Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games

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

New Articles (July 29 to August 4)

[edit]
Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements
 A listing of all articles newly added to the Video Games Wikiproject (regardless of creation date). Generated by v3.20 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 16:35, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 29

July 30

July 31

August 1

August 2

August 3

August 4

  • None
That is a lot of stubs. CaptainGalaxy 17:19, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Separate articles for Download (video game), Download 2 and Download (OVA) seem a bit overkill. Especially when that OVA has questionable notability. --Mika1h (talk) 18:39, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it looks like a specific new user is responsible for like half the creations with a bunch of short/sloppy stubs... Sergecross73 msg me 19:50, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sergecross73:I concur. That is my main gripe with the user Beqwk making these video game articles without much effort into them. However, in the case of Download and its sequel, i have a list of reviews about both titles on a notebook that i could add to properly establish their notability. In the case of the Download OVA, that could be easily merged into the article of the first Download (just like how it's laid out in the Sands of Destruction article for example). Roberth Martinez (talk) 23:28, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Corporate use of Second Life could probably be merged back into Second Life. (Oinkers42) (talk) 20:12, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I support a merge. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:14, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Beqwk has been creating many stubs and not using the talk page to add the WikiProject so there may be many more articles they started that are not listed here. 2600:1008:B10B:7A6B:4909:57DF:528E:179B (talk) 20:55, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What should we do about all of these stubs? QuicoleJR (talk) 22:50, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not sure, but it looks like other users have helpfully added the template to all of their articles except one so I got that one. 2600:1008:B10B:7A6B:4909:57DF:528E:179B (talk) 15:16, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The usual - WP:BLAR, open up merge or AFD discussions, etc. Sergecross73 msg me 15:44, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, I brought up an obscure source they used a lot at WT:VG/S since it had never been discussed before. QuicoleJR (talk) 00:35, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't want to discourage the characters of Ace Attorney articles from above, because they at least address both development and reception, but when the heaviest section in those articles are the Apoearences section, there's a problem. Character articles aren't replacements for avoiding long plot summaries, and while we want their key character role outlined, even if across multiple games, it should still be looking at big picture elements and not at some of the detail I see in those... Unless that us sourced to third party works. Masem (t) 21:36, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I whittled down Dahlia's. How does it look? - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 22:33, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's better.. Did you do that to Franziska too, as I thought that was longer when I last looked? Masem (t) 23:00, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I moved onto that after I finished up with Dahlia. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 23:11, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Both are far better. We don't need to hit every character's story points, just any major beats central to their character (eg Edgeworth in the fourth case of the first game would be a proper major beat but not necessarily all his random appearances later) — Masem (t) 00:13, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Help with PR

[edit]

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

I have closed the peer review. — lunaeclipse ⚧ (talk) 13:01, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New Articles (August 5 to August 12)

[edit]
Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements
 A listing of all articles newly added to the Video Games Wikiproject (regardless of creation date). Generated by v3.20 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 02:24, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 12

An issue with the Wikimedia servers meant that the 1.0 bot couldn't get any data all week... so now we get the whole week dumped into one day. It got a little confused on page moves (as they're recorded as happening at the same time), so hopefully everything is sorted out. --PresN 02:24, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Before anyone complains again, know that I've given Beqwk a final warning for churning out these sloppy stubs. That said, don't let that deter you from taking action on the articles if anyone sees it fit. Sergecross73 msg me 03:04, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sergecross73:Hey man, i'm just trying to rescue said stubs by finding reviews to establish their overall notability X'D Roberth Martinez (talk) 03:29, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's totally fine, go for it. Thank you for helping. Sergecross73 msg me 10:26, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • That console article (which is about consoles to enter various commands within a game engine) seems to lack notability, though the idea of such consoles should be documented somewhere, I'm not sure. --Masem (t) 04:04, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Stubs might be ugly, but they are not against policy, and the rate of creation is not "large scale" as defined by WP:MASSCREATE. The articles are fully sourced, the patrol log shows that they are passing NPP, and I can't identify any that was nominated for deletion, BLAR'd, or merged. A threat to sanction them seems inappropriate at this point. Charcoal feather (talk) 11:01, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm well aware stubs aren't against policy. But thats not solely the problem, nor did I say they were. The problem is that they're sloppy stubs. Some aren't even written in paragraph form, but more as a series of bullet points one would jot down in efforts of preparing to write an article. And many aren't exactly home runs with notability when under scrutiny. Lots of passing mentions and iffy sources. Repeatedly creating problematic content despite warnings is a form of disruptive editing. Please also note that I issued it because they've completely ignored muktiple requests to slow down/be more careful, and that when they actually use WP:AFC, they're not getting published. Sergecross73 msg me 12:26, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking that some of the stubs could be merged/redirected to a suitable article, or even PRODed/AFDed. Stubs are alright, but only if they are notable and have a low chance of being merged/redirected/PROD/AFD. I don't plan to do any of that to Beqwk's articles as I am not quite experienced. For example, Palia may have been a stub at first, but that's just because the game is notable. My understanding is that if the article has over 1500 words (the criteria for DYK), then it's no longer a stub, but that varies. JuniperChill (talk) 12:41, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Isle of Armor and Crown Tundra Merge Discussion

[edit]

A merge discussion for the pages Pokémon Sword and Shield: The Isle of Armor and Pokémon Sword and Shield: The Crown Tundra is currently open at this page. I'd greatly appreciate further responses in order to determine a wider consensus on this subject. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 03:12, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute in Grand Theft Auto: The Trilogy – The Definitive Edition on whether to be more specific or vague

[edit]

I have entered an editing dispute with @IceWelder: over whether or not to specify which character had the Confederate flag removed from their in-game attire (a removal questioned by a writer in their criticism, which is described in the reception section). I am bringing it here without turning it into an edit war. While I haven’t found anything in the MOS about this, I believe that specifying the character as Phil Cassidy from GTA Vice City is more specific, concise, and not vague compared to “a character”, and is reasonable to include. (For the record, no other character in GTA 3, VC, or San Andreas has the flag on their clothes.) It gives the specific example for people to look up on their own accord without being excessive detail. IW believes that because the character isn’t mentioned elsewhere in the Wikipedia article, it’s completely irrelevant and specific to include, despite “a character” being too vague and unspecific. I think such vagueness should be avoided, and it’s not unreasonable to specify. What does the WikiProject think here? DrewieStewie (talk) 17:34, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We generally aim to write Wikipedia be understandable in a stand-alone context. As in, general audiences - anyone who can read, should be able to understand an article either through the articles text itself, or WP:WIKILINKs to other Wikipedia articles. It's for anyone to read and understand, not just GTA fans or gamers.
In that respect, if the character isn't mentioned in any other point in the article, then it doesn't make any sense to name drop him here, as the reader has no knowledge of who the character is. A stand-alone name with no context or info does not help the reader. IceWelder has the right idea. Sergecross73 msg me 19:04, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is context though: the character had previously been wearing the flag in a specific game of the trilogy, but is no longer in the remaster. The character is prominently mentioned in the article for the prequel Grand Theft Auto: Vice City Stories (but not the Vice City article since the Wikipedia plot doesn’t go into detail on the Asset missions/heist storyline), so perhaps wikilinking the character could go to the Vice City Stories plot to satisfy that need. Even if the subplot/Phil were included in the original VC article, the plots of the games aren’t in the Trilogy article because it’s redundant to list them when the original source materials have their own articles to list it, so that reception section is one of the few, if any, places to mention the characters when relevant (which Phil is here). I think avoiding specific examples without clarification of what the critic is referring to is “dumbing it down” so to speak, is insulting to the readers intellect, and should be avoided at all costs. DrewieStewie (talk) 20:06, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But tacking on the name "Phil" doesn't add anything to that message. Nothing is lost by its removal because the reader doesn't even know who Phil to begin with.
Think of it this way. If Cloud Strife is out there rocking a confederate flag, you'd mention him by name, because he's mentioned up and down the Final Fantasy 7 article. But there's no reason to name drop Chelsea for doing the same thing, since general audiences don't know she's the little girl who's found in the third building on the left in Junon with 2 lines of dialogue, nor is Wikipedia likely to discuss her otherwise in the article. Sergecross73 msg me 20:40, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unalike comparison, Phil is a major character in Vice City/VCS (voiced by Gary Busey, might I add)that reoccurs in a minor role in III/Liberty city stories. Not Cloud or Tommy Vercetti level, but definitely not that insignificant to the game’s story. I see it as a lost opportunity to learn if a casual reader doesn’t know. For instance, searching on Google for “Phil Cassidy” instead of “character with confederate flag in GTA” (remember, the status quo doesn’t specify which game in the trilogy). DrewieStewie (talk) 20:53, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This response misses the point entirely, which is that the character is not mentioned anywhere in the article, so the reader has no understanding in the who, or importance of, what it means to be "Phil" in the first place. If you're requiring the reader to "Google something", you're not writing Wikipedia articles correctly. Sergecross73 msg me 21:02, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Isn’t “a character” worse in that regard, given that wikilinking to Vice City Stories describes Phil Cassidy? DrewieStewie (talk) 21:40, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I follow, but I also dont object to just trimming it back to "instances of confederate flags were removed from the game" either. Sergecross73 msg me 21:54, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps. Or, maybe even similar to how they have a picture of Denise Robinson’s character model in both the original/the remaster to highlight criticisms of poorer quality, we could do the same with Phil for the flag? If it qualifies fair use, that is. DrewieStewie (talk) 22:46, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It feels like it's going to be hard to justify an image on such a minor, trivial aspect of the game. I don't see that sticking either... Sergecross73 msg me 12:46, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would "a character named Phil Cassidy" work as a compromise? QuicoleJR (talk) 20:08, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which game and depiction would need to be applied too, given that the article concerns a trilogy of three games, two of them which contain different depictions of the character fifteen storyline years apart. DrewieStewie (talk) 20:58, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I basically agree with Sergecross73. If a character is only mentioned once, it doesn't need much detail. We would handle it differently if multiple sources were talking about multiple aspects of that character, because then it would (a) deserve more WP:WEIGHT, and (b) need to be defined clearly so we can refer back to that character multiple times. But if it's just one comment about one character, there's no need to go into detail. An encyclopedia article is summary style and people can read individual reviews if they want to see what one source said about one character. Shooterwalker (talk) 11:37, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New Articles (August 13 to August 18)

[edit]
Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements
 A listing of all articles newly added to the Video Games Wikiproject (regardless of creation date). Generated by v3.20 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 13:04, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 13

August 14

August 15

August 16

August 17

August 18

Renaming 3DO

[edit]

Talk:3DO Interactive Multiplayer#Renaming? Sceegt (talk) 20:43, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Appearance over Concept and creation: a rant

[edit]

So I'm reviewing Boneless Pizzas' Ada Wong, where "Concept and creation" appears above "Appearances". This way of organizing character articles seems to be the norm, and that norm doesn't make sense to me.

Most of a character's bio revolves around the fiction surrounding them: the world they live, the people they interact with, etc. In the "Appearance" section, all of this fiction stuff is explained as necessary, for the sake of better understanding the character's role in the game. In "Concept and creation", these fictional details are glazed over because this section is about the character itself, as well as their real-world development. In this context, "Appearances" should come first, but it doesn't. In the context of Ada Wong, an "Umbrella" is mentioned in Concept and Creation but is not explained (this is not Pizza's fault). It is, however, explained in the next section very beautifully that's its a pharmaceutical company. If this explanation were to be moved up to the section above, it would complicate developer info with fictional explanations. These sections should be separate, but Appearances should be first for the sake of understanding narrative without losing the reader. When people read articles, they are dominantly reading top-down instead of jumping around.

Jesse Pinkman and George Costanza organize their articles this way. In fact, so do video game articles when they put "Plot" above "Development". So why not the characters? Is there some better reason for why we do it this way that I have trouble seeing? Panini! • 🥪 16:27, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You make some good points. I didn't have a hand in creating the format, just replicated in the few character articles I created because that's what I had always observed elsewhere. I assumed we just wanted to kick the article off with more encyclopedic type content. I think in under-developed articles it can make sense - pre-clean up articles often read like "First Pikachu was in Pokemon Red Then he was in Pokemon Yellow. Then he was in Pokemon Gold. etc etc etc" I don't think that's a particularly great place to start. (Though its not great anywhere either.) But you may have a point, perhaps your order is better in a developed article? Sergecross73 msg me 16:37, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It ultimately depends on the character. Like with characters where the plot needs to be front loaded to understand how they were built around it (i.e. Exdeath) it's better to put the plot first. However with other characters like for example fighting game or Overwatch characters, often the plot is secondary and much shorter to their overall development. However in the case of Mario for example if we load the Appearances section first, we're throwing a metric ton at the reader who for a good chunk of the article's start doesn't understand how the character came about let alone evolved. It's case by case, but whichever does should explain concepts to the reader as it introduces them.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:39, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is something I brought up at the FAC for Ada Wong. It makes sense why video games generally start with the Gameplay section over Plot (although even there I think there are cases where we're better off with a film-type synopsis before all else) but a lot of the info in a typical design section will lack a lot of context divorced from the general arc of the game appearances. A compromise is having some sort of Overview section that gives the broad strokes of the character (which the Wong article now essentially does) but it can still be suboptimal. There are certainly some character articles where it is a better choice to have the conception and design details first, but it ain't every single one. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 19:03, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've increasingly been using appearances first, only not doing so if I feel like the concept behind a character deals with complexities that wouldn't feel right in appearances. For example, Pokemon species or Persona 5 characters. Ada Wong doesn't feel like concept first makes sense. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 19:49, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like it should be for consistency. I followed the format from Jill Valentine (Which it went 5FACs). 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 23:17, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RFC on Asmongold

[edit]

There is an RFC you may be interested in on Talk:Asmongold as whether or not to include his name within the article. - Skipple ☎ 01:45, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for opinions on sources for a GAN

[edit]

Heyo, I'm currently reviewing Rayman for GA. I found two sources that need additional opinions and would love some additional input at WT:VG/S#GamerInfo.NET and WT:VG/S#Vrutal to resolve them quickly. Regards, IceWelder [✉] 06:01, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games&oldid=1241692186"