Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Salvidrim! (talk | contribs) at 02:28, 11 February 2024 (→‎WPVG, PIQA, and A-class articles: r). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconVideo games Project‑class
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles
ProjectThis page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Help replacing music file at The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask#Music

The current file is someone's "public domain" rendition of the Clock Town theme but it's likely to be deleted from Commons in the coming days. Since any replacement would have to be non-free fair use, I figured it would be helpful to illustrate the "changing tempo" of the Clock Town theme across day 1-day 3. Can anyone with more experience in this domain help me with replacing the music file on this page? Axem Titanium (talk) 21:39, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also if anyone happens to own the Majora's Mask Boss Fight Books, let me know! Axem Titanium (talk) 21:41, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sent you an email! – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 22:02, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
🙏 Axem Titanium (talk) 22:08, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion criteria for List of controversial video games

Hey, just reaching out to invite any thoughts on a starting point for creating inclusion criteria for the article List of controversial video games which you can find here. The article currently does not have such a criteria which has led to a fairly indiscriminate list with items that span from anywhere to well-cited items to very vague items with descriptions like "sex/violence" or items that relying on a single source to substantiate them. Similar approaches have been taken for the article List of video games notable for negative reception which has curbed the inclusion of random games. The aim is to curb minor controversies which in themselves have not received significant coverage. It would be great to find some community consensus on this to take a firmer approach on the article if criteria are seen as needed. Thanks! ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 11:56, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Xenoblade Chronicles 3 GA

Not long ago, I was reviewing the work of Zekerocks11 on Xenoblade Chronicles 3. The article was coming along, but it looks like this user likely left Wikipedia before they could finish.

It appears that Zekerocks11 left after an AN/I was closed with no action against a user who was later blocked for another incident. I don't know if anyone has a way to invite them back, but I thought I would mention it for context.

The article was improving and could have been well on its way to reaching Good Article status. If someone wanted to take this on, I'd be good to review it. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:00, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New Articles (January 22 to January 28)

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 v3.17 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 21:22, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

January 22

January 23

January 24

January 25

January 26

January 27

January 28

@PresN you need to place your sig at the end of this post. Gonnym (talk) 23:19, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I assure you, having posted this for apparently almost 6 years, that I really don't. --PresN 23:31, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sig is already in the grey box that heads this, seems perfectly fine. Masem (t) 01:16, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you don't need to sign it, but it makes my job much easier. You scumbag. SineBot (talk) 01:24, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The true enemy to fight is your bot "owner". You have nothing to lose but your chains! --PresN 01:32, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scope of Team Rocket

I would like to invite discussion over at Talk:Team Rocket#Whether to refocus this article. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:51, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category discussion input

Hi everyone, I nominated Category: War video games for deletion a little while back, and it has been relisted twice. If you're so inclined, say your piece at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 January 30#Category:War video games. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 20:38, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts requested for a change to the table format at List of generation III Pokémon

Hi, I opened a discussion at here, with the idea that it would be used in all generational lists. Any input would be well received. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 00:12, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Fossil Pokémon (Sword and Shield)#Requested move 31 January 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Fossil Pokémon (Sword and Shield)#Requested move 31 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:39, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest and Geometry Dash

I've been planning to prepare the Geometry Dash article for WP:GAN and WP:DYK. However, I'm a bit hesitant to start since I actively play the game myself. Do I have a COI with the article's subject? — Davest3r08 >:) (talk) 15:10, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that you call out this concern, because most people wouldn't consider this at all. The consensus is broadly that being a fan of something isn't a conflict of interest. Hopefully, the GAN process would reveal any biases in the article. Requesting a peer review on bias specifically is an option, I suppose. Regardless, if you're not being paid to write positively about Geometry Dash (or it otherwise affecting your status), I hope you can look at the game with a critical eye. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 15:21, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maplestrip, thanks! — Davest3r08 >:) (talk) 15:33, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, unless you were actively involved in its creation, or were somehow earning money off of the game, it wouldn't be considered a COI. (If simply liking things were an issue, it'd be impossible to get anything done on Wikipedia, as it's extremely common to write about things you like...) Sergecross73 msg me 15:30, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not for me! I exclusively write about stuff I hate, like video games! /s Axem Titanium (talk) 20:22, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, in my time mediating/maintaining articles like Intellivision Amico or Nickelback, there's plenty of hate-editing out there too haha. Sergecross73 msg me 22:10, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To give more concrete examples, a conflict of interest would exist of you were one of the developers or work for the publisher, closely connected to to someone associated with the game (family, friend, significant other etc) or work for a marketing firm paid to promote the game.--67.70.103.36 (talk) 01:39, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Mario Kart DS

