Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games

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

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]

Would be cool if we could get some more input here. Not much in the way of discourse, just not much in the way of input at all, for what would be kind of a big deal move. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 15:19, 24 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]

Discussion at Talk:Can I Play That?#IGN Reporting

[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Can I Play That?#IGN Reporting on how best to incorporate an IGN piece on Susan Banks, an activist on games accessibility. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 03:01, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RSN discussion on Geeks+Gamers

[edit]

If anyone is interested see WP:RSN#geeksandgamers.com for potential deprecation. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:37, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proofreading and review request for DYK

[edit]

Umehara ga kimeta has been nominated for DYK. The article is about an Internet meme that was born from a 17-second commentary video of a fighting game tournament. I would appreciate proofreading and review by English speakers who are knowledgeable about video games.--狄の用務員 (talk) 17:24, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That article needs a lot of work on its prose. It reads like an advertisement (for a meme of all things.) Sergecross73 msg me 21:37, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your advice. As for me, I do not intend to write a promotional article at all, but I am afraid that my writing skills are not enough. If someone would be so kind as to improve the article, I would deeply appreciate it. 狄の用務員 (talk) 11:33, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

sourcing for Fromsoft's game engine

[edit]

While looking into Fromsoftware's game engine, I found that they are using something that is being called Dantelion engine or Dantelion2 engine. The best overview I have found is at http://soulsmodding.wikidot.com/topic:engines but it is self published. There is a mention of Dantelion in this ign article and this site of unknown reliability (I assume low reliability). Is this enough to mention it anywhere (eg, on the Fromsoftware page?) Or, at the very least, could this be enough to put the engine for Fromsoft games as "proprietary"? Gamerevolution list Bloodborne and Dark souls 3 as proprietary directly [1] so I assume at least that one we can set in the infobox. The IGN article lists Elden ring and armored core as being "Dantelion," although it attributes it to a youtube video (but at the same time also seems to assert this fact in its own voice). Also if you read the full IGN source they do make a good case for Armored core and Elden Ring being the same engine, whatever that engine actually is. The linked unknown site directly states that Elden Ring is in-house (ie. proprietarty) and using the so called "Dantelion" engine. I would suggest adding the following sentence to the fromsoftware article "Fromsoftware develops an in house game engine which it uses for many of its games including Bloodborne, Armored Core and Elden Ring." The engine has been referred to as "Dantelion." Or something along these lines. J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 04:49, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This seems both unnecessary and sketchy to use as a source. Honestly it doesn't matter what the name of Fromsoft's engine is because it's proprietary. It's not helping anyone to know what it's internally called, just a minor piece of trivia better off on FANDOM or the like. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:00, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I can hold off on mentioning Dantelion anywhere. Should I find a source for each fromsoft game as being proprietary to add it to the infobox? I listed DS3 and Bloodborne already. If I need a source for each fromsoft game being propriety, would the IGN source count as a source for Elden Ring and armored core 6? Also, I don't agree with the point that it's not helping anyone. By the same vain, we would have to delete all "Development" sections on video games, as they don't help anyone either. Knowing what engine is used for a game tells you something about it's development. I agree that the source may not be strong enough though and does not really have enough detail to necessarily make it worth while to mention it. If the source mentioned some of the engine's features for example I would have a different response. J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 05:13, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that knowing what a game's engine is is helpful. But simply "proprietary" can be used, as its internal name is not particularly relevant except in certain special cases where it is still heavily known and used as a tool (i.e. the Creation Engine). ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:46, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ZxcvbnmI think we basically agree then. What about the other DS games and elden ring? Can I list them as proprietary without a source? Can I use that IGN article as a source that they are proprietary? J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 05:50, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The IGN article cites Zullie the Witch, who is a dataminer but not a reliable source by any metric. Given that they admit to NOT actually doing their own research about the name of the engine, or even asking for a second opinion, much less contacting Fromsoft like a standard news outlet might do, I think that at most we can conclude Fromsoft uses a unique engine of some kind without getting too much into speculation. Still, I don't think it's even good enough for older games, since it just points vaguely at a time period they used such an engine. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:48, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zxcvbnm Thanks. I mostly expect that to be the answer. In the meantime, I found this article from koreaherald [2] that says Elden Ring is proprietary, so I used that instead. J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 06:51, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New Articles (August 19 to August 25)

[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 14:36, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 19

August 20

August 21

August 22

August 23

August 24

August 25

@PresN: It probably wasn't picked up because it was a page move rather than a proper creation but Pokémon Sword and Shield Expansion Pass was created by Pokelego999 and me on August 25. CaptainGalaxy 16:17, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games&oldid=1242398247"