Misplaced Pages

talk:WikiProject Video games: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 13:16, 21 December 2024 editSergecross73 (talk | contribs)Administrators101,023 edits →Draft:Next Nintendo Console: ReplyTag: Reply← Previous edit Revision as of 14:50, 26 December 2024 edit undoAaron Liu (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers14,593 edits →Happy Holidays From the Wikiproject Video Games Family: reply: Looks awesome! (-)Tag: CDNext edit →
(43 intermediate revisions by 16 users not shown)
Line 14: Line 14:
|archive = Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive %(counter)d |archive = Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive %(counter)d
}} }}

== Re-evaluating ] as a redirect ==
Recently, on 6 November, ] released an early access of a new game titled ''"Andrew Gower's ]"''. Previously, Andrew Gower was only publicly known for his role in cofounding ] and creating '']'', a project he was involved with until 14 years ago in 2010, after which he left Jagex's board of directors and has had no involvement since.

In 2021, it was decided that the page ]<!-- at the time, Andrew Gower the actor was not referenced at that page name yet --> should be made into a redirect pointing at ] with this AFD: ]. This was described as a "relatively controversial" decision, but done "mainly over the depth of coverage actually about the article's subject" and because "Content can be merged ]] from history".

It would be fair to say that Jagex as a company might view a dedicated section to Andrew Gower on their Misplaced Pages page as over-representative and an unfair focus compared to their achievements since his departure in 2010 (the valuation of the company ballooning several hundreds of millions of dollars in acquisitions since) as well as diminishing the contributions of the hundreds of other programmers that have worked on Jagex properties. Perhaps for this reason, no biographical information about Andrew Gower has actually been (inappropriately) merged onto the ] page since the 2021 AFD decision.

Now in November 2024, ''Andrew Gower's ]'' is enjoying quite a bit of early success, though it would be fair to say that it remains to be seen how popular it will be in 2025 onward. The problem this presents is that at the moment ] is a redirect pointing at ], which is not a company he has any official affiliation with any more (since 2010), and '']'' is not a Jagex affiliated game, contrary to what the redirect might imply.

Whether or not ] meets the requirements of ], the redirect should not persist with a target of ] now that he is actively and publicly involved in a new project unaffiliated with ], putting his own name in the game's title, in the same style as ].

I first raised this issue at ], but it was not obvious if this was actually the correct place to begin discussion of the redirect, given its prior AFD history.

Quoting myself, these are the specific official recommendations for redirects on Misplaced Pages that I feel ] as a redirect is currently most in opposition of:
<blockquote>
Per ], my opinion is that this redirect violates conditions 2 and 10.

* It has potential to cause confusion that Andrew Gower is still affiliated with Jagex, and that Brighter Shores is a Jagex game.
* The current target article Jagex "contains virtually no information on the subject", and as evidenced by the redirect's long edit history, "could plausibly be expanded into an article".

Per ], the redirect should also not be out-right deleted, since it includes a "potentially useful page history" for an article about a person who has made "unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment."
</blockquote>

Andrew Gower has been a continued subject of public interest for decades. Despite being apparently inactive for 14 years, the "Andrew Gower" brand was enough to launch '']'' to significant reception both in player count and in media coverage. I would personally like to see a consensus reached that ] is able to be an article, but if no consensus can be reached that this is possible or is likely to ever become possible, the redirect towards Jagex must still be rectified as it is misleading and problematic given his current public activity.

— ] (]) 01:49, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

:The most critical issue is: What has changed, if anything, about Andrew Gower's notability? Although a redirect was the outcome of the deletion discussion, the core consensus is still "Not notable enough for an independent article". While there is a lot of valid procedural argument about about whether the redirect's current state is valid, there is no argument being made towards whether Gower is notable, and if so, presenting any sources to show that.
:Andrew Gower doesn't get an article just because a suitable redirect target is difficult to determine. Andrew Gower must pass ]. -- ] (]) 01:54, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
::This is correct, and perhaps a third solution exists besides either deletion of the page (and its history) or the creation of an Andrew Gower article (such as changing the redirect to something currently more suitable). I have reached out to the editor who created the ] page for comment, since they express on their user page they would like to create an Andrew Gower article. I'm personally not prepared to present an argument that Andrew Gower is or isn't able to pass ], most concerned with the current issues of the page as a redirect pointing at ]. — ] (]) 02:09, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
:::Is redirecting to Brighter Shores an acceptable interim solution? Gower is heavily mentioned there and the article (and the sources) heavily trade on his role in developing RuneScape. ] (]) 06:04, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
::::I would say it is preferable to the current situation, but only as an interim solution. Changing the redirect from ] to target ] resolves the concern that there is ''"potential to cause confusion that Andrew Gower is still affiliated with Jagex, and that Brighter Shores is a Jagex game."''
::::However, it shouldn't be allowed to persist as a permanent solution for two reasons:
::::* It is possible that this redirect target could be seen as placing advertisement for Brighter Shores on the ] and ] articles. I'm not sure if the Brighter Shores redirect target is really acceptable as an interim solution for this reason, though I am not personally opposed to it.
::::* It is likely still the case that Andrew Gower is most well known for his involvement in co-founding Jagex and creating RuneScape, at least as of now in November 2024 when ''"Andrew Gower's Brighter Shores"'' has been in early access for less than a month.
::::Perhaps a better interim redirect target could be ] and his description there changed to something of the effect
:::::* '''Andrew Gower (programmer)''' (born 1978): Co-founder of ] (1999), original creator of '']'' (2001). Co-founder of ] (2010). Since 2014, developing '']'', released in early access 2024.
::::Not sure if that's too many years or too much detail for a disambiguation page description, but as long as the redirect target points to articles on both of the endeavors for which he is publicly well-known, it can function as an uncontroversial redirect until such time that a consensus can be reached that Andrew Gower (or The Gower Brothers as a trio) can pass ], regarding the availability of independent more-biographical sources. Perhaps ''RuneScape: The First 20 Years'' does qualify as one independent source that did not exist at the time of the 2021 AFD. — ] (]) 06:57, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::Broadly speaking, redirects are not endorsements. Redirects are not advertisements. In fact, nothing on Misplaced Pages is an advertisement. And practically speaking, the average reader does not know why or even notice when they get redirected to another page. Our goal as editors is to make the redirect process as invisible and and ] as possible. They should find the information they are reasonably looking for at the target page. If that means redirecting to Jagex (or Brighter Shores, or wherever), then so be it. ] (]) 19:38, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::Thanks for clarifying this. I think redirecting to ] as described above would be the least astonishing redirect, given that readers may click that link from either ] / ] or from ] / ]. If a redirect to a disambiguation page is acceptable, I would definitely recommend that. — ] (]) 15:43, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::I think redirecting to ] is a fine interim solution. ] (]) 21:03, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
::::I stumbled across this after seeing the redirect page and tried to catch up with the conversation as best I could. From my perspective, I think the temporary solution of changing the redirect from his name to Brighter Shores from Jagex is the best way (currently) to avoid barriers in getting readers current and accurate information.
::::Whether or not he is warranted an individual page could still be discussed, but I think the more likely next step would be to link to a Fen Research page instead, if/when that company has released something other than Brighter Shores. The one caveat I have in mind is if Brighter Shores manages to explode in popularity and become comparable to Runescape level growth, then revisiting a page for him as an individual who has created two massively successful MMORPGs through separate, self-started companies would make the most sense.
::::I am far from experienced regarding any of these wiki policies, but just felt the urge to weigh in on the conversation as an outsider who cares about this particular topic and preserving an accurate history. ] (]) 10:05, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
:Is there a possibility to create an article on Andrew and Paul Gower? A glance at Google Scholar suggests there may be more sources there, and while most are leading to Runescape and Jagax's founding, there's possibly more with that. --] (]) 02:52, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
::Yes, this seems possible and acceptable. There is some biographical information about the Gower brothers' early life, before their work on ''RuneScape'', published by ] in the October 2021 book ''RuneScape: The First 20 Years'', on pages 12 and 13. I'm not sure what scholarly sources you were able to find that might additionally supplement that. I would suggest that Ian Gower could be included in a "Gower Brothers" article, since he collaborated with Andrew and Paul on both ''RuneScape'' and ''Brighter Shores''. — ] (]) 03:29, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
:A disambiguation page can be reasonable, but what isn't is recreating the guy's bio when there's nothing in it that demonstrates additional notability versus the AfD, according to . All that's new is the mentions of Brighter Shores; there's no additional SIGCOV, barrel-scraping of using credit lists and the like to try and verify facts, and ''still using unreliable sources from the AfD''. Write a draft of what you think would pass AfD again, ], first, before trying to recreate the page. ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 16:00, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
:I agree that the redirect doesn't seem particularly appropriate given that Gower hasn't been part of Jagex for ~14 years. I had a thought to write an article about Andrew Gower anyway before this discussion, though I wasn't aware of the previous AfD and hadn't begun to look into whether he is independently notable enough to warrant one.
:Having had a look, I think Andrew Gower does now meet ] and is notable enough for an article in his own right. There are many sources (from publications listed on ] and ]) which focus on Gower's involvement in Brighter Shores and which were not available at the time of the 2021 AfD discussion. Indeed, the whole reason Brighter Shores is being written about in the first place is because of Andrew Gower's notability (in the colloquial sense).
:* https://www.nme.com/news/gaming-news/runescape-creator-andrew-gower-drops-trailer-for-new-game-brighter-shores-3600703
:* https://www.eurogamer.net/original-runescape-designer-unveils-cosy-free-to-play-mmorpg-brighter-shores
:* https://www.pcgamer.com/games/mmo/runescape-creators-new-mmo-has-an-unorthodox-solution-for-the-inevitable-waves-of-bots-giving-you-a-legitimate-way-to-bot-the-game-yourself/
:* https://www.gamesradar.com/runescape-creator-says-his-new-game-is-not-a-traditional-mmo-where-you-play-get-to-the-endgame-and-thats-where-the-game-actually-starts/
:* https://www.polygon.com/24099403/runescape-andrew-gower-brighter-shores-new-mmo
:* https://www.pcgamesn.com/brighter-shores/new-mmorpg
:This is the only article I could find specifically focusing on Andrew and Paul Gower's role in founding Runescape:
:* https://web.archive.org/web/20100704175930/http://www.develop-online.net/news/34613/Jagex-duo-ascend-UK-rich-list-with-138m-fortune
:An Evening Standard article from 2011 discussed Andrew specifically as the beneficiary of RuneScape's income:
:* CALLING all parents forking out . Evening Standard, 14725223, 1/25/2011
:I don't think the following award is well-known enough to qualify for ] point 1, but the Develop awards in general are well respected in the UK games industry, and receiving the "Industry Legend" award goes some way to demonstrating that the Gower brothers are significant figures in the industry.
:* https://mcvuk.com/development-news/develop-awards-gowers-crowned-industry-legends/
:If we don't think he passes ] yet, I think the disambiguation page suggestion is the most appropriate, fitting people who are searching for his role in both RuneScape/Jagex and Brighter Shores. ] (]) 21:58, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
::https://www.nme.com/news/gaming-news/runescape-creator-andrew-gower-drops-trailer-for-new-game-brighter-shores-3600703
::* "Routine coverage", doesn't really say anything about Andrew Gower as a person, except that he has released a trailer for Brighter Shores in March 2024.
::https://www.eurogamer.net/original-runescape-designer-unveils-cosy-free-to-play-mmorpg-brighter-shores
::* Quotes ''"Andrew Garfield"'s''{{sic}} (really...?) announcement and says nothing else
::https://www.pcgamer.com/games/mmo/runescape-creators-new-mmo-has-an-unorthodox-solution-for-the-inevitable-waves-of-bots-giving-you-a-legitimate-way-to-bot-the-game-yourself/
::* This is a good article about Andrew Gower's design aspirations for Brighter Shores, but not biographical
::https://www.gamesradar.com/runescape-creator-says-his-new-game-is-not-a-traditional-mmo-where-you-play-get-to-the-endgame-and-thats-where-the-game-actually-starts/
::* This is maybe the best article, it includes an actual interview by the reporter (Austin Wood) with Andrew Gower. In the interview, Andrew recounts that LucasArts graphical point-and-click adventures were an early influence on him, and he also says he is "glad there are no publishers or investors breathing down my neck", (not stated here, but this is in contrast to the pressures that lead him to step down from his role at Jagex). This source is biographical in that sense.
::https://www.polygon.com/24099403/runescape-andrew-gower-brighter-shores-new-mmo
::* This article is short and handwavey, doesn't say anything. The journalist characterizes the departure of the Gowers from Jagex incorrectly, and generally seems unfamiliar with the story. This is "Routine Coverage" of Brighter Shores.
::https://www.pcgamesn.com/brighter-shores/new-mmorpg
::* Routine coverage of Brighter Shores, doesn't say really anything about Andrew Gower.
::The Gamesradar interview is good (though the interesting biographical bits about Andrew are brief). All together, these citations show that without Andrew Gower (or Fen Research) contacting most of these publications (or else Eurogamer would have at least got his name correct...!), Brighter Shores was able to attract a lot of media coverage and general public attention, despite being an indie game with no publisher.
::https://web.archive.org/web/20100704175930/http://www.develop-online.net/news/34613/Jagex-duo-ascend-UK-rich-list-with-138m-fortune
::* This "Rich list" type article was specifically criticised by DDG in his 2021 AFD, and I think is why DDG incorrectly categorised Andrew Gower as a businessman<ref>Aside: he is really not a businessman, nearly shutting down RuneScape in November 2001, before Constant Tedder (an actual businessman) was hired as CEO and saved Jagex, helping to implement its subscription model & generally guiding the company. Andrew Gower is a programmer at his core, despite having to sometimes act as a businessman.</ref> "The new rich list places the Gower family as the 483rd richest in the UK" (quote from the article), but doesn't talk about the Gowers biographically. The citation is quite stale, from 2010, not even reflecting the Gowers' current wealth, though I'd speculate they must be doing alright to have been able to develop Brighter Shores with no external funding for over a decade.
::https://mcvuk.com/development-news/develop-awards-gowers-crowned-industry-legends/
::* I'm not sure of the notability of this award either, though it can definitely be mentioned if your opinion that the award is "well respected in the UK games industry" is "correct". In my opinion, Andrew Gower would deserve some kind of award, and wouldn't have to have one made up for him. His early use of Java Applets in the web browser as a mechanism for game distribution (no download required), as well as the Free-to-play model he chose, were genuinely very innovative and inspirational for the games industry. Perhaps if someone notable stated as much, that could be used as a source.
::I would personally like to see your draft of an Andrew Gower article, and could help contribute towards it after you do a first draft, but actually if you can include Paul Gower (per Masem's suggestion) and Ian Gower (my suggestion) for a more broad "The Gower Brothers" article, I think that does have a chance to be less controversially ].
::The biggest problem with "The Story of Andrew Gower", and why so much of the coverage is wrapped up in RuneScape, is because his general life timeline looks like this:
::* 0 to 7: Child in England
::* 7 years old: began programming at an early age
::* College
::* Immediately out of college, and actually a bit before he left college, he was working on RuneScape. His graduating thesis (May 2000) described the mechanism of RuneScape's game engine (though it was not called RuneScape yet, the code would be used as its foundation). I state this to say: There were no adult years of Andrew Gower's life that weren't involved with RuneScape until 2010.
::* 2001 to 2010: Very involved with RuneScape.
::* 2010 to 2024: Developing tooling and game technology at Fen Research. Gower wrote the game engine for RuneScape from scratch, and although it can be said there were later many valid choices for pre-built Game Engines (both in 2010 and now), Andrew still preferred to build his own. The studio released two smaller games that were not Brighter Shores during these years, and stated they would like to offer to license the in-development Fenforge engine, though it wasn't ready yet.
::* 2024: The "Top secret game" (as teased on Fen Research's website) was finally announced as ''"Andrew Gower's Brighter Shores"''. It was released on Steam in early access this month.
::Some biographical sources do cover Andrew Gower as a child (such as the previously mentioned October 2021 book ''RuneScape: The First 20 Years'') but after that, his story is the story of RuneScape's first decade. After 2010, he seemingly enjoyed privacy and doing his own thing, only recently interacting with the public again through involvement in Brighter Shores. I'm not currently aware of any sources that can state what Andrew has been doing since 2010 in a biographical sense, except that he has been "developing Brighter Shores for over 10 years". It is still very early, and we may need to wait a while for a new book titled ''"Brighter Shores: the first 20 years"'' if there aren't more biographical sources available.
::— ] (]) 15:14, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
:I went ahead and changed the redirect per discussion above. His disambiguation bullet currently links to '']'' and '']'', given no current article for ] and these being the two games for which he is currently most well known. &mdash; ] (]) 22:43, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

{{Reftalk}}

== List of longest-running video game franchises ==

]. I'd like input. It's obviously a massive unsourced, ] mess. But is it salvageable, or should it be sent to ]? ] ] 23:29, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

:AFD. Its not a notable way how video game series are tracked, and definitely brings OR to mind. All you need is an old game, and one modern remake, and suddenly you have a franchise at the top of the list? Nope. Most games, perhaps, best-selling, definitely (though that has a lot of OR in terms of what contributes to a franchise), but longest-running by absolute time is not. ] (]) 23:50, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
::I agree. There's not much here and what does exist is OR or something that fails ]. It's entirely non-notable. There's a lot of listicles for this stuff, but those are top ten rankings that fluctuate depending on the author. There's no clear consensus, and what can be gleaned is something that doesn't need to be an article. ] (]) 03:15, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
:::This is where I was leaning too, but wanted to make sure. I'll probably be the "big bad mean admin" for this one, as I'm pretty sure newbie editor is using the article as an OSE excuse as to why "sources aren't needed" on Misplaced Pages. ] ] 15:51, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
::::I would also endorse deletion - any franchise that hasn't been obviously cancelled is arguably still "running" regardless of game release, so this is no better than misinformation. ] (]) 00:20, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::Agreed. There's a lot of misleading stuff like that in there when you look close and think about it. Is it a "30 year franchise" when they release 2 games 30 years apart with decades of inactivity in between? And if it is, what's the importance of that? What's the worth of comparing it against a franchise with 30 games in 30 years and, without context, they look like equals on this chart? ] ] 00:44, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
::I thought they didn't allow for large gaps in releases? Did they change this? - ] (]) 05:27, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
:::The page does specify that it needs to have "regular releases, with no more than 10 year-long gaps in-between, for at least 25 years" to qualify, which might help with excluding certain entries but does seem to be created out of whole cloth to make the page viable. ] (]) 06:46, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
:::Looks like the lead does mention that. But still, sub out 30 for 10 and my point still largely stands. ] ] 18:01, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
:I agree with other editors that this is mostly ]. ] (]) 03:54, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
:I'm stuck on mobile for the next few days. If anyone wants to nom it, go for it. Otherwise I'll take care of it next week or something. ] ] 18:02, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
::]. Have a good weekend everyone. ]. ] 20:53, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
I missed this discussion, but just wanted to say thank you - this article had bothered me for years, and I'm glad something was finally done about this. It's a potentially interesting topic, but there's just no reasonable way of handling it as a list on WP.--]<sup>]</sup> 04:52, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

== Neo Geo Pocket ==

Requested move at ] still open and in need of opinions. ] (]) 04:52, 6 December 2024 (UTC)


== Call of Duty retrospective rankings == == Call of Duty retrospective rankings ==
Line 181: Line 66:


Given Shadow of the Erdtree's treatment as a "game" at the Game Awards, I'd say it's more deserving than most of its own page due to its outsized notability. However, I want to be sure that consensus is there before I bother trying to potentially make it. ] (]) 23:30, 15 December 2024 (UTC) Given Shadow of the Erdtree's treatment as a "game" at the Game Awards, I'd say it's more deserving than most of its own page due to its outsized notability. However, I want to be sure that consensus is there before I bother trying to potentially make it. ] (]) 23:30, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

