Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Move discussion for F.E.A.R. (video game) and F.E.A.R.

[edit]

An editor has requested that F.E.A.R. (video game) be moved to F.E.A.R., which may be of interest to this WikiProject. You are invited to participate in the move discussion.

New Articles (June 30 to July 6)

[edit]
Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements
 A listing of all articles newly added to the Video Games Wikiproject (regardless of creation date). Generated by v3.20 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 22:30, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 30

July 1

July 2

July 3

July 4

July 5

July 6

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

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

Good article reassessment for VVVVVV

[edit]

VVVVVV 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. Thanks, 1isall (talk/contribs) 18:04, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Captain Commando#Requested move 6 July 2025

[edit]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Captain Commando#Requested move 6 July 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPathtalk 11:27, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussion at WP:AfD/Heartbound (video game)

[edit]

 You are invited to join the deletion discussion at WP:AfD/Heartbound (video game), which is within the scope of this WikiProject. 20:05, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Hey there Fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four. FYI, it's not a neutrality problem to sign off on already neutral (and template) messages like this. That said, most of the regulars here also follow WP:VG/D, which is auto-updated, so there's also an argument that these sorts of comments aren't really needed at all. Sergecross73 msg me 20:21, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I thought so, but wanted to be safe. I wasn't aware of WP:VG/D, sorry for the clutter! fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 20:27, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New Articles (July 7 to July 10)

[edit]
Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements
 A listing of all articles newly added to the Video Games Wikiproject (regardless of creation date). Generated by v3.20 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 21:13, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

July 7

July 8

July 9

July 10

  • None

The 1.0 bot is stopped for now; something about the wikimedia database having issues. So, 4 days of logs instead of 7. --PresN 21:13, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Mother (video game series)#Requested move 6 July 2025

[edit]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Mother (video game series)#Requested move 6 July 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPathtalk 01:57, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Attention WP video games!

[edit]

We have a new draft, Draft:List of Breakout Clones! If anyone wants to improve it, prferably by adding ports of the breakout clone, feel free to do so! 2600:382:2720:ADCA:2D44:BCCB:7967:B485 (talk) 01:59, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think this list, as it stands, would appear to fall afoul of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. My advice is that you add reliable sources suggesting exactly why the topic of Breakout clones is notable. This draft is not likely to be accepted in its current state. silviaASH (inquire within) 02:05, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly; im looking for improvements to this draft, so you can help by adding sources and ports of the breakout clones. 2600:382:2720:ADCA:2D44:BCCB:7967:B485 (talk) 02:07, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Try gathering sources before starting a page. The problem with doing it afterwards is that they may not exist, and your effort would then be wasted. In this case it seems that way, the idea of a "Breakout clone" is just not a standalone notable genre and any list would also fail WP:NLIST. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:39, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Featured article review for Age of Empires

[edit]

I have nominated Age of Empires for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:52, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New Articles (July 11 to July 15)

[edit]
Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements
 A listing of all articles newly added to the Video Games Wikiproject (regardless of creation date). Generated by v3.20 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 12:16, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

July 11

July 14

July 15

Bot keeps having issues. --PresN 12:16, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Monopoly in video games#Requested move 14 July 2025

[edit]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Monopoly in video games#Requested move 14 July 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPathtalk 04:56, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Luigi (character)#Requested move 4 July 2025

[edit]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Luigi (character)#Requested move 4 July 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPathtalk 06:07, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Far Cry Primal's genre

[edit]

What do you think the genre of the 2016 video game Far Cry Primal should be? And what is the reliable source for that? Originally the game's article said that the genre was "action-adventure", except there was no reliable source cited, so I changed the genre to "first-person shooter"; I found a TechRadar article that serves as the proof for the genre I changed to. (See my topic in Far Cry Primal's talk page) FSlolhehe (talk) 19:41, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's an interesting question - is a video game that features no guns a true "first-person shooter"?
(I don't disagree with your genre change though, as it aligns it with the rest of the franchise). Nil🥝Talk 05:31, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say it's more so an action game. I've seen a review and I remember seeing both shooting (In the form of spears, of course) and beat-em-up elements. However, I've don't remember an article that says it's an action game. FSlolhehe (talk) 09:29, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The flip-side of that question is; Do the big chunks of Half-Life, where you only have a crowbar, not count towards it being one of the greatest first person shooters ever? - X201 (talk) 09:29, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Zachtronics#Requested move 16 July 2025

[edit]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Zachtronics#Requested move 16 July 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPathtalk 07:13, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:ABCmouse.com Early Learning Academy#Requested move 17 July 2025

[edit]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:ABCmouse.com Early Learning Academy#Requested move 17 July 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPathtalk 04:32, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heartbound (video game)

[edit]

For the interested, some related press: Pirate Software's Game Heartbound is Under Attack on Steam and Wikipedia Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:05, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What in the blazes has that article have to do with eSports, let alone the AfD seems to have been...one of the smoother ones overall?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 08:12, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you can see afd:s as a kind of eSports, broadly construed? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:20, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That article just gets so much wrong. Saying "the article got deleted because of trolls but is now back up" and linking to simple:Heartbound (video game) as proof the article is "back" here, is a factual error not quite like anything I've ever seen. If anything all this does is make me wonder if we should consider the SI esports sub-site unreliable (if we don't already). silviaASH (inquire within) 08:22, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The difference between simple-WP and en-WP sometimes baffle people, see Wikipedia:Simple_talk/Archive_161#Wikipedia_users_mind-blown_after_finding_hidden_function_they_never_knew_about Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:27, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Turns out that Sports Illustrated is only considered "reliable" pre-2019 per WP:RSPSI - it was bought out and editorial standards precipitously dropped off a cliff. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:34, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Whelp. Noted. Will generally steer clear of them as a source in the future. silviaASH (inquire within) 08:38, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Gene Shift Auto#Requested move 17 July 2025

[edit]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Gene Shift Auto#Requested move 17 July 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPathtalk 10:23, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Cait Sith (Final Fantasy)#Requested move 17 July 2025

[edit]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Cait Sith (Final Fantasy)#Requested move 17 July 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPathtalk 14:51, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussion at WP:AfD/StarMade

[edit]

 You are invited to join the deletion discussion at WP:AfD/StarMade, which is within the scope of this WikiProject.

