This page is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles
I just think we won't write as much, frankly, if all we get outside of major press for games is a bunch of content churnalism. I don't think we'll just decide to loosen reliable source standards because the good sources are disappearing.
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchstalk 19:33, 21 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I was mostly kidding, though I do sometimes fear that, some day, if all that's left is churnalism junk, us experienced regulars are eventually going to be swarmed and overwhelmed by newbies who use the junk because there's simply nothing else.
Sergecross73msg me 20:32, 21 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Magazines came and went in the 90s too. Laid off journalists will start their own publications. I'm not worried about coverage. czar 18:53, 22 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I think in that case we just have to hope more Aftermaths spring up. -
Cukie Gherkin (
talk) 19:22, 21 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Aftermath was marked as inconclusive, at the reliable source discussion board. This seems like a mistake.
Shooterwalker (
talk) 16:14, 22 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I'm not sure how to feel about this whole thing. On one hand, IGN is still a decent source and I doubt much will change on the content side for at least a few years. On the other hand, they've closed other good sites before and if IGN's quality decreased even more, this would be bringing down some of our other best sources with them. At least right now we still have sites owned by Future and Vox, even if the latter have their own problems. λNegativeMP1 20:11, 21 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Yeah, I like IGN quite a bit, especially because their coverage, like GameSpot, goes back a lot farther than a lot of other websites. And I don't think they're the type to go and turn good websites into churnalism/AI/Walkthrough type junk either. I just hate that it leads to layoffs, could lead to website shutting down, and that, if IGN/GamerNetwork ever falls, the number of websites lost is going to be brutal.
Sergecross73msg me 20:43, 21 May 2024 (UTC)reply
This is disappointing. Focusing on what it means for Wikipedia, I'll repeat a refrain that I keep bringing up at the reliable source discussion page.
Even our best sources are mixing in more churnalism / game guide / meme content. We have to confront the idea that even our best sources are somewhat situational. That means we should offer more guidance on how to use different kinds of coverage. (For example, we should always summarize game reviews, carefully use game lists, and rarely use game guides.)
Shooterwalker (
talk) 15:54, 22 May 2024 (UTC)reply
The only advice i can give anybody here regarding online sources is: If you see something that is part of an article you're interested in working on it, better archive that website or take a screencap of it. You never known what might happen in the future. Do i even have to bring up 1UP.com as an example of a website bought by IGN that was later closed down and the surviving links don't even work properly?
Roberth Martinez (
talk) 16:46, 22 May 2024 (UTC)reply
the WMF engine has a built in mechanism that I believe autoarchives any reference added to an article. —
Masem (
t) 00:08, 24 May 2024 (UTC)reply
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 15:55, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
But at the same time we still have {{MobyGames}} & co.
IceWelder [
✉] 22:24, 30 May 2024 (UTC)reply
The
WP:WHATABOUTX (or even "
WP:ALLORNOTHING") about MobyGames also came up in that discussion. Does linking to a page on
PCGamingWiki mean the reader gets a greater understanding of the subject? Their wiki on
BioShock Infinite for instance is great if you want to skip the introduction video, add a Turkish fan translation or disable lens flare effects, but how does that help the general reader?
soetermans.
↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 08:45, 31 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Notability of indie video games that didn't get much secondary coverage?
I would like to contribute by making pages for a few independent role-playing games that didn't get a whole lot of coverage: Potato Flowers in Full Bloom, Helen's Mysterious Castle, and Crystal Project. I'm new to making new Wikipedia pages, and because these games did not get much coverage in the press, I'm concerned they may not meet the notability guidelines, even though I (subjectively) see them as representing interesting ideas in game design.
Does anybody have advice for me? I've created an initial draft for Potato Flowers in Full Bloom, if that helps to get the conversation started.
Jhilgard (
talk) 17:44, 30 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Ultimately, if something doesn't meet notability guidelines, then it can't have an article. It is a hard line, unfortunately. That said, you may be able to find enough about these games- it really just takes a few articles that are specifically about the game to meet the guidelines, assuming that they're broad enough that you can actually write about the subject. A good tool is the WPVG
custom google search, though it doesn't catch everything. I see that for Potato Flowers there's a paywalled
RPS review and a
PocketTactics review (not the best site, but we're getting somewhere), and
NintendoLife has a short preview. That's pretty on the edge there in terms of content, even once added to what you already have, but if you dig through google you may be able to find enough. You can see what sites have been determined to be reliable or unreliable at
Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources. Helen's Mysterious Castle and Crystal Project, unfortunately, seem to have gotten even less attention. --PresN 18:28, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
I have learnt it from when I tried to make
Draft:Sun Haven. I never knew such a popular farm sim game (which has 14,000 steam reviews) has little coverage in reliable sources. In fact, I could only really find one reliable source at
PCGames N and that is only a short four paragraph early access review. I thought I could use sources not located at VG/S (If i am reading this correcly, sources outside VG/S are presumed to be unreliable). A similar situation with
Draft:Gorilla Tag's 18,000 reviews. I have since gone ahead and took a pause from Sun Haven and creating new articles until had the opportunity to create/
Coffee Talk Episode 2 exactly one year after release, and even made it on its way to
WP:DYK. I am no longer considering editing Sun Haven until the major 1.4 update is out or its on the switch for this reason. So I would not even start making your draft until you could locate at least three reliable sources.
"sources outside VG/S are presumed to be unreliable" - not quite; the sources listed at VG/S are just those that have had discussions about them. If a source isn't listed, it could still be reliable, but you'd have to justify it yourself if questioned. If it's a videogame-focused source, it probably isn't reliable if its not listed there, but that's because most reliable sources get brought up there sooner or later so that we have a written record to point to later to in later discussions/nominations. --PresN 19:56, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Yes, this is correct. Also, as
WP:VG/S mentions, it mostly just documents video game-centric websites. There's tons of general interest publications - for example - the Washington Post - that would be considered usable even though its not listed. The list would be massive (and be redundant to
WP:RSP if we included every reliable source.)
Sergecross73msg me 20:04, 30 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Ah ok then. I was mostly correct. But I actually found just one proper review from
TheGamer "News posts and original content after August 2020 are considered generally reliable." which means its safe but would still fail my criteria for notability as it needs three. There is currently a discussion on whether
GameLuster is reliable on VG/s.
JuniperChill (
talk) 20:42, 30 May 2024 (UTC)reply
(
edit conflict) I know some editors, myself included, have a running list of article ideas (and sources for writing them) kept in their
WP:SANDBOX, and when they think they have enough coverage to meet the
WP:GNG and avoid any
WP:MERGEREASONs, they try to write up a
WP:DRAFT and see if they have enough to warrant publishing an article. You can run drafts through
WP:AFC for review, or share them hear and editors specifically into video games can give their thoughts.
My two cents: while the GNG only requires 2 third party reliable sources to cover a subject, usually
WP:THREE or more present a stronger argument. I'd also recommend familiarizing yourself with
WP:VG/S, as we've already gathered a rather huge selection of sources that are generally seen as usable or not-usable.
Sergecross73msg me 18:30, 30 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Generally speaking the policy is that Wikipedia is not an advertising tool, even if you are a fan who wants to advertise the game because you think it deserves to be bigger. The game must already be "big", rather than counting on Wikipedia to popularize it.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ) 18:39, 30 May 2024 (UTC)reply
That's understandable, and I think that gets at the core of what I'm working through, here. I wonder if there might be more coverage in the Japanese web, but I don't read Japanese. Thanks.
Jhilgard (
talk) 19:42, 30 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Remember that notability is a rebuttable presumption. You may be able to pull out three sources to illustrate notability for a standalone but if that leads to a short stubby article that has no possible expansion possibilities (a game developed 5+ years ago without further coverage outside a short window) it will probably be sent to deletion. On the other hand, 3 sources for a game released last month should be fine for some time.
Masem (
t) 16:38, 31 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I do feel your pain Jhilgard, there's a lot of cool successful indie games out there that receive little/no reliable source coverage. Unfortunately if the coverage doesn't, exist there's not a whole lot we can do here on Wikipedia. For Crystal Project specifically (I'm a fan of that game myself) I researched it previously and concluded there wasn't enough coverage for an article.
CurlyWi (
talk) 20:28, 30 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Thanks for sharing your experience, CurlyWi. It's an interesting tension between "notable" in the Wikipedia sense and "notable" in the game design sense. I suppose we've each got a head start if ever there are enough secondary sources regarding these games.
Jhilgard (
talk) 22:06, 30 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Pretty shocked Crystal Project isn't notable, honestly. It feels like exactly the type of game that's gotten just enough traction for an article here even if it's still somewhat on the less known side, if only for comparisons to other games.
♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (
talk) 05:49, 31 May 2024 (UTC)reply
It's difficult to establish notability for games that are only released on a single platform. Once it's ported, it usually picks up a Switch review from Nintendo Life, a PlayStation review from Push Square, and a Windows review from PC Gamer or Rock Paper Shotgun (or maybe even both). One "cheat" is to check for reviews on IGN affiliates. IGN France, IGN Italy, and IGN Greece post reviews for European indie games a lot more often than the main English-language site. Eurogamer has affiliates in other languages, too, but it's harder to search them. Don't forget to check French, German, Italian, and Polish sources, especially if the game was developed in Europe. It helps if you know a few reliable sources to check other than the obvious ones, like PC Games and Jeuxvideo. For example, you might check Heise.de for a German game. Finally, you can check unreliable sources, such as TV Tropes or MobyGames, for information that may help you refine your searches. For example, people on the IMDb or whatever may keep mentioning a gameplay element that they really liked. If you include that gameplay element in your web searches, it may help refine your searches and make it easier to spot reviews that also mention it.
NinjaRobotPirate (
talk) 03:12, 31 May 2024 (UTC)reply
This may explain why Sun Haven is not on
Metacrtic yet. It is currently only on Windows platform. However, they (Pixel Sprout Studios - the developer and publisher) are on its way to release this onto the switch alongside the large update. I think I finally get one of the reasons why Sun Haven cannot make its way onto Wikipedia yet which (like I said earlier) I do not plan to create it until it makes it onto the Switch or the new update.
JuniperChill (
talk) 09:46, 1 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I don't have much constructive advice to add, but I want to encourage you to cover some of these indie games. The project definitely needs it. And Metacritic can be a good place to look for games that might hit this threshold. It's something special when a small game can earn coverage in reliable sources.
Shooterwalker (
talk) 16:30, 31 May 2024 (UTC)reply
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 22:47, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
Gosu caught my attention from its 20 year tagging gap (the biggest I've seen), but it seems to be a pretty lackluster article on both information and sourcing. I haven't researched it because its late here, but pointing it out just in case.
Panini!•🥪 01:42, 4 June 2024 (UTC)reply
"Video gamers" seems like it could stay, but I have marked it for speedy renaming. It should also probably only contain a more narrow set of categories such as esports players and Let's Players. Being a Youtuber about games does not imply you play games.
Not sure "indie game character" is defining, though, as being in an indie game has nothing to do with how a character is portrayed.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ) 07:00, 4 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I'd say indie game characters could probably stay for the same reason we have stuff like
Category:Microsoft characters. Categorizing characters by developer is common practice, so making one for indie devs makes sense.
QuicoleJR (
talk) 14:13, 4 June 2024 (UTC)reply
"Indie" isn't a specific developer though. It could be argued that the company the character is from IS defining because it determines who is allowed to use them. "Indie" is too vague to be defining, just like "AAA game characters" would also be too vague. In other words a
Category:Video game characters by creator that is purely a container category might work, if there are enough categories to merit it.
I don't think it even makes sense to group characters by the developer. Grouping characters by game and or series, obviously yes.
Masem (
t) 15:15, 4 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I don’t know if it makes sense for Microsoft, but I definitely think some developers — like Nintendo — have interconnected and, for lack of a better word, iconic, casts of characters that make the common developer a defining categorization.
DecafPotato (
talk) 21:25, 4 June 2024 (UTC)reply
They should be in a category for characters of a franchise (or just the franchise/series itself), which should then have a category of "Developer franchises" or whatever. --
ferret (
talk) 21:26, 4 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Need Opinions for a clear consensus. 🍕
Boneless Pizza!🍕 (
🔔) 04:35, 6 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Reminder: avoid creating articles on newly announced games simply based on announcement
with Not-E3 starting today with the Summer Game Fest kickoff, a reminder that just because a game is announced doesn't mean we should be rushing to create an article on it. Unless you can include a fair amount of aspects like development from reliable sources, it is better to create redirects from these games to series pages, an existing game that it is tied to, or to individual studios if a new IP. —
Masem (
t) 12:56, 7 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I'd actually tend to disagree with creating the article right away, since it's going to happen regardless in the future, but I'm instead against making them for a different reason: none of us regulars make these articles, so it's usually someone new and inexperienced who just wants to hit the "first" button. Because of this these articles are of such horrible quality and formatting, and the ratio of mistakes to actual info is so bad that's it's better to just
blow it up and try again later.
Panini!•🥪 23:01, 11 June 2024 (UTC)reply
A listing of all articles newly added to the Video Games Wikiproject (regardless of creation date). Generated by v3.20 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 16:07, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
And maybe you (we) shouldn't have either? I've never heard of it before, but the sourcing in the article doesn't make a very strong case for notability at least...
Sergecross73msg me 18:03, 10 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I think something similar to what
Draft:Lore Game probably was could actually be a good idea. All those indie horror games have those deeper storylines and ARGs that have recently become merchandise and marketing traps, and because of it the concept may have received some significant coverage.
Panini!•🥪 23:04, 11 June 2024 (UTC)reply
There is a topic on
Marianne von Edmund regarding removal of shipping content, The discussion become slightly heated and I am moving the discussion to the project's page so that more opinion will be placed and the hopefully the dispute will be resolved. Warm Regards,
Miminity (
talk) (
contribs) 05:33, 13 June 2024 (UTC)reply
From my view just popping into this, the canonicity of something shouldn't be a deciding factor in removing information. As long as it's backed up by reliable sources it should be fine to include.
Harryhenry1 (
talk) 05:39, 13 June 2024 (UTC)reply
It seems to be back by a reliable source. It should be okay to include. Not everything needs to be considered "canon" in order to be included.
(Oinkers42) (
talk) 14:43, 13 June 2024 (UTC)reply