:I am surprised it doesn't have a page yet. All three Skyrim DLCs have their own pages, so I don't see why Shadow of the Erdtree can't. ] (]) 23:35, 15 December 2024 (UTC) :I am surprised it doesn't have a page yet. All three Skyrim DLCs have their own pages, so I don't see why Shadow of the Erdtree can't. ] (]) 23:35, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
:Shadow of the Erdtree was treated as DLC at the Game Awards - they made it clear all DLC, expansions, remakes, and remasters can qualify for any of the awards. :Shadow of the Erdtree was treated as DLC at the Game Awards - they made it clear all DLC, expansions, remakes, and remasters can qualify for any of the awards.
Line 193: Line 77:
:::::::Erdtree and other DLCs are no different here. I was simply bringing up the fact that the Souls series in particular has always had the problem of having spinoff articles created before they were expanded upon in the article of their respective games. ~ ] <sup>(])</sup> 23:01, 16 December 2024 (UTC) :::::::Erdtree and other DLCs are no different here. I was simply bringing up the fact that the Souls series in particular has always had the problem of having spinoff articles created before they were expanded upon in the article of their respective games. ~ ] <sup>(])</sup> 23:01, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Exactly, it's a recurring issue in the subject area, spanning many years of discussions and some of the same overzealous editors. ] ] 23:25, 16 December 2024 (UTC) ::::::::Exactly, it's a recurring issue in the subject area, spanning many years of discussions and some of the same overzealous editors. ] ] 23:25, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::Now ] was just created. ~ ] <sup>(])</sup> 16:45, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::Bloated and ] to maximum levels to try to create the illusion of being a necessary split, I see. ] ] 20:26, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::There is consensus here that is largely against these Souls spinoff articles. Should we nominate all of them for deletion/merging? ~ ] <sup>(])</sup> 22:00, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::Unless there is at least one dedicted article to covering it (at bare minimum) , yes these should be merged. ] (]) 22:13, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::From what I can tell, this seems to be a "consensus" of only two or three editors. I don't think that's enough for something that would impact several articles. I also don't think it would make sense to only discuss Souls spinouts when several other video games have something like this, whether it be levels, items, weapons, and more. I feel as if a larger discussion on spinout articles for video game elements in general (not just Souls) would be necessary, rather than singling out one franchise. Either way, I think a larger consensus would be needed than this discussion. <span style="border:#000000;border:2px solid #000000;padding:2px">'''λ''' ]]</span> 22:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Some of them were already merged in the past and brought back, so there is precedent for this sort of thing. And while ] for other series, it's particularly a problem for the Souls games. ~ ] <sup>(])</sup> 22:38, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::I'd recommend nominating a couple of the worst offenders, and then proceeding from there depending on how that plays out. ] ] 22:45, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::Yeah, some of them are probably decent enough to keep but certainly not all/most. ~ ] <sup>(])</sup> 22:48, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:┌──────────────────────────────────────────┘<br/>Another new one today ]<span id="Masem:1735066253435:Wikipedia_talkFTTCLNWikiProject_Video_games" class="FTTCmt"> —&nbsp;] (]) 18:50, 24 December 2024 (UTC)</span>
::{{Ping|PrimalMustelid}} I could at least understand Blighttown as it received reception for its poor technical performance, but how is the tutorial level notable? ~ ] <sup>(])</sup> 20:43, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:::I'm only making two ''Dark Souls'' locations, both of which I've done based on significant sources. The Northern Undead Asylum is pretty significant in that unlike many other video game tutorials, this particular tutorial has been credited with carving a unique path by not hand-holding the player along the way and throwing a fairly challenging tutorial boss into the mix (at the time, definitely not your average tutorial). It, along with the Asylum Demon, have been credited with preparing players for the wider difficulty of the game, and first impressions are especially important in video games like this. ] (]) 20:57, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Your "significant sources" for Northern Undead Asylum include a greatest bosses list, two strategy guides, and a top ten tutorial levels list by a generally unreliable source (Dualshockers). Even if the other sources are valid, there's no reason why this couldn't be a paragraph or two within the Dark Souls article. Seriously, what is with this series that compels people to try and justify as many spinoff articles as possible? ~ ] <sup>(])</sup> 21:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Those aren't what I consider "significant sources;" they're more supplements to the overall article. What I'd consider significant sources are those written by ''NME'' and ''Goomba Stomp Magazine'' primarily since they both wrote analyses for the Northern Undead Asylum, with ''Arcade Sushi'' communicating similar commentary on the significance of it as a tutorial level. I would consider the main problem with an attempted merge into the main ''Dark Souls'' articles to be that it's a bit difficult to insert into there. If this helps, there aren't any other individual fictional elements that can be spun off into their own articles because of the fact that they lack significant commentary in relation to specific game designs. I do think that a list article for locations in the ''Dark Souls'' series could potentially work as long as there's a development section and reception section for the technical and philosophical aspects of game design, but I'm not really interested in creating list articles at the moment. ] (]) 21:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::I really don't think "Goomba Stomp Magazine" is a reliable source. Certainly not one to indicate notability... ] ] 22:50, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::How about this: in the video game sources page, there should be a consensus on whether Goomba Stomp Magazine can be considered a reliable source or not. If not, I will happily redirect or merge the article somewhere into the Dark Souls article (and maybe the locations list if it ever comes to fruition). I’ll leave the source evaluation up to you guys, although I can initiate the discussion if you guys want. ] (]) 22:54, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Sure, but looking at their page, I think it'll be a short discussion... ] ] 22:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::That’s fine with me. If and once there is official consensus that it is not a reliable source, I will merge or redirect the article, no questions asked. ] (]) 23:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::Discussion started ]. ] ] 23:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::Putting notability of the asylum aside, I honestly wasn’t aware that there was a discussion regarding Dark Souls element articles and may have put fuel to the flame by creating the Blighttown article. Bad timing on my part I suppose.
:::::::::::I suppose that the character articles are a matter of debate, but is having a few spinoff articles really that bad in practice? I can see a few articles like ] passing on the grounds that it has a good amount of significant coverage and therefore would fit awkwardly into the 2011 video game article. I also see someone argue that the bonfire article’s sources supposedly only have “passing mentions,” but a lot of sources in the reception section literally indicate otherwise from the title to the full text. Again, I don’t mind a merge of some of the Souls articles, but some articles have significant coverage to justify independent notability in my opinion. ] (]) 02:41, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::Also, I decided to redirect the Northern Undead Asylum into the 2011 video game article. I’ll figure out what to do in a “merge” process, but it’ll probably entail being part of a “retrospective review” subsection of the overall game from after the 2018 remastered version release. ] (]) 06:06, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::On that note, I would just like to mention that I've always been annoyed by the tendency to make a new article on an element of a game without adding ''any'' of that relevant content to the game's article. For example, we have an article on ] from Tokimeki Memorial, but neither the franchise page nor the individual game pages mention the character at all, leaving the article effectively orphaned except for a navbox that doesn't appear on mobile. ] (]) 12:27, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::Yeah, I'm always surprised by that. I personally always try to link to my article creations as much as I can (within the realms of being appropriate) to help the odds of people actually viewing/reading it. ] ] 17:19, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
:You haven't really advanced any argument for it. ''"more deserving than most of its own page due to its outsized notability"'' is just a long way of saying "]". ] ] 01:39, 16 December 2024 (UTC) :You haven't really advanced any argument for it. ''"more deserving than most of its own page due to its outsized notability"'' is just a long way of saying "]". ] ] 01:39, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
::If it's something to the scale of '']'' and '']'', I don't see how a separate page for the ''Elden Ring'' expansion would hurt. '']'' may be notable on its own, but idk if the '']'' expandalone would be worth a separate article as it only mildly covered the game and not divulge much on its development and impact. ] (]) 03:44, 16 December 2024 (UTC) ::If it's something to the scale of '']'' and '']'', I don't see how a separate page for the ''Elden Ring'' expansion would hurt. '']'' may be notable on its own, but idk if the '']'' expandalone would be worth a separate article as it only mildly covered the game and not divulge much on its development and impact. ] (]) 03:44, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Line 319: Line 226:
::Even with that, when Nintendo makes the announcement, the bulk of that info will be immediately outdated by the actual details Nintendo provides and the new sources that report that. The only aspects that even in the current Switch article that would be kept would be when word of the next console was being announced, none of the rumors detailed of its specs and features. Either of these draft articles are immediately going to be out of date when that announcement comes so it seems like doing a lot of work for no gain at this point. ] (]) 13:04, 21 December 2024 (UTC) ::Even with that, when Nintendo makes the announcement, the bulk of that info will be immediately outdated by the actual details Nintendo provides and the new sources that report that. The only aspects that even in the current Switch article that would be kept would be when word of the next console was being announced, none of the rumors detailed of its specs and features. Either of these draft articles are immediately going to be out of date when that announcement comes so it seems like doing a lot of work for no gain at this point. ] (]) 13:04, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Agreed, that's the very reason why I haven't personally contributed hardly anything to the draft myself. I specifically recall trimming 90% of that sort of content from the 3DS and Vita articles after they were announced and released back in the day. But still, if either were ever to actually get published, it'd certainly be the longer, better sourced one. ] ] 13:16, 21 December 2024 (UTC) :::Agreed, that's the very reason why I haven't personally contributed hardly anything to the draft myself. I specifically recall trimming 90% of that sort of content from the 3DS and Vita articles after they were announced and released back in the day. But still, if either were ever to actually get published, it'd certainly be the longer, better sourced one. ] ] 13:16, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
::Cheers, I was not aware of the other draft. ] (]) 21:50, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:::No worries. That's the tricky part of doing drafts for unnamed things - you never know under what name someone may have made one. ] ] 22:31, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Any tools that could be used to check for this sort of thing besides manually trying to find them? ~ ] <sup>(])</sup> 00:34, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::If there are, I'd like to know. Though then again, half the hassle is ''others'' not being aware of the draft too. I always hate the thought of working on a draft for months, only to be away from Misplaced Pages when something is announced, and people rushing together a junky stub instead of publishing the long-term draft... ] ] 00:47, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::I suppose you could do a wildcard search through draft space for "Nintendo" or something.. '''] <sup>(] • ])</sup>''' 09:09, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::If there was an announcement regarding the official unveiling date, it would probably then be the time to move it into the main space and link it in the ] page infobox so that anybody looking to get bragging rights moves the established article instead of making a new one. ] 18:16, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

== Someone help the old guy clean up some stuff ==

While reassessing Stub articles, I've come across a few things that probably need the attention of someone more active and more familiar with the processes.
* ] - no sources cited, so no notability established. Should probably be merged with ]
* ] - removed from ] as it was redundant with the cover image (i.e., conveys the exact same information and thus is an excess non-free image). It is now an orphan file and should probably be deleted.
* ] - too many non-free images. I removed most and those are now orphan files
** ]
** ]
** ]
** ]

It's been over a decade since I've initiated a merge, FfD and many other administrative processes, and I don't remember the details. As I'm also on very sporadically, I honestly don't think I could properly watch over them. Is someone available to help with these? (] <sup>]</sup> 01:06, 22 December 2024 (UTC))

:The orphan images will get cleaned up automatically after 7 days. -- ] (]) 02:07, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::Hey @]. I'm not very active. So someone else here will have to do the honors. Looks like the images are on Commons. The ]'s editor ] may be an . So we got a probable ]. However, assuming the article's subject is notable, then perhaps Judd Cobler can contact the ] so we can use the relevant images. ] 17:43, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

=='']'' has removed the video games calendar search from its website!==
Sad news. When I try to look up the GBA calendar search under "2004/4", all of a sudden I get a 404 error shown . In face, all the video games that Famitsu had from NES to the Nintendo Switch have been completely erased from history along with their calendar schedules from their website! I suppose that means we won't have to look up any Japanese video games for their ''Famitsu'' scores anymore. Now what? --] (]) 00:03, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

== Happy Holidays From the Wikiproject Video Games Family ==

]

Our Christmas cards get cheesier every year... happy holidays everyone! Glad to be a part of this great project. ] <span style="color:#F40">•</span> ] 23:53, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

:Yeah me too with my first good article nomination passed and been contributing to as many as hundred articles with most of them relating to video games. ]<sup>]</sup> 02:28, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
:Looks awesome! ] (]) 14:50, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

==Discussion at ]==
]&nbsp;You are invited to join the discussion at ]. ] (]) 14:50, 26 December 2024 (UTC)<!-- ] -->

Revision as of 14:50, 26 December 2024

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Video games and anything related to its purposes and tasks.
Shortcut
Archives: Index, Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177Auto-archiving period: 14 days 
This project page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconVideo games
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Misplaced Pages. 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
Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:
Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks
AfDs Merge discussions Other discussions No major discussions Featured content candidates Good article nominations DYK nominations Reviews and reassessments
Articles that need...
Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks
AfDs Merge discussions Other discussions No major discussions Featured content candidates Good article nominations DYK nominations Reviews and reassessments
Articles that need...
Shortcut: WT:VG
WikiProject
Video games
Main page talk
Archives
Archive index

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177

Guidelines
Manual of Style talk
Article naming talk
Sources talk
Search engine
Templates
Wikidata Guide
Departments
Assessment
Reference library talk
Newsletter talk
Current issue Draft
Articles
Article alerts
Deletion discussions
Essential articles
New articles
Popular pages
Vital articles
Recognized content
Good content
Featured content
Requested articles
Task forces
Esports talk
Indie
Nintendo talk
Sega talk
Video game characters talk
Visual novels talk
WikiProject
Portal talk
Project category talk
Project cleanup talk
Traffic statistics talk
Article statistics talk
List of active editors
Project watchlist

Call of Duty retrospective rankings

With the Call of Duty series now over 20 years old, I'm thinking it would be beneficial to add retrospective rankings of the games, i.e. from worst to best. As a CoD player myself, the CoD community has specific ideas on what are some of the best games and some of the worst. Additionally, reception to the games themselves has changed a lot over time; even critic and fan reception on launch is different than the end of every game's life cycle (especially in recent years). I was interested to see what critics and publications think so I did a little research and there are plenty of sources that rank the main games and/or pick the best ones. Here's a few:

I'm sure there are more but you get the gist. Basically, I think it would be beneficial to start adding retrospective rankings into the respective articles, as the majority of them only have initial reception, which can change over time. It would be nice to see in prose how these games hold up years down the line and how they are viewed within the franchise as a whole. I'm willing to get a start on this but I wanted to see what others thought first. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 17:55, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

It would be good to add some retrospective reception to the articles on individual Call of Duty games. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:34, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
Seconded, although I recommend only using a few of these lists at a time to try and avoid repetition, and also attribute who exactly ranks the game at that place. λ NegativeMP1 22:48, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
I basically agree with the other editors. Offering a different take on NegativeMP1's advice, I recommend that we avoid having one sentence per source (e.g.: 10 sentences / one long paragraph). I wouldn't mind including most or even all of the sources, but they could probably be summarized in fewer sentences. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:09, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
You'll probably want to avoid things like "John Doe ranked X as the 7th best game in the franchise, while Jane Doe ranked it as the 8th best game." However, something like "Both John and Jane ranked X as an average game in the franchise in a 2024 retrospective" would be good, preferably of course with matching reasoning. When multiple writers point out the same things, then that's definitely worth including. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 12:45, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Suggestion to merge console game into video game console

Most of console game is a heavy WP:OVERLAP with video game console or simply video game in general. All in all, there is nothing particularly distinguishing about a video game when it is played on a console as opposed to a PC, save for select - usually Nintendo - consoles that utilize non-standard control methods that are not a typical controller. I also feel like PC game and gaming computer suffer similar WP:OVERLAP issues, with a large chunk of the PC game article being about hardware tech. I would like to solicit feedback about a potential combination of the articles. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:37, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

I could see part of that serving as a starting point for History of video game consoles which would try to be agnostic to the generations and focus on the larger trends. And other parts could be shuffled elsewhere. — Masem (t) 17:08, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, the console history page definitely needs a rewrite. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:43, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
This looks like a good case for a merge. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:30, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
Okay, I have created an official merge discussion, so interested parties can comment at the page itself. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:36, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Appy Awards FLCR

I have nominated Appy Awards for featured list removal. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. GamerPro64 03:01, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

On this note, can I get some eyes on my FL for another video game award, the Nuovo Award? I'm slightly concerned myself that the sourcing is too bare-bones for a FL, though perhaps I'm being too hard on myself. I'd just like some opinions on whether or not it is good enough to retain or whether I should nominate it for FLRC. Fathoms Below (talk) 15:23, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Pinball FX

Hi. I wanted to create a page based on the Zen Studios game Pinball FX (the new version not the original). I dont really know how to build pages so I was wondering if more expierenced editors might help me. (Creating an info box, setting up citations etc.). I created a chart listing the tables but that's really it. Its about as barebones as you can get. Here is the page https://en.wikipedia.org/Draft:Pinball_FX_(2022_video_game) Any help via editing would be appreciated.Wikieditor9117 (talk) 15:20, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

As a quick comment, in the first column of the DLC you have links that are mixing links to notable pinball tables (eg the Williams ones) with links to just general fiction franchises or similar works. I know it seems simpler to have the single column for that but given that there are real-world tables included in the game, you may need an indicator for identifying the physical tables brought into the game. Masem (t) 15:48, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
JSYK, the game seems to be borderline notable, I found only 2 reliable reviews for it: Push Square and Digitally Downloaded. --Mika1h (talk) 16:20, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
That's odd. Pinball FX, Pinball FX 2 and Pinball FX 3 all have pages. That's why I was trying to create a page for this game (which is essentially Pinball FX 4).Wikieditor9117 (talk) 16:47, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Page for Elden Ring Shadow of the Erdtree?

Given Shadow of the Erdtree's treatment as a "game" at the Game Awards, I'd say it's more deserving than most of its own page due to its outsized notability. However, I want to be sure that consensus is there before I bother trying to potentially make it. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:30, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

I am surprised it doesn't have a page yet. All three Skyrim DLCs have their own pages, so I don't see why Shadow of the Erdtree can't. QuicoleJR (talk) 23:35, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
Shadow of the Erdtree was treated as DLC at the Game Awards - they made it clear all DLC, expansions, remakes, and remasters can qualify for any of the awards.
Given that the only real in-depth coverage would be in reviews - nothing about new gameplay or development aspects - it doesn't make sense to have a separate article. Masem (t) 00:04, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Could there be discussion of the game's plotline? (Oinkers42) (talk) 00:22, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
I'd say it depends entirely on coverage; we've got plenty of DLC articles I think we probably shouldn't have, and plenty I think justify themselves. (From the above mentions, I'm not sure that the Skyrim expansions really justify themselves, likewise The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt – Hearts of Stone and The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt – Blood and Wine basically have nothing there indicating separate notability. Versus BioShock 2: Minerva's Den, which has the benefit of more development info, as well as an outsized influential legacy on other games, it wasn't "just" another DLC.) I would say that Elden Ring is pretty lean at 3400ish words, so there's not even potential page size issues to consider. I think it makes a lot more sense to build out the info in Elden Ring and then decide on a split. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 00:34, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
The other factor to keep in mind is that per WP:NOPAGE, just because a piece of DLC may be notable due to reception, is there enough unique content that requires a separate article from the main game, or is the DLC better covered under a comprehensive article? For what's there for Erfdtree, one article seems the best solution, unless there is a massive amount of development information that hasn't been found yet (doubtful) Masem (t) 01:19, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
"I think it makes a lot more sense to build out the info in Elden Ring and then decide on a split." I wish more people followed this guideline instead of assuming notability when starting these articles with barely any content. Gameplay for a DLC is not usually not going to be much different than the base game's even with a couple of new things introduced to it, which just leaves the development, plot, and reception sections. Those could easily be summarized in a paragraph or two within the base game's article, and if it does start to expand, then we'd could make the decision to split it. For some reason, we've always had this issue with the Souls games, with articles created on locations, bosses, NPCs, and concepts like bonfires that usually just feature passing mentions cited from game reviews, some of which having merged by consensus and then brought back in almost the same exact state. ~ Dissident93 14:51, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Yes, agreed, the Souls area has been a particularly bad area for unnecessary article spinouts. Sergecross73 msg me 18:08, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
I'd advise staying on focus to Erdtree for now; if any split-outs (Or the topic of how much should dictate a split-out as a whole) are under question, then I'd suggest forming a separate discussion for this, given this is outside the smaller scope of this discussion and would impact a lot of articles. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 18:55, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Erdtree and other DLCs are no different here. I was simply bringing up the fact that the Souls series in particular has always had the problem of having spinoff articles created before they were expanded upon in the article of their respective games. ~ Dissident93 23:01, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Exactly, it's a recurring issue in the subject area, spanning many years of discussions and some of the same overzealous editors. Sergecross73 msg me 23:25, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Now Blighttown was just created. ~ Dissident93 16:45, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Bloated and bombarded to maximum levels to try to create the illusion of being a necessary split, I see. Sergecross73 msg me 20:26, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
There is consensus here that is largely against these Souls spinoff articles. Should we nominate all of them for deletion/merging? ~ Dissident93 22:00, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Unless there is at least one dedicted article to covering it (at bare minimum) , yes these should be merged. Masem (t) 22:13, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
From what I can tell, this seems to be a "consensus" of only two or three editors. I don't think that's enough for something that would impact several articles. I also don't think it would make sense to only discuss Souls spinouts when several other video games have something like this, whether it be levels, items, weapons, and more. I feel as if a larger discussion on spinout articles for video game elements in general (not just Souls) would be necessary, rather than singling out one franchise. Either way, I think a larger consensus would be needed than this discussion. λ NegativeMP1 22:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Some of them were already merged in the past and brought back, so there is precedent for this sort of thing. And while WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS for other series, it's particularly a problem for the Souls games. ~ Dissident93 22:38, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
I'd recommend nominating a couple of the worst offenders, and then proceeding from there depending on how that plays out. Sergecross73 msg me 22:45, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, some of them are probably decent enough to keep but certainly not all/most. ~ Dissident93 22:48, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
┌──────────────────────────────────────────┘
Another new one today Northern Undead Asylum — Masem (t) 18:50, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
@PrimalMustelid: I could at least understand Blighttown as it received reception for its poor technical performance, but how is the tutorial level notable? ~ Dissident93 20:43, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
I'm only making two Dark Souls locations, both of which I've done based on significant sources. The Northern Undead Asylum is pretty significant in that unlike many other video game tutorials, this particular tutorial has been credited with carving a unique path by not hand-holding the player along the way and throwing a fairly challenging tutorial boss into the mix (at the time, definitely not your average tutorial). It, along with the Asylum Demon, have been credited with preparing players for the wider difficulty of the game, and first impressions are especially important in video games like this. PrimalMustelid (talk) 20:57, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Your "significant sources" for Northern Undead Asylum include a greatest bosses list, two strategy guides, and a top ten tutorial levels list by a generally unreliable source (Dualshockers). Even if the other sources are valid, there's no reason why this couldn't be a paragraph or two within the Dark Souls article. Seriously, what is with this series that compels people to try and justify as many spinoff articles as possible? ~ Dissident93 21:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Those aren't what I consider "significant sources;" they're more supplements to the overall article. What I'd consider significant sources are those written by NME and Goomba Stomp Magazine primarily since they both wrote analyses for the Northern Undead Asylum, with Arcade Sushi communicating similar commentary on the significance of it as a tutorial level. I would consider the main problem with an attempted merge into the main Dark Souls articles to be that it's a bit difficult to insert into there. If this helps, there aren't any other individual fictional elements that can be spun off into their own articles because of the fact that they lack significant commentary in relation to specific game designs. I do think that a list article for locations in the Dark Souls series could potentially work as long as there's a development section and reception section for the technical and philosophical aspects of game design, but I'm not really interested in creating list articles at the moment. PrimalMustelid (talk) 21:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
I really don't think "Goomba Stomp Magazine" is a reliable source. Certainly not one to indicate notability... Sergecross73 msg me 22:50, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
How about this: in the video game sources page, there should be a consensus on whether Goomba Stomp Magazine can be considered a reliable source or not. If not, I will happily redirect or merge the article somewhere into the Dark Souls article (and maybe the locations list if it ever comes to fruition). I’ll leave the source evaluation up to you guys, although I can initiate the discussion if you guys want. PrimalMustelid (talk) 22:54, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Sure, but looking at their About Us page, I think it'll be a short discussion... Sergecross73 msg me 22:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
That’s fine with me. If and once there is official consensus that it is not a reliable source, I will merge or redirect the article, no questions asked. PrimalMustelid (talk) 23:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Discussion started Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources#Goomba Stomp Magazine. Sergecross73 msg me 23:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Putting notability of the asylum aside, I honestly wasn’t aware that there was a discussion regarding Dark Souls element articles and may have put fuel to the flame by creating the Blighttown article. Bad timing on my part I suppose.
I suppose that the character articles are a matter of debate, but is having a few spinoff articles really that bad in practice? I can see a few articles like Anor Londo passing on the grounds that it has a good amount of significant coverage and therefore would fit awkwardly into the 2011 video game article. I also see someone argue that the bonfire article’s sources supposedly only have “passing mentions,” but a lot of sources in the reception section literally indicate otherwise from the title to the full text. Again, I don’t mind a merge of some of the Souls articles, but some articles have significant coverage to justify independent notability in my opinion. PrimalMustelid (talk) 02:41, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
Also, I decided to redirect the Northern Undead Asylum into the 2011 video game article. I’ll figure out what to do in a “merge” process, but it’ll probably entail being part of a “retrospective review” subsection of the overall game from after the 2018 remastered version release. PrimalMustelid (talk) 06:06, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
On that note, I would just like to mention that I've always been annoyed by the tendency to make a new article on an element of a game without adding any of that relevant content to the game's article. For example, we have an article on Shiori Fujisaki from Tokimeki Memorial, but neither the franchise page nor the individual game pages mention the character at all, leaving the article effectively orphaned except for a navbox that doesn't appear on mobile. QuicoleJR (talk) 12:27, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm always surprised by that. I personally always try to link to my article creations as much as I can (within the realms of being appropriate) to help the odds of people actually viewing/reading it. Sergecross73 msg me 17:19, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
You haven't really advanced any argument for it. "more deserving than most of its own page due to its outsized notability" is just a long way of saying "WP:ITSNOTABLE". Sergecross73 msg me 01:39, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
If it's something to the scale of Grand Theft Auto IV: The Lost and Damned and Grand Theft Auto: The Ballad of Gay Tony, I don't see how a separate page for the Elden Ring expansion would hurt. Command & Conquer: Yuri's Revenge may be notable on its own, but idk if the Red Alert 3 – Uprising expandalone would be worth a separate article as it only mildly covered the game and not divulge much on its development and impact. Blake Gripling (talk) 03:44, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Looking at the lost and Damned, for example, shows a ton of unsourced gameplay content, very little development, and very little reception that I question it's need to be sepearate. Masem (t) 00:28, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
I'd honestly merge and/or redirect a lot of the listed titles unless some more substance can be found. As it stands they're not showing much independent notability of the subject. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 14:55, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
To be clear: the DLC passes GNG already, and this feels like you are implying that it's not notable (since you are citing an AfD argument after all). I was never trying to ask whether it was notable, which is rather obvious on its face, but saying that its high degree of critical acclaim merited its own page.
As for the in-universe articles, Souls simply happens to be a very critically acclaimed and analyzed series - it inspired an entire genre after all - with an outsized amount of notable things in their universe. Bonfires as a concept inspired a host of games to implement identical or similar game mechanics, even by testimony of their developers. I don't want to point fingers or anything or reignite the Pokemon test, but I don't see people griping this much about Galarian Corsola or Klefki despite them arguably being an order of magnitude less important in their respective games than Torrent or bonfires. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:44, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
I simply said you hadn't advanced an argument, because...you hadn't advanced an argument. Sergecross73 msg me 18:49, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Yeah. Subjects can pass notability but still be covered exclusively in other, larger articles. That's what Misplaced Pages:NOPAGE is all about. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 18:59, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
I would not oppose to a spin-out article for the DLC, if it has a development section that is extensive enough. Right now I think we can develop the content in the main article first before considering a WP:SIZESPLIT. OceanHok (talk) 11:27, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

New Articles (December 2 to December 14)

Main page: Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements 
 A listing of all articles newly added to the Video Games Wikiproject (regardless of creation date). Generated by v3.20 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 15:19, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

December 2

December 3

December 4

December 5

December 6

December 7

December 8

December 9

December 10

December 11

December 12

December 13

December 14

Skipped a week, so here's a double-update! --PresN 15:19, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Seeing an article like Fortnite Ballistic makes me think it's possible to do an article on OG Fortnite. Not the game mode, like the concept and culture surrounding Fortnite as it was back in the day, and its many comebacks since. Panini! • 🥪 00:15, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
Seriously, no. You need development (beyond basic release info) and a good reception separate from the main mode, and since OG is just the battle royale mode on a different island, just like Reload, it makes no sense for a separate article. Masem (t) 00:25, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
No, what I mean is all of the OG Fortnite stuff. For example, a history of how Fortnite has evolved in comparison to "back in the day", its garnered criticism from new additions and gameplay alteration, and why that resulted in various "OG" stunts. The concept of "OG Fortnite" and their many attempts to capitalize on nostalgia, and how it just keeps working. Fortnite: OG, Fortnite Relead, and this new OG game mode all in one article, for example.
Although from a quick search there doesn't seem to be too much sourcing that connects this stuff together into one concept. But it was a good idea, ya bully. Panini! • 🥪 00:41, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Template_talk:Infobox_video_game#Early_Access_dates

Template_talk:Infobox_video_game#Early_Access_dates look for more opinions on fixing template doc in line with MOS:VG -- ferret (talk) 01:55, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Clannad (video game)

Clannad (video game) has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 18:05, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Ubisoft Decommissioning Dates

Apologies if this has already been posted. I stumbled across this while searching for for something else, Ubisoft maintain a list of all their server shutdowns by title and platform stretching back to 2013. Might be useful if anyone need to check a date. The list is in two parts A to M and N to Z - X201 (talk) 11:11, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Street Fighter fighting style

After researching about Street Fighter, I started this section in order to see if we should change the infobox of the Street Fighter characters since Capcom and Capcom USA give different names to what style they use: Ansatsuken or Shotokan. If a bigger expert in the series knows it, please join. Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 21:49, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Next Nintendo Console

I would appreciate some assistance in creating this draft and bringing it up to a respectable standard. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 10:49, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

There's already a much more developed draft in existence. See Draft:Unnamed Nintendo console. I'd recommend working on that instead, though either way, you're not going to be able to move it out of the draft space and publish it until it's actually announced/revealed/named. Sergecross73 msg me 12:43, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
Even with that, when Nintendo makes the announcement, the bulk of that info will be immediately outdated by the actual details Nintendo provides and the new sources that report that. The only aspects that even in the current Switch article that would be kept would be when word of the next console was being announced, none of the rumors detailed of its specs and features. Either of these draft articles are immediately going to be out of date when that announcement comes so it seems like doing a lot of work for no gain at this point. Masem (t) 13:04, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
Agreed, that's the very reason why I haven't personally contributed hardly anything to the draft myself. I specifically recall trimming 90% of that sort of content from the 3DS and Vita articles after they were announced and released back in the day. But still, if either were ever to actually get published, it'd certainly be the longer, better sourced one. Sergecross73 msg me 13:16, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
Cheers, I was not aware of the other draft. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 21:50, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
No worries. That's the tricky part of doing drafts for unnamed things - you never know under what name someone may have made one. Sergecross73 msg me 22:31, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
Any tools that could be used to check for this sort of thing besides manually trying to find them? ~ Dissident93 00:34, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
If there are, I'd like to know. Though then again, half the hassle is others not being aware of the draft too. I always hate the thought of working on a draft for months, only to be away from Misplaced Pages when something is announced, and people rushing together a junky stub instead of publishing the long-term draft... Sergecross73 msg me 00:47, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
I suppose you could do a wildcard search through draft space for "Nintendo" or something.. Lee Vilenski 09:09, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
If there was an announcement regarding the official unveiling date, it would probably then be the time to move it into the main space and link it in the Nintendo Switch page infobox so that anybody looking to get bragging rights moves the established article instead of making a new one. Fantastic Mr. Fox 18:16, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Someone help the old guy clean up some stuff

While reassessing Stub articles, I've come across a few things that probably need the attention of someone more active and more familiar with the processes.

It's been over a decade since I've initiated a merge, FfD and many other administrative processes, and I don't remember the details. As I'm also on very sporadically, I honestly don't think I could properly watch over them. Is someone available to help with these? (Guyinblack25 01:06, 22 December 2024 (UTC))

The orphan images will get cleaned up automatically after 7 days. -- ferret (talk) 02:07, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Hey @Guyinblack25. I'm not very active. So someone else here will have to do the honors. Looks like the images are on Commons. The Last Epoch's editor Judd cobler may be an employee. So we got a probable wp:coi. However, assuming the article's subject is notable, then perhaps Judd Cobler can contact the Commons VRT so we can use the relevant images. « Ryūkotsusei » 17:43, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Famitsu has removed the video games calendar search from its website!

Sad news. When I try to look up the GBA calendar search under "2004/4", all of a sudden I get a 404 error shown here. In face, all the video games that Famitsu had from NES to the Nintendo Switch have been completely erased from history along with their calendar schedules from their website! I suppose that means we won't have to look up any Japanese video games for their Famitsu scores anymore. Now what? --Angeldeb82 (talk) 00:03, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Happy Holidays From the Wikiproject Video Games Family

Our Christmas cards get cheesier every year...
Our Christmas cards get cheesier every year...

Our Christmas cards get cheesier every year... happy holidays everyone! Glad to be a part of this great project. Panini! • 🥪 23:53, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Yeah me too with my first good article nomination passed and been contributing to as many as hundred articles with most of them relating to video games. NatwonTSG 02:28, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
Looks awesome! Aaron Liu (talk) 14:50, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Game Science § RfC on controversy and game's launch

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Game Science § RfC on controversy and game's launch. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:50, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Categories: