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 18:21, 1 August 2006 editPresN (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators79,188 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit Revision as of 04:18, 27 December 2024 edit undoPiotrus (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Event coordinators, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers285,784 edits →Problem with Category:Video games by theme (should be topic, not theme): new sectionTag: New topicNext edit →
Line 1: Line 1:
{{to do}} {{Talk header|WT:VG}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|
{| class="infobox" width="270px"
{{WikiProject Video games}}
|-
}}
|align="center" colspan="2" | ]<br />''']'''
{{WPVG announcements}}
----
{{WPVG sidebar|shortcut=WT:VG|showarchives=yes}}<!--
|-
Archive bot settings (Each parameter must be on its own line)
|width="60%" align="center"|''']'''
-->{{User:MiszaBot/config
|width="40%"|
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
*]
|maxarchivesize = 250K
*]
|counter = 177
*]
|minthreadsleft = 4
*]
|algo = old(14d)
*]
|archive = Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive %(counter)d
*]
}}
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
|}


== Call of Duty retrospective rankings ==
== Sega hybrid name ==


With the '']'' 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:
There has been a proposed move to move ] to ], and the issue of the rather awkward hybrid name has been brought up again. After a protracted war on the ] page, the article was finally moved to ]. I wanted to bring the issue here because it shouldn't exist - we should pick one name and stick with it. How awkward is it to type '''Sega Mega Drive/Sega Genesis''' and having to pipe that link in? I would rather do <nowiki>]</nowiki> so I would only have to write it out half the time. Same with the Sega CD. ] 07:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


*https://www.gamespot.com/gallery/best-call-of-duty-games-ranked/2900-3802/
:That is pretty ridiculous. Unless I missed it, though, no one actually cited hard numbers to determine which "system" was actually more popular worldwide (though I strongly suspect it was Mega Drive). Not that I want to open up another can of worms, but was this ever taken to RfC or other arbitration? --] 11:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
*https://www.ign.com/articles/best-call-of-duty-games
*https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/every-main-call-duty-game-210059835.html
*https://www.digitaltrends.com/gaming/best-call-of-duty-games/
*https://www.nme.com/features/call-of-duty-games-ranked-from-worst-to-best-3344922
*https://www.gamesradar.com/best-call-of-duty-games/
*https://www.denofgeek.com/games/every-call-of-duty-game-ranked-worst-to-best/
*https://www.thegamer.com/ranking-every-call-of-duty-game-from-worst-to-best/
*https://www.complex.com/pop-culture/a/dan-wenerowicz/every-call-of-duty-game-ranked-worst-to-best
*https://www.si.com/videogames/features/call-of-duty-games-ranked
*https://comicbook.com/gaming/news/every-call-of-duty-game-ranked/


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. – ''']''' <sub>(]) (])</sub> 17:55, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
::Well yeah, the Google test has problems. And while the Mega Drive probably is more popular - as it was the name in all territories except the U.S. - I think the "Genesis" defenders made a persusasive argument, saying that just naming it the Mega Drive would confuse U.S. readers. This resembles the ] title war, except that it appears that that war was solved without RFC or Arbcom involvement (but I'm not sure). ] 16:50, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


:It would be good to add some retrospective reception to the articles on individual Call of Duty games. ] (]) 18:34, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
== Super Metroid ==
::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. <span style="border:#000000;border:2px solid #000000;padding:2px">'''λ''' ]]</span> 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. ] (]) 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. ~] (]) 12:45, 12 December 2024 (UTC)


== Suggestion to merge ] into ] ==
I'm making a strong effort to greatly improve the ] article and I wondered if anyone might be interested in helping. I've done a lot of work on it in the past, but it had become very jumbled up and full of stuff that was totally off-topic both for the article itself and for Misplaced Pages. It breaks my heart to see this article with a B classification; my goal is for it to be in tip-top shape.--] 09:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


