Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 172

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) at 15:53, 31 December 2023 (Archiving 2 discussion(s) from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games) (bot). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archive 165←Archive 170Archive 171Archive 172Archive 173Archive 174Archive 175

Dave the Diver

There's been a running dispute at Dave the Diver over whether Mintrocket, a subsidiary of Nexon, is an indie developer. Reliable sources, who have acknowledged that Mintrocket is a subsidiary of Nexon, have nevertheless said they're an indie developer and this is an indie game. However, this issue seems to have become a big issue to some people on Reddit. Someone recently removed several reliable sources and said it's not an indie game, cited to an interview on a Korean website. Does anyone know if this source is reliable and thus the interview might be trustworthy? And would a machine-translated interview with the developer overrule what third-party reliable sources say? WP:VG/OFFICIAL seems to apply here, but one could also invoke WP:ABOUTSELF and say that this is correcting a mistaken belief by the press. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:46, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Looks like they only removed the videogames.si source in that edit, keeping all the other sources prominently describing it as an indie game in the title. If we can confirm that the interview is properly legitimate, I think it's reasonably to at least omit "indie" from the lede section. We can still write about it having indie aesthetics for sure, using indie as a sort of movement of game design. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:51, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
I would tend to agree it is not an indie dev. First, there is the quote posted on the talk page. Through my own research, I found a separate quote directly from Nexon saying that Mintrocket is an in-house division. "Had 'P3' been developed normally inhouse, it would have been presented to users under the name Mint Rocket". It appears this could be a case of an editorial mistake by Sports Illustrated because of the game's indie-esque appearance.
Obviously this is problematic but per WP:IAR, Wikipedia is not required to state anything a source says if there's clear evidence it could be wrong. I would err on the side of removing the indie game mentions and referring to it as a Nexon subsidiary. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:58, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
I think you misunderstand. I don't care whether individual Wikipedians think Mintrocket is an indie developer. There is no question that they are a subsidiary of Nexon; however, that is irrelevant to the question of whether they are an independent developer. On Wikipedia, the only relevant criteria is whether reliable sources identify them as such, and multiple reliable sources have said this is an indie game, and one explicitly identified them as an indie developer. Eurogamer themselves have said that it is an independent game made by a Nexon subsidiary; this is cited directly in the article. So, we don't need editors to come to their own personal conclusions. Eurogamer has already done it for us. What I am asking is not "do you think this is an indie developer?" I am asking if the Korean website is a reliable source. If it isn't, then the interview could be faked. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:46, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
Ignoring the question of whether the talk page interview is an RS, because I am unsure, and looking purely for English sources that might be relevant, there is an alternate Eurogamer article in which Eurogamer says: "Do you find it as fascinating as I do how every now and then you get a whiff of VERY NOT INDIE BUDGET peering out from behind its indie facade? [...] It's published and perhaps made by Nexon, right, who are completely huge? I would love to know how this game came to be!" It's possible that when Eurogamer said "indie RPG" they meant "indie-style RPG" or that they simply contradicted themselves due to a misunderstanding. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:28, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
I add some games to the Monster-taming game category. TroyToonTrotStudios (talk) 17:26, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
Speaking of Korean sources, I am currently working on Blue Archive, another Korean game, in my home wiki. A quick glance of the kowiki shows that they list the following websites:
I have no knowledge of Korean, but I believe this could help. MilkyDefer 05:20, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
And it is a pity that the Korean source claiming that Mintrocket is not an indie, is not in that list. I think we cannot jump to the conclusion that the site is unreliable -- we might need to find someone familiar with Korean games. MilkyDefer 05:23, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Star Wars: Dark Forces release date

I'm looking for additional input on the correctness of the release date for Star Wars: Dark Forces. Please see Talk:Star Wars: Dark Forces#Release date. Regards, IceWelder [✉] 16:07, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Working towards FA on Splatoon 3

As I'm sure some of you may have noticed in the Wikipedia Discord, I'm planning on working on making Splatoon 3 an FA. However I have absolutely no clue what I need to do to get it to FA status. I'm fairly sure that even though it's a GA right now, it's definitely not ready to be an FA. So is there some sort of way I can request feedback on what to do to work on getting it to FA status without actually requesting an FA review? ― Blaze WolfTalkblaze__wolf 20:18, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review is a good place for that. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:44, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
That's what I thought, and yet I recall being told in the Discord server that it isn't good idea. Or maybe they didn't. I have terrible memory. ― Blaze WolfTalkblaze__wolf 01:34, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
How's it going? QuicoleJR (talk) 01:30, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

New Articles (October 16 to October 22)

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 v3.16 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 12:49, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

October 16

October 17

  • None

October 18

October 19

October 20

October 21

  • None

October 22

Sorry to bother, but it appears Suika Game is missing from this week's report. CaptainGalaxy 17:21, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
Added, sorry- when an article gets created and then moved the same day, the script doesn't always recognize it as a new article. --PresN 17:51, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
That's all good. Thank you for adding it. CaptainGalaxy 18:07, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
Hey, SNAAAAKE!! is back! Panini! • 🥪 03:38, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
Oh just a new tag of an old article. Don't jumpscare me like that. 😅 Axem Titanium (talk) 21:06, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
Suika Game, a game that became popular out of the blue around me two years ago and faded in popularity after, suddenly go viral again worldwide - all happening too fast for me to grab an understanding of the situation.
The corresponding article in zhwiki is still "合成大西瓜" (synthetic big watermelon) rather than "西瓜游戏/西瓜遊戲" (suika game). Yesterday I made a distinction between these two games in Wikidata, please double check my work in Wikidata. There are several media coverages on the original "synthetic big watermelon" that I have no idea how to incorporate into the current article. MilkyDefer 07:25, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
Currently Synthetic Big Watermelon is mention in the English article as being an origin of the gameplay seen in Suika Game. Currently it has notes about the different fruit in that version as well as release date. CaptainGalaxy 15:26, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
I meant more than that. For example, Chinese Academy of Sciences released an article detailing the internal mechanics that make "Synthetic Big Watermelon" addictive. There are also other reports focusing on the original "Synthetic"'s advertisement fraud. You may want to incorporate these sources about the original game into the current article but the problem is how. MilkyDefer 05:19, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
I mean, the article more talks about the Japanese game. The mentions of "Synthetic" is due to sources delving into the origins of the concept, alongside just a brief mentions on what makes the two versions slightly different in visuals. I don't think more is needed about Synthetic, but if you can think of a good way to incorporate it then you are more than welcome to. CaptainGalaxy 00:15, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
I am trying that in my home wiki. I will consult my fellow editors for a resolution - keep the two intergrated into one article, or boldly split them up. MilkyDefer 04:24, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
UPDATE: My idea of merging the two games into one article has been met with unprecedented and universal ridicule. I am forced to split them up. MilkyDefer 03:52, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

