Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games

(Redirected from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computer and video games/Essential articles)
Latest comment: 1 hour ago by Sariel Xilo in topic Shipping in Fire Emblem Character Articles
Learn more about this page

Move discussion for F.E.A.R. (video game) and F.E.A.R.

edit
 

An editor has requested that F.E.A.R. (video game) be moved to F.E.A.R., which may be of interest to this WikiProject. You are invited to participate in the move discussion.

Call of Duty article plot summaries

edit
Latest comment: 12 days ago64 comments9 people in discussion

This is certainly a random topic, but it's one that I've been wondering for a while now. Basically, for most articles on Call of Duty games starting with Call of Duty: Black Ops, the articles contain more than one plot summary to take into account whatever extra modes the game has (most of the time this is Zombies, though later on Multiplayer plot summaries are added when they become relevant to the games). On paper, this seems reasonable. But any look at these articles will find that the practice is a bit impractical and makes the plot summaries take up a majority of the article. One of the main things with writing Wikipedia articles on fiction is to not write articles with excessive plot summaries. That's why we have the 700-word limit that is almost universally accepted for plot summaries on Wikipedia, with some leeway allowed if absolutely necessary. But if you add a second plot summary to that, that's (at best) about 1,400 words of plot summary. With three plots, that's 2,100, and so on and so forth. That becomes a bit impractical, doesn't it? Even if the plot summaries technically abide with guidelines.

Specific plot summary examples

As stated already, this trend starts with Call of Duty: Black Ops, where the plot summaries for both the main campaign and the Zombies story arc are included. Both of these sections are currently above the word limit as it is, with Campaign being 917 words long and Zombies being 885, for a total of 1,802 words. This continues with Call of Duty: Black Ops II and Call of Duty: Black Ops III, except the latter also introduces a plot summary for Nightmares and Multiplayer (though the latter is tame). Black Ops II has 1,001 words of main campaign plot summary, 288 words discussing the endings (these obviously need a trimming and the endings section shouldn't exist but ignoring that), and then 1,017 words for Zombies, for a total of 2,306 words in the plot section. Black Ops III has 795 words for the campaign, 307 for Nightmares, 147 for Multiplayer, and 1,060 for Zombies, with a total of 2,309 words of plot. Call of Duty: Black Ops 4 isn't that great either, but that one at least has the excuse of Zombies being the games focus due to the lack of a proper campaign so I won't linger on it.

Then there's Call of Duty: Black Ops Cold War, where all plot sections are equally massive and impractical for Campaign, Multiplayer, and Zombies. Combined, all three plot summaries on Cold War amount of 2,717 words. Keep in mind, most video game articles try to keep to 700 total. Even if these are separate modes, this much plot overall is surely proving to be impractical. And as I have already stated, even if each plot summary technically was restricted to meet the plot limits, it'd still be over 2,000 words of plot summary. Call of Duty: Black Ops 6 somewhat follows this trend, but that one is kept pretty well contained thanks to IDKFA-93, who maintains the article and has contained the Zombies story arc into an episodic list, while Multiplayer doesn't get much plot summary at all. I find the management of that articles plot summary to be done very well by these standards. But the others feel inexcusable. Call of Duty: Modern Warfare III (2023 video game) also contains two plot summaries, as does Call of Duty: Vanguard. Although, again, Vanguard also adopts an episodic layout for Zombies. Also, to fully clarify, these are not the only examples that could be used. Most Call of Duty games have two or more plots like this. The Black Ops series is just the easiest to cite and also where this problem started.

To reiterate, even if all of these plot summaries on their own followed Wikipedia guidelines, we would be looking at having articles with over 2,000 words worth of plot in the worst of cases.

So, after all of these examples, allow me to reiterate my stance that I do not know how comfortable it is having articles that feature plot summaries of over 2,000 words in length. Even if that total is combined from all plot summaries, and technically follows Wikipedia summary guidelines. Most video game articles have 700 total, with some leeway for DLC releases and chances where a plot cannot be summarized in only 700 words. But, once again, in a case like Cold War which has three different plots going on, that'd still be up to 2,100 words worth of plot summary. I don't think this is compatible with summary style, nor be a comfortable reading experience for someone completely unfamiliar with the game (Zombies is something which I'd classify as utterly incomprehensible without knowing the plots of previous games once you reach Black Ops 2). And I seek some sort of solution regarding this problem as I am considering the improving the articles on some older Call of Duty games. The chances I do any major work are slim, but still there. Regardless, I would definitely be doing some sort of maintenance work depending on the outcome (even if that just amounts to some plot trimming and the addition of Template:Long plot to all of these articles). λ NegativeMP1 21:51, 29 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

It has been a while since I touched the cod games so I have to ask, how is the plot presented in the multi-player modes? Masem (t) 22:19, 29 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
For the modern Cods, I can only really speak on Black Ops 6, and as far as I can remember (I don't play it much anymore because of obvious reasons to anyone aware of how the series is currently handled) it is mainly presented through YouTube videos / trailers and some in-game cut-scenes related to the battle pass. As far as I'm aware, Warzone does that too. λ NegativeMP1 22:22, 29 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
If the bulk of that is from external videos not experienced as part of the gameplay then that needs massive trimming. It's one thing to see the events as you are progressing the main campaign, but info that's non essential to the game mode and only provides flavor should be removed, unless it is documented on third party sources to that degree. Masem (t) 22:49, 29 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
I agree. If something doesn't appear in the game/isn't particularly relevant to it, then it probably shouldn't be included unless sources extensive discuss it. But then the question moves over to what to do to the other modes' plot summaries. λ NegativeMP1 23:19, 29 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
To be honest, I’m not sure they should be there at all. Based on what you said about them (particularly Zombies) requiring knowledge of previous games’ plots to understand, it’s likely that only hardcore CoD fans will understand or care about them, so they might be more suitable for Fandom or similar. Rosaece (talk) 20:58, 30 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
Isnt wikipedia a place where it doesnt care about spoilers and all that? This rule is confusing and honestly hopefully wikipedia fails! Echogone (talk) 16:04, 12 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
It's not about spoilers, it's about ensuring the articles are easy for people who aren't that familiar with CoD's lore. Rosaece ♡ talk ♡ contributions 16:08, 12 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
CODS LORE INCLUDES ZOMBIES!!(Personal attack removed) Echogone (talk) 02:16, 13 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Please cut it out, both here and on my user page [1]. λ NegativeMP1 03:17, 13 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Hi there, I believe this entire discussion has been made with a lack of understanding on how COD lore works and how they handle post-launch story content.
First of all, you don't need to know what the previous games' plots are to understand the current game's plot, any more than you do with a typical video game sequel. Several recent CODs have also included major plot elements in these post-launch cinematics that end up being relevant in future sequels, such as retconning character deaths. Removing these plot details end up making the plot of those sequels confusing because you now omit important details from the previous games.
Second, Zombies is treated as a core mode of COD, the same way the Campaign is treated. It is not a side mode, and therefore any plot details within that mode should also be given equal attention.
Third, this entire discussion thread seems to have been made by NegativeMP1 without discussing it thoroughly with people who regularly edit COD articles (including myself). This thread has only seen contribution from people who aren't familiar with COD and are only concerned with keeping the plot section under the arbitrary word count limit. This discussion is incredibily biased in how it approaches this subject matter, therefore I propose we put this matter on hold until we can figure out a better solution that benefits all parties involved. The boss 1904 (talk) 09:10, 13 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Shouldn't all the plots be returned? The removal was too fast anyways. Echogone (talk) 23:35, 13 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
(Personal attack removed) Echogone (talk) 15:55, 12 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Insulting people doesn't really help your case... whatever the case you're trying to make is, anyways. λ NegativeMP1 16:57, 12 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
There's no justification for plot summaries that long and they need to be cut back. Popcornfud (talk) 23:26, 29 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
So what would you recommend doing? λ NegativeMP1 00:32, 30 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
Probably a 200-ish word paragraph to establish the premise of these modes, and that might be better explained in the gameplay section ("CoD's zombies mode is set in a alternative history..." or something like that). Masem (t) 03:43, 30 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
I would look hard at axing the non-main campaign plot summaries entirely, honestly, besides perhaps one or two lines introducing the story setup for them. I've found similar with Halo Infinite and the multiplayer storyline that usually there's no way to cover the plot of the ancillary stuff without getting heavily out of sync with how much sources talk about this stuff (which, outside of the usual churnalism, is usually way less than the main story modes.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 12:30, 8 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
So there seems to be a very loose consensus here that these plot summaries probably shouldn't be here at all and all of the main plot summaries should not as long as they are. I'm not about to go in blazing with an axe to all of these plot summaries, but I'm going to be noting it in the edit summaries where I tag each respectively article with Template:Long plot — which I will soon do, as even without these extra plot summaries, many of these articles simply have over 700 words in their main campaign summary. λ NegativeMP1 04:55, 12 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
I’m willing to lend a hand if you need it :) Rosaece ♡ talk ♡ contributions 08:53, 12 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
I went through all of the game articles (I think) last night and got rid of all non-Campaign plot summaries, and tagged with Long plot if needed. The only exception is Call of Duty: Black Ops 4, which does not have a main campaign of any sort and therefore I'm not sure what to do.
Trimming down the long plot summaries is going to be extremely hard as some of the plot summaries for the campaigns alone seemed to exceed 1,000 words as far as I can remember. I don't know how to handle all of that, hence why I said "I'm not about to go in blazing with an axe to all of these plot summaries". λ NegativeMP1 16:56, 12 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
BO4's 'campaign' is sort of an extension of the multiplayer's story, so I'd keep both just to be on the safe side. I'll get rid of the Zombies plot though. Rosaece ♡ talk ♡ contributions 19:29, 12 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Seems that you forgot to do it unless you were going to do it later; I went ahead and cut the plot myself. λ NegativeMP1 03:20, 13 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Ah no worries, I was leaving it for later Rosaece ♡ talk ♡ contributions 06:23, 13 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
I think the plot could be trimmed a little more. I'm at work at the moment but I've tagged the article with Long plot and will get to it when I get time. Rosaece ♡ talk ♡ contributions 08:34, 13 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Hi, I regularly work on the COD pages including the plot summaries for them. While Zombies often requires some background knowledge of prior games, we should not discriminate the plot content based on a silly notion that could also apply to virtually any video game sequels. For any plot points that make references to older games, we have the footnotes to clarify that.
Zombies and Multiplayer are also considered "main modes", just as the Campaign is, and Zombies in particular receive just as much attention and marketing as the Campaign. It simply does not make sense to remove their plot summaries just so you can meet an arbitrarily rigid word count limit. Many integral plot details that become relevant in sequels are also gone because of this arbitrary removal you have made (e.g.: Alex's survival in MW2019 which is referenced in both MWII and MWIII, Graves surviving the MWII campaign and appearing in a Multiplayer season and MWIII).
I am willing to work with you on a compromise that achieves a better solution, but outright removing the content is not it. The boss 1904 (talk) 06:03, 13 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
100% This is the answer! They hopefully listen!! Echogone (talk) 06:16, 13 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
(Replying to both this comment and the one above that pinged me so I don't have to make two separate comments).
I see the concerns and I apologize if you think I mishandled this, although just to clarify a few things:
My point regarding the lore being confusing to those unfamiliar with previous games is not a jab at the games directly, nor am I using it as a sole argument to axe plot summaries. I think that the main Call of Duty plot summaries are generally understandable to someone unfamiliar with the franchise given that some notes or background information is provided when necessary. Rather, it is a critique regarding Zombies, which I feel like even people in the fandom would agree is incomprehensible starting with Black Ops 4 without a strong understanding of past titles. And that issue gets worse with the Dark Aether.
And yes, I understand that Zombies and Multiplayer are main modes. This isn't some sort of discrimination towards those modes in particular. It's merely the concern that, if we have plot summaries for all of these modes, the word count in an article dedicated solely to plot summary would be in the thousands even if each plot summary followed a 700-word-limit. I view that as unreasonable. There's also the factor that these cutscenes are not actually main game content and is only available temporarily - if someone loaded up Modern Warfare II today, they would not see the cutscene that retconned Graves' death. They'd have to watch the cutscene on YouTube. That arguably eliminates its status as content that can be easily cited to the game itself, and therefore results in issues with WP:PLOTCITE or WP:VGPLOT.
And regarding a potential bias in the discussion - I mean, this is the Video games project page. This is where more broad discussions regarding these things are meant to be held and the word limit for video game articles is policy. Video game plot summaries have to be under 700 words, and there are very few exceptions. Having the discussion here made sense. Although I'll concede that I maybe could've pinged some more active Call of Duty article editors. λ NegativeMP1 16:53, 13 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Regarding the confusing Zombies plot, I think I could've done better on this front. Due to the episodic format of the mode, it's been hard to find a good way to present the information. I think with the Black Ops 6 page, an editor switched to using a table that lists each map's plot similarly to TV episodes, which I think helps with navigation better. Perhaps we could apply that to all games with Zombies content.
As for the content itself being temporary in nature, I don't believe it should get in the way of covering information. The matter of fact is, some of these seasonal plot points are crucial to the story, and when you remove that, it creates a gap of information that readers have to find elsewhere, and that inconveniences them. I had a similar argument years ago with some editors on the Assassin's Creed Odyssey page where they insist on not having DLC/expansion summaries even though several of them have plot details that are relevant in the sequel. Fast forward to today, and the page has it.
In regards to the word limit, I will concede that the COD pages need to adhere to it better, but it is also concerning to not see it enforced consistently. When I look at pages like the Destiny 2 expansions, their plot summaries are insanely longer than anything I have written for COD, and they also cover temporary seasonal content that you can no longer access in-game today. Based on that, from my point of view, the word limit isn't really enforced unless someone feels like it.
Back to my original point, I want each COD game to be able to cover their main campaign plots and any potential expansions (which I think seasonal cinematics and Zombies maps qualify). We can work on shortening the summaries to meet the word count limit, remove any unnecessary bits that require too much effort to find (i.e. information not presented in the actual mission/level and cutscenes) and maybe find a way to make sure Zombies in particular feels more "standalone" without needing to read up on every past game's article to understand the latest one. The boss 1904 (talk) 18:23, 13 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
For Zombies, what would be a issue with a campaign section and then a Zombies section. So:
Campaign
Campaign plot
then
Zombies
Zombies plot
(Each 350 words or something)
Removing 100% of all Zombies plot isn't the right way. Multiplayer is a fair point as the cutscenes aren't in the game forever, where Zombies has cutscenes in the game entirely (without needing to use YouTube or anything). Echogone (talk) 23:31, 13 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
350 words would be impossible to cover any plot, let alone an entire campaign. The main concern here is readability, so I would prefer we agree on a solution that meets everyone halfway. The boss 1904 (talk) 02:03, 14 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
I mean, I did put something to say any word amount. I think abiding the word limit of 300-700 PER mode as it was previously done would be a easy fix. The only part of this entire discussion I agree with is Multiplayer as you can't follow the story without YouTube after a season ends. Echogone (talk) 02:41, 14 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Per WP:PLOTCITE, we can use citations if needed, so I would simply use that to refer to external sources for the Multiplayer cinematics. Regardless, the content still existed at one point in time, and omitting them entirely would be the same as pretending they never existed at all.
But that's also besides the point. Both of us agree to retain the plot content instead of removing them, so it's now up to the others and how they want to proceed. The boss 1904 (talk) 03:01, 14 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
I think the plots should be reverted on all articles until the decision has been made. Removing them based on a few opinions that aren't familiar with COD is not the right call. Echogone (talk) 03:15, 14 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Uninvolved but jumping in with my two cents.
The problem here is WP:NOTPLOT, which is why we limit plot sections for Videogames to under 700 words. Admittedly it's been years since I last played a COD title, but I've always been under the impression that Zombies is more along the lines of a traditional DLC/spin off, so it would seem appropriate to me that the articles focus on the main campaigns.
It sounds like that may no longer be the case though. In terms of length, how does zombies compare to the main campaign? I think an exception could arguably be made to allow the main campaign to sit at 700 words, and then give Zombies an additional 200 words, which is what TV episodes are given (per WP:PLOTSUM).
Alternatively, if the Zombie campaigns are more episodic/serial in nature across the franchise, it could be possible to spin out Zombies into it's own article (as long as it meets MOS:VG & WP:NVG). Nil🥝 03:05, 14 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
back in World at War and maybe early Black Ops 1 days yea it was more of a barebones side mode but for years now all these alternate games modes like Zombies, Ghosts' Extinction mode, and Advanced Warfare's Exo Zombies all have their own cinematics accompanying each map with marked questlines and/or complicated easter eggs for players to accomplish so i'd say its of equal standing to the regular campaigns
that's why having it in episode chart form i feel is the most ideal cause these game modes do play out like episodic adventures CubicSquares (talk) 03:13, 14 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
I actually have thought about making an article specifically about Call of Duty Zombies, and coverage pending, having a section that briefly summarizes the lore throughout the games. There is coverage about Zombies and how popular it is as a mode, and also arguably meets the criteria to exist as a standalone series page despite being fundamentally tied to Call of Duty, because of the mobile versions of World at War and Black Ops Zombies. It feels evident that - up to a certain point, Zombies is viewed as a separate big money maker. However, it is an article concept that I pretty much expect to immediately get merged back into the main Call of Duty series article. Hence why I have never looked into it further. λ NegativeMP1 03:24, 14 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
MOS:PLOT says "Do not create articles consisting of a plot summary and little else.", so the article would require covering the mode as a whole (including development and reception etc).
I've not had a look to see if the coverage exists, but if it does it's definitely a viable option worth exploring. Nil🥝 03:33, 14 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Yes, I said "coverage pending, having a section that briefly summarizes the lore throughout the games". The article would not exist solely to regurgitate plot summary and it'd likely just cover the absolute basics of the lore (e.g. the origins of the zombies, the Ultimis crew, Aether vs. Dark Aether, etc.). If even that. But there's enough information regarding the history of the mode and reception towards it where a notable, encyclopedic and non-fan-crufty article on the matter can exist. From what I've seen, at least. The plot shouldn't even be a factor taken into account imo. λ NegativeMP1 03:37, 14 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
I know, I was agreeing (admittedly, not very clearly) and added that to contextualise for others :) Nil🥝 03:47, 14 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Okay, makes sense. Anyways, I'm starting work on the article in a userspace draft. I'll see what I can cook up. λ NegativeMP1 20:06, 16 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Progress is going decently well. The story of Zombies is actually somewhat covered by reliable sources, but I don't think an actual plot summary is appropriate, so I just have User:NegativeMP1/Call of Duty Zombies#Setting, which covers the absolute basics. λ NegativeMP1 22:35, 16 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Could it be turned into a draft article so anyone can edit it? Echogone (talk) 02:30, 17 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
I just now saw this comment, sorry. The article is live now anyways at Zombies (Call of Duty mode) (the name of the article could be moved later but for now that's the best I could do considering Call of Duty Zombies is going to be forced into a redirect). Had I saw this comment sooner, I would have said that I generally don't care if someone edits one of my userspace drafts. I even invite editors to take over drafts that I already got the sources together for but don't want to write.
With all of that being said, I think the Zombies article should be handled with care to avoid any plot details and to WP:STICKTOSOURCE. This is the first instance to my knowledge of a standalone video game mode actually warranting an article and I still expect someone to try and merge it (which I don't think would work considering there flat out is not a place for it considering how bad the current Call of Duty article is). Even though the sourcing exists. λ NegativeMP1 05:24, 17 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
actually i think for these newer CODs even multiplayer is needed cause you have plot points like alex's comeback in MW only occurring in a multiplayer cutscene, which ties into his re-appearance in MW3's campaign, graves doing the same thing in MW2 which was also only revealed in a DMZ custscene, and the end of the BO6 pantheon plotline so far only seen in the most recent multiplayer cutscenes
and also for example black ops cold war's multiplayer cinematics were already compiled up in one long video by treyarch with citations for timestamps in that article's summary CubicSquares (talk) 03:06, 14 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Could these multiplayer cut scenes be summarised as an {{efn}} note? So rather than add to the MW plot, add a note in MW3 that briefly explains Alex cameback in a multiplayer cutscene? Nil🥝 03:16, 14 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
That'd actually make sense to do. It doesn't add words and paragraphs to the plot section. Echogone (talk) 03:17, 14 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
I think that slightly complicates things, because Alex actually reappeared in the co-op episodes of MWII, before appearing in MWIII campaign. So there's a lot of connectivity between these modes, and it would not be wise to omit them for the sake of the word count. I firmly believe the MP cinematics should be given a plot summary section similarly to DLCs. The boss 1904 (talk) 03:32, 14 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Well, DLCs are typically given 400 words worth of plot summary in articles that have them, so I guess a brief summary of Multiplayer cinematics that's kept to 400 words or so wouldn't be that bad. Although, due to concerns regarding the content only being temporarily available in most cases, I'd argue that they wouldn't fall under PLOTCITE and should probably be cited to the cinematics on YouTube, which I believe the official Call of Duty channel uploads every time a new battle pass releases. λ NegativeMP1 03:39, 14 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
That leaves Zombies to deal with then. I saw your earlier comment about making an entirely separate article, but that seems like a huge undertaking at this time. I'm interested in the idea myself but for now, we should probably agree on a viable format for presenting the Zombies plots in each game. The boss 1904 (talk) 04:20, 14 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Once again, the idea of a separate article for Call of Duty Zombies does not concern the plot summaries. There would not be a plot summary in the article. At most, I envision a basic rundown of the premise, coverage pending. λ NegativeMP1 21:26, 14 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Right, but we still haven't agreed on how to handle the Zombies plot summaries themselves. My stance is still that we need to include them in their respective game's page, but I'm open to further ideas on how we can format them better. The boss 1904 (talk) 01:44, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Since you haven't gotten back to me, I am going to go ahead and restore the plot summaries you have removed from the COD articles. For better formatting, I am going to use the Episode table template so each map has its own section where possible. I also am going to edit the World at War page to add the summaries for its Zombies maps, as previously I included the plot of WaW maps in the Black Ops page instead. The boss 1904 (talk) 05:33, 16 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
I've had a lot going on today and other places to respond to, but I have been thinking about this and I don't really know what a decent compromise here would be to make them less egregious. But I will have to disagree with World at War having the summaries at least because World at War Zombies, flat out, does not have a plot that is stated in the game. The events of it are stated in later games (although more or less via retconning), but you can't really put those things in a plot summary about World at War in particular. I could see the settings and general gist of the maps being mentioned in actual article prose when the DLC themselves are brought up, or in the Zombies part of the Gameplay section, but there's not really a "plot" to speak of for them, so the information doesn't belong there. λ NegativeMP1 05:46, 16 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
My thinking was originally the same as you, but given the need to keep the word count down, I think keeping the summaries to their respective games makes more sense. With World at War, yes, the plots are not quite there, but there is enough that I think each map can have a quick summary that's easy to maintain under 50 words.
E.g. for Nacht der Untoten, it can be something like "Four unnamed Marines are stranded at an airfield bunker and hold out against endless waves of zombies", while for Shi no Numa, it can be "Richtofen leads three soldiers: Dempsey, Nikolai, and Takeo, to the Rising Sun Facility in Japan to recover his personal item". It is short enough to give readers an idea that there is a story with these maps, while also fitting the Episode table formatting. It would also help to trim the summaries for Black Ops greatly. Like I mentioned a few comments back, there is a lot of extra details in the previous plot summaries due to the need to connect these maps like a traditional plot summary. I'm open to other suggestions, but for now this is where I'm at. The boss 1904 (talk) 07:47, 16 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
I do agree with the whole quick summary thing and confining the summary of each map to their respective games, but at that point, if that's all you can really say about any of the maps, is something like a big episode table or a dedicated sub-section needed if it'd be that hollow? I mean, in reality, the only map I think you could get really any plot out of is Der Riese, but it's been a long time since I've played that map and I actually can't remember if that map, as it is in World at War, has a plot which can be viewed independently without context from Black Ops or further. The question is also raised if the events of World at War Zombies beyond the last two maps are actually worth mentioning on Wikipedia. Maybe I just need to see how it'd actually look before I make a judgement though. λ NegativeMP1 15:04, 16 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
I'll have to workshop this idea a bit, but the idea is that if we're gonna cover the plots, then we might as well include all maps, even if the early ones contain very minimal plot information. Because, again, like the Graves in MWII situation, if you exclude the info then readers would be confused, and you would need a lot of exposition to make the events starting from BO1 make sense. The boss 1904 (talk) 16:06, 16 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
I would say you can understand Black Ops Zombies without an understanding of World at War Zombies given maybe a tiny bit of expedition to set the scene (which should be in a "Characters and setting" section anyways). Out of the four Zombies maps in World at War: Nacht had no plot at all and is even described in-universe as an unfortunate event where four soldiers all died but left no impact (it's only noteworthy for being the first appearance of the Zombies), Verruckt doesn't connect to anything either and is arguably even less relevant outside of introducing Dempsey (although he's about as irrelevant as everyone else as his connections to Rictofen aren't elaborated on until later games), Shi no Numa just introduces the main characters but they don't have any backstories or goals or anything yet, and I still don't remember whether or not Der Riese had anything (I know it's related to the origins of the Zombies and experiments on 115 but I can't recall how much of that is actually described in World at War itself). So, within the context of World at War itself, there really isn't much to the Zombies. A brief summary of the settings of each map could be given whenever the DLC itself is brought up in the article, but I don't think it's appropriate for plot because it really doesn't have one. This is probably where the proportionate plot summaries part of WP:VGPLOT can come into play: "The article's plot coverage should be proportional to the plot's importance in the game, as determined by its weight in the article's source material". Since Zombies didn't really have a plot in World at War, I think we should reflect that. λ NegativeMP1 19:38, 16 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
So side note before the zombies plot summaries got deleted i did manage to put episode tables for all the zombies maps in every game except for the original black ops cause I couldn't figure out how to split that plot summary in a cohesive way but seems you got that covered by putting most of the backstory in world at war CubicSquares (talk) 16:21, 16 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
I've come up with an idea for a compromise, based on part of WP:VGPLOT. I think that the plot summaries of Multiplayer, Zombies, and any extra modes in each game should be kept to about 300-400 words each, per VGPLOT's guideline regarding DLC plot (the guideline says 300, however there is precedent for less important plot summaries be kept to 400 in other parts of Wikipedia). Now, yes, these modes are not DLC. However, they are not the main focus of the game either, and most content for these extra modes can be interpreted as DLC; they're not included as part of the base game. I think this is a reasonable solution, as it still represents the plot of these modes while also acknowledging that they are not the focus of the game. If it must go over 300-400 words, then that's fine - the guidelines as they are now allow for leeway if absolutely necessary. I also think that for these games, if the plot for Multiplayer is summarized over several seasons (which are obviously temporary), then specific events should be kept to the absolute minimum and include citations to the specific cutscenes or season trailers on YouTube. But I'm more hesitant about my thoughts regarding the Multiplayer plot summaries requiring citations because that wouldn't make sense as a compromise for just Call of Duty; it'd make sense to have a broader discussion on that in regards to all seasonal video games. Pinging everyone that's been highly involved in this conversation for their thoughts (obviously everyone else can still reply I'm just getting the main participants): @The boss 1904:, @Rosaece:, @Echogone:, @Masem:. λ NegativeMP1 06:05, 16 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Thank you. Removing it all was a bad choice, and how quickly it was done was horrible. I like how you took time to reconsider and hopefully we can revert things.
Zombies should be treated as the same with Campaign; where as Multiplayer is able to have 100-200 words imo. Echogone (talk) 08:35, 16 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
And Zombies is a huge focus in a Black Ops game... Echogone (talk) 08:40, 16 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Sounds like a reasonable compromise to me Rosaece ♡ talk ♡ contribs 10:35, 16 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
For evolving games where the seasonal content introduces new story beats, I would treat these as TV episodes, which means in a table they usually only get 200 words max. This is what is done at Fortnite seasonal events (roughly, I haven't done hard word counts) Masem (t) 13:35, 16 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

New Articles (July 28 to August 10)

edit
Latest comment: 12 days ago14 comments7 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 12:56, 12 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

July 28

July 29

July 30

July 31

August 1

August 2

August 3

August 4

August 5

August 6

August 7

August 8

August 9

August 10

Was out of town last week, so we get a double-feature! --PresN 12:56, 12 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Sorry to bother, it seems the bot missed the Shiver, Frye and Big Man article I created on July 31. CaptainGalaxy 12:58, 12 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Also missing Discovering Endangered Wildlife. Timur9008 (talk) 12:59, 12 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Added; yeah, something in either the 1.0 bot or my script went wonky, it missed a lot of the articles from the first few days. I tried to manually fix it, but missed these two. --PresN 14:52, 12 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Don't sweat it. The WikiProject appreciates all that you do for this community. CaptainGalaxy 16:12, 12 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Magical Girl Witch Trials, created in July 28 is also missing. I know this because I've played this (it's decent) and @AlphaBetaGamma: I think the article should be moved to its romanized name (Mahō shōjo no mahō saiban) since no official translation is known at this time. MilkyDefer 02:55, 13 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
I was directly told by the support team of the game that the official name for English is this, and I saw some others use the translation as well, so I just applied BOLD, since the romanized name appears to be super confusing for non-Japanese readers. Not to mention there would be a "I can't type that" issue. AlphaBetaGamma (Talk/report any mistakes here) 04:27, 13 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Oh, okay. That is news to me. MilkyDefer 06:23, 13 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
@MilkyDefer, would redirecting Maho Shojo no maho saiban to that article work? I also kind of wanted to ask for a different pair of eyes on the plot and gameplay explanation because I have 75% confidence after revising it a lot of times. AlphaBetaGamma (Talk/report any mistakes here) 16:39, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
I will look into it later today. Busy with Chunithm and maimai recently. MilkyDefer 04:54, 17 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Man, I don't know about that Sonic the Hedgehog fandom article. We've already got List of unofficial Sonic the Hedgehog media documenting all the notable fangames and a good chunk of the article is a (poor) rehashing of the Sonic the Hedgehog series article too... Sergecross73 msg me 13:13, 12 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Sergecross73 There's a lot of SIGCOV on the fandom exclusively. I've collected a lot of the sources in the past which you can find at User:Pokelego999/sandbox/Test#Sonic_Fandom, and I'm pretty sure not all of them are used in the article. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 01:40, 13 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Oh sure, I've ready plenty on the fanbase. I just don't think that article represents it well at all. And I'm not sure how much of is left when you trim out the stuff already covered in other articles. Sergecross73 msg me 01:50, 13 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

GameRankings (Occasional) Redundancy

edit
Latest comment: 9 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

Developers of Drag x Drive

edit
Latest comment: 15 days ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I saw a BlueSky thread from journalist Stephen Totilo: Nintendo's disinterest in saying who is making their games took an odd turn yesterday They still won't say who made upcoming Switch 2 sports game Drag X Drive, but, on Nintendo Today, they promoted that you can compete in DxD's weekend demo against the mystery devs A promo clip showed first names—the names given include Mikey, Oliver, and "Hammer". I visited the article and saw the developers listed as Nintendo EPD, which I removed because it wasn't sourced. An IP reverted my removal and reintroduced "Nintendo EPD" as the developers. I'm not hugely familiar with Nintendo here, but figured I'd ask if anyone has some further information. – ImaginesTigers 12:08, 13 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, in my experiences, editors add in unsourced and speculative developers into articles all the time, particularly Nintendo, Sega, and Square with their generic dev team names. Absolutely needs a reliable source confirming it. Sergecross73 msg me 16:24, 13 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Definitely true. Honestly the same goes for credits on older games. I've gone through a few where the names are not even matching the ususal suspects of where people got a source from (MobyGames, etc.) I encourage that if the material isn't mentioned in the prose, it should be cited in the infobox if you believe it to be absolutely important to the article. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:54, 13 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
edit
Latest comment: 12 days ago9 comments6 people in discussion

This is a shot in the dark but I would really appreciate because I want to try get more lists of games for specific platforms to be nominated since only a few are featured. Also I am trying to improve the Genesis list which was a featured list since 2014 although before I stepped in it only had...... 69 references and now fast forward to today and now thanks to me its got...... 505 references! Also I am sort of struggling with figuring out if a certain title is the full title or not. Examples: Do we put "Advanced Busterhawk Gley Lancer" as the title for the Genesis list or do we put the common "Gley Lancer"? Also the spine and even Sega Japan's Hard Encyclopedia refers to it as just Gley Lancer. So some help would be appreciated. But that far from the only game I have a problem with but if you want more information please let me know. NaccMan (talk) 02:09, 14 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

To nominate a list for Featured status, see WP:FLC. There is no "Good List" status, just Featured List. Regarding Gley Lancer, use the common name / how other sources list it. TarkusABtalk/contrib 06:01, 14 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Seeing as this game does not have an "official" English-language title as far as I can tell, the common name is fine, yes. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 06:43, 14 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Alright then now help me with this title right here: Doom Troopers
A couple sources including Nintendo of America's SNES list, the copyright on the packaging, the top label on the cartridge, and the manual saying "Please insert the "Mutant Chronicles: Doom Troopers" cartidge in the system"
all refer to it as Mutant Chronicles: DoomTroopers.
Although the spine and some people just call it Doom Troopers which would be the common title but what do I do here? NaccMan (talk) 06:54, 14 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
As a heads up, I would not use a copyright year as an indicator when a game (or anything) was released. It could point you in the right direction of where to hunt around to find that, but it doesn't mean it was released that year. If a game seems to go by multiple titles. As for a title, I would read through Wikipedia:Naming conventions (video games). If the game already has an article, probably best to use that title. If it's using a few names potentially like the one you mentioned, I lean towards finding retrospective overviews/reviews/commentary and see what it is called there as that could lend weight to a common name. Andrzejbanas (talk) 07:37, 14 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
I've written a bunch of VG featured lists and help run FLC, so here's a few thoughts:
  • Don't worry too much about the full vs common titles. Common is fine if there's no official English title.
  • Agreed that copyright year is not sufficient as a source for when a game was released. It can be extremely tricky to source release dates for 90s and earlier games, not least because they didn't have a strong "release day" back then.
  • Right now you're working on an existing FL (though one that had a lot of issues, great job on finding all those references!), but if you move to a new list, feel free to ask for advice on nominating. Honestly, finding sources for release dates is like 90% of the work on these games-per-console lists. --PresN 14:24, 14 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
PresN I just want to say thanks so much for the kind words it really means a lot to me, and yes finding sources for the release dates is of course 90% of the work, although my only struggle is full titles for English titles.
This is sort of like on the SNES list what do u put "Super Mario World 2: Yoshi’s Island" or its common name of “Yoshi’s Island".
Mario world 2 is most likely the full title that we put on the SNES list is that correct? NaccMan (talk) 00:45, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
@NaccMan: I think you can go either way, whatever makes more sense to you. I think, since the title on the box is "Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island", that you should go with the full title. --PresN 18:00, 16 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
For a list, it's also important to consider searchability. Including Super Mario World in the title would mean that someone would find the entry whether they searched "Yoshi's Island" or "Super Mario World" Cukie Gherkin (talk) 18:43, 16 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Proposal to create a category for unreleased games

edit
Latest comment: 13 days ago8 comments4 people in discussion

I was wondering if it would be a good idea to create a category for unreleased video games, such as Dunk Star, Super Mario Spikers, and Tiny Toon Adventures: Defenders of the Universe. Just as I was about to create said category however, I saw that Category:Cancelled video games was originally intended for that purpose (with the console subcategories being for games that had cancelled versions for specific consoles but were released elsewhere such as Disney's Pocahontas with the SNES release) before becoming diffused by into the console subcategories. I still think it would be a good idea to create a category for unreleased games to complement Category:Video games by year, but I could also see Category:Cancelled video games getting made back into a category for games that never got released with the subcategories being for released games with cancelled versions. (Oinkers42) (talk) 17:50, 14 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

I don't think its necessary. My main concern, as has come up before in working in the cancelled video game subject area, is that the term "unreleased" can also be applied to any game that simply hasn't been released yet. GTA 6 is technically "unreleased", even though its not cancelled. Any upcoming game could technically be tagged with it. I think its best to just stick with cancelled. Sergecross73 msg me 18:37, 14 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Okay, should we turn the cancelled video games category back to its original function? Should we also change the use of "unreleased" in these articles to cancelled or something similar? (Oinkers42) (talk) 19:24, 14 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
I guess I'm not really seeing the problem with the current category set up, but yes, I usually use "cancelled" over "unreleased" in any articles I write/maintain. Sergecross73 msg me 19:43, 14 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Unreleased video games are technically cancelled, even if they were actually made. So I don't see the point of 2 categories for it. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:06, 14 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Sort of. Its one of those "All cancelled games are unreleased, but not all unreleased games are cancelled" type situations. But yes, the current cancelled category does the job just fine, and the unreleased one would be completely redundant for the purpose outlined above. Sergecross73 msg me 21:18, 14 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Seems redundant to me. I think the cancelled video games category does the job just fine, though I get your concern about released games with cancelled ports being included. Maybe we could put those into a subcategory, or not include them at all? Rosaece ♡ talk ♡ contributions 10:59, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
I think they are being included though. For example, a game like Tomb Raider 2 has the cancelled Sega Saturn game category on it. And that seems like the most accurate way to categorize it. It's not a cancelled game overall, but it is a cancelled Sega Saturn game. There may be areas where it's handled other ways, but this isn't a rare situation, it's routinely done like this across video game articles. Sergecross73 msg me 11:14, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Last game for a system

edit
Latest comment: 6 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

Good article reassessment for Seventh generation of video game consoles

edit
Latest comment: 13 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Seventh generation of video game consoles 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) 01:22, 16 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Requested move at Talk:Skydance Media#Requested move 8 August 2025

edit
Latest comment: 13 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Skydance Media#Requested move 8 August 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPathtalk 05:09, 16 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Category:Video games with multiple protagonists has been nominated for discussion

edit
Latest comment: 11 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

Category:Video games with multiple protagonists has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. SnowFire (talk) 05:14, 18 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

New Articles (August 11 to August 17)

edit
Latest comment: 10 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 13:20, 18 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

August 11

August 12

August 13

August 14

August 15

August 16

August 17

Fixed the issues from last week- turns out my script was going too fast and Wikimedia was rejecting page loads as bot traffic. Easy fix (if I don't want to rewrite the whole thing), just slow down. If it still missed any, let me know! The giant blob of Pokémon deletions is mostly from a single group deletion nomination of redirects, not full articles. --PresN 13:20, 18 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

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

edit
Latest comment: 8 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: 7 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: 7 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: 7 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: 5 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: 11 hours 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: 3 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: 1 day 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: 11 hours 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: 15 hours 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: 14 hours 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: 13 hours ago1 comment1 person 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

Shipping in Fire Emblem Character Articles

edit
Latest comment: 1 hour ago18 comments6 people in 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
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games&oldid=1308382983"