Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games

From Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

WikiProject iconVideo games Project‑class
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
ProjectThis page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

MOS vagueness: review scores without boxes[edit]

Hey all, I'm having a discussion at Talk:Lucky Luna that I thought that I should escalate to the project for clarification. Basically, another editor (Zxcvbnm) added a review box to the article, but there's only one scored review for the game. I removed the box on those grounds, but they think that we should then have that review score in the prose. The relevant section of the MOS is WP:VG/REC, which starts off saying that scores should not be in prose, but then says that that's what the review box is for, and shortly thereafter affirms that the review box itself is optional. Which can be read as a contradiction.

So, my question is: is our intention that scores should only be in the review box, whether or not the article actually has one, or that it should be in the review box if that box exists, and can be placed in the prose if the box does not? --PresN 19:48, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a common sense solution. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Axem Titanium: Which one is? --PresN 16:29, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think review scores need mentioning in prose unless they're otherwise notable (like Grand Theft Auto V and Ghost of Tsushima being two of three western-developed games to get a perfect score from Famitsu). I don't think the reader's understanding of Pocket Gamer's Lucky Luna review is improved in any way by knowing the score. Rhain (he/him) 23:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is. If the article says "Will Quick of Pocket Gamer [said] that it struck a "balance [...] between casual and engaging" we don't know if that is a positive part of an overall negative review, or representative of the review as a whole. A score makes it immediately obvious if a reviewer approved or disapproved of a game, as it is intended to do. I am in favor of giving the reader as much relevant information as possible, not removing it purely for aesthetic reasons. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ () 22:44, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I don't think that knowing "if a reviewer approved or disapproved of a game" aids the reader's understanding; if that was the case, we'd have articles where {{Video game reviews}} was twice (or thrice) as long to include all relevant scores. There are several journalists mentioned in that section whose overall opinion isn't mentioned, so I don't think it's necessary with Pocket Gamer either—though, to be fair, the preceding sentence states they nominated it for Game of the Year and the following paragraph adds additional praise, so I think it's pretty clear what their opinion is regardless. I've not seen anyone mention aesthetics. Rhain (he/him) 23:19, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion, which aligns with what I think the MOS says, is that scores should never be in prose, because they just don't impart actually useful information to the reader. It's numbers jammed in the middle- knowing that PG gave it 4 stars doesn't really tell you what they liked about it. (They thought it was fun and pretty. It's not a deep review, or game.) In fact, it's the only scored review of the game, out of four reviews and a couple half review/look-at-this pieces, because a lot of outlets feel that the scores aren't helpful even within the context of the review.
In any case, my proposal is going to be to change the line in the MOS from "{{Video game reviews}} exists for such a purpose." to "These scores should be limited to the {{Video game reviews}} template, if present.", to remove ambiguity for what to do if there is no reviews box. --PresN 01:11, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, the purpose of the box is to (A) save space in prose and (B) allow readers to quickly glance at a swath of scores to gather a consensus on the general reception. When there's only one or two scores, those purposes completely fall apart. You don't save much space, if any, and it doesn't give you a good assessment of reception because two reviews isn't enough to build any kind of consensus. So in this situation, absolutely no box. I've included scores in prose before, but I think that's a case-by-case editorial decision. If they had a lot of praise for the game, and maybe some minor complaints, saying they gave 4/5 stars isn't imparting any more information. However, if they scored it a perfect 5/5, or a 1/5, I think that would be interesting to share. TarkusABtalk/contrib 01:24, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Help with a draft[edit]

Hi all. Video game writing is not exactly my wheelhouse, so I figured I would come here for help. (Which is not to say I don't play video games – just that I don't usually write about them.)

As a bit of background, I am a regular at WP:CFD, and as such a will sometimes help out at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working/Manual (where discussion outcomes which cannot be handled by a bot are listed for processing). To tackle the longest-outstanding item on that list, I started "working" on Draft:List of video games with AI-versus-AI modes, which is set to replace Category:Video games with AI-versus-AI modes after Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 September 3#Category:Video games with AI-versus-AI modes ended with consensus to listify. (By "working", I really mean "started working but then quickly realized that I have no idea how to do this".)

Any help—from "here is how to go about doing this" or "I turned this into a FL while you weren't looking"—would be very much appreciated! Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 02:44, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Got to be honest, I don't think this is justifiable as a list. I could be wrong, but I really doubt you can find sourcing to get it to pass WP:NLIST: "a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources".
That said, if you can find multiple sources talking about the concept of AI-vs-AI modes in games, then you need to figure out what goes in each row/bullet point of the list. Right now you have the name; you need a reference to show that the game has an AI-vs-AI mode, and then what else? Probably release year, genre, and a notes field describing how it works in that game? --PresN 02:56, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would be excellent to write prose about what an "AI-versus-AI" mode is and how players interact with it. But I agree that finding sources on this might be hard, especially now "AI" has such a big fad meaning. You can check the reliability of video games-specific sources here: WP:VG/RS. The search engine there is likely to come in use as well. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:48, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, both! I have dropped a line to the person who originally suggested listifying to see if they had sources in mind. (I admit I cannot find any which indicate this meets NLIST.) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 11:53, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In a quick search I did find two possible helpful sources: Gamespot on Madden and Polygon mentioning it in Super Mega Baseball 3. The latter is good for a listing but not much else, the former is a very particular news story. It's not enough yet. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 12:30, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Writing gameplay sections for games with virtually identical gameplay[edit]

I'm working on the Fallout 3 article on my sandbox right now, and I've realized that while writing the gameplay section, I'm copying nearly entire paragraphs from the Fallout: New Vegas gameplay section. This is because Fallout 3 and New Vegas have virtually the exact same gameplay. New Vegas did make minor tweaks, so I can't directly copy entire paragraphs, but it's damn close. If you haven't played the two games, I cannot overstate how similar they are. So my question is, is it okay to basically just copy the gameplay section of New Vegas for Fallout 3? There's only so much I can talk about that hasn't already been stated in the New Vegas article. Famous Hobo (talk) 21:13, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Famous Hobo: Sometimes it can't really be helped that two games in the same series have identical gameplay elements. A while back I encountered a similar scenario while sprucing up the early Mario Party gameplay sections a bit (see Mario Party 1, 2 and 3 for reference). I say as long as all info in those sections are properly cited, it shouldn't be the end of the world if two gameplay sections read in the same way. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 21:34, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since New Vegas builds on F3, leave a {{main}} on NV to point to G3's gameplay, provide a very high level of game mechanics, and then mention any significant new features if there are any. — Masem (t) 22:14, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
People who read New Vegas' article aren't necessarily going to go and read Fallout 3's. It's fine if they are extremely similar. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ () 23:29, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If there are specific features that NV has that are discussed in development or reception that, despite being the same as F3, have different takes, then those could be expanded on where necessary. Remember that we are writing for the general, non-video game playing reader, so gameplay coverage is low-value material on our articles. Masem (t) 00:30, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the Gameplay section would be pretty important, since readers would want to know what the game is like. It would certainly be more important to the average reader than the Plot section. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:50, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The general reader should not be considered someone that has played video games, but like we do on academic technical articles, we assume a reasonable familiarity with what video games are. We don't need to spell out what a FPS is on a page like Doom (beyond providing the blue link). But at the same time, we also don't write to the level of detail that a gamer will want to know, as sites would typically do for reviews. Masem (t) 19:03, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even if they aren't someone who plays video games, they would probably want to know what you do in the video game. They probably care more about that than the plot or how it was made. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:36, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As long as you use sources related to Fallout 3 when writing that section, I think it's fine to have very similar information between articles. I say this because I've seen some articles do something like "X game is very similar to Y", then all sources on X's gameplay are about Y instead. I don't think this would appropriate and potentially enters WP:OR territory. Skyshiftertalk 00:56, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is very very rare to not see sources make comparison in gameplay to a previous game on the sequel or additional installment assuming the new game is sufficiently notable. I do agree that without sources that say "Y is similar to X" then yes, it can be OR to make that claim. But this definitely is not the case for F3 and F:NV. Masem (t) 01:05, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you do copy several sentences from Wiki article to another you should in your edit summary 'Copied content from [[<page name>]]; see that page's history for attribution'. per WP:CWW.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 13:00, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA/FA question[edit]

Okay. So, this is something that I saw raised by the editor Martin IIIa to explain edits to the page Deep Fear. Leaving aside my feelings on the subject, and wanting editors opinions, but do you think the GA/FA process "encourages editors to attach references to claims which they don't support"? I'm not saying they didn't have valid concerns about Deep Fear, just wanting some additional clarification in case we need to tighten up the review process. ProtoDrake (talk) 22:08, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Both GAN and FAC seem to at least identify if there are claims made that need sourcing or attribution if there is no nearby source, and there usually should be a spot heck if sources actually support claims. But before I would take an article to either, I would make sure the sourcing is as good as I think it should be such that any citation questions are quickly resolved dropping a reused online cite where needed. The processes should not be "find my sources for me" or an under sourced article, particularly at FAC (that should lead to an immediate quick fail) — Masem (t) 22:13, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Masem: That makes sense. The user's full post is on Deep Fear's talk page, so you can judge for yourself. --ProtoDrake (talk) 22:19, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to be more of an issue that should be taken up with the reviewer than the process itself. Verifying sources is a required step and if they were skipped over and given the honor system, that's a problem. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ () 23:07, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like I'm in part responsible due to being the one who used those sources in the first place. Though I agree the reviewer should've picked up on that. --ProtoDrake (talk) 23:09, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Honor system makes sense if you have someone that has, say, 10 FAs under their belt with confirmed sourcing, and there's no indication of bad faith involved (like, someone racing FAs through to win a Wikicup). Eg, if it were someone like Ferret (for example), I'd trust that what sources are present are correctly being used, though would still spot check the more contentious statements. Masem (t) 19:01, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At GA reviews, I have in the past asked a nominator to provide a longer excerpt/quote from a source that was unavailable to me. This can be a helpful balance when source accessibility is a problem. At WP:VG, we're lucky a large percentage of our typical sources are available for free online, but when sources aren't available we have to be critical and at least try to confirm unintuitive or surprising claims. This is one of the primary goals of the GA process. If verification of online sources fails and an article still passes as GA, then that's really sloppy... ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 07:26, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion over at[edit]

Template_talk:Video_game_reviews#Early_home_computers that might be of interest. CapnZapp (talk) 10:13, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Two platforms, same review[edit]

I have a review that was published on GamesRadar+ website and on PC Gamer UK. How should I present that information in the article?Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 22:53, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Syndicating reviews/articles used to be more common on the internet. A lot of Gamespy reviews got republished on 1UP, for example. If you can, try to figure out which one is the "original" publication and only use that one. Axem Titanium (talk) 06:30, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can, for posterity, note that the review was re-published by a different magazine on the talkpage. In my mind, this can suggest that it's considered a high-quality source. It can also serve as an additional archive of the source. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:17, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't really suggest a high-quality source in this particular case: It's simply a matter of both publications being owned by Future. -- ferret (talk) 12:49, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you have access to the print version, you can cite both by adding the URL to the "cite magazine" template. Or if you use "cite web", in the website field write something like "GamesRadar+ (originally published in PC Gamer UK). --Mika1h (talk) 11:07, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New Articles (May 13 to May 19)[edit]

 A listing of all articles newly added to the Video Games Wikiproject (regardless of creation date). Generated by v3.20 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 00:15, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply] 

May 13

May 14

May 15

May 16

May 17

May 18

May 19

Before you sneer, cast your mind back to the nonsense you thought was funny when you were ten years old. I promise it was just as dumb. --PresN 00:15, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Melinoë (Hades) seems awfully early and the reception section is based on pulling a couple lines out of reviews of the game while in early access. She might likely get an article later, but I'd wait until the game has its full release or more about the development comes out. --Masem (t) 00:54, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't believe that to be the case, there are multiple articles in the reception section about Melinoe first and foremost. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 01:27, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Two quick questions[edit]

I'm just wondering about two relatively minor issues concerning the introduction and infobox. 1) Should the first sentence in the intro include the initial year of release, as in "Kill death murder" is a 2024 video game..." I know that's how films are introduced but is there a standard for video games? 2) In the infobox, should the platform be listed as "Windows" or "Microsoft Windows"? Thanks. Bertaut (talk) 13:37, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1) WP:VG/LEAD says that you should have e.g. "is a 2017 action-adventure game" in the first sentence, and I know some people really insist on it, though its not universal.
2) Typically just Windows. --PresN 14:27, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's great. Thanks. Bertaut (talk) 14:34, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up: Gamer Network acquired by IGN[edit]

IGN Entertainment has acquired Gamer Network from Reed Pop, and while no site yet has been labeled for discontinuation, there are layoffs happening across Gamer Network sites due to redundancies, like Brandon Sinclair at Games — Masem (t) 17:55, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One of these days, every single source from some point in the future and onward will be all IGN. Panini! 🥪 18:31, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Better IGN than Valnet, I guess... Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:56, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh. I sometimes wonder what Wikipedia would even look like in that hypothetical future. What will people do? Will we devolve into writing articles like "You won't believe what Link wears on his feet! (Brown shoes found in a treasure chest!)"? Sergecross73 msg me 19:08, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just think we won't write as much, frankly, if all we get outside of major press for games is a bunch of content churnalism. I don't think we'll just decide to loosen reliable source standards because the good sources are disappearing. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 19:33, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was mostly kidding, though I do sometimes fear that, some day, if all that's left is churnalism junk, us experienced regulars are eventually going to be swarmed and overwhelmed by newbies who use the junk because there's simply nothing else. Sergecross73 msg me 20:32, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Magazines came and went in the 90s too. Laid off journalists will start their own publications. I'm not worried about coverage. czar 18:53, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think in that case we just have to hope more Aftermaths spring up. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 19:22, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aftermath was marked as inconclusive, at the reliable source discussion board. This seems like a mistake. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:14, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Axem Titanium (talk) 23:41, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that was mostly due to the age of the publication, its had several more months now to assess. Masem (t) 00:04, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Combined with instant layoffs, of course. IceWelder [] 19:28, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how to feel about this whole thing. On one hand, IGN is still a decent source and I doubt much will change on the content side for at least a few years. On the other hand, they've closed other good sites before and if IGN's quality decreased even more, this would be bringing down some of our other best sources with them. At least right now we still have sites owned by Future and Vox, even if the latter have their own problems. λ NegativeMP1 20:11, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I like IGN quite a bit, especially because their coverage, like GameSpot, goes back a lot farther than a lot of other websites. And I don't think they're the type to go and turn good websites into churnalism/AI/Walkthrough type junk either. I just hate that it leads to layoffs, could lead to website shutting down, and that, if IGN/GamerNetwork ever falls, the number of websites lost is going to be brutal. Sergecross73 msg me 20:43, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is disappointing. Focusing on what it means for Wikipedia, I'll repeat a refrain that I keep bringing up at the reliable source discussion page.
Even our best sources are mixing in more churnalism / game guide / meme content. We have to confront the idea that even our best sources are somewhat situational. That means we should offer more guidance on how to use different kinds of coverage. (For example, we should always summarize game reviews, carefully use game lists, and rarely use game guides.) Shooterwalker (talk) 15:54, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The only advice i can give anybody here regarding online sources is: If you see something that is part of an article you're interested in working on it, better archive that website or take a screencap of it. You never known what might happen in the future. Do i even have to bring up as an example of a website bought by IGN that was later closed down and the surviving links don't even work properly? Roberth Martinez (talk) 16:46, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the WMF engine has a built in mechanism that I believe autoarchives any reference added to an article. — Masem (t) 00:08, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of new format for List of Xbox 360 games[edit]

I started a discussion regarding a new format at Talk:List of Xbox 360 games (A–L), would like some feedback Famous Hobo (talk) 01:06, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mildly warm take: We should MOS the entire concept of "platform lists" and make most, if not all of them, consistent in format. -- ferret (talk) 01:25, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I had suggested this some years ago and was shot down regarding standardization of tables like this. Masem (t) 02:17, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly agree with this. No genres, limited release dates, etc. Trim this stuff down. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 21:25, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone played this game and can replace the badly written plot summary in the Wikipedia article? Or should elements of this oldid not have been removed? Ed [talk] [OMT] 04:34, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:56, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, this has been long gestating, but I've had an interest in improving the article for the Imageepoch Nintendo DS title Sands of Destruction. And having looked over it, there's an article for an associated anime that has just three references. In the research I've been doing, it appears Sands of Destruction is some kind of multimedia project across a game, anime and manga, but there isn't a whole lot of information on stuff outside the game. I'm tempted to merge the anime article into the game in the future since there doesn't seem to be much notability surrounding the anime. Opinions? ProtoDrake (talk) 22:28, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sergecross73:, since they did recent work on the article and collected a number of sources. --ProtoDrake (talk) 22:45, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ProtoDrake:I don't see any issues merging the anime adaptation article into the game article. I say go for it! Roberth Martinez (talk) 23:50, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would oppose merging it, as the anime has reviews in The Escapist and Anime News Network. It also appears in the Anime Encyclopedia, meaning it passes GNG as a standalone page. The article's lack of content appears to be strictly a surmountable problem. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ () 05:41, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zxcvbnm: While it may pass GNG, there's barely any information about its development beyond a single paragraph, and from what I've gathered a lot of its story simply repeats the game. I wrote the question/request above knowing about the two reviews. And that's it, just two, plus little to no Japanese coverage. --ProtoDrake (talk) 08:10, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to check Dengeki before saying there's "barely any development information". I found this interview already, and this one, and there's a metric ton of articles to sort through on the anime and related franchise. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ () 09:12, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was including those. It appears we've hit another Trauma Center impasse. --ProtoDrake (talk) 09:45, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why a standalone article is needed if RS coverage is limited. It seems rather clearly that the anime is supplementary to the game. OceanHok (talk) 10:22, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not opposed to there being a merge, as it does seem like they are supplementary. It seems like a good comparison would be the fact that a lot of manga and anime are a single article because it is the most beneficial way to discuss them both. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 10:31, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's also the fact that at least one of the sources Zxcvbnm brought up seems to talk about the game as much or more than the anime, and both game and anime share a voice cast and theme song writers. They're deeply intertwined. --ProtoDrake (talk) 10:45, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The anime has significant reception. It has development information in Japanese. The only argument left is that "one is based on the other", but I don't see people shouting from the rooftops that The Last of Us (TV series) should be merged. Things can be interlinked and exist independently of one another. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ () 11:45, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zxcvbnm: Comparing Sands of Destruction anime and The Last of Us TV feels like apples and oranges in this instance, they're barely comparable. And you're missing the point: yes there's information, but not that much compared to something like Nier: Automata Ver1.1a. Having done searching, all the information could be (without verbiage and bloating) summarised into two paragraphs. Three, tops. --ProtoDrake (talk) 11:51, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Come on, don't make OSE arguments like that... Sergecross73 msg me 12:06, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sergecross73: Was that directed to me or Zxcvbnm? If it was me, I apologise. --ProtoDrake (talk) 12:10, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the confusion. I was referring to Zx with his Last of Us comparison. Sergecross73 msg me 12:15, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zxcvbnm:All that information can be easily included in the game's main article without much issue. Worse would be having all that information being flat out removed. Roberth Martinez (talk) 12:56, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fully support merging the anime article. It's been nothing but plot summary and basic release info since its inception. If I recall correctly, it was supposed to be a big multimedia project, but kind of fizzled out when the game had had mixed critical and commercial reception. It can always be spun back out if someone ever bothers to write a real article about it.
Separate from that, yes, a few years back, I was going to rewrite the game article. I found a bunch of sources and did some basic cleanup, but ultimately abandoned it - just got sidetracked and never returned to it. While I'm working on other projects right now, I can still help with little stuff some if it's being cleaned up. Sergecross73 msg me 12:13, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think a good question is this: @Zxcvbnm: - if the anime article did stay separate, would you have an interest in improving it and bringing it to a higher standard than it's at now? - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 20:57, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I think that's neither here nor there, that argument is basically a form of "nobody's working on it" complaint. As it states, "Content shouldn't be removed just because no one has improved it yet; that would prevent editors from improving it in the future." I may feel like improving it, I may not, but if it is merged, there wouldn't be an article there to fix and I almost certainly wouldn't bother out of concern it would just be merged again and the effort lost. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ () 21:15, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But that's the thing, we're not proposing that the content be deleted, we're proposing that the content that is there works best as part of the video game article. As ProtoDrake pointed out, a lot of the sourcing for the anime is directly tied to the video game, making it a good fit for it. If there were size concerns, maybe splitting could be an option, but it seems better to have one strong article that covers the two deeply interconnected topics instead of one strong article and one weak article. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 21:25, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The invocation of that essay is also erroneous. It's an argument to avoid that "no one is working on it," yes, but that's not my argument: my argument is that no one is working on it and that it would be better represented as part of a larger subject. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 21:26, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move of Ph1Lza[edit]

I have just opened an RM of whether Ph1Lza should be renamed to Philza. This is located at Talk:Ph1Lza#Requested_move_25_May_2024 so please respond there and not here. JuniperChill (talk) 21:46, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adding to the Homeworld Series page a Homeworld Mobile link along with Build Materials Lists and other information.[edit]

The Homeworld Mobile gamers want a site they can find locations of Blueprints, costs, and prerequisites as well as lists of Ship/item material quantities used to build them. I've begun putting this together but it is very preliminary right now.

I do not know how to make the proper edits within Wikipedia and very much need help in this regard. 3xTr3m3Sn1p3r (talk) 04:22, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This sort of information is not appropriate for inclusion on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a game guide. See: WP:NOTGAMEGUIDE. I am not familiar with the game or its community, so I do not know the best recommendation for other wikis, but perhaps you can check out the Homeworld Mobile Wiki or the Homeworld Wiki at Fandom. NOTGAMEGUIDE also suggests that Wikibooks might allow it, though I am not familiar with Wikibooks and its guidelines, so I cannot offer further advice there. Fan communities, such as those on Reddit, may also have a sense of what is a better venue to house this information. It cannot be housed on Wikipedia, however, because it is overly detailed information that is not necessary to handling the subject from an encyclopedic perspective, and it will be immediately removed if you attempt to add it to the articles. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 04:33, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much 😀 3xTr3m3Sn1p3r (talk) 23:11, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Solicitation for help on a split discussion[edit]

There is a stalled split discussion at Talk:War Thunder#Request to move the leak list into its own page. It started over 8 months ago and I still can't quite call it. More eyes would be beneficial in order to end the discussion. Thanks. HarryKernow (talk) 23:08, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Help request for Game Boy GAN[edit]

Hi, this is a request for help on the GAN for the Game Boy. A message on my talk page about the Vinland Saga brought home that my GA reviewing ability has taken a nosedive (the page will probably be heading for GAR). I think my life at present isn't...stable enough for me to do a proper job with GANs, or much else. Can someone else help me with this review, as it's a large article with a lot of issues. ProtoDrake (talk) 14:28, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

fwiw, there's a big difference from the review of Game Boy that you are currently doing and the one that was quick passed at Vinland Saga. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 14:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would probably suggest failing the Game Boy article and pushing it to a Peer Review at this point given how major an article it is. There seems to be a lot of problems throughout, and more than a GAN can feasibly address it feels like.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:48, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New Articles (May 20 to May 26)[edit]

 A listing of all articles newly added to the Video Games Wikiproject (regardless of creation date). Generated by v3.20 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 15:55, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply] 

May 20

May 21

May 22

May 23

May 24

May 25

May 26

  • None
{{PCGamingWiki}} seems strange to have, no? It reminded me of the AfD on the GameFAQs template. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 16:38, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]