Warning: file_put_contents(/opt/frankenphp/design.onmedianet.com/storage/proxy/cache/1a92c169ffec711a6e2087619b1c0e05.html): Failed to open stream: No space left on device in /opt/frankenphp/design.onmedianet.com/app/src/Arsae/CacheManager.php on line 36

Warning: http_response_code(): Cannot set response code - headers already sent (output started at /opt/frankenphp/design.onmedianet.com/app/src/Arsae/CacheManager.php:36) in /opt/frankenphp/design.onmedianet.com/app/src/Models/Response.php on line 17

Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /opt/frankenphp/design.onmedianet.com/app/src/Arsae/CacheManager.php:36) in /opt/frankenphp/design.onmedianet.com/app/src/Models/Response.php on line 20
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games - Wikipedia Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games

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

Two Games that should be added

[edit]

these are two arcade games that i feel. Should be added:

Hard Hat by exidy, a limited realeased game that puts the player as a carpenter trying to spell out words

https://www.youtube.com/watch?si=Ihr2hHtNI-UxWkr6&v=yow567S3XRs&feature=youtu.be

And

Kram by Taito, where the play controls Kram, a red guy who has to collect points and can build walls to prevent enemy skulls from getting him, there are also Rippers who destorys the walls helping the skulls GyroidGalaxian (talk) 15:54, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJBLNi7OzeY Here’s the video for Kram GyroidGalaxian (talk) 15:54, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you can find enough coverage of them in reliable sources, they can be added. Harryhenry1 (talk) 05:06, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
whay other sources could I use to find the two games GyroidGalaxian (talk) 10:06, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GAMESOURCES is a good starting point to find reliable sources for video games. Harryhenry1 (talk) 08:12, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You can also use my tool, which is pretty reliable for me. User:Cukie Gherkin/Source searching - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 08:45, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Recreating Mario Tennis (series)

[edit]

It would be great if any Mario fans were to assist in resurrecting this page. Draft:Mario Tennis Fever has been created, but it's probably too soon for a standalone page. There isn't really any series article to send it instead, though. I've confirmed the subseries is standalone notable: Source, Source, Source, Source, Source, so this would assist a lot. If recreated, it could probably be moved to the primary namespace. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:33, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not opposed, but I've always kind of found it surprising that none of the Mario sports games have series articles. I edit a lot of Mario articles, so I don't think I'm out of the loop, but I've always kind of wondered if there was some consensus I wasn't aware of somewhere or something. Usually people are a little too ready to create series articles. Sergecross73 msg me 00:42, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes having a redirection somewhere can short circuit the creation of articles by causing people to assume that is where they are meant to point. In this case it redirected to List of sports video games featuring Mario for a very long time even though that sort of list doesn't quite replace a series article, though it can be complimentary to it. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:34, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair, I guess that's probably more or less what's happened, myself included. Sergecross73 msg me 21:24, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The five sources do seem promising. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 07:49, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I plan on tackling the original Virtual Boy entry this week, given that it's going to be re-released for the first time in 2026. Roberth Martinez (talk) 18:55, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Let me know if you'd like me to read it over once you've done it. I've both played and own it too, for what it's worth. Sergecross73 msg me 19:18, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sergecross73:No problem! It's going to take a while though. Roberth Martinez (talk) 20:43, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
KGRAMR No worries, no rush, its not out for a while, and I'm working on other projects anyways. Just say something if/when you'd like me to help at all when the times comes. Sergecross73 msg me 21:18, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sergecross73:I just finished with the Mario's Tennis revamp. Roberth Martinez (talk) 21:28, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of MobyGames as a source for release dates for older games

[edit]

So this is something I've been thinking of doing and I wanted to hear what others think. MobyGames release dates for older games (mostly pre-1995) aren't always accurate.

For example, Video Business lists Mario Paint US release date as August 17, 1992 [1] while MobyGames list it as August 1, 1992 [2].

I've been removing GameFAQs as source as a release dates for a while now. The problem is i'm not sure what to replace the MobyGames and GameFAQs sources with because there is not always a trade magazine or Newspapers source available.