CNET archives

Resolved

I would not be surprised at all if any of you are aware of this problem, and certainly this talk board is aware of CNET having deleted articles earlier this year, but I have just discovered that not all the content from the 2000s was archived, or so it looks. I discovered what appears to be the only evidence that a CNET review for M&M's Kart Racing, a Wii and DS piece of shovelware that has been called one of the worst games of all time, ever existed. Attempts to connect to the review page by reconstructing the link based on cues from the ABC mirror and the CNET website as archived in the Wayback Machine in 2008 and accessing it in the Machine have failed. Granted, I realized I was looking in the Wii section of a list of reviews when I should have been looking in the DS area since the review is for the DS version, but now my access to the Wayback Machine is throttled again, and I cannot continue browsing the archives to dig up the article. Is unsaved CNET content a real problem that anyone here can attest to, or is it just the Machine denying me access again? P.S. No amount of my research on the Internet can uncover answers as to why access to the Wayback Machine periodically goes offline. FreeMediaKid$ 01:05, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Well, I got access to the Wayback Machine again before getting it cut again. During that time, I was able to ascertain what the URL was. It is http://reviews.cnet.com/M_M_s_Kart_Racing_DS/4505-10068_7-32632053.html. Needless to say, it is a dead link, and apparently a permanent dead one, too. Maybe the review has survived with a later URL, but again, I will not be able to find out until I regain access or someone else finds it. In the meantime, feel free to confirm from your experience whether CNET reviews have been permanently lost. FreeMediaKid$ 01:53, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
Found it. I had to look inside the ds-games path of the domain and look at a list of websites with that path archived in the Machine, and that is how I recovered it. I have tagged this discussion as resolved. FreeMediaKid$ 03:16, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
@FreeMediaKid! If it's for CNET, it's also worth checking Gamespot. Here's a live version of the review from there. CrimsonFox talk 07:24, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
I would have proceeded to add the CNET review, but it came to my attention that it it identical to the one by GameSpot. I am only just learning this, but is it not true that, since the closure of Gamecenter, all CNET reviews for games are GameSpot reposts? FreeMediaKid$ 05:29, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

New Articles (October 23 to October 29)

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 v3.16 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 13:06, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

October 23

October 24

October 25

October 26

October 27

October 28

October 29

Computer Entertainer

Months ago, I uploaded nearly all of the 100 issues of Computer Entertainer, identified by WP:VGRS as a reliable source, to the Internet Archive. The uploads were useful because, with the Archive adding searchable text to PDF scans, search engines index those uploads' web pages, making seaching the issues by text feasible. This notification serves three purposes: 1) to inform users about the Archive uploads, 2) to cause them to consider updating the Reference library to include mentions of Computer Entertainer, and 3) to encourage users to find the missing issues, namely Nos. 1 to 3 and 95 to 100. Given its copyright holder's failure to crack down on online scans (they can be read here and here, to name two websites), I calculated it unlikely that the submissions would ever get DMCA'ed, so I hope that, along with the two other purposes of this discussion, someone will upload the remaining issues to the Web. I will then submit them to the Archive and use my privilege to group them into the Computer Entertainer collection.

And now for my rambling
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

It may be imprudent to bring these years-old events back into light, but I feel that I must clarify some of my demeanor then, and I feel that I have failed to provide the community with adequate explanation during the time those events involving me were unfolding. These explanations are long overdue.

A user named Gamingforfun365—naïve, a little rude, relatively inexperienced, and undecided on how he wanted to edit until years later—decided to undertake the task of reviewing articles. For context, I was that user, but since I am personally better off not tying myself to my past, I shall refer to him in third person. One of these articles was Crispy Gamer, which he helped pass. Then, he sought to elevate it to feature article status. The fatal error he committed was being oblivious to the requirement that he be a major contributor. Accusations of stealing credit from the user who submitted it as a good article nominee were levied against him. The accusations were unfair, given his, Gamingforfun365's, inexperience, and he never forgave them for such libel. In the midst of a heated argument, Gamingforfun365 then posted what, in retrospect, turned out to be his biggest blunder in the history of his Internet use. He stated that "I am actually having fun from how lousy this discussion is going." He thought that his comment was clear in illustrating that the discussion had engaged in drivel and that all editors needed to move on, except that that comment was itself drivel, and so led to a long-shot ANB discussion after he neurotically talked incessantly about the article. When he confessed that he had not actially reviewed the articles appropriately, that may be true, but it is possible that he had also deliberately minimized his reviewing efforts in a gesture of self-berating.

Part two of that event pertains to how he tried to meet the requirement that he be a major contributor to the Crispy Gamer article. He realizes that, beyond minor edits, thr article could not be improved much further, which led him to the conclusion that whoever reads this rambling will find silly: that an editor for an article becomes a major one because they would have made the substantial improvements. That was why he believed he could renominate the article. He likely assumed that other users on this talk page would infer his reasoning. It never occurred to him that others would not, and so the bickering resumed, hence the ANB incident. He came to regret failing to explain himself. It is not the first time on the Internet that he has been falsely accused of eschewing norms when in fact his actions could simoly have been seen as misguided, and it would not be the last, either.

In a second event, in 2019, in a discussion about an article on Birdo, he posted his view on whether to keep the sources describing the Nintendo character as transgender. He then committed a blunder by expressing a political view about lifestyles like this. One may find the following reasoning ludicrous, but he posted that message for fear that right-wingers would bombard him with admonition and charges of immorality, just for making an edit suggestion about the article. That message was intended to placate those right-wing concerns, except, to his horror, that there would be no such right-wingers. There was admonition and charges of immortality, but it came from the wrong type of users. He did not forgive those, like last time, who claimed that he was trying to tout straight cisgender mores, and, as a realist, it made no sense to him anyway. If he had understood what response he would receive, why would he post it? What practical benefit would that have served him? He apologizes for the confusion, but laments the moralizing aspect that played out.

