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.

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]
That's a useful assessment. Both could at least use some copy-editing to tighten up sections that are verbose. I've added both to my watchlist. Shooterwalker (talk) 13:37, 28 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]
I agree. Some of these articles are more/less valid than others. We can focus on one article at a time, starting with the most obvious issues. Thank you (and everyone) for sharing your assessment. Shooterwalker (talk) 13:40, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am very fond of this type of article; I see them as great opportunities to have more in-depth descriptions of the kinds of information Wikipedia is great at. I think it would be a shame to try to merge a lot of this information away, especially because I expect a lot of these development processes have probably gotten only more sources describing them since these articles were created. I still dream to be able to compile an article like these. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 17:10, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Sonic the Hedgehog (OVA)#Requested move 20 July 2025

[edit]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Sonic the Hedgehog (OVA)#Requested move 20 July 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPathtalk 01:40, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New Articles (July 21 to July 27)

[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 15:54, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

July 21

July 22

July 23

July 24

July 25

July 26

July 27

Bot came back up, so we get a big blob for the 21st. --PresN 15:54, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a valid dabpage

[edit]

I also mention this at WP:ANIME due to overlap since I noticed Sonic Anime and have doubts that it a is proper, since while all the entries are Japanese animations related to sonic, as far as I can tell none of these entries are called or even known as Sonic Anime meaning I have doubts that it’s valid. 67.70.101.124 (talk) 17:19, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, but it seems it got WP:BOLDly redirected already. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:41, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How to cover the issue with Collective Shout / Steam, itchio

[edit]

Context [1] in case one missed this.