Any advice would be great. Timur9008 (talk) 15:06, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's been the eternal struggle. Neither Gamefaqs nor MobyGames are supposed to be used as sources per WP:VG/S. But there's often no replacement source either... Sergecross73 msg me 15:16, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Exact dates are not essential particularly for older games before street dates readily became a thing. If you can source "August 1992", that should be sufficient. Masem (t) 15:23, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've had success before with checking the archived AllGame pages; it's slow to find a particular game but they often have release dates or months. --PresN 15:56, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Though not always, it just has Mario Paint as 1992. (Though it does have the Japanese version as July 14, 1992.) --PresN 16:00, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely drop all the MobyGames links in general. Its all user-submitted content with little oversight of how/where it was collected. I've submitted things to that site, had its ratings changed and it was all inconsistent. By my experience, Japanese release date tend to be very specific and can be found in Famitsu and other gaming sites with relatively little inconsistency on how dates my clash with other sources. With US release dates, you may be lucky to devine it down to a month, while others might have more direct release dates (i.e: Mortal Kombat and some early Sonic games had a huge marketing push for its games to be released on home console on a set date. For home computer games, its often a lot more obscure, especially in the UK and EU market. You'll be lucky if you can confirm a year. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:41, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I keep MobyGames for External links (although I guess I can stop using it for that as well) Timur9008 (talk) 08:08, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Be mindful that some websites use date templates that require a full date (with a day), but they may only know the month, and so they default to the 1st of the month. Then other sources see this and copy it, and it creates a citogenesis issue. TarkusABtalk/contrib 21:16, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Help with the genre style guide

[edit]

I was working on the Yoku's Island Express page and I have a question

I don't know whether to keep or delete the genre "pinball adventure"

Any help form some more experienced editor's appreciated

Pokémonnoob369 (talk) 19:57, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List only the primary genre. Is it primarily a platform game, a pinball game or an adventure game? Popcornfud (talk) 20:05, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just based on having played the game, I think "pinball adventure" is probably the most useful descriptor for the lead sentence. I don't think "platform" is adding much here. "pinball" can be considered an adjective, and it's certainly a key first-sentence term for the game. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 06:37, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your insight 2A0D:6FC7:626:6198:A149:4344:B7AA:380E (talk) 09:23, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That would be picking two genres. We should pick only the primary genre. What do sources say? Popcornfud (talk) 14:23, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yoku's Island Express its definitely a combo genre considering, the reason there's 2 is because there is no page called "pinball adventure(genre)" or similar i would say pinball metroid vania but there's not enough abilities that open new areas Pokémonnoob369 (talk) 14:35, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there's any actual adventure game, the video game genre, elements in the game, only in the sense that the character is on an adventure. Eurogamer calls this game: "pinball/platforming hybrid", IGN: "Metroidvania-pinball hybrid", GameSpot: "combining both Metroid-style exploration and pinball mechanics into one unique product.", Nintendo Life: "pinball-Metroidvania", Destructoid: "blends a Metroid-like action platformer with pinball mechanics". Clearly seems to me that both "pinball video game" and "metroidvania" are main genres for this game. --Mika1h (talk) 14:39, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
thinking back on the game i only remember two abilities (post tutorial) are the "Slug Vacuum" and the "Sootherling Leash" and the "Slug Vacuum" is very early in the game so idk if it should count as a metroidvania as a defining genre Pokémonnoob369 (talk) 15:19, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia needs to be based on what sources say, not our own analysis. Popcornfud (talk) 15:24, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose, based on these sources, "pinball platform game" is probably optimal. For the record/clarity, I would avoid calling it purely a "pinball game" in the first sentence because that would be extremely misleading to the structure of the work. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 14:45, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pinball adventure is not a genre, and as others have pointed out, it seems far better to classify it as both pinball and a Metroidvania. If "pinball adventure" is a term coined by the devs that can be included in the development (much like how Dead Cells is called a "roguevania" by the devs). Masem (t) 15:45, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely agree. A development team or production can market their game/work/whatever as any style they like. Genres are tricky and vague terms like "adventure" are used loosely amongst journalists, academics and the like. When I'm stuck, I go through all reviews I can to capture an audience who has seen and presumably played the game outside of any promotional hype. I tally it up and try to find a consensus. If there is none, you don't have to place one in the infobox and explain that it was variously referred to as several genres as usually in this case, critics will address how a game probably doesn't fit comfortable into what we may think of a genre for a game. Andrzejbanas (talk) 04:50, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Where to post

