Misplaced Pages

talk:WikiProject Video games - 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.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Salvidrim! (talk | contribs) at 04:11, 26 September 2023 (→Portal:Video games: r). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 04:11, 26 September 2023 by Salvidrim! (talk | contribs) (→Portal:Video games: r)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
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 Project‑class
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
ProjectThis page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
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

Request for reviews at Doom FAC

The Doom (1993 video game) FAC is in danger of stalling out; it's gotten one support and a half-review, but could use some more reviewer attention. Willing to trade reviews for anyone willing to give it a look. --PresN 01:51, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

@PresN Midnight here, but I'll check it out tomorrow. Ping me if I forget to do it within a day. Panini! • 🥪 04:17, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
I'll try to look at it this weekend. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 13:22, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
I’ll see if I can look into it as well, though I’m working into the weekend this week. At the very least I may be able to do a source review, if I can find the time. Red Phoenix 17:47, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Guidance on content relating to of technical and performance issues

The article Caesar III contains the text: The GOG.com version was subsequently released onto Steam in 2016, but the client-based DRM of Steam has caused that version to suffer from stability and compatibility problems not seen on the original digital version provided by GOG.com. The editor originally provided a link to user discussions on the Steam page for the source for this statement. I haven't been able to find any guidance on when an article should (1) address a game's technical or performance issues; and (2) where those issues are not covered by secondary sources, refer to user generated sources. Any help on this would be appreciated. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 08:35, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

WP:USERG is the relevant guidance in this case. Technical and performance issues should only be mentioned when they are detailed by reliable sources. In this case, the performance problem may not necessarily affect all users, so the testimonials of a few players are not necessarily definitive or correct. The performance issues should also be something major so it's not putting undue weight on a minor topic. When a game is borderline unplayable at launch and sources talk about it, that could be included. If it's a patch that introduces a performance problem that is quickly fixed, maybe not. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:40, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, that's clarified my thinking - appreciate your help in pointing me in the right direction. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 09:06, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
@Zxcvbnm: hi. It is worth noting that Caesar 3 is not a new game in any way at all: it is a game which was released in 1998, so naturally after so much time, bugs and incompatibilities are very likely because of the games’ extreme age. The version on Steam is just a DRM-free version that was modified by GOG way back in 2010, but fundamentally all it is, is a CD copy patched to the latest patch and then minor startup bugs fixed and the DRM removed to ensure it launches with no CD. The game is entirely unsupported and is provided on a “best efforts” basis, meaning any user reports are the only thing that can be used , as there is no development by anyone, other than “does the game start on modern windows? If not, fix the bug”, which is done primarily by GOG. Does this change anything for you in this regard? Thank you. — CitroenLover (talk) 12:29, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
The actual facts of a situation don't matter much to Misplaced Pages; ultimately the only thing that matters is if WP:RS thought it was a serious enough problem to write about. Verifiability is more important than truth. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:35, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

New Articles (September 4 to September 10)

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 v3.15 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 12:51, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

September 4

September 5

September 6

September 7

September 8

September 9

September 10

Proofread request for article "List of video game modes"

I would greatly appreciate proofreading and suggestions. Thanks! https://en.wikipedia.org/Draft_talk:List_of_video_game_modes#Suggestions/_Preparation_to_be_AcceptedUnexpectedSmoreInquisition (talk) 21:57, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

New Metacritic design, platform-specific links broken

Since yesterday, Metacritic has a new design. As part of this, the site has changed its overview format from one page per platform per game to just one per game. For example, Grand Theft Auto V currently links to the following platform-specific URLs: 

https://www.metacritic.com/game/playstation-3/grand-theft-auto-v
https://www.metacritic.com/game/xbox-360/grand-theft-auto-v
https://www.metacritic.com/game/playstation-4/grand-theft-auto-v
...

