Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games

(Redirected from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computer and video games/Assessment)
Latest comment: 15 minutes ago by SnowFire in topic New subpage: Popular pages by topic
Learn more about this page

GameRankings (Occasional) Redundancy

edit
Latest comment: 13 days ago5 comments2 people in discussion

As I'm sure people who focus on articles have noticed, the ability to find reviews from publications from the 1990s and 1980s for video games has increased quite a bit in the past few years for various reasons. I sometimes see links to GameRankings in older articles as a way to tally a consensus like MetaCritic. That said, I'm finding articles that have more reviews on their own than GameRankings. (which sometimes bases their average on two to five reviews).

I know that the reliability or usefulness has been discussed in the past here and here and other periods. My issue is not whether it is reliable or not, but if its actually useful if we have more reviews than in the review box or reception section than the website itself.

Tl;dr: Would it be appropriate to remove it GameRankings from articles if we have more reviews than the site itself? I feel like it would contribute to the article if the article itself says more than GameRankings had once tallied. I'm going to ping @Hahnchen: @Bishop2: @Masem: @GamerPro64: as I have seen them active still and have contributed to discussions in the past related to the website. Obviously no pressure to contribute. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:47, 12 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Its been over a week and I have heard no argument against a suggestion to remove them when the review section itself goes above and beyond what GameRankings provides. Per WP:SILENCE, I will be presuming consensus on this moving forward. If there any further responses, feel free to ping me on the subject to discuss further. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:33, 19 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Should have pinged me! That being said, what you said sounds agreeable, though I would argue that if, say, GameRankings has 12 reviews and the article has 14, it would still be fine to keep. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 19:38, 19 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Fair! Thanks for responding. Yeah when its closer like that, its probably okay (unless there's a better source, i.e: a metacritic one that has 22 combined reviews to game rankings 7). Its mostly in cases where I see it sharing an average of 98% based on three reviews where its getting a bit useless when we can probably find a dozen reviews. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:54, 19 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Yeah I think that's fair, just figured I'd establish that Cukie Gherkin (talk) 19:55, 19 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Last game for a system

edit
Latest comment: 10 days ago3 comments3 people in discussion

The user Dvd 2001 (talk · contribs) has been changing the "last games" released for the Dreamcast and PlayStation to be reprints of previously released games.

I think maybe there's a place to mention these reprints, but disagree with how they are presenting it and wording it, but have reached 3RR. I would like someone else to take a look. Please. TarkusABtalk/contrib 22:17, 14 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

That dude is pretty much doing original research instead of using what various sources online say about Karous and FIFA 2025 as a guide, for example.It doesn't help to that DVD2001 is acting like he knows more than what everybody here does. Roberth Martinez (talk) 04:06, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
@TarkusAB @KGRAMR I have a feeling they are a sockpuppet of an LTA. If you're interested, please see Aoidh's talk page for more info on the eerily similar long summaries, miscapitalization of every word in sentences, and personal attacks in summaries. Thanks 35.136.190.243 (talk) 21:45, 22 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Should sales of expansion packs be included in game sales figures?

edit
Latest comment: 12 days ago5 comments5 people in discussion

I've been cleaning up List of best-selling video games and one of the issues that has been brought up is whether or not sales of expansion packs should be included in overall sales figures. Two games on the list that primarily include expansion sales are The Sims and World of Warcraft, but this impacts many other games as well.

My opinion is that expansions should not be included. They essentially inflate the numbers of the base game (e.g., if 1 million people bought the base game, and 10 expansions were released that each person also bought, it would appear as though 11 million people bought the game, which is not the case.) With that in mind, it should be noted that it is difficult to enforce such exclusions even if you wanted to, as some publishers do not disclose whether or not they have included the expansions in the overall sales figures of the base game.

Please let me know how these situations should be handled. Thanks. Prefall 21:28, 20 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Since you usually need to already own the game to play the expansion, then of course it should not be included. It would count sales at least twice, if not more. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:38, 20 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
They should not be included, particularly if comparing sales to other games. Masem (t) 23:35, 20 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
If it's a game article, both should be mentioned. But in a list like this, it should be base game only. Sergecross73 msg me 23:54, 20 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Everyone agrees that they shouldn't be included, but what you're really asking here is how to deal with video games in which publishers don't separate base game sales with expansion sales.
That's tricky, as both including or excluding them could be considered wp:undue.
As I see it, there are two options:
  1. Using an {{efn}} note on the entries in which separate data is unavailable. (current practice)
  2. Move them out of the main table and into a separate one below, saying that the only available sales data for these games includes expansion packs.
Nil🥝 00:49, 21 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Final Fantasy XIV optional content plot summaries

edit
Latest comment: 11 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I've been lurking over the Patches section (subheading of Development) for the Final Fantasy XIV expansions: Dawntrail; Shadowbringers; Stormblood; Heavensward; and the base game. They include a table that lists the (standard) five major patches/content updates for each expansion. My issue is that they feature a sometimes lengthy plot summary of major optional quest lines (raids) that are distinct from the main story. Additionally, these questlines generally span alternating patches, and the length of these plot summaries always dwarfs the other major additions of the patches. A cursory search showed that sources rarely cover the plotlines of these stories in detail (only how to unlock the content, or are covering their addition).

Because they are optional content, I'm proposing either trimming these plot summaries or moving them up as a subheading to their respective Plot sections, and I was hoping to get some feedback from more experienced editors than me. TheAlienAdventures (talk) 07:49, 21 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Merge proposal of Dracthyr into World of Warcraft: Dragonflight

edit
Latest comment: 11 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi, I opened a proposal to have Dracthyr merged into World of Warcraft: Dragonflight. I would encourage all interested editors to participate in the discussion here. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 15:01, 21 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Requested move at Talk:Atari, Inc. (formerly GT Interactive)#Requested move 7 August 2025

edit
Latest comment: 11 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Atari, Inc. (formerly GT Interactive)#Requested move 7 August 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 20:46, 21 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Proposed deletion of 2009 in esports

edit
Latest comment: 9 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

The article 2009 in esports has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Tagged as Unreferenced for 10 years. No other language has a reliably sourced article from which to translate. No reliable sources on Google news; mainstream media didn't even pay attention to this until the 2010s. Filled with typographical errors, even if notable, it should be started over.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bearian (talk) 14:53, 23 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Proposal: Deprecating Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Essential articles and removing references to it

edit
Latest comment: 4 days ago10 comments9 people in discussion

This is a topic that I have thought about starting for a while now, but haven't done so because the page is so inactive, so irrelevant, that I can't imagine there'd be pushback if I just did this myself. However, as it was at one point a highly active project page and is on the side bar, I should probably start a discussion about it. I apologize for how long this topic is, by the way.

I propose turning Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Essential articles into a historical page and deprecating it. This will include adding Template:Historical to the top of the page, removing it from Template:WPVG sidebar, and removing the "The essential articles page identifies the most important topics in the scope of this WikiProject" note from the main project page. Scrub references to it from our main project pages and don't make it advertised up front. New edits to it will also be discouraged. Basically, devalue its supposed relevance to the project and pretend it doesn't really exist. And depending on consensus here regarding how useful even preserving it at face value could be, possibly even redirect it to another project page (anyone who actually wants to see the page could just check the edit history). Note, however, that I am not proposing flat out deletion of the page. Otherwise this would be at WP:MFD.

My reasoning for proposing this is relatively simple and uncontroversial. Firstly, it is completely unused and out of date. If you take a look at the pages recent edit history, you will find that the last time any substantial edits were done to it was in 2020. And those were cosmetic edits. Go even further back and the last significant activity at the page as 2015-2016. The sole exception to this was when I, myself, added a few subjects to the list in 2023. In 2017, 2019, 2024, and 2025, the page was edited a total of two times each year. In 2018, it was 3 edits. The "Need" (I assume Importance indicator), ratings, and Comments for each article are not updated frequently at all, with some comments quite possibly being outdated by more than half a decade. In-fact, the pages coverage of gaming history as a whole is outdated. From what I can tell, the most recent game listed on the page is Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 (once again, I added this), which released in 2009. If I am correct, that is a 16-year coverage gap. To rub more salt on the wound, until I added them in 2023, the page didn't even list Xbox Series X and Series S and PlayStation 5 - and the consoles had been out as the current generation of consoles for three years at that point. That is probably the best example I can think of to demonstrate how useless and unkempt the page is.

Secondly, there are other systems in place to sort subjects by how integral they are to Wikipedia that have far surpassed our Essential articles list. We maintain our own project-specific Importance scale, and the site-wide vital articles project lists quite a few video game subjects, ranging from biographies to consoles to games. And while these systems are also not cared for by the majority of the site, there are some editors who care to monitor and maintain them, especially Vital articles. You cannot say the same about Essential articles. Redirecting the essential articles page to Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Vital articles is a reasonable proposal in of itself. It likely wouldn't hurt if vital articles had more participation from the project in regards to its list. Regarding Importance, many editors will recognize that the Importance scale also has its issues. It is full of subjectivity and the criteria for what is of a certain importance, too, has not been updated in over a decade. Nothing stops editors from making whatever their favorite thing is either Mid or High importance. Some may even supporting getting rid of Importance in favor of a reworked, more active Essential list. However, I am inclined to believe that would be a subject for a different time. If interest in that ever popped up and people wanted to do it, it would be better off starting from scratch, without any existing material from the Essential list.

Now for why I think the page should just be erased from public view rather than just kept abandoned like it is now, or just fixed up instead. I think that it looks bad for the project to be demonstrating a page which has been defunct and abandoned for almost a decade. The way that it is demonstrated on the project page makes it appear as if the essential articles page is a legitimate method of sorting important articles to our project, when in reality it is not and has not been for a long time. I think that this should be made more clear. Newer editors (or just editors in general, I suppose) could also get very confused when reading the page, which currently has no indicator of being inactive, and finding comments related to how an article was over a decade ago, in present tense. As for the idea of wanting to improve the page to get rid of these issues, as somewhat glossed over when discussing the Importance scale: this would require a full WP:TNT of it and starting over. Going through each listing and writing new quality comments, fixing the assessment, and doing a re-judgment of several entries. Possibly even writing an inclusion criteria and trying to find new entries to fill in the 16 year coverage gap. These things would be just the bare minimum to fix the page, and it'd be as if a whole new sorting system was being assembled. And if there was interest towards making a reworked Essential list to hypothetically replace Importance, it'd be better off made from the ground up. But with no broader interest shown towards the essential articles page in a decade, I can't imagine we would legitimately want to do such a thing. The time that I have thought about this proposal for is probably the most interest any editor has shown for the page in ten years.

I suppose there is some leeway here for how the essential articles page would be treated if made historical like what I am proposing. I think the bare minimum would be to remove the comments about it on the main page, remove it from the sidebar, and put the Historical template on the page. Anything else (e.g. a deeper clean of references towards it elsewhere if they exist, redirecting the page outright, etc.) is up for debate I suppose. As would be any idea regarding a reworked list that fuses with Importance, should any editors actually want to do it. But, as it stands now, the less we make it look like the page matters, the better. λ NegativeMP1 16:36, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

  • I don't want to let the perfect be the enemy of the good or sidetrack the discussion, but I think deprecating the Importance parameter of Template:WikiProject Video games would probably more useful. The Essential articles list is not particularly useful, but it is mostly harmless due to "hiding" in Project space, while the Importance rating can be actively harmful and time-wasting at times while also not being useful since it lives on every single talk page across the WikiProject. That said, downplaying the linking of the list seems reasonable enough, as would putting a prominent link to VA5 Video Games at the top.
  • If kept, I think the whole "Comments" part of the current list is silly. There should be just two elements: a link to the article, and (optionally) the current quality ranking. Or even just the title and a FA/GA icon when appropriate for something even lazier. Keep it simple. (Another thought: Maybe create some sort of curated DB report a la Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Popular pages? No maintenance, just have it crank that out sorted by certain categories, probably more useful. But given that both that page and the Essential Articles page have single-digit daily pageviews, probably not even worth bothering.) SnowFire (talk) 22:00, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    I would strongly oppose deprecating the Importance parameter. It's not nearly as uncontroversial as removing Essential Articles by a long shot. I do think that it would make no difference if Essential Articles was redirected to Vital Articles, as they are mostly overlapping in purpose. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:01, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
I approve of just adding "Historical" to the top of the page and removing links to the page. I have a fondness for it, but it's not doing anything and is completely arbitrary. Who knows though, maybe it inspires someone to improve specific articles. It may have helped inspire me over a decade ago. Having a link to it remaining in some random spot on the project page would feel nice to me, but that's just my sentimentality speaking. You know what I would love though? This kind of view for various sub-topics. I do love the quick overview of article quality of a bunch of related articles. It might inspire someone to take on a Good Topic project. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 13:17, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Support NegativeMP1's proposal. No opposition to getting rid of the Importance field too, but I think that should be a separate discussion or I fear there's going to be too much crosstalk to discern a consensus on either. Sergecross73 msg me 15:04, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Support adding historical tag and removing links to the page. TarkusABtalk/contrib 17:15, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Support adding historical tag. On importance, I could take it or leave it; on one hand, importance is like astrology to me (fun to think about). On the other hand, it can create complications and disputes. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 17:38, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Support marking Essential Articles as historical or its redirection, and removing/reducing links to it, oppose deprecating talk page importance ratings (which as said should be a separate discussion).--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 07:53, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Support deprecating the essential articles page and suggest adding a hatnote directing people to Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Vital articles. The page is heavily outdated and basically irrelevant. Oppose deprecating the importance ratings, and that should be a different discussion. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:33, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
The hatnote directing people to the VA page is probably the best way of going about it. λ NegativeMP1 18:38, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

New Articles (August 18 to August 24)

edit
Latest comment: 7 days ago2 comments1 person in discussion
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 15:25, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

August 18

August 19

August 20

August 21

August 22

August 23

August 24

On time, every time- let me know if any articles got missed! --PresN 15:25, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Heads up on Famitsu website Reviews

edit
Latest comment: 5 days ago7 comments3 people in discussion

Seems like Famitsu has removed a lot of their old archival reviews and replaced them with some newer more detailed ones. This is good and bad as it loses out on some more ancient content that we have cited, but lets us see more specific content (i.e: reivewers, individual rankings, more detailed prose, etc.) The earliest it seems to go back to in their current archives is the PS3 era as shown in this Resident Evil 5 review. If you have any articles you've worked on that site the source, might want to check on your "url-status" tags or check for archival links for anything older, or maybe even replace the older links with the more detailed new ones if its available on the site. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:51, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Should a request be made at WP:URLREQ to address the url-status aspect & address any dead links? Sariel Xilo (talk) 15:54, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Potentially! Thankfully a lot of them have been archived, but a lot of them had that "status=live" on them. Too be honest, I didn't even know that was an option as I just try to default to an archive-link of a URL online for safety. So it could be as simple as changing that to "dead" or removing it, but others might not be archived at all. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:43, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Please note that if the review still actually exists at the live url, but only it's contents have changed, |url-status= should be set to deviated, not dead. "Dead" should only be used if the link no longer functions, but in this case, it sounds like the contents have just changed so "deviated" is the correct parameter use. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:43, 27 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
It appears some information would be missing when we do link to the reviews.
Take this example of Virtue's Last Reward:
While they both contain release date info and snippets of the reviews, and a release date, the newer Famitsu site will post reviews if the item was reviewed more than once for different systems. The older site has a lot more suggested links but skips out on the fourth reviewer quote and doesn't tell you what system they are reviewing it for and who the authors are. So its not just a URL change, its a completely new layout and does not seem to go as far in the past as the other articles have in the psat (i.e: before RE5). Anyways, just something to keep an eye out for and adjust citations carefully. That being said, I don't know what I'd do in these citations. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:23, 27 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
That seems to indicate all Famitsu sources before X date (which is?) should be changed to "deviated" unless the review has been removed entirely. It can then be updated to the newer link on a case by case basis after an editor has reviewed if the new version is still accurate for what has already been cited. Sariel Xilo (talk) 15:44, 27 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
It doesn't appear to be "all" from what I previewed, but I don't have an encyclopedic knowledge of their reviews (nor do I want that. yikes!) It appears to be around March 2009 is when their earliest reviews now exist, but perhaps not "all" of the reviews they may have done as I wouldn't even know how to test. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:08, 27 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

The difference between an editorial and a guest essay

edit
Latest comment: 4 days ago12 comments4 people in discussion

Hello. I was wondering if the publication's authority is extended to include guest authors? In this case, we are talking about a series of guest essays about games that have influenced queer gamers from the resource "4gamer". I don't see anything wrong with the idea itself, but I noticed that a recent article about Nemona included a fragment from one of these essays about Pokemon as a full-fledged reception of the character "through a queer lens" on behalf of the publication. I rewrote the text to make its context and idea more understandable, but I also want to figure out how to approach this in the future. Did I do the right thing by adding context, or should such material be presented without question on behalf of the original publication, even if it is a guest author? Solaire the knight (talk) 12:40, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

If it's a labeled easy or guest column in a pub that we normal consider reliable, I would make sure to attribute the author directly, like "Writing in IGN, so-and-so said...". Guest columns will general have some editorial oversight by the pub. This is in contrast with "contributes" like at Forbes which have minimal oversight. Masem (t) 13:30, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
I don't know the editorial policies of this publication or the activities of any of these authors outside of this essay series. As far as I can tell, this column was intended to highlight what games various queer gamers were inspired by and why. For example, in this case, the author identifies as non-binary genderqueer and 90% of the material was devoted to androgyny and the subjective absence of toxic masculinity in the game. Therefore, I tried to start by simply writing within the framework of the topic within which the material was written. Solaire the knight (talk) 13:48, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
My stance mirrors Masem's comment above. That's generally the way to do it. Sergecross73 msg me 14:24, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
I understand the general approach, but what about this source? Submit it to a source evaluation and look for the level of authority of the mentioned guest author? Solaire the knight (talk) 16:36, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
It's already listed as a reliable source per WP:VG/S, so you're in the clear to use it. If it's editorial/anecdotal essay in nature, then just make sure its written with the proper context and attribution.
  • Wrong: "Pikachu is a queer character."
  • Right: "Marina Smith, in a guest column for 4gamer, noted that she observed homosexual overtones in Pikachu's design when growing up."
Sergecross73 msg me 17:11, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
I see. So as long as we give full context and write it neutrally, there shouldn't be any problems or questions? Solaire the knight (talk) 17:14, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
I believe so. Judging by the state of the world these days, you'll probably get pushback here and there by POV-pushing editors who will say misguided things like "I'm deleting this cuz Pokemans can't be gay", but they would generally not be on the right side of Wikipedia policy. Sergecross73 msg me 17:20, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
I know some magazines write bait articles like "Mario should be gay in the new games" knowing that it will bait a lot of people. But this is just about why Japanese queer gamers found a particular game friendly and inspiring to them, so I hope no one starts an edit war claiming that we're trying to labeled character. At least shippers will do this regardless of Wikipedia. Solaire the knight (talk) 17:30, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
This comment gave me flashbacks to that one Fire Emblem dispute. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:00, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
I've always found shipping to be a very speculative and sensational topic for character articles. But since these are reputable publications, I can't influence it in any way. I just hope that despite all the enthusiasm of the fanbase, this is written in a neutral way. Because in the fandom of most games where you can choose the gender of the protagonist, there are people who will try to ban you from all gay or all straight ships and relationships. Solaire the knight (talk) 18:17, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
I looked at the articles about the characters from FE and I had a number of questions about them, by the way. For example, the article about Petra contradicts itself, describing shipping as a fact, while not declaring the character canonically queer. It feels like the paragraph about shipping was written separately from the general article. Solaire the knight (talk) 18:40, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Good article reassessment for Guitar Hero 5

edit
Latest comment: 4 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Guitar Hero 5 has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 14:46, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Good article reassessment for Ivalice

edit
Latest comment: 4 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Ivalice has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 14:53, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

What the fandom thinks about "Badeline"

edit
Latest comment: 3 days ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Can a couple people chime in on this discussion? Talk:Celeste_(video_game)#Discussion_about_disputed_sentence. An editor wants to insert some information that can't be verified with reliable sources and is citing WP:BLUE, which does not apply here. ThomasO1989 (talk) 16:12, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

fyi, this message runs afoul WP:CANVAS. You may want to keep this in mind in the future and/or rewrite your post. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:35, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
If it was so popular, then can't we find any sources where the authors themselves embrace it? Or at least within the framework of materials about the popularity of the game in general? As far as I understand, this game really has a solid hype. Solaire the knight (talk) 09:45, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Shipping in Fire Emblem Character Articles

edit
Latest comment: 3 days ago42 comments7 people in discussion
Closed per openers request. Sergecross73 msg me 18:28, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I've thought about it a few times and will still raise this question here. Am I the only one who is confused by such a big focus on shipping in articles about characters of this franchise? I don't mind describing canon queer characters or such interpretations, since FE really has it too (which also gets a lot of attention, but at least I can understand it). But I am confused that an article about many characters has such a big focus on it that it takes up half of the "Reception" section and is sometimes even put in the preamble. Moreover, almost always it is written based on several articles from the same 2-3 sources like Mary Sue and Gaymer mag. I am perfectly aware that the fandom of such games is very deeply immersed in shipping, but in my opinion this approach is too fanatical and often creates the impression that the potential for shipping and the number of fanfics on AO3 is one of the main reasons why this or that character is significant. Solaire the knight (talk) 19:16, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

It would be useful to give some examples, but since anyone can edit a Wikipedia article, it's certainly possible that a fan who is really obsessed with shipping has given WP:UNDUE weight to the topic. If it is truly at an amount of information that does not make sense, it can be pared down. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:19, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
For example, Dorothea Arnault, Petra Macneary, Marianne von Edmund. In some cases this makes some sense, as the character is widely cited in discussions of queer representation or is often interpreted as such, but in all of them it somehow turns into citing the favorite ships of the authors of these 2-3 sites from articles like "best side ships in the game" or "most interesting ships in the game without the main character". Given the resources cited, this also has a certain bias towards femslash ships (or at least someone described exactly this part of shipping). Overall, I don't mind the description that the character's bisexuality was positively received and yuri ships with them are quite popular. But most of the time it just turns into a ship digest. Solaire the knight (talk) 19:26, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
I wouldn't spend too much time on it, but if that's what reliable sources are writing articles about, then its at least fair game for inclusion. (It's bound to happen with characters from these sorts of games with dating sim elements.) Sergecross73 msg me 19:37, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Just because it's written in a reputable source doesn't mean it's significant enough by default for a Wikipedia entry. Also, I specifically mentioned that I'm not against shipping being described as such if it's truly important to the game or character. But in this case, it's just a digest of ships based on fan articles. Not to mention that this way we can write a solid text about ships in most articles about popular characters, because you can always find a bunch of it on the internet. You yourself confirmed it. Solaire the knight (talk) 19:46, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
To be clear, I said "fair game", not "compulsory". There's always room for editorial judgement on what's important to cover, arguments related to WP:UNDUE, etc. But there's no policy or guideline preventing it from being covered is what I'm saying. Sergecross73 msg me 20:06, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Well, the rules have been cited several times here that discourage adding something to an article just because it's written about in authoritative sources. And as several users have said, including yourself, this has potentially gained too much weight despite the limited number of sources. But if we want rules, how about developing them through consensus to distinguish meaningful information from fanboyish information in the future? And in this case, meaningful shipping descriptions from simply listing someone's favorite ships. For example, simply describing that Dorothea and Petra's relationship is meaningful, including shipping, rather than simply describing a popular ship. Solaire the knight (talk) 20:14, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Feel free to put together a proposal and see if you can garner a consensus on it. But I personally have no interest in trying to police it. I think any of these "issues" can simply be solved by the usual problems solving processes - trimming, rewording, adding context, talk page discussions, etc.
For the record, I have interest no personal interest in reading or writing about "ships". But that doesn't mean it has no place on Wikipedia - what we cover isn't bound by our personal interests. Sergecross73 msg me 20:27, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
As I said, I don't intend to remove any information about ships. At least some of it might be useful. Just don't describe it as a digest based on someone's "top 10 side ships in such and such game". That's why I created a separate thread instead of trying to unilaterally decide this myself. In that case, if you or other users don't mind, I suggest waiting for some more comments or suggestions and then asking neutral admins to sum it up. At least I don't think it's too big a topic to discuss rules additions. Solaire the knight (talk) 20:33, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Looking at the Marianne article, the only source that's explicitly discussing a ship really is the final one, and only for a sentence. The other source discusses the relationship dynamic between Marianne and two other characters, particularly things they enjoy about it. The fact that it's a tiny minority of sources would necessitate not giving it undue coverage, but three sentences for two sources is not wildly out of the question. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 20:48, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
One of these links is directly about the "shipping potential" of their relationships, and the other link is literally called "the best side ships in the game". This is one of the main reasons I made this thread. Not only do these articles overly focus on shipping, but they also describe significant character relationships through the lens of that. So in a case like the Dorothea article, when you read in the preamble how the writers valued her relationships with two characters, and then you get to the reception section and see that it's about two ships, it completely shifts the focus, making it seem like those characters were valued because of the popular ships in the first place. Solaire the knight (talk) 20:55, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
FWIW the sources used aren't of the terrible listicle type and are generally reliable sources. However, also consider DUE here. Like if you have 30 sources on a char and only 2 going into opinions of the author's best ships, that's probably a good reason to reduce that coverage. Masem (t) 20:01, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Preliminary result

edit

So, to sum it up, as far as I can see from the discussion, most users agree with the idea of ​​cutting this down significantly, but not remove it completely if something still has significance for the article as a whole? Solaire the knight (talk) 21:52, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

It depends what significance ships have to a character's notability. Some can be notable almost entirely due to shipping. One major problem in Dorothea's case is that I am unsure if she is even notable so it's hard to pin down how. We may be looking at a merge to the character list. Marianne does seem like she may be standalone notable though. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:12, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for your reply! The dispute has temporarily moved to a discussion of one of the articles, so I have already managed to open a separate topic on the platform for discussing the neutrality of the articles. So, you mean that here we also need to evaluate how significant the fact of the existence or popularity of a particular ship is within the framework of the character itself, instead of simply describing that people love shipping "Bob with Alex"? Solaire the knight (talk) 00:16, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
I'd be pretty strongly opposed to a merger of Dorothea, particularly due to there being multiple articles strictly about her in her reception section, clearing WP:THREE and having substantial amount of content generated from these sources. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 00:16, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
The Polygon article does seem like SIGCOV for her, but everything else appears trivial or unreliable. The Gamer is just a collection of trivia without analysis. In particular it leans heavily on Gayming Mag sources that seem potentially unreliable. Has there been a discussion about that source's reliability, and if it's not based on that, what other sources show significant coverage exactly? ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:13, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Here's the recent discussion on Gayming Mag; it wasn't added to the video game source list but discussion seemed to lean towards reliable for LGBTQ+ topics (in media/games). Sariel Xilo (talk) 04:21, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
As I wrote above, I don't mind if this is rewritten in the context of the character's popularity due to queer representation (regardless of whether this is rewritten or left as a separate article). It would be a good compromise solution that would preserve the general essence of the text and remove the simple description of the ships. As for the sources in general, I am not familiar with them. I was simply told that they are authoritative and so I started from there. Gaymer mag is, as far as I've noticed, was one of the main source whose "best side ships" and such articles are used to describe character shipping in this articles. So it all comes down to WP:UNDUE again, considering all this speculative shipping fan content can be rewritten in favor of more clear information about the interest in the character from the queer community. Solaire the knight (talk) 06:44, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
To be clear, "​​cutting this down significantly" is not a good representation of what I stated above. Sergecross73 msg me 14:03, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
I don't see any point in keeping it in its current form, considering that it's all just shipping shilling that can be significantly shortened and rewritten into something more meaningful for the article. Solaire the knight (talk) 15:51, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Yes, you've made that quite clear. Im not talking about your stance. I'm stating you apparently didn't understand mine. Sergecross73 msg me 15:57, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
I understand that you only support working with wording, but saving the text for some reason. I just want to say why I don't see the point in saving it in its current form. Solaire the knight (talk) 16:00, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
I don't think we can address this broadly. Instead, the best approach is to create a discussion at each article where you think there's a DUE issue and address it case by case. Sariel Xilo (talk) 16:19, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
The work is already going on this way despite the fact that the complaints against them are generally the same. It is enough to look at the article about Petra, although after the actual rewriting, it only remains to reduce the amount of information about shipping, since even after rewriting it takes up a third of the entire description of the character. Or do you suggest opening a separate section for each article in this discussion? Solaire the knight (talk) 16:54, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Agreed. It's going to be a case by case basis thing, dependent on the reliability of the source, the substance of what they said, the amount of other things being covered in the article, etc. Sergecross73 msg me 16:24, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
It is quite obvious that the work plan depends on each situation separately. Because we are talking about different articles with different contexts. However, I do not think that ship shiling will somehow become more authoritative in some individual cases, it all still needs to be rewritten in a more reasonable form. Solaire the knight (talk) 16:50, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Yes, we get it. You have a zero tolerance policy for it. But you'll generally need a consensus in your favor to enforce that. Sergecross73 msg me 17:00, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
I never said anywhere that I was going to delete everything or do anything without consensus. Please stop escalating the controversy again. Solaire the knight (talk) 17:02, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
I'm not escalating anything. Quite the opposite, there's nothing left to say. Sergecross73 msg me 17:27, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
In that case, I ask you to refrain from making such remarks towards me, especially when you yourself have witnessed the opposite behavior on my part.Solaire the knight (talk) 17:41, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
I think you really need to slow down and re-read these comments more closely. I think youre misreading or missing a lot of nuances of what's being said. Sergecross73 msg me 18:00, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
I would really slow down if I didn't have to constantly justify myself in response to comments like this. You are really not helping the situation, only creating more tension. So before this goes too far I ask you to stop. Thank you. Solaire the knight (talk) 18:05, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
I agree with a case-by-case approach. In general, we follow what the sources say, and try not to pile on too much from any single source. This discussion can't get very far in the abstract. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:54, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
The problem here is somewhat different. If you look at the sections under discussion, you will notice that the author took 3-4 essentially identical articles about shipping and quoted 1-2 sentences related to the character from them, which is why this section eventually grew to the current "ship digest". For example, in Petra's case, these are essentially 3-4 phrases about the same ship with her from different sources (and all this under the guise of discussing the character's current relationships with others, instead discussing only the pairing itself). I think instead we could easily just write that the character got extra popularity because of a popular ship instead of a collection of various quotes about that ship. Solaire the knight (talk) 17:00, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
This discussion is starting to feel like WP:IDHT. If you're trying to be constructive, please start a discussion at the relevant article, as multiple editors have suggested. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:04, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
I've already said that I plan to do this in the future after I've had some rest. Although, given what it turned into the first time I tried this, we'll definitely need some neutral user supervision. Otherwise it will just end in another "no, you" fight. Solaire the knight (talk) 17:07, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
When you create that discussion, you can post a neutral notice here to invite more participation. I find that people from this WikiProject generally advocate for good sources and good policy. Enjoy your rest. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:16, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Thank you. Considering that further work will require the creation of some new discussions, I will not be against it being closed as having lost its meaning and risking becoming endless. Solaire the knight (talk) 17:26, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Note - this seems to be happening in concert with a few other discussions on the topic: Talk:Petra Macneary#The article contradicts itself regarding Petra's identity. & Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Overemphasis on shipping in Fire Emblem character articles. Sariel Xilo (talk) 17:56, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

That's what I was talking about. The discussion quickly became chaotic, but in the end at least some of the work was done. In any case, since the consensus seems to be moving towards separate discussions of each article in the future, I suggest closing this thread to avoid further escalation. Solaire the knight (talk) 18:05, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/5/Arts and everyday life § Add Touhou Project

edit
Latest comment: 2 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/5/Arts and everyday life § Add Touhou Project. 🌙Eclipse (she/they/all neos • talk • edits) 23:04, 30 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Requested move at Talk:The New York Times Crosswords#Requested move 14 August 2025

edit
Latest comment: 1 day ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:The New York Times Crosswords#Requested move 14 August 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPathtalk 02:39, 31 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 15 minutes ago4 comments3 people in discussion

No idea if there's interest in it, but since there's the discussion above about the outdated Essential articles list... we have Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Popular pages, but a lot of the entries are on topics somewhat peripheral to video gaming that happen to have the VG project on them anyway (e.g. YouTube, Netflix, Nvidia - technically related to gaming, but not the core aspect). Sometimes it's useful to see more specific popular pages, which I think we can get via category-trawling rather than using the Wikiproject status. I went ahead and vibe coded some minor analysis of popular pages (happy to share, can work on any Wikipedia category, isn't video game specific.). Should be easy enough to regenerate if desired every 6 months or so to keep it current, as well.

Usual disclaimers apply here: pageviews are affected by bots masquerading as users, by an article appearing as Today's Featured Article in the past year, by pagemoves (Jane Jensen (video game designer) recently moved, so the script only notes that the current ___location has 0 views in the time period), some articles are mostly on Some Other Topic but mention a video game in passing and thus get tagged with the category, etc. Take with a few grains of salt.

Any suggestions or feedback? SnowFire (talk) 04:37, 1 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

Honestly, I'm surprised I never thought of this. Regardless of what editors think, pageviews give a good impression of what articles are important to consider improving. In my experience, pageviews tend to be decently accurate to what I'd expect them to be (based on related news or consistently being a popular article). Cukie Gherkin (talk) 06:59, 1 September 2025 (UTC)Reply
I would definitely see if there's some way to iron down something like video game characters to just video game characters. It's a bit inflated by characters who appear in video games but aren't video game characters (I.e, Doctor Doom, Hello Kitty, Sauron, Penguin, Darth Vader, and the Joker are all in the top ten but aren't really "video game characters" per se. The only ones there who actually are in relation to a major video game franchise are Mario, Shadow the Hedgehog, the Last of Us TV series characters, and Miku (Who is technically counted under the VGCHAR project). Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 18:08, 1 September 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Pokelego999: Have you considered updating Wikipedia:WikiProject/Popular pages config.json to request that bot generate a list based on articles tagged as part of the project? Right now, the Nintendo & Sega projects are configured, but VGCHAR isn't. While I could adjust my script to do some heuristics like excluding movie characters (or straight-up trust the VGCHAR project itself), if it ends up just reducing to the list already maintained by VGCHAR, the bot might be better. Although it's monthly pageviews rather than yearly pageviews, mind. (There's also the larger question of whether these characters should even be tagged in the Category itself - does the existence of a single video game throw the entire franchise's characters that appeared as "Video game characters"? In some cases, maybe, but also possible some of these articles really shouldn't be tagged as VG Chars at all.) SnowFire (talk) 02:21, 2 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

M vs m

edit
Latest comment: 8 hours ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I'm not sure how big of a deal this is, but if we are using the term metroidvania in an article, is it "metroidvania" or "Metroidvania"? On looking it up, there is MOS:GENRECAPS. I was writing it in lowercase, but as Metroid is a "propername" (MOS:PROPERNAME), my understanding is that it should be with a capital M? I may have answered my own question here, but I figured i'd weigh in incase there are some other guidelines that suggest otherwise someone may have come across. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:21, 1 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

I first thought to compare it to similar words (adjectives/genres derived from titles) Roguelike article uses lowercase, but... Doom clone and GTA clone are upper case but use the exact word from their parent title to make a new term, not a new word. But then I thought this is bordering on original research and doesn't really matter as there's no reason why one word/term should match another. The fairest way I could think was. Looking at all the sources in the article. There are 15, but one is dead. Of the remaining 14, 11 use upper case and 3 use lower case. If this is indicative of writing about the topic in other published sources I would suggest writing the article using upper case as it is by far the most common, but state once at the start that lower case is also used sometime, or words to that effect. Plus the article already uses upper case so it would be less disruptive.  Carlwev  18:09, 1 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

New Articles (August 25 to August 31)

edit
Latest comment: 11 hours ago3 comments2 people in discussion
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, 1 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

August 25

August 26

August 27

August 28

August 29

August 30

August 31

Given that Linux is so old that it doesn't have its original edits saved in article history, it's likely the current winner of "most time between article creation and being tagged for WPVG", with Classic Mac OS coming in just behind it. --PresN 14:36, 1 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

Ehhh... I went and untagged them; we don't even have stuff like Windows 95 or DOS tagged under the project as is. I think there's a line of separation with operating systems.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:53, 1 September 2025 (UTC)Reply
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games&oldid=1309085992"