In both cases, he could have littered the talk pages of the users who cried foul, and given his current personality, he almost regrets not doing that. A man looks effeminate if he lets false claims about his state of mind run across. On top of that, he also legitimizes these claims if he does not refute all of them one by one. However, he would likely not deign to post harmful messages on one's talk page if one questioned his motives, instead refuting those charges. The point is that his, Gamingforfun365's, early experience has left him indignant over his treatment—which he feels to this day–and he hopes to alleviate that feeling by expressing this clarification. In case you thought this post was just me rambling, there is a reason I collapsed it.

FreeMediaKid$ 05:29, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Nice work here; these look like gold mines for articles on old games, especially the release schedules. Phediuk (talk) 12:41, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
I added Computer Entertainer to the Reference Library TarkusABtalk/contrib 17:55, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

About game categories by decade

Numerous categories subdividing games by decade were created last year by User:StarTrekker such as Category:2020s horror video games. As far as I know there was not consensus about this, and it makes them harder to alphabetically navigate. Is this just an example of WP:OVERCAT that should be reverted or was there a consensus to do so? ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:51, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Why would one need a consensus to create a category? Its no different than the Category:2020s horror films or Category:2020s horror novels trees (that also exist for other genres). By far more people are going to be interested in seeing media listed by date and genre than alphabetical order.★Trekker (talk) 21:36, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
No games are categorized that way, so one would assume that a massive change to the categorization scheme would merit discussion. From what I've seen, films tend to be talked about far more in terms of the time they were made. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:17, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
Personally I don't understand why video games would be different than any other media really, I've for sure seen people discuss video games from when they came out.★Trekker (talk) 01:11, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
Categories are meant to be defining about a game. A game can be well known for the year it was released, or the genre, but whereas films and television shows are often talked about by their decade, I just don't see that with games. Perhaps its because changes in games move much faster than other products or due to the new-ishness of games compared to other media.
If one does want all horror games in the 2020s, that's what cross-categorization tools or Wikidata are for. Masem (t) 01:38, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
99.999% of Wikipedia users don't use cross-categorization tools or even Wikidata. I'm not seeing any convincing argument for video games being different than every other media.★Trekker (talk) 17:22, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
It's not defining. One may describe the 2023 Resident Evil 4 remake as a "2020s game", or a "horror game", but not really a "2020s horror game". Games aren't usually defined by decade-genre like that. I've seen platform-genre more often, like "PS1 horror games" or "N64 platform games". It's difficult to say why this is. It could be because games are still a relatively new format, and have evolved so quickly that say, horror games in 1991 have little in comparison to those in 1999, for example. There may be exceptions but I don't think 2020s horror is one of them. TarkusABtalk/contrib 18:10, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
I've also seen things like "PS2-era platformers" which are not just those on the PS2 but in the same general generation as they often use the same gameplay elements. But that's harder to nail so even that I would not use. Masem (t) 04:10, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
I mean, going on that sort of logic, a similar percentage of general, non-editor readers probably don't even know categories exist in the first place. Not that I'm opposing you on those grounds, just a note that every part of this effort and discussion is probably not worth the time. Sergecross73 msg me 18:28, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
Agreed with TarkusAB, the important aspect that distinguishing video games by other media is the platform. If we had created 2020s horror video games, we could create a bunch of intersections (like 2020s video games developed in the United States, horror video games developed in the United States...). And by the same logic, we would have 2023 horror video games, 2023 PlayStation 4 games, PlayStation 4 horror video games, etc. Unlike other media, a video game may have multiple platforms and multiple genres (and other characteristics), so the cartesian product result may be awful. For the certain readers, the intersections are somehow useful; but it's really hard to be maintained, and make the category bar mess. --Lopullinen 03:40, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

New Articles (October 30 to November 5)

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 v3.16 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 14:36, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

October 30

October 31

November 1

November 2

November 3

November 4

November 5

Resource request (NGC Magazine)

Hello everyone. Apologies if this is the wrong place for this question. I plan on working on the Buffy the Vampire Slayer: Wrath of the Darkhul King article in the future and putting it through the peer review process prior to a potential WP:FAC. The game apparently received a review in the August 2003 issue of NGC Magazine, but I cannot find anything about it online. Just for clarification, the information was already cited in the article prior to my editing.

I was wondering if there was a way to request for this particular source or if anyone had any pointers on finding information from the magazine in general. I could ask on the request page for the WikiProject Resource Exchange, but I thought I should ask here first. I currently have no way of verifying if this issue even reviewed the game, and I am not even sure if I could buy a physical copy of this issue. Sorry again if this is the wrong place for this question. I hope everyone is having a great week so far. Aoba47 (talk) 21:24, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

@Aoba47: I have access to it. I can send to you later today. TarkusABtalk/contrib 22:30, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
I was going to say that they are on the Internet Archive, but it appears they've been nuked since I last checked. You can find the August 2003 issue at Sega Retro / Retro CDN; the review is on page 66. Other than that, this page and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Reference library are definitely the right places to ask. IceWelder [✉] 22:31, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
Thank you both for the responses. I am still new and inexperienced when it comes to video game articles so I was not even sure where to look outside of the Internet Archive, and even then I sometimes miss things on a first look. Hope you are both doing well. Aoba47 (talk) 23:37, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Regent Bakery, Portal, and The cake is a lie

See also: Talk:Regent_Bakery_and_Cafe § Portal_and_The_cake_is_a_lie

I've recently created Regent Bakery and Cafe. I'm struggling with how to expand the entry re: Portal (which also happens to be a Featured article) and the Internet meme The cake is a lie. Both articles reference Regent, and I'm confident all three topics should be covered in each, but I'm not exactly sure what's best. Hoping some folks here might be interested in helping out via article improvements and talk page feedback. Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:45, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

@Another Believer: I'm not sure it should be expanded much, to be honest? Like, it's certainly interesting that the cake in Portal (and thus the meme) was based on a cake from a real bakery nearby, but beyond a sentence saying that in the three articles, there's not much more there to be said. The provenance of the cake isn't that meaningful to the game or meme. The article for the bakery should extending the sentence to mention the meme (now done), but that's about it, I think. --PresN 23:59, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

An Atari Jaguar Chronology has popped up...