The bulk of the content is current of the BLP page for Collective Shout's founder but even if that's split to a sepearate page on the org, Collective Shout is not the only party pushing this, so it seems wrong to dig pile this all there. The only other idea I had was to create a page for No Mercy, the game that was the tip of the iceberg for these groups, but that also seems the wrong place. And there's no real nickname (like a "-gate" term) that I've seen widely used. I feel this needs a separate page but just can't figure out a good title and framing Masem (t) 17:44, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've been thinking about this also.
I'm working on a dedicated article about payment processor policies affecting online adult content generally, since this is an issue that has been going on for years which has not only impacted video games, but also online sex work, porn sites, Japanese adult media such as doujinshi, and other pornographic or porn-adjacent content targeted by financial institutions and anti-porn activist groups. It's been taking actually a bit of time because I want to fully research the whole context and ensure that the article is thorough and NPOV before pushing it to mainspace, as it turns out there's actually quite a lot that's been written on the issue by journalists, activists, academics, and legal experts which I've been working through.
At the moment I'm in the middle of reading an academic paper covering the issue. I've not done a lot with it in the last few days because I've been a bit busy in real life, but if anyone would like to help with it, it's over at User:SilviaASH/Impact of financial institution policies on internet content. I'd appreciate any assistance getting the draft up to snuff or any feedback on how it could be improved (or potentially how the work I've done could be incorporated elsewhere if consensus deems that a standalone article for all this isn't appropriate). silviaASH (inquire within) 17:53, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd probably be less anodyne about the title and call it Payment processors and anti-pornography censorship, or Payment processor anti-pornography censorship controversy. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:55, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that's a good suggestion. I've actually not really been sure how to best title the draft in a way that's both NPOV and WP:PRECISE; it's very much a working title. The lead also needs work since there's some sources that trace the issue further back than 2020; I've found a few that identify card companies cutting off Backpage as the genesis of all of this, so I probably want to work that in somewhere to some extent depending on how much the sources support it. silviaASH (inquire within) 18:01, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought, while it claims to be targeting porn, it is actually catching anything with sexual content regardless of whether it's porn, including various indie games that use sexual content in a non-porn sense purely for story reason, so that title would be, technically, inaccurate. Payment processor sexual content censorship controversy may be better. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:06, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Mhm. I'll decide on the final title once I'm sure the article's ready. silviaASH (inquire within) 18:08, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Don't know about sources, but it's been a "thing" since the mid-00s at least that sites with sexual content would get barred from online payment platforms such as PayPal, even before (as far as I remember) the cuts to Craigslist/Backdoor, like racy webcomics or literature sites that accepted 18+ stories being unable to put out a "tip jar" as they couldn't get a payment service to take them (back when there were a variety of paypal-like services and that was a thing you did). I think your article proposal has real legs if you can find sources (which it sounds like you can for recent stuff). --PresN 20:00, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly a good way to approach this, since it ties with previous recent efforts like on pornhub. Masem (t) 18:16, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really see the need to have a separate article for this, it's basically a NOTNEWS issue. The relevant parties (Collective Shout, Itch.io) can have the imformation on their page. I would be hesitant to make an umbrella article along the above lines because it's opening up a massive issue of discerning what 'counts' as in the topic in the absence of more scholarly versus newsy sources on the topic. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:06, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As SilviaASH described, it is not technically a "news article" as the controversy has been going on for numerous years now. It is an article on a long-running campaign and controversy, so if this would not count as a viable article, we would likely not count such things as Gamergate as notable either and just merge it into 4Chan. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:09, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have identified a good handful of scholarly sources which are either currently cited in the draft or listed among my notes on its talk page. I'd personally argue that NOTNEWS doesn't apply here since there's been plenty of WP:SUSTAINED coverage, and the connections between various incidents have been clearly drawn in sources like the academic journal article I linked above. silviaASH (inquire within) 18:11, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The "controversy" as in "payment processors and what is considered adult content" has been a long running thing, sure, but this specific Itch.io thing isn't, and if there's no good sources covering a topic in total including them, it's basically wikipedia editors smashing a bunch of tangentially-related stuff together and should be approached very cautiously unless there are explicit sources connecting them (to wit, while "anti-pornography" is often the framing for these choices, it's not always, and plenty of the content involved doesn't relate to pornography at all, so such a title would be innately privileging a point of view over others.) Hence my suggestion of caution, especially if the impetus is this specific incident, which has not yet shown sustained coverage. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:19, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree that the Steam/itch.io controversy doesn't in itself earn its own page, but it has been contextualized by a handful of reliable sources as being related to past similar incidents (one example being PCGamer "Adult industries (that run the gamut from sex workers from sites like OnlyFans to manga creators) have been hit by, as the ACLU put it back in 2023, "vague and ambiguous policy requirements, coupled with the dangerous combination of platform over-compliance and inadequate automated tools" for some time. This arriving at Valve's doorstep is a delayed reaction..."), so there is basis in sources for covering all of this together. silviaASH (inquire within) 18:28, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's important to note that these efforts have also negatively impacted pro-LGBT content, so referring to it as anti-pornography or anti-sexual content would also not be precise. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 18:37, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When the draft's content is more polished I'll ask for feedback on what the title should be.
In any case, regarding concerns with the Collective Shout incident's notability or lack thereof, I think we're all generally in agreement that this current controversy does not warrant a standalone page, so I would say until the draft is ready to be moved, the information can safely live at Steam (service), itch.io, and/or Melinda Tankard Reist as appropriate. We can also wait for things to develop in case enough coverage emerges for Collective Shout to warrant its own page. silviaASH (inquire within) 18:40, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My concern is that with CS being cover on Reist's BLP page, and knowing how "gamers" behave on these types of articles (see Gamergate) that trying to move the brunt of the controversy on this topic off Reist page will help. Even if Collective Shout is given it's own article, that could draw the wrong type of contributions. Masem (t) 14:15, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And Collective Shout does get its own article now. MilkyDefer 02:16, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Before Steam and itch.io are impacted I wish to highlight the preceding incidents on Japanese storefronts. I will be monitoring the coverage of the Japanese side should the article be created. That's for a global view of the matter. MilkyDefer 14:05, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh looks like it is already covered. I am happy with that. MilkyDefer 14:06, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Collective Shout article looks like a good start and should suffice for covering the immediate controversy and the history of the group in general. I'll be working further on my draft about payment processor censorship when I can; its scope won't overlap much with the Collective Shout article so we should be able to have both. Right now the most pertinent things to get there are details about the withdrawal of Visa/MasterCard from Pornhub and the role of Nicholas Kristof's New York Times column in spurring that outcome (as identified by multiple sources I've found) as well as other commentary from activists and advocates on both sides of the controversy. silviaASH (inquire within) 02:33, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Article title issue

[edit]

I recently discovered the article Edelweiss (visual novel) that is currently up for deletion. I believe that it should be at Edelweiss (video game) instead since visuals novels are considered a video game genre. If kept could someone please change the title? 67.70.101.124 (talk) 00:26, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, someone remind me if it's kept and I'll do it. Sergecross73 msg me 00:43, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Call of Duty article plot summaries

[edit]

This is certainly a random topic, but it's one that I've been wondering for a while now. Basically, for most articles on Call of Duty games starting with Call of Duty: Black Ops, the articles contain more than one plot summary to take into account whatever extra modes the game has (most of the time this is Zombies, though later on Multiplayer plot summaries are added when they become relevant to the games). On paper, this seems reasonable. But any look at these articles will find that the practice is a bit impractical and makes the plot summaries take up a majority of the article. One of the main things with writing Wikipedia articles on fiction is to not write articles with excessive plot summaries. That's why we have the 700-word limit that is almost universally accepted for plot summaries on Wikipedia, with some leeway allowed if absolutely necessary. But if you add a second plot summary to that, that's (at best) about 1,400 words of plot summary. With three plots, that's 2,100, and so on and so forth. That becomes a bit impractical, doesn't it? Even if the plot summaries technically abide with guidelines.

