Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Category:Comedy video games has been nominated for discussion

[edit]

Category:Comedy video games has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. czar 16:44, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should remakes get the category of the engine the game was remade in?

[edit]

Example: Should Dragon Quest (video game) have [[Category:Unreal Engine 4 games]]? Another example: Crisis Core: Final Fantasy VII.

The ones I'm thinking about already have engine= unreal engine 4 in the infobox but do not have the category. Here is the full list of remakes:

games with unreal engine 4 in infobox but not in category

I wonder if a new "Category: games remade in Unreal Engine 4" would be helpful here

J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 22:17, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Only if the remake isn't a separate article, IMO. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:40, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean if the remake is a separate article? Or do you mean that if the remake has a separate article, the original one should not get the category of the remake? If the latter, I agree, and that is what I had in mind. Thanks for clarifying that point.J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 23:45, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2003 video game)

[edit]

Recently User:Ozeuce has removed a lot of information from the article and has been reverted by two different editors that their deletions went too far. Since I am not the most experienced in video game articles and they started a discussion at Talk:Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2003 video game)#Stop re-adding these vast sections of uncited, unsuitable prose., any help with either the discussion or cleaning up the article would be appreciated. Aspects (talk) 22:57, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New Articles (July 22 to July 28)

[edit]
Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements
 A listing of all articles newly added to the Video Games Wikiproject (regardless of creation date). Generated by v3.20 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 15:03, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 22

July 23

July 24

July 25

July 26

July 27

July 28

  • Given how short the main Zzz article is, seems absolutely unnecessary for the separate characters article at this time or the need for thar much table stuff in it. Masem (t) 15:18, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. Extremely wikis/crufty content anyways. Sergecross73 msg me 15:31, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I also agree. There needs to be more real-world perspective content (development insight, media reception, etc.) in that article, which I haven't seen any. I already listed several ref ideas about it, so it's definitely doable and has some notability, but without anyone writing them into the article, it is just fancraft at best. SuperGrey (talk) 01:15, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • That Microsoft and unions articles feels like something that could be expanded into " Unionuzation in the video game industry" and combine from a few other places. Masem (t) 15:18, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the Baby Park spinout really necessary? It's literally just an oval race track... Sergecross73 msg me 15:30, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well it's ultimately about what people have to say about the oval race track, after all. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 15:56, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am certain that one can pick nearly any feature from a video game (level, weapon, character) and if they are very much inclined, "invent" sufficient reception to claim it is notable and thus can have a standalone article. But is this separate article really necessary? Most of the time, no.
    I would really strongly want to see such spinous to be based on both the presence of reception and development insights, the latter key to give reason to discuss the facet outside of the game's context. Masem (t) 16:04, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't rightly know what the 'invention' of sufficient reception is meant to refer to? The article merely cites sources that discuss Baby Park in significant detail. Development info would be nice, but even with some popular video games, it's sorely lacking. Dev info is something I think can really help with notability, but a lack of it shouldn't necessarily hurt it either. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 16:24, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We've had problems with articles like this created from a reception built on listacles and similar poor sourcing. This has a few of those but there are a couple here talking in depth on the the track... But thar said, those articles themselves are really thin. So yes it arguably passes the GNG but the GNG is not a demand to create a new article on the topic. (at least the appearances section is kept modest in contrast to Rainbow Road). Something like this asks me if there is a better larger context for the information, which may be in the main Kart article, or if there are other tracks that have sourcable details, a list of notable tracks would be reasonable. Masem (t) 18:19, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Right, but there's not much at the article. Half of it is just basic description of a circular race track. The reception section is full of mundane observations like "website thought it was fun" and "website liked that it was announced for (game)". It's paper this stuff. Sergecross73 msg me 18:10, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    IMO Baby Park ever so slightly scooches over the notability line. This, this and this (even if it's just the first few paragraphs) would make me !vote Weak Keep in an AfD. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:35, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That looks like routine, paper thin coverage by a number of some of the weakest sources we allow for use... Sergecross73 msg me 18:41, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure what's wrong with Vice or Nintendo Life? Also, I wouldn't call them routine either, they don't seem to be written as part of routine Mario Kart coverage. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 21:01, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I nominated Category:DVD interactive technology for deletion review: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 July 29#Category:DVD interactive technology. --Mika1h (talk) 15:32, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Uma Musume Pretty Derby#Requested move 21 July 2024

[edit]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Uma Musume Pretty Derby#Requested move 21 July 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 15:31, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unused contents

[edit]

There's a minor discussion over whether unused assets in Super Paper Mario are WP:Cruft. The current form is at Special:Diff/1237692497, which briefly introduces developments assets in specific regional version. I found this notable because A) it's reported at Nintendo Life, a reliable source in WP:VG/S and B) the fact that this version was released more than more than two years after the original Japanese version and has unique assets is not a universe lore but an insight into release history. I want to hear opinions about what to do. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 08:00, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I'd go so far as calling it cruft, given it's actually sourced, but it also seems totally off-topic and irrelevant for the article. The fact that the cat sprites exist may have absolutely nothing to do with the game's development at all, and be fragments of some other game. Due to this, I think it falls under WP:TRIVIA and should be removed. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:01, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is it fine to leave in the fact that the game was published there two years after the original release date, which is still relevant to the topic? Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 09:38, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, if there's a reliable source mentioning it, I believe it's fair game for a mention. Emphasis on "mention" though. Probably just a sentence or two. Sergecross73 msg me 10:19, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Emiya Mulzomdao, this is why I wanted to sit down and clarify, as it seems to be more a case of what/how to include the info over whether or not we should. Zxcvbnm is right that the details of this article are very trivial, as details usually are in the grand scheme of things. However, your recent rewording after the revert is written very well and I'm all in favor of keeping it this way. I'd also recommend mentioning the two year gap of the Korean version. Panini! • 🥪 16:21, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the release year gap seems like more of an important information. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 12:33, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Second opinion needed at Talk:Geno (Super Mario RPG)/GA1

[edit]

Hello, I recently nominated the article Geno (Super Mario RPG) for a GA review. NatwonTSG2 had to taken the task to do the review, however I feel it best if someone with more experience in GA reviews (as well as a good understanding of the character) to give a second opinion and give more pointers for the review. CaptainGalaxy 08:45, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up: Game Informer officially shutting down

[edit]

Per an official announcement made today. Sucks to be losing such an invaluable source. If we haven't already, we should definitely make sure any GI references either existing or going forward are properly archived for if/when the site is taken offline. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 16:24, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, what a bummer. They've always been such a strong source. Thanks for the heads up. Sergecross73 msg me 16:45, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I agreed with you @Sergecross73, Game Informer was one of the few best websites and magazines for video game news and now it's gone. NatwonTSGTALK 18:47, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is the site already down? I currently get "The website encountered an unexpected error. Please try again later.", although that might also point towards an overload. IceWelder [✉] 16:47, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's overload, yeah. I thought the same thing, but then it came back up. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 17:01, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update: The site is officially dead. All pages seem to be replaced with the shutdown ("The Final Level: Farewell from Game Informer") notice, not just redirected. λ NegativeMP1 17:32, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I had to replace the URL status with archived Game Informer links from "live" to "dead" on articles that have them, and I just hope you do the same. Forutnately, I can still look up video games in the archived link for GI's Legacy Review Archives shown here. Angeldeb82 (talk) 18:58, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have done a few spot checks and looks like archive.org is pretty good for archiving gi pages, including recent stuff like their Hades 2 coverage in May. I don't think we need to panic too much about old sourcing using gi. --Masem (t) 17:08, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, as is often the case with media outlets closing, the problem is not that the pages aren't archived (they usually are), it's that it becomes so much harder to find relevant sources once they stop being indexed by search engines. There's a whole trove of useful sources that are buried in archive.org that you have to know to look for and spelunk in various snapshots to find the specific url if you don't have it on hand. It's a mess. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:32, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm thinking of traveling through some defunct sources to add as ref ideas. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 18:34, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, searching them now will be an issue, however, there's no immediate panic in regards to our heavy usage of GI that we should still have Wayback (if not other cached methods) to keep them, compared to other past site shutdowns. Masem (t) 12:37, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Romhacking.net - WP:NOTNEWS?

[edit]

The page was recently created linking to numerous articles about the site's closure, but I could not find any significant coverage about the site during its actual existence. I am not sure the closure in itself is sufficient to support an article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:38, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely a WP:NOTNEWS failure, unless further down the line a few sources cover its history and it somehow becomes notable post-shut down. λ NegativeMP1 03:43, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
However, it clearly could be discussed at ROM hack and the content merged. Masem (t) 03:57, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the idea, I redirected it there since there is an agreement it shouldn't stand on its own. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:59, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additional input needed at Talk:Hexuma

[edit]

Input from more editors would be appreciated at a discussion on Talk:Hexuma regarding in-line citations. Thanks. Waxworker (talk) 20:51, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New Articles (July 29 to August 4)

[edit]
Main page: Wikipedia: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 16:35, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 29

July 30

July 31

August 1

August 2

August 3

August 4

  • None
That is a lot of stubs. CaptainGalaxy 17:19, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Separate articles for Download (video game), Download 2 and Download (OVA) seem a bit overkill. Especially when that OVA has questionable notability. --Mika1h (talk) 18:39, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it looks like a specific new user is responsible for like half the creations with a bunch of short/sloppy stubs... Sergecross73 msg me 19:50, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sergecross73:I concur. That is my main gripe with the user Beqwk making these video game articles without much effort into them. However, in the case of Download and its sequel, i have a list of reviews about both titles on a notebook that i could add to properly establish their notability. In the case of the Download OVA, that could be easily merged into the article of the first Download (just like how it's laid out in the Sands of Destruction article for example). Roberth Martinez (talk) 23:28, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Corporate use of Second Life could probably be merged back into Second Life. (Oinkers42) (talk) 20:12, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I support a merge. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:14, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't want to discourage the characters of Ace Attorney articles from above, because they at least address both development and reception, but when the heaviest section in those articles are the Apoearences section, there's a problem. Character articles aren't replacements for avoiding long plot summaries, and while we want their key character role outlined, even if across multiple games, it should still be looking at big picture elements and not at some of the detail I see in those... Unless that us sourced to third party works. Masem (t) 21:36, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I whittled down Dahlia's. How does it look? - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 22:33, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's better.. Did you do that to Franziska too, as I thought that was longer when I last looked? Masem (t) 23:00, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I moved onto that after I finished up with Dahlia. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 23:11, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Both are far better. We don't need to hit every character's story points, just any major beats central to their character (eg Edgeworth in the fourth case of the first game would be a proper major beat but not necessarily all his random appearances later) — Masem (t) 00:13, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Help with PR

[edit]

I currently have a peer review open for Undertale, and would like some detailed feedback, as I am planning to bring it to FAC. Any comments are appreciated. — lunaeclipse ⚧ (talk) 15:58, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games&oldid=1238967627"