Mario Kart DS 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. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:28, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arkhamverse articles

Could I get help with creating the Arkhamverse articles for Batman, Joker, and Harley Quinn? All are in some of the most famous video game moments of all-time. I need help with citations. ShirtNShoesPls (talk) 00:30, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend asking at WP:VGCHAR, they are pretty knowledgeable when it comes to video game characters on Wikipedia. QuicoleJR (talk) 03:03, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'll reach out. ShirtNShoesPls (talk) 02:21, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The first problem is going in having characters in mind and then wanting to "find" notability for them. That inevitably leads to non-notable articles. The article should be a result of discovering sources, not forcing sources to fit whatever character you had in mind.
On my first pass just looking for ANY characters in general who may be notable from the Arkham games, I found nothing of note. It seems to me you are best off trying to integrate it with their normal article, or in Joker's case, improving the section in Joker in other media. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:20, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Call of Duty 2

Call of Duty 2 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. λ NegativeMP1 00:43, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Metacritic reception summaries attributed to GameRankings

I have noticed that there are numerous articles for older games where their reception section says it "received mixed/favorable reviews, according to the review aggregation website Gamerankings". All the examples I've looked at show this consensus summary citing GameRankings were added by the user Angeldeb82 as part of good-faith attempts to expand and update the reception of older games. This specific phrasing is standard for articles when noting Metacritic's consensus, but then Metacritic explicitly gives this, while GameRankings does not, so no summary should be attributed to this site. Incidentally, I also found that the original URL to GameRankings' page in the citation instead links to (an unrelated page) on Metacritic and I've no idea why. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 13:39, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's because the GameRankings links have been dead and redirected since the end of 2019. Angeldeb82 (talk) 17:15, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't explain why you attributed a quote to Gamerankings that they never provided... -- ferret (talk) 17:24, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If GameRankings is going to be sourced, the most we can do is simply say what score it has and leave it there. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 20:47, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, we can't say that Game Rankings, if it had "received mixed/favorable reviews" assessments, would do so in the same way Metacritic does now. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 21:35, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It will take a while but I'll look to go through the articles with this phrasing and change them so it just mentions the score. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 14:29, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

38 Studios

Hi. Among other things, I've become interested recently in the work of 38 Studios. I've already created and brought to GA an article on Project Copernicus, and I've recently done some further work on Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning which is currently in GAN. The history of 38 Studios is...a lot, as I'm finding out. I'm wondering how far my scope should stretch when it comes to the post-bankruptcy legal stuff that went on (two legal cases at least, one being federal and only resolved in 2019). I don't want the article to become bloated, but I feel it should be noted at least. I've done articles on video game developers before, but 38 Studios is a whole other kettle of fish. Opinions would be much valued. (Minor edit: I'm pulling together stuff for a 38 Studios article rewrite in my sandbox if anyone's interested in looking at what I've found.) ProtoDrake (talk) 20:15, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, my instinct would be to be maximalist and only pare back if reviewers object. I think all of the fallout from 38 Studios is fascinating as well and would like to read it. Axem Titanium (talk) 06:33, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This, 100%. IceWelder [✉] 07:05, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@IceWelder and Axem Titanium: Right, I've completed the major edit. Other eyes more than welcome to check over and trim/expand where appropriate. Looking through the legal and financial shenanigans was...a time. --ProtoDrake (talk) 23:33, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Great work! I didn't find it bloated and I liked the Reactions section. Nice little article here, telling a relatively complete story about a corner of the game industry. It's certainly a lot better told than what the article looked like before! Quick thing I noticed, the sentence starting with "Initially scheduled for a 2011 release" doesn't have a main verb, it's just two dependent clauses. There's also "close to approving $30 in funding", which seems low 😂. Axem Titanium (talk) 22:36, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Axem Titanium: Thanks for catching those (I wouldn't put it past 38 at that stage to be cadgeing small change). Getting all the legal stuff and settlements straight was a nightmare, so I had to summarise in places. --ProtoDrake (talk) 22:57, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Animal Crossing character discussion

I have started a discussion at Talk:List of Animal Crossing series characters#Should Ankha be included? that this WikiProject may be interested in. The discussion seems to have slowed down, so feel free to participate! QuicoleJR (talk) 23:06, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear notability at WP:VG/R

Specifically, I was browsing through the list, and I am unsure whether the game developer Jes Negrón passes WP:NBIO or would fall under WP:1EVENT. Sources also mention the game she created, Good Bones, but it doesn't seem to be notable in itself, and they largely mention it under the context of her being the plaintiff in the Riot games lawsuit. It seems to me this may be a case where the lawsuit should have an article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:08, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The section at Riot_Games#Allegations_over_gender_discrimination_and_sexual_harassment seems to be fairly long already. She should certainly be mentioned there but perhaps it might need to be spun out as well? I'm not strongly advocating for a split at this time. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:21, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New Articles (January 29 to February 4)