Most of ] is a heavy ] with ] or simply ] 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 ] and ] suffer similar ] 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. ] (]) 16:37, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
== ] ==
:I could see part of that serving as a starting point for ] which would try to be agnostic to the generations and focus on the larger trends. And other parts could be shuffled elsewhere.<span id="Masem:1734023317465:Wikipedia_talkFTTCLNWikiProject_Video_games" class="FTTCmt"> —&nbsp;] (]) 17:08, 12 December 2024 (UTC)</span>
::Yeah, the console history page definitely needs a rewrite. ] (]) 18:43, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
:This looks like a good case for a merge. ] (]) 15:30, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
::Okay, I have created an official merge discussion, so interested parties can comment at the page itself. ] (]) 18:36, 13 December 2024 (UTC)


== ] FLCR ==
There is discussion ongoing at ] about the role of dab pages when disambiguating between a game and the series named after it. A third opinion would be appreciated. - ] <small>(] | ])</small> 10:04, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


I have nominated ] for featured list removal. Please ] on whether this article meets the ]. 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 ].<!-- Template:FLRCMessage --> ] 03:01, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
==]==


:On this note, can I get some eyes on my FL for another video game award, the ]? 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. ] ] 15:23, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
] is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found ]. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. ] 14:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


== Pinball FX ==
:What?! It's been what, two days since it appeared on the front page? ] 16:50, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


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.).
::True, although it's been featured for at least a month or two now, right? It's succesful, drawn-out 3rd nom was made back in February, so it was a bit of a delay. Which also means that's several months worth of change to the article. It's had a rough life it has. Three FACs, two peer reviews, and now it might end up on the chopping block if it doesn't pass it's Review. Heck, if it doesn't pass it's review, it seems like a guarenteed removal, considering the whole community worth of Pokemon haters out there. -- ]
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.] (]) 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. ] (]) 15:48, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
== ] ==
:JSYK, the game seems to be borderline notable, I found only 2 reliable reviews for it: and . --] (]) 16:20, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
::That's odd. ], ] and ] all have pages. That's why I was trying to create a page for this game (which is essentially Pinball FX 4).] (]) 16:47, 15 December 2024 (UTC)


== Page for ]? ==
Wario has been nominated at FAR, ]. Please leave comments. ]<font color="#009933">]</font>] <sup><font color="#FF917F">]</font></sup> 18:06, 29 July 2006 (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)
== An online peer-reviewed ] journal ==
: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.
: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. ] (]) 00:04, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
::Could there be discussion of the game's plotline? ] (]) 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 '']'' and '']'' basically have nothing there indicating separate notability. Versus '']'', 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 '']'' 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. ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 00:34, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
::::The other factor to keep in mind is that per ], 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) ] (]) 01:19, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
::::{{xt|"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 ], ], ], and concepts like ] 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. ~ ] <sup>(])</sup> 14:51, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Yes, agreed, the ''Souls'' area has been a particularly bad area for unnecessary article spinouts. ] ] 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. ''] Considerer:'' ''']''' (]) (]) 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. ~ ] <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)
:::::::::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)
::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)
:::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. ] (]) 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. ''] Considerer:'' ''']''' (]) (]) 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 ] or ] despite them arguably being an order of magnitude less important in their respective games than ] or ]. ] (]) 18:44, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:::I simply said you hadn't advanced an argument, because...you hadn't advanced an argument. ] ] 18:49, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Yeah. Subjects can pass notability but still be covered exclusively in other, larger articles. That's what ] is all about. ''] Considerer:'' ''']''' (]) (]) 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 ]. ] (]) 11:27, 17 December 2024 (UTC)


==New Articles (December 2 to December 14)==
People here might want to check out , which appears to be a peer-reviewed scholarly game journal. Browsing a bit, I was able to find articles on '']'', '']'', '']'', ], '']'', and others. The ''CS'' one is particularly interesting in that it covers behaviors during multiplayer — the type of stuff that traditionally has not been well-sourced or has been outright deemed unverifiable here on Misplaced Pages. There's a lot of interesting material to use. — ]::] 00:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


{{main|Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements}}
:Interesting link, thanks for posting it. --] 07:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


<small>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. --''']]''' 15:19, 16 December 2024 (UTC)</small>
== Who wants to work with me to make ] a ]? ==


*'''Articles deleted/removed:''' ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ]
Having recently joined the ], and as a member of the ], I have a goal of making ] a ].
*'''Drafts deleted/removed:''' ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ]
*'''Articles redirected:''' ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ]
*'''Articles moved to draft space:''' ]
*'''Categories deleted/removed:''' ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ]
*'''New categories:''' ] <small>— {{u|0x16w}}</small> <small>(newly tagged - originally created 9 months ago)</small>, ] <small>— {{u|QuantumFoam66}}</small> <small>(newly tagged - originally created 1 month ago)</small>, ] <small>— {{u|Mika1h}}</small>, ] <small>— {{u|Mika1h}}</small>, ] <small>— {{u|(Oinkers42)}}</small>, ] <small>— {{u|Kung Fu Man}}</small>, ] <small>— {{u|Kung Fu Man}}</small>, ] <small>— {{u|QuantumFoam66}}</small>, ] <small>— {{u|QuantumFoam66}}</small>, ] <small>— {{u|Mika1h}}</small>, ] <small>— {{u|Gray eyes}}</small> <small>(newly tagged - originally created 1 year ago)</small>, ] <small>— {{u|Gray eyes}}</small> <small>(newly tagged - originally created 1 year ago)</small>, ] <small>— {{u|Gray eyes}}</small> <small>(newly tagged - originally created 1 year ago)</small>, ] <small>— {{u|NeoBatfreak}}</small> <small>(newly tagged - originally created 5 years ago)</small>, ] <small>— {{u|Phediuk}}</small> <small>(newly tagged - originally created 3 years ago)</small>, ] <small>— {{u|JazzyBsolarjatt}}</small> <small>(newly tagged - originally created 2 years ago)</small>, ] <small>— {{u|Waxworker}}</small>, ] <small>— {{u|Vitaly Zdanevich}}</small> <small>(newly tagged - originally created 15 days ago)</small>
*'''New templates:''' {{tl|F1 Esports driver results legend}} <small>— {{u|Zwerg Nase}}</small> <small>(newly tagged - originally created 4 years ago)</small>, {{tl|2025 Call of Duty League standings}} <small>— {{u|Brandon Downes}}</small>


<div style="line-height:1.4em !important">
The RuneScape article has previously ] and ]. I ], raising several concerns, but received no significant responses.
'''December 2'''
*{{Article status|Unassessed|User:Rotoryu/Hayauchi Super Igo|Rotoryu}} <small>(previously a draft: undrafted by original creator)</small>
*{{Article status|Start|Ananta (video game)|Armandaneshjoo}} <small>(newly tagged – originally created 1 year ago)</small>


'''December 3'''
If you wish to collaborate with me to make ] a good article, please read and reply on ]. Thanks.
*{{Article status|Start|Atlyss|Reconrabbit}} <small>(previously a draft: undrafted by original creator)</small>
*{{Article status|Stub|Garfield: Lasagna World Tour|Cakelot1}} <small>(newly tagged – originally created 2 years ago)</small>


'''December 4'''
--] 06:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
*{{Article status|Stub|Zero Divide 2|Sceeegt}} <small>(was previously a redirect – un-redirected 1 month ago)</small>
*{{Article status|Stub|Johnny Hotshot|Angeldeb82}} <small>(newly tagged – originally created 11 months ago)</small>
*{{Article status|Stub|Johnny Impossible|Angeldeb82}} <small>(newly tagged – originally created 11 months ago)</small>
*{{Article status|Stub|Johnny Kung Fu|Angeldeb82}} <small>(newly tagged – originally created 11 months ago)</small>


'''December 5'''
== Working on the ] article. ==
*{{Article status|Stub|Legend of Zord|Ervuss}} <small>(newly tagged – originally created 12 months ago)</small>
*{{Article status|List|List of Brian Blessed performances|03ElecBerg}} <small>(newly tagged – originally created 5 years ago)</small>


