Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 326: Line 326:
::A section is definitely appropriate as it has new features, but as it seems like ~90% of the game is otherwise the same, not a separate article. --[[User:Masem|M<span style="font-variant: small-caps">asem</span>]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 15:07, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
::A section is definitely appropriate as it has new features, but as it seems like ~90% of the game is otherwise the same, not a separate article. --[[User:Masem|M<span style="font-variant: small-caps">asem</span>]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 15:07, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
:::Same here! Relegating the DX version of Pikmin 3 is a good suggestion... [[User:KGRAMR|Roberth Martinez]] ([[User talk:KGRAMR|talk]]) 15:22, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
:::Same here! Relegating the DX version of Pikmin 3 is a good suggestion... [[User:KGRAMR|Roberth Martinez]] ([[User talk:KGRAMR|talk]]) 15:22, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
::::Works for me, we usually only have separate articles for full fledge remakes. There are a few edge cases like [[Super Mario 64 DS]] but that still has far more extra content than this will.--[[Special:Contributions/69.157.254.92|69.157.254.92]] ([[User talk:69.157.254.92|talk]]) 19:55, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Revision as of 19:55, 6 August 2020

The name of the game Zombie Carnaval/Tsunami

Can anyone take a look at this tiny article and comment on whether Zombie Carnaval or Zombie Tsunami is the correct name? Pl wiki article uses the Tsunami name (and shows a fair use logo for the other title). The game had its name changed. Since all we have as sources are metacritic reviews, I wonder if they are not messed up, or perhaps the other game which apparently forced a trademark name change is notable instead (it is not linked right now)? Seems like a bit of a mess, up to and including interwiki problems. And the claim for the name change is unreferenced... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:33, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not sure if the current game is notable but I can attest that the other game of that supposedly caused the name change isn’t. The Zombie Carnaval made my Taito is a social sim and has had a metacritic entry with no critic or user reviews https://www.metacritic.com/game/ios/zombie-carnival whereas the entry for this Zombie Carnaval has multiple reviews, and why some of the sites are down, all the remaining reviews identify the game as an endless runner by Mobigame. Also, in the details and credits section for in Metacritic entries for both Zombie Carnaval and Zombie Tsunami contain a homepage link to to download Zombie Tsunami by Mobigame on the App Store. Based on that evidence Zombie Tsunami being Zombie Carnaval renamed is the logical conclusion.--69.157.254.92 (talk) 04:38, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question on the Referencing Web-Based Video Game News Outlets

Hi, I'm currently writing an article about a video game website, but my submission was declined due to a lack of proper sources. I was wondering which of the following websites I could cite as a credible source, and how I can check if websites meet the notability guidelines. Here are the websites:

Eurogamer; CNET; Polygon; NME; Game Rant; Launcher, The Washington Post Video Game Outlet; BGR; Mashable; Gamesradar; Sick Critic; HappyGamer; Nintendo Wire;

Which of the above can be considered credible, if any? And how should I go about finding credible websites to cite (bearing in mind that this kind of thing isn't present on JSTOR or Google Scholar)?

The article I'm writing is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Nookazon

Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Squid45 (talk • contribs) 11:58, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Squid45: Hi! We have compiled a resource for reliable sources writing about video games, which you can find at WP:VG/RS. Note that sources not mentioned on the list aren't necessarily unreliable, it just means they have not yet been discussed. Signs of reliability include having a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking and having a dedicated and experienced editorial staff (ie not a fansite); you can read more about this on WP:SOURCES.--AlexandraIDV 12:18, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I can tell you that Eurogamer, Polygon and Games Radar are all on that list of RSes for us. NME, CNEt and WaPost are general good RSes for WP in general Also you should have plenty of sources - notability looks easily in the clear. One more I see just scanning: WaPost on data mining. --Masem (t) 14:22, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New Articles (July 20 to July 27)

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 v3.4 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 04:09, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

July 20

July 21

July 22

July 23

July 24

July 25

July 26

July 27

I'm not late, you're late... --PresN 04:09, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
2020 Nintendo data leak was also restored on July 25 despite the conversation here. I'm still of the mind that the leaked info should simply be added to the relevant articles instead of a standalone as I'm not sure how much impact the actual leak itself will have in the long run. --TorsodogTalk 04:35, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I personally agree we don't need a dedicated article on it yet, as long as we have a brief discussion of it at a Nintendo page, and any key relevant info that RSes catch on (like Luigi being playable in Mario64) can be added to the game articles. Speculation on any possible harm to Nintendo at this point... but if that does come to pass , then a separate article would make sense. --Masem (t) 06:15, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The article violates WP:SUSTAINED as a "brief burst of news". There doesn't seem to be ongoing coverage on it, if that were the case I'd agree it merited an article.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 06:49, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that we've seen RS'es literally call it "the biggest data leak in the history of the industry" I think a standalone article is pretty safe. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 07:01, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I believed the consensus last time shouldn't be overturned. The impacts of the leaks on the industry are mostly theoractical. If these theoractical impacts materialised, then it can have its own article. OceanHok (talk) 08:39, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm leaning toward keeping the article now. The leak keeps coming back up, as evidenced by the fact that it's back in the news again after the previous discussion. Axem Titanium (talk) 10:29, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Axem, despite the fact that the coverage is fast and brief, it's been on a lot of people's mind and has still stood for the past 4 months, so I think an article that at least collects a brief amount of information that isn't disclosing any confidential information, is good until we can make a more suitable article in the future that may breach the law. Captain Galaxy (talk) 14:37, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We can give it a week or so, but if there's not much more coverage after that, then redirection/merging would be appropriate (depending on the state). It's not that information from the leak is illegal - what sources like Polygon and IGN report on we can include without any concerns for the most part, its just trying to justify "biggest leak of all time" at this point. If anything the biggest thing so far is everyone changing their ring tone to a clear recording of "Do a Barrel Roll". --Masem (t) 15:07, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As the original creator of the article, I think that there's even more of a case for keeping the article now. As Salvidrim! notes, a ton of articles are calling it the most significant leak in industry history, especially considering that there's a ton of stuff that was previously considered lost to time (like Luigi's Super Mario 64 model). It was also in the news again a few weeks ago after the 3DS OS was leaked. Nintendo is reportedly actively searching for who leaked this to exact revenge too. JOEBRO64 20:40, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To me, the leak has produced interesting tidbits of trivia about various games and consoles, and I absolutely believe that info should be added to the relevant games' and consoles' articles. At this point though, it doesn't seem like we need an article that basically just lists the information that was leaked combined with a few articles calling it a big leak. The biggest leak of video game trivia of all time is still just a leak about video game trivia in the end. --TorsodogTalk 22:31, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
At worse, if we get rid of the article, we still want a redirect/section to point to (I had created Gigaleak and in Nintendo for that) that those brief tidbits can reference back, eg "In the 2020 Gigaleak, it was discovered that Luigo was to be a playable character for SM64." at that game. But let's give a bit of time and see if there's any further developers to warrant a need to keep. --Masem (t) 22:54, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment

Hey there everyone. I'd appreciate it if some of you could weigh in here, since being one vs one it's getting me nowhere. Additional input will be welcome. Thanks in advance. --uKER (talk) 19:54, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since someone have already started this thread, I would also like to point out that additional comments would also welcomed in Talk:Paper Mario: The Origami King#Genre. The debate focuses on whether the newer Paper Mario games are RPG or action-adventure games. Caution advised: there are several walls of text... OceanHok (talk) 04:41, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Input on Genre

For anyone interested, there is a consensus being held at Talk:Paper Mario: The Origami King#Poll for genre to see if The Origami King is primarily a role-playing video game or it just has elements of a role-playing video game. More information is held at the talk page. Thanks for the input! Captain Galaxy (talk) 20:45, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nintendo Data Leaks articles

I was recently thinking of making an article or two surrounding certain topics in the 2020 Nintendo data leak, specifically one for the "Super Donkey" prototype. I understand notability from reliable sources are a big reason for making articles on this website, but I would like to ask a different question. Is any of the information on the subjects in the leak too sensitive for Wikipedia, for example images? CaptainGalaxy 17:14, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Technically speaking, all of the leaks are the legal property of Nintendo. They are thus stolen content and are thus illegal. Doesn’t mean we can’t report on them or describe them, as far as I know, but hosting the images would probably be a big no-no. Toa Nidhiki05 17:16, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. CaptainGalaxy 17:30, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hosting the images en masse is a no-no of course but fair-use of copyrighted material is a long-standing practice whenever appropriate. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 21:20, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fair use of copyrighted material is one thing, but fair use of stolen material is another. Toa Nidhiki05 21:26, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still not sure about hosting the images, but I've noticed a lot of RSs do apparently think it's fine to host them, as a ton of the articles about the leak have of course featured screenshots, sprites, and the like. I may ask a help desk about this later. JOEBRO64 21:30, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We barely know anything about Super Donkey other than that it was a Donkey Kong game that became Yoshi's Island. I don't see any possible scenario in which it becomes a standalone article. And like Toa Nidhiki05 I'm also not too sure about hosting images since the material was stolen. For instance, during the Sonic X-treme FAC one user had a problem with the article using an emulator screenshot from a leaked prototype because of legal stuff. JOEBRO64 19:16, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Minecraft Task Force

I'm thinking about making a Minecraft Task Force as a subset of the Video Games Wikiproject. Does anyone have any thoughts on this, or would like to participate if I did make this? Thanks, Squid45 (talk) 16:04, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A while ago somebody proposed an entire WikiProject for Minecraft; the consensus was that it was nowhere near big enough of a scope to warrant one. I doubt a task force is needed either, Minecraft is one game and there are not many articles that make a task force necessary. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 16:13, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Minecraft has 4 games, but otherwise I agree. This is not a large enough topic area to warrant a dedicated project or task force. -- ferret (talk) 16:21, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Banjo-Kazooie Good Topic Potential

The Banjo-Kazooie series is very close to Good topic status, all of the games of the series are good articles, even some of the more loosely connected stuff like Rare Replay, Diddy Kong Racing, and Project Dream. The main series article is the only one left.(Oinkers42) (talk) 16:48, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The only question might be if Yooka-Laylee needs included as a clear spiritual successor. That would add two more articles that need GA, if so. Not sure they belong though. -- ferret (talk) 17:01, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If it's not part of the franchise it should not be part of the topic. GamerPro64 17:16, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it shouldn’t belong.--69.157.254.92 (talk) 18:10, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's gonna be a "no". We wouldn't put every GTA clone in the "Grand Theft Auto" topic, for example.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 08:21, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deeeep.io - Is Kotaku enough as reliable source?

Sorry if it isn't the right place to ask. Months ago I've created Draft:Deeeep.io but it got rejected due to lack of "notability or significant mentions in reliable sources". I've put in the references articles from Kotaku (reliable inclusion), Tom's Guide, Screen Rant, and TV Tropes. I've based it on other .io game articles like Hole.io, Eatme.io, and Jaws.io (which are less relevant, according to Google Trends). Any advice? --Dangelman (talk) 00:14, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Articles need to have significant coverage from multiple sources. Kotaku is considered reliable, but you can't make something notable by just filling the page with Kotaku articles. It's still being covered by only one source at the end of the day, no matter how many articles/announcements from them are used. TV Tropes is also not reliable, neither is Screen Rant, and I don't know about the status of Tom's Guide. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 00:21, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If there were several articles on the level of that Kotaku one then I'd definitely agree it passed GNG. But as it is now, the Kotaku one is the only source of note that would pass WP:SIGCOV.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 08:19, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you need any help with what sources to use look here at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources. CaptainGalaxy 10:23, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And now for my next trick-er project...

I'm still working on the improvements and changes around the Video game console articles, but in doing so, I've hit upon the start of a general problem at History of video games. Separately sitting at the talk page is a concern that Early history of video games should be merged back into that, and while I known the weight of the console generations needs to be pulled out of the History article (given what's at History of video game consoles) I'm not sure about that merge.

But ... that got me to thinking about what I've on the console side, and when I was working to make the timeline up from the example that Rhain had made above, I had come to this example Template:Timeline_History_of_Computing that gave me an idea for a top level template to use for History of video games. In this, I can see merging a brief version of the console generation timeline, key points of Timeline of arcade video game history (at least, identifying the Golden age), key points for PC gaming, other key industry points (crash of '77, crash of '83, release of NES in West to revitalize from that crash, Brown vs ESA SCOTUS case, etc.), release of fundamentally key genre-defining/best-selling games (Adventure, Pong, SMB, Tetris, Doom, Myst, Pokemon, FF7, GTA3, etc.), and others, including outside events (like for example, I would include COVID-19 here as an event to be aware of as a global changer), grouped in those categories.

I can't see this being a bad idea, but I am solicitating to see what would be key fundamental items to include, things that if you were trying to show a holistic picture of video games to someone, items you'd want to pick off. Ideally, events that we can source as being key but I don't need that sourcing now, just presume that you can point me to it or I can find it. --Masem (t) 18:55, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds like a good idea. If you wanted some input on the project, here's a few ideas:
Hope this helps! CaptainGalaxy 20:20, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For a good look into important video games, look at World Video Game Hall of Fame. CaptainGalaxy 20:23, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not seeing where the proposal to merge the Early History article into the main History article is, but I'd very much oppose that... As far as early history games/milestones go, Bertie the Brain is a minor game of interest with little impact. Tennis for Two, while having little impact either, gets a point for being the first "video" game made solely for entertainment. Spacewar! is the first real notable game, though, as it's the first recognizable "video game", and the first one that spread to multiple computers/locations. After that, maybe Computer Space as being the first commercial game/first arcade game, not just for being first but for setting up the way "arcade" games were treated/designed/marketed- that is, being computer versions of the mechanical arcade/pinball games that went through the existing pipeline for that, not a wholly new product. And the Magnavox Odyssey, for being the first console and creating the "idea" of a console attached to a television. Beyond that... read Early history of video games and Early mainframe games, I guess. Depends how detailed you want to be. --PresN 21:44, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The question of the merge was raised at Talk:Video game#Please add the section "Terminology"; also, discussion of merges and summary style. I'm not sure if it is needed, and as I said there, as Early history is your work PResn (and a GA) I'm a little hestitant to simply say "merge". The ultimate shape of History of video games is going to depend on a summary style approach to go to the console generations, to other advances, etc. that I see no reason why the early history has to be merged in, in favor of trimming back the coverage of early history in the current History of video games. (We have SO MUCH F REPETITION in our articles on our history of VGs, I'm finding, and I'm all for trying to figure out how to clean this up, putting detail where it needs to be.). --Masem (t) 22:24, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I left a longer comment there, and mainly it's replying to the other editor (I agree that the "summary" of the early history in the main History article should be chopped down to size), but to repeat its main point here: the early history article shouldn't be spared a merge because it's a GA. It should be spared a merge because the idea that we should only have a single parent article with no deep-dive child articles for the entire 70+ year history of the medium (except for consoles, which get their own article + 8 generation articles) is ludicrous. The parent History Of article should be clean and coherent, and I applaud your project wholeheartedly, but that does not mean that we shouldn't have articles dedicated to going more in-depth on "the pre-commercial era" or "the golden age of arcade games" or whatever, just like your History of video game consoles article project doesn't include merging all of the generations articles into one. --PresN 04:07, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Some more points:
CaptainGalaxy 09:48, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just to give an idea where I'm going with this, User:Masem/sandbox/vgtimeline is my starting point, though note the visual layout can change - the timeline code seems super finicky to play with. --Masem (t) 16:21, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I, Robot (video game) could also be added. GamerPro64 19:28, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Work from home hits everyone a bit different. :D I am happy to give Masem carte blanche to make any severe/radical changes to these VG history articles to make a set with minimal redundancy. I've always felt that this history project would take one dedicated editor who can keep the entire mass of facts and articles in their head at once to produce a coherent whole. Unfortunately I doubt piecemeal collaboration across a dozen articles will get you to that coherent final product. If he wants to take on this challenge, more power to him. Masem, you can assume you have my support. :) Axem Titanium (talk) 02:12, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Actually speaking of projects that could use more work, and should not take much work but just need editors with knowledge of the best RSes and how to use Wikidata: it would be real helpful if we could make sure data on some of the console systems in Wikidata is 1) correct and 2) given a proper reference. Data I am specifically concerned on are sales numbers, release dates, and discontinuation dates. Part of this came from making the table I have right now at video game console#Market, which most is pulled from two sources and verified to our data, but I was thinking "Gee, it would be nice to pull that data from Wikidata", which is quite possible ( eg , I can dynamically pull the units sold of PS2 as {{wikidata|property|Q10680|P2664}} (160,000,000) and its reference {{wikidata|reference|Q10680|P2664}} ([1])), but right now most of this info seems sourced to the Russian WP. Having one source of data for these would be really helpful. --Masem (t) 03:24, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Sophie McEvoy Staff Writer (27 November 2024). "PlayStation 2 has surpassed 160m lifetime sales". Retrieved 3 December 2024.

Advice needed: Bayonetta

Hi. I took on the task of reviewing Bayonetta, but the nominator has done relatively little from the suggestions and points I raised, and left no replies or status updates. Many of the points I raised either haven't been dealt with or haven't been addressed well enough. Options? --ProtoDrake (talk) 21:46, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unless someone offers to take over the work in the next day or two, fail it. More than enough time has been given for the nom to at least reply with a casual "going to work on it". -- ferret (talk) 21:54, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New Articles (July 28 to August 4)

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 v3.4 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 04:55, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

July 28

August 1

August 2

August 3

August 4

I've reverted the removal of the redirect to Riot Forge, doesn't meet standalone notability. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 05:21, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And redirected List of Outlast Characters. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 05:36, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
ASCII Corporation is not a new article, it's been around for a long time now. Maybe it got tagged for some reason. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 05:25, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
yep. --PresN 05:26, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if Mobile gaming in South Korea needs to be separate from Video games in South Korea. No size issue, and we really need to better our coverage of mobile gaming even though our main sources tend to shy away frm it. --Masem (t) 06:39, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't got the time to check for notability right now, but from a quick glance TruckersMP doesn't seem notable, right? soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 08:45, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't seem like it. I couldn't find a single significant or even insignificant source.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 08:53, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
AfD'ed. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 15:11, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does Pikmin 3 Deluxe need an article?

So yesterday I created the redirect Pikmin 3 Deluxe for Pikmin 3, however it has since been changed to a stub article. Do ports need a standalone article? As far as I'm aware no ports have ever had articles and are just merged into the original version's article such as New Super Mario Bros. U Deluxe and Mario Kart 8 Deluxe. I'm putting this here to get some opinions before I make any rash decisions. CaptainGalaxy 12:40, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Galaxy, it certainly doesn't need its own article right now, when all there is to say about it is that it's an enhanced port. If someday there's enough material about it that we need a separate article then we can make one then, though that's unlikely. Popcornfud (talk) 12:42, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A section is the right treatment for now. Keep expanding it and see what happens. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:04, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A section is definitely appropriate as it has new features, but as it seems like ~90% of the game is otherwise the same, not a separate article. --Masem (t) 15:07, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Same here! Relegating the DX version of Pikmin 3 is a good suggestion... Roberth Martinez (talk) 15:22, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me, we usually only have separate articles for full fledge remakes. There are a few edge cases like Super Mario 64 DS but that still has far more extra content than this will.--69.157.254.92 (talk) 19:55, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games&oldid=971541233"