This 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
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 17:46, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
I've seen this referenced in a few Metroid articles that suggest to read the discussion from ten (!) years ago here
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 104#FPS vs First person action adventure. While I generally agree with personally, the genre has since been applied across almost all the Metroid game articles since and most of them had no citations to back it up. This becomes especially problematic to just make a bold sweep of these, as the reception to games like Metroid Prime 3 have said that it played more like a shooter game than the others. These all require sources, and I'm surprised they lasted this long as so many of them are featured articles and good articles.
The previous discussion wasn't backed up by any sources and sort of just what I'd describe as "feeling it out", so I'm just sort of re-bringing it up as the last discussion did not come up with a solution that follows
WP:RS,
WP:OR and
WP:SUBJECTIVE.
Andrzejbanas (
talk)
20:18, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I would think that the logical genres for most Metroid games is metroidvania, with the bulk being also platforms, while the Prime series being FPS (in the same way Portal is a puzzle game and FPS). While action adventure may apply, the more specific subgenre of metroidvania is clear here. —
Masem (
t)
20:26, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Two points to follow these up.
It is not clear, because the term Metroidvania only explains what kind of game it is is you are familiar with what the genre entails, so we need sources regardless. Its also a bit an anachronism to call anything before the 2000s a metroidvania, because the term was not in use before then. This isn't a
WP:SKYISBLUE moment, as most people outside people who are familiar with the topic of Metroid would know what a metroidvania is. It's a pretty bad term in the sense that you have to be already familiar with the subject in order to decipher its meaning.
Second, this is exactly what I was talking about, we don't just get to assume "well its obvious". we still need a source per the rules mentioned above.
Andrzejbanas (
talk)
21:47, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
To address the first point, I think with genres, where do allow retroactive use of genre names, as long as that is consistent with the broad picture in RSes. We don't, for example, call games like Marathon or Hexen as "Doom clones" despite that being thd term used at the time those games were released. Also we don't worry about familiarity with genre.. That's why they are blue linked in case the reader needs to find out. —
Masem (
t)
21:59, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
That's probably fair for contemporary reading, but that there's other issues with us just saying "well its ____ genre" and looking for one source and calling it a day as that would go against
WP:WEIGHT.
Andrzejbanas (
talk)
22:07, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
In the case of the Metroid games as a whole, it's likely easier to find a source that broadly categories the games in the series as metroidvania than to find genre classifications for individual games. And to that end Id think we'd want consistency (that at least adheres to rs coverage of the series) than a mess involving nitpicking exactness to one or two sources. —
Masem (
t)
22:33, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
This won't be a popular opinion, but this is why it's bad to organize an encyclopedia using neologisms and marketing terms. You'll find that sources are more consistent if you focus on less trendy names, particularly when Metroid and Castlevania games were simply called action-adventure games. It's fine to note their later marketing as metroidvanias in the prose, but because this will be inconsistent, it's better to avoid this for categorization.
Shooterwalker (
talk)
23:22, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
See this is the issue with going by assumptions of what things are/were called among press.
1980s:
"Another one of those famous platform arcade adventures"
source
Computer Entertainer (1987): "Adventure fans will have a wonderful time with this solid and well constructed adventure. [...] If you enjoy action_ adventures, don’t miss this one!"
source
GameSpot: "the overall package just doesn't measure up to today's action adventure standards."
here
GameSpot: "rendition of Metroid was considered a classic in the 2D action adventure genre."
here.
So from this, action adventure does come off a bit more, but there are several other terms used which don't seem clear to me. In this case it's good, but this is why we need to go by a case by case basis for these things.
Andrzejbanas (
talk)
01:59, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
It helps that platforms are categorized as a type of action game, so platform adventure is at least verifiable as a type of action adventure.
Shooterwalker (
talk)
10:48, 26 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Bethesda Game Studios is listed as developer for both of these games on their own page but the sources for both don't explicitly list BGS as the developer for these. Should we change the developer to just Bethesda Softworks?
Timur9008 (
talk)
05:17, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Bethesda Game Studios was established in 2001 as development division and Bethesda Softworks focused only on publishing.
[2] So it's very likely that Game Studios developed those titles, but I guess that constitutes as
WP:OR, so we still have to go what the sources say and list the developer as "Bethesda Softworks". --
Mika1h (
talk)
11:10, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Bringing this up here because it's been left on hold for awhile, but there's been a longstanding request for a second opinion over at
Talk:Klefki/GA1 to assess the article if anyone's able to give it a hand. I helped with the article so I feel unqualified to be able to objectively.
Kung Fu Man (
talk)
11:11, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
There is a discussion in regards to the future of the pages for the development divisions that are within Sega such as moving the pages from their brand names to their division names, to avoid possible further confusion (in regards to games that are not Sonic or Yazkuza/Like a Dragon done by the big two divisions: CS1 (RGG Studio) & CS2 (Sonic Team)). Any advice or input is very appreciated, more info on this can be found on the
Sega talk page.
VenezuelanSpongeBobFan2004 (
talk)
15:16, 27 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Can someone take a look at this? Article is already loaded with unreliable sources, but it also have COI and OWN issues. The editor, who is apparently Douglas kept reverting edits that he doesn't like. 🍕
Boneless Pizza!🍕 (
🔔)
03:44, 29 June 2024 (UTC)reply
While I agree that this is a pretty apparent case of COI and should be dealt with, this actor has absolutely nothing to do with video games. He has never done voice work for a video game, and he's not even under this project. I don't really see how he's relevant to us specifically. (Nevermind, apparently he has) He might be relevant to
Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga, though. I'd also recommend bringing this up at
the conflict of interest noticeboard. λNegativeMP103:56, 29 June 2024 (UTC)reply
He actually voiced two video game characters (and is known to voice Wesker), but I guess I may be wrong. Since I already posted here, I don't think its necessary to expound more. 🍕
Boneless Pizza!🍕 (
🔔)
04:08, 29 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Do we know who developed or published this game? Typing "Derek Williams Striker" in search on Newspapers.com or Internet Archive doesn't bring up anything.
Timur9008 (
talk)
08:42, 2 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Yes, I'm relatively sure it's notable. It was a popular series with a bunch of entries in thr pre-internet era. I'm still confused where this discussion is heading though.
Sergecross73msg me10:56, 2 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I think that articles made over 10 years ago might have been alright with zero or one sources. If this happened today, it would almost certainly lead to the page being deleted, merged or sent to draft. We have loads of pages without a single source and they still survive mainly because its obscure and even when people read them, they don't do anything (nominate for deletion, edit, discuss, etc). Now, at least three independent reliable sources is required..
JuniperChill (
talk)
11:01, 2 July 2024 (UTC)reply
To clarify, I'm not confused about our notability standards, I'm confused as to what this discussion is asking. No offense to Piotrus, but they, in my opinion, just haven't really given this discussion enough direction. Is this an article name discussion? Article scope question? Notability discussion? Something else? There's a bit of a disconnect between the section title and the question posed that's not helping either.
The article itself isn't helping. Its a bit difficult if all these titles constitute a series of games, or just a ton of ports of the same game. Or something in between. But regardless, I don't believe complete deletion is the answer. For example, the Sega Genesis entry
received magazine coverage. The
Game Gear version did too.
Sergecross73msg me12:57, 2 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Just making clear the 1985 shooter game that doesn't even have an article yet is not notable. I don't think anyone here questions the notability of
Striker (video game), which is about a football game. --
Mika1h (
talk)
13:56, 2 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Sigh, I didn't even notice that the Wikipedia and MobyGames links did not refer to the same games, though that only raises more questions as to what going on in this discussion...
Sergecross73msg me14:06, 2 July 2024 (UTC)reply
If you have noticed a spike in
recent edits at Esports Task Force, that's mostly me (anonymously, all 2601:47:100) extensively improving the titular article for the last 3 days (and failing to get semiprotected edit requests fulfilled). Suffice to say, there's still a need to work on it to get it to
B-class and then GA, and I'll appreciate your contributions there to get the article to meet the requirements (I don't want to make more mistakes than I already have).