Specific plot summary examples

As stated already, this trend starts with Call of Duty: Black Ops, where the plot summaries for both the main campaign and the Zombies story arc are included. Both of these sections are currently above the word limit as it is, with Campaign being 917 words long and Zombies being 885, for a total of 1,802 words. This continues with Call of Duty: Black Ops II and Call of Duty: Black Ops III, except the latter also introduces a plot summary for Nightmares and Multiplayer (though the latter is tame). Black Ops II has 1,001 words of main campaign plot summary, 288 words discussing the endings (these obviously need a trimming and the endings section shouldn't exist but ignoring that), and then 1,017 words for Zombies, for a total of 2,306 words in the plot section. Black Ops III has 795 words for the campaign, 307 for Nightmares, 147 for Multiplayer, and 1,060 for Zombies, with a total of 2,309 words of plot. Call of Duty: Black Ops 4 isn't that great either, but that one at least has the excuse of Zombies being the games focus due to the lack of a proper campaign so I won't linger on it.

Then there's Call of Duty: Black Ops Cold War, where all plot sections are equally massive and impractical for Campaign, Multiplayer, and Zombies. Combined, all three plot summaries on Cold War amount of 2,717 words. Keep in mind, most video game articles try to keep to 700 total. Even if these are separate modes, this much plot overall is surely proving to be impractical. And as I have already stated, even if each plot summary technically was restricted to meet the plot limits, it'd still be over 2,000 words of plot summary. Call of Duty: Black Ops 6 somewhat follows this trend, but that one is kept pretty well contained thanks to IDKFA-93, who maintains the article and has contained the Zombies story arc into an episodic list, while Multiplayer doesn't get much plot summary at all. I find the management of that articles plot summary to be done very well by these standards. But the others feel inexcusable. Call of Duty: Modern Warfare III (2023 video game) also contains two plot summaries, as does Call of Duty: Vanguard. Although, again, Vanguard also adopts an episodic layout for Zombies. Also, to fully clarify, these are not the only examples that could be used. Most Call of Duty games have two or more plots like this. The Black Ops series is just the easiest to cite and also where this problem started.

To reiterate, even if all of these plot summaries on their own followed Wikipedia guidelines, we would be looking at having articles with over 2,000 words worth of plot in the worst of cases.

So, after all of these examples, allow me to reiterate my stance that I do not know how comfortable it is having articles that feature plot summaries of over 2,000 words in length. Even if that total is combined from all plot summaries, and technically follows Wikipedia summary guidelines. Most video game articles have 700 total, with some leeway for DLC releases and chances where a plot cannot be summarized in only 700 words. But, once again, in a case like Cold War which has three different plots going on, that'd still be up to 2,100 words worth of plot summary. I don't think this is compatible with summary style, nor be a comfortable reading experience for someone completely unfamiliar with the game (Zombies is something which I'd classify as utterly incomprehensible without knowing the plots of previous games once you reach Black Ops 2). And I seek some sort of solution regarding this problem as I am considering the improving the articles on some older Call of Duty games. The chances I do any major work are slim, but still there. Regardless, I would definitely be doing some sort of maintenance work depending on the outcome (even if that just amounts to some plot trimming and the addition of Template:Long plot to all of these articles). λ NegativeMP1 21:51, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It has been a while since I touched the cod games so I have to ask, how is the plot presented in the multi-player modes? Masem (t) 22:19, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For the modern Cods, I can only really speak on Black Ops 6, and as far as I can remember (I don't play it much anymore because of obvious reasons to anyone aware of how the series is currently handled) it is mainly presented through YouTube videos / trailers and some in-game cut-scenes related to the battle pass. As far as I'm aware, Warzone does that too. λ NegativeMP1 22:22, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If the bulk of that is from external videos not experienced as part of the gameplay then that needs massive trimming. It's one thing to see the events as you are progressing the main campaign, but info that's non essential to the game mode and only provides flavor should be removed, unless it is documented on third party sources to that degree. Masem (t) 22:49, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. If something doesn't appear in the game/isn't particularly relevant to it, then it probably shouldn't be included unless sources extensive discuss it. But then the question moves over to what to do to the other modes' plot summaries. λ NegativeMP1 23:19, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I’m not sure they should be there at all. Based on what you said about them (particularly Zombies) requiring knowledge of previous games’ plots to understand, it’s likely that only hardcore CoD fans will understand or care about them, so they might be more suitable for Fandom or similar. Rosaece (talk) 20:58, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's no justification for plot summaries that long and they need to be cut back. Popcornfud (talk) 23:26, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So what would you recommend doing? λ NegativeMP1 00:32, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Probably a 200-ish word paragraph to establish the premise of these modes, and that might be better explained in the gameplay section ("CoD's zombies mode is set in a alternative history..." or something like that). Masem (t) 03:43, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Extra eyes for Space Invaders

[edit]

Space Invaders (one of our high-importance articles) is currently undergoing featured article review. Although there are a few things still left to do, I believe most of the issues have been addressed. However, this is a huge article and I've been working on it for over a month now, so I would appreciate it if some one can give it review, maybe do some copy editing if needed. I've been staring at it for too long and need an outside opinion. (Guyinblack25 talk 03:41, 30 July 2025 (UTC))[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games&oldid=1303410171"