So, i was browsing Twitter/X when all of the sudden, an Atari Jaguar chronology has popped up (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/u/0/d/1IW3M4k-nDqN-HubfNkLdU8PYkKvgd0UpD80fbtTH_QA/edit?pli=1#gid=0) by user Pimpeaux (https://twitter.com/Pimpeaux/status/1719357455128236444). I took a look at the list and it seems pretty well researched (IMO). However, one thing that grabbed my attention was the constant use of the rec.games.video usenet Atari group, which i don't know how that is seen here on Wikipedia. I revamped the list of Jaguar games at the start of October (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Atari_Jaguar_games&oldid=1177995450) and it took me a while to find those sources with the release dates listed. I would use the spreadsheet more as a guide rather than the de facto source but i don't know. What do you guys think about this? Roberth Martinez (talk) 21:22, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

A usenet group is WP:USERG I would think? -- ferret (talk) 22:17, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
Nobody can keep you from using anything as a personal resource - you're free to get "ideas" or "leads on information" from wherever. But as ferret notes, it'd fail USERG as an actual source. Sergecross73 msg me 22:35, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
@Ferret and Sergecross73: I also wanted to ask you guys an idea i have for the Atari Jaguar list (and sorry for the somewhat late reply!): since the list for Atari Jaguar CD games just encapsulates 13 games, i was thinking of merging it with the titles on the main list but i also had an idea of making it a separate list within the main Jaguar game list page. Does it sound like a good idea or do you guys have potential suggestions? Roberth Martinez (talk) 00:11, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
I like the idea of it being a separate section at the main Jaguar list, if that's what you're saying. Sergecross73 msg me 02:52, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
@Sergecross73: Pretty much, yeah! Roberth Martinez (talk) 03:24, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

New site from former Kotaku writers

Aftermath is a new site from four former Kotaku writers under their control. [1]. Content looks potentially useful for article but probably give it time before using. Masem (t) 14:56, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. It'll be a good one to keep an eye on. Judging by their introductory article, on one hand, there's a lot of credentials to writing at other RSs. On the other hand, we'll have to see how they handle their "interest in freelancers" too, make sure it doesn't just turn into a user blog platform. Sergecross73 msg me 15:03, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

The Escapist and Zero Punctuation

The Escapist has imploded again with the entire video team either being fired or quitting. [2] Yahtzee Croshaw of Zero Punctuation is leaving too, so the site might be dead for real this time. I see escapist references occasionally in articles (usually Yahtzee's work) so if any bot wranglers want to archive anything worth archiving, now is probably the time to do so, just in case. Meanwhile, the former escapist team seems to be launching their own independent site/channel, so keep an eye out for Yahtzee producing new episodes of not zero punctuation on not the escapist. I was going to ask if Yahtzee keeps his "reliable" status at whatever this new outlet is, but per Masem's post above, it sounds like they would still need to be evaluated as a new source, regardless of the reputation of the existing contributors. CurlyWi (talk) 16:26, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that's correct. Escapist and Yahtzee are on the fringe of usability as it is, so any future output would certainly require a new evaluation. Sergecross73 msg me 16:35, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Geoff Keighley's Behind the Games

Behind the Games was Geoff Keighley's series of long-form articles on GameSpot. I found this in my notes and wasn't sure where to put it, so I'll list it here. The topics covered are:

It's truly a shame GameSpot has wiped these, and its many other feature ariticles, from its website. IceWelder [✉] 20:06, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Infobox platform control for VR games

With so many VR headsets out there, and the amount of games that support each, I feel that the platforms parameter of affected infoboxes could become overloaded with the different headsets that support it. A prime example of this inevitable overload is VRChat, an article where editors constantly update the infobox with new supported headsets. Is there a way, where necessary, we can condense this parameter into a more generalized term for the VR space? Jalen Folf (talk) 01:27, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

For VR games we generally try to use the platform it launches from (Windows for the most part), rather than the headset brand. Masem (t) 20:18, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Time for a fresh coat of paint on our article box arts?

This is something I've been poking at off and on, but project wide we do have a large number of video game articles with box art that's honestly not aged well:

  • Many are in JPEG format, which scales terribly as is and leaves artifacts. Even if the original is based off a JPEG scan, scaling it down as one for fair use purposes tends to compound just how unclear things can look
  • Many are far smaller than current fair use standards will allow. Heck some are smaller than even Fair Use standards at the time would have been okay with.
  • As time has gone on, scanners have gotten better and we have better resources to draw covers from.

So an idea was to possibly take a particular platform, and start going through and systematically tidying up any old arts that could use better counterparts. Upload them in PNG, let the bot do the resize, and help a lot of older articles maybe look a little better in the process. What do you guys think? Is it worth possibly sitting down as a project and coordinating? Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:12, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

We still have hundreds of articles that require box art and almost 10,000 that need screenshots, so I think the priority should be on adding that before going back and tidying up older ones. It's a good thing to do if the article is being improved but... I feel like the insane screenshot backlog takes priority. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:34, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
Er, our non-free policy limits non-free art to 0.1MP, which is what nearly all of our cover art is set to. That cannot change without a change in policy.
And while we can talk about moving from JPG to PNG, remember that JPG can be better for art that is closer to photo-realistic due to how it compresses info. Masem (t) 03:01, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
Where is this "JPEG scales terribly" idea coming from? That's not true at all. The artifacts are just from the overly strict resolution rules rather than the format itself. PNG is a fine format too, to be clear, but if you think you can determine whether a particular bit of box art is a JPEG or a PNG at a glance, I doubt you would do better than 50/50 at some sort of Pepsi challenge of guessing whether an unknown image is a PNG or a JPEG. Anyway, if there's poor quality scans or under-min resolution scans to update, sure, but merely switching image formats is probably not worth anyone's time. (Especially if you just take a JPEG and convert it to a PNG.) SnowFire (talk) 08:07, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
Okay well it seemed like a good thing to get everyone working on a tangible goal so we could give things a shot in the arm but clearly a bad idea, nevermind.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 08:12, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
I do think that there is the germ of a good idea here - if we ever look into updating our max resolution without need for a non-free no-reduce tag, then that increase will provide an appreciable improvement (and be good for accessibility!). 0.2 or 0.3 megapixel images will look better no matter what format they're in. But I think we need to look into the potential policy update first, and a hypothetical image refresh only later. I have a half-written proposal from a year+ ago on the topic that our current image resolution limit only makes sense for such narrow and rare use cases that we should really change the default; maybe worth digging up again. SnowFire (talk) 09:09, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
I feel like if that was going to go through we'd need to get more projects on board with it. I agree it would be nicer, but I feel there's going to be an argument for necessity depending on how some projects are so expect that to come up.
As for the idea it was a matter of looking through some old articles I wrote and realizing we still had images from 2005 in stuff like Game Boy covers. And honestly it felt like such a small thing to try and coordinate with folks on to give things a shot in the arm because realistically things have slowed down, while this is something anyone with a decent eye could contribute to. But yeah message received, forget I mentioned it.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 09:59, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