2601:47:100:AC40:A03E:AD3E:5E2C:4246 (
talk)
12:45, 2 July 2024 (UTC)reply
This was just mentioned that the article was assessed and tagged C on June 26 by
Valoem. It looked like
this. Last edit was just minutes ago by me that further improved the article to my extent of understanding. Going forward, I'll like consensus from others.
2601:47:100:AC40:98EF:83CD:FB7F:C5E8 (
talk)
14:53, 2 July 2024 (UTC)reply
There's nothing wrong with what was added, as long what is within Wikipedia policy, WP:EDITING, it's fair game. I have contributed to the Dr Disrespect page before.(
Rock & roll is not dead (
talk)
16:27, 2 July 2024 (UTC))reply
Still seems like I'm the only contributor other than that one to have made some progress on the article and meeting the criteria. As it stands:
Is it "suitably referenced, with inline citations"? - More than it did even days ago. 77 references.
"Reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies"? - Definitely, but not everything apparently. There have been over 150 edits since the start of last month.
"Has a defined structure" and is "reasonably well-written"? - As defined, mostly. Organized accordingly and written more formally in accordance with the
relevant MOS, now with a note.
"Contains supporting materials where appropriate"? - Just the infobox and 2 images (at the infobox and
a section).
And "presents its content in an appropriately understandable way"? - I think. Not the first time this was contentious.
Welcome to Wikipedia, and congratulations on working on your first article. Looks like you did some cleanup and copyediting, which is always helpful. Consider making an account so people can find you again- if nothing else, it will make your signature shorter. That said: 1) Non-peer-reviewed classifications don't really matter, and it's best not to obsess over them; if you think it's a B then sure. 2) It's not a B in my opinion. Choppy paragraphs, choppy sentences, a flow so close to
WP:Proseline that it's almost uncanny, and most of all almost no information about the person that isn't just a list of controversies. 3) There's really no reason to post a stream of consciousness log as you go- if you have a question or want feedback, just post once please; there's 40,000+ articles just in video games alone so there's always a lot going on. 4) Why did you tag me? I have no connection with this asshole or his article, and don't know how I'd go about "inform[ing] interested participants" that you made the article a bit better beyond your post here. --PresN02:42, 4 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Yeah, to expand on this, as I often tell people, this Wikiproject is great for asking questions or getting quick advice, but we all are pretty busy with our own pet projects and generally aren't really looking for new ideas for things to work on. I'd need more hours in the day to take on more writing. And that said...while I can't speak for everyone, I personally have no interest in writing about these ridiculous, over-the-top gaming personalities. Doubly so with someone with the allegations against him he's got going on at the moment.
Sergecross73msg me02:56, 4 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Ironically someone did some more improvements overnight.
Anyway, thanks for your inputs. But I should clarify that I’ve been a anon contributor for over 12 years, so this isn’t my first article that I managed to work on intensely (and I’m still not good at that); I’ll respectfully prefer remaining that way. To answer your points: 1st. Well, the article might be up for peer-review if that’s necessary to get to B. Likewise I know it will be if it’s going to become a GA. 2nd. You’re right, there’s a proseline throughout the Career section, but I was focused on improving the readability of the article. About those controversies: Indeed, there was a section like that for
Ninja, but apparently it was not well cited and removed at some point before this year. Imo, it’s important to at least mention them beyond those interviews, but I’m unsure how exactly. 3rd. I apologize for that, but I was trying to bring some attention to this in case participants are interested (and understandably you’re not). And 4th. I also think so about him admitting to such thing; I’ve even suggest that’s the most disgraceful of his controversies. Ultimately, though, he’s been notable since at least 2018, and more so since 2020 when he was banned for it.
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. --PresN14:43, 2 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Articles plural? I only see
GX Games, which by all accounts has more than barebones content and cites two in-depth relaible contemporary independent print sources. You're welcome to look for more sources to expand the content or AfD it if you believe it doesn't meet English Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. Ben · Salvidrim!✉07:05, 4 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Hey everyone! I'm planning to create a 'Characters of Watch Dogs' article as proposed by Jclemens in the recent
deletion discussion of
Aiden Pearce that ended with no consensus. I asked Jclemens whether he wanted to co-create the article with me which he respectfully declined as he had no knowledge on the subject. I tried the talk page of the
Watch Dogs article with no response which was good as I was not free at the time. Now that I've emptied my plate a little, I'm planning to go ahead with the idea which is why I came here. I have played the first game and am heading out tomorrow to buy the second one to get some more experience on the subject. Anyone wants to co-create the article with me? MKat your service.13:10, 5 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I will suggest if you do this go with just prominent characters, but make sure first there is reception encompassing the *cast* of characters. Too many character lists end up collections of cruft with no underlying reception, which creates a huge problem for
WP:LISTN.--
Kung Fu Man (
talk)
13:13, 5 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Good luck. I haven't seen much on "characters of Watch_Dogs"; our articles don't really mention the characters much at all. It's not a game series known for its characters. I personally don't have much hope for this article concept because of that, but I wish you the best of luck! ~
Maplestrip/Mable (
chat)
13:19, 5 July 2024 (UTC)reply
We tend to not have two infoboxes, especially not have two boxarts unless it can be shown that both boxarts are important to show, which is rarely true. I've elected to remove them as not contributing to the articles. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Cukie Gherkin (
talk •
contribs)
05:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I propose spiting
Unreal Engine into 6 articles: Unreal Engine, Unreal Engine 1, Unreal Engine 2, Unreal Engine 3, Unreal Engine 4 and Unreal Engine 5. Sources always discuss games using Unreal Engine by it's version. For example no outlet would say that Tekken 8 was made in Unreal Engine, they would only say it is made in Unreal Engine 5. In this sense the individual Unreal versions are more notable than Unreal itself, as the versions are what is reported on. Consider also that the main "Unreal Engine" article has as many redirect links to it via links like
Unreal Engine 4 as the
Unreal Engine link itself. (via
https://linkcount.toolforge.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&page=Unreal+Engine). And many of the direct links to
Unreal Engine are of the form [[Unreal Engine|Unreal Engine 2]]. Similarly when discussing Unreal Engine in it's own right nobody talks about "learning Unreal Engine." The differences between versions are vast, with completely different rendering engines, physics, scripting languages and UI tools. It's not like eg. Photoshop where the core features have mostly stayed the same. Then the Unreal Engine article will have just one history section that has a one paragraph subsection for each Unreal version. I'm willing to do the split myself as well as add more detail to each engine using a bunch of articles I found while researching Unreal Engine in order to make the sections larger. If necessary I can add those details first to bring the word count of the current Unreal Engine article to 6,000 first. But first I'd like to get some feedback on the idea.
J2UDY7r00CRjH (
talk)
16:43, 8 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I think you might be able to justify UE4 and UE5 as separate articles but not sure on the earlier versions if there is enough secondary coverage to give reason to split from the main engine article. And I am surprised (without checking) if the redirects don't go to the proper section as they are current on that page.
Masem (
t)
18:12, 8 July 2024 (UTC)reply
There is a lot of coverage on UE1 already in the main article. I have also found the following sources in my research of Unreal Engine mainly focusing on UE3 and to a lesser extent UE2 and UE4
https://pastebin.com/4TY1TKFQ. Also, yes, redirects do go to the proper section, I was just showing how nobody really talks about UE on it's own. They redirect but my point is that other articles (and therefore the sources that they are using) are more interested in specific UE versions than "Unreal Engine" generally. Which is not necessarily the case for other engines like Unity or Red Engine. Unless you are referring to the part about "many of the direct links to
Unreal Engine are of the form [[Unreal Engine|Unreal Engine 2]]"? here is an example of that:
Brothers_in_Arms_(video_game_series)J2UDY7r00CRjH (
talk)
18:24, 8 July 2024 (UTC)reply
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. --PresN19:42, 8 July 2024 (UTC)reply
This 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
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 17:46, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
I've seen this referenced in a few Metroid articles that suggest to read the discussion from ten (!) years ago here
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 104#FPS vs First person action adventure. While I generally agree with personally, the genre has since been applied across almost all the Metroid game articles since and most of them had no citations to back it up. This becomes especially problematic to just make a bold sweep of these, as the reception to games like Metroid Prime 3 have said that it played more like a shooter game than the others. These all require sources, and I'm surprised they lasted this long as so many of them are featured articles and good articles.
The previous discussion wasn't backed up by any sources and sort of just what I'd describe as "feeling it out", so I'm just sort of re-bringing it up as the last discussion did not come up with a solution that follows
WP:RS,
WP:OR and
WP:SUBJECTIVE.
Andrzejbanas (
talk)
20:18, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I would think that the logical genres for most Metroid games is metroidvania, with the bulk being also platforms, while the Prime series being FPS (in the same way Portal is a puzzle game and FPS). While action adventure may apply, the more specific subgenre of metroidvania is clear here. —
Masem (
t)
20:26, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Two points to follow these up.
It is not clear, because the term Metroidvania only explains what kind of game it is is you are familiar with what the genre entails, so we need sources regardless. Its also a bit an anachronism to call anything before the 2000s a metroidvania, because the term was not in use before then. This isn't a
WP:SKYISBLUE moment, as most people outside people who are familiar with the topic of Metroid would know what a metroidvania is. It's a pretty bad term in the sense that you have to be already familiar with the subject in order to decipher its meaning.
Second, this is exactly what I was talking about, we don't just get to assume "well its obvious". we still need a source per the rules mentioned above.
Andrzejbanas (
talk)
21:47, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
To address the first point, I think with genres, where do allow retroactive use of genre names, as long as that is consistent with the broad picture in RSes. We don't, for example, call games like Marathon or Hexen as "Doom clones" despite that being thd term used at the time those games were released. Also we don't worry about familiarity with genre.. That's why they are blue linked in case the reader needs to find out. —
Masem (
t)
21:59, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
That's probably fair for contemporary reading, but that there's other issues with us just saying "well its ____ genre" and looking for one source and calling it a day as that would go against
WP:WEIGHT.
Andrzejbanas (
talk)
22:07, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
In the case of the Metroid games as a whole, it's likely easier to find a source that broadly categories the games in the series as metroidvania than to find genre classifications for individual games. And to that end Id think we'd want consistency (that at least adheres to rs coverage of the series) than a mess involving nitpicking exactness to one or two sources. —
Masem (
t)
22:33, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
This won't be a popular opinion, but this is why it's bad to organize an encyclopedia using neologisms and marketing terms. You'll find that sources are more consistent if you focus on less trendy names, particularly when Metroid and Castlevania games were simply called action-adventure games. It's fine to note their later marketing as metroidvanias in the prose, but because this will be inconsistent, it's better to avoid this for categorization.
Shooterwalker (
talk)
23:22, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
See this is the issue with going by assumptions of what things are/were called among press.
1980s:
"Another one of those famous platform arcade adventures"
source
Computer Entertainer (1987): "Adventure fans will have a wonderful time with this solid and well constructed adventure. [...] If you enjoy action_ adventures, don’t miss this one!"
source
GameSpot: "the overall package just doesn't measure up to today's action adventure standards."
here
GameSpot: "rendition of Metroid was considered a classic in the 2D action adventure genre."
here.
So from this, action adventure does come off a bit more, but there are several other terms used which don't seem clear to me. In this case it's good, but this is why we need to go by a case by case basis for these things.
Andrzejbanas (
talk)
01:59, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
It helps that platforms are categorized as a type of action game, so platform adventure is at least verifiable as a type of action adventure.
Shooterwalker (
talk)
10:48, 26 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Bethesda Game Studios is listed as developer for both of these games on their own page but the sources for both don't explicitly list BGS as the developer for these. Should we change the developer to just Bethesda Softworks?
Timur9008 (
talk)
05:17, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Bethesda Game Studios was established in 2001 as development division and Bethesda Softworks focused only on publishing.
[2] So it's very likely that Game Studios developed those titles, but I guess that constitutes as
WP:OR, so we still have to go what the sources say and list the developer as "Bethesda Softworks". --
Mika1h (
talk)
11:10, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Bringing this up here because it's been left on hold for awhile, but there's been a longstanding request for a second opinion over at
Talk:Klefki/GA1 to assess the article if anyone's able to give it a hand. I helped with the article so I feel unqualified to be able to objectively.
Kung Fu Man (
talk)
11:11, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
There is a discussion in regards to the future of the pages for the development divisions that are within Sega such as moving the pages from their brand names to their division names, to avoid possible further confusion (in regards to games that are not Sonic or Yazkuza/Like a Dragon done by the big two divisions: CS1 (RGG Studio) & CS2 (Sonic Team)). Any advice or input is very appreciated, more info on this can be found on the
Sega talk page.
VenezuelanSpongeBobFan2004 (
talk)
15:16, 27 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Can someone take a look at this? Article is already loaded with unreliable sources, but it also have COI and OWN issues. The editor, who is apparently Douglas kept reverting edits that he doesn't like. 🍕
Boneless Pizza!🍕 (
🔔)
03:44, 29 June 2024 (UTC)reply
While I agree that this is a pretty apparent case of COI and should be dealt with, this actor has absolutely nothing to do with video games. He has never done voice work for a video game, and he's not even under this project. I don't really see how he's relevant to us specifically. (Nevermind, apparently he has) He might be relevant to
Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga, though. I'd also recommend bringing this up at
the conflict of interest noticeboard. λNegativeMP103:56, 29 June 2024 (UTC)reply
He actually voiced two video game characters (and is known to voice Wesker), but I guess I may be wrong. Since I already posted here, I don't think its necessary to expound more. 🍕
Boneless Pizza!🍕 (
🔔)
04:08, 29 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Do we know who developed or published this game? Typing "Derek Williams Striker" in search on Newspapers.com or Internet Archive doesn't bring up anything.
Timur9008 (
talk)
08:42, 2 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Yes, I'm relatively sure it's notable. It was a popular series with a bunch of entries in thr pre-internet era. I'm still confused where this discussion is heading though.
Sergecross73msg me10:56, 2 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I think that articles made over 10 years ago might have been alright with zero or one sources. If this happened today, it would almost certainly lead to the page being deleted, merged or sent to draft. We have loads of pages without a single source and they still survive mainly because its obscure and even when people read them, they don't do anything (nominate for deletion, edit, discuss, etc). Now, at least three independent reliable sources is required..
JuniperChill (
talk)
11:01, 2 July 2024 (UTC)reply
To clarify, I'm not confused about our notability standards, I'm confused as to what this discussion is asking. No offense to Piotrus, but they, in my opinion, just haven't really given this discussion enough direction. Is this an article name discussion? Article scope question? Notability discussion? Something else? There's a bit of a disconnect between the section title and the question posed that's not helping either.
The article itself isn't helping. Its a bit difficult if all these titles constitute a series of games, or just a ton of ports of the same game. Or something in between. But regardless, I don't believe complete deletion is the answer. For example, the Sega Genesis entry
received magazine coverage. The
Game Gear version did too.
Sergecross73msg me12:57, 2 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Just making clear the 1985 shooter game that doesn't even have an article yet is not notable. I don't think anyone here questions the notability of
Striker (video game), which is about a football game. --
Mika1h (
talk)
13:56, 2 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Sigh, I didn't even notice that the Wikipedia and MobyGames links did not refer to the same games, though that only raises more questions as to what going on in this discussion...
Sergecross73msg me14:06, 2 July 2024 (UTC)reply
If you have noticed a spike in
recent edits at Esports Task Force, that's mostly me (anonymously, all 2601:47:100) extensively improving the titular article for the last 3 days (and failing to get semiprotected edit requests fulfilled). Suffice to say, there's still a need to work on it to get it to
B-class and then GA, and I'll appreciate your contributions there to get the article to meet the requirements (I don't want to make more mistakes than I already have).
2601:47:100:AC40:A03E:AD3E:5E2C:4246 (
talk)
12:45, 2 July 2024 (UTC)reply
This was just mentioned that the article was assessed and tagged C on June 26 by
Valoem. It looked like
this. Last edit was just minutes ago by me that further improved the article to my extent of understanding. Going forward, I'll like consensus from others.
2601:47:100:AC40:98EF:83CD:FB7F:C5E8 (
talk)
14:53, 2 July 2024 (UTC)reply
There's nothing wrong with what was added, as long what is within Wikipedia policy, WP:EDITING, it's fair game. I have contributed to the Dr Disrespect page before.(
Rock & roll is not dead (
talk)
16:27, 2 July 2024 (UTC))reply
Still seems like I'm the only contributor other than that one to have made some progress on the article and meeting the criteria. As it stands:
Is it "suitably referenced, with inline citations"? - More than it did even days ago. 77 references.
"Reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies"? - Definitely, but not everything apparently. There have been over 150 edits since the start of last month.
"Has a defined structure" and is "reasonably well-written"? - As defined, mostly. Organized accordingly and written more formally in accordance with the
relevant MOS, now with a note.
"Contains supporting materials where appropriate"? - Just the infobox and 2 images (at the infobox and
a section).
And "presents its content in an appropriately understandable way"? - I think. Not the first time this was contentious.
Welcome to Wikipedia, and congratulations on working on your first article. Looks like you did some cleanup and copyediting, which is always helpful. Consider making an account so people can find you again- if nothing else, it will make your signature shorter. That said: 1) Non-peer-reviewed classifications don't really matter, and it's best not to obsess over them; if you think it's a B then sure. 2) It's not a B in my opinion. Choppy paragraphs, choppy sentences, a flow so close to
WP:Proseline that it's almost uncanny, and most of all almost no information about the person that isn't just a list of controversies. 3) There's really no reason to post a stream of consciousness log as you go- if you have a question or want feedback, just post once please; there's 40,000+ articles just in video games alone so there's always a lot going on. 4) Why did you tag me? I have no connection with this asshole or his article, and don't know how I'd go about "inform[ing] interested participants" that you made the article a bit better beyond your post here. --PresN02:42, 4 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Yeah, to expand on this, as I often tell people, this Wikiproject is great for asking questions or getting quick advice, but we all are pretty busy with our own pet projects and generally aren't really looking for new ideas for things to work on. I'd need more hours in the day to take on more writing. And that said...while I can't speak for everyone, I personally have no interest in writing about these ridiculous, over-the-top gaming personalities. Doubly so with someone with the allegations against him he's got going on at the moment.
Sergecross73msg me02:56, 4 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Ironically someone did some more improvements overnight.
Anyway, thanks for your inputs. But I should clarify that I’ve been a anon contributor for over 12 years, so this isn’t my first article that I managed to work on intensely (and I’m still not good at that); I’ll respectfully prefer remaining that way. To answer your points: 1st. Well, the article might be up for peer-review if that’s necessary to get to B. Likewise I know it will be if it’s going to become a GA. 2nd. You’re right, there’s a proseline throughout the Career section, but I was focused on improving the readability of the article. About those controversies: Indeed, there was a section like that for
Ninja, but apparently it was not well cited and removed at some point before this year. Imo, it’s important to at least mention them beyond those interviews, but I’m unsure how exactly. 3rd. I apologize for that, but I was trying to bring some attention to this in case participants are interested (and understandably you’re not). And 4th. I also think so about him admitting to such thing; I’ve even suggest that’s the most disgraceful of his controversies. Ultimately, though, he’s been notable since at least 2018, and more so since 2020 when he was banned for it.
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. --PresN14:43, 2 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Articles plural? I only see
GX Games, which by all accounts has more than barebones content and cites two in-depth relaible contemporary independent print sources. You're welcome to look for more sources to expand the content or AfD it if you believe it doesn't meet English Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. Ben · Salvidrim!✉07:05, 4 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Hey everyone! I'm planning to create a 'Characters of Watch Dogs' article as proposed by Jclemens in the recent
deletion discussion of
Aiden Pearce that ended with no consensus. I asked Jclemens whether he wanted to co-create the article with me which he respectfully declined as he had no knowledge on the subject. I tried the talk page of the
Watch Dogs article with no response which was good as I was not free at the time. Now that I've emptied my plate a little, I'm planning to go ahead with the idea which is why I came here. I have played the first game and am heading out tomorrow to buy the second one to get some more experience on the subject. Anyone wants to co-create the article with me? MKat your service.13:10, 5 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I will suggest if you do this go with just prominent characters, but make sure first there is reception encompassing the *cast* of characters. Too many character lists end up collections of cruft with no underlying reception, which creates a huge problem for
WP:LISTN.--
Kung Fu Man (
talk)
13:13, 5 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Good luck. I haven't seen much on "characters of Watch_Dogs"; our articles don't really mention the characters much at all. It's not a game series known for its characters. I personally don't have much hope for this article concept because of that, but I wish you the best of luck! ~
Maplestrip/Mable (
chat)
13:19, 5 July 2024 (UTC)reply
We tend to not have two infoboxes, especially not have two boxarts unless it can be shown that both boxarts are important to show, which is rarely true. I've elected to remove them as not contributing to the articles. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Cukie Gherkin (
talk •
contribs)
05:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I propose spiting
Unreal Engine into 6 articles: Unreal Engine, Unreal Engine 1, Unreal Engine 2, Unreal Engine 3, Unreal Engine 4 and Unreal Engine 5. Sources always discuss games using Unreal Engine by it's version. For example no outlet would say that Tekken 8 was made in Unreal Engine, they would only say it is made in Unreal Engine 5. In this sense the individual Unreal versions are more notable than Unreal itself, as the versions are what is reported on. Consider also that the main "Unreal Engine" article has as many redirect links to it via links like
Unreal Engine 4 as the
Unreal Engine link itself. (via
https://linkcount.toolforge.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&page=Unreal+Engine). And many of the direct links to
Unreal Engine are of the form [[Unreal Engine|Unreal Engine 2]]. Similarly when discussing Unreal Engine in it's own right nobody talks about "learning Unreal Engine." The differences between versions are vast, with completely different rendering engines, physics, scripting languages and UI tools. It's not like eg. Photoshop where the core features have mostly stayed the same. Then the Unreal Engine article will have just one history section that has a one paragraph subsection for each Unreal version. I'm willing to do the split myself as well as add more detail to each engine using a bunch of articles I found while researching Unreal Engine in order to make the sections larger. If necessary I can add those details first to bring the word count of the current Unreal Engine article to 6,000 first. But first I'd like to get some feedback on the idea.
J2UDY7r00CRjH (
talk)
16:43, 8 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I think you might be able to justify UE4 and UE5 as separate articles but not sure on the earlier versions if there is enough secondary coverage to give reason to split from the main engine article. And I am surprised (without checking) if the redirects don't go to the proper section as they are current on that page.
Masem (
t)
18:12, 8 July 2024 (UTC)reply
There is a lot of coverage on UE1 already in the main article. I have also found the following sources in my research of Unreal Engine mainly focusing on UE3 and to a lesser extent UE2 and UE4
https://pastebin.com/4TY1TKFQ. Also, yes, redirects do go to the proper section, I was just showing how nobody really talks about UE on it's own. They redirect but my point is that other articles (and therefore the sources that they are using) are more interested in specific UE versions than "Unreal Engine" generally. Which is not necessarily the case for other engines like Unity or Red Engine. Unless you are referring to the part about "many of the direct links to
Unreal Engine are of the form [[Unreal Engine|Unreal Engine 2]]"? here is an example of that:
Brothers_in_Arms_(video_game_series)J2UDY7r00CRjH (
talk)
18:24, 8 July 2024 (UTC)reply
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. --PresN19:42, 8 July 2024 (UTC)reply