[edit]

Is there a specific place to discuss additions of publications to Template:Video game reviews other than that page's talk page? Helper201 (talk) 15:09, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It might actually be more helpful to do it here as more watch this page. That or you could alert us here to a post made there if you want more visibility. — Dissident93 (talk) 02:12, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pokémon

[edit]

Pokémon games are typically released in pairs, with each version sold as a distinct product. Therefore, when reliable data is available, sales should be reported for each version individually. When only combined sales data exists for a pair, it is more accurate to represent that data at the 'paired-game' or franchise level rather than on best-selling games lists, which are designed for single, standalone titles. Kazama16 (talk) 07:20, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a particular context in which this has been an issue? From my perspective, this post came out of nowhere. I would say that, in the "Release" section of an article, we should probably mention both the separate sales figures and the combined figure, if possible? ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 07:59, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by "out of nowhere"? Like, is there a specific timing to start a discussion on this project? Sorry, actually my concern is whether Pokémon titles should be included on best-selling games lists, which are intended for singular games (and their enhanced versions). Pokémon games are not that. They lack individuality because they are in pairs and sold as distinct products, but counted combined. Kazama16 (talk) 08:36, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are you proposing a change to be made at this list? Are there other lists you are referring to? Is the current way they are set up incorrect? I said "out of nowhere" because the context of your post is unclear. I do not know what changes to Wikipedia you are exactly proposing here. I still don't know what the "paired-game"/franchise level implies here. Do you want to remove the Pokémon games from these lists and only include them on the best-selling franchise list? ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 10:17, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I wanted to convey that these games shouldn't be allowed on these lists. Sales-wise, the Pokémon games are counted together, but they aren't really together; they are separate. Also, ignore "paired/franchise level" to avoid confusion. I just said that out of place. Kazama16 (talk) 13:26, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These games are often discussed together in regards to sales; for instance, when searching for "Pokémon Scarlet sales", all the major sources discussing these figures discuss the sales of Scarlet and Violet as one collective, not individually. (For example, [3][4][5][6], from a brief search). I don't see a need to discuss them separately personally given they're a unique case in terms of reporting and coverage; they're often marketed and released as one game despite being considered two by technicality. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 19:46, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]


If it wasn't clear enough. I'm presenting this topic more easily.

1. Pokémon Release Strategy: Pokémon games are released in pairs, and each game is sold as a separate product.
2. Sales Reporting: If data for each game exists, sales should be reported per game, since they are sold separately. If sales are only reported combined, that number doesn’t represent one game, so it does not belong on a list designed for single titles.
3. Best-Selling Lists: These lists are intended for single, standalone titles. Including combined sales of paired games might not be appropriate because they are not one specific product. Kazama16 (talk) 09:35, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you be a bit more specific about what edit you're proposing be made, and what source(s) would support it? Sergecross73 msg me 13:51, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Most gaming sources treat the paired Pokémon games as one title, so it makes no sense to treat them as separate games in terms of sales. Masem (t) 14:00, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You just made an edit 3 days ago combining the sales of Crash Bandicoot and N. Sane Trilogy which is a much more egregious example of everything you just said. In fact, four people chimed in on the talk page about Crash and all four disagreed about adding but you added it anyway. Sources discuss Pokemon games as one release. They combine sales and reviews and analysis. They are discussed as one game. No source treats Crash Bamdicoot and N. Sane Trilogy as the same game.TarkusABtalk/contrib 19:02, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Tarkus, all four of them didn't disagree about combining the remaster sales with the original game if you observe closely. Also, multiple reliable sources treat Tetris as one game, which sold 520 million copies, so let's add it to the best-selling game list! Come on. Can we put reliable sources aside and apply some logic. If a reliable source says something contentious, which is debatable, shouldn't it be discussed out? Kazama16 (talk) 19:36, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We need to follow WP:STICKTOSOURCE, WP:V and WP:VNT. You're on the wrong website for wanting to "put reliable sources aside". I'm also quite concerned about Tarkus's observation - your edit related to Crash Bandicoot in no way reflected the discussion on the talk page. Sergecross73 msg me 19:46, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still not sure how you can advocate to combine sales figures of Crash Bandicoot (1996) with its 2017 remaster, while also advocating to split sales figures for Pokémon versions in the same generation. It's completely backwards of how sources assess these games. TarkusABtalk/contrib 21:12, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You made a similar post a few days ago and you were told that the distinction must be made by reliable sources, not us. The same applies here. Yes, these games are technically two separate games, but the vast majority of sources treat them as one, so we should as well. Rosaece ♡ talk ♡ contribs 21:22, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. I'm now aware that reliable sources are prioritized over personal logic unless there is a strong community consensus. I was oblivious/confused because I witnessed multiple times, like for Tetris, Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim or others, where there were arguments over sales but the community prioritized their own beliefs over reliable sources. I'd like to withdraw this discussion since I realized my mistake. Peace to everyone. Kazama16 (talk) 21:23, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you have been looking at the list of best selling franchises, that page screams as far too much OR in deciding what actually makes a franchise, and I would not use it as an example. Masem (t) 22:05, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Leaked information

[edit]

If leaked information, which has no guarantee of credibility, is covered by a reliable source, does that coverage make the leaked information itself credible and factual, or simply noteworthy for inclusion?

Examples: [7] [8] [9] Kazama16 (talk) 10:10, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Typically the latter, though preferably we have multiple sources commenting on the leak. Some leaks are more credible than others, and it can be very hard to tell the difference. We go with what the plurality of sources say, in the end. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 10:24, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think in general leaks should be avoided even if they are in RS, unless they are something very major. Regardless, you are putting potentially incorrect information into an article. Rarely do gaming sites bother to double-check. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:35, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It really depends on the article, as well as WP:UNDUE weight. With something like GTA 6, since GTA fans know about it, and its been reported by major, reliable sources, it makes sense to include it. If the only info about the leak is a primary source, then it shouldn't be included. Its like whether to include the price of a game or not, since critics have reported Mario Kart World costing $80, $20 more than other Nintendo games. JuniperChill (talk) 11:54, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They're technically fair game to add if it reported on by a reliable source, but as mentioned above, you may come into other hurdles. People may argue its not really important to add, or doesn't really fit in anywhere. In that case, you'd really have to defer to the WP:CONSENSUS on whether or not it should be included. And proper context should always be added too - if it is added, you'd want to add prose explaining its from a leak, and not add it as a statement of fact, as many leaks end up being false or half-true in the end. (Still waiting for a Chrono Trigger remake or Baten Kaitos 3 over here...) Sergecross73 msg me 15:20, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In general they should be avoided IMO because you could be adding incorrect information (from stuff like Linkedin, Reddit, etc). Basically I agree with ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ. Timur9008 (talk) 17:42, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sales estimation by analyst

[edit]

Hi! I am not sure if we have this discussion before, but should we include analyst precition of a game's sales to our video game articles? RS seems to be running articles about them (see [10][11]), but the analyst in question doesn't really seem to be very reliable judging from their "About Us" page. OceanHok (talk) 03:19, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If secondary sources that we consider reliable are repeating that information, we consider it acceptable, but I would always include "According to industry analyst so-and-so,..." as inline attribution. Masem (t) 12:28, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested changes to prose in an FA

[edit]

I'm looking to make changes to some of the prose in Call of Duty: Modern Warfare Remastered, an article I've substantially contributed to and helped reach FA status in 2021. Its Reception section includes four subsections, which I feel could be reduced by moving some of the prose elsewhere e.g. much of what comprises the Infinite Warfare bundling subsection could potentially be included under the Marketing and release section. Based on other game articles such as Assassin's Creed Shadows and Hogwarts Legacy, it seems acceptable that views and controversies (or anything that isn't a review of the game) can fall under other sections and not just Reception when such topics have arisen before the game's release. My only concern is that, as I understand it, FA's should remain essentially the same as when they reached FA status and not have any notable changes made to them that could warrant them losing that status; the only example of this for Modern Warfare Remastered is a short paragraph I added concerning a mod released for the game in 2024.