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 v3.17 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 23:09, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

January 29

January 30

January 31

February 1

February 2

February 3

February 4

Cukie Gherkin's been making a killing on character articles lately. Good lord!--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:18, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note- the above made more sense when I still had February 5 added on (I'm 1 day late, so I had the data), where Cukie Gherkin had 5 character articles in 1 day. A preview of next week's post! --PresN 23:22, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you told me to even name 5 video game characters on the spot, I'd probably say Mario and Walter White and then be out of ideas. Panini! • 🥪 23:47, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just found this, here we go:
  1. Link
  2. Yoshi
  3. Princess Peach
  4. Isabelle
  5. Kirby
QuicoleJR (talk) 01:47, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of those are video game characters, doofus. Panini! • 🥪 02:23, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, you're right. Sorry about that. QuicoleJR (talk) 02:30, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What about Princess Beach? Axem Titanium (talk) 22:45, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Still working on Go Vacation. Any sources I'm missing?

Hello! I've been editing this article for a very long time now, and haven't been able to find any additional sources to get it to Featured Article status. Does anyone have any ideas for where I could look? TheAwesomeHwyh 00:45, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And by "a long time", I mean I've been working on this article for six years. Woah. TheAwesomeHwyh 00:50, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could give this a spin. [1] - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 00:52, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure to what extent you've searched for sources but regardless, check out WP:VG/SE if you haven't already! Panini! • 🥪 01:01, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft page that I am working on

I am currently working on Draft:Tom Clancy's The Division (series) But I am struggling to find sources could someone help me find some? Someone0317 (talk) 06:57, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure the articles for each game would have useful refs. -- ZooBlazer 07:07, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With only two games released so far, it seems WP:TOOSOON for a series article. Maybe when the third game releases and the other spinoffs do as well, there will be an argument for a series page. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:56, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, exactly this. Series articles with only 2 game entries are generally deleted, because all of the information can generally just squarely be placed in the article for the first or second game. I'd put that project on hold until games three and four are out. That could help the whole sourcing problem too. Sergecross73 msg me 15:19, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are exceptions, of course; for example, if you could find a lot of other non-video game works for The Division. Looking at a Reddit post, there are roughly half a dozen books. So, if there was enough coverage of them, that might help. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 22:50, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They are working on a spin-off and a third game Someone0317 (talk) 23:03, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fortnite revenue

Hi all. Fortnite's revenue was mentioned here [2]. I'm not sure whether it can be added to the main Fortnite article though or should we wait for a better source. Timur9008 (talk) 05:49, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WPVG, PIQA, and A-class articles

