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 editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 17:53, 2 July 2010 editRyulong (talk | contribs)218,132 edits →VG guideline and romaji← Previous edit Latest revision as of 19:18, 18 January 2025 edit undoShooterwalker (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users7,571 edits →Undertale: ReplyTag: Reply 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header|WT:VG}}
{{todo}}<!--
{{WikiProject banner shell|
{{WikiProject Video games}}
}}
{{WPVG announcements}}
{{WPVG sidebar|shortcut=WT:VG|showarchives=yes}}<!--
Archive bot settings (Each parameter must be on its own line) Archive bot settings (Each parameter must be on its own line)
-->{{User:MiszaBot/config -->{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan|type=content}} |archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 250K |maxarchivesize = 250K
|counter = 81 |counter = 177
|minthreadsleft = 4 |minthreadsleft = 4
|algo = old(10d) |algo = old(14d)
|archive = Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive %(counter)d |archive = Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive %(counter)d
}}<!--
Archive index bot settings
-->{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
|indexhere=no
|target=Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive index
|mask=Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive <#>
|mask=Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive Kirby
|mask=Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive Neopets
|mask=Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive RuneScape
|mask=Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive RuneScape/Archive <#>
|mask=Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive WikiProject Massively multiplayer online games
|mask=Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive WikiProject Massively multiplayer online games/Archive <#>
}}<!--
Archive box
-->{{archives
| box-width = 250px
| image = File:Nuvola filesystems folder games.png
| style = background-color: white; border-color: #aaa
| index = Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive index
| auto = short
| bot = MiszaBot II
| age = 12
| search = yes
}} }}
{{WPVG Sidebar}}

== Video game list names ==

For quite some time, video game lists have kind of gone by their own sort of naming conventions. Lists that are strictly video game lists and not media lists tend to be sort of a potshot at which name they use. Some examples:
*Titles: ], ], ]
*Video games: ], ], ], etc.
*Games: ], ], ], etc.
I think we need to say which standard we're using for video game lists and then we should re-name all video game lists to fit the standard. Personally I think we should use "video games" but I'm not really too hellbent on keeping that, so if someone wants to do "titles" or "games", we can discuss it. You can see all of the video game franchise lists ]. -- ] <sup><span style="font-size: 6pt">(])</span></sup> 13:44, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
:I think we should use "video games". "Games" implies that it includes video games and other types of games. "Titles" is a bit too open-ended, implying any type of entry. In cases like that, we should probably use "media". (] <sup>]</sup> 14:44, 16 June 2010 (UTC))
::I watch this page for any opinions about ]. So I am pretty neutral as far as other issues. My 1 cent is that "video games" is the correct usage. While I think "computer games" distinguishes games like ] from the old games that one saw in the video arcades at the mall, most people do no consider the PS2 et al platforms to be computers."Games" can cover sports, e.g football. ] (]) 15:15, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
:: Agreed with everything Guy said. <font face="Verdana">]&nbsp;(])</font> 05:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
:I also prefer "video games," unless the lists are expected to include other games or media. —] (]) 21:46, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
::"video games". I have lengthily voiced why before. In summary: consistency. — <small>&nbsp;]&nbsp;&nbsp;▎]</small> 22:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

As an aside, I never understood why some lists are named "List of *** media". I've never heard someone say "Disgaea: Hour of Darkness is a Disgaea medium" or "Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within is a Final Fantasy medium". I think these should be moved to "List of *** products" or something. ] (]) 07:59, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
:I believe the intended usage of "media" in this case refers to "products", as in the different types of media the franchise has been released on. For example, Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within is a Final Fantasy spin off in the film medium. (] <sup>]</sup> 14:52, 17 June 2010 (UTC))
::Media is not necessarily video games, and can include books, movies, board games and whatnot. If there is nothing other than video games, the page doesn't need the title "list of *** media" and can be "list of *** video games" instead.--<sub><small>] (])</small></sub> 20:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
:::Media lists are especially good when there aren't enough items to warrent a specific list of video games. So I think we can all agree that the consensus here is to move all of the pages to "List of XXXX video games?" -- ] <sup><span style="font-size: 6pt">(])</span></sup> 20:45, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
::::Sounds good. Maybe give it a day to see if anyone else chimes in. (] <sup>]</sup> 21:08, 17 June 2010 (UTC))
:::::I agree with "List of XXXX video games. I still don't understand how "List of XXXX media" is the best name for media articles though. The first thing that comes to mind when reading "List of Final Fantasy media" is that there is something called a "Final Fantasy medium", which might be somewhat understandable but it sounds really awkward IMO (news media, mass media, ...Final Fantasy media?). Plus according to a really technical definition a list of FF media would actually just list the physical types of media FF appears in, like this:
:::::*The FF media are cartridges, CDs, DVDs, books, etc.
:::::instead of actually listing the names of the products that these media carry:
:::::*The FF media are FF: The Spirits Within, FF: Unlimited, FF Ultimania Guide, etc.
:::::I think "Products" sounds much clearer. Should I open a new discussion section since this is kind of unrelated (er, totally unrelated actually) to the "List of XXXX video games" debate? ] (]) 07:52, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
::::::The problem with using products is that you're then expected to list out things such as action figures or other things that aren't really particularly important to the list you're trying to make. ] is at its most basic level, "tools used to store and deliver information or data." This means that comics, games, and movies all qualify while things such as action figures don't. -- ] <sup><span style="font-size: 6pt">(])</span></sup> 16:45, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
{{unindent}}
I agree with Nomander. Products implies every kind of product. Media implies every kind of medium. Video games implies only video (and computer) games. At each level it is more broad than the last. If we want to only list media such as CDs, video games, DVDs, etc. then we should use "List of XXXX digital media" and media in itself implies print and sonic (radio FE) as well as digital.]]] 19:46, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
:I had never considered that title: "digital media". Sounds like it would make compiling some lists much easier, though I worry it would encourage cherry picking. Something to think about I guess. (] <sup>]</sup> 15:28, 21 June 2010 (UTC))
::No one should be expected to list things like action figures. Action figures are not notable. We're discussing article names but let's not forget ]. There can be some short statements like "Action figures have also been released." but I don't see why anyone should list every barcode of every action figure ever released for a series. ] (]) 15:44, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
:::] covers guidelines for whether a subject is notable enough for its own article, not ]. Even, ] can be permitted in lists. That is why it is important to set the inclusion criteria of a list with its name and description. ] should be excluded from lists, but just going by WP:N can be overly restrictive. —] (]) 18:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
::::Even though notability doesn't cover lists, ] does and listing of products, which includes stuff like action figures and the like for a product originally released as a video game could easily qualify as "too broad".]]] 19:55, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
:::::I didn't notice that part in SALAT and I think that that's your interpretation of "too broad" unless I skimmed past it. You may be correct and do fine keeping a list limited to it, but I think it's easier to name them appropriately to avoid confusion. We have articles on the ], so I do not think that it's implausible for a toy to become notable. —] (]) 21:43, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
::::::Toys are a grey area and a slippery slope. Not so much for other lists, but within a single list. If you include one, you're expected to include them all. And most lines of toys based on video games are poorly documented by our reliable sources. I've avoided some media lists for the same reason: every comic and soundtrack related to a franchise is difficult to track down.
::::::Regardless, I believe Ost has the right idea. Properly define a list's scope from the start, and the process should avoid most pitfalls. (] <sup>]</sup> 14:37, 22 June 2010 (UTC))
::So it looks like there's consensus to move them to "list of xxxxx video games"-- for featured lists, do we have to move anything special or do any odd edits? I'm not too experienced with this whole moving business. -- ] <sup><span style="font-size: 6pt">(])</span></sup> 00:29, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
:::These, yes. I think (and perhaps a new section down at the bottom to garner renewed interest) a discussion on some appropriate types of list qualifiers could be added to the guideline. This wouldn't be all-encompassing, but might be stuff like discouraging (game) and use (media) only if you intend it to be for all forms, including print.]]] 23:43, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
:::Featured lists are a good place to start, but every list should follow the same convention to avoid further confusion. (] <sup>]</sup> 17:06, 28 June 2010 (UTC))

== TITLE Subtitle ==

I think we should establish a convention for ''some'' titles and subtitles, namely those that are written as "TITLE Subtitle" by the official sources. It's a recurring problem for some foreign games (Japanese especially). Take ] for instance. There are three different spellings:
*''KINGDOM HEARTS Birth by Sleep'' (official sources)
*''Kingdom Hearts Birth by Sleep'' (Misplaced Pages)
*''Kingdom Hearts: Birth by Sleep'' (gaming websites)
As you can see, official sources distinguish the title and the subtitle by writing the former in all caps and the latter normally. This distinction disappears on Misplaced Pages due to our guidelines on capital letters (''KINGDOM HEARTS Birth by Sleep'' becomes ''Kingdom Hearts Birth by Sleep''). Most review gaming websites use a comma to separate the title from the subtitle. Personally I think we should use a comma too. Some might think this comma is "not official" but I believe it's more a matter of convention than officialty. Official sources tell the reader where the title ends and where the subtitle starts with caps, and we should give this same information in some way, whatever way it is.

It would be different if the official sources did ''not'' convey any difference between the title and the subtitle. For instance ] is always written as ''Super Mario Galaxy'' and not ''SUPER MARIO Galaxy'', and so we should not use ''Super Mario: Galaxy'' in that case.

Thoughts? ] (]) 08:48, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
:Per ], Jonathan makes a good argument for ''Birth by Sleep''. IGN consistently labels it without the colon:. GameSpot does as well:. A few other sites use the colon too: and . Though I'm a little hesitant of such a switch when the game isn't even out in English-speaking regions yet.
:Regardless, the title without the colon should still be in the lead to avoid confusion. Something like "'''''Kingdom Hearts Birth by Sleep''''' (also known as '''''Kingdom Hearts: Birth by Sleep''''')". Official titles should be in the article for some level of factual accuracy. (] <sup>]</sup> 15:20, 17 June 2010 (UTC))
::] - all of them should use proper captialization unless they are acronyms which are widely used. So no matter what is used, we would always use '''Kingdom Hearts''' not KINGDOM HEARTS. As to the colon or not, there doesn't seem to be any consensus among the guidelines.]]] 16:59, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
:::Just use the colon, it makes it clearer and easier to understand where the subtitle starts. It does not really change anything else. GameSpot's and whatnot usually don't care enough to pay attention to such details. — <small>&nbsp;]&nbsp;&nbsp;▎]</small> 17:30, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
::::I second the motion to use a colon for subtitles. The lack of a colon is simply a design decision, and that doesn't make it any less of a subtitle.--<sub><small>] (])</small></sub> 20:20, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
:::::Not to pile on here but I think using the colon for these kind of things is the way to go. I think usually we should defer to what most websites refer to the game as for specific punctuation notes. -- ] <sup><span style="font-size: 6pt">(])</span></sup> 20:46, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
::::::On a side note- I wish more members piled on in discussions. Consensus normally builds faster when people voice opinions, even if it's a simple agreement. (] <sup>]</sup> 21:06, 17 June 2010 (UTC))
:::::::I don't think that asking people to contribute on the ] talkpage will do any good... if they aren't posting here chances are they might not be checking in here either. -- ] <sup><span style="font-size: 6pt">(])</span></sup> 21:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
:::::::On that note, I agree with using a colon—and I admittedly tend not to post if I agree with the direction that consensus is trending. I also didn't speak up because we tend to use what sources say, I'm not sure if introducing the colon is against ] because of the sources, and I'm not familiar with international approaches to subtitling. But personally, I see the colon as a convention to separate the title and the subtitle. —] (]) 21:35, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

::::::::I think WP:COMMONNAME is flawed in the sense that common english name would be difficult to find if the name originates from another language. Official names are the best as titled, and then mention the common name as a redirect or mentioned in the beginning of the article.] (]) 00:21, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
:::::::::There are exceptions, but generally you have an uphill battle if an official english name exists. You have to show how independant RSes use the non-English name (and make cetain you are ] or it will likely backfire on you.]]] 02:59, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

:::::::::I could only see that if there was more than one official English name, which in that case it would have to be the most official common English name. i simply don't see it as a big argument. Either way, the colon should be placed anyways as the rest of the kh games with subtitles that have/will be released in english territories] (]) 18:17, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

What about ]? The correct title of the article should be ''Fire Emblem Shin Monshō no Nazo ~Hikari to Kage no Eiyū~''. ] (]) 08:06, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

== Could someone help? ==

Hi. Could someone give their two cents about this situation? There is a debate about what the ] article should be called. One side claims that Kefka Palazzo is his official English name, and the other side (me) claims that Palazzo is only his Japanese surname and has never appeared in English materials. I will seperate my description in two sections, a "Personal attacks" and a "The actual arguments used" sections to try to provide an objective account of what is happening.
;The personal attacks
*Some time ago, I asked a question about the name of an article at . Ten days later, since there was no answer, I decided to correct the article's name, being ] as recommended by Misplaced Pages guidelines.
*Then, out of nowhere, someone reverts my edit, says it was "" they've ever seen on Misplaced Pages.
*I then proceed to revert the revert, calling the previous user . Admitedly I could have avoided using that term and I agree that I'm a bit guilty here. I also tell him his comment was .
*A third user chimes in and reverts, saying , even though I did open a discussion on the talk page and only acted after ten days had passed without any answer.
*I then politely to explain himself, even putting a "Thanks" in advance at the end of my post.
*Meanwhile, the second user calls me and calls my actions and .
*And they also called my initial article name change "hasty" several times, even though, again, I opened a discussion first and only acted ten days later after no reply had been given to it.
;The actual arguments
*The second and third users claim that the full name "Kefka Palazzo" appears in Dissidia.
*I claim that the full name "Kefka Palazzo" doesn't appear in Dissidia. Only "Kefka" seems to appear.
Thoughts? ] (]) 11:53, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
:*If the personal attacks are an issue, I would take it to ]. --] (]) 22:55, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
::I'd recommend ] before heading to dispute resolution, personally. An informal talk with the idea of calming things down from there would be more ideal. -- ] (]) 23:07, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

The personal attacks are nonsense, you've been just as rude as me and Kung Fu Man so don't try and act the victim. Yes my "idiot" comment was a bit far, but to be perfectly blunt, your actions ''were'' uneducated and foolish. You are wrong, plain and simple. Don't say it to be mean, I say it because it is the truth. You used faulty logic to support your stance, citing that the credits and website don't mention his full name, when ''no one'' has their last name given in either place. His full name ''is'' given as Kefka Palazzo in Dissidia's museum, I'll even snap a picture of it if you don't believe me. Final word: his last name is English canon as well, drop it and move on. ] (]) 06:13, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
:Re-read my post. I'm not acting like a victim, I even said I did call you a troll once and shouldn't have done so. However, again, I politely asked a question first, waited '''ten days''' without any answer, and only acted then based on my knowledge. You then suddenly jumped in and said it was the "dumbest decision ever". I then called you a troll once, and you proceeded to call me idiot and stuff multiple times in what I guess is retaliation. Asking a question before doing something and waiting ten days to act (which is what I did despite what Kung Fu Man claims) is not dumb, it's what Misplaced Pages recommands (]). Next time I guess I'll try reading your mind or call a seer or something instead of waiting ten days to get a reply. ] (]) 07:18, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
::You make a big deal about waiting ten days for a reply. I frankly don't care if you wait ten months before making the edit. It doesn't change the fact your decision was ill-informed and foolish because you didn't do enough research before making a decision. By that logic, any proposed edit becomes valid if no one replies to the proposition. Doesn't work that way, your proposal was misinformed and you made a dumb decision. Being bold is not a blanket excuse to edit however you like, use some common sense, do some research and don't act on your own. If you didn't get a reply after ten days, why not come here? If you had come here before instead of waiting for this mess you could have saved everyone a lot of hassle. Moving the page ''was'' very stupid, it doesn't matter how long you waited you were ''wrong'', and now are whining about this ordeal for no real reason. In either case its over now, so as I said drop it and move on. ] (]) 08:49, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Since the edit war looks fairly fresh, I suggest both sides of the disagreement ] for a while. Errors were made on both sides; however, it is time to move past them. After a few days, revisit the issue on the article's talk page and ''finish'' the discussion before any action is taken. Such actions without consensus among the involved parties can be construed as violations of Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines, which in turn can lead to blocks (regardless of who is right and wrong).<br>In the future, please keep ] and ] in mind. (] <sup>]</sup> 14:24, 22 June 2010 (UTC))
:I agree with Guyinblack25 above. Both sides made mistakes in handling this dispute, and I similarly recommend both sides back off for a bit and then return with cooler heads. Sometimes discussions start up weeks ''after'' its start after some inactivity, though that does not happen often. We have the ] cycle for a reason in which '''bold''' edits can be challenged; we just need to get the "discuss" portion right. –] 14:45, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
::Honestly I don't think you guys get it. He says Kefka's last name is not mentioned in English materials. He is incorrect. The debate is over, there is no more discussion to be had, so yes I had planned to back off because the discussion is over. ] (]) 15:39, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
:::We do get it Clawed. However, the factual accuracy of the discussion has no bearing on Misplaced Pages's civility policy. (] <sup>]</sup> 17:24, 22 June 2010 (UTC))
Can I just offer a quick, fast ending to this hogwash? Does someone have the manual or game on hand and a camera or scanner? If so just upload a shot/scan showing it saying his full name and call it a day. I lack all three at the moment, and didn't even realize there *was* a discussion on that talk page that long. But that's going to be the simplest way to resolve this bull without people making themselves look silly in the long run.


== Page for ]? ==
Sheesh.--] (]) 15:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
:Agreed. This matter can be quickly and easily resolved. But a discussion between the involved the parties is still recommended to mend fences and prevent further disputes related to the matter. (] <sup>]</sup> 17:24, 22 June 2010 (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)
== Naming conflict ==
: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)
:I agree. @], I might have a crack at drafting too to help and see if in that process I can generate good sourcing. The ] argument is a little funny to me because we're talking about a very well-covered, award-nominated expansion to one of the biggest games of the past decade. If we're honestly saying the copious amount of coverage out there in terms of its gameplay additions, potential development history, reviews and discourse around its award eligibility is not independently notable or preferable, I would honestly say that the vast majority of expansion articles in this WP should be merged immediately. ] (]) 03:29, 4 January 2025 (UTC)


== Your Wikiproject Video Games New Years Resolution ==
Let's assume there is a Russian video game named ''Mordal Wombat'' featuring Shaolin monks. Main hero of this game is a fictional Chinese man called "Лю Кан" (romanization: ''Lyu Kan''). According to our transliteration rules, direct romanization of these Russian letters is ''Lju Kan'' or ''Lyu Kan''. However, if this monk was a real Chinese person with a real name, it would be written as "Liu Kang" according to the rules of Chinese romanization (Chinese names are romanized with ]). Actually, Liu Kang and ''Lyu Kan'' are one Chinese name. In the real world they are just two analogues of the same thing, Romanized and Cyrillic spelling respectively. However, we are dealing with a fictional character. How, then, to name an English article about this character? Should we stick to his fictional nationality or to direct romanization of Russian letters? What Misplaced Pages rules say on this matter? Thank you. :) --<span style="font:89% trebuchet ms; text-transform:uppercase;"> ].</span> 18:10, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
]
:Mordal Wombat? That sounds a lot like Mortal Kombat, but that is definitely no a part of the series. Where exactly are you seeing this conflict? Sincerely ] (]) 02:57, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm aware that I recently did a "non-productive post" above (as my haters call them) but I thought this would be fun. After all, who ''doesn't'' love an icebreaker? I don't!
:: "Let's assume" means "There is no such game really". ) Just a hypothetical case. --<span style="font:89% trebuchet ms; text-transform:uppercase;"> ].</span> 10:15, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
::Then you use ], the name that appears more often. Sincerely ] (]) 21:46, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
::: So, doesn't fictional nationality truly matter? --<span style="font:89% trebuchet ms; text-transform:uppercase;"> ].</span> 11:06, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
::::Provided there's proper sourcing, you can include the proper national name in the article. But the article name should use the most common name, which should also be included in the lead of the article. Common names are used to aid in finding the article and reduce confusion. It's the same reason we use ] rather than ]. Technicalities can cause confusion among laymen. (] <sup>]</sup> 15:16, 21 June 2010 (UTC))
::::: Thanks! --<span style="font:89% trebuchet ms; text-transform:uppercase;"> ].</span> 11:05, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


What's your Misplaced Pages-related resolution for 2025? '''What new projects, achievements, or goals do you want to get done in the new year?''' Then we can look back and see both the people who conquered their goals and the people we should leave behind for 2026.
Dear Eng-Wiki users! This girl think that we (in Russian Wiki) should use nonexistent names of Mortal Kombat characters, resorting to transliteration from Japanese, Chinese, Korean, etc. (believing that these characters are persons of these nationalities). However, Mortal Kombat is a USA game series, and in territory of Russia this series extends in English too. It means that these characters are known only under English names for Russian people. But there is a conflict in Ru-Wiki with this girl and some people who believe that we should use Japanese/Chinese/Korean transliteration of these names, according to prospective origin of characters. I think we should not. We don't know these characters under Japanese, etc. names, but we know them only in English. There is many people who believe the same as me, but one of Japan fans has closed this discussion, having persuaded one of admins to sum up discussion in favour of the Japanese names. Now he refuses to open discussion and to discuss it with new people. Though it is many people against this decision, and they have challenged it. Even some other admins believe that my position is correct.
We, certainly, should use English transliteration? Seems that it is necessary to call Jimbo... :D --] (]) 08:52, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


* 2024 was a pretty lame work year for me. I'm going to get ] to GA in 2025, I promise. I'm certain one year is enough cushion for me to actually do something. ] <span style="color:#F40">•</span> ] 04:04, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
P.S. Moreover, there is a reliable source in Russia - it's a game magazine named "World of Fantastic". This magazine use English-translated names too! It supports my position even more. --] (]) 08:59, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
* I'm hoping to finally get '']'' to GA this year. ] (]) 04:19, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
:On the English Misplaced Pages, we try to use the most commonly known name of a subject. The common name should be the article title, and used most frequently in the article prose. If there are reliable sources that mention national names, then there is an argument to include it. But I would not mention a national name more than once. I think that would confuse things.
* Outside real-world stuff, finish bringing the '']/Project Zero'' series and its entries to GA status (don't think I'll try for a GT as my last two GTs were very neatly stalled by the sudden creation of an article with insisted inclusion) --] (]) 07:53, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
:I have no idea what the ] says, but I think that what ever that pages says should apply. However, I don't think we should dictate guidelines on other Wikipedias any more than others should dictate our guidelines. Friendly suggestions back and worth seem fine though. :-) (] <sup>]</sup> 14:20, 30 June 2010 (UTC))
* I don't have nearly as much time as I had during the pandemic. But I'd like to take a couple more articles to GA or FA. Areas I'm still interested in: historic games, historic game developers/studios, and anything related to the ] task force. ] is next on my docket. I'd also like to keep encouraging other peoples' good work, and continue discussions about how to adapt to the collapse of quality video game journalism. ] (]) 18:12, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:: This page only says that we should use most common names, and that rules of articles about persons don't concern to characters. Unfortunately, some users have begun holywar because of it. Even admins can not help us. --] (]) 18:10, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
* Keep expanding the quality coverage of ], both by removing and merging superfluous content, and by improving the quality of pre-existing articles and bringing them to Good and Featured status. Hoping to get at least one or two more of the species lists up to FL this year, though I'll hopefully complete more than that. ''] Considerer:'' ''']''' (]) (]) 00:37, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:::If things have gotten that bad, Admins are ''suppose'' to jump in. They should restrict editing to the impacted pages if things are unmanageable. (] <sup>]</sup> 20:35, 30 June 2010 (UTC))
* The music world hasn't been holding my interest lately, so I'm planning on continuing to focus on WP:VG related stuff. I plan on splitting my time between more retro stuff (90s ] stuff like the ] games) and new stuff (like everything ] once that's finally revealed.) ] ] 16:40, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:::: One of administrators has summed up discussion in favour of the East names, but his "decision" was challenged by me and my side was supported by many people. We have resulted a lot of arguments and the facts, and rules are on our side, but the group of users persistently tries to close discussion in their favour and not to allow it to continue. Administrators avoid this discussion. --] (]) 20:59, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
* I know I'm late to the party, but it would be nice if '']'' passed FAC; I'm planning to take it to TFA for its 10th anniversary. 💽 ] 💽 🌹 ⚧ <sup>(''']''')</sup> 11:36, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::If the administrators are not dealing with the issue, then I'm not sure what help we can offer. We would normally take the issue to ], which apparently has a ]. (] <sup>]</sup> 15:04, 2 July 2010 (UTC))


== ] == == Gameplay of Pokemon ==


I was relieved to see such as strong consensus at ]. It's not that we can't find sources, but that it duplicates the same types of content you'd see at ]. With that said, I wanted to check if anyone felt similarly about ] or ]. ] (]) 18:17, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
] is a Japan-only release and because of that when ] was released in the West it was renamed simply as King's Field. And when ] was released in the West it became King's Field II.


:I'm generally against any of these gameplay/reception/awards type article spin outs. These two examples are much better written and sourced than the ''Pokemon'' was, but I'm still not certain a separate article is required... ] ] 19:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
According to the guidelines we should use the title of the English language release. At least in the Final Fantasy series the misleadingly titled games were renamed to back to their original titles but these games never had re-releases. So, should they be moved to their Western titles or leave as it is to reduce confusion? --] (]) 20:21, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
::At first blush looking at the above, I'd lean towards saying "no" to standalone articles. From base principles it's highly unlikely the ''gameplay'' of a game is notable ''independent'' of the coverage of the game itself (or a lot of the coverage leans into ]-type stuff) but also I don't see where the level of coverage makes sense for a general encyclopedia. I don't need a blow-by-blow of all the quest types in ''WoW'', for example. ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 19:57, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:My first impulse is to put a hatnote on the first game; something like "For the game released in the US as ''King's Field'', see ]". ] (]) 00:36, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
::I'd agree. The guidelines are all well and nice, but sometimes you have to bend the rules in favor of common sense. After all, if you put KF2 at King's Field, then what are you going to name the first game's article? King's Field 0? King's Field (Japan)? Either one is more confusing than just naming it according to the original names and putting a note that they were renamed later. --''']]''' 00:50, 20 June 2010 (UTC) :::Agreed. I was surprised someone felt the need for the ''Dragon Quest'' spinout too. They're fine games, but they're pretty straightforward, ] type games. ] ] 20:31, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Theoretically you could use King's Field and another article King's Field I. It does cause a lot of mess though with redirecting. Might also want to head over to ] as they may have a better solution.]]] 05:37, 20 June 2010 (UTC) ::::Looks like someone wrote it in 2010 and it hasn't gotten much more than 50 edits of any kind in the 15 years since. --''']]''' 20:36, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:I do believe those are probably better off merged/redirected back to the target. I'm not seeing much in the way of a valid split-out rationale for these that would indicate their gameplay is standalone notable. ''] Considerer:'' ''']''' (]) (]) 00:55, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Or you could just disambiguate them as "King's Field (**** video game)" and "King's Field (**** video game), however, I think leaving them in their Japanese order is better.--<sub><small>] (])</small></sub> 16:59, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
:] devotes a ton of space/text to covering every expansion. The rest of it is a more detailed version of ]. It's possible to retool the former as a ] if we decide that's something we want. Otherwise, it seems to suffer the same issues as the rest of the articles at ]. ] (]) 22:32, 10 January 2025 (UTC)


It kind of echoes my feelings on ]. So much of it is redundant to what's already present at ], and it feels like it'd be better served being merged back into it, or have the EarthBound 64 stuff expanded upon. - ] (]) 20:06, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
== ] ==
:Personally, I am very fond of these types of articles and the amount of depth they lend to angles on these works. "Gameplay of" articles do tend to be terrible to source tho, and the "Gameplay of ''Pokémon''" article never reached the quality I would hope for it. "Gameplay of ''Dragon Quest''" is particularly odd to me, as it hardly explains mechanics unique to the series and it's pretty short. At least ''Pokémon'' has a swath of fairly unique mechanics that I believe would be really useful to describe in-depth. Perhaps it'd be more of a Wikibooks kind of deal tho, if that project ever worked out. ~] (]) 09:43, 3 January 2025 (UTC)


*I'll defend ] as save for a few areas, I've made sure it is sourced to reliable secondary sources talking about these gameplay elements to a reasonable depth (of course, most of the that came from the period while there was attention with the Overwatch League and helping viewers understand rules); it also helps alleviate size issues. I consider it compariable to ] which due to similar attention via tourneys has had its rules/gameplay evaluated in depth. For those reasons, I think ] is a reasonably fair split from the main WoW article (which covers more of how big and significant it is to the industry) and just needs a bit more sourcing to make it better. But key on these is the use of secondary sources to show that the gameplay or rules have been discussed beyond simple coverage of the whole game itself. The Pokemon gameplay article had problems with very little sourcing along those lines (though you'd think that should be possible with how big the franchise is). The Dragon Quest case, that seems rather more difficult given the niche of JRPGs. (Common features of JRPGs and CRPGs in general, however, are absolutely fair game in the genre articles). ] (]) 14:00, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
I am here to ask if anyone is willing to work on ''Ninja Gaiden''. It is currently GA status, as well as A-class status. However, I found problems and am willing to contest its status. When I asked the editor, ], he said that he doesn't really care for it anymore and I should ask if anyone should take the job of working on it. So, before I do the GAR, does anyone want to take the helm? ] (]) 00:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
:Unfortunately, I am only interested in the 2-D ''Ninja Gaiden'' games. That reminds me that I need to get to '']'' shortly, to finish off cleaning and polishing the NES trilogy articles. –] 02:46, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
::Speaking of them, I honestly believe that Sigmas 1 and 2 need to be merged. - ] ] ] 04:18, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
:::I have started the GAR. So if anyone wants to fixs the problems, here's the ]. ] (]) 22:19, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


== Simon Belmont == === Live service games ===


I decided to take ] to AFD based on what appears to be a consensus here. The problem is that "X series" and "Gameplay of X series" have the same scope, just with more ] detail. Masem brought up some points about splitting the gameplay from the Blizzard games, and while I disagree, I think it's worth discussing. I disagree that "Gameplay of WoW" is any less of a redundant fork. But I do see how these games are actually multiple releases and updates over several years. Despite World of Warcraft not being a game series, its history is longer than many game series, with more ] than many series. And yet it doesn't have a "series" article separate from the original release.
I think Simon Belmont, with all the notability he's been getting since he first appeared, I believe he should have his own article. If so, be happy if someone could start one and I'd be happy to help contribute to it. --] (]) 09:34, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
:You can start one yourself in your Sandbox and then move it to the mainspace when it has reached a decent standard. - ] (]) 08:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


TLDR: "Gameplay of X series" is redundant with "X series", but long-running live service games might have several expansions/updates without having a separate series article. Is there a way to rename / move these article titles to improve their scope and viability? ] (]) 17:49, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
== DS Lite and DSi XL articles to be merged ==
:In my mind, the main and perhaps only reason one would ever write a "gameplay of X" article, is when that game or series is played competitively. In such cases, the gameplay is very important separately from the games as commercial products or pieces of art on their own. Graphics and music, development and reception, it all falls away as irrelevant in that field, and you get a fairly separate topic to describe. I don't know if this really makes sense with live-service games. I wouldn't create "Gameplay of Fortnite", I think I would create "History of Fortnite" instead, as this would still be about the product as a whole, not just about its gameplay. ~] (]) 09:28, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
::It really depends on the live-service game. I don't think that in terms of any specific mode of Fortnite like Battle Royale has changed significantly over the years, but that there are gameplay elements that come and go during its seasons, so an article here like ] makes sense (in addition to the fact this is also documented in reliable sources). Whereas with Destiny 2, there are significant lasting changes with most of its expansions (also covered by sources) so in that case, the individual expansions serve this (Though in that case, most of those due need a trim).
::Separately, because of how Fortnite transitioned from a single idea to Battle Royale to a metaverse platform, the main Fortnite article is more a history of the product and less about the gameplay changes. ] (]) 13:05, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:::My first reaction to @] and @] is that we might have a separate article for long-standing games with lots of post-release support. I agree that "History of Fortnite" or "Fortnite seasonal events" is a better article/scope than Gameplay of Fortnite. Maplestrip focuses more on competitive games, which is a valid point. I'd say there's a big overlap between competitive games and games-as-service, or other forms of post-release support.
:::I still feel strongly that "Gameplay of X" is too redundant in scope. But a game with lots of post-release support over many years, like Fortnite or even WoW, might still deserve an additional article to document its evolution. Maybe "List of X expansions" or "List of X updates" or "List of X special events"? I'd be a little nervous about ] here, but for a game with a decade of history and lots of discourse about balance and updates, it's in the right direction. The spirit of my suggestion is supposed to be similar to ], without setting a precedent that every game gets such a list. ] (]) 15:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Key is how reliable sources treat the live service aspect of the game. WOW, Destiny 2, Fortnite, Overwatch -- all have gotten reasonably good coverage of how the game changes, whereas Apex Legends or Valorant may have had that at the start but has significantly waned relative to these.<span id="Masem:1736024145240:Wikipedia_talkFTTCLNWikiProject_Video_games" class="FTTCmt"> —&nbsp;] (]) 20:55, 4 January 2025 (UTC)</span>
:::::What do you think is a better title for these types of articles? The problem with ] is nearly any notable game would also have secondary sources that cover the gameplay of the game, making it really subjective if we should have one article or two. ] (]) 16:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::"List of X seasons", "List of X seasonal events", or "X seasons" or "X seasonal events", the latter if there are sources that broadly discuss the games seasonal structure. ] (]) 16:32, 6 January 2025 (UTC)


== Translation help ==
If anyone is interested, ] and ] have ongoing discussions on their talk pages about merging DS Lite and DSi XL. ] 22:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
:The article on the original DSi is pretty much complete. If the merge does occur, to anyone that wants to maintain a high level of completeness, there is not a lot to write about on the DSi XL. ] 18:27, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


Hello, I am writing here to request help with some source title translations. I am currently working on implementing the suggestion on the ] for ] and one of the suggestions is for the non-English sources to have translated titles. I currently have all the non-English sources on ]; containing 28 Japanese sources, 3 Spanish sources, 1 Finnish source, 1 French source, 1 Brazilian Portuguese source and 1 Indonesian source. If anyone is able to provide help with this that would be very much appreciated. Hope to hear back, ]] 12:07, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
== ] ==


== ] source question. ==
I'm sure everyone can see ] from the to-do list, but it's inactive and I don't want it to get closed because of that. Whoever has time to come, please do. ] (]) 18:29, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


Hi. So, I want some confirmation and possible discussion regarding edits made last year to ], ], and the ]. A LOT of wordy information was added by {{u|ERAGON}} citing a book called "''The Making of Tomb Raider''" by someone called Daryl Baxter. IMO, it seemed to me to simply repeat stuff that was already present. I did edits on the OG game's article to incorporate the info on an assumption of good faith (I was in a bad mood that day, explanation for some edits that appeared on TR2's article).
*Currently pursuing a second copyeditor per FAC comments almost exclusively from ]. ] (]) 15:27, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


My questions are: is this book a reliable source of development information, and if so could the information be incorporated into the articles in a less wordy way? I don't want to do anything on my own beyond what I already did on the OG game. ] (]) 17:52, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
== GameZone.com ==


:Hi ProtoDrake. I would say that the book is a reliable source; it is a series of interview transcripts between Baxter and former Core Design staffers. Outside of the book he has interviewed people from the team before for podcasts; there's one of those available . If things are too wordy we can of course edit down. ] (]) 10:21, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
There seems to be an emerging issue with ] edits. I've had a ] with a user about it, back in March, (which resulted in ] from the Editor in chief), but I've noticed a resurgence in the (I'm only aware of edits to pages on my watchlist, there may be more). The edits all take the same form - the paragraph starts with "GameZone" and mentions the journalist's name and the type of content in the first line, continuing with a long paragraph mainly consisting of direct quotes from the article, with a bare ref to the appropriate article at the end. This, and that the accounts all seem to be single-purpose, suggests there's something more than just fans of the site adding it as a source. I'm aware GameZone is ] as a reliable source (though all the evidence is literary based), just wondering if action should be taken. Thanks! ]]] 12:27, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
:It looks marginally usable. No mistake though - its ] on one reviewer's words, barely ], and excessively long. It should not be pure ]s, only useful information should be kept, possibly something that can be used later in development/reception section when the games come out. I suggest action taken is a proper edit of these, and notification of user(s) about this discussion. — <small>&nbsp;]&nbsp;&nbsp;▎]</small> 13:43, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
::I use GameZone quite a bit when it comes to the older racing games I sometimes write about-- often, it's one of the few sources that write about the games and I really do consider the website reliable. That said, there is no excuse for someone who works at GameZone.com to be pushing links when they're only marginally relevant. I agree with Hellknowz in that these quotes should not be allowed and that maybe we have a ] problem here. -- ] <sup><span style="font-size: 6pt">(])</span></sup> 13:49, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
:::GameZone is certainly ] a reliable source, it is merely a matter of cutting down the text walls into usable information relevant to the article. かんぱい！ ] (]) 14:48, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
:Just want to point out the concern I have is that there's a conceited attempt to add GameZone.com content, not that the content or ref may be not be reliable (side issue). Thanks! ]]] 15:54, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


== Good article reassessment for ] ==
All of the writing looks incredibly similar between accounts. Perhaps a sockpuppet investigation is in order? --] (]) 15:09, 25 June 2010 (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. ] (]) 01:03, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
:Agreed. I remember Falcon's original report to ANI, which didn't seem to get much attention, and being very disappointed that a staff member of GameZone felt it necessary to spam WP (IIRC they stated that GameZone wasn't being used) as well as the tone of the editor's email. GameZone is used on WP, Like Nomader I've cited it many times myself, often for more obscure games (like the ''Geneforge'' series for instance). GameSpot and IGN have Alexa scores of 2**, GameZone is 8***, it's no real wonder that it isn't used in the same fashion. This might be a well-meaning member of GZ's community, or it may be another attempt to increase GZ's presence on WP, but those accounts are obviously sockpuppets or working in concert and shouldn't be emboldened, the more it continues the more poorly it will reflect on the site itself, which would be a shame. ]] 22:42, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
::Hmm, the GameZone staff member who was the focus of the original report before stopping again on the 2nd of June. This is definitely no coincidence. ]] 23:24, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
:::I really think this should be addressed-- maybe someone could send an e-mail to the GameZone staff about it? I really appreciate their reviews of some of the older Game Boy Advance games I sometimes write about, and adding random quotes and reviews to articles is not the way for them to increase their reputation. This kind of behavior just can't be tolerated. -- ] <sup><span style="font-size: 6pt">(])</span></sup> 23:29, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
::::If nobody else does anything I'll take this to SPI, or ANI, or somewhere (not that I know what the hell I'm doing, same old).. don't intend to let misguided actions get in the way of our ability to use GameZone as a useful source and for the site to legitimately gain traffic through being used on WP. ]] 10:23, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
::::(PS not sure if it would be advisable to contact GameZone off-wiki, without checkuser proof or whatever they may think we're being confrontational or trying to victimize one of their staff/fans, which we're not so again it would be a real shame to stir up that hornets' nest). ]] 10:26, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
:::::Point taken, I completely agree. However I really don't think we need to worry about it too much. I think we should just monitor his edits in the future as it seems he hasn't edited any articles since June 2nd. If he pops up again we should address it here and then report the problem to the necessary boards. -- ] <sup><span style="font-size: 6pt">(])</span></sup> 04:05, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
::::::Sorry, I'm being clear as mud as per usual. What I mean is that it's fishy that the GameZone writer had a couple more stabs at it then stopped editing, only for a sock drawer to fly open a few weeks later. Even if it isn't the same editor, there's definitely some socking or meatpuppetry going on with the other accounts. I'll try and figure out ] now.. ]] 15:17, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
:::::::I wouldn't conclusively say that they're all sockpuppets (though I suppose if they're all editing from a company IP, it's the same difference?), but there's definitely something dodgy going on. SPI's probably the best place for it (I think?). Thanks! ]]] 14:16, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


== Space Invaders games again == == Unofficially dead Nicalis game ==
On the ] page, we've had ''90s Super GP'' listed for twelve years. There has been no official word from Nicalis since 2015, with only subtle changes, (like the title itself), made. It's still listed on the Nicalis website, but having been in the industry myself, I can attest that the creator is no longer involved and the last expo presence or even rumored stages of development were made in 2019. Do we even list this vaporware at this juncture? ''']'''<sub>&nbsp;(]•])</sub> 00:13, 12 January 2025 (UTC)


:Only if a reliable source calls it vaporware (or cancelled.) I understand your concern in this instance, but if we let editors make this call personally, then we get these overzealous/pessimistic editors declaring games like '']'' or '']'' as vaporware or cancelled games. ] ] 01:29, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
This is a follow up to a previous discussion: ].


::{{Reply|Sergecross73}} It's good to see you again, Sergecross73. We have a bunch of articles like that pragmatically ask the question, "What the hell happened to '90s Super GP," but none that explicitly calling it "vaporware" or "cancelled". I'd compare it to Half-Life 2: Episode Three, except Valve recently acknowledged that it wasn't going to happen. ''']'''<sub>&nbsp;(]•])</sub> 02:19, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
Per the comments made during the last thread, I redirected the articles to ] and used the content and sources to expand the list. The remaining articles, some of which can probably remain separate, are:
:::This intrigued me, so I made the article at ].
{{Div col|cols=2}}
:::From what I saw, it's indeed vaporware but not officially cancelled. Such games can resurrect at any point, and the game was even referenced in a subsequent game by that developer. Unless it sees a full cancellation it should be listed as such. BTW, the Nintendo Life article does say it is in "development hell", akin to vaporware. ] (]) 06:06, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
* ] – Probably notable
::::{{Reply|Zxcvbnm}} Wow, great work! It certainly is one of the most infamous cases of both predatory indie publisher practices and development hell. There's nothing saying it won't ever be released, so maybe we'll eventually see it pushed out eventually? ''']'''<sub>&nbsp;(]•])</sub> 20:08, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
* ] – Probably notable
::::after all, we got ]... ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 05:59, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
* ] – Probably notable
* ] – Not notable
* ] – Probably notable
* ] – Not sure
* ] – Probably not notable
{{Div col end}}


== Good article reassessment for ] ==
To the point, I have questions I hope others can help with.
] 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. 💽 ] 💽 🌹 ⚧ <sup>(''']''')</sup> 14:16, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
*]: I'm unsure about one of only the reliable-looking I could find for it. The website is ], but I've never used it before and thought others could chime in on its reliability.
*Should ] and ] be redirected as well? I think the prize game should be redirected, but I'm unsure about the Pepsi game. I know I've seen sources here and there, but I don't recall anything substantial about the development.
Any thoughts? (] <sup>]</sup> 16:15, 23 June 2010 (UTC))
:Is ''Pepsi Invaders'' the first ]? It and ] have the same release year in the article on the subject, so that may provide some notability. Tangentially related, is the unsourced sentence {{xt|This is the first ever home video game to feature product placement advertising in the game itself--Pizza Hut logos to be exact.}} from ] untrue or in need of wording to exclude advergames? —] (]) 17:17, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
::I don't know if it is the first or not. Regardless, I've found little outside the number of copies produced, where it was released, its rarity, and who programmed it. Any notability there is spares in my opinion since it's a derivative of the original Space Invaders. (] <sup>]</sup> 18:21, 23 June 2010 (UTC))
:::The title has Google hits, but most sources don't look reliable for Misplaced Pages. I also tend to agree that the sparse coverage lends itself to a merge, since if it isn't ] notable. —] (]) 18:48, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
::::If you guys want, I can track down the programmer and do a full interview on the development etc. and publish it. I'm borderline on merging or not merging, as it's kind of small to remain on it's own. But it is also notable on it's own as an advertisement game and for it's collectibility. --] (]) 19:36, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
:::::If we can get a developer interview, I'd put the time in the article. A reception/legacy section shouldn't be too difficult to piece together. But a development section just doesn't seem possible right now. (] <sup>]</sup> 19:45, 23 June 2010 (UTC))


== Can anyone finish this draft about a Chinese video game franchise? ==
Any word on the reliability of this ] ? (] <sup>]</sup> 14:25, 24 June 2010 (UTC))
:Looks like a direct reprinting of a Taito press release. --] (]) 23:09, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
::Yeah. But I couldn't find the original press release from Taito or the developer. I posted at ] to get further opinions. (] <sup>]</sup> 17:01, 28 June 2010 (UTC))


]. Abandoned by the student creator, since the course finished. We have three very bad, AfD-asking, articles on related media (animated films) that may be deleted without redirecting if there is no main article for this to be redirected to: ], ] and ]. <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]&#124;]</sub> 05:03, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
== Finding charts positions for soundtrack articles ==


:It's going to probably need a Chinese speaker. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 05:09, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
Hi, long time lurker here. Just a small heads up on Japanese soundtrack articles. To prevent the deletionists from targeting these articles, I think we need to treat these articles like "real" album/single articles. This includes adding charts positions whenever they are available. Cuz yes, many soundtracks do enter charts in Japan. I don't speak Japanese but here is what I do to find the charts position of a given CD:
::Likely; I've also posted to WT:CHINA. Sadly, I don't speak Chinese, but the topic seems quite important - it seems like a rather big franchise, with many games, movies, etc. <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]&#124;]</sub> 05:23, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
# Go to .
:::Eh, I'd say it's of low importance to the video games articles scope as a whole. In ] it seems to have a moderately low number of incoming links. There's also an article in Korean that is pretty short. Though, that may just be the article on the first Roco Kingdom game. Tencent is a big company but a lot of this looks like mobile/web games which don't really interest the English-speaking world quite as much. And there are films at the Chinese box office, but I can't find anything about an international release. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 05:47, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
# Click on "CD" above the blue search box. Type the title of the CD and click on the button.
::::Fair, but considering how big China is, even a China-only franchise, that is reasonably big there but has little international impact, is probably mid-importance for the world. <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]&#124;]</sub> 06:32, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
# Click on the album you're looking for in the search results. The red number next to "過去最高" is the album's charts position.
:::::China being so big means there are a lot of game franchises, some of which may have a bafflingly large interest inside China and little impact outside of China, which makes it hard to write about them because there aren't a lot of English sources that are reliable. Especially Chinese web/mobile games made by Chinese companies with few products or customers overseas. Also, keep in mind the video games project covers not only all the video and computer games ever but all of the people, companies, and in many cases fictional things inside the games. That's a pretty large scope. And since the nature of many web/mobile games in terms of the content and the quality of the material, especially ones made by large Chinese companies such as Tencent, is that they're probably of limited interest for the mainstream ], ] or ] communities in the Anglosphere. For example, I checked out the and I noticed the following badly translated text, "Rock Kingdom is a web game. Come and complete the task, chat with friends, and upgrade for your pets." These ] games are a dime a dozen. It might be of interest to the ] community. It doesn't even have a public subreddit, and it seems that the game itself might not even work outside of China. Yet the film ] grossed 10 million yuan in presale making it the top domestic animation ever in pre-sale. That's pretty crazy. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 07:05, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
:Example: reached #6 on the Japanese charts.
::::::It is Tencent after all, indispensable to the lives of literally E-V-E-R-Y single one Chinese from the young to the elderly. It will be a surprise if the spin-offs become box office bombs. ]] 14:08, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::I forgot to mention the popularity of Tencent games among Chinese people especially those young (should I mention ]?). It is not hard to imagine children, during their summer breaks, begging their parents to bring them to theatres for the film. ]] 14:16, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
::Hello, your fellow Chinese speaker is always available. ]] 13:59, 13 January 2025 (UTC)


==New Articles (January 2 to January 12)==
If you can't find the CD you're looking for in the results, here are a few other ways:
*Try typing the title of the CD in Japanese instead of English (you can find it at http://vgmdb.net/ for instance):
:Example: 0 result for ; 1 result for .
*Try searching for the CD's catalog number on Oricon via Google:
:Example: Googling yields 1 result.
*Go to . In the box below "曲名に", type the title of one the CD's '''tracks''' instead of the CD's title (you can also find them on http://vgmdb.net).
:Example: Searching for the track to find the ''Final Fantasy IX Original Soundtrack''.


{{main|Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements}}
I hope this helps! :) ] (]) 11:09, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
:These are good suggestions. I've used a few myself with mixed success. To expand on this some, a regular google search using Japanese ] is a useful tool for any Japanese-based video game element: music, designers, or even the game itself. I turned up some good bits that helped either round out or finish articles like ], ], and ]. (] <sup>]</sup> 14:41, 24 June 2010 (UTC))
:This is so helpful, you have no idea. --''']]''' 14:47, 24 June 2010 (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. --''']]''' 18:02, 14 January 2025 (UTC)</small>
== ] ==


*'''Articles deleted/removed:''' ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ]
A new version is up for up for ].]]] 14:51, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
*'''Drafts deleted/removed:''' ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ]
:Here we go again&hellip; --] (]) 15:57, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
*'''Articles redirected:''' ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ]
*'''Categories deleted/removed:''' ], ], ], ], ], ]
*'''New categories:''' ] <small>— {{u|Vinnylospo}}</small>, ] <small>— {{u|Waxworker}}</small>, ] <small>— {{u|Waxworker}}</small>, ] <small>— {{u|Catfurball}}</small>, ] <small>— {{u|Catfurball}}</small>, ] <small>— {{u|Catfurball}}</small>, ] <small>— {{u|Catfurball}}</small>, ] <small>— {{u|Catfurball}}</small>, ] <small>— {{u|Mochgamen1}}</small> <small>(newly tagged - originally created 4 months ago)</small>, ] <small>— {{u|MagicMason1000}}</small> <small>(newly tagged - originally created 4 months ago)</small>, ] <small>— {{u|MagicMason1000}}</small> <small>(newly tagged - originally created 4 months ago)</small>, ] <small>— {{u|Waxworker}}</small>, ] <small>— {{u|Waxworker}}</small>, ] <small>— {{u|Mika1h}}</small>
*'''New templates:''' {{tl|Psyonix}} <small>— {{u|WikiPediaAid}}</small> <small>(newly tagged - originally created 28 days ago)</small>, {{tl|Dofus}} <small>— {{u|Nall}}</small>


<div style="line-height:1.4em !important">
== That Videogames Blog ==
'''January 2'''
*{{Article status|Start|Evo 2023|Thepatrick01}}
*{{Article status|Start|Evo 2024|Thepatrick01}}
*{{Article status|C|Julia Voth|Kiwipat}} <small>(newly tagged – originally created 15 years ago)</small>
*{{Article status|Start|Pokémon Box: Ruby and Sapphire|Daniel Lawrence}} <small>(newly tagged – originally created 19 years ago)</small>


'''January 3'''
{{seealso|Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Sonic and the Secret Rings/archive1}}
*{{Article status|Unassessed|Pinball FX (2023 video game)|Wilbers}} <small>(previously a draft: accepted ] submission)</small>
Would like input from project members on whether this controversial source can be used on WP. ] (]) 19:02, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
*{{Article status|Stub|KayPea|Samsmachado}}
:I'm looking at the and it does look like the site is actually a regular video game coverage site that happens to use blog in the name (ala a brand name) vs. an actual blog page. They appear to have a staff, have regular articles and news, etc., what would be expected from a typical industry site vs. a literal single person blog. That doesn't clear it for notability though, and in relation to your statement at the FAC discussion, the fact it appears in other articles does not prove notability or reliability. It just means it's usage in those articles should be questioned as well. Reliability can be proven however by contacting the site's head and questioning whether there is an editorial oversite process for the articles. In most cases we want resources to be both notable and reliable, but if nothing of more notability is available an allowance is made as long as it's still proven reliable. --] (]) 19:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
*{{Article status|Start|Nobody Wants to Die|Vrxces}}
*{{Article status|Stub|Ocean Trader (video game)|Liandrei}}
*{{Article status|Stub|Yu-Gi-Oh! Legacy of the Duelist|Timur9008}} <small>(was previously a redirect)</small>


'''January 4'''
== ] ==
*{{Article status|C|Canvas: Sepia-iro no Motif|Eggunogguchan}}
*{{Article status|Start|Nex Playground|MrKaraRocks}} <small>(previously a draft: undrafted by original creator)</small>


'''January 5'''
Some IP is removing series from the template in question. I don't understand his/her rationale for it since they are all Sega developed/published series. I have tried to communicate by leaving comment on user and template talk pages but he hasn't replied. --] (]) 20:14, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
*{{Article status|C|Frogger in Toy Town|Eagowl}} <small>(was previously a redirect)</small>
:Personally, I'm against the inclusion of individual video games articles rather than series articles. I believe that it should be for the purpose of navigating articles about franchises, not intellectual properties. - ] ] ] 21:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
*{{Article status|List|List of Brian Blessed performances|Mika1h}} <small>(was previously a redirect)</small>
::OK, I'm fine with that but I don't think he is removing them because they aren't franchise articles. --] (]) 22:12, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
*{{Article status|B|Duolingo|Huyzin}} <small>(newly tagged – originally created 13 years ago)</small>
*{{Article status|Start|GeoGuessr World Cup|TomasVial}} <small>(was previously a redirect – un-redirected 3 months ago)</small>
*{{Article status|Start|Screaming Wings|Griggorio2}}


'''January 6'''
== ] - colon usage ==
*{{Article status|C|Seymour Guado|138.89.131.227}} <small>(previously a draft: accepted ] submission)</small>


'''January 7'''
Currently over whether '']'' should have a colon in its title. While I believe the colon should be used, I can't find anything in any MoS that handles colon usage. So, since the editors involved appear not to have discussed the issue at length (at least not that I've seen), and I don't want to see this turn into an edit war, I'd like to hear what the community has to say regarding this matter. ] (]) 13:57, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
*{{Article status|Start|Shujinkou|Julian Michael Rice}}
:See ] above. ] 16:27, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
*{{Article status|Start|Volcano (1985 video game)|Zoq-Fot-Pik}} <small>(newly tagged – originally created 5 months ago)</small>
::If you feel its not enough you can seek a 3rd opinion at ] or ].]]] 17:33, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
*{{Article status|Start|Cat Cafe Manager|QuicoleJR}}
*{{Article status|C|HMV|195.172.233.18}} <small>(newly tagged – originally created 20 years ago)</small>
*{{Article status|C|The Prince (1984 game)|Zoq-Fot-Pik}}


'''January 8'''
It seems to be just a punctuation issue overall. So adding the colon is best in my opinion. Just like Crisis Core: Final Fantasy VII. Also it's not like it will do any damage than what it might do in the future. THe problem i do see is, if we change it to have acolon then we will have to change the other kingdom heart titles that have sub titles on them aswell, like Kingdom hearts 358/2 days and kingdom hears coded.] (]) 18:22, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
*{{Article status|Start|Love and Deepspace|EleniXDD}}
*{{Article status|Stub|AYSO Soccer '97|Timur9008}}


'''January 9'''
== History split ==
*{{Article status|Start|Italian Video Game Awards|Tanonero}}


'''January 10'''
Can anyone please take the history from ] up until the edit after and move it to ]? - ] ] ] 21:47, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
*{{Article status|Start|Archeblade|Angelfencer}}
:I think I got it right. I opted to move to ] to disambiguate a little more. –] 22:18, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


'''January 11'''
== Survival horror page move ==
*{{Article status|List|28th Annual D.I.C.E. Awards|MR.RockGamer17}} <small>(was previously a redirect)</small>
*{{Article status|Start|Farbrausch|139.165.203.195}} <small>(newly tagged – originally created 20 years ago)</small>
*{{Article status|Start|Skydance's Behemoth|OceanHok}}


'''January 12'''
Some one moved the survival horror article to ]. I am requesting it be moved back, which I think is proper protocol for contesting a move. If anyone wants to look it over: ]. ] (]) 06:09, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
*{{Article status|Start|2025 LCK season|Swishpav25}}
* Seems odd. I went to the disambig page and found no articles about movies or books which was the point of the rename. We should probably move it back and create a diambig link at the top that says ''This article focuses on the video game genre. For more about films and books, see ...'' ] (]) 00:12, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
*{{Article status|Unassessed|Cross Tantei Monogatari|Everythingwii}} <small>(previously a draft: accepted ] submission)</small>
*{{Article status|Start|'90s Super GP|Zxcvbnm}}
*{{Article status|Start|2025 LPL season|Swishpav25}}
</div>
----
I'm back! --''']]''' 18:02, 14 January 2025 (UTC)


:Thank you for continuing to maintain this! ] ] 18:44, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
== Guidance on platform section of infobox ==


== '']'' ==
I've noticed that many infoboxes do not include exhaustive lists of ports in the platform section. As an example, the ] article mentions the arcade version in the article, but not the infobox. The ] article lists many ports in the article, but lists only arcade in the infobox. Even the ] itself skips the platform section entirely in the instructions. What belongs, and what doesn't? Thanks! -] 18:54, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
:Probably because of space and ] issues. The other reasons may be that those were not released in English (or in the original language if not English) or the items might be prone to adding without proper sourcing and are hard to ]. Maybe if there was an easy way to hide ports it might be okay.]]] 19:35, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
::Still not seeing it - Super Mario Bros. was a big arcade hit, and the NES version of 1942 was definitely successful. I doubt that infobox lists really impact weight. I see some articles, like ] that list a lot of platforms, and others, like ] which only list arcade. Is there any rhyme or reason? If there isn't, this project should really consider developing a guideline. Personally, I think an exhaustive platform list would be fine, especially if it could be collapsible, but I don't want to start adding platforms if they'll be reverted. -] 19:48, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
:::No, an exhaustive list is not fine in the infobox per the guidelines on large lists and the guidelines of the project. Prose in the body is always preferred, which is why we have a Ports section in most cases, especially with a game like Pac Man. In most cases if the infobox is in relation to an arcade game (i.e. processor info, etc. because it's describing the hardware it ran on as well) we try and stick with just the main platform. Other more generic game infoboxes a small listing is ok, but again if it's a game that's hit a lot of platforms then only the main platform is listed. That's a general rule with all lists in the body of the article as well, if it can be said in prose instead of a list, then it's preferred. As I mentioned previously, look at some of the articles that have passed GA and FA status for example, using other articles that have not passed this or haven't been brought up to standards doesn't always provide a valid example. With SMB, I would move most of those platforms out and let them stay in prose in the body (which is where you said the arcade version is currently listed), since it's on just about every Nintendo platform. Let me just say I appreciate you asking all the questions you've been asking regarding this type of thing. Most newer people usually just go and do sweeping changes without bothering to find out what the guidelines are or if there aren't any listed, what the ] is at the project. Oh, and on an aside I would disagree regarding SMB - SMB was not a popular arcade game, in fact most people have no clue it even existed. It was far more popular and influential in it's Famicom/NES format. --] (]) 20:44, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
::::Thanks for the input! Alright, I'll leave the platform sections alone, though I still think a very clear guideline of what goes in and what doesn't should be formed into a policy and posted prominently... somewhere. I think at least some newbies would read project specific (and in this case, template specific) guidelines if they exist somewhere. I'll ] about that specific issue. I do think, however, that the infobox could provide a list of ports in an easily-viewable collapsible list in addition to the prose in the main article. Platform could refer to the original release (or releases, if designed for multiple systems contemporaneously), and then a new "ports" section, collapsed by default, could list (and link to, if appropriate), other versions. As far as SMB arcade- I can't really find any info on popularity, but I do remember it at every arcade growing up (it was the reason I begged for an NES). In any case- thanks for the great guidance. -] 21:14, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
:::::I've avoided listing ports in the infobox (], ], ], and ]). I think it needlessly bloats the table and the tangential nature is irrelevant to the purpose of an infobox. For the examples I listed, the subjects of the article are the arcade versions. Everything in the article focuses on the original arcade version: gameplay, development, reception. Ports are simply mentioned with little in the way of development and reception specific to the. (] <sup>]</sup> 23:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC))
:The way I have it on ] ("Amiga, various") with a subsequent section on the shear volume of ports, seems to be a wise way to go for a massively ported game. --] (]) 23:07, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


Hey there, I'm currently preparing the article above for FAC; its subject's 10th anniversary is coming up in September. The reviewers at the PR strongly recommended me to look for academic analysis, but I'm unsure if the papers I found (''listed below'') will be sufficient to write enough content for a hypothetical scholarly/academic analysis section. Any help is appreciated. Thank you. <br/><ul><li>{{cite journal |last1=Travers |first1=Sean |title=Nihilism, Violence, and Popular Culture: The Postmodern Psychopath in Toby Fox’s ''Undertale'' |journal=] |date=April 2022 |volume=55 |issue=2 |pages=411–431 |doi=10.1111/jpcu.13120 |url=https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jpcu.13120 |publisher=]}}</li><li>{{cite journal |last1=Veale |first1=Kevin |title='If anyone’s going to ruin your night, it should be you': Responsibility and affective materiality in ''Undertale'' and ''Night in the Woods'' |journal=] |publisher=]|date=1 April 2022 |volume=28 |issue=2 |pages=451–467 |doi=10.1177/13548565211014434 |url=https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/13548565211014434 |access-date=9 January 2025 |language=en |issn=1354-8565}}</li><li>{{cite journal |last1=Cayari |first1=Christopher |title=The Music of ''Undertale'': Participatory Culture, Video Game Music, and Creating Covers for YouTube |journal=International Journal of Education & the Arts |date=2023 |volume=24 |issue=22 |doi=10.26209/ijea24n22}}</li><li>{{cite journal |publisher=]|last1=Elvery |first1=Gabriel |title=Undertale’s Loveable Monsters: Investigating Parasocial Relationships with Non-Player Characters |journal=] |date=June 2023 |volume=18 |issue=4 |pages=475–497 |doi=10.1177/15554120221105464 |url=https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/15554120221105464 |access-date=11 January 2025}}</li></ul><span id="LunaEclipse:1737060623463:Wikipedia_talkFTTCLNWikiProject_Video_games" class="FTTCmt">—&nbsp;💽 ] 💽 🌹 ⚧ <sup>(''']''')</sup> 20:50, 16 January 2025 (UTC)</span>
== Master Hand playable in Super Smash Bros. Melee ==
: There's no real way to string these together into a coherent section. These articles are particularly disparate. I can't find mentions of ''Undertale'' in any recent video-game non-fiction books, nor any other criticism on JSTOR or Project Muse.
: I gave the article a look over and the prose and sourcing look pretty good. You won't have any issues ironing any issues with this article out at FAC, IMO. — ''''']''''' (]∙]) 22:33, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
::], #1 and #2 are related as they go over ''Undertale''{{'s}} management of responsibility. I can see why #3 and #4 wouldn't work, but the people at the ] said I would have issues with the FAC reviewers if I ever nominated it there without making a scholarly/academic analysis section.<span id="LunaEclipse:1737154818847:Wikipedia_talkFTTCLNWikiProject_Video_games" class="FTTCmt"> —&nbsp;💽 ] 💽 🌹 ⚧ <sup>(''']''')</sup> 23:00, 17 January 2025 (UTC)</span>
:::Actually, judging by the title of #3, it might be useful for the music and fandom sections. I do agree with ImagineTigers's assessment that a hypothetical section on the game's academic analysis might be impossible, but the sources found could potentially be incorporated in the rest of the article. ] (]) 23:20, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Disagree that you will have significant issues with at FAC. '']'' doesn't have a dedicated "crisis analysis" section; nor do '']'', '']'', or '']''. FAC reviewers cannot oppose a nomination because information that does not exist is missing. That said, I had a look on Google Scholar and did find some more that way, but many of the results there are conference articles or undergrad papers (neither are permissible). You'd be fine if you made a strong attempt to integrate often-cited sourcing elsewhere in the article. — ''''']''''' (]∙]) 00:12, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
:Consider looking at google books. There are a lot of game designers and other media academics who write about these things. I think it's worth having an analysis section (or a subsection or paragraph), even if the sources all talk about different things. A game like Undertale is notable enough that I'm sure there are sources that have discussed it more from an analytical perspective, rather than the usual "good/bad" reception stuff. ] (]) 19:18, 18 January 2025 (UTC)


== The Making of LEGO Island: A Documentary ==
A glitch has just been discovered in '']'' which allows you to play as Master Hand and it actually works.
You see about it here:
Could we please have in some way added to the article about it? --] (]) 02:49, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
:I've seen the video already and would declare it irrelevant. We might as well add that you can jump the flag pole in ] because of the . ] (]) 03:19, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
::Heh. The flagpole in SMB is so iconic, I could see that mentioned. -] 03:40, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
:::I think it could be worth mentioning. I just tried it, and it worked. (Although I used the way described on the SmashWiki, not the video. The video's way wouldn't work.) <sub style="color:#00008B;">''']'''</sub> <sup>(]·])</sup> 03:45, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
::::I dunno, I don't really feel it's too notable of an incident. By exploiting a glitch in the game, you can play as Master Hand-- I feel that it needs to be covered in a more reliable source to make it even marginally notable, and even then I'm not sure if it needs to be added to the article. Things like this and "UR MR GAY" in ] aren't really necessary to be added-- they're just fancruft. -- ] <sup><span style="font-size: 6pt">(])</span></sup> 06:06, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
:It's hardly 'just been discovered'. seems to point that people knew about it at least a year ago. ] (]) 13:46, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


Hello,
== VG review template mangled ==


I've been advised to further this to the larger consensus. A was made by Youtuber MattKC regarding the planning, development, and release of ]. The issue, at the present moment, is that this source (while primary) would violate current ] source guidelines. Therefore, I would like further guidance/discussion on this topic, as documentaries (while primary sourced with interviews with developers) like these for niche games are hard to come by and would be further harder to get a bigger/aggregate source to even report on this.
Has anybody else noticed that the review box is missing its outside lines and looks a right mess? I just noticed in ] that a line's missing separating two of the reviews as well. ]] 13:43, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
:It looks fine for me. Could it be a similar issue to the one posted at ]? —] (]) 14:59, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
::I don't see the issue either. It might be a browser issue. (] <sup>]</sup> 15:07, 2 July 2010 (UTC))


There is some listed secondary sourcing, such as background clips used from development and Wes Jenkin's own autobiography, most of the work is primary/original interviews with developers on the game.
== VG guideline and romaji ==


The current issue this source faces is needing backing/approval for use since this would be included in a current GA article, and would not want to do/harm anything that would lower that GA status. ] (]) 22:12, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
] has come up again. I suggest having the discussion at one point. I suggest having the discussion in ] as it was there last time.
: I honestly believe this should be fine for documentaries like if supporting non-controversial, non-biographical information. There are obvious problems associated with permitting YouTube citations, so there probably has to be additional caveats—e.g., a genuine benefit to the article for linking to it—but I am fine with it in this example in practice. — ''''']''''' (]∙]) 22:25, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
::Another thing of note, as well FYI, is that the youtuber, MattKC, is one of the leading people in ] and preservation of LEGO Island software, allowing for continued use on hardware it was not built for it. Just some more perspective for the director/creator to help rebuff the usefulness/validity of the documentary. ] (]) 22:30, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
::I think that is a fair assessment, but of course, I would like more input on the matter since it would be included in a GA article. I can understand hesitance with setting a precedence and such by allowing this inclusion. But as you said, this would add genuine substance/benefit to the article, which could mean the inclusion of more voices on the article than just director Wes Jenkins. ] (]) 22:32, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
:Yeah, as long as it's specifically citing what the developers are saying and not MattKC's own words (unless it's a paraphrasal or something) then it should fall under ] and I would consider it usable. <span style="border:#000000;border:2px solid #000000;padding:2px">'''λ''' ]]</span> 22:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
::Within what I would consider creative liberty with the documentary does MattKC speak, mostly giving setup, background, or paraphrased/repeated information from his interviews and research. But a majority of the ~50 min documentary is either people from the project interviews (Matt's prompting/face removed from them talking) talking and/or quoted or audio sections from Wes Jekins or other project people. ] (]) 22:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
:], I understand the person behind this video is '''literally why you can play this game on a modern PC''', but I personally believe you can just take the sources he used in the video and add them to the article if possible. Citing the documentary would be citing a tertiary-ish source that just combines the already available info out there into a video essay.<span id="LunaEclipse:1737154276659:Wikipedia_talkFTTCLNWikiProject_Video_games" class="FTTCmt"> —&nbsp;💽 ] 💽 🌹 ⚧ <sup>(''']''')</sup> 22:51, 17 January 2025 (UTC)</span>
::Well, the issue with that is, while there are minor secondaries (like Wes Jekins own autobiography or archived old film used for filler spacing), the main idea (which was only going to be used as a See Also/External Link/etc. thing) was to include the '''entire''' thing as all of his interviews '''are''' primary sourcing ] (]) 22:56, 17 January 2025 (UTC)


== Good article reassessment for ] ==
For reference .]]] 17:33, 2 July 2010 (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. ] (]) 23:54, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
:The linked discussion has nothing to do with the issue at hand, Jinnai.—] (]) 17:52, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 19:18, 18 January 2025

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

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)
I agree. @Zxcvbnm, I might have a crack at drafting too to help and see if in that process I can generate good sourcing. The WP:NOPAGE argument is a little funny to me because we're talking about a very well-covered, award-nominated expansion to one of the biggest games of the past decade. If we're honestly saying the copious amount of coverage out there in terms of its gameplay additions, potential development history, reviews and discourse around its award eligibility is not independently notable or preferable, I would honestly say that the vast majority of expansion articles in this WP should be merged immediately. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 03:29, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Your Wikiproject Video Games New Years Resolution

This suit cost me three grand. Feel the satin and weep. Happy new year!

I'm aware that I recently did a "non-productive post" above (as my haters call them) but I thought this would be fun. After all, who doesn't love an icebreaker? I don't!

What's your Misplaced Pages-related resolution for 2025? What new projects, achievements, or goals do you want to get done in the new year? Then we can look back and see both the people who conquered their goals and the people we should leave behind for 2026.

Gameplay of Pokemon

I was relieved to see such as strong consensus at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Gameplay of Pokémon. It's not that we can't find sources, but that it duplicates the same types of content you'd see at Pokémon (video game series). With that said, I wanted to check if anyone felt similarly about Gameplay of World of Warcraft or Gameplay of Dragon Quest. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:17, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm generally against any of these gameplay/reception/awards type article spin outs. These two examples are much better written and sourced than the Pokemon was, but I'm still not certain a separate article is required... Sergecross73 msg me 19:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
At first blush looking at the above, I'd lean towards saying "no" to standalone articles. From base principles it's highly unlikely the gameplay of a game is notable independent of the coverage of the game itself (or a lot of the coverage leans into WP:ROUTINE-type stuff) but also I don't see where the level of coverage makes sense for a general encyclopedia. I don't need a blow-by-blow of all the quest types in WoW, for example. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 19:57, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Agreed. I was surprised someone felt the need for the Dragon Quest spinout too. They're fine games, but they're pretty straightforward, "meat and potatoes" type games. Sergecross73 msg me 20:31, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Looks like someone wrote it in 2010 and it hasn't gotten much more than 50 edits of any kind in the 15 years since. --PresN 20:36, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
I do believe those are probably better off merged/redirected back to the target. I'm not seeing much in the way of a valid split-out rationale for these that would indicate their gameplay is standalone notable. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 00:55, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Gameplay of Hearthstone devotes a ton of space/text to covering every expansion. The rest of it is a more detailed version of Hearthstone#Gameplay. It's possible to retool the former as a List of Hearthstone expansions if we decide that's something we want. Otherwise, it seems to suffer the same issues as the rest of the articles at Category:Gameplay of specific video games. Axem Titanium (talk) 22:32, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

It kind of echoes my feelings on Development of Mother 3. So much of it is redundant to what's already present at Mother 3, and it feels like it'd be better served being merged back into it, or have the EarthBound 64 stuff expanded upon. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 20:06, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Personally, I am very fond of these types of articles and the amount of depth they lend to angles on these works. "Gameplay of" articles do tend to be terrible to source tho, and the "Gameplay of Pokémon" article never reached the quality I would hope for it. "Gameplay of Dragon Quest" is particularly odd to me, as it hardly explains mechanics unique to the series and it's pretty short. At least Pokémon has a swath of fairly unique mechanics that I believe would be really useful to describe in-depth. Perhaps it'd be more of a Wikibooks kind of deal tho, if that project ever worked out. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:43, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
  • I'll defend Gameplay of Overwatch as save for a few areas, I've made sure it is sourced to reliable secondary sources talking about these gameplay elements to a reasonable depth (of course, most of the that came from the period while there was attention with the Overwatch League and helping viewers understand rules); it also helps alleviate size issues. I consider it compariable to Magic: The Gathering rules which due to similar attention via tourneys has had its rules/gameplay evaluated in depth. For those reasons, I think Gameplay of World of Warcraft is a reasonably fair split from the main WoW article (which covers more of how big and significant it is to the industry) and just needs a bit more sourcing to make it better. But key on these is the use of secondary sources to show that the gameplay or rules have been discussed beyond simple coverage of the whole game itself. The Pokemon gameplay article had problems with very little sourcing along those lines (though you'd think that should be possible with how big the franchise is). The Dragon Quest case, that seems rather more difficult given the niche of JRPGs. (Common features of JRPGs and CRPGs in general, however, are absolutely fair game in the genre articles). Masem (t) 14:00, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Live service games

I decided to take Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Gameplay of Dragon Quest to AFD based on what appears to be a consensus here. The problem is that "X series" and "Gameplay of X series" have the same scope, just with more WP:GAMEGUIDE detail. Masem brought up some points about splitting the gameplay from the Blizzard games, and while I disagree, I think it's worth discussing. I disagree that "Gameplay of WoW" is any less of a redundant fork. But I do see how these games are actually multiple releases and updates over several years. Despite World of Warcraft not being a game series, its history is longer than many game series, with more Category:World of Warcraft expansion packs than many series. And yet it doesn't have a "series" article separate from the original release.

TLDR: "Gameplay of X series" is redundant with "X series", but long-running live service games might have several expansions/updates without having a separate series article. Is there a way to rename / move these article titles to improve their scope and viability? Shooterwalker (talk) 17:49, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

In my mind, the main and perhaps only reason one would ever write a "gameplay of X" article, is when that game or series is played competitively. In such cases, the gameplay is very important separately from the games as commercial products or pieces of art on their own. Graphics and music, development and reception, it all falls away as irrelevant in that field, and you get a fairly separate topic to describe. I don't know if this really makes sense with live-service games. I wouldn't create "Gameplay of Fortnite", I think I would create "History of Fortnite" instead, as this would still be about the product as a whole, not just about its gameplay. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:28, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
It really depends on the live-service game. I don't think that in terms of any specific mode of Fortnite like Battle Royale has changed significantly over the years, but that there are gameplay elements that come and go during its seasons, so an article here like Fortnite seasonal events makes sense (in addition to the fact this is also documented in reliable sources). Whereas with Destiny 2, there are significant lasting changes with most of its expansions (also covered by sources) so in that case, the individual expansions serve this (Though in that case, most of those due need a trim).
Separately, because of how Fortnite transitioned from a single idea to Battle Royale to a metaverse platform, the main Fortnite article is more a history of the product and less about the gameplay changes. Masem (t) 13:05, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
My first reaction to @Maplestrip and @Masem is that we might have a separate article for long-standing games with lots of post-release support. I agree that "History of Fortnite" or "Fortnite seasonal events" is a better article/scope than Gameplay of Fortnite. Maplestrip focuses more on competitive games, which is a valid point. I'd say there's a big overlap between competitive games and games-as-service, or other forms of post-release support.
I still feel strongly that "Gameplay of X" is too redundant in scope. But a game with lots of post-release support over many years, like Fortnite or even WoW, might still deserve an additional article to document its evolution. Maybe "List of X expansions" or "List of X updates" or "List of X special events"? I'd be a little nervous about WP:CHANGELOG here, but for a game with a decade of history and lots of discourse about balance and updates, it's in the right direction. The spirit of my suggestion is supposed to be similar to List of Game of Thrones episodes, without setting a precedent that every game gets such a list. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Key is how reliable sources treat the live service aspect of the game. WOW, Destiny 2, Fortnite, Overwatch -- all have gotten reasonably good coverage of how the game changes, whereas Apex Legends or Valorant may have had that at the start but has significantly waned relative to these. — Masem (t) 20:55, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
What do you think is a better title for these types of articles? The problem with Gameplay of X is nearly any notable game would also have secondary sources that cover the gameplay of the game, making it really subjective if we should have one article or two. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
"List of X seasons", "List of X seasonal events", or "X seasons" or "X seasonal events", the latter if there are sources that broadly discuss the games seasonal structure. Masem (t) 16:32, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Translation help

Hello, I am writing here to request help with some source title translations. I am currently working on implementing the suggestion on the FAC for List of generation II Pokémon and one of the suggestions is for the non-English sources to have translated titles. I currently have all the non-English sources on this sandbox; containing 28 Japanese sources, 3 Spanish sources, 1 Finnish source, 1 French source, 1 Brazilian Portuguese source and 1 Indonesian source. If anyone is able to provide help with this that would be very much appreciated. Hope to hear back, CaptainGalaxy 12:07, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Tomb Raider source question.

Hi. So, I want some confirmation and possible discussion regarding edits made last year to Tomb Raider (1996 video game), Tomb Raider II, and the main series article. A LOT of wordy information was added by ERAGON citing a book called "The Making of Tomb Raider" by someone called Daryl Baxter. IMO, it seemed to me to simply repeat stuff that was already present. I did edits on the OG game's article to incorporate the info on an assumption of good faith (I was in a bad mood that day, explanation for some edits that appeared on TR2's article).

My questions are: is this book a reliable source of development information, and if so could the information be incorporated into the articles in a less wordy way? I don't want to do anything on my own beyond what I already did on the OG game. ProtoDrake (talk) 17:52, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi ProtoDrake. I would say that the book is a reliable source; it is a series of interview transcripts between Baxter and former Core Design staffers. Outside of the book he has interviewed people from the team before for podcasts; there's one of those available here. If things are too wordy we can of course edit down. ERAGON (talk) 10:21, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Dynasty Warriors 4

Dynasty Warriors 4 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) 01:03, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Unofficially dead Nicalis game

On the Nicalis page, we've had 90s Super GP listed for twelve years. There has been no official word from Nicalis since 2015, with only subtle changes, (like the title itself), made. It's still listed on the Nicalis website, but having been in the industry myself, I can attest that the creator is no longer involved and the last expo presence or even rumored stages of development were made in 2019. Do we even list this vaporware at this juncture? BOTTO (T•C) 00:13, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Only if a reliable source calls it vaporware (or cancelled.) I understand your concern in this instance, but if we let editors make this call personally, then we get these overzealous/pessimistic editors declaring games like Metroid Prime 4 or Shin Megami Tensei V as vaporware or cancelled games. Sergecross73 msg me 01:29, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
@Sergecross73: It's good to see you again, Sergecross73. We have a bunch of articles like this one that pragmatically ask the question, "What the hell happened to '90s Super GP," but none that explicitly calling it "vaporware" or "cancelled". I'd compare it to Half-Life 2: Episode Three, except Valve recently acknowledged that it wasn't going to happen. BOTTO (T•C) 02:19, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
This intrigued me, so I made the article at '90s Super GP.
From what I saw, it's indeed vaporware but not officially cancelled. Such games can resurrect at any point, and the game was even referenced in a subsequent game by that developer. Unless it sees a full cancellation it should be listed as such. BTW, the Nintendo Life article does say it is in "development hell", akin to vaporware. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:06, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
@Zxcvbnm: Wow, great work! It certainly is one of the most infamous cases of both predatory indie publisher practices and development hell. There's nothing saying it won't ever be released, so maybe we'll eventually see it pushed out eventually? BOTTO (T•C) 20:08, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
after all, we got Metroid Dread... Andre🚐 05:59, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Steam (service)

Steam (service) 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. 💽 LunaEclipse 💽 🌹 ⚧ 14:16, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Can anyone finish this draft about a Chinese video game franchise?

Draft:Roco Kingdom (game). Abandoned by the student creator, since the course finished. We have three very bad, AfD-asking, articles on related media (animated films) that may be deleted without redirecting if there is no main article for this to be redirected to: Roco Kingdom: The Desire of Dragon, Roco Kingdom 3 and Roco Kingdom 4. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:03, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

It's going to probably need a Chinese speaker. Andre🚐 05:09, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
Likely; I've also posted to WT:CHINA. Sadly, I don't speak Chinese, but the topic seems quite important - it seems like a rather big franchise, with many games, movies, etc. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:23, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
Eh, I'd say it's of low importance to the video games articles scope as a whole. In zh:洛克王国 it seems to have a moderately low number of incoming links. There's also an article in Korean that is pretty short. Though, that may just be the article on the first Roco Kingdom game. Tencent is a big company but a lot of this looks like mobile/web games which don't really interest the English-speaking world quite as much. And there are films at the Chinese box office, but I can't find anything about an international release. Andre🚐 05:47, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
Fair, but considering how big China is, even a China-only franchise, that is reasonably big there but has little international impact, is probably mid-importance for the world. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:32, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
China being so big means there are a lot of game franchises, some of which may have a bafflingly large interest inside China and little impact outside of China, which makes it hard to write about them because there aren't a lot of English sources that are reliable. Especially Chinese web/mobile games made by Chinese companies with few products or customers overseas. Also, keep in mind the video games project covers not only all the video and computer games ever but all of the people, companies, and in many cases fictional things inside the games. That's a pretty large scope. And since the nature of many web/mobile games in terms of the content and the quality of the material, especially ones made by large Chinese companies such as Tencent, is that they're probably of limited interest for the mainstream AAA game, indie game or retro game communities in the Anglosphere. For example, I checked out the Roco Fandom site and I noticed the following badly translated text, "Rock Kingdom is a web game. Come and complete the task, chat with friends, and upgrade for your pets." These virtual pet games are a dime a dozen. It might be of interest to the gacha game community. It doesn't even have a public subreddit, and it seems that the game itself might not even work outside of China. Yet the film Roco Kingdom 4 grossed 10 million yuan in presale making it the top domestic animation ever in pre-sale. That's pretty crazy. Andre🚐 07:05, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
It is Tencent after all, indispensable to the lives of literally E-V-E-R-Y single one Chinese from the young to the elderly. It will be a surprise if the spin-offs become box office bombs. MilkyDefer 14:08, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
I forgot to mention the popularity of Tencent games among Chinese people especially those young (should I mention Honor of Kings?). It is not hard to imagine children, during their summer breaks, begging their parents to bring them to theatres for the film. MilkyDefer 14:16, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
Hello, your fellow Chinese speaker is always available. MilkyDefer 13:59, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

New Articles (January 2 to January 12)

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 18:02, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

January 2

January 3

January 4

January 5

January 6

January 7

January 8

January 9

January 10

January 11

January 12

I'm back! --PresN 18:02, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for continuing to maintain this! Sergecross73 msg me 18:44, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Undertale

Hey there, I'm currently preparing the article above for FAC; its subject's 10th anniversary is coming up in September. The reviewers at the PR strongly recommended me to look for academic analysis, but I'm unsure if the papers I found (listed below) will be sufficient to write enough content for a hypothetical scholarly/academic analysis section. Any help is appreciated. Thank you.

— 💽 🌙Eclipse 💽 🌹 ⚧ 20:50, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

There's no real way to string these together into a coherent section. These articles are particularly disparate. I can't find mentions of Undertale in any recent video-game non-fiction books, nor any other criticism on JSTOR or Project Muse.
I gave the article a look over and the prose and sourcing look pretty good. You won't have any issues ironing any issues with this article out at FAC, IMO. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 22:33, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
ImaginesTigers, #1 and #2 are related as they go over Undertale's management of responsibility. I can see why #3 and #4 wouldn't work, but the people at the PR said I would have issues with the FAC reviewers if I ever nominated it there without making a scholarly/academic analysis section. — 💽 🌙Eclipse 💽 🌹 ⚧ 23:00, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Actually, judging by the title of #3, it might be useful for the music and fandom sections. I do agree with ImagineTigers's assessment that a hypothetical section on the game's academic analysis might be impossible, but the sources found could potentially be incorporated in the rest of the article. Lazman321 (talk) 23:20, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Disagree that you will have significant issues with at FAC. League of Legends doesn't have a dedicated "crisis analysis" section; nor do The Last of Us, Paper Mario: The Origami King, or Super Meat Boy. FAC reviewers cannot oppose a nomination because information that does not exist is missing. That said, I had a look on Google Scholar and did find some more that way, but many of the results there are conference articles or undergrad papers (neither are permissible). You'd be fine if you made a strong attempt to integrate often-cited sourcing elsewhere in the article. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 00:12, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
Consider looking at google books. There are a lot of game designers and other media academics who write about these things. I think it's worth having an analysis section (or a subsection or paragraph), even if the sources all talk about different things. A game like Undertale is notable enough that I'm sure there are sources that have discussed it more from an analytical perspective, rather than the usual "good/bad" reception stuff. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:18, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

The Making of LEGO Island: A Documentary

Hello,

I've been advised to further this to the larger consensus. A recent documentary was made by Youtuber MattKC regarding the planning, development, and release of Lego Island. The issue, at the present moment, is that this source (while primary) would violate current Misplaced Pages:VG/RS source guidelines. Therefore, I would like further guidance/discussion on this topic, as documentaries (while primary sourced with interviews with developers) like these for niche games are hard to come by and would be further harder to get a bigger/aggregate source to even report on this.

There is some listed secondary sourcing, such as background clips used from development and Wes Jenkin's own autobiography, most of the work is primary/original interviews with developers on the game.

The current issue this source faces is needing backing/approval for use since this would be included in a current GA article, and would not want to do/harm anything that would lower that GA status. ChemicalBear (talk) 22:12, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

I honestly believe this should be fine for documentaries like if supporting non-controversial, non-biographical information. There are obvious problems associated with permitting YouTube citations, so there probably has to be additional caveats—e.g., a genuine benefit to the article for linking to it—but I am fine with it in this example in practice. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 22:25, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Another thing of note, as well FYI, is that the youtuber, MattKC, is one of the leading people in decompilation and preservation of LEGO Island software, allowing for continued use on hardware it was not built for it. Just some more perspective for the director/creator to help rebuff the usefulness/validity of the documentary. ChemicalBear (talk) 22:30, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
I think that is a fair assessment, but of course, I would like more input on the matter since it would be included in a GA article. I can understand hesitance with setting a precedence and such by allowing this inclusion. But as you said, this would add genuine substance/benefit to the article, which could mean the inclusion of more voices on the article than just director Wes Jenkins. ChemicalBear (talk) 22:32, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Yeah, as long as it's specifically citing what the developers are saying and not MattKC's own words (unless it's a paraphrasal or something) then it should fall under WP:PRIMARY and I would consider it usable. λ NegativeMP1 22:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Within what I would consider creative liberty with the documentary does MattKC speak, mostly giving setup, background, or paraphrased/repeated information from his interviews and research. But a majority of the ~50 min documentary is either people from the project interviews (Matt's prompting/face removed from them talking) talking and/or quoted or audio sections from Wes Jekins or other project people. ChemicalBear (talk) 22:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
ChemicalBear, I understand the person behind this video is literally why you can play this game on a modern PC, but I personally believe you can just take the sources he used in the video and add them to the article if possible. Citing the documentary would be citing a tertiary-ish source that just combines the already available info out there into a video essay. — 💽 🌙Eclipse 💽 🌹 ⚧ 22:51, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Well, the issue with that is, while there are minor secondaries (like Wes Jekins own autobiography or archived old film used for filler spacing), the main idea (which was only going to be used as a See Also/External Link/etc. thing) was to include the entire thing as all of his interviews are primary sourcing ChemicalBear (talk) 22:56, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Mario & Luigi: Superstar Saga

Mario & Luigi: Superstar Saga 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) 23:54, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Categories:
Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Video games: Difference between revisions Add topic