«ΤΞΔ» - Please mention me when you reply to me or I wont see it! (talk) 16:01, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Empire: Total War

[edit]

Empire: Total War has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 22:45, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the citation needed templates where I couldn't find reliable sources. I split development into development and marketing, them moved DLC discussion into a new post-release heading under Release. If someone can handle trimming the gameplay section down a little (or adding headings), I think this one is an easy save. — ImaginesTigers 22:56, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Development of individual video games

[edit]

This is coming from the recent merge discussion about the Development of Deus Ex. It's also indirectly related to the Gameplay of Pokemon discussion, which led to several additional discussions about how to fix our "gameplay of..." articles.

I'm asking for the assessment from my peers at this WikiProject about "development of...]] articles. With an merge discussion of Development of Deus Ex closing with a consensus to merge, we also have:

I'm not advocating for a one-size-fits-all approach, because these articles vary a lot in length and quality. I just wanted to get some feedback if we can make any generalizations about best practices, or if there are any articles that present similar issues to Development of Deus Ex. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:58, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we can make any gross generalizations about whether a particular development page should or should not exist. Each should be judged in a vacuum rather than it becoming a pitchfork-wielding mob descending on all development articles to destroy them. That is very much against WP:NOTPAPER.
That said, I personally think that Development of Mother 3 should actually be split to EarthBound 64, as a large chunk of it is about said cancelled game. I think there's a solid chance that game is notorious enough for its own "cancelled game" article, similar to Resident Evil 1.5. (One article about it, describes it as "infamous"). The rest of the article could then be merged back into Mother 3. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:28, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's definitely no rule, but these pages should only be the result of the main game page simply becoming too large, and that there's little that could be trimmed down from other sections (and likely, due to a larger reception section due to any legacy or complicating issues (No Man's Sky, Spore) with the game. Masem (t) 16:38, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really support these sorts of splits, as I don't generally think they're independently notable from their respective game, so for me, I think following WP:SIZESPLIT is the only valid reason. (Not opposed to splits like the ones outlined by Zx above either, that's kind of different.) Sergecross73 msg me 17:18, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I started a discussion of that particular aspect here: Talk:Mother 3#Proposed merge of Development of Mother 3 into Mother 3. I obviously can't tag EarthBound 64 since that is just a redirect at the moment, but merging the article would also imply recreating it. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:12, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think most of the germane info in Development of BioShock Infinite is in the parent article presently (I think the article was spun off because of size concerns, but a lot of the minutae with preview features/promotion etc. I think was just bloat and prose line stuff at the time of release that never got reconsidered—no the BioShock Infinite: Industrial Revolution browser game does not merit 250 words alone.) But I got pushback a few years back when I was cleaning it up and haven't fully streamlined the main article so I didn't ever redirect. Despite the fact that it's featured, I kind of feel like Development of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion is way too detailed in an effort to justify itself (nearly 500 words on individual console releases, etc.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:53, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe most, if any of these, are notable, since most of these are largely just duplicative of the parent article. Trimming should always be done before a SIZESPLIT, especially when many of these lack SIGCOV of the development by themselves. This would require assessment on a per article basis, however, and should likely be discussed one at a time on the article talk pages. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 01:12, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in mind that per WP:SS, it is not necessary that the spun-out article be separately notable. eg: I would agree the topic of "Development of Bioshock Infinite" is not its own notable topic, but as BioShock Infinite is, and (prior to considering any trimming) the amount of material between the two is too large per WP:SIZE, spinning out the development to a separate article is completely fine. Masem (t) 01:29, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am not a fan of these splits. One thing I personal despise as a reader is when I come to an article of a video game, and I cannot read about it from that one singular article. Instead I have to also go the the 'Development of...' and 'Music of..." sub-articles. Sometimes there's others. This is certainly my personal complaint with this style of organization. Yeah, NOTPAPER and all that, sure, we don't have any article limitation imposed by paper and yet, I am not a believer in SIZESPLIT in most cases either. We aren't paper, we can have a long article, make your TOC make sense for navigation. I feel like a lot of these splits are artificially driven to get more creation/GA/FA credits. That's not the fault of the editors but how we put so much focus on those processes. -- ferret (talk) 01:28, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In particular, I find it quite odd that Mother 3 has a development of article when a lot of it is redundant to the main article, and what isn't is about Earthbound 64 (which I believe is notable, having found fairly extensive coverage of it as a cancelled game and its potential resurfacing). If there were size concerns with covering the EB64 development, I think a separate page on the N64 games would suffice. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 02:31, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am a little biased as the creator of one of these articles, but I'd be willing to see a discussion after some edits (Dev of FFXV REALLY needs some editing). I think an individual development article can be a valid thing, but only within certain boundaries. And like every other article on this website, they need re-evaluation either through a nomination process or independent editors to see whether they are still relevant as standalones (meaning merging them into the main article would bloat it to an unhealthy degree). --ProtoDrake (talk) 13:55, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games&oldid=1302611890"