Last year, consensus was reached to establish a project-independent quality assessment scale (WP:PIQA), which has recently begun wide implementation. Within the hundreds of bot edits in your watchlists, you may have noticed that the |class= parameter is removed from most WikiProject banners, but not {{WikiProject Video games}}. This is because, in February 2015 (9 years ago), A-class articles were locally deprecated in our project and our quality scale is considered custom. In the 2015 dicussion, it appears that the principal concern was a lack of A-class reviewers, although opinions differed on whether this justified the removal of the class. With PIQA now being enforced, would it be wise for us to restore A-class assessments and re-establish uniformity with other projects in this regard? (Pinging previous contributors: @GamerPro64, PresN, JimmyBlackwing, Tezero, Czar, Masem, Dank, and JDC808). IceWelder [✉] 10:09, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What does it look like when an article has received an A-class assessment for one project, but the video game project template on the same talkpage doesn't feature that same letter? Is it typically B-class or such? I think in those rare cases, it would be fine to just join it all together into one single A-class. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 10:17, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Video game articles tagged as A-class are rendered and categorized like unassessed articles with no automatic replacement. It would require manual intervention to set to B-class. IceWelder [✉] 10:53, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm asking what our typical standard is/was when, for example, Milhist assessed an article to A-class, and we followed the same article with our template as well. I understand that we didn't support A-class technically, so what did we usually do in that scenario? I don't know of any examples of this occurring. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 11:03, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Typically, if one project set it to A-class, it had passed GA, so we set it to GA-class. If it had not passed GA, we would set it to B-class. --PresN 12:41, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here I thought A-class was a level below GA... If we were to merge with all other projects, one class would have to overwrite the other. Could some of our GAs suddenly be turned into A-class? Or would some A-class articles be turned into GAs? ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 12:51, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A-class is the step between GA and FA (at least in theory). I don't think creating A-Level checks is the way forward. It's only really used on a handful of projects (such as WP:MILHIST). Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:27, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So there probably won't even be a conflict if we do go along with this? And if there ever is, it'll be fine if our GAs get relabeled as A-class? ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 13:29, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, we wouldn't relabel our GAs to be A class. Things that are A class might be relabelled as GA class if no one wanted to retain that system, or if WP:VG wanted to use A-class, then we could create the grading process that is required. Personally, I think dedicating a review system for A-class is a bit of a waste of time. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:01, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Enabling A-class wouldn't mean that we need to establish a separate review process; the "basic" one (per WP:A?) should suffice and is only required if someone actually opens such a review request instead of GA or FA. Simply allowing A-class articles to exist is seemingly the mainstream option. IceWelder [✉] 14:40, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why are we adding back bureaucracy just because the new PIQA process supports A Class? No one at this project has had interest in an A-class process for a decade+. -- ferret (talk) 15:06, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's because fundamentally, an A-class with no review process, sandwiched between a GA-class with a review process and an FA-class with a review process, is kind of pointless. It doesn't really hurt anything, I guess, to have it, but it doesn't add anything either. Especially since it turns out that the PIQA changes to the bannershell template still work for us (e.g. even though the bots have been leaving our assessments in place, if they're removed we just use the bannershell ones like everyone else with the exception of A-class). So... why add A-class unless you're going to do something with it? But I agree with you- we're not going to do anything with it, so what's the point. --PresN 15:49, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's the thing. We can't just add it back, unless we're going to do it. It requires the review process. That might just be a talk page discussion but it *must* happen. -- ferret (talk) 15:53, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can only think of one video game with the A status And Yet it Moves, but it doesn't look to be an official one. But looking into the process I think it's actually pretty fascinating and has some potential. It looks to be like a peer review process, but for individual Wikiprojects.
Peer reviews barely get any traction. So, imagine a world where a new video game editor submits their article for A-class review ahead of a GA review. A bunch of us WPVG users can drop in and point out any obvious issues or some minor drive-by comments. It can really cut out the middle man that is PR, and help get more eyes on an article ahead of formal reviews so they don't have to go hunting for help and forcing people's hands.
But, that's hypothetical. There's seems to be no interest in bringing this back, and this will likely not happen if nobody is interested in the first place. Before thinking about this, neither was I. Panini! • 🥪 17:02, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A-class is meant to be pre-FA, not pre-GA. We have GAs and PRs that sit as is, let alone a new level between them and FA. -- ferret (talk) 17:04, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While I do feel there's a gulf between GA and FA in terms of what wikipedia is looking for, Ferret's right in that adding another review process when we're already struggling to get reviews done is a significant factor. For it to work best too you'd really need external views from outside the vg project to ensure the article is clear to people unfamiliar with these subjects, and I don't see that readily happening.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:11, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in agreement. I think our limited time and effort is better spent on the semi-periodic GA/FA/PR review swap threads that pop up here than in implementing another hurdle to FA level of assessment. As my wiki time has decreased, I wouldn't mind spending more time doing reviews of others' work. Could we perhaps make said review swap threads a more regular occurrence? In the past, it feels like it only happens when one editor gets fed up with waiting for a GAN/FAC review. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:29, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I like the sound of that Axem Titanium. Many users here have made review threads in the past (I see GamerPro64, ProtoDrake, PresN from the first page of archives), so perhaps we could automate these threads in a way with a built-in "begging" subheader? (It certainly shouldn't be weekly because that would be outrageous). Panini! • 🥪 19:18, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@IceWelder I used to like the idea of the A-class, and I actually had a couple of articles reviewed and passed as A's when the project previously supported it, but I am indifferent to whether or not we want to reinstate it. It's a nice extra check in the box for an article, but at the same time, is it worth going through all the hassle of having it reinstated as well as going through the process of actually reviewing articles for A? Granted, it would help to cut down the FAC review process as it can help to resolve issues that would likely come up in an FAC review, so there is that benefit to it. JDC808 ♫ 04:05, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Metroid Prime: Trilogy Featured Topic

I don't know the etiquette about nominating a subject for FT that I didn't work on, but it seems like the Metroid Prime Trilogy would qualify, being a GA itself, and the three games included being FAs? - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 23:27, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The larger series was a good topic until it was demoted in 2016 due to the non-GA Federation Force; when that article and Metroid Dread are brought up to GA, it'll be eligible again. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 23:54, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not talking about Metroid as a whole though, I'm talking about a Metroid Prime Trilogy Featured Topic. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 01:28, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know, but my point was that a trilogy FT seems pointless when the larger series is already so close to GT. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 02:25, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games&oldid=1206044572"