If you access any of them now, they will lead you here: 

https://www.metacritic.com/game/grand-theft-auto-v/

Regardless of which link you used, the platform shown will be the PlayStation 4 (97/100 at 66 reviews). The score shown by default seems to that generated from the most reviews, regardless of whether it has the best score (see an example where the lesser score has more reviews). This effectively breaks our links for the vast majority of multi-platform games. The platform-specific scores can still be found on the overview pages with all reviews, but again under a new link scheme. Previously, you would have accessed them like so: 

https://www.metacritic.com/game/playstation-3/grand-theft-auto-v/critic-reviews

Now, this was changed to: 

https://www.metacritic.com/game/grand-theft-auto-v/critic-reviews/?platform=playstation-3

This begs the question: Do we need to update these links for all game articles? Do we need to mark them as dead? Should either of these be a bot task? IceWelder 10:17, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

My guess is that it should be a task for a bot to update all links to the correct format. It seems like it would be simple to do a find and replace and it's not a case where the link actually died. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:39, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
I don't think it's as easy ans f&r because you'd want to merge some citations on multi-platform games, archived refs would need to be re-archived, and I already found one case where the name-in-link was changed with no working redirect. IceWelder 13:36, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
It's not a big deal. All the info is right there on the main page now. The only thing missing is the autogenerated text ("mixed or average reviews"), which can still be accessed from that page, even if you need to manually click on each platform to see it. I didn't like the new interface the first time I saw it, and I had visions of having to restore hundreds of broken links. I think it may make things easier for us, though, because of how central most of the information is. If they just fixed it so that the autogenerated text appeared for all the platforms on the main page, it'd be perfect. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:11, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
If NinjaRobotPirate doesn't think it's a big deal than neither do I. Panini! • 🥪 03:21, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
Would be a good thing for people to go through their articles at their convenience and fix, but yeah it's not a critical issue to fix. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 13:55, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Alphabetical order at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Video games/Requests

Is it possible to put everything In Alphabetical order at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Video games/Requests instead of month/year added? I think that would make it easier to navigate.(my opinion) Timur9008 (talk) 10:57, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

I am not sure I'd support this, because the date listing emphasizes that the older ones have been waiting longer and should be done sooner. I don't see an obvious purpose behind an alphabetical listing (and it can be searched with Ctrl+F) ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:06, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
I'm not opposed per se, but the list is pretty long, and I wouldn't think it's worth the time and energy to make that change. (Unless you waited until the list was trimmed way down...but I don't know how likely that is either - never seems like the Request Board ever catches on all that widely...) Sergecross73 msg me 21:08, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
I do think that retro games should have their own section. The sheer amount of shovelware older games that have been added is liable to drown out the newer titles and make it intimidating to tackle the list. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:04, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
It could probably use another review and culling of unlikely article creations again. In the past there have been editors who spammed added a lot of rather "iffy" articles idea suggestions on there that are unlikely to ever be created (and/or be in a pretty iffy state if anyone attempted to create them.) Sergecross73 msg me 03:29, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
User:NinjaRobotPirate/Games is a semi-curated list of recently released games. You can sort it by a number of different headers, including title, release date, number of user reviews on Steam, and genre. I also listed most of the info you need to write the article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:51, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
This is a fantastic idea! As an article creator of indie games, this is particularly useful for me to leverage. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 04:48, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Can we address the elephant in the room that the overwhelming majority of the entries are 1980s computer games that were added by two editors, one of whom is banned. These games are virtually lost to time, only covered by contemporary sources that are difficult to acquire. *Nobody* has any desire to work these requests, so they just accumulate and clog the list. I do understand a lot of work was put into compiling those entries, but its becoming difficult to discern which requests may be different and worth pursuing. I propose moving 1980s computer games to its own section on the page. TarkusAB 17:43, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
    Yes, this is what I was alluding to above. I support this. I know that personally, I keep a list of drafts I'm actively planning on working on...and then another list that are essentially "abandoned ideas" that I don't really realistically see myself doing anymore, but I still keep around because I hate to delete the work I did in source hunting. Maybe we need to do something like that? Some sort of old/stale/abandoned/unlikely type section? Sergecross73 msg me 17:58, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
    Perhaps the list should include a sort option for release year. I want to avoid arbitrarily splitting the requests if possible. I think this way, everybody wins. If we reorganize the list as a table too, it can be sorted alphabetically or by date added.
Requested Article Release year Sources Notes
September 14, 2023 Super Mario Bros. 1985 Put notes here
September 14, 2023 Super Mario 64 1996 Put notes here
September 14, 2023 Shigeru Miyamoto N/A Put notes here
I will volunteer to do this. I have some upcoming time off work in the coming week. What do people think? Courtesy ping @BOZ: TarkusAB 19:16, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
Although not strictly a requests page, I have made User:BOZ/BTG reviews noticeboard as a way of cataloguing independent sources for specific games that could possibly one day be used to build articles. I have been thinking that the VG space could use something like that too (as either a replacement for, or in addition to WP:VGR). I definitely don't have the time to put that together, unfortunately, but if you want to use any ideas from my userpage that would be fine. :) BOZ (talk) 19:28, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
I was going to recommend a table like this, especially considering the ability to organize by release year and request date. Maybe we could add an additional way to organize, such as the console it released for? I think that would also inspire people to take a look at it. Panini! • 🥪 16:24, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
(I would like to mention that Shigeru Miyamoto released in 1952. It's release was overlooked at first but it started to be recognized as a cult classic somewhere around 1977.) Panini! • 🥪 23:32, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Update

  • I have completed the first steps of revamping the VG Requests page. I replaced the old list with a sortable table, so you can sort by date requested, article title, release year, or original platform. I have started entering in the release years and platforms, but this is taking time. This brings me to my next point.
The list is long. There are 484 requests on the page as of today. There's a large chunk that are 1980s computer games, another large chunk that are modern indie games, and then "the rest".
I just want people to know I'm going to go through the list and remove low effort requests. That is, requests that don't provide enough sources so someone can easily complete the request without having to worry about GNG and finding more sources. Some requests only link to questionable sources, or websites that have barely any information. And some requests only link to Moby Games or Metacritic, and the critics they used are few in number or unreliable. Stuff like that. TarkusAB 04:14, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
Nice work. MobyGames has an API, it might be easier to go through and extract the year/platform information from that. Though I support the removal of low effort stuff regardless. ― novov (t c) 11:46, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
Good work Timur9008 (talk) 11:47, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
It looks incredible Tarkus!
I do agree with you striking ones without enough linked sources. I support just removing them from the list if there aren't enough sources without even checking to see if there's more out there, just for the sake of bringing down the count in this refresh. Panini! • 🥪 15:36, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
I am so ok with seeing the requests getting pared down. It's been a bane for me for years. Especially with the five year old requests ln there. GamerPro64 23:10, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
I want to give a special thank you to Mir Novov (talk · contribs) who finished the grueling work of adding in the original platforms and release years. The request page is now a lot more useful and I implore everyone to check it out. TarkusAB 06:27, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Input on possible name change of an article

As the article belongs to the WikiProject Video games, I thought I share my thoughts in here. I recently reworked the article about the German Computer Game Awards (Deutscher Computerspielpreis). I already opened a topic about a possible name change at the talk page a couple of months ago and got no response (the options are now outdated though).

There is currently one non-german source that refers to the award as the German Computer Game Awards while the German Games Industry Association game also uses that translation on their official page. Examples that translate the original language into English are the Czech Game of the Year Awards or Slovak Game of the Year Awards.

Can anyone share their thoughts on this? Or maybe tell me what steps I should take on other than using a talk page? I have no previous experience on renaming / moving articles. Thanks! Vestigium Leonis (talk) 23:29, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

I think that, as well as this, is good enough to invoke WP:USEENGLISH. You have to start a WP:RM discussion on the article talk page if you want it to be seriously discussed. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:52, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
It looks like there is no serious discussion needed. I will check the beginner guide on how to move a page and will do it soon. Thanks! Vestigium Leonis (talk) 08:15, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
If anything, it should be "German Computer Game Award" (singular) per the few English pages the award's site features. IceWelder 08:20, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

New Articles (September 11 to September 17)

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 v3.15 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 20:12, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

September 11

September 12

September 13

September 14

September 15

September 16

September 17

AfD'ed. soetermans. 20:20, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

List of video games with PS1-style tank controls seems like a very notable list. --PresN 20:12, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Apple Inc. being tagged just recently is neat, an article that was made in 2002. That might be a record. Panini! • 🥪 15:38, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
Maybe! We've had "21 years ago" 3 other times- George Lucas, Demoscene, and WarGames, but I haven't checked where in the year range they actually fell. --PresN 15:43, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
I checked out of curiosity, since this would also make the winner the oldest article recognized by WPVG:
  • WarGames: First edit 06:01, 24 January 2002‎
  • Apple Inc.: First edit 08:19, 3 November 2001‎
  • Demoscene: First edit 10:27, 11 October 2001‎
  • George Lucas: First edit 14:50, 2 July 2001‎
I'm curious why George Lucas the article is recognized by the project at all. He's only tangentially related to video games due to the property he's made (it would be as if JK Rowling was under the project because of all the Harry Potter games), and the word "video game" isn't even mentioned in his article. Am I missing a better connection between the two?
According to these stats (if I'm wrong about Lucas), that would also make User:Koyaanis Qatsi the first honorary member of WPVG. Panini! • 🥪 16:11, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
Lucas really shouldn't be tagged, as you mention, and I've removed it. Apple Inc. does seem valid as they've become a pretty huge player in the gaming space, albeit not in the realm more traditionally covered by game journalism (and Misplaced Pages, for that matter.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 16:20, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
Therefore:
  • WarGames: First edit 06:01, 24 January 2002
  • Apple Inc.: First edit 08:19, 3 November 2001
  • Demoscene: First edit 10:27, 11 October 2001
User:AlexWasFirst is the first honorary member of WPVG! Panini! • 🥪 16:47, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
In terms of the gap from when it was created to when it was tagged:
  • WarGames: 24 January 2002—19 March 2023: 21 years, 1 month, 23 days
  • Demoscene: 11 October 2001—24 December, 2022: 21 years, 2 months, 13 days
  • Apple Inc.: 3 November 2001—13 September, 2023: 21 years, 10 months, 10 days
So you're right, Apple has had the largest gap so far from creation to tagging. --PresN 17:00, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
The oldest VG article overall will likely be Video game itself. The history goes back to March 2001 where some kind of merge occurred, so it will have been even older than that. IceWelder 21:33, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

←) Any opinions on F-Zero 99? Keep as is or redirect? Sudden announcement and release so lack of significant coverage. I believe there will be a slow and steady release of reviews, but still seems like it will stay a small article that can neatly fit on F-Zero (video game). « Ryūkotsusei » 18:43, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

I think it's fine as a stand alone. I've seen a lot of coverage, and there's a fair amount of sourcing and content on the articles. My two cents - an attempt to merge it would likely lead to drawn out discussions that would result in the article being kept. Sergecross73 msg me 20:19, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
I would say that the game has definitely received enough coverage to meet GNG. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:41, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

3O requested - Notability met for Defold?

Please see Draft_talk:Defold#WP:N_Breakdown, looking for a relatively quick support/oppose discussion on whether sourcing has reached levels appropriate for WP:NPRODUCT. The question is whether enough sustained sigcov has been found. Unfortunately there is a LOT of non-independent sourcing here, but I think we've gotten a good set of sources lined up. The article needs carefully handling due to very heavy COI editing. -- ferret (talk) 18:22, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

The Day of Sigma

I've been trying to expand Mega Man Maverick Hunter X but I'm kinda not sure about something. Once the player beats the game, they have access to a 30 minute episode based on the villain's past. Should I elaborate about the episode's plot somewhere like the plot section? Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 22:01, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Pokemon Scarlet and Violet: The Hidden Treasure of Area Zero

There is currently a discussion on the talk page as to whether or not this DLC deserves an article now that some of it has released. I myself am abstaining from the vote since I don't want to be spoiled from the plot of the DLC. ― Blaze Wolfblaze__wolf 19:06, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps I can blank out the plot for now as a compromise? Visokor (talk) 19:09, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Software infobox for open source games

Hi everyone,

I noticed that occasionally open source games use the {{Infobox software}}, as in Freeciv for instance. Shouldn't these use {{Infobox video game}}? It lists more technical information, which might be more suitable for an open source (or open software) game, but I do not see the benefits of listing coding languages, stable releases, etc. Thoughts? soetermans. 12:44, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

A great deal of such examples were done by Shaddim and Codename Lisa, both indef blocked by the community at this time and much of it since reverted. However this particular case was switched from Infobox VG to Infobox Software back in 2007... by another indefinite blocked user. I don't have a strong feeling on it, it can be looked at case by case, but the short answer is it's a video game using a different infobox to provide fields that have been judged unnecessary or inappropriate for video game articles (on basis of MOS:VG and {{Infobox video game}}). I would say take a look at the secondary sourcing. Is it focusing on the game as game? Or as a project/development effort? The article is drenched in primary and unreliable/userg sources right now. -- ferret (talk) 12:56, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
I would tend to argue that with true open source projects, fewer of the fields in the VG infobox will be able to filled in (no publisher, rarely any individual credits, etc.) while the software infobox is more complete. You get unusual situations like Rogue (video game) which got commercially published later and thus has a VG infobox.
I would say that we should follow approach like selection of date or English variety - don't change it from what the original author had included without engaging in consensus for that change on the talk page. Masem (t) 13:14, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
@Masem If that's how we should do it, for this particular case the original infobox was the VG one. But the change over was long long ago. -- ferret (talk) 13:31, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
If the change was made yesterday and the user indef blocked, changing it back is fine, but with the age of that change, it is still better to seek consensus to change. But I do think that it is best as a page-by-page decision of which infobox gives the better "picture" of what the game is. Masem (t) 14:13, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
With the Freeciv example, what is the benefit of the software infobox? Stable/beta releases is arguably something we shouldn't cover at all, and certainly don't cover for games, stuff like the git repo is irrelevant since there's already an official link for the site on the page, the languages are irrelevant unless significantly covered by secondary sources, etc. Seems like bloat that would be solved with a video game infobox in this case. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 20:12, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Using box art images

Hi, I'm wanting to edit the Purr Pals page to include an image of the back box art, but not sure how to navigate it regarding copyright and licensing. I've posted on that talk page, but just to paste it here for ease:

I want to add this box art image to show the back cover for the game. I am aware that the game cover itself is likely copyrighted material, and I also am not sure how the licensing works being derived from GameFAQs as well. I saw that there's this page on the cover licensing rights, but am not sure how simple or nuanced it would be to add an image from another source.

Thanks :] <>< AnteaterStim (talk) 11:26, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Unless there is some significant discussion from sources about the back cover of a game, we never include back cover art. The front cover is used for identification of the game and is allowed, but that's it. --Masem (t) 13:23, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
Masem and @Zxcvbnm - got it, thank you for letting me know.
@Sergecross73 my reasoning was that it contains some information about the gameplay so would be a direct source to show, and in general would just be more data to show to 'flesh out' the article. However with reasoning given by others, yeah I won't do that - I'll just try and source the information otherwise.
Thanks! <>< AnteaterStim (talk) 19:33, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Let's say the back of the box says "Contains over 40 rad levels!" and it's the only place that info is stated, you can technically source it to the game without actually using the image in question. It's fairly rare that the back of the box has useful information (at least compared to, say, the manual) but in any event, the image itself doesn't have to be used. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:44, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Why did you want to do that? Sergecross73 msg me 14:02, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
There's pretty much no reason to ever add back cover art unless it's specifically discussed, that would go against fair use (using the minimum copyrighted images necessary). ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:21, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
MobyGames is permitted as an external link via template (which has a cover database). IgelRM (talk) 23:32, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Recurring elements in the Final Fantasy series

As in the article link, Recurring elements in the Final Fantasy series has been nominated for deletion. Bringing up here and at the Square Enix WikiProject so general and specific input can be brought. I'm not sure how to go with this, and the tone of the nom kinda threw me off speaking honestly. If it ends up being deleted, all well and good, but comments required. ProtoDrake (talk) 12:52, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Portal:Video games

I'd like to float a discussion here to the project, regarding the maintenance and continued existence of Portal:Video games. With over 110,000 incoming links, it is one of the most linked subject specific portals and garners relatively high views compared to many others. Unfortunately, "relatively" means those 110,000 links result in only 200 views a day. A few years ago, much of the portal infrastructure was revamped and automated, so that the front pages would not require constant maintenance. However, it still requires various subpages to be populated and updated. The FA and GA sections stay up-to-date because they feed off our own maintained project subpages. However, the "Selected Pictures" are fed by a subpage that doesn't seem to have been maintained since ~2008-2009. The DKY list seems to have not been updated since it was created in 2016. The "This month in video gaming" subpages appear to have gone unmaintained since ~2008-2009 as well. The "Selected Topics" haven't been updated since ~2012-2014 (This one is difficult to check as it requires looking at dozens of subpages). The "General Images" carousel is fed by just 5 pages and essentially static (Early history of video games, History of video games, History of arcade video games, History of video game consoles, Video game).

This project is, nominally, responsible for maintaining this portal. So the question is... do we want to? Are we going to? If the project has a consensus that this portal will not or is not maintained, I plan to submit an MfD for it's deletion. To be clear, this discussion itself cannot result in the portal being deleted. It's to gauge where the project sits before going to the wider community for MfD. -- ferret (talk) 15:28, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

I find portals in general to be pointless, and unmaintained ones even more so. I'd be in favor of deleting this. --PresN 17:21, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Same. I feel they're like categories as in editors greatly overestimate their use by general readership. Most people probably don't even know they exist. Sergecross73 msg me 18:53, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Seconded. I've never seen a point in portals and I wouldn't be mad if they were deprecated project-wide. Let's start by deleting this one. IceWelder 22:07, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
It is never discussed. It is not maintained. It serves no purpose. Delete. TarkusAB 19:28, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
I agree with deleting it. It's clearly not serving its intended purpose, both in terms of features (a lot has changed in video gaming since the various sections were maintained) and in terms of readership. ― novov (t c) 21:35, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Down with the portals! Revolution! per nom. Panini! • 🥪 21:48, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Keep Maybe it's running on fumes, but 300 views still means 300 people believe the Video Games Portal is an interesting thing to click on. The philosophy of Misplaced Pages is to WP:BEBOLD, which means, why not do the maintenance other people didn't? You'd be making those 300 people happier rather than saddening them that the portal is now gone. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:01, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
    Being bold is about making edits you want to make without agonizing over it, because they can always be fixed if there's an issue. It's not "do things you don't want to do and don't want to volunteer for". If no one is doing the work, it languishes and is a disservice to anyone clicking on it. People click because we have over 110,000 articles that show a highlighted navigation box saying "Go here!". It's unfortunate all we know is they clicked and not how disappointed they were. -- ferret (talk) 22:06, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
    I keep re-reading ferret's original comment trying to figure which part of it would inspire this sort of response. They're laying out a case for its overall irrelevance and deletion, and you suggest they clean it up instead? What? Sergecross73 msg me 22:20, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
I agree with the others. Never knew the portal(s) existed, and it appears that this portal is relatively unknown by even Misplaced Pages users, judging by the fact that it has only 200 views a day despite over 100,000+ pages having a link to it somewhere. Seeing that it has hardly been updated in years. unless someone intends to steward it for a long time in the future, I would delete it/mark it as historical. The Night Watch (talk) 22:14, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Delete it. Anything salvageable can be moved into the WikiProjet page instead (or perhaps Outline of video games), although I'm not sure there's even anything to salvage. (Alternatively, redirecting to Portal:Games is acceptable, with it being a hard redirect that only a DRV could reverse.) SnowFire (talk) 00:53, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

New Articles (September 18 to September 24)

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 v3.15 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 20:26, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

September 18

September 19

September 20

September 21

September 22

September 23

September 24

I'm..uh...no expert on the subject matter, but should those two similarly themed 'Pokemon articles be merged? Sergecross73 msg me 22:28, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
I translated the doujinshi incident page from ja.wiki. IMO, it's independently notable, having had a great impact on the doujinshi industry and receiving significant coverage in Japanese. If it was merged, I think it would be a little strange for the Pokémon and pornography article, which is a more general topic, to talk so extensively about a specific 1999 incident. At the moment, I think it has enough content to be its own article. Skyshifter 22:41, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Gotcha. Both are pretty short, so I just felt like the "content area" was being spread a bit thin is all. Sergecross73 msg me 23:12, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

There are some weird redirects after the creation of recent Sims 2 expansion articles: The Sims 2: Pets (old), The Sims 2: Nightlife (old), The Sims 2: Open for Business (old), The Sims 2: University (old). Should their histories be merged? --Mika1h (talk) 00:08, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Yeah... that's uh, not really the way it should have been done. Vaticidalprophet this isn't really proper. The old pages should be moved back, and then a proper histmerge done. -- ferret (talk) 00:13, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
Sure, yep -- do whatever needs doing. There's not many good non-admin ways to manage the histories here, so my intent was to move them out of the way while working on the articles (which I originally only intended to take a week or so) then request histmerges once that was done. I still expect the whole series will be done in a couple weeks or so, so I was still planning on making that req once it was finished. Having said that, to make it clear, currently the main The Sims 2 expansion packs article needs those histories pointed there for attribution, because it was made of merging those versions -- I'm not sure it'd be proper to do the histmerges right now while that article hasn't yet been rewritten? Genuinely 'not sure', to be clear.
Also, is there some way to turn off notifications for these without muting Pres? Vaticidalprophet 00:29, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
I've just added a bit to the script to not tag specific people, with your username included, so next time you won't be notified. --PresN 00:44, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
Wait, sorry, to explain the situation in further depth:
  • The Sims 2 expansion packs was created by merging all of those old versions into a single article (with no further edits to listify), so it needs their histories pointed there for attribution
  • The re-split articles have no content from the old versions
  • The main list is still "all the old versions straight down in order", though once the series itself is finished it'll be rewritten into a true list
My understanding of how attribution works is that the histories should be pointed at the list, at least currently. Is this correct? Vaticidalprophet 00:37, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
Categories: