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
I just think we won't write as much, frankly, if all we get outside of major press for games is a bunch of content churnalism. I don't think we'll just decide to loosen reliable source standards because the good sources are disappearing.
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchstalk 19:33, 21 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I was mostly kidding, though I do sometimes fear that, some day, if all that's left is churnalism junk, us experienced regulars are eventually going to be swarmed and overwhelmed by newbies who use the junk because there's simply nothing else.
Sergecross73msg me 20:32, 21 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Magazines came and went in the 90s too. Laid off journalists will start their own publications. I'm not worried about coverage. czar 18:53, 22 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I think in that case we just have to hope more Aftermaths spring up. -
Cukie Gherkin (
talk) 19:22, 21 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Aftermath was marked as inconclusive, at the reliable source discussion board. This seems like a mistake.
Shooterwalker (
talk) 16:14, 22 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I'm not sure how to feel about this whole thing. On one hand, IGN is still a decent source and I doubt much will change on the content side for at least a few years. On the other hand, they've closed other good sites before and if IGN's quality decreased even more, this would be bringing down some of our other best sources with them. At least right now we still have sites owned by Future and Vox, even if the latter have their own problems. λNegativeMP1 20:11, 21 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Yeah, I like IGN quite a bit, especially because their coverage, like GameSpot, goes back a lot farther than a lot of other websites. And I don't think they're the type to go and turn good websites into churnalism/AI/Walkthrough type junk either. I just hate that it leads to layoffs, could lead to website shutting down, and that, if IGN/GamerNetwork ever falls, the number of websites lost is going to be brutal.
Sergecross73msg me 20:43, 21 May 2024 (UTC)reply
This is disappointing. Focusing on what it means for Wikipedia, I'll repeat a refrain that I keep bringing up at the reliable source discussion page.
Even our best sources are mixing in more churnalism / game guide / meme content. We have to confront the idea that even our best sources are somewhat situational. That means we should offer more guidance on how to use different kinds of coverage. (For example, we should always summarize game reviews, carefully use game lists, and rarely use game guides.)
Shooterwalker (
talk) 15:54, 22 May 2024 (UTC)reply
The only advice i can give anybody here regarding online sources is: If you see something that is part of an article you're interested in working on it, better archive that website or take a screencap of it. You never known what might happen in the future. Do i even have to bring up 1UP.com as an example of a website bought by IGN that was later closed down and the surviving links don't even work properly?
Roberth Martinez (
talk) 16:46, 22 May 2024 (UTC)reply
the WMF engine has a built in mechanism that I believe autoarchives any reference added to an article. —
Masem (
t) 00:08, 24 May 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. --PresN 15:55, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
But at the same time we still have {{MobyGames}} & co.
IceWelder [
✉] 22:24, 30 May 2024 (UTC)reply
The
WP:WHATABOUTX (or even "
WP:ALLORNOTHING") about MobyGames also came up in that discussion. Does linking to a page on
PCGamingWiki mean the reader gets a greater understanding of the subject? Their wiki on
BioShock Infinite for instance is great if you want to skip the introduction video, add a Turkish fan translation or disable lens flare effects, but how does that help the general reader?
soetermans.
↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 08:45, 31 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Need Opinions for a clear consensus. 🍕
Boneless Pizza!🍕 (
🔔) 04:35, 6 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Reminder: avoid creating articles on newly announced games simply based on announcement
with Not-E3 starting today with the Summer Game Fest kickoff, a reminder that just because a game is announced doesn't mean we should be rushing to create an article on it. Unless you can include a fair amount of aspects like development from reliable sources, it is better to create redirects from these games to series pages, an existing game that it is tied to, or to individual studios if a new IP. —
Masem (
t) 12:56, 7 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I'd actually tend to disagree with creating the article right away, since it's going to happen regardless in the future, but I'm instead against making them for a different reason: none of us regulars make these articles, so it's usually someone new and inexperienced who just wants to hit the "first" button. Because of this these articles are of such horrible quality and formatting, and the ratio of mistakes to actual info is so bad that's it's better to just
blow it up and try again later.
Panini!•🥪 23:01, 11 June 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. --PresN 16:07, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
And maybe you (we) shouldn't have either? I've never heard of it before, but the sourcing in the article doesn't make a very strong case for notability at least...
Sergecross73msg me 18:03, 10 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I think something similar to what
Draft:Lore Game probably was could actually be a good idea. All those indie horror games have those deeper storylines and ARGs that have recently become merchandise and marketing traps, and because of it the concept may have received some significant coverage.
Panini!•🥪 23:04, 11 June 2024 (UTC)reply
There is a topic on
Marianne von Edmund regarding removal of shipping content, The discussion become slightly heated and I am moving the discussion to the project's page so that more opinion will be placed and the hopefully the dispute will be resolved. Warm Regards,
Miminity (
talk) (
contribs) 05:33, 13 June 2024 (UTC)reply
From my view just popping into this, the canonicity of something shouldn't be a deciding factor in removing information. As long as it's backed up by reliable sources it should be fine to include.
Harryhenry1 (
talk) 05:39, 13 June 2024 (UTC)reply
It seems to be back by a reliable source. It should be okay to include. Not everything needs to be considered "canon" in order to be included.
(Oinkers42) (
talk) 14:43, 13 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Need opinions for a clear consensus. 🍕
Boneless Pizza!🍕 (
🔔) 06:09, 13 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Demos
I guess this is as good a time to bring it up as any. Sometimes I find fairly detailed articles in reliable sources that discuss a released game, but the very last line of the article is something like "I hope the final version is as fun as this demo that I just played." And I do a facepalm because I just wasted all that time reading an article about a demo. But it is coverage, so maybe it counts toward establishing notability?
NinjaRobotPirate (
talk) 02:55, 15 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I don't see why it wouldn't count towards GNG, as a demo is almost always pretty heavily representative of the final game.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ) 05:46, 15 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Yeah, no reason at all why it wouldn't both be suitable for GNG purposes, and also for being cited for gameplay and the like. All GNG requires is in-depth coverage of the subject. An in-depth article about a game soon to come out is also suitable for GNG. There's no reason why we can't attribute information to an article that talks about only a part of the full game. Heck, if we required all reviews to have played the full game, we wouldn't have many citations at all. Lee Vilenski(
talk •
contribs) 07:46, 15 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Maybe it's because I'm a programmer, but I don't think using demos to describe the gameplay of a released game is such a good idea. A demo is not "part of the full game", it's an entirely different product. It's a pain in the ass to maintain two different code bases, which is why some demos are removed from distribution. If the demo is still available, maybe. But if it has been deleted because it's so out of date that it's no longer representative of the game, no.
NinjaRobotPirate (
talk) 14:07, 15 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I was suggesting to use common sense. There's plenty of demos that are simply parts of the main game. There's obviously some demos that contain things that aren't in the main title, but in most cases it's mostly the same stuff.
Obviously, if the gameplay does vary significantly from what's in a demo review, then it's not suitable. Lee Vilenski(
talk •
contribs) 15:04, 15 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Definitely establishes notability. I think as long as proper context is given - the Wikipedia prose establishing that it about a demo in some capacity - you're good to go.
Sergecross73msg me 15:10, 15 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Previews can establish notability like reviews or other coverage. Sometimes the writer hasn't even played the game, for example in behind closed doors presentations. --
Mika1h (
talk) 18:16, 15 June 2024 (UTC)reply
A good article
Haytham Kenway has been nominated for
deletion. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the
AfD page. Thank you. 🍕
Boneless Pizza!🍕 (
🔔) 06:48, 15 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Request for feedback at Naming conventions
Hello, I hope this is allowed or the right place for it. I would like to request some feedback in a section in
Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (video games). The discussion regards a rule/guide in the Naming conventions page's Disambiguation section that seems to be inconsistently followed. I wasn't sure if it was something worth looking into fixing or if there was a reason for the discrepancy. Thanks!
Ringtail Raider (
talk) 16:16, 15 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Merge proposal for Neo Geo Pocket/Color
I propose merging
Neo Geo Pocket Color with
Neo Geo Pocket (mono). I attempted to find more information on Neo Geo Pocket (mono) to see if it was notable on its own, but I couldn't find much. It only existed for one year, released 9 titles, and was immediately replaced by its color version. On top of that, only released in Japan and Hong Kong apparently. it reminds me of the
WonderSwan where both the mono and the color version are under one article.
Blue Pumpkin Pie (
talk) 13:50, 18 June 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. --PresN 14:48, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Hi, quick question. I recently ran into an infobox issue on
Shin Megami Tensei V (which I'm planning on doing an expansion/future GAN on) relating to the user XeronTokyo. It started with a disagreement about Hiroshi Sasazu's status as an artist rather than a game designer (credits don't make clear), and now onto the large number of writers added in with the release of the Vengeance version. Putting aside what I think about the user's habit of adding in what I would count as excessive or inaccurate staff information to infoboxes, what is the sensible limit for how many staff to include? I was teetering towards an edit war situation, and I'd like some solid Wikipedia policy to fall back on.
ProtoDrake (
talk) 13:17, 19 June 2024 (UTC)reply
WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE also outlines that they should be used similar to how we write a
WP:LEAD - we should generally only be including items in the infobox that are covered further later in the article body. So that could be used to help trim some items too, hypothetically. Might get some pushback though, like I do when I enforce it, because I don't think our content area always does so well in following this guidance.)
Sergecross73msg me 13:50, 19 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Usually we try to limit to just the lead staff of that field, ideally around three or so. In Shin Megami Tensei V's case, I'd argue against adding any enhanced edition staff, which just bloats up the infobox, and adding them in prose if notable/relevant. ~
Dissident93(
talk) 13:52, 19 June 2024 (UTC)reply
This article gets a great deal of traffic, but I happened to notice that most of the sources are either unreliable or trivial. I am having serious trouble finding anything that would show it passed GNG in the slightest. Since it appears to be so major, I am looking for a second opinion as to whether it is notable, especially as it was made under dubious circumstances (the original creator is blocked).
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ) 19:21, 20 June 2024 (UTC)reply
The article is a mess, but I see focused sustained coverage by reliable sources already in use, including (just going down the list): Straits Times (a newspaper), Sensor Tower (an accepted source on mobile statistics), Pocket Gamer, GameSpot, IGN (numerous editions), Dot Esports (not my favorite source but we accept it as reliable), Game Pressure, Esports Insider, all the usual Valnet suspects, News 18 (newspaper), Yahoo, ANN, The Verge, TechCrunch (an inconclusive). Notably, I didn't list the multiple Indian newspapers, as some of them are under active discussion as generally unreliable, such as the Times of India, but they are all present. --
ferret (
talk) 19:33, 20 June 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
I just think we won't write as much, frankly, if all we get outside of major press for games is a bunch of content churnalism. I don't think we'll just decide to loosen reliable source standards because the good sources are disappearing.
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchstalk 19:33, 21 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I was mostly kidding, though I do sometimes fear that, some day, if all that's left is churnalism junk, us experienced regulars are eventually going to be swarmed and overwhelmed by newbies who use the junk because there's simply nothing else.
Sergecross73msg me 20:32, 21 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Magazines came and went in the 90s too. Laid off journalists will start their own publications. I'm not worried about coverage. czar 18:53, 22 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I think in that case we just have to hope more Aftermaths spring up. -
Cukie Gherkin (
talk) 19:22, 21 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Aftermath was marked as inconclusive, at the reliable source discussion board. This seems like a mistake.
Shooterwalker (
talk) 16:14, 22 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I'm not sure how to feel about this whole thing. On one hand, IGN is still a decent source and I doubt much will change on the content side for at least a few years. On the other hand, they've closed other good sites before and if IGN's quality decreased even more, this would be bringing down some of our other best sources with them. At least right now we still have sites owned by Future and Vox, even if the latter have their own problems. λNegativeMP1 20:11, 21 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Yeah, I like IGN quite a bit, especially because their coverage, like GameSpot, goes back a lot farther than a lot of other websites. And I don't think they're the type to go and turn good websites into churnalism/AI/Walkthrough type junk either. I just hate that it leads to layoffs, could lead to website shutting down, and that, if IGN/GamerNetwork ever falls, the number of websites lost is going to be brutal.
Sergecross73msg me 20:43, 21 May 2024 (UTC)reply
This is disappointing. Focusing on what it means for Wikipedia, I'll repeat a refrain that I keep bringing up at the reliable source discussion page.
Even our best sources are mixing in more churnalism / game guide / meme content. We have to confront the idea that even our best sources are somewhat situational. That means we should offer more guidance on how to use different kinds of coverage. (For example, we should always summarize game reviews, carefully use game lists, and rarely use game guides.)
Shooterwalker (
talk) 15:54, 22 May 2024 (UTC)reply
The only advice i can give anybody here regarding online sources is: If you see something that is part of an article you're interested in working on it, better archive that website or take a screencap of it. You never known what might happen in the future. Do i even have to bring up 1UP.com as an example of a website bought by IGN that was later closed down and the surviving links don't even work properly?
Roberth Martinez (
talk) 16:46, 22 May 2024 (UTC)reply
the WMF engine has a built in mechanism that I believe autoarchives any reference added to an article. —
Masem (
t) 00:08, 24 May 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. --PresN 15:55, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
But at the same time we still have {{MobyGames}} & co.
IceWelder [
✉] 22:24, 30 May 2024 (UTC)reply
The
WP:WHATABOUTX (or even "
WP:ALLORNOTHING") about MobyGames also came up in that discussion. Does linking to a page on
PCGamingWiki mean the reader gets a greater understanding of the subject? Their wiki on
BioShock Infinite for instance is great if you want to skip the introduction video, add a Turkish fan translation or disable lens flare effects, but how does that help the general reader?
soetermans.
↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 08:45, 31 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Need Opinions for a clear consensus. 🍕
Boneless Pizza!🍕 (
🔔) 04:35, 6 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Reminder: avoid creating articles on newly announced games simply based on announcement
with Not-E3 starting today with the Summer Game Fest kickoff, a reminder that just because a game is announced doesn't mean we should be rushing to create an article on it. Unless you can include a fair amount of aspects like development from reliable sources, it is better to create redirects from these games to series pages, an existing game that it is tied to, or to individual studios if a new IP. —
Masem (
t) 12:56, 7 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I'd actually tend to disagree with creating the article right away, since it's going to happen regardless in the future, but I'm instead against making them for a different reason: none of us regulars make these articles, so it's usually someone new and inexperienced who just wants to hit the "first" button. Because of this these articles are of such horrible quality and formatting, and the ratio of mistakes to actual info is so bad that's it's better to just
blow it up and try again later.
Panini!•🥪 23:01, 11 June 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. --PresN 16:07, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
And maybe you (we) shouldn't have either? I've never heard of it before, but the sourcing in the article doesn't make a very strong case for notability at least...
Sergecross73msg me 18:03, 10 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I think something similar to what
Draft:Lore Game probably was could actually be a good idea. All those indie horror games have those deeper storylines and ARGs that have recently become merchandise and marketing traps, and because of it the concept may have received some significant coverage.
Panini!•🥪 23:04, 11 June 2024 (UTC)reply
There is a topic on
Marianne von Edmund regarding removal of shipping content, The discussion become slightly heated and I am moving the discussion to the project's page so that more opinion will be placed and the hopefully the dispute will be resolved. Warm Regards,
Miminity (
talk) (
contribs) 05:33, 13 June 2024 (UTC)reply
From my view just popping into this, the canonicity of something shouldn't be a deciding factor in removing information. As long as it's backed up by reliable sources it should be fine to include.
Harryhenry1 (
talk) 05:39, 13 June 2024 (UTC)reply
It seems to be back by a reliable source. It should be okay to include. Not everything needs to be considered "canon" in order to be included.
(Oinkers42) (
talk) 14:43, 13 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Need opinions for a clear consensus. 🍕
Boneless Pizza!🍕 (
🔔) 06:09, 13 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Demos
I guess this is as good a time to bring it up as any. Sometimes I find fairly detailed articles in reliable sources that discuss a released game, but the very last line of the article is something like "I hope the final version is as fun as this demo that I just played." And I do a facepalm because I just wasted all that time reading an article about a demo. But it is coverage, so maybe it counts toward establishing notability?
NinjaRobotPirate (
talk) 02:55, 15 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I don't see why it wouldn't count towards GNG, as a demo is almost always pretty heavily representative of the final game.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ) 05:46, 15 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Yeah, no reason at all why it wouldn't both be suitable for GNG purposes, and also for being cited for gameplay and the like. All GNG requires is in-depth coverage of the subject. An in-depth article about a game soon to come out is also suitable for GNG. There's no reason why we can't attribute information to an article that talks about only a part of the full game. Heck, if we required all reviews to have played the full game, we wouldn't have many citations at all. Lee Vilenski(
talk •
contribs) 07:46, 15 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Maybe it's because I'm a programmer, but I don't think using demos to describe the gameplay of a released game is such a good idea. A demo is not "part of the full game", it's an entirely different product. It's a pain in the ass to maintain two different code bases, which is why some demos are removed from distribution. If the demo is still available, maybe. But if it has been deleted because it's so out of date that it's no longer representative of the game, no.
NinjaRobotPirate (
talk) 14:07, 15 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I was suggesting to use common sense. There's plenty of demos that are simply parts of the main game. There's obviously some demos that contain things that aren't in the main title, but in most cases it's mostly the same stuff.
Obviously, if the gameplay does vary significantly from what's in a demo review, then it's not suitable. Lee Vilenski(
talk •
contribs) 15:04, 15 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Definitely establishes notability. I think as long as proper context is given - the Wikipedia prose establishing that it about a demo in some capacity - you're good to go.
Sergecross73msg me 15:10, 15 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Previews can establish notability like reviews or other coverage. Sometimes the writer hasn't even played the game, for example in behind closed doors presentations. --
Mika1h (
talk) 18:16, 15 June 2024 (UTC)reply
A good article
Haytham Kenway has been nominated for
deletion. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the
AfD page. Thank you. 🍕
Boneless Pizza!🍕 (
🔔) 06:48, 15 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Request for feedback at Naming conventions
Hello, I hope this is allowed or the right place for it. I would like to request some feedback in a section in
Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (video games). The discussion regards a rule/guide in the Naming conventions page's Disambiguation section that seems to be inconsistently followed. I wasn't sure if it was something worth looking into fixing or if there was a reason for the discrepancy. Thanks!
Ringtail Raider (
talk) 16:16, 15 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Merge proposal for Neo Geo Pocket/Color
I propose merging
Neo Geo Pocket Color with
Neo Geo Pocket (mono). I attempted to find more information on Neo Geo Pocket (mono) to see if it was notable on its own, but I couldn't find much. It only existed for one year, released 9 titles, and was immediately replaced by its color version. On top of that, only released in Japan and Hong Kong apparently. it reminds me of the
WonderSwan where both the mono and the color version are under one article.
Blue Pumpkin Pie (
talk) 13:50, 18 June 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. --PresN 14:48, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Hi, quick question. I recently ran into an infobox issue on
Shin Megami Tensei V (which I'm planning on doing an expansion/future GAN on) relating to the user XeronTokyo. It started with a disagreement about Hiroshi Sasazu's status as an artist rather than a game designer (credits don't make clear), and now onto the large number of writers added in with the release of the Vengeance version. Putting aside what I think about the user's habit of adding in what I would count as excessive or inaccurate staff information to infoboxes, what is the sensible limit for how many staff to include? I was teetering towards an edit war situation, and I'd like some solid Wikipedia policy to fall back on.
ProtoDrake (
talk) 13:17, 19 June 2024 (UTC)reply
WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE also outlines that they should be used similar to how we write a
WP:LEAD - we should generally only be including items in the infobox that are covered further later in the article body. So that could be used to help trim some items too, hypothetically. Might get some pushback though, like I do when I enforce it, because I don't think our content area always does so well in following this guidance.)
Sergecross73msg me 13:50, 19 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Usually we try to limit to just the lead staff of that field, ideally around three or so. In Shin Megami Tensei V's case, I'd argue against adding any enhanced edition staff, which just bloats up the infobox, and adding them in prose if notable/relevant. ~
Dissident93(
talk) 13:52, 19 June 2024 (UTC)reply
This article gets a great deal of traffic, but I happened to notice that most of the sources are either unreliable or trivial. I am having serious trouble finding anything that would show it passed GNG in the slightest. Since it appears to be so major, I am looking for a second opinion as to whether it is notable, especially as it was made under dubious circumstances (the original creator is blocked).
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ) 19:21, 20 June 2024 (UTC)reply
The article is a mess, but I see focused sustained coverage by reliable sources already in use, including (just going down the list): Straits Times (a newspaper), Sensor Tower (an accepted source on mobile statistics), Pocket Gamer, GameSpot, IGN (numerous editions), Dot Esports (not my favorite source but we accept it as reliable), Game Pressure, Esports Insider, all the usual Valnet suspects, News 18 (newspaper), Yahoo, ANN, The Verge, TechCrunch (an inconclusive). Notably, I didn't list the multiple Indian newspapers, as some of them are under active discussion as generally unreliable, such as the Times of India, but they are all present. --
ferret (
talk) 19:33, 20 June 2024 (UTC)reply