Is this something that could be considered? Wikibenboy94 (talk) 21:37, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All articles are works in progress—even featured ones. If your changes improve the article, then I think you should make them; you can always ask for feedback afterwards, if you're unsure. In any case, the FAR process takes some time, so it's not like the article will have its FA status stripped away as soon as you make any changes. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 22:35, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Believe me, as someone who has written and reviewed several GAs and FAs... articles can always be better. Sometimes a lot better. Popcornfud (talk) 22:42, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BRD also still applies. If the changes end up not being ideal, they're easy enough to undo. It's great to hear you're aspiring to make great articles even better :) ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 11:35, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Rhain: @Popcornfud: After experimenting, I decided to integrate most of the prose under Reception's subsections into the Marketing and release section; to me, all the game controversies outlined took equal precedence to each other and therefore should be placed together. I avoided just moving the subsections as they were into Marketing and release as it did not flow well, and also it's very uncommon to see equivalent sections in a game article with several lengthy subsections. This has, on the other hand, made Marketing and release at least twice the length of what it was before, perhaps bordering on excessively. New version here; old version here. What do you think? Wikibenboy94 (talk) 21:50, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You could consider adding a subheading or two to break up the text (perhaps something like Post-release for the last three paragraphs) but otherwise it seems like a logical change to me. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 22:03, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Call of Duty games' financial performance

[edit]

We basically know that Activision does not give clear information about sales numbers of Call of Duty games quite frequently, but only how far they have earned from the games. The two times when COD games' sales were explicit: IGN from more than a decade ago, [12] and recently in 2025, in official court documents. [13] Aside from this, I couldn't find much reliable data. But there are sites with doubtful sales information. For example, Dot Esports (reliable source btw). [14] Many of its sales numbers coincidentally match with 2019 Statista estimate, which references VGChartz for this information. [15] Interestingly, there's also another Statista estimate from 2019 that gives noticeably different numbers. [16] Kazama16 (talk) 06:04, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sergecross73 what's your observation on this? Can we trust Dot Esports for this matter, or do you think it's just a coincidence and not a big deal? Kazama16 (talk) 14:56, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with using the court documents from 2025, especially when reported upon by relialble sources too. But, while Dot Esports is usable, its not when they're referencing unreliable sales sources. VGChartz has a consensus against its use at WP:VG/S, as does Statista. (Statista even has a wider consensus against its use per WP:RSP and WP:STATISTA.) Sergecross73 msg me 15:32, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Abiotic Factor (video game)#Requested move 14 September 2025

[edit]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Abiotic Factor (video game)#Requested move 14 September 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPathtalk 11:51, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New Articles (September 22 to September 28)

[edit]
Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements
 A listing of all articles newly added to the Video Games Wikiproject (regardless of creation date). Generated by v3.20 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 00:38, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

September 22

September 23

September 24

September 25

September 26

September 27

September 28

On time, every time. --PresN 00:38, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moving to main space

[edit]

Comments are appreciated regarding the state of this draft Roco Kingdom. Vacosea (talk) 22:36, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to fail WP:GNG and WP:INDISCRIMINATE so any attempt to move to main space would probably lead it it being deleted at AfD. If you believe otherwise, then showing the three best sources that demonstrate notability would help people determine whether it is in fact notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:36, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The main non-gaming sources I have found include one article in China Daily [17], ongoing coverage by ITHome (website) [18] [19] which is similar to CNET, and Phoenix Television [20] [21]. Gaming-related sources such as [22] are abundant. Vacosea (talk) 17:57, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi mate, as in my comments for the draft, my thoughts still stand that this needs stronger evidence of reception from reliable sources. Are there any reviews from mainstream Chinese games coverage out there that could help flesh out that section? As it currently stands, without a single review of the game, it's hard to say it would meet WP:GNG. As the sources are WP:NONENG, it may be a bit harder to use things like Metacritic, MobyGames or the Internet Archive in a way that would find these sources, if they're out there. You may have to look at what review databases are in Chinese circles, if any, to see what standard of coverage the game has had. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 04:23, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Happy to move it into mainspace now. Cut it down to the list of works and replace the existing Roco Kingdom. It'll essentially be a fancy disambig/list page. I would then suggest breaking out a separate page for the game once you've fleshed it out more. - hahnchen 09:40, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category's for video game sales figures and budgets

[edit]

I proposed something similar to Waxworker a long time ago. I'm not sure if there is easier way to find sales figures for games and budgets without going through each game article manually. IMO there should 2 or 3 Category's.

1) One for sales figures (worldwide preferably)

2) One for budgets (they are rare but not impossible to find, mostly older games that I found, just this year for example I found [23], [24], [25], [26], etc)

3) One for revenue

No idea what to name the category's though. Maybe Category:Video games with sales figures disclosed?

Curious what others think. Timur9008 (talk) 14:58, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's an interesting idea, but I fear people may argue that these things may not pass WP:DEFINING? Sergecross73 msg me 15:18, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a function categories serve. They are out for what a game is well known to be, not simply to break down and catalog games. Masem (t) 15:39, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's hidden maintenance categories like Category:Alberta articles missing geocoordinate data. So what about a category like Category:Video game articles missing sales data? --Mika1h (talk) 16:03, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Those maintenance cats are for cases where we do anticipate the fixes will addressed so are part of cleanup. We know nit every video game has budget or sales info given so it's not really a maintence aspect, so that would not be appropriate. Masem (t) 16:17, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NASCAR Silicon Motor Speedway

[edit]

Hey everyone! I made the NASCAR Silicon Motor Speedway article and wanted to let everyone take a look if you're interested! I'm going to try to dig back a little deeper into the development info some more. Anything else you'd recommend for an article of this type? Thanks! WMrapids (talk) 19:24, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for drafting and asking for feedback. Sounds like a cool ride! On a quick skim, the Reception section stands out as needing work, because, whilst I don't have access to the sources you used in ProQuest, many of them don't really read like reviews or impartial evaluations but promotional puffery advertising the attraction. Take for instance the statement Whether you're a closet stock-car race driver or simply looking to boost your adrenaline count by a couple hundred percent, a visit to a new NASCAR Silicon Motor Speedway center is just the right prescription. It doesn't really say anything about the attraction, just that it's exciting and it's in town. Note also there's a missing citation for the Sports Illustrated mention. Hope that helps improve the article! ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 01:04, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Vrxces: For the Sports Illustrated portion, it is a quote provided in a different source. Thanks for the feedback! I appreciate it! WMrapids (talk) 06:54, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Categorization of defunct online games

[edit]

I'm currently sorting every inactive online game by year of shutdown at Category:Online games by year of shutdown, diffusing from Category:Inactive online games and Category:Products and services by year of discontinuance. At time of writing, I have cleaned out all of 2025 and am working backwards, also populating earlier categories where applicable. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:55, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It would be useful to list shutdown dates in Template:Infobox video game, mirroring the release dates and information in the body. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:58, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Big question: Does this pass WP:CROSSCAT? That is to say, is the year an online game shuts down a notable intersection or should they just be categorized in both parent categories? We don't want to make Wikipedia into a directory here. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:47, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Characters of Myst#Requested move 26 September 2025

[edit]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Characters of Myst#Requested move 26 September 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. veko. (user | talk | contribs) he/him 15:42, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Possible new sources to use in older game articles

[edit]

This is according to the press coverage page for the game Total Distortion [27]

Many sources (both offline and online) I haven't even heard of. There are more than 100 listed there (I know of more than half of them).

Does anyone know how to access the rest of them? It's unlikely the Wikipedia library has all of them so I'm just wondering. There could of use to this project. Timur9008 (talk) 17:27, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request for article monitoring/neutrality check

[edit]

This article has had a back and forth with edits that seem to impact its neutrality (including in its talk page). SamWalton9 was monitoring it, but hasn't been active lately, and suggested an experienced editor from here might take a look. Capuchinmonkkey (talk) 15:44, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked at the page and outside one BusinessInsider article, saw nothing wrong with the neutrality. The various accusations of towards Alexis Kennedy are documented in high quality reliable sources, so it would be inappropriate to remove, based on the complaint I'm seeing on the talk page. Masem (t) 16:08, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The issue (I think) is whether the placement of information about a 'settlement' is done in a way that suggests it's about the accusations, vs about anything else. (As far as I can tell there is no public info about the settlement, but placing it in the Misconduct section suggests that Failbetter's statement was in some way related or withdrawn.) Capuchinmonkkey (talk) 16:11, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article that mentions the settlement also directly links it to the misconduct accusations. I don't see a problem with mentioning the settlement there, as if there are any other major disputes, they weren't publicized or obvious. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:02, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Settlement does communicate an intent between parties to end ongoing disputes, whatever they may be. This is done appropriately in the article to not imply anything about its relationship to the allegations or their veracity, just that, as based on the RS, the parties announced an intent to call off the lawyers. Whether directly or indirectly linked - we don't know - it is relevant information that those parties have agreed to stop an active legal dispute. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 05:17, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Have to agree that the settlement seems tied to the sexual misconduct claims since those were raised by staff from Failbetter. Sources give no further clarity but the GI.biz article , the best source covering the closure of this conflict, treats them as part of the same conflict. Masem (t) 03:46, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unless there's a second court case that hasn't been reported, Arabelladusk linked to this in the Revision History ( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alexis_Kennedy&oldid=1272334261 ) - I think misunderstanding the content of what they linked as they said it was about misconduct claims but on reading, it is only assessing their relevance to the main case: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2022/3483.html
That case is about share ownership (point 1), whether one side can be made to obey the terms of a share agreement (15) and whether the original price was fair (21). The sexual misconduct mentions were asked to be struck out by one party as irrelevant (point 4), but the judge ruled they could stay in - not on the basis that either side was correct re the content of the claims, but on the basis that they could still be relevant to the topic of specific performance re the shares and re their cost: if the value originally accepted for the shares was negotiated while the parties were on good terms, they clearly were no longer on good terms or Failbetter wouldn't have supported those making the claims (points 21/25).
I feel the case is very much specific to the Failbetter disputes. The confusion I felt on reading where it was currently placed was that it sounded that Failbetter had taken back the support of those who'd made misconduct allegations. For that reason, and the fact the case seems to be about shares and ownership of Failbetter, it makes more sense in the paragraph about Failbetter, here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexis_Kennedy#Failbetter_Games Capuchinmonkkey (talk) 12:33, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We shouldn't be using court documents here since no reliable sources noted the case. And I am confident that there are parts of the history between the sexual misconduct operations and Kennedy leaving Failbetter and leading to the stock issue that are not fully explained with RSes that we simply cannot cover without RSes. It does make it look weird on initial read that the matter in regards to the relationship with Failbetter was how the situation that started with sexual misconduct accusations reached this end, but sometimes we're left with an incomplete picture from sources and we can't fill in the gaps, so we do our best to summarize with what's given Masem (t) 12:43, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New Articles (September 29 to October 5)

[edit]
Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements
 A listing of all articles newly added to the Video Games Wikiproject (regardless of creation date). Generated by v3.20 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 18:07, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

September 29

September 30

October 1

October 2

October 3

October 4

October 5

--PresN 18:07, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Genuine question, since this is my first time properly interacting with this project: what is the purpose of pinging article creators when posting these lists? Suntooooth, it/he (talk | contribs) 18:10, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To help know their article got tagged correctly here? Masem (t) 18:15, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if it was a stupid question, I've never seen one of these lists before so I don't quite get it. Suntooooth, it/he (talk | contribs) 18:16, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's fine, it's a bit of a rare set up, so it makes sense to be confused at first. And it's less about the pinging of the creators, and more about notifying editors interested in the video game content area what new articles have been created recently. Some use it as a way to find things they'd like to help edit, others use it to review and decide whether or not the articles should exist or be deleted. Sergecross73 msg me 00:30, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is also about notifying the creators- some people really like to see their articles get mentioned and want to be publicly credited. Unlike the various quality processes (GA/FA/etc.), article creation doesn't get nominators names attached to it or big lists of the top contributors, so people seem to like getting a little recognition. Note to Suntooooth: if you expect that you'll be tagged again in the future and don't want to be, I can add your username to the list of "don't ping these people"; that said, after 7 years of doing this, that list has only one name on it, so it seems to be a minority opinion. --PresN 00:56, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the in-depth response (Sergecross too) - I would like to be added to that list if that's alright, mostly because out-of-nowhere pings make me a bit anxious. Suntooooth, it/he (talk | contribs) 01:10, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like you've been around for a while, so maybe you don't need the advice...but notifications shouldn't really be a source of anxiety. A lot of times people tag you for good things, or just random questions. Sergecross73 msg me 14:26, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, mental health problems do what they will. I am working on that side of it, but I do still prefer to reduce pings for things that don't need more urgent attention. Suntooooth, it/he (talk | contribs) 15:45, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha. Understandable. Sounds like PresN should be able to take care of that then. (It's really their pet project so they're probably the only one who can.) Sergecross73 msg me 16:08, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, all sorted. --PresN 18:14, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:List_of_Cobra_video_games#Error?

[edit]

See my comment there. Unless we define "released in North America and Europe" differently, the text of the article needs to be updated. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:40, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Confusion on something

[edit]

Why Is Gyromite and Stack-up not their own pages? I get it’s connect to R.O.B. but also i feel like it should be it’s own page and so? And if you do agree could you created the page? GyroidGalaxian (talk) 13:14, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I personally don't know what either of those things are, but generally speaking, the answer to most questions related to whether or not something has an article are:
  1. Does it meet the WP:GNG? If no, it shouldn't have its own article.
  2. Does it fail any points of WP:MERGEREASON or WP:NOT. If yes, then it probably shouldn't have its own article.
  3. If it meets the GNG and doesn't fail MERGEREASON or NOT, is it possible that simply no one has gotten around to it yet? There's a couple of video games released years ago that I believe meet all the requirements, but I simply haven't had the time or motivation to create them, nor has anyone else.
If you aren't able to apply these ideas to these things, hopefully someone else can give you a more specific answer. Sergecross73 msg me 14:24, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the sections, its potentially due to limited coverage. If more coverage of the games outside of their relationship to R.O.B. can be found, they could be expanded. Its just likely that no one has bothered yet. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:45, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's likely due to WP:OVERLAP because they overlap so heavily with ROB. They could be their own articles, but it would get heavy pushback and probably get merged. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:02, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the current R.O.B. article, I don't see any reviews or other sources on the specific games. I think because these two and R.O.B. were practically a single package (the real investment is the robot), few publications bothered to review the games separately from R.O.B. itself. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 06:33, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Noob Saibot

[edit]

I just noticed today that someone had recreated the article, but it still doesn't look to meet notability guidelines as it's literally the old redirected article with some Shacknews cites and speculation about the MK movie sequel added. There's still no distinct out-of-universe coverage of the character aside from his one Fatality, which was already present when the article was redirected two years ago. 💥Casualty • Hop along. • 17:12, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging the person who recreated this article. @Tintor2. Kazama16 (talk) 18:10, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there's a couple things you can do. Youre technically free to follow WP:BRD and do a WP:BLAR. That said, it looks like it was created, and later edited, by a few experienced and active editors, so there's a good chance they'd revert you. So you could just jump to a WP:MERGE discussion on the talk page or WP:AFD. Sergecross73 msg me 18:21, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I didn't recognize yourname as assumed you were a newbie. Didn't realize you had changed your name. Sorry, you probably knew all of that already. Sergecross73 msg me 18:23, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sergecross73 Not a problem. GreenishPickle initially thought I was a sock when I first changed it. :) 💥Casualty • Hop along. • 02:17, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see. I guess it's better merging it back. Tintor2 (talk) 21:24, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Guitar Hero Encore: Rocks the 80s

[edit]

Guitar Hero Encore: Rocks the 80s 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) 14:01, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

7,500 or fewer Stub-Class articles reaching completion

[edit]

I've noticed this a couple of days ago but on WP:VG it says were are approaching one of the four major milestones. (I've checked the archives and the last disusssion on this was in 2016(?))

It was 192 two days ago. Now at 165. Congrats everyone on the hard work :D

A lot of them probably aren't stubs anymore either.

That begs the question should changed the goal? Once we reach it of course and to what. Timur9008 (talk) 14:34, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This goal was started April 9, 2024, at which point we had 8832 stubs left (there's a hidden comment for each goal at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/goals); the discussion was Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 174#Goals. If we finish it off soon that might be the fastest we've ever completed a goal; the bottom two goals are from November 2020, which isn't extreme for how we do these. --PresN 17:23, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Roco Kingdom (game)

[edit]

Submitted for review, improved from an older draft. I think it is notable - led to a franchise that has several video games and even movies and such in China. If anyone here reviews stuff for AfC, do check it. This was started by a student of mine, and improved recently by @Vacosea Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:56, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games&oldid=1315886712"