'''December 6'''
Having recently joined the Computer and video games WikiProject, my first task will be to work on the ] article.
*{{Article status|C|Capcom Fighting Collection 2|RebelYasha}} <small>(newly tagged – originally created 3 months ago)</small>
*{{Article status|C|Fighter Pilot (1983 video game)|Zoq-Fot-Pik}} <small>(newly tagged – originally created 24 days ago)</small>
*{{Article status|Stub|Glorkian Warrior: The Trials of Glork|Angeldeb82}} <small>(newly tagged – originally created 3 months ago)</small>
*{{Article status|Start|Nightmare Kart|EnzoTC}} <small>(newly tagged – originally created 5 months ago)</small>
*{{Article status|Start|Racket Club|Kurt Jansson}} <small>(was previously a redirect – un-redirected 3 months ago)</small>
*{{Article status|Stub|Real World Golf|Angeldeb82}} <small>(was previously a redirect – un-redirected 3 years ago)</small>
*{{Article status|Start|Rugby Challenge 4|Tamariki}} <small>(newly tagged – originally created 4 months ago)</small>
*{{Article status|C|Xbox Wireless Controller|Calerusnak}} <small>(newly tagged – originally created 10 years ago)</small>


'''December 7'''
The article desperately needs a rewrite and cleanup. Although I will help with that, one of my main tasks will be to provide in-game screenshots, as well as to play the game to check facts provided (in some cases, in-game screenshots may be used as proof of concept).
*{{Article status|C|Moida Mansion|Vrxces}}
*{{Article status|Start|Combat Lynx|Zoq-Fot-Pik}} <small>(newly tagged – originally created 3 months ago)</small>
*{{Article status|Stub|Dance Dance Revolution World|LABcrabs}} <small>(newly tagged – originally created 5 months ago)</small>
*{{Article status|Start|DarkwebSTREAMER|Jack4576}} <small>(newly tagged – originally created 1 year ago)</small>
*{{Article status|Start|LifeAfter|Mcx8202229}} <small>(newly tagged – originally created 6 months ago)</small>
*{{Article status|Start|Royce Pierreson|TBoz2011}} <small>(newly tagged – originally created 7 years ago)</small>

'''December 8'''
*{{Article status|Unassessed|The Rise of the Golden Idol|Vrxces}} <small>(was previously a redirect)</small>
*{{Article status|Unassessed|User:Toptier5stars/Touhou Mystia's Izakaya|Toptier5stars}} <small>(previously a draft)</small>

'''December 9'''
*{{Article status|C|Inspector Gadget Racing|Vrxces}}
*{{Article status|Start|Batman: Arkham City (comic book)|JHunterJ}} <small>(newly tagged – originally created 13 years ago)</small>
*{{Article status|Start|Batman: Arkham Unhinged|Frankiethebunny}} <small>(newly tagged – originally created 12 years ago)</small>

'''December 10'''
*{{Article status|Stub|Block Blast!|Winterjunpei}}
*{{Article status|Stub|Echelon: Wind Warriors|Timur9008}}

'''December 11'''
*{{Article status|Stub|Dawnwalker|HxD}} <small>(previously a draft)</small>
*{{Article status|Stub|Rebel Wolves|Yeahimaboss413}} <small>(newly tagged – originally created 1 year ago)</small>
*{{Article status|Start|Star Legions|BOZ}} <small>(was previously a redirect)</small>
*{{Article status|Stub|Paper Trail (video game)|Jlwoodwa}}

'''December 12'''
*{{Article status|Stub|Muppet Pinball Mayhem|Vrxces}}
*{{Article status|Start|Shadow Labyrinth|NegativeMP1}}
*{{Article status|Start|Fortnite Ballistic|NegativeMP1}} <small>(was previously a redirect)</small>

'''December 13'''
*{{Article status|Start|Intergalactic: The Heretic Prophet|RodRabelo7}} <small>(was previously a redirect)</small>
*{{Article status|C|Karl Hörnell|Zxcvbnm}}
*{{Article status|Stub|Movistar KOI|Gogus}}
*{{Article status|Stub|The Campaign Trail (Web Game)|Lgndvykk}}
*{{Article status|Start|The Witcher IV|OxMx}} <small>(was previously a redirect)</small>
*{{Article status|Start|Your Shape: Fitness Evolved 2012|MKsLifeInANutshell}} <small>(previously a draft – moved out 9 months ago: accepted ] submission)</small>

'''December 14'''
*{{Article status|Start|Fungus (video game)|Zxcvbnm}}
*{{Article status|Stub|MechWarrior 5: Clans|Rockstone35}} <small>(previously a draft – moved out 15 days ago: undrafted by original creator)</small>
*{{Article status|Start|Split Fiction|OceanHok}} <small>(was previously a redirect)</small>
</div>
----
Skipped a week, so here's a double-update! --''']]''' 15:19, 16 December 2024 (UTC)


:Seeing an article like ] 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. ] <span style="color:#F40">•</span> ] 00:15, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
However, as a level 58 non-Guardian, I stopped playing AdventureQuest several months ago due to the Guardian Only Login feature. I recently tried to log in, and discovered a new survey which non-Guardians could take in order to gain unlimited login access for 24 hours. This allows me to log in to play the game, take in-game screenshots and fact-check.
::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. ] (]) 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. ] <span style="color:#F40">•</span> ] 00:41, 21 December 2024 (UTC)


== Template_talk:Infobox_video_game#Early_Access_dates ==
Therefore, I need someone to give me the green light, before I take the survey and log in. In addition, I hope you can offer me advice (for example, style) I should bear in mind when making my very major edit(s) to the article, which may take several hours. I will probably do this next weekend, possibly earlier depending on my real-life situation.


] look for more opinions on fixing template doc in line with ] -- ] (]) 01:55, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
--] 09:31, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


== Good article reassessment for ] ==
==Started a '']'' article==
] has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the ]. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ] (]) 18:05, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
I just joined the Project ''and'' Misplaced Pages. This project convinced me that it was time to join Misplaced Pages to start contributing.


== Ubisoft Decommissioning Dates ==
The game is still under development, so not much is known. I could put in some screenshots, but there is no cover art for the infobox. All the information was from Gamespot.


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 and - ] (]) 11:11, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
== Some questions Re: Browser-based games ==
==Street Fighter fighting style==
After researching about Street Fighter, I started this 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: ] or ]. If a bigger expert in the series knows it, please join. Cheers.] (]) 21:49, 20 December 2024 (UTC)


== ] ==
I have an interesting question for the brains trust here.I'm working on an article, ], which is a browser-based MMORPG. While there's some useful information on the project page regarding computer and video games, there doesn't seem to be a lot of useful information for this style of game.


I would appreciate some assistance in creating this draft and bringing it up to a respectable standard. ] (]) 10:49, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
So, I'd like to ask people here - how should I be going about structuring an article on something like this? I suspect that the article could be made into a very good article, but I'm not sure what aspects of a browser-based game are worth discussing. Obviously there's Gameplay and Story, but I'm not sure how much of Story should be in the teaser, and whether I should be splitting Gameplay into sub-headings, and if so what these sub-headings should be.


:There's already a much more developed draft in existence. See ]. 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. ] ] 12:43, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
Can anyone give me any ideas as to where I should be going with this article? -- ] 05:13, 31 July 2006 (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)
: I looked at the page, and I would suggest giving up on adding to it. It doesn't seem that notable, and will probably get deleted. ] 05:21, 31 July 2006 (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)
:: Even if this article gets deleted, this genre of games has a few noteworthies (] being the major one), so even some general guidelines on this sort of genre would be nice. -- ] 05:50, 31 July 2006 (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 ==
== ] and its child pages ==