About the Koei Tecmo article

So, I wanted to bring this up. But the article Koei Tecmo is almost exclusively about Koei Tecmo Games, not Koei Tecmo Holdings. despite being titled as such. But it just... mixes and matches information from both companies. Including, relatively, "false" information on location, stock exchange, subsidiaries, etc Some of the information is outdated as well.

In Japanese these are two separate articles Koei Tecmo Holdings and Koei Tecmo Games. It's worth noting, Koei, as a corp, was just renamed into Koei Tecmo Games upon fusion with Tecmo, while Holdings was an entirely new corporate entity. This is reflected in their IR page. KT Games only includes the, well, games. Not KT's other businesses which are listed as well.

Should something be done about this or just leave it as is. I'd be up in "splitting" or creating a separate article for the two.  ►Kyo  ►Talk  18:16, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

I've noticed that KT doesn't have much on the way of experienced editors regularly editing/maintaining it. (Nothing against them, I've noticed that sometimes that just randomly happens in both video games and music areas I edit in.) So I'm guessing this was just a result of negligence, and you're probably free to fix it as you please (within the usual confines of sticking to what sources say, etc.) Sergecross73 msg me 19:02, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
This kind of mixing has happened before at Square Enix as well- like KT, Square Enix is actually since 2008 a holding company that then has a bunch of confusingly-named subsidiaries in different countries, and the article wasn't clear when it was talking about the holding company or the Japanese subsidiary that contains all of the actual notable work. Sorting that out isn't trivial. That said, keep in mind that readers really don't care one bit about the holding company, or the precise regulatory/financial arrangements made within. It's true that KT Games is a subsidiary of KT Holdings, but it's also true that KT Holdings does nothing of note and just exists as a shell around KT Games and its sister companies for legal/financial reasons. So, while I agree that you should go ahead and fix up the article however you see fit, I'd recommend not spinning off an article on the Holdings company, and instead just focusing the article on KT Games while making it clear that the parent holdings company is the one with the stock, and the other studios are siblings of KT Games, not subsidiaries. --PresN 23:51, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
I agree this is probably a better approach too. Sergecross73 msg me 23:56, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
yeah, I suppose this makes sense for cleaning up the article.  ►Kyo  ►Talk  00:47, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Refideas edit notice

Hello! :) I would like to make a notice here that as of this week, if an editor clicks "edit" on any article that uses the Refideas template on its talk page, they will see an editnotice above the editing window indicating that there are sources on the talk page that are not currently in use in the article. This would be especially useful for anyone with an active interest in improving that article, and it would also be useful in helping gauge the notability of an article. :) BOZ (talk) 15:32, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Date format at Nintendo article

FYI
 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Talk:Nintendo#Date format.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:43, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Graphic adventure game lead

Hi, is it reasonable to leave out the "graphic" in the leads for graphic adventure games. I feel it would be more concise, especially when they are episodic adventure games, and it may be assumed that not to be text for modern games. Asked specifically for Life Is Strange (video game). (If a prefix is needed, I would go with narrative adventure or similar) By the way, I'm wondering if listing publication awards like Top 20 games becomes excessive here. (cc @Nyxaros:) IgelRM (talk) 11:03, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Since graphic adventure games are part of adventure games, I don't see any reason why they shouldn't be used. It's more specific and defining than a general term. Why would the sources and statements about publishers choosing game of the year or any related content be excessive? While we are on the subject, it would be better if you convert these expressions to prose after removing them from the award lists instead of deleting them completely. ภץאคгöร 11:17, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
Also, do not remove multiple reliable references without giving a valid reason. ภץאคгöร 11:24, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
Simply "adventure game" is usually used, with "graphic adventure game" being somewhat redundant, at least when talking about video games. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:23, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
Adventure games have predominantly been graphic for the past forty years. A text adventure in the 2010s is an exception; complex graphics can typically be assumed unless specified otherwise. "Graphic adventure game" is probably a more reasonable label in the 1980s. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 12:22, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
I would agree with these - today "adventure game" is generally meant as a graphic adventure game, and we only need to distinguish when talking text adventure games, or the early establishing graphic adventure game titles like Mystery House or King's Quest. Masem (t) 13:28, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
"Narrative adventure" is placed under "graphic adventure" so it may be used instead (but the only source on the page describes it as "narrative games – specifically choice-driven interactive fiction"). ภץאคгöร 13:45, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
My edit summary said "Please list publications instead of combining with EFN." The "Attributed to multiple references" style is not helpful for readers and I did not see what the references were bringing to the article. We would have to see which sources may be integrated into prose and aren't passing mentions.
Edit: On the top 10 lists, they are generally low notability; if I reasoning is given, I would move it to the reception paragraphs.IgelRM (talk) 09:29, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
This is not the same topic but anyway. Template:Efn is perfectly fine to use and it is clear what the sources are bringing to the article, in addition to stating that they include the exceptional claim. I don't know how lists are "generally low notability" and how you came to that conclusion. It seems to me these are your personal opinions/preferences. ภץאคгöร 16:43, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
I was replying to "remove multiple reliable references", I think we got confused here. I cannot imagine the style is preferred but I realize I'm not the best source here. I have not seen it used recently. I would also disagree that citing listings are mentions for acclaim is preferable. IgelRM (talk) 14:48, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Reference Library rework

I have completed the first phase of rebuilding the Reference Library. I have more work planned, but I wanted to notify the project that this rebuilding is underway. Feel free to help if you want.

The goals of the restructure are as follows:

  1. Shift the focus from editor-owned materials to online archives. Many of the editors who listed themselves as contacts for magazines or books are no longer active. It was a good idea in the beginning, but it's showing itself to not be sustainable. I don't see many editors taking advantage of this anyways. There are also many more scans available now than when the library started, and most of us use archival websites anyways, so that should be the focus.
  2. List more material: Magazines were only listed before if editors owned them. I'm slowly adding more magazines that are available elsewhere online. I've also added a section for television shows, and the books list will be expanded in the future.
  3. Simplify navigation: There were too many links before and they were poorly organized. Links to magazine archives were hidden in subpages and poorly formatted. Now, links to archive sites and indices are presented up front in an organized table.

TarkusABtalk/contrib 23:20, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for doing this! Axem Titanium (talk) 23:44, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

New Articles (November 6 to November 12)

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 v3.16 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 14:49, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

November 6

November 7

November 8

November 9

November 10

From User:Jspock, "Create own page". ohmygodheadmitit!.gif Axem Titanium (talk) 23:46, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

November 11

November 12

New Articles (November 13 to November 19)

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 v3.16 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 02:22, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

November 13

November 14

November 15

November 16

November 17

November 18

November 19

Help with finding a source for a release date

Apologies again for the random question. Does anyone have any general advice on finding an appropriate citation to support a game's release date? I am currently rewriting the article on Buffy the Vampire Slayer: Wrath of the Darkhul King. I had initially used CNET as the citation for this information, but that does not seem appropriate given the consensus here. To further add to my confusion, IGN has a different date listed on their profile of the game (here), but I am not sure where that information is being pulled from or if it is user-generated or added by IGN itself. Apologies if this has a really obvious answer. I believe that I have exhausted all the resources on this game, and I could not find one that explicitly says the release date so I am just a little lost here. Thank you in advance for any help! Aoba47 (talk) 03:32, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi. I found sources giving June 26 for NA and June 27 for EU. Regards, IceWelder [✉] 04:55, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for the help! Aoba47 (talk) 11:17, 23 November 2023 (UTC)


FAR for Digital media use and mental health

I have nominated Digital media use and mental health for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:07, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi all. I've been trying to remove content added by User:Maestro2016 for a while now. Would love if someone would give me a hand and look into these gaming-related articles

Game related articles that need to be checked:

Arcade video game
Battle royale game
1998 in video games
1995 in video games
1992 in video games
2000 in video games
1993 in video games
2001 in video games
1997 in video games
2002 in video games
1994 in video games
Timur9008 (talk) 16:02, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

I can if u want DieCrewls22 21:25, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

New Articles (November 20 to November 26)

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 v3.16 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 14:27, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

November 20

November 21

November 22

November 23

November 24

November 25

November 26

Chrono Cross

So for those unaware, Chrono Cross recently went through a FAR, and lost it's Featured status. However it's also part of a larger Good Topic on the series. If it doesn't hit Good Article status within the next few months, the topic itself will come under fire and may be removed. While I'm not saying everyone drop everything and try to fix it up, there are at least cited issues that can be addressed slowly that we can try to get it back up there, if anyone else is willing to help. Kung Fu Man (talk) 08:18, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

  • Might as well crosspost what I said a couple days ago on discord, just some summarizing of the issues:
some of the issues highlighted in Wikipedia:Featured article review/Chrono Cross/archive1 seem remarkably solvable. a lot of citation formatting and parameter-filling. a few files with iffy FURs. a handful of borderline sources needing better justification.
however there are some major prose issues to address too: gameplay isn't all properly supported to sources, characters / synopsis too hefty and almost only cited to game text, reception needs major expanding, legacy is disorganized. and "extreme overquoting" throughout. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 17:30, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Acclaim Studios Austin#Requested move 18 November 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Acclaim Studios Austin#Requested move 18 November 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 18:49, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Ongoing peer review of Hogwarts Legacy

Hello! I made a peer review request for Hogwarts Legacy about three weeks ago. Currently, there is one user providing some input on the article's state, and I would welcome other people to join: Wikipedia:Peer review/Hogwarts Legacy/archive1 Vestigium Leonis (talk) 09:26, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

I will try and take a look next week. If you ping me if I forget, that will be helpful. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:13, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
@David Fuchs Ping for this, also got a bit busy. Will have time to continue working on it next week as well. Vestigium Leonis (talk) 12:53, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Reception section question

Hi, got something to raise. I stumbled on the article for Tomb Raider: The Last Revelation recently, and discovered that the editor Angeldeb82 had expanded its reception section. This isn't inherently an issue, but the way it's been expanded seems clunky and unwieldy. I didn't want to just revert it, as since I brought the article up to GA I'm not a neutral party, but extra input on this is definitely required as I'm finding it borderline unreadable now. ProtoDrake (talk) 12:05, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I'll be the bad guy and revert here. It's become a quote farm—25 new quotes, where there were none before—with very few adding anything of substance. There are some seemingly useful references in here (which I'll add to the talk page) but there are more effective methods of adding them. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 13:27, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Endorsed. Theres a few editors who go around doing this. It's welcome when it's a tiny stub in danger of deletion or being merged, but not particularly helpful when wedging it into an already fully developed B/GA/FA level article. Sergecross73 msg me 14:52, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Kotaku now a situational source

This is big enough that it should be brought up here, so editors who don't watch/participate at WT:VG/S are aware. Kotaku has begun publishing AI-written articles without marking them as such, and as a result has been reassessed from reliable to situational at WP:VG/S. The current notes and limitations are as follows:

News posts from Kotaku between 2010 and 2022 are considered reliable, although editors are cautioned of blog/geeky posts that have little news or reporting significance (such as [3]). Articles published before 2010 had comparatively weaker editorial standards, while articles published from 2023 onward should generally be avoided due to content farming concerns and unmarked AI-written content. It should be noted that this is not a definitive cut-off—editorial deterioration is gradual, and editors have noted instances of low-quality reporting in preceding years—so articles should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

The discussion that led to this can be found here. JOEBRO64 22:39, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Magazine list

The Reference Library magazine list has been updated. There's more work that could be done but I was getting exhausted of adding magazines and most of the major publications are listed anyways. Feel free to add more magazines and links. TarkusABtalk/contrib 17:07, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Excellent work; this looks like a great resource for older sources. Phediuk (talk) 13:13, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
Good work. This should come in handy. Timur9008 (talk) 18:16, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
@TarkusAB: Thanks for your herculean effort! I really mean it :) I'll help you filling the library by finding more vintage or retro gaming magazines i might come across :D Take a rest, you deserve it! Roberth Martinez (talk) 22:48, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

New Articles (November 27 to December 3)

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 v3.16 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 16:49, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

November 27

November 28

  • None

November 29

November 30

December 1

December 2

December 3

  • None

Hill Agency: PURITYdecay

Could someone from this WikiProject take a look at Hill Agency: PURITYdecay and assess per WP:NVIDEOGAME? it was just moved to the mainspace by it's creator from their userpage, which means it never got assessed for Wikipedia notability via WP:AFC. The creator is student editor in Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/Texas_Christian_University/Technological_Dystopias_(Fall2023); so, they might not be too familiar with notability guidelines related to video games. The article actually doesn't look too bad at first glance and may only be in need of some minor cleanup, but I too am not very familiar with the notability guidelines for videopgames and how they are typically applied. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:46, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

The prose is decent for a newbie...but the sourcing is pretty rough, and it has zero professional reviews on Metacritic. Not saying it's not notable yet...but there are some bad signs. Sergecross73 msg me 02:50, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
It might be a good idea then to let the WikiEd advisor(s) assigned to this student's course know about it then. If the current soucing is not sufficient to survive an AfD, then maybe it's better to WP:DRAFTIFY the article so that they student doesn't lose their work. At the same time, if the student is being graded on their work, others stepping in a further improving the article might also not be the best thing for the student. I'll add a {{Please see}} to the WikiEd advisor's user talk page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:06, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping @Marchjuly. My two-cents is to treat this as you would any other submission. If there's some hope for it and can be improved upon with reliable sources, then I think it's worth giving that chance with WP:DRAFTIFY or tagging with Template:Notability. I'll let the editors know about this convo and encourage them to work on it. Brianda (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:55, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
I would classify it as "in danger" of an AFD nom, but also potentially salvageable too. Some of the sources are iffy, but the awards it's received could help. My two cents - give it a "ref improve" tag and see if anyone can improve it. Sergecross73 msg me 19:15, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
Tagging it with a maintenance template (e.g. {{More citations needed}}) seems reasonable for the moment per Sergecross73's suggestion above. Some questions for Brianda (Wiki Ed) though. Does this Wiki ED course class instructor and their students understand WP:OWN? Do they realize that once one of their students moves something into the mainspace it's there for anyone and everyone to edit? Are they differentiating between the contributions of their students and contributions made by others when it comes to grading their students? -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:06, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
I've always wondered about that last question. Am I hurting their grades when I revert their their misguided work? Or unfairly helping them out if I rewrite/expand it? Just curious. Sergecross73 msg me 01:12, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
Good questions @Marchjuly, @Sergecross73 . We make it clear in our trainings and in our conversations with instructors that any content added to Wikipedia needs to follow WP:GP, and if it doesn't, then editors might comment on, edit, revert, etc, and that's ok and that's how Wikipedia works. Short answer, no, you are not hurting their grades or unfairly helping them. If anything, you are helping them see how the process of knowledge creation works on Wikipedia, how it's community based and how these guidelines are actually enforced. I think when students (first-time editors) experience this, it helps dispel the myth that anyone can do whatever they want on Wikipedia, and helps build trust towards the platform. If you are curious about the grading aspect, you can check out this link, that has other links, that go into depth about the different ways instructors can grade an assignment.
With that said, if you come across work that isn't following WP:GP, feel free to ping me! I can't be everywhere all at once, but I try my best to get into contact with the instructors and students asap, to address the concerns raised. Brianda (Wiki Ed) (talk) 23:11, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
Thank you Brianda (Wiki Ed) for the explanation, I appreciate it. One other question...I assume you meant to link to something different than WP:GP? That appears to link to "Gadget Proposals". Sergecross73 msg me 23:37, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
Oh no. I meant WP:PG. Sorry about that. Brianda (Wiki Ed) (talk) 23:42, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
No worries. Thanks again. Happy to get answers for things I wondered about but never took the time to figure out before. Sergecross73 msg me 23:49, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Opinion pieces are always reliable, regardless of source?

User:Kung Fu Man has reverted the removal of a Comic Book Resources source from Larry (Pokémon) stating that "this is an opinion piece". Consensus says that post 2016, the site is unreliable. I had assumed that unreliable source meant it was not usable in any case, but am I incorrect in thinking this? And would this even qualify as an opinion article? The title certainly does not allude to it being an opinion. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:52, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

That wasn't what I was saying Zx, and I already brought up a discussion on WP:VG/S that I feel that judgement was made in haste and furthermore makes no sense compared to the others. I would suggest continuing the discussion there so it's not spread out.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:56, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
I'm not sure where the "made in haste" part was? CBR has been caught using AI to write articles and fired most if not all of their editors. An array of users all agreed that it was unreliable and there isn't much wiggle room in this determination. The fact is that there is no way to prove a CBR article was or wasn't made with AI. The Larry article certainly exhibits some hallmarks of it, like overly exaggerating writing that claims he is an "exquisite commentary" without saying much about how it is so exquisite. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:01, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
If I may ask, why is the range from 2016-present? I understand the Valnet purchase made CBR's content lower quality, hence the situational-ness, but the AI thing seems to be a fairly recent change? I don't see why the announcement of AI made articles in August of this year would affect the past seven years, especially since AI making articles in and of itself is a fairly recent thing. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 06:54, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
"The fact is that there is no way to prove a CBR article was or wasn't made with AI. The Larry article certainly exhibits some hallmarks of it,"
The AI usage accusation came out mid this year, that article was written in December 2022. I will add too, apparently they did comment on the AI-usage accusation and stated they had no potential plans to. No offense man I get not wanting to possibly use AI articles, but claiming that one is such a reach so hard I fear you may have destroyed your shoulder.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 07:50, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
Ironically, the same article says that employees are expected to write more than 10 articles a day. While they might not be overtly using it, it's still very much a possibility that employees are covertly using it to let them meet the quota. More than 10 articles a day is just impossible unless they do almost no research and heavily compromise on quality and provides a very strong incentive to stick them into GPT-4 given they are freelance workers. It may not be true but I also don't think it's an extreme reach like you say. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:55, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
Zx, I'll give you the content mill aspect is terrible. And as I stated, them firing 3/4 of their workforce is enough to say they shouldn't be counted as unreliable from that point. But when you have a source from the horse's mouth saying "it's not happening" and you assume it is, nevermind the fact it's from a point before the whole "AI article" BS even went into full swing, you're basically doing original research.
At worst in this case I feel the Larry article should flesh out that source. But I don't see that article as any worse than those from the other sites, let alone stuff like GamesRadar, IGN or GameInformer have cranked out.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:15, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
I would agree with Zx here. CBR uses AI now, they can't be trusted. QuicoleJR (talk) 02:15, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
And I agree, but that's a change that went down *this year*, as did the mass firings. There's still the issue of 2016 to that point.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 07:42, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
Obviously, a change that happened after a piece was published does not affect its reliability (re: AI). Also, VG is not the only project to assess sources. Quote from WP:A&M/RS: "Comic Book Resources: From 2016 to mid-2023, Comic Book Resources is generally considered to be fine for attributed opinions and columns ...". Charcoal feather (talk) 18:53, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

I imagine ValNet's purchase of Comic Book Resources and the content-mill it is today is what excludes it from being a reliable source, not specifically the AI-written articles. If anything, using AI generation is a symptom of an unreliable source; it would've already had poor editorial standards beforehand. I don't know the evolution of its editorial policy and staff well enough to say a specific date when the publication became unusable... ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 18:21, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

On a related note, given the glut of AfDs for Pokemon character and monster articles on the basis of notability, is the sourcing in a good state? I'm not looking to endanger the article at all, but I've been a little confused about where the line for character articles should be drawn given how many AfDs for far larger Pokemon articles there have been. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 09:58, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
I'm afraid that, because of the status of Comic Book Resources, Kotaku, and Screen Rant, this would be best off merged back into the List of Pokémon characters. Three or four citations when there's an overarching list to cover the subject, typically means the subject can be described in enough detail in said list. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 13:45, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
@Vrxces: The main problem is there's SIGCOV but not a lot to say about the character itself in the body of the work yet. It's a reverse of some Pokemon articles . (i.e. Snorlax, who survived a recent AfD because he was "too iconic" but honestly is light on actual reception).--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:17, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, it's an interesting contrast to the usual situation. I've really noticed a purge of character articles recently, which seem to have a more subjective, amorphous approach to notability, so it's been a little confusing to watch. Fortunately, accepting that I'm a bit confused about it has definitely nipped my deletionist streak in the bud! ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 01:19, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
Larry is fine as an article in terms of sourcing right now. I'm not exactly hailing those sources as always being reliable (They're situational for a reason) but the three you've listed all contain significant commentary on Larry, which means they are all viable sources in this instance. Ruling out sources solely because they're situational isn't exactly a great way to class a character's coverage, especially since the coverage, all put together, is more than enough for a separate article, in my view. Several sources all discussing the character in depth with no real "filler" sources is better than a lot of articles that have been merged in the past, such as Pichu. (Who really didn't have much significant discussion to Larry's extent by comparison) The only reason it's such a small article right now is really because Larry is such a recent character, and thus has only made the one appearance as of now. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 03:37, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

New Articles (December 4 to December 10)

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 v3.16 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 01:53, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

December 4

December 5

December 6

December 7

December 9

December 10

List of role-playing video games: 2022 to 2023

The redirect List of role-playing video games: 2022 to 2023 was previously deleted because of WP:TOOSOON. As that seems no longer applicable, I re-created the page as a stub list. It would help if the table could be further populated. Thank you. Praemonitus (talk) 17:27, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

VGHF will be providing an online digital gaming resource library soon

Preview of its features Masem (t) 01:12, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Pre-FAC peer review of Hotline Miami 2: Wrong Number

For the past while (basically since I have joined Wikipedia), I have been working on improving Hotline Miami 2: Wrong Number as much as possible, getting it through GAN back in October, and I plan to nominate it for FAC some time in January. This will be my first time nominating something for FAC and due to this, I have opened up a pre-FAC peer review for the article, which has gone nearly a month without any responses. If anyone could take a look at it that would be great, and I'm willing to exchange reviews as well. NegativeMP1 22:49, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

The peer review is now closed. NegativeMP1 03:10, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Viability of a Category:Fan translated video games

I noticed that such a category was deleted back in 2007, but only had small participation in the discussion. I for one think that a video game having a fan translation is defining, as there are many games that are only widely known in the West due to this, like Mother 3. When speaking about such games, the fan translation is front and center. I'd like people's opinions on whether it would be viable or not though. It would preferably only contain games whose translations were specifically mentioned in reliable sources. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:19, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

You'd need to consider whether or not to include re-translations (games officially localized but fans don't like the translation so released their own), or incomplete translations. TarkusABtalk/contrib 01:10, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
I don't have issues with the category being re-made once again. I'll also add to what Tarkus said as well, by citing what happened with X for the Game Boy; an English fan translation appeared the very same day the unreleased official English localization (Lunar Chase) was leaked in 2020. Roberth Martinez (talk) 01:22, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
A category like this will be fine, as long as -- as you suggest -- each entry has a RS that has reported on the translation. Phediuk (talk) 01:35, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
This is a tricky one. You get games like Final Fantasy V which has been in English for over 20 years now, but still have very notable fan translations. On the other hand something like Tobal 2 most people probably have forgotten these days and its notability was in its hayday well before any fan translation came about. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 05:58, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

The Fidelity Ultimate Chess Challenge

Firstly an IP removes content without explaining why, then the 3rd time says it's redundant, I simply don't get why it's redundant, the article is pretty limited as it is, so why remove content prose that helps buff it up a bit?? I really don't get the editing and view it simply as disruptive, can anyone else explain this?? Govvy (talk) 15:37, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm not quite certain what the IP was intending to say, but direct quotes of that length are considered a copyvio. You should paraphrase reviewers' thoughts and keep direct quotes as short as you can to convey the message. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:58, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Archive_172&oldid=1192832676"