability and I clearly stated why, so while it might not make anyone's list of top-100 most needed articles, that per se is not a reason not to keep an article either. Qoan (say it!) 16:38, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
@Soetermans: Speaking on the sources, sources, most of the article uses a Blogspot site called "Speaking Primal" by "Winjapati" (profile says they're an assistant linguistics professor, but I can't confirm that). Regardless of the author, I remember Blogspot being a no-no as a main source, especially given how much of the article's reliant on its individual posts. This article looks like it could've been pared down to a paragraph and merged into the main article. It probably should be to be honest. --ProtoDrake (talk) 18:57, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
Agree that it probably belongs in a shortened for on Wikipedia or it's current form on some fan wikia or something. Looks like the sort of thing fandom would just eat right up. Sergecross73 msg me 19:00, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
I think it's fine if more secondary sources can be found--if the 'linguistics professor' thing can be confirmed, I think that's a "subject-matter expert" per WP:SPS, but otherwise it's a lot of non-secondary sources. And I think the development info, being the most important, should have more precedence instead of the content similar to articles on other (real) languages. DecafPotato (talk) 20:04, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
I apologise if the article is not clear enough about this, I would like to clarify that 'Winjapati' is the pseudonym used by Andrew Byrd, the leader of the team of linguists who developed the language (I should probably have included the pseudonym in the cites themselves). He is indeed an Associate Professor of Linguistics at the University of Kentucky and his twitter handle is Speaking Primal. This is the only reason why I thought it was ok to link to Blogspot in this case. I know it is a no-no in most cases. While the article cites many different blog posts, it's mostly for detail. The core information (Intro, Development, Dialects, main grammar points) is based on other sources. Qoan (say it!) 20:25, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
I do think it may be possible for the article to hold up at AfD, I found a secondary source here, though the sources currently used in the article seem flimsy. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:51, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
There's also a book chapter by Andrew and Brenna Byrd, published by Oxford University Press that describes the process of creating Wenja for Ubisoft, with a focus on teaching the language to actors. It is academic in nature and partially behind a paywall (I have access to the full book through my university though) but it covers many of the topics discussed in the article. Maybe I can integrate these two references and start replacing the blog posts in the article. Qoan (say it!) 01:12, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Stop stop stop stop stop! We just went over this at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Video games#Notability/MOS precedent of Development of individual games where we basically had a unanimous consensus against creating new articles about specific games' development. This is just a more specialized instantiation of that. Andrew Miles Byrd appears to be the linguistics professor hired to construct this language, which makes his blog a WP:PRIMARY source which cannot be used to establish notability. This article, while potentially interesting to the right audience, is entirely UNDUE weight with respect to the amount of coverage from secondary sources. Wenja is not Klingon or Na'vi or even Dothraki (which I think probably also fails undue). It's a conlang in an unremarkable game with no lasting coverage of its own. (Consider: how many articles about Wenja were published in the games press after the promotional preview cycle for Primal ended?) It should be summarized and merged back into its main article. I'm sorry, Qoan, it's beautiful work but the level of detail does not match the secondary coverage and runs afoul of game trivia guidelines. Axem Titanium (talk) 01:27, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't believe this would fall under a general article about a game's development, which I agree should typically not exist, but an individual aspect of the game itself, like a level or item, of which there are dozens of notable pages on, some of which are even good articles. I am not saying it is notable though, because it seems to be still lacking sufficient WP:SIGCOV from reliable sources, but with the book chapter and the article I found, there's a decent chance it would survive an AfD if another good source was discovered. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:55, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
Even if you don't consider this the same type of article as a development article, the article as it exists is far too in-depth about linguistic minutia compared to the amount of coverage. The book chapter is once again a primary source since it's written by the designer of the language, so it doesn't count for SIGCOV. At the end of the day, the language is a minor aspect of the game and its development which should be covered in a summarized form in the development section of the main article. Knowing that there are 22 consonants in Wenja is gamecruft in the same way that knowing that there's 32 different guns in Call of Duty. Axem Titanium (talk) 02:02, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
There no such thing as "far too in-depth" in an encyclopedia that strives to contain all the information known by humanity. All that matters is whether or not the subject of the article is notable. If it is, then any amount of information is allowed as long as it doesn't violate the guidelines of WP:NOT. I would assume information directly about the language itself is pertinent to the language, though. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:16, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
Uh, they're certainly is such a thing as "far too in-depth". NOTEVERYTHING and DUEWEIGHT and all. It's only notable insofar as the game itself, which has no size issues to speak of (this spinoff is larger than the video game article at present, a good indication of how much is cruft), so creating a spinoff article is bad editorially, leaving aside notability issues. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 23:45, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
The size in proportion doesn't really matter when Far Cry Primal is C-Class—the article is not (and makes no claim to be) comprehensive—and splits to avoid weight concerns are absolutely a thing. DecafPotato (talk) 03:08, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
Splits are not a magical license to ignore notability and undue weight rules. Splits, which should always be done with caution because of WP:POVFORK, need to justify both why the main topic is so notable that a subtopic needs to be split out AND why the subtopic is notable in and of itself. I don't see Wenja language meeting any of these criteria. Axem Titanium (talk) 03:25, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
From what I can tell, undue weight is about viewpoints/opinions. "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources". Like, you wouldn't have an entire article talking about the dangers of brushing your teeth if it's not supported in the sources. This is an aspect of a game, not an opinion, so the wrong policy is being invoked here. You really want to invoke WP:INDISCRIMINATE, but this page doesn't seem like that either since it clearly has WP:RS talking about it. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:04, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
It most certainly does not! It's a mountain of trivia sourced to primary sources with a thin veneer of reliable but very preview-promotional sources on top. We cover topics in proportion to third party coverage. A separate article and this level of detail are way out of proportion. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:37, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Regarding sources, the article as is includes 5 independent sources that focus on the language itself (Gaming Respawn, Player One, University of Kentucky, Gamespot, Supertext). Zxcvbnm was kind enough to find another (Game Informer).
This book, published by McFarland & Company, discusses Wenja to a great extent within the context of storytelling: e.g. "Because the languages are functional, and not set up nonsensically or with nonsense words, the player’s sense of interactivity increases as the game unfolds", "Background conversations may not always be translated, contributing to the player’s sense of being immersed [...]. The result is not so dissimilar from learning a language by listening to its practical application, such as the systems taught using Rosetta Stone or Duolingo". This paper published in Revista de historiografía (Charles III University) discusses the creation and characteristics of Wenja to some lenght (p. 334 ff). This book also mentions Wenja within the wider discussion of conlangs, but I haven't had access to the full contents. This paper talks about Wenja within a discussion about the creation of several different dialects for artistic languages. Ultimately, I think this other book (discussed above) may also be relevant source because, while authored by the creators, it has been published by Oxford University Press, an institution with high editorial standards, and is in no way a self-publication. We have articles for conlangs based mainly of a book publication by their creator (e.g. Asa'pili).
I think an issue that may be causing a small misunderstanding here is that this article is mainly intended to be about a constructed language (that is also a part of a game). Some people in this community may not be familiar with how an article on a conlang looks like, so there are several comments about how the article is "bloated" with information on grammar or pronunciation. However, WikiProject Constructed languages does recommend that samples are included wherever possible, and indeed, in its structure this article is not dissimilar to many other articles about conlangs on Wikipedia (e.g. Brithenig, Quenya, Lingua Franca Nova, Naʼvi language, Interslavic, etc.) A significant part of this exposition is based on primary sources, but is the only part of the article that does so. This is how an article about a language is expected to be structured, regardless of whether it is a natlang or not. Qoan (talk) 23:09, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
Edit: a user from frwiki just left this other source from Sciences et Avenir on the talk page. Qoan (talk) 23:26, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm familiar with how language and conlang articles are structured. Conlangs are not a special protected class of article where notability rules do not apply. Game trivia is game trivia whether it's about how to unlock the secret gun at the weapon shop or how to say hello in the made-up language. At the end of the day, Wenja is a minor gameplay element of a minor video game (low importance on the WPVG scale). You cannot convince me that a handful of sources put Wenja on the level of Quenya or Na'vi in terms of third-party coverage or cultural impact. In terms of proportionality to achieve DUE weight, the main Far Cry Primal article currently has three times as many sources on other aspects of the game's development. Thus, the section on Wenja at Far Cry Primal#Development should aim to be about 1/3 the size of the rest of the section. Axem Titanium (talk) 07:03, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
I think you are misinterpreting what "trivia" actually means. If I said "the Giga-Blaster is unlocked on Level 3", then it would be trivia. If I wrote a full article on the Giga-Blaster with numerous reliable sources stating why it was important to gaming in general, it would no longer be trivia. Something is not "always trivia" no matter how much real-world importance it has. At this point, your argument against it existing is essentially WP:ITSNOTNOTABLE. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:20, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
But the parts of the article I'm calling trivia, the grammar and phoneme minutia, are not covered by reliable sources. They're covered solely by primary sources. Every source from the section Phonology to the end of the article, which represents 70% of the article length, is a primary source. Reliable 3rd party sources simply do not cover Wenja grammar at this level of detail (but they do for Klingon, Sindarin, etc.). That is why it's trivia. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:15, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

CNET and possible demotion as a reliable source

(Thought it'd be better to get more visibility here than WP:VG/S.) On the heels of the "CNET using AI to write (garbage) articles", we've got this: https://www.theverge.com/2023/2/2/23582046/cnet-red-ventures-ai-seo-advertisers-changed-reviews-editorial-independence-affiliate-marketing

I think deprecating it as a source for post-Red Ventures takeover might be warranted. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 17:33, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

  • Yeah this seems like it needs urgent action. There's an ongoing discussion already at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Beware:_CNet_running_AI-generated_articles,_byline_"CNet_Money" but we should also make the change here so it's not included in the VGRS custom search engine. I would be comfortable with moving to unreliable for all articles since November 2022, and "use with caution" for articles published before that. I have no idea if they're editing older articles but if the editorial independence is really as gutted as the Verge article makes it out to be, then I don't necessarily trust that old artiles are safe either. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:34, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Support for post-sale articles (post-2020); older ones should still be fine, though, especially archived pages from archive.org preceding the sale. CNET was a good source and standard reference for computer/tech news in its heyday. Phediuk (talk) 22:37, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Agree with deprecating forward from a given date, while allowing use of CNET from earlier times. I think Nov '22 is the right date as we can identify when articles were directly affected by advertisers, and don't yet have questions between 2020 and Nov '22 on article quality.
Masem (t) 22:47, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Went ahead and moved to situational with the pre/post 2022 disclaimer at the source page. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:15, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Xbox Series X/S Console Exclusives Category?

Would it be possible to make a new category for Xbox Series X/S console exclusives? The entire Xbox ecosystem (and the video game industry for that matter) is taking a shift to releasing games on PC while also keeping their games to themselves on the console side of things. Currently there is no Xbox Series X/S-only games category because of this, but it seems wrong to not be able to categorize the new console exclusives, especially as Microsoft themselves are pushing exclusives available only on their services with games like Hi-Fi Rush and the upcoming Starfield. Even PlayStation and Nintendo are following this marketing strategy by promoting games on their systems as "console exclusives" on their sites and presentations. If it's unfair to only limit this to Xbox, new categories could be made for PlayStation and Nintendo as well. Redquil (talk) 22:10, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

If one exists, the category can be created by anyone. But categories should be populated, hence why it doesn't exist. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:23, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
So since there are Xbox Series X/S console exclusives, can I just make the new category and populate it? Redquil (talk) 00:19, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
Previous discussion that I'll link if I can find decided that such categories should only contain "true* exclusives, not console exclusives. DecafPotato (talk) 01:33, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
How long ago was this? Is there a way to open up the discussion again to account for changes in the industry? Redquil (talk) 02:41, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
Anyone free to start up new discussions, but I think the current consensus is relatively recent. All that "console exclusive" stuff skews a bit to close to the "console warz"/fanboy mentality for an encyclopedia for many editors. Sergecross73 msg me 20:17, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
Someone last year had made separate "console exclusives" categories (besides the ones we already have for "true" exclusives) that listed games that are released on one of the major consoles + mobile and PC, which got RfC'd and deleted after a near-unanimous vote. Discussions can be found here and here. This was about two and a half months ago, I don't think the consensus will have changed that drastically since then. ReneeWrites (talk) 20:08, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
(Upon further looking into it, Redquil was actually the one who created those categories, FYI.) Sergecross73 msg me 20:22, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Analysis and potential free images

I noticed that a skilled editor left several sources in Cloud Strife's further reading subsection. When reading them, I noticed there was far more content that could heavily expand his reception section but rather than praise or a dislike it was a heavy analysis about his portrayal and comparison with Christian religion. The more I added sources and balanced it with the reception, I realized I could add one or two free images (I almost added a Jesus image) like a messiah figure (which I found okay considering the figure I noticed was supported by symbols similar to the ones from the game or his portrayal as an atoner. From more what I read Tifa and Aertih have more potential for this type of commentary Sephiroth is even compared with Satan as hilarious as it might sound. I just noticed Kefka's article had a similar analysis. Feel free to revise them. There is sure more material to cook. Tintor2 (talk) 21:23, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

It's always useful to keep in mind what exactly the image adds to an article. A depiction of Jesus or Satan, for example, might not actually add much beyond the textual description. Optimally you try to find images that are specifically relevant to the character's aesthetics, like if Renaissance art was a specific inspiration for example. Otherwise, the image might taint a reader's own understanding of the original artist's/designer's interpretation. Something to keep in mind :) ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:42, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Template:Sim racing

Anyone else find strange that a whole genre has its own template? Also I don't like the way the games are cherry picked, especially for the "Legacy" group. Mika1h (talk) 01:06, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree that removing "Legacy" and "Currently developed" is probably a good idea either way. The rest of the template's existence does make some sense to me, as it feels like a genre quite isolated from other gaming fields with a very specific community dedicated to it. Such a template should generally avoid requiring much research; I'm not sure if "Active userbase" works either. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:34, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
Sim racing isn't synonymous with racing video game. Get rid of it. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 10:17, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
Isn't that the reason Sim racing has this separate template? I view this as similar to Template:Fighting game community, which has similar inclusion issues. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 10:22, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
Sorry, I finished my comment too hastily. I'm not convinced there is such an established sim racing community akin to the fighting game community. It looks like the template is more concerned with racing video games that aim for realism and as such are considered racing sims. But I could be mistaken. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 12:54, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Project-independent quality assessments

See Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Project-independent quality assessments. This proposes support for quality assessment at the article level, recorded in {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and inherited by the wikiproject banners. However, wikiprojects that prefer to use custom approaches to quality assessment can continue to do so. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:22, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Uncategorised speedy

Can one of our admins put this (Category:Video games with title antagonists) speedy request out of its misery please. It's been tagged since the start of January, but doesn't appear to be showing up on any of the speedy maintenance pages; and now there's an IP user adding articles to it. Thanks. - X201 (talk) 08:43, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Love this game where the lack of straight roads is the antagonist.[Humor] ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:47, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
Besides the fact that it's trivial, it also violates WP policy on spoilers, which is that while the encyclopedia is not censored, it should not go out of its way to spoil things about a work of media if it is not necessary. For at least one game on the list, the fact that its title character is a villain is a major spoiler. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:59, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for GLaDOS

GLaDOS 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. Onegreatjoke (talk) 16:15, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

"Honorable Mentions" in award tables

Some awards, like the latest GDCAs, feature honorable mentions. Do we include these in award tables on game articles? If not, are they worth mentioning in the prose? IceWelder [✉] 16:22, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Honorable mentions are games that fell short of actually getting nominated, so I really don't think they should go in award tables. Whether it's worth mentioning in the prose depends on how the reception section looks otherwise - for a lot of games it's gonna be a pretty minor part of their overall reception, for other smaller games it might make sense to mention.--AlexandraIDV 16:37, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
This is...not quite right. Honorable mentions are presented as candidates and go through a voting process and simply are the last games culled in the "semifinals" of voting. Eg: IGF awards take all nominations, a shortlist of games are created, the jury members vote that list down to 10 or 12, and then down to 6 to create the finalests. The HMs are those dropped there. They should be included if we have confirmed sources they were given HMs. We can't use first-party sources that claim their were in the near running for an award if they aren't listed in the nominees or HMs for the award. And to the best of my knowledge the IGFs and GDCAs are the only ones with them. Masem (t) 13:31, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
Based on this information, I think a short prose inclusion should be fine. See edit for my particular case. IceWelder [✉] 11:02, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
I wouldn't include, unless it was some small, niche game that is rare to get such a mention. (For example, somehow World End Syndrome gets a honorable mention in best storytelling in a game of the year, up again major blockbusters.) Sergecross73 msg me 16:43, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
For notable awards that have honorable mentions (which most of them don't), yes. ReneeWrites (talk) 17:24, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
I oppose. If they are not properly nominated then it does not belong, no matter how notable the award. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 13:46, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Agree with the above honorable mentions don’t merit inclusion. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 12:50, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
An honorable mention could be worth including if it features a description of why the game received the mention, as this can be interesting prose. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 13:01, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Piano Tiles and its Sequel

I'm not sure these games are notable. CHecking for referenced shows very little, but I Could just suck. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 13:37, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

If you believe so, I recommend nominating Piano Tiles and Piano Tiles 2 for deletion through this process: WP:AFDHOWTO. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 13:54, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
Oh I know how to nominate something for AFD. I'm just wanting to see real quick if anyone else might be better at finding sources for them than I am. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 13:58, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
At the very least, Piano Tiles seems notable enough: [1] (this is before the time frame that's considered unreliable), [2], [3]. I'd merge Piano Tiles 2 into the original article (will check on this too when I'm more free). Jovanmilic97 (talk) 14:02, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
Well unfortunately I"d have to go through a merge discussion since Piano Tiles 2 has already been sent to AFD and deleted. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 14:06, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
I think you can just do a WP:BOLD ATD merge, exactly because it was deleted on AFD before. As for Piano Tiles, there's more coverage in Chinese media (given it was initially developed by in China): [4] (few paragraphs in Zhongguancun Online that has an article in cn wiki) and [5] (a review in Tencent's web portal QQ), [6] (an article by China Internet Information Center that includes some development timeline bridge between the two Piano Tiles games). And this is just some cursory search. Passes WP:GNG in my opinion. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 14:13, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
Ah ok. Thanks for searching for more sources. I didn't see any chinese ones in my initial search using WP:RSSE. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 14:22, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Zhwiki editor late to the party. I actually assert that it is notable because it is once nearly played by every mobile gamer in China.

Replying to Jovanmilic97, you need to take extreme care with sources from China. Big-tech news portals usually operate like Forbes + Forbes contributors, no entry threshold, no editorial (except for censorship). In fact the China Internet Information Center source above is just a repost of a news article posted by China Business Network [7]. Not to say that the source is unreliable, in fact I think it is reliable.

Given the worsening situation day by day, the only consensus we can make is that articles posted on such websites share the reliability with the real author, not the hosting service. MilkyDefer 13:49, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

@MilkyDefer: Hey Milky! THanks for the response. Since you're a zhWiki editor, could you help me with making the article a bit better? It would be a great help to me since, well, I don't understand Chinese whatsoever. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 14:07, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes I understand the English article for Piano Tiles is badly written. I might give it a try tomorrow (yeah its 10 p.m. into the night). I have no objection towards merging Piano Tiles 2 into the main one. MilkyDefer 14:20, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Sounds good. I attempted the merge already but found the Piano Tiles 2 article didn't really have much to merge. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 14:23, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay, I need to concentrate on my work towards master's degree. I may not be very active till early next month. MilkyDefer 14:08, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Nah you're perfectly fine! ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 15:52, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Old GameSpot reviews

Might want to be careful when adding old GameSpot reviews to articles (90s-00s). There are some inaccurate dates and reviewer names on the current site. For example:

Mika1h (talk) 17:26, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Misdated articles go beyond reviews as well. I immediately had to think of this 1998 article about Spidersoft's acquisition, which is currently dated as April 28, 2000. April 2000 seems to be the timeframe where they transitioned to a new platform and nuked most dates on older articles. Outside of that, I noticed that some reviews found on GameSpot today were originally from its console-focused sister site, VideoGameSpot (VideoGames.com), before the two were merged. For example, their review of Tonic Trouble is now on GameSpot. At the very least, this one is correctly dated and attributed to the right person. IceWelder [✉] 17:41, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, I've noticed similar stuff at both GameSpot and IGN. You've got to be careful in checking the dates...but at the same time, I'm just generally thankful that we have any online sources that still have content from the late 90s/early 2000s. Sergecross73 msg me 17:46, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
Is this worth documenting and adding a warning at their entry on WP:VG/S? Like "for articles older than 200X, please verify authorship, publication date, and other citation details via internet archives when possible"? Axem Titanium (talk) 02:03, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
Yeah i've noticed this for more than a year now as I'm going through a lot of this stuff.(I do double check everything) Timur9008 (talk) 13:54, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Slightly unrelated but I just found about the existence of GameSpot UK. They had they own reviews separate from the US site. Sims 1 page, Gamerankings listing of reviews. --Mika1h (talk) 18:17, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

There is also GameSpot Germany [8], GameSpot Australia [9], and GameSpot Czech [10](have reviews according to the site).Timur9008 (talk) 18:21, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

New Articles (January 30 to February 5)

Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements
 A listing of all articles newly added to the Video Games Wikiproject (regardless of creation date). Generated by v3.15 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 13:57, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

January 30

January 31

February 1

February 2

February 3

February 4

Is that helpful? It just lists List of PlayStation 2 Classics for PlayStation 3 and List of PlayStation 2 games for PlayStation 4. Isn't a hatnote sufficient? soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 15:16, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
It's functionally a disambiguation page. I don't oppose switching to mutual hatnotes but I don't find this page objectionable either. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:19, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
The general sentiment of WP:ONEOTHER is that we wouldn't really need a disambiguation page. Sergecross73 msg me 22:07, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
Sorry, I haven't been very active the last couple of days. Weren't there plenty of PS2 games that have seen a physical rerelease on PS3? And I might be nitpicking, but a title like "Lists of downloadable PlayStation 2 games" sort of sounds like a list (or lists) of games of downloadable games for the PS2. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 21:57, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
It's fine, I don't feel that strongly about it either way. Not entirely sure how many "PS2 on PS3" games there are, but I recall there were a ridiculous number of these separate PS3 games lists created back in the day, and many were deleted/redirected a few years ago. So I wouldn't be surprised if either of these were missed in those efforts. Sergecross73 msg me 00:47, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

February 5

PresN 13:57, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

It seems to me like List of copyright disputes involving Nintendo goes into the realm of WP:UNDUE due to the lack of lists of copyright disputes for other companies. Its claims that Nintendo is unusually litigious/unjust in some way feel like WP:SYNTH. Most of the listed disputes seem like perfectly rational reactions to the use of copyrighted content (besides the obvious fair use one, which was quickly reversed). ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:04, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, there might be an article there...but I don't think it's there yet. I think it should be sent back to the draft space. Sergecross73 msg me 14:20, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
I know there is an IP Protection section in the main Nintendo page. It doesn't detail each individual flagging, but it is broad enough that if there are more notable examples from this list, they can add to the summary there Masem (t) 15:00, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
If there is a consensus to send it back to draft space, I have no objection. silvia (BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) (inquire within) 17:36, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
I think there's the nugget of an article here, not a list. I would incubate in draft space or the relevant section (Nintendo#Intellectual_property_protection) and split out if necessary per WP:SIZESPLIT. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:16, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
Separately there is discussion on the Nintendo talk page about managing two or three separate pages on Nintendo's console history, and the main.Nintendo page goes a bit too deep into console specs and details, and should be more focused on corporate matters, while a second page can handle the console specs. So there is a way to resolve the SIZE issue even after adding some of these IP issues. I would definitely make sure some of the Court cases are included (particularly the one on Donkey Kong). Masem (t) 21:52, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
I'm curious about WP:LISTN—do any sources discuss these events as a group? Or should it just be an article about the company's copyright protection in general. It also could easily become a WP:POVFORK if not treated carefully. DecafPotato (talk) 00:10, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
To add, I did just add what was missing from the current section in Nintendo save for the GilveSunner one (which also should be added). I don't think we need the list given all that. Masem (t) 05:00, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
The Crew Motorfest is officially styled as "The Crew: Motorfest" however none of the sources I used make use of that colon so I just left it out. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 14:06, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
I don't see any colons on the official website. I think you're safe. Axem Titanium (talk) 22:48, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
I say "officially" because that's what they are using on the official The Crew discord server. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 23:20, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:The Cuphead Show! § Cleanup the article

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:The Cuphead Show! § Cleanup the article. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 02:18, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Yoshi's Island § Requested move 11 February 2023

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Yoshi's Island § Requested move 11 February 2023. DecafPotato (talk) 05:23, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Relevance of retaining GameRankings

Currently, GameRankings (scores) are considered as redundant to Metacritic and are being retroactively removed in favor of Metacritic. But I argue taking The Sims (video game) as an example, GR had online cultural relevance and more review coverage for it at that time. On this article, we should retain GR scores and add accompanying prose, which I expect to be generally fitting for games around the 2000s.

Have not seen a weighty reason why GR was just removed given its notability. The points of GR scores being rather similar, its shared ownership with MC after 2005 and later attention around MC do not personally justify this. More background reasoning and inclusion ideas on MOS/VG talk, basic example of one way to retain GR is below. Perhaps let's do a RfC?

"On review aggregator GameRankings, the PC version of The Sims received a score of 89.75% based on 46 reviews. While on Metacritic, the version received a score of 92 indicating "universal acclaim" based on 16 reviews.[5]"

  1. ^ "The Sims (PC)". GameRankings. Archived from the original on June 27, 2015. Retrieved August 28, 2015.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: unfit URL (link)
  2. ^ "The Sims (PlayStation 2)". GameRankings. Archived from the original on June 26, 2015. Retrieved August 28, 2015.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: unfit URL (link)
  3. ^ "The Sims (Xbox)". GameRankings. Archived from the original on June 26, 2015. Retrieved August 28, 2015.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: unfit URL (link)
  4. ^ "The Sims (GameCube)". GameRankings. Archived from the original on June 26, 2015. Retrieved August 28, 2015.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: unfit URL (link)
  5. ^ "The Sims for PC". Metacritic. Archived from the original on April 1, 2015. Retrieved August 27, 2015.

IgelRM (talk) 10:28, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

The guidance in {{Video game reviews}} is pretty clear, and I don't personally see this article as being an exception. If you take the GR and MC scores for The Sims (and note that the template recommends rounding to the nearest percent instead of taking it out to the hundredths place), you get MC=92/83/84/85, and GR=90/81/82/86. That's a difference of ~1-2% on any given platform. That's not a major distinction. If you think that the GR scores are more relevant than MC scores to a ~2000 game, then swap it out in the template, sure, but I wouldn't do both. Similarly, you can summarize the MC and GR ratings in prose if you want, but I personally find it boring and needlessly detailed. To be frank, looking at the reception section for the game, what it needs is not a more fine-grained way to discuss the aggregator scores, but instead more than 3 sentences of review summary. --PresN 13:45, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
You're currently the 4th person to explain this to them too, as they've already got a very similar discussion going on at the MOS talk page. This is bordering WP:FORUMSHOPPING. Sergecross73 msg me 13:50, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
PresN's opinion is different in the way that they suggested to change the article and acknowledge that I argued GR to be more relevant to some games, which is what I was looking for in a discussion. IgelRM (talk) 07:22, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. Going to swap the MC scores for GR then per my above reasoning why I believe this makes a relevant different. But would that not go against current template {Video game reviews}'s "Only use [GR] for older games when Metacritic data is unavailable" and MOS/VG's "Only consider including GameRankings in when a Metacritic score is unavailable" etc? Also agreed more review summary needed instead of numbers and aggregators. IgelRM (talk) 07:04, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

The Washington Times Archives

Something I've been meaning to ask here. Newspapers.com doesn't have the The Washington Times newspapers(not sure If they will in the future) but there is plenty of video game related articles there(over 6400) that can possibly be used in video game related articles. Stuff like sales figures for example I've added to Primal Rage [11] or The Terminator: Rampage [12] but to my knowlege they don't have a clipping feature like Newspapers.com and you have to pay to view each article.(which I did) Is there a way to incorporate the The Washington Times sources to make them verifiable? Timur9008 (talk) 14:31, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

It appears each article has an individual URL (e.g. this one for Primal Rage) so you could link that in the reference alongside |url-access=subscription to allow paid subscribers to easily verify the content if necessary. Not as accessible as Newspapers.com but potentially useful nonetheless. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 15:05, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 Done Thanks! Timur9008 (talk) 15:33, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
@Timur9008, some metro and academic libraries will have access through a reference product subscription, though usually without access to the source's full back catalog. For example, here is the NYPL's with access through Gale, EBSCOhost, and PressReader from 1996 to 2021. Those sites will have article identifiers you can cite. czar 04:39, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
Thanks! :) Timur9008 (talk) 08:29, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Requested move to Xenoblade

Hi, I started a convo over on the Xenoblade Chronicles series talk page about just moving it to Xenoblade. Come and have a go, if you think you're hard enough. - Whadup, it's ya girl, Dusa (talk) 13:55, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Baten Kaitos (series) split

I'm requesting input on the recent creation of a series article. Please see here. Input is welcome. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 12:23, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Honestly, hijacking to say that we should probably consider cleaning up series articles in general, as a lot of them seem like they're there because they merely have three games rather than the series is actually notable as a series. - Whadup, it's ya girl, Dusa (talk) 20:40, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Refocusing List of Mario television episodes

Could use some participation for a proposal at Talk:List of Mario television episodes#Proposal to refocus this list. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:32, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Tekken images

With the recent Tekken 8 news, a user has been changing the nonfree images from Jin Kazama and Kazuya Mishima among others. I'm not the best to judge which image is better but it seems the new images were poorly uploaded as free, leading to their eventual deletion. He seems to have gone from the account Special:Contributions/Sephiroth360 but went instead an anon account upon being reverted Special:Contributions/115.167.64.222 Are the old images outdated or should the Tekken 8 remain? Tintor2 (talk) 23:22, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi Tintor2, it seems the newly uploaded images have already been deleted. I reverted the anon earlier today, sorry for not replying sooner. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 19:56, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
I honestly hate that trend when it happens, because then you get weird situations like with the Street Fighter characters suddenly getting art that obscured most of the character when the more iconic original art showed things better. Usually it's more than a few anons or new users doing it too. Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:38, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Improving Music of the Ace Attorney series

Hi, and hope you're doing well! I was comparing Music of Homestuck and Music of the Ace Attorney series. While the former is far from perfect, it does give context to make the article more than a glorified tracklist. Considering how important music is to the Ace Attorney gameplay, how the series is more than twenty years old, and how it is one of Capcom's big IPs, there ought to be enough secondary RS for a modest expansion and improvement of the AA music article. I did find one source on Google Books; while it shows up on the keyword search, the preview itself is unavailable. If anyone with access to sources can help, that would be greatly appreciated. Regardless, hope you have a good day. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 04:29, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

This really tickled my fancy as I'm procrastinating doing some work that I've been procrastinating all day today -- thank you for this gift! I found a few things about more recent musical production, listed out below:
  • Interview with the Great Ace Attorney composer about the influences from older games and the composing methods. ([13])
  • A translated interview with the original creator of the Ace Attorney series, where he answers one question about the music and how it was created. ([14])
  • A summary of an interview with the creator of the series in Famitsu (it may be the same one but I'm not checking too hard right now) which briefly mentions music and the small size of the original team. ([15])
  • Creator of the series talks about vision for the music of the Great Ace Attorney vs. what was originally created ([16])
All of these are interviews, and none are secondary sources, but should be helpful in putting together at least some of this. Nomader (talk) 06:59, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
I'm glad you enjoyed the gift! I'll take a look at the interviews when I have the chance and take a stab at expanding the AA music article. I must admit that writing is not a strength of mine, so hopefully, someone else will come along and improve the prose (once it's there). The talk page also lists some reviews, including Kotaku ones, so that should help, too. And I'll see how much info I can get on that Google Books source; I'd like to be able to cite some video game scholars if I can get them. Thank you so much for your help! Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 16:21, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

New Articles (February 6 to February 12)

Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements
 A listing of all articles newly added to the Video Games Wikiproject (regardless of creation date). Generated by v3.15 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 19:13, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

February 6

February 7

February 8

February 9

February 10

Why is this article listed? I can't tell. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 19:47, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
Mistake, probably. Talk page banner was removed several days ago. --Mika1h (talk) 19:59, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

February 11

February 12

PresN 19:13, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Donkey Kong

To prevent an edit war I've opened a discussion at Donkey Kong regarding whether the article should use the franchise or video game series infobox. Discussion here. JOEBRO64 20:42, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Character articles issue

Hi. I've run into something that's been appearing with the user Tintor2 (mentioning to be part of discussion). I recently did some edits on the page for Noctis Lucis Caelum, putting in a "citation needed" bit for a claim regarding the character's parralel with messiah characters and a Roman influence. Tintor2 proceeded to put in an interview, but when I checked it didn't support any of the claims in-article, so I felt I had to revert it. This isn't the first time I've run into this recently, with Ardyn Izunia being another example. There it was using the wrong reference to site information, which might be an honest mistake, though elsewhere information seems to have been added with non-English sources used to make claims that aren't actually supported by the translated text. This is something I wanted to raise as it threatens to bring the integrity of articles into question. There's also an issue I saw when performing some rewrites for the character article 2B (Nier: Automata), which places undue emphasis on bits of info only tangentially related to the character in question. Is there a guideline that could be followed for this? ProtoDrake (talk) 18:47, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

WP:DDE, where it states "if the sources are poor or misinterpreted". Essentially the user themselves must be blamed for such things because competence is required. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:18, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
English isn't Tintor's first language. Might be sources misunderstood due to that? I've overall had good experiences working with him so I doubt it's intentional misrepresentation. Axem Titanium (talk) 00:42, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
Has anyone tired discussing the souring issues with the user in question since that does seems like the logical first step.--70.24.249.205 (talk) 07:21, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
+1 this. Haleth (talk) 02:27, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
@Axem Titanium: Didn't realise English wasn't Tintor2's first language. That probably explains a few things. --ProtoDrake (talk) 10:20, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Merge discussion - Koopalings

Please see the discussion here. Input welcomed. Thanks! Sergecross73 msg me 18:42, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

This is the appropriate approach. Which makes me wonder why 3 other articles of a similar nature with analogous content, have recently been nominated for AfD, by an experienced editor nonetheless. Haleth (talk) 02:29, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
Nominating non-notable articles for deletion can be done if you believe the sole viable options are delete or otherwise merge somewhere else. A standard merge discussion implies there is still the possibility the article can stand on its own which is why it is way less urgent and does not require administrators to monitor the process. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:33, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
If you believe an article cannot stand on its own, you should boldly merge it rather than nominating it for deletion. If that's not an option or gets undone, a talkpage merge discussion is still the appropriate format. If the article is a BLP or controversial, I can understand a more urgent process being reasonable, but generally you shouldn't nominate for deletion if you believe a merge is appropriate. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 13:09, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
Needless to say, a bold merge that gets quickly reverted is simply a waste of time. I automatically assume that any fan related content is going to have someone who wants it to stay regardless of Wikipedia policies.
I only "do" merge discussions when I think the article is notable. Overall, judging by the vast backlog of them for this project alone, they are largely ignored when it comes time to close them.
In this particular discussion, I can't think of how it would have been worse as an AfD. It would have come to the same conclusion and been closed yesterday. Right now, it's still open and might be for some time. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:17, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Possible Manual of Style for game library lists

I've been perusing game library lists for the past few days, and I've noticed just how wildly inconsistent they are. Some don't have any dates, some only have one date, some have extra details (like multiplayer), etc. I think it would be a good idea to come up with a standarized version for all game library lists to use unless there's reason to deviate. - Whadup, it's ya girl, Dusa (talk) 06:35, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

I used to spend a *lot* of time writing VG lists, and either wrote or helped to put together the Wario, Kirby, Donkey Kong, Zelda, and X-Men lists back in the day (some of which looking at this, I want to update a bit...). I'm loathe to put a specific requirement on the style required, because many different styles can serve the purpose and this ends up being more art than science. Template:Video game titles is definitely the normally-used standard for smaller lists (I'd say less than 50 or so) games, because it allows editors to easily and succinctly include notes and details about each entry in a summary style format and to give detailed release information. Some lists use alternate methods out of personal preference from the author, and that should be fine too as long as it strives towards meeting the Featured list criteria.
For platforms like the the Sega Genesis or the Nintendo 64, it makes sense that this approach would be unsustainable, and that more use would be given to the reader by making an easily sortable list that contains less detail. But what details should be included by platform? It likely could depend on when a console was released (I could imagine that digital releases and other items could be changing what columns should be included). Our own PresN is much more involved in the Featured List process overall as one of the assigned delegates (and the author of a bajillion video game lists himself) and probably would have more concrete thoughts on the subject. Nomader (talk) 16:19, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, I've got, what, 24 lists of video games specifically? Plus a few that are video game-related but not of games themselves. Anyway, eight years ago I wrote Shove It in a Table: How to Write Featured Lists of Video Games for the VG newsletter, which, while the writing is a little cringy at times, does hit the problem that not all lists are created equal- there are structural differences between a non-English publisher that has hundreds of games and an English-language developer of a dozen PC-only games and a list of all thousands of games for a console, for example. What things get included or highlighted depends on the subject matter. It can get out of hand—I've seen some lists that tried to include genre and number of players and multiplayer types and about 20 other columns in one big mess—but overall it's hard to define a specific MOS for what is really a dozen different types of lists. Not to say we couldn't do it, though, if people can agree on something. --PresN 16:46, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
Well, to me, I honestly think it should be based on trying to understand why a person would go to a list of games. For instance, while some might be interested in knowing how many games are multiplayer or not on the GBA, but I think the info that is most, and consistently, relevant would be developer, publisher, and release dates in the 3-4 main markets.
As an aside, can someone look at the NES list? Something got super broken at some point. - Whadup, it's ya girl, Dusa (talk) 23:01, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
What's wrong with the NES list? TarkusABtalk/contrib 00:16, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
Oop, my bad. I misunderstood the columns. - Whadup, it's ya girl, Dusa (talk) 20:42, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

New Articles (February 13 to February 19)

Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements
 A listing of all articles newly added to the Video Games Wikiproject (regardless of creation date). Generated by v3.15 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 14:51, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

February 13

February 14

February 15

February 16

February 17

February 18

February 19

PresN 14:51, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

I forgot that DanTDM wrote a book. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 17:43, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
It really was right at the height of "big media" companies being absolutely convinced that shoving YouTubers into traditional media formats would 1. actually work and 2. appeal to anybody, ever. In that sense, it's quite forgettable in a sea of I Hate Myselfie and Selp-Helf and.. well, you can tell the YouTubers I watched growing up were different, but it's the same idea.
Of course, they still do this for some reason, but it's definitely past its prime. casualdejekyll 22:38, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

PSA about dead Gamasutra, GameSpot, and IGN links

I've noticed a lot of articles recently where editors have tagged links to Gamasutra, GameSpot, and IGN dead or set the 'url-status' parameter in their citation to 'dead'. However, I've only found one instance where this was actually warranted, and I'll explain why:

Gamasutra – Gamasutra was rebranded as Game Developer two years ago. If you click a Gamasutra article, it will redirect you to Game Developer, but unlike the situation with GamesRadar+ redirects, here it will bring you to the full Gamasutra article. In other words, you can just take the Game Developer link and paste it into the URL field for the citation. Very rarely, the redirect fails, and at this point copy-pasting the title into your web browser of choice will take you to the article whose URL you can use.

GameSpot – Unlike Gamasutra, GameSpot has been pretty careless with link rot. Older GameSpot links often don't redirect to their new ones, but I've only ever found one instance where copy-pasting and searching the name of the article hasn't yielded a usable URL.

IGN – Similar story here. Articles used to be prepended with e.g. ds.ign.com, pc.ign.com, ps2.ign.com, etc. Now, however, they're under www.ign.com. These articles aren't lost forever; like GameSpot, it's just a matter of copy-pasting the title into a search engine.

There are a few reasons why it's suboptimal to only use an archive link for a live URL, namely that the Internet Archive is slower than just loading the website, it will often exclude video media, it creates a single point of failure (plenty of websites have shown they aren't above telling the Wayback Machine to entirely stop archiving their site), and it unnecessarily puts more server costs on a vital resource to the project. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 14:05, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Maybe you could bring this up at WP:URLREQ? ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 14:20, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
I for one don't really care if there's a current incarnation available; it's almost guaranteed that sometime in the future the link will rot again, making it a waste of time to bother to keep links current. There's far more of a risk that an active link will die than the Internet Archive will be forced to delete a website wholesale or that a few views of a page in the Wayback Machine will tax their resources.
So; I don't really see it as a pressing matter, if even a matter at all. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 01:00, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

F-Zero: GP Legend

I sort of fell into a rabbit hole with F-Zero: GP Legend (video game). I wish I had more time to work on the article but I'm not able to find an ounce of development information. I was hoping someone might be able to assist. I tried as many Japanese sites as possible, Famitsu, Dengeki online, and 4Gamer. I'm not finding much on this game at all unless it's Nintendo covering it. If anything, it was a chore to clean it up, so if we can at least have it look better, that would be great.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 08:42, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

I've checked Newspapers.com, Nintendo's Japanese website, 4Kids Entertainment website(+ their press releases),4kids tv website, YouTube and Suzak's website(the game's developer). But I only found this [17] (the game's release date) Timur9008 (talk) 13:31, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Nintendo Switch Online categories

As it stands, we currently have six different categories for retro games available via Nintendo Switch Online:

This honestly seems like a bit much, and I think it would make more sense at this point to merge them all similar to our Virtual Console categories, but I'm unsure whether to place them all in a single catch-all NSO games category, or to split them between two separate categories based on whether they are available on the standard tier (NES, SNES, GB) or the premium Expansion Pack tier (N64, Gen, GBA). If anyone has any thoughts on whether or not to merge (and if so, whether to opt for one category or two), I'm all ears. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 16:36, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

  • Support merging them all into one "Nintendo Switch Online" category. I mean, the game's articles and other categories will already make it clear what subdivision of NSO it came from, so I don't see the point of it being split out in 6 different subsets like this. Sergecross73 msg me 16:59, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
    I agree...the intersection if being on NSO and what their original system was is not as useful as either by themselves. Masem (t) 17:02, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
I don't think WP should care how much money a person needs to pay. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 05:53, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Okay, with a week having passed and everyone seeming to have been in agreement, I've gone through and moved everything into Category:Nintendo Switch Online games. If someone could delete the old categories, it'd be much appreciated. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 15:30, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Zill Ơll pages

About the pages Zill Ơll, Zill Ơll Infinite and Trinity: Souls of Zill Ơll. While going through pages, I noticed that both the franchise page Zill Ơll has 0 sources, and neither does Zill Ơll Infinite. And they seem to have been this way for decades. I'm not sure what the right action here would be; Just to delete the prior two? Merge all three? Just merge the first two? I don't think there's enough English sources out there.  ►Kyo  ►Talk  05:38, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm going to assume they are in fact notable. Zill O'll was one of the top 10 games in Japan upon its release according to the charts. It's just that the original game and its remake did not get localized into English and have scant press, while Trinity got a localization and got far more in comparison. One will have to search Japanese sources before concluding that it's not actually notable.
Speaking of which, I am dubious the move to Zill Ơll away from Zill O'll was correct. It seems to be WP:OR regarding its logo stylization as its WP:COMMONNAME in all sources is Zill O'll. Everything might have to be moved back. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:55, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
The original PS game, at least, seems to be on the cusp of notability. There is this retrospective article from WP:RS Dengeki and this import review from GameSpot. It would really just need a bit more SIGCOV and Infinite/Infinite Plus could be merged into it, as a remake. It could then be page swapped with the series article as the primary name. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:03, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
OK, I found another magazine source so I think the mess is finally cleaned up here. At the very least the PlayStation game seems demonstrably notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:14, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Alright, thank you! I added the cover artwork. For the record, I went checking the Japanese article ja:ジルオール to see whether it'd have resources, but although it is massive and has none.  ►Kyo  ►Talk  07:19, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Single Platform Exclusivity for Nintendo Switch Online and Virtual Console Releases

I was looking at Pilotwings 64 and noticed that it's classified as a Nintendo 64 exclusive despite being released on Nintendo Switch Online for emulation purposes. However, virtual console releases on Wii and WiiU, despite being emulators for their respective consoles, seem to remove a game from being a single-platform exclusive (e.g. Ogre Battle 64). Should games re-released on NSO and Virtual Console be removed from the exclusives page for their console? Redquil (talk) 16:58, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

By "classified as a Nintendo 64 exclusive", do you mean it's in Category:Nintendo 64-only games? TarkusABtalk/contrib 18:01, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
Yes. Redquil (talk) 21:48, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
Emulation systems, like NSO or VC, should not be considered as main platforms that a game is released on, these are not included in the platform list in infoboxes. So for all purposes, Pilotwings 64 is still an N64 exclusive, including the N64 emulator on the Switch. --Masem (t) 18:03, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
So are other DS and GBA games released on the Wii U or 3DS through virtual console also DS-only and GBA-only games? Redquil (talk) 21:49, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
Yes, whereas something like Ace Attorney which was initially a GBA but got a complete DS port, should have both. Masem (t) 22:57, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Visual novel plots

I noticed that this wikiproject has a recommended plot limit of 700 words. Visual novel articles often struggle to meet this requirement. The GA articles Rewrite, Air, Steins;Gate, Ever17, all fail to meet the limit by a large margin if you add in the settings section. Do you have some sort of courtesy towards these story-heavy games?

I am especially interested in how you would copyedit the plot section of Wonderful Everyday, because I actually wrote the chinese version plot summary with ~2500 chinese characters (approx. 1500 words). To be honest I even have written several plot summaries of over 5000 chinese characters (approx. 3000 words). MilkyDefer 14:06, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

A better place to look would be Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Anime and manga, which is another parent project for WP:VN in this case. The better example to follow with visual novels would actually be the plot section of other actual novels, instead of video game plot sections -- the gameplay for many of these visual novels (as a personal fan myself) is often minimal outside of choosing paths or similar small gameplay notes, If I were you, I'd take a look at both the GA examples you cited for inspiration here and to other FA-Class novel articles to get a feel for what an appropriate length would look like.
On the Wonderful Everyday article, I'd say that it could definitely be more streamlined right now. I think that the Down the Rabbit-Hole II, It's My Own Invention, Looking-Glass Insects, and Jabberwocky II chapters could all be significantly trimmed without it affecting the overall flow of the summary. I think the characters could be easily summarized more too (e.g. "A habitual truant with a taste for cigarettes" could be cut and so could a lot of other similarly small details to make it more in a summary style). Nomader (talk) 14:36, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
Commenting as I expanded Wonderful Everyday's plot summary significantly (it previously read like the plot blurb out of a magazine advertisement or an official guidebook rather than the summary for an encyclopedia article): while I can agree that it is an excessively detailed summary, I had a fairly difficult time making it any shorter. HumanBodyPiloter5 suggested to me in a discord chat that it was missing some key details, which I revised it to include. Subahibi is in general difficult to summarize due to the sheer complexity of the story as well as some difficult to capture ambiguities in the plot and its extensive discussions of philosophical topics which may make the plot more comprehensible to those familiar with the philosophies it is referencing. I tried to keep the chapter summaries individually short, at least. Nonetheless, there's probably improvement to be made, and potentially even merit in combining the chapter summaries into a more succinct summary of the plot as a whole and placing less focus on the branch narratives (which could probably be reduced down to a paragraph or two saying what they are and briefly listing their outcomes). I welcome and encourage anyone who wants to have a crack at it. silvia (BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) (inquire within) 19:33, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
About the "a habitual truant with a taste for cigarettes" part, It really does not contribute to the overall character and plot. However, there is a scene where she is standing on the rooftop, dressed in a piece of black long dress, and smoking. That scene has become an iconic scene across the whole visual novel medium, and I think adding that detail would not hurt much. I am more interested in the actual plot section.
There are some story elements that will naturally make the plot complex, such as alternate dimensions, time travel, time loop, mental disorder, and unreliable narrators. Subahibi has mental disorder and unreliable narrators, there are other games having even more elements, like the aforementioned 5000-chinese-character summaries (for Irosekai and Sakura moyu, glad you don't have these two articles). I am afraid that if I am not revealing information in the same order as the work of fiction itself, the plot summary would read just like I am writing for a completely different piece of work, causing confusion to both who have played and not.
I have managed to get an "ignore all rules" permission for my super long summaries, by challenging others to slim down my version. As the number of my IARs grow, I feel more and more guilty. MilkyDefer 04:56, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
The character biographies have always been an issue, as they summarize the characters as they are initially presented, and not as they actually are, avoiding spoiling many plot points about them which fundamentally change their characters after it is revealed. I tried to solve this by adding "it is later revealed that" statements to them, but I think they need a more radical rewrite to present them as who the story ultimately reveals them to be. We're not beholden to only describe the superficial aspects of the characters to avoid spoilers, so this should be fine. I'll probably do it later. silvia (BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) (inquire within) 08:05, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
I will point out that some of those articles you mention are pretty old GAs (Air is from 08, Steins;Gate from 2010). And in Steins;Gate's case, its plot section has basically doubled since its promoted revision. At first blush they should definitely be hacked away at, but it's worth pointing out the 700-word limit is a guideline, not a maximum rule. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 20:13, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
+1 this. Also note that Wikipedia plot sections (not just for game articles) are not beholden to revealing information in the same order as the work of fiction itself. If it is more clear and concise to "spoil" the midpoint or ending twist in order to more eloquently convey the plot, it behooves you to do so. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:43, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
I will add that plot synopses do not need to describe every single plot beat. They don't even need to describe how the story ends! All that truly needs to be in the article are aspects of the story that our reliable sources refer to or comment on. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 15:21, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Commenting because apparently I got pinged here: So far as narrative is concerned visual novels simply cannot be treated like video games and different rules will have to apply about how much depth a plot summary goes into. In the case of many visual novels with alternate routes it's far more analogous to a series of novellas than it is to most video games. Of course, different visual novels will vary in length and scope, but seven-hundred words is unlikely to be enough to give a plot summary that doesn't have large chunks of fairly basic information missing from it in many cases, as would be the case for any other work of literature. The clue is really in the word "novel". I think that trying to be too concise has a tendency to lead to plot summaries which come across more like blurbs and may needlessly try to avoid WP:SPOILERS. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 06:00, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
    Completely in agreement to this. While the seven hundred word limit for video games makes sense for traditional gaming narratives where much of the plot exists in cutscenes used primarily to justify gameplay segments, it's completely inadequate for visual novels that can have dense scripts of dialogue and narration with word counts in the hundreds of thousands. Such short summaries would come across reading like intentionally spoiler-free advertisements or official guidebook blurbs, which in my opinion was the state of the Wonderful Everyday plot section before I expanded it to a more complete and accurate summary. I would say that some kind of change to the MOS to account for this reality is necessary. silvia (BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) (inquire within) 06:49, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
    I believe the problem would extend to long-running online games. AFAIK we regularly argue about the lengthy plot sections for Arknights, Genshin, and many more, in zhwiki. The limit should be generally fine for old games where internet is not a thing. The trend of regular updates, dlcs, expansion packs, makes the rule obsolete.
    As for subahibi, I am glad to see a chronological order summary in the article now. I in fact was unsure whether to tell the story in game order, or chronological order, and ended up including both. MilkyDefer 12:10, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
    Also I will have a try on Da Capo III, which is less complex than subahibi. MilkyDefer 12:12, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
    WP:NOVELS guidance is not substantially different than ours or film's: 400 to 700 words are usually sufficient for a full-length work, although very complex and lengthy novels may need a bit more. In the examples above, I cannot see any examples where I sat through 2000 words of minor characters and plot digressions and said, "yep, all this extra plot info really is helping me understand it." More to the point, if those minor characters and plot digressions aren't a major component of secondary sources (i.e. reviews) then that's extra motivation to strip it out. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 15:36, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
    Well, considering that Subahibi's plot summary is right now about 960 words, and we've established it's one of those that "may need a bit more" owing to the complexity, I think it's well within that allowance and shouldn't need major trimming. I can't speak to any other VNs as Subahibi is the main one I'm familiar with. I suppose that, in retrospect, I may have underestimated how much you can condense into that many words, and I didn't check the word count of my revision, but I guess it's fine. So, we actually probably don't need to change anything about the rule at all. silvia (BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) (inquire within) 20:12, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
    I would argue that this is a place where it could actually still be cut down significantly though... things like: "Zakuro meets with two girls from another school who convince her they are the reincarnations of powerful warriors, and they must have a near-death experience to recover their powers and prevent an oncoming apocalypse. The girls attempt to abandon the ritual, but Zakuro, now insane, pulls them both with her from the roof of the apartment building they planned to jump from, and all three die"
    ... could be cut to: "Zakuro is subsequently involved with a failed ritual, and Zakuro and her two friends that were involved in it die." Or something like that? It's not our job to give the reader a full synopsis of everything that happened, only to give a general overview of it IMO. Nomader (talk) 20:18, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
    Okay, I trimmed it further. Now the plot summary section is 700 words exactly and no more than that, so hopefully there's no more issues. silvia (BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) (inquire within) 21:01, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
  • A plot summary is heavily based on primary sources, and the 700-word limit looks like a bar for WP:UNDUE. If there are no writing guides, the length (or how detailed) of a plot summary would be fully depended upon article contributors: someone considers that 6,000 words is still far from enough, but another one thinks three sentences is fine. For example, the Chinese version of A Tale of Two Cities (translation) lacks of discussing about the plot, so a two-sentence-length plot summary (i.e. lead section) seems enough. Of course, about the plot of A Tale of Two Cities, there should be too much content to say. But as David Fuchs said, for a 2,000 words plot summary, lacking of secondary source discussing is really a problem. --Lopullinen 12:55, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Retro Gamer access is blocked from Issuu.com

Buy an issue if you want to read it. It's clear the issues aren't accessible due to a request from the publisher. You don't need to start a discussion every single time something like this happens. JOEBRO64 01:11, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

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

Now I have a problem, as Issuu.com has blocked all access to Retro Gamer magazine from viewing or turning pages. I've lost access to Retro Gamer forever. Example. --Angeldeb82 (talk) 00:26, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

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

New Articles (February 20 to February 26)

Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements
 A listing of all articles newly added to the Video Games Wikiproject (regardless of creation date). Generated by v3.15 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 17:42, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

February 20

February 21

February 22

February 23

February 24

February 25

February 26

PresN 17:42, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

  • There was a pretty solid consensus against "bonfires" having their own article in 2018. Have things really changed to warrant it now in 2023? Sergecross73 msg me 17:57, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
    @Zxcvbnm: and @Dissident93: Pinging both of you as you've both edited it in the past week or so. I'm inclined to agree with Sergecross here. Nomader (talk) 18:16, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
    I still agree that it doesn't need a separate article. Cull some of the info and merge it back on the series page. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 18:18, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
    Numerous new sources have been added since then, the article has been expanded, and I'd argue there's enough to make it a WP:GA easily. There are four full and long articles by game journalists directly pertaining to Souls bonfires. Saying it's not meriting a standalone article has to be a joke at this point right? ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:54, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
    Its way over detailed without support if sources for many sections. The reception and legacy seem a hodgepodge of of sourced ideas, and very similar to what we used to see when editors were pulling from listicles to justify character articles. In addition, at least right now, the bonfire is a DS only concept, and would be far better to explain it in context of the series gameplay (or even at soulslike). This doesn't have the type of sourcing that a more generic mechanic like quick time event covers, so the separate article isn't really helpful. Masem (t) 20:05, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
    Completely agreed. Sergecross73 msg me 20:10, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
    While I hate to pull the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS card, Blue shell is a Mario Kart-only concept and User:Sergecross73 has participated in editing the page without raising a merge discussion, implying it's notable enough for a standalone article. In fact no one has argued it should be merged since 2014. It also has far less WP:SIGCOV from WP:RS, since unlike the Bonfire, it has no thematic or plot relevance, with most of the sources being interviews. I have to feel like Bonfires are being singled out here. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:25, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
    In any event, it's arguable Bonfire-type save points have in fact become a generic mechanic, like QTE's, even in games that are not specifically Soulslikes. For example, Shovel Knight has them, and you could not really call it a Soulslike video game. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:33, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
    Please don't misrepresent my actions - I merely participated in an article name/move for blue shell. I've given no endorsement of it having its own article. I'd probably !vote merge had it been a merge discussion. Still would. Anyways, that aside, I really think you need to better acquaint yourself with WP:MERGEREASON. Your arguments here and elsewhere seem to operate as if you don't factor it in to these types of discussions. Sergecross73 msg me 20:57, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
    By the same token, you should probably read WP:NOTMERGE. Bonfire is indeed a discrete subject that meets the WP:GNG and passes #2 and #3. The "duplicate" and "overlap" reasons clearly entail such situations as an original game and a remaster, for example, not an indepth article about a game element. That is a misinterpretation. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:04, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
    Definitely talking about point #4 of MERGEREASON. It's just a minor gameplay mechanic that takes an understanding of the game to understand the subject's concept. Sergecross73 msg me 21:10, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
    This is horribly gameguide-y/fandom-faire. Notability is dead for popculture topics on Enwiki. -- ferret (talk) 21:47, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
I'm incredibly confused by the claim that Shovel Knight has bonfires. I can only think of two things this could be referring to. Either the destroyable checkpoints, which to my understanding, work completely differently, or merely claiming that having a campfire as an in-game marker of progress constitutes something similar. It's not really a save point, it's just a campfire at the end of the level. - Whadup, it's ya girl, Dusa (talk) 21:07, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
I also don't understand the claim that Bonfires, as a rule, passes #2 and #3. I would argue it does not. - Whadup, it's ya girl, Dusa (talk) 21:09, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
The Shovel Knight checkpoint comparison tends to hinge on the death mechanics, where you can dare to reclaim your souls money. I've always found Hollow Knight a much more sensible comparison, as those benches similarly restore health and respawn enemies, but no sources seem to have made that connection before (except for this GameRant listicle, heh). That's a bit forumy, but it's interesting how published sources have talked about these mechanics. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:51, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
I have WP:BOLDly reverted the redirect. The consensus was established almost 5 years ago and the article had been completely rewritten since. This needs a full discussion. (Oinkers42) (talk) 22:01, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
The age of a consensus does not invalidate the consensus. A new consensus is needed to undo an existing one. JOEBRO64 22:24, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
That was inappropriate. A consensus holds until there is a new one. No discussion was held to change it prior. When there is a standing consensus, the burden is on the person who wants to make the change, not on someone to prove the consensus still stands. Sergecross73 msg me 22:32, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
See WP:CCC. Consensus can change over time and 5 years is not what I'd call recent, especially with a significant improvement to the article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 01:50, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Consensus can change, but consensus clearly has not changed, so that's a moot point. It's not unjustified to attempt to split it out, but the fact that no one appears to agree with this article's notability, so the past consensus (and seemingly this current consensus) still stand. - Whadup, it's ya girl, Dusa (talk) 01:58, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
I'm well aware of CCC, but that has nothing to do with Oinker's decision to ignore BRD here. Consensus can change. But you've got to actually change it first before you can start enforcing it. CCC doesn't justify Oinker's restoring your bold edit that was contested today. Sergecross73 msg me 01:58, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
I have taken the article to AfD for discussion. silvia (BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) (inquire within) 23:40, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Cancelled MMO reference

Hi. I've been doing research and sandbox writing for an expansion of Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning, and I'm coming across a large amount of information and content related to the cancelled MMO Project Copernicus. There's enough that, if I can get some reception-esque information from reliable sources, it might merit a descent article. Are there any descent-quality cancelled MMO articles on Wikipedia I might use as structural reference? I've worked on an article for a cancelled game before, but MMOs seem a different beast. ProtoDrake (talk) 12:00, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

@ProtoDrake: I wrote World of Darkness (video game), but it's been a few years and I don't know if it's up to snuff--AlexandraIDV 12:11, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
If anything, the cancelled project can be discussed under the developer's page, unless it was clear that Copernicus was to be tied to KoA, then it would make sense there. Masem (t) 15:21, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with having articles on cancelled games. ProtoDrake has a good gauge on the notability standards, so I'm sure it's more more of a "how" than an "if" type situation. Unfortunately, none of the cancelled game articles I've created were MMMORPGs, so I don't have any specific advice. I'd say just do it like any cancelled game. Sergecross73 msg me 16:16, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
Replying to both Masem and Sergecross73, I'd initially assumed Copernicus and Reckoning were tied together, but I've been finding through interviews that Reckoning was very much Big Huge Games's thing (several interviews confirm 38 Studios was more co-publisher and supervisor than co-developer), and Copernicus was its own project in development for much longer and is arguably what really brought down 36 Studios. There's also several bits of confirmed development information including staff and behind-the-scenes stuff. It may just end up being part of the studio's article, but there is quite a lot of substance. --ProtoDrake (talk) 18:17, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

@Alexandra IDV, Masem, and Sergecross73: I've created an article for Project Copernicus, and would like more eyes to overview it. If it doesn't seem substantial enough or doesn't meet notability guidelines, it can be merged back into one of the other articles. I did my best sure all references were from reliable sites or authors and had information that was corroborated elsewhere where possible. I've left other sources on its talk page that might be useful. --ProtoDrake (talk) 15:13, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

You have my full approval. I'd actively defend it at AFD or a merge discussion. It already looks better than most game articles out there. Nice work! Sergecross73 msg me 15:30, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
I also think it needed a standalone article. I do not believe it should be merged in any way. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:47, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Splitting List of Pokemon characters

Hi! I'm pushin' for a split of this article 'cause it's really big and messy and kind of feels like it's designed with Pokemon fans in mind instead of general people. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 07:50, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Redirect for discussion: Wo Long: Final Dynasty

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 3#Wo Long: Final Dynasty Mika1h (talk) 11:25, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

September 25, 2001

Hi! This IGN article lists five PlayStation 2 titles that shipped on September 25, 2001 (Silent Hill 2, Ico, Monster Rancher 3, NHL 2002, NHL Hitz 2002). Upon reviewing all of the individual articles, each one seems to be dated September 24, 2001. Are these Wikipedia articles sourcing incorrectly, or are the contents of this IGN article the result of a typo?

https://www.ign.com/articles/2001/09/25/five-new-ps2-titles-ship Venky64 (talk) 17:15, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

I would say 25th is correct since it's a tuesday and that's the traditional day in America for physical media releases. But more importantly none of those articles seem to have a source for the 24th date. --Mika1h (talk) 17:37, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
I sometimes doubt the database entries of old game dates, but this seems to be an entire article written around the release dates, not even just a passing mention, so I dont see a reason to doubt it on its own merits at least. Sergecross73 msg me 18:56, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
Based on the link, should I include September 25 or September 26 as the release date for each of these titles? Venky64 (talk) 23:15, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
Not only that but you should update the Wikidata entries using that ref. For example, Ico's wikidata says the 24th with the source to en.wiki. With that article, it appears to be correct to say the 25th. (Our boxes do not take info from wikidata for good reason but we should make sure the data is synchronized.) Masem (t) 23:43, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
But how to deal with time zones? Release dates aside, Nintendo Directs dates here are also one-day off than us. MilkyDefer 10:56, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Merger discussion: Pokémon Crystal into Pokémon Gold and Silver

Talk:Pokémon Gold and Silver#Merger proposal czar 17:04, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Ship dates as reliable sources

Hi, I noticed that video game rules state that ship dates cannot stand in for actual release dates. What if the video game article in question has citations backed by unreliable sources like GameFAQs (Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell Double Agent), and what if the actual release date is listed nowhere else, as was the case in my previous question above? Would it be better to include ship dates then? The news archives for most websites such as Konami, Ubisoft, Activision, EA, etc only list shipping dates in place of release dates as part of their archived news sections for several titles as well. Venky64 (talk) 15:10, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

If possible, vendor pages are fine for past release dates (like Amazon or GameStop).
If you cannot find such a source, keep the GameFAQS page but make sure to tag with {{unreliable source}} so that people will be encouraged to replace it. Masem (t) 15:35, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
Amazon and GameStop should not be considered reliable as their dates represent when the products were added to the storefront, not when they originally released. IceWelder [✉] 15:42, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
That is true, for anything pre... 2010-ish? Things that were shipped in the last ten years while these vendors were active would be fair game as a reliable source, but at the same time, to not be able to find another ship data for such games from more reliable RSes would be odd.
Also, try looking at publisher and/or developer pages. Masem (t) 15:44, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
I'm looking at those pages specifically for release dates. There are some, like the first date, which mention a specific release date, while the best others supply (from the developer/publisher pages themselves) are press releases for shipping dates. I was wondering if the latter type could be used to support the release date section of more Wikipedia articles.
https://web.archive.org/web/20011211211902/http://activision.com/games/spiderman/products/electro/
https://web.archive.org/web/20031205221642/http://www.konami.com/usa/press/yugiohduelists021803.html Venky64 (talk) 15:49, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
Armor Command is a perfect example of this(A thing i've brought on BOZ's talk page). I've just listed 1998 as the release date because all 3 sources all say 3 different things. Timur9008 (talk) 16:07, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, if we cannot get an exact release date, but can narrow it down from RSes, then by "month year", "quarter year" (remember to avoid seasons) or just "year" is fine as long as that is a good RS. Masem (t) 16:20, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
So considering the unreliability of older release dates from vendor pages, the consensus here is to leave the GameFAQs dates marked as unreliable without replacing them in favor of shipping date press releases (from developer/publisher sites), right? Venky64 (talk) 17:26, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
No I just brought up Armor Command because it's the first thing that's popped in my head. I think we should replace the GameFAQ's sources regardless.(If they are used in any articles ). Not all older release dates from vendor pages are unreliable.(depends on the game). I do double check this stuff hence I don't edit as much as I like to because there is so much information to go through. Timur9008 (talk) 17:44, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
Agree, GameFAQs is user-submitted and should never be used as a source for proof of date. It's much better to be vague but confirmed to be accurate than detailed but unreliable. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 15:22, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
"Amazon and GameStop should not be considered reliable as their dates represent when the products were added to the storefront, not when they originally released." I'm a bit confused by what you mean by this. Lookign at various video games on Amazon, the release dates are the date they were planned for (and if no release date has been planned, then they usually just display it as "December 31" of the next/current year as a placeholder date) and not the date they were added to the storefront. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 21:07, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Mushroom Kingdom

Looking for input on what to do here. If anyone wants to work on it, I won't push for anything for right now, but outside of some immediate interest, it's approaching a WP:TNT-level mess.

As is, it appears to be one of those silly fan efforts to create a "canon" on something that clearly the creators have not made any interest in creating themselves. (Kind of like how some Sonic fans try to piece together an overarching timeline...) Sergecross73 msg me 17:41, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Nuking it seems fine by me; the setting is very much not an incredibly important part of the Mario games, besides they need to be set somewhere. The reception section being a stray grab bag of stuff that's not really even about the Mushroom Kingdom (except a listicle) suggest to me this can just be a "setting" mention in the series article, rather than existing as a coatrack for fancruft. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 19:16, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
I disagree in part - while the article certainly needs to be reined in and trimmed to reduce fancruft, the Mushroom Kingdom does indeed feature as a well-defined fictional setting in most Mario games, as a track in Mario Kart, and serves as a catch-all for the other settings like Peach's castle, Bowser's castle, and the more detailed locations from the Mario RPGs (versus, List of Mario game settings). It is also now part of Super Nintendo World and presumably the forthcoming Mario movie, not to mention the 1993 film. At the risk of WP:OSE, notable settings for other fictional media do have articles - see Lists of fictional locations. I think there's no question that the Mushroom Kingdom has enough currency in reliable sources to be notable. I know there have been a bunch of recent consolidations of Nintendocruft but I don't see the Mushroom Kingdom being much different from Wonderland (fictional country), Neverland, etc. It's a notable setting that exists across a number of works and also has critical and social commentary in reliable sources describing it. The article is bad, but I don't think it should be merged unless it's more of a merge to list of settings from Mario games. Andre🚐 19:31, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
"not to mention the 1993 film" does that mess of a film actually feature the Mushroom Kingdom? ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 19:33, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Actually, I just read up on it and Dinohattan, the city in the film is "inspired by" the Mushroom Kingdom, but if you Ctrl+F mushroom in Super Mario Bros. (film) there are several references to it in the context of the fungus from the film. It looks to feature more prominently in the forthcoming film however. Andre🚐 21:30, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
The Mushroom Kingdom has at least 6,436,213 inhabitants. We know that, based upon a vote count, from an episode from The Adventures of Super Mario Bros. 3. But there's nothing about voter turnout! Or is there compulsory voting in the Mushroom Kingdom? How fair are elections in a fictional monarchy anyway? All kidding aside, I think this can easily be redirected to Mario (franchise) for now. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 19:36, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
I thought there were only 6 inhabitants and all the toads are just clones. [Joke] ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 19:38, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
The name is used plenty, but I'd hardly call it "well-defined". It's more like "Springfield" from The Simpsons. They create whatever is needed to further what they're trying to do. All of a sudden, there's a new massive mountain or ocean or something that had never been mentioned before.... Sergecross73 msg me 19:45, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Here's the original reception section. I've already started hacking it up because it causes me pain to look at. Sergecross73 msg me 19:48, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
"Game Informer lauded the fact that Super Mario Maker allowed players to 'build the Mushroom Kingdom of [their] dreams', writing 'since Mario first won the hearts of gamers across the world in the early '80s, fans have been sketching up their own ideas for Mario levels on paper and imagining what sort of worlds they could create for the iconic plumber to explore."' cool but relevant to Super Mario Maker and not the Mushroom Kingdom. BAsically everything else there is "Oh hey this palce was featured in X" ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 19:52, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Exactly. I removed that because it wasn't actual commentary on Mushroom Kingdom. It was just alternate phrasing to basically saying "Mario Maker let's you make your own Mario levels!" The reception section on a whole is one of those classic cases of someone just listing every passing mention they could find in reliable sources without any regard for importance or even being reception at all. Sergecross73 msg me 19:57, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Basically the entire Reception section needs to be removed as there isn't really any reception there at all. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 20:08, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
It's true that differing interpretations of the Mushroom Kingdom differ in their details, but it has a number of consistent elements. A king (as in the TV cartoon) or a chancellor (SMRPG), the Princess Toadstool/Peach and her "mushroom retainers" and Toad(s), a desert land, a grass land, an ice land, pipes with piranha plants, Goombas, Koopas, etc. Springfield (The Simpsons) is also an article, good or bad. I don't think the Mushroom Kingdom is any less of a real notable fictional setting than Green Hill Zone. Again, WP:OSE, but this doesn't seem like a low-hanging fruit in terms of notability, though naturally the article is not a very good one, it could be improved. Andre🚐 21:34, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
I know, and that's why I started a discussion here rather than attempting a bold merge/redirect or something. I agree that there's probably a path to proving its notable...but it's also one of those articles where the more you look at cleaning it up, the more it feels like you're just going to need to remove almost everything... Sergecross73 msg me 22:00, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
I feel like the approach that may be less maddening here is to maybe look for commentary on Mushroom Kingdom as a setting over time, as something that really is just a malleable setting per game, or (this is going to be phrased so badly) as a nebulous concept rather than as a coherent setting? IDK. I don't know how ultimately useful this chapter will be, but that lengthy footnote #4 might yield something. I'd be happy to help look around to help figure this out, because I also agree with Serge that an immediate TNT or a merge/redirect at the moment doesn't seem the best approach. Sadly, I don't have a huge abundance of time right now but will shortly to trawl through some stuff. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 22:25, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
My guess is that while this is a hard topic to write about, Japanese language sources would be most instructive. This post talks about the cultural value of the mushroom in Japan. There's some discussion of it in Power Up by Chris Kohler, or in this book about Miyamoto, this reference, this reference about Japanese culture that you mentioned, and these are just pointers to where the material probably really lies. Andre🚐 23:17, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
I'd draftify the article for now in case it actually is notable and replace it with a redirect. However, right now it's not in any state to be in mainspace. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:28, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
I don't agree. The article has a history going back to 2004. There's no basis for draftification. You can send it to AFD but I suspect it will survive. Andre🚐 02:33, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
The article's past state consists entirely of WP:OR, so there is nothing to preserve. It would almost certainly be merged or redirected if sent to AfD right now though. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:50, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
I have to agree with your comments on AFD. Nothing in the article or in this discussion is the type of thing that could formulate a policy based keep stance. It surviving an AFD would be contingent on some pretty good source hunting. Especially with plausible merge targets. Sergecross73 msg me 03:21, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
I do not agree. There are clearly sources to pass WP:GNG. Send to AFD if you wish. In 2004 there were different requirements for articles. Andre🚐 03:23, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
Which sources are you thinking are providing significant, third party coverage? Sergecross73 msg me 03:25, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
I offered a few that I do believe contribute to significant coverage. There are going to be quite a few gaming magazines that talk about it, they are easy to search on archive.org, we'll have to see which ones are more detailed than a simple mention, but there are at least a few issues that look promising[18]. It also appears to be discussed in several journal articles that I can find on Jstor: "Exploring the Boundaries of Narrative: Video Games in the English Classroom," "“Live in Your World, Play in Ours”: Video Games, Critical Play, and the Environmental Humanities". There's also coverage of it in the context of the theme park.[19] Yes, all of the coverage of the Mushroom Kingdom is either in the context of the game, the movie, the TV show, the theme park, toys and merch, etc., Mario is a big media franchise. But we have other setting articles for notable settings such as Tattooine. Andre🚐 03:40, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
On the contrary, all I see is trivial mentions. This is really stretching it, the Mushroom Kingdom is almost certainly a topic that merits a simple mention in the series article dude to a lack of defined lore about the place. The Mushroom Kingdom of the Paper Mario series has a bit more lore due to it being an RPG, but that information can almost certainly be mentioned in Paper Mario. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:41, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
I mean, I'm personally okay with Mushroom Kingdom having an article, but I don't know if what the article is now is necessarily up to snuff with standards. As an aside, I think that's a common issue with very notable character articles; because notability is assumed, you don't see as much work into proving it as you do a character whose notability is not as obvious. - Whadup, it's ya girl, Dusa (talk) 06:35, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
  • I'm not seeing what sourcing warrants this loose fictional setting as anything more than a recurring element of the Mario (franchise), so it should be covered as such (as a section in the series article). Seems inevitable that this will be merged. czar 17:09, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
    I do believe that this article should exist because it is notable; but I also agree that we need to blow it up and start over. This article is a mess. It's been on my newbie editing task list and when i try to edit the article to fix the problem i don't even know where to start unless i just rewrite the whole article. However I'm just a newbie so maybe just take my opinion with a grain of salt.:/ Blitzfan51 (talk) 19:13, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
    That's one of the reasons why I don't like how they've gone about doing the newbie task list since it is based solely on maintenance tags and not what those maintenance tags are or the difficulty there may be in clearing them. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 19:31, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
    So uh, my possibly dumb newbie question is, How and when do we vote to blow up this article and start over? Blitzfan51 (talk) 21:02, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
    @Blitzfan51: well first, we don't actually "vote" to blow up the article and start over. Second, technically we could do it whenever, however we will do it if we think it would be a good idea and a constructive use of time. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 21:04, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
"Wikipedians often use the expression "!vote" (read as "not-vote") as a reminder and affirmation that the writer's comments in a poll, and the comments by others, are not voting, but are just offering individual views in a consensus-building discussion. The "!" symbol is used in various fields as a symbol for logical negation and was introduced in this way on English Wikipedia in 2006. Unfortunately, some Wikipedians are unaware of this convention and use "!vote" to refer to their actual votes, which can cause confusion." I've been here since 2006 and this is the first time I've read about this... soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 21:09, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
ok thanks y'all. let me know when work needs to be done. Blitzfan51 (talk) 21:12, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
Basically, either someone will nominate if for discussion at a venue like WP:AFD, or people will just continue to improve edit the article normally over time. Sergecross73 msg me 21:33, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
I would also add per WP:PRESERVE that the best way forward is to fix problems iteratively and incrementally. I agree the article would benefit from an overhaul, but let's try to preserve what exists of it that is salvageable. Major edits sure but I don't buy that 0% is usable. Andre🚐 21:14, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Assistance Determining Proper Course of Action Regarding Asmongold's Name

There is an ongoing discussion on Talk:Asmongold whether publishing the subject's first & last name is a violation of WP:BLPPRIVACY. There a small numbers of reliable sources that publish his name, but there is contention of whether this qualifies as public information. Your input would be appreciated. Skipple ☎ 04:17, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Table help

Hi... Erm, can someone help me with the award table accessibility request for the Nier Automata FAC? User Heartfox asked for it, I looked at the instructions, and I got lost after a few attempts. I can't figure out how the heck I'm supposed to convert the tables. The 'easier' system looks twice as complicated. ProtoDrake (talk) 12:31, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Hey @ProtoDrake, that's done. Thanks, Indagate (talk) 13:04, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

New Articles (February 27 to March 5)

Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements
 A listing of all articles newly added to the Video Games Wikiproject (regardless of creation date). Generated by v3.15 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 16:18, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

February 27

February 28

March 1

March 2

March 3

March 4

March 5

PresN 16:18, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't think scroll wheel is relevant to WP:VG. Sure some games make use of it, however it's jsut a part of a mouse and is about as relevant as computer keyboard. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 16:30, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
I'm indifferent, but usually it's fine if connections to Wikiprojects aren't particularly strong. Being somewhat related is usually enough. Sergecross73 msg me 16:38, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
I see your point, however to me, having a marginal association with a WikiProject (in this case just being used by games) isn't enough to actually be connected to it. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 16:42, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
Although I guess the definition of an article being connected to a Wikiproject isn't really defined well anywhere (maybe something should be done about that) ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 16:47, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
I think no one's really done that because it just doesn't really matter much. It's a little optional classification thing that goes largely unnoticed by the general population of readers. Sergecross73 msg me 16:51, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
Fair. I looked at the FAQ and apparently the relevance of an article to a WikiProejct is determined by that Wikiproject's scope. However the FAQ is from 2013 so things seem to have changed since then (looking at this WikiProject's main page I'm not seeing anything relating to a scope) ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 16:56, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
I've started a discussion about merging List of accolades received by Elden Ring into Elden Ring. DecafPotato (talk) 20:41, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
Eternal War for Civilization II seems like a rather odd topic for an article. I know mods and fan games sometimes have their own articles, but an article for a saved game seems to really be stretching it. OceanHok (talk) 13:25, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
I think the article, as it exists, is a little dubious, but I don't think it's inherently non-notable. A save game could be akin to Evo Moment 37. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 16:42, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
Or if it isn't independently notable it could be mentioned in the main article similar to wombo combo. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 16:44, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
It's a short article that probably has no room for expansion after it made the rounds on game culture sites. I recommend a merge to expand its blurb at Civilization II#Legacy. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:24, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

UNDUE on Smash in eSports

Hello! So I brought this issue up on the talk page of Super Smash Bros. in esports however I never got a response so I'm bringing it up here. On said article, it seems to mostly just focus on Melee in esports, rather than Super Smash Bros. as a whole in esports. I feel that this would classify as WP:UNDUE as Melee gets a total of 4 subsections dedicated to it, while Ultimate and other games simply get a 2 paragraph section. I feel that either the Melee section could be slimmed down (or maybe split into it's own article) or more info related to the other games given. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 16:57, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Well, Melee has the longest-running (competitive Smash 64 wasn't really a thing) and most iconic competitive history of the Smash games, so I think giving it the most weight makes sense. DecafPotato (talk) 20:32, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
While I don't disagree that giving it more weight makes sense, the difference in what the article shows for Melee compared to the other games to me seems a bit inappropriate. Maybe if Melee in esports is notable enough it should be split off into its own article. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 20:36, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
I don't think there's cause to split the article. I agree with DecafPotato that Melee has the longest history and consequently the longest amount of time-to-be-covered-by-sources. Sources clearly exist for other Smash games in a competitive context; it's just a matter of finding and incorporating them. Kotaku and dotesports cover Smash. To be fair, I don't think the "narrative" is as strong for the history of Smash 4/Smash Ultimate, but also Ultimate has only been out for 4 years so there isn't really time to have "eras" or whatever. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:20, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
An expansion of the Ultimate section is definitely possible, as tournaments of the game has kept happening. If that section gets big enough, the last paragraph can be split off into a very small "Other games" section. But it's gonna take work to expand our coverage of Ultimate tournaments. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 11:16, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

PGA Tour Golf III

Does anyone have access to any of the reviews listed for this game at Mobygames[20] or any other sources to add to the article PGA Tour Golf III? 8.37.179.254 (talk) 22:50, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Gamefan and Gamepro are at archive.org --Mika1h (talk) 23:05, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
OK thanks, I looked for the January 1995 issue of GamePro but it had no preview[21] and I did find the April 1996 issue[22] but that was actually a review of PGA Tour 96 that compared it to PGA Tour Golf III and is already cited in that article; I went ahead and added a note about that to this article as well. I did not have any luck finding the December 1994 issue of GameFan either. 8.37.179.254 (talk)
Coincidentally, I was recently editing this article. It originally concurrently claimed it was a Sega Genesis exclusive, and had a review from MacUser talking about it being a CD-ROM. I tweaked it so it wasn't so blatantly contradictory, the it could still use to clarification on what platforms it released on. Sergecross73 msg me 23:22, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
That is an interesting question, so we have a source claiming that this game (or a game with the same name) was also released on Macintosh? The question is, is that source incorrect (wrong game name maybe?) or do they know something we don't know? 8.37.179.254 (talk) 15:38, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm not 100% sure, I was really only passing by and noticed the contradiction while working on something else, but since the review mentioned a CD-ROM release pretty directly, and the statement about it being a Genesis exclusive was unsourced, I assumed that the error was the Genesis exclusivity part. I imagine the article was just written by someone who only knew of the Genesis version or something. Regardless, I just thought I'd throw the situation out there. Its pretty rare to see anyone working on an old sports game like this, so I figured you could just look out for notes about different platforms while you're working on it. Sergecross73 msg me 17:32, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Understood, and thanks! 8.37.179.254 (talk) 18:29, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Added one additional review. Timur9008 (talk) 00:30, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for adding the Liverpool Daily Post! 8.37.179.254 (talk) 15:38, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
I threw in two short capsule reviews I found on ProQuest. As to the Mac version... it definitely exists, and given that I found references to I and II also on Mac, it seems like it's the same game, though it's not surprising sources would focus on the Genesis version. MacUser and MacWorld have pretty much their full archives online, so those would be the places to find something, along with Inside Mac Games. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:26, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Oh, that's fantastic! Thank you very much @David Fuchs! 8.37.179.254 (talk) 18:30, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

WP:OVERLAP between the video game sections on List of vaporware and List of media notable for being in development hell

There appears to be an overlap between these two list articles that should be fixed. Possibilities include a separate List of vaporware video games or picking one article to actually consolidate the list on. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:23, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Makes sense. I find it also quite odd that List of media notable for being in development hell has a word to watch in the title. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 14:28, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Yes, I agree the title is probably poor. List of media notable for being unreleased would be better in every way. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:48, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
I meant the word "notable", see WP:PUFFERY. We don't have lists of things that aren't notable. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 18:58, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
The latter list is meant for games that DID get released, or are known to still be in active development but had development problems (eg like Duke Nukem Forever or Beyond Good and Evil 2), whereas the list of vaporware should be only games that never got released and are known to be cancelled. Masem (t) 19:07, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
"Vaporware is a product, usually software, which has been announced and is long in development, but has not yet been released and not been officially cancelled either." - First line of the vaporware list. Clearly that is not what it was meant for. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:15, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
This tells me that at least one of these lists isn't well-named, if not both. "Vaporware" and "development hell" are MOS:JARGON, leading to confusion among both readers and editors. It might even be WP:POV. Something more neutral and clear would help. For example, List of cancelled video games, or List of games developed over a decade. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:07, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
We have an article on development hell that covers across multiple media types. Which is where the "List of media..." article is coming from since it is also covering films and TV series. On the other hand, "Vaporware" is pretty much limited to video games .
Also , keep in mind, long-winded development is not always equal to development hell. Eg Eve Online has been in development for a long time, but I don't think anyone would call it development hell. The "development hell" list should absolutely include a source or two that calls the development process a "development hell", and explain why that "hell" exists, not just that it took 10 years to come out. Masem (t) 02:15, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Japanese translators

Hi all, do we have any active editors who translate from Japanese? Looking for a translation of this brief Knight Lore review. czar 22:09, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Jaleco is following the trend of the times and finally releasing Disk System versions of their games. This strange game from England was already pretty popular on personal computers here in Japan. In this 3D RPG Action Adventure, what's interesting is the protagonist turns into a werewolf at night. In order to rid yourself of this curse, you must collect 14 different items and bring them to an old wizard. Explore the maze quickly and become human again! Right panel: Release date / price TBD. Caption 1: This is a 3D maze. You need to use your head to get to the top. The protagonist is a soldier during the day and turns to a werewolf at night. Caption 2: The protagonist turns into a werewolf. They call it a werewolf but it looks more like a pig. If you can't meet with the wizard in 30 days, the curse will never disappear. (photos are the PC version) TarkusABtalk/contrib 22:36, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
For magazine scans, I have used sites that extract text from images. They work reasonably well. --Mika1h (talk) 14:38, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

College Football USA 96

Does anyone have access to any of the reviews listed for this game at Mobygames[23] or any other sources to add to the article College Football USA 96? 8.37.179.254 (talk) 15:53, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Found this [24] Timur9008 (talk) 17:28, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, I used that one! 8.37.179.254 (talk) 23:02, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

New Articles (March 6 to March 12)

Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements
 A listing of all articles newly added to the Video Games Wikiproject (regardless of creation date). Generated by v3.15 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 16:50, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

March 6

That seems like a case of WP:TOOSOON, no? soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 16:59, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
Teasers certainly aren't enough, but given that a trailer is set for just one week from now, I'd probably just wait to see if any substantial info is there first. DecafPotato (talk) 19:12, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

March 7

March 8

March 9

March 10

March 11

March 12

PresN 16:50, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Zerg had been a redirect until Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Races of StarCraft, but new article still has numerous problems in passing the GNG. Most of the critical commentary is about the three races in Starcraft acting as a strategic three way pull, which is good commentary on Starcradt's design, but nothing about the Zero specifically. Most if the rest is unsourced cruft. I think the execution of the merge from that AFD was done wrong. Masem (t) 18:41, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
The "sources exist" banner is there for a reason. Articles are under no obligation to be fully sourced as long as they exist somewhere, see WP:NEXIST. It was generally agreed upon that sources were in fact out there. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:33, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
Again, this reasoning prevents deletion, not a merger. Sergecross73 msg me 20:18, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
At AFD, you cannot just handwave and say "some sources are out there". Sources have to be identified, but they don't have to be added to the article - the AFD is sufficient as well as the talk page. Just that the sources that were identified were primarily about the gameplay aspects around the three different races, nothing about the Zerg specifically that's otherwise pulling small trivial bits from these sources. And it seems based on these articles that it is a disservice to not talk about all three races at the same time in the context of the game/series, and not on separate race pages. Masem (t) 01:55, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
There were indeed sources about the Zerg specifically. I'm not going to list them here ATM since this isn't an AfD but I will probably add them to the article in the future. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:20, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
If sources do exist they can always been placed on the talk page using the Template:Refideas if you do not have time to incorporate them in the article now (not that you have any obligation to do either)  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 21:50, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
Perfect World is not a new article; it was moved and un-moved. IceWelder [✉] 18:48, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
I just noticed something, why is {{WikiProject Video games/doc}} listed in Templates deleted/removed? ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 19:40, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Because Template talk:WikiProject Video games/doc, which contained the WPVG banner, was redirected. – Pbrks (t • c) 20:04, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Oh. Then why was the the template's documentation itself and not the documentation talk page that was listed? ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 20:10, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Because the talk page is where the tag goes for any article/template. The talk page for Template talk:WikiProject Video games/doc stopped having a WPVG tag, ergo, Template talk:WikiProject Video games/doc was listed as no longer in the project. --PresN 20:13, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Internet Archive lawsuit

In case people were not already aware of this, or if anyone would be interested in finding out about it: [25] BOZ (talk) 01:32, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

New Articles (March 13 to March 19)

Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements
 A listing of all articles newly added to the Video Games Wikiproject (regardless of creation date). Generated by v3.15 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 13:01, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

March 13

March 14

March 15

March 16

March 17

March 18

March 19

PresN 13:01, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm surprised it took this long for Free Guy to be tagged with this WikiProject. Also, 21 years ago is probably the oldest article to get tagged with this Wikiproject. HOwever there are no references relating to the video game adaptation of the film. I'm also surprised POly Bridge took until now to be created, however I don't think it's quite time for Poly Bridge 3 to have an article. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 14:09, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Also, is {{Genshin Impact}} really an appropriate template? It has 2 red links that probably won't be blue any time soon, a link to the character list, the soundtrack, and a TCG, all of which can simply be included in a See Also section. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 14:13, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Probably not. Every link is included in the obvious place as a See also in the main Genshin page. Also is Genius Invokation TCG a separate video game or just an in-game minigame? If the latter, it should probably be merged to Genshin#Gameplay. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:16, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Well based on the lead it seems to be an in-game minigame, however I don't play the game (and really don't want to) so I don't know if it is. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 15:20, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Seems so. I merged what I could. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:40, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Putt-Putt Enters the Race release date

On Putt-Putt Enters the Race, Putt-Putt (series), and Humongous Entertainment, an IP user keeps chaging the release date of Putt-Putt Enters the Race to an unsourced release date in 1998, arguing that it must have come out in 1998 solely because the copyright is dated as such. According to a January 1999 press release: "Putt-Putt Enters the Race™, available at retail outlets nationwide on January 1, ..."

It is my understanding that, due to this early release, it must have been mastered in 1998, which led to that copyright date. However, since the user is adamant (& warring), I was hoping a third party could assist in finding proof for either release date. I left a message on the user's talk to no apparent avail. IceWelder [✉] 15:08, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

IP's user talk page in nothing but warnings dating back to April 2010. I'm checking GameSpot now but I don't see anything yet. Timur9008 (talk) 15:22, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
The mass of warnings is no surprise since it is tagged as a school IP, so it will have been used by many different users. Begs the question who has the time to war about game release dates while in school. IceWelder [✉] 18:02, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Humongous's own press release on an archive of their website (cite 1 in the article) says 1999. Additionally, the IP seems obsessed with the May release date and there's another archived press release from a week earlier stating the release date as "early 1999". The IP is wrong. Restore, protect and report for edit warring. - X201 (talk) 15:37, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. I pointed the user to the additional PR. However, more eyes on the three articles would be helpful as I am currently at 3RR and would not be able to perform further reverts. IceWelder [✉] 18:03, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Black Fire (video game)

Does anyone have access to any of the reviews listed for this game at Mobygames[26] or any other sources to add to the article Black Fire (video game)? 8.37.179.254 (talk) 15:06, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

I owe @BOZ: a favor, so i'll tackle that game's reception section... Roberth Martinez (talk) 21:19, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Madden 23

Who thinks the Madden 23 article should be updated? Manny Manatee (talk) 17:41, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't think anyone would really oppose that, it's not in all that great of shape... Sergecross73 msg me 17:54, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Ok, I have decent experience with madden, because I play Madden 23 every day. Manny Manatee (talk) 17:57, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
The huge list of players you added is considered WP:GAMECRUFT, so I removed it. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:04, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Your own personal experience with a game has little to do with improving an article, Manny Manatee. You're a newly registered editor, if you're new to editing, please take a moment to read Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and if you're into video games, see WP:VG/MOS. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 19:18, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
I am not new to editing, just this account is new. I was just bringing it up, that I like Madden 23. Manny Manatee (talk) 22:41, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Regardless, your additions are not even close to appropriate for Wikipedia, and if you don't understand that, it means you definitely need to work on understanding what Wikipedia is and how to constructively contribute to it. Your repeatedly rejected draft is another sign of that. Please slow down and do some learning first. If nothing else, find some good examples to emulate. Sergecross73 msg me 23:04, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Descriptions of games in lists of games

As I begin editing List of Interplay games, I notice that one of the columns has the header "Description", a column I am not familiar with for a video game list. Normally, I would expect a name, a date, the genre, the platforms it was developed or published for, and perhaps notes (alternatively "details"), but a description column is new. I don't believe that it is customary for us to be including descriptions of games in such lists, and am contemplating changing the header name to "Notes". Am I wrong to think that there is no precedent to adding descriptions to game lists? FreeMediaKid$ 18:06, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

You are correct, the only point a description makes sense is for list of games in a series. Masem (t) 18:36, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
@FreeMediaKid!: It's not typical, no, though I don't know about any precedent at all; usually on a list like this (150+ games, so a standard wikitable rather than a template per game) I'd expect to see title/system(s)/release date/developer/publisher (both dev and publisher since interplay published other dev's games and their games weren't always published by them). At that point, you're pretty much out of space (ex.: List of games by Epic Games). If you have space after, a "genre" column could work, but a freeform description column isn't a great idea. It's usually either too much detail or too little and unsourced besides, and in any case there's a whole article one click away that can describe the game. In this list, almost everything in that column would either fit in one of the above columns, or else could be a note via {{notelist}}. --PresN 18:44, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
For what it's worth, a few on my watchlist have "Synopsis" (List of free multiplayer online games and List of free massively multiplayer online games) and "Notes" is common outside this WikiProject (like List of tabletop role-playing games). In practice, they all get filled with the same random stuff: other games in the series, game features, promotional language, genre details, plot details, language details, or nothing at all. They may be useful if editors keep them consistent but they're mostly magnets for useless trivia and gamecruft. Woodroar (talk) 19:18, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
They're also used in the "List of cancelled (platform) games" lists too, which I support/contribute to, because I think some of the details provided there give important context (cancellations reasons, releasing later on other platforms, etc.) That said, it doesn't strike me as particularly necessary in the "List of (company) video games" lists. I've only ever created one of those, and I didn't include such a column. The WP:FA articles I used as example I was aiming for didn't include such a column either. Sergecross73 msg me 20:47, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Issues concerning review template

While the guidelines clearly said the review template "is not to replicate the function of external review aggregators", it is being abusively used by multiple users these days (see examples such as Dead Space, Bayonetta 3, Deathloop). It is also being used to show notability in articles about very old games, with some users simply write a one-sentence lead and then dump scores into the review box, thus discouraging them to properly write an article. I know the music project has their own review template but the film project doesn't seem to have one.

I would like to have the review template completely depreciated like the film articles. It exists purely for decorative purposes, since scores from individual publications do not really matter when you already have an aggregated score. But before I start any proposal, I would like to hear the opinions from other editors from WPVG. Or maybe find out some alternative ways to impose a stricter inclusion critiera on what can be listed in the template. OceanHok (talk) 12:27, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

With those examples, you fail to acknowledge the hundreds of articles where it is used properly with prose to back it up (Celeste, Donkey Kong Country, etc.). And what can be listed in the template already strict: that it must also be outlined in prose. People not following that (which is excusable in non-developed articles that are still being expanded) doesn't mean the template should be removed. Likewise, I have trouble seeing how doing that is in any way "abusive" (see WP:AGF) or that it "discourages" people from "properly writing an article". DecafPotato (talk) 14:33, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Of course there are well-written articles. They exist, but they are very rare. That's not the point. The review template of Celeste used to be a mess before someone cleaned it up. Maybe I worded my argumet too strongly (English is not my native language). I am not saying that the users or the behaviours of them adding stuff to the template is abusive. I am saying that the template has been extrememly misused these days. With the review template, the initial author of the article only need to do the bare minimum to establish notability. I know that there is no deadline, but the truth is most of these articles will and forever be sloppy. OceanHok (talk) 16:10, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
When i started contributing on Wikipedia, i used to do the same thing OceanHok is pointing out. However to back up what DecafPotato is saying, once i slowly came to grip with how things work here thanks to various users around the WP:VG side, i began fully fleshing out each review for a game article i work on. Currently, i'm in the middle of reworking Atari Jaguar-related game articles that i lend my hand, expanding and finishing the reception section + additional aspects. It will be a long endeavor but i think the results will be worth the hassle. Roberth Martinez (talk) 21:11, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
I share your frustration of people making sloppy articles that consist largely filling out review tables and little to no prose, but I don't think removing the review box entirely is the answer. I'd prefer the approach of being more proactive in merging/redirecting said articles instead. Sergecross73 msg me 14:52, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
I agree, the main solution is to make use of the reviews on the review templace of each article, something that i've learned over the six years i'm on Wikipedia. Removing the review table template won't solve the issue in the end... Roberth Martinez (talk) 21:11, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
We might wanna take the opportunity to make sure we definitely want to keep the review table box. Last I checked, the consensus at the Wikipedia film project was not to use them for films, so using them at all isn't a given. I don't have a preference in either approach, but I think it's good to check from time to time rather than carrying on with a decision without knowing the reason why. Popcornfud (talk) 16:19, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Our instructions on the review template (in the MOS now I think) says only about 5 to 7 reviews be included on the table, with preference on IGN, GameSpot, and a couple others. Additional reviews can be included in prose. When you see tables list ten or more reviews, that's a problem, but its not the template's fault. Masem (t) 16:20, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
If this is really an issue that we should track, it wouldn’t be too hard to add review tables with excessive entries into a maintenance category. – Pbrks (t • c) 16:30, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Is anybody able to direct me to where the template (or the MoS) actually says this? I've never been able to find it explicitly stated, so I've always limited to ten. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 00:19, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Battlefield 1942 release date

Hi, tracking the release date for Battlefield 1942 is confusing. Though not supported by a direct citation, Wikipedia lists the release date as September 10, 2002, which falls in line with this old IGN article's listing. The "first impressions" article also mentions on September 12 that the game is "in stores."

https://www.ign.com/articles/2002/08/27/battlefield-1942-gets-a-ship-date

https://www.ign.com/articles/2002/09/12/battlefield-1942-first-impressions

But the old investor page on EA's website announced that the title had begun shipping on September 17, a week later.

https://web.archive.org/web/20061027121738/http://investor.ea.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=88189&p=irol-newsArticle&t=Regular&id=334198&

Why is there a difference listed between EA's official press release release date and IGN and every other publication (such as GameSpy)? Venky64 (talk) 22:40, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Definitely strange. I would just list 2002 as the release date. Timur9008 (talk) 07:56, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Gamespot has a Sep 13 date.[27] --Mika1h (talk) 10:08, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Based on this update, it was definitely delayed slightly, at least to September 13, so September 10 is not correct either way. IceWelder [✉] 11:24, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Computer Gaming World (September 2002, page 50) lists an expected date of Sep 17. --Mika1h (talk) 10:22, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Curious, CGW October 2002 still lists Sep 17 date but November 2002 issue has Sep 12. --Mika1h (talk) 10:28, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Views of indie games I've created

At some point, I got bored and started making articles about indie games. The articles generally are not very good, probably because I haven't played most of the games that I wrote about, and my disinterest in some of these genres is difficult to hide. However, because the quality of the articles is fairly uniform and they were created around the same time, it's easier to generalize about them. So, out of curiosity to see what kinds of articles people are looking for, I checked to see the 30 day views for the articles that I created in the past year:

Article Genre Views
Distant Worlds 2 real-time 4X 1287
Chicken Police adventure 786
Lost Ember adventure 333
Endzone: A World Apart city builder 314
Rogue Heroes: Ruins of Tasos action-adventure 245
Star Renegades roguelite tactical RPG 307
Hard West 2 tactical RPG 614
Battle Brothers tactical RPG/sim 1483
Legend of Keepers: Career of a Dungeon Manager management sim 239
Megaquarium tycoon/management 123
Iratus: Lord of the Dead dungeon crawler 315
Möbius Front '83 wargame 283
Dead in Vinland survival 323
Infested Planet RTS 138
Edge of Eternity (video game) JRPG homage 2278
Solasta: Crown of the Magister tactical RPG 3548
Slipways (video game) puzzle/4X 133
Thea: The Awakening RPG/4X 293
Thea 2: The Shattering RPG/4X 253
Pandora: First Contact 4X 311
StarDrive 2 4X 89
Star Ruler 2 4X 161
Eador: Masters of the Broken World RPG/4X 166
Horizon (2014 video game) 4X 57
Shadow Empire wargame 390
Before We Leave city-builder 561
Star Traders: Frontiers space trading 291
Space Tyrant 4X 103
Breathedge survival 67*

Breathedge is only 3 days old, but it's still got more views than one of the articles. Probably all recent changes patrollers, but it's still a bit surprising. Unsurprisingly, the glut of indie 4X games currently on the market means there isn't enough mindshare for them all. However, I wanted to fill out list of 4X video games. Only a few articles I wrote broke the humble benchmark of 500 views in the past 30 days, and most of them are tactical RPGs. Unrelatedly, I'm happy to report that I've noticed a dramatic decrease in the number of patrollers who helpfully add 50 different blogs to {{vgreviews}}, change the date format, and mark a sourced statement as unsourced. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:27, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I 100% empathize with people changing the yyyy-mm-dd date format ^_^; – Nice little list Ninja, and good work making these short articles. These numbers are considered low, of course, but I think it's always really helpful to keep in mind that this is hundreds of people looking at your writing. It's quite nice, and these articles are surely helpful for many of them! ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 10:42, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Reading minus again, the day/month/year format confused me. I'm not sure formatting that is universally not confusing, *derp*, is possible without changing to some sort of "star date" system.
Nira gliro (talk) 17:29, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Archive_167&oldid=1148756282"