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.
We currently have no less than ''18'' pages describing (I can't even call it "summarizing") the story of StarCraft (all linked from ]), and that's not counting character, race, and other plot summary articles. This is absolutely excessive for one game.
* ] - 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))
So what do we do about it? - ] <small>(] | ])</small> 05:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
:Ouch. It looks a novel adaption of '']'', practically. Not knowing anything about ''Starcraft'', admittedly, I don't see how the main storyline page is lacking in sufficient detail. There also seems to be some ] problems. A gentle approach would to give editors some time to consolidate any needed context into the main storyline page before nominating the auxiliary pages for deletion, but the need for consolidation seems to be minimal. I agree that, one way or another, though, the auxiliary articles should go. — ]::] 06:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


:The orphan images will get cleaned up automatically after 7 days. -- ] (]) 02:07, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:Normally I'm against massive AfDs, but considering that even the Final Fantasy games don't have this much exposition on their fictional world, it's pretty hard to argue that all of these belong in the Misplaced Pages. --] 07:41, 31 July 2006 (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)
::You should see the number of subpages ] has. Someone tried to AfD all of them. However, the AfD failed. I think it should be trimmed to about 5 sections. Does anyone wish to collaborate with me to make ] a ] (please read sections I posted above)? --] 06:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


=='']'' has removed the video games calendar search from its website!==
== Formal tone ==
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 ==
The article ] has been tagged. It was mainly written by myself and I was wondering what exactly is right and wrong. If anyone could correct the article that would be very much appreciated. I do not understand how this is poor writing. If you could put up a paragraph and then correct it for me on here that would be great. Thanks. --<span style="font-variant:small-caps"><b>]</b> | ]</span> 11:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


]
:"For whatever reason" is what you'd call informal, and the use of the second person ("you") is a no-go. That's all I can really see. -- ] 15:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


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)
==FAC==
I added a featured article candidates section right below the featured articles section. Thought that those articles deserved some recognition, and it's not too hard to keep on top of. --] 17:48, 31 July 2006 (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)
==CVGProj tag==
:Looks awesome! ] (]) 14:50, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
I just added the {{tl|cvgproj}} to around 200 articles, so everything that was in the "Games in 2003" catagory is tagged. This is just to remind people about the message on the top of this page- tag your pages' talk pages! --] 19:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
:Happy Holidays! ] ] 17:37, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
:Wow, I'm bored. All articles in "Games in 1980" through "Games in 1983" are tagged.
:Happy Holidays everyone! :D ] (]) 17:45, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
::I've been tagging games whenever I have time. Fun, isn't it? ;) ] (<span style="font-size: smaller;"><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></span>) 21:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
:Happy holidays! ''] Considerer:'' ''']''' (]) (]) 18:19, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
:Everything in ] is tagged and ]. ] 02:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
:Happy holidays! It's been a pretty good year. ] (]) 19:51, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
::Rated too? Wow. How do you go about rating them? Like, physically making the box show the rating? I should start doing that as well. --] 16:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
:Happy Holidays to all that read this! I can only hope things get better for all of us. ]] 20:46, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
:::NM, I see how you did it. It's just cvgproj|class=Stub instead of cvgproj, if it's a stub. --] 16:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
::::Does this mean anyone can rate them? I thought you had to be on the Misplaced Pages 1.0 team or something like that. --] 16:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
273 pages and 142 edits later, all of 2002 is done now. I just tagged them, not rated, as I'm not sure about whther I can or not, per above. I think that anyone can rate them, but frankly, I dont' care, it would take way too long to do this if I actually had to read the articles I'm tagging. As a side note, it's weird which ones are already tagged and which ones aren't- some random disney game will be, but Warcraft 3 wasn't. --] 18:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


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


== Good article reassessment for ] ==
I have created a new page, ], where people can announce their new articles related to video games. I'm not great at writing articles from scratch, but like fixing up stubby articles, so I thought this kind of page would be nice to have. I've added a link to the page on the WikiProject page, hope that's ok. ] 19:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
] has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the ]. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ] (]) 23:51, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
:Hmm, I just noticed that there's a ]. It's not really clear what the purpose of that page is to me, and it doesn't seem to be used much. Perhaps it should just be a redirect? ] 20:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
::It can be used to call any sort of attention to an article, but generally it's been used to call for third opinions to disputes, since expansion pushes for GA/FA go to CVG Peer Review, the weekly collab and the also inactive CVGI. I cleaned it out recently, though it still doesn't get much attention, not much more than a posting a month. It's another case of things that generally get brought to this talk page instead. --] 20:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


== Greg Martin (artist) ==
==Color of GameBoy game screenshots?==


] was created today and I'm unsure if it meets ]. The existing sourcing is bad, but I did find and . I don't know if I'd consider them "substantial" sources, which is why I'm wondering if ARTIST would apply. Thoughts? ] (]) 00:21, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
Should there be a standard for the color of GameBoy game screenshots displayed in articles? Although emulators are default black and white, most people probably are more familiar with the yellow-green monochrome colors, and the BGB emulator allows for a setup like this. '']'' shows the yellow-green setup, while '']'' shows black and white. Which is more ideal? Personally, I prefer yellow-green. --] 04:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


:He is an artist though? ] (]) 00:37, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
:I don't think there's a standard for this, but I'll bet either way is fine; whatever the screenshot comes in (in the case of website-retreived ones) is what you get I guess. -- ] 06:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
::That's not what he's asking. Did you actually read ]? ] ] 00:42, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
:Doesn't seem notable to me. There should be something else besides reports of his death. --] (]) 01:14, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
:I don't really think NARTIST alies here. I think NARTIST only really applies if someone significantly contributed or is mostly responsible for a really, really important work. I don't think the cover art for Sonic the Hedgehog counts as a really, really important work. I And even if he met an SNG, I don't think an article should exist if there is literally zero significant sources forethat subject to work off of besides a few sentences. I cond Mika1h's comment. <span style="border:#000000;border:2px solid #000000;padding:2px">'''λ''' ]]</span> 01:17, 27 December 2024 (UTC)


== Problem with ] (should be topic, not theme) ==
==Project box==


See analysis at ] (posted there as the issue affects few more WikiProject-related cats). TL;DR ] should be renamed to ]. Please comment there, not here. TIA. <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]&#124;]</sub> 04:18, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
I noticed that the box over to the side there was pretty out of date, so I fixed it somewhat. The Peer Review and Cleanup sections are now up to date. --] 17:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 04:18, 27 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)
Happy Holidays! Sergecross73 msg me 17:37, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
Happy Holidays everyone! :D Timur9008 (talk) 17:45, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
Happy holidays! Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 18:19, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
Happy holidays! It's been a pretty good year. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:51, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
Happy Holidays to all that read this! I can only hope things get better for all of us. CaptainGalaxy 20:46, 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)

Good article reassessment for Anarchy Online

Anarchy Online 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) 23:51, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Greg Martin (artist)

Greg Martin (artist) was created today and I'm unsure if it meets WP:ARTIST. The existing sourcing is bad, but I did find IGN and Engadget. I don't know if I'd consider them "substantial" sources, which is why I'm wondering if ARTIST would apply. Thoughts? Woodroar (talk) 00:21, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

He is an artist though? Charliephere (talk) 00:37, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
That's not what he's asking. Did you actually read WP:ARTIST? Sergecross73 msg me 00:42, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
Doesn't seem notable to me. There should be something else besides reports of his death. --Mika1h (talk) 01:14, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
I don't really think NARTIST alies here. I think NARTIST only really applies if someone significantly contributed or is mostly responsible for a really, really important work. I don't think the cover art for Sonic the Hedgehog counts as a really, really important work. I And even if he met an SNG, I don't think an article should exist if there is literally zero significant sources forethat subject to work off of besides a few sentences. I cond Mika1h's comment. λ NegativeMP1 01:17, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Problem with Category:Video games by theme (should be topic, not theme)

See analysis at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Games#"Theme"_category_problem_started_by_Category:Games_by_genre_or_theme (posted there as the issue affects few more WikiProject-related cats). TL;DR Category:Video games by theme should be renamed to Category:Video games by topic. Please comment there, not here. TIA. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:18, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Categories: