Edge Rewrite
everything Source code View original
// HTMLRewriter · presentation

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.

// request.cf · coarse context

A page that knows where it met you.

Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.

Country
US
Cloudflare location
CMH
Connection
HTTP/2
Language
Not provided

Ray ID: a232c2e2fdce2a9c

Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games

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

Template:Video game genre changes

[edit]
Latest comment: 2 days ago24 comments5 people in discussion

User:TPI81AF has been making massive changes to the Video game genre template, some of which make sense, but many of which just seem random. I have attempted to talk to him about a few, but he's making so many at this point, I can't keep up. Can a few other people look into this and help. Template talk:Video game genre#Beat 'em up/Looter shooter classification 13akoors (talk) 23:10, 14 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Which changes did you have a problem with in particular, other than the placement of looter shooter? TPI81AF (talk) 23:13, 14 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
For starters, let's being with Strategy games, which you've split into Real-time and Turn-based, with no explanation. While Strategy games usually divided this way, you've done so by making Real-time strategy the subgenre, and then put everything under that. MOBAs are not a subgenre of RTS games, nor are Auto battlers, nor RTT games. Plus, you've added weird things like "incremental" games as strategy games, with no explanation as to why those are Strategy games. Also, Time-management is a game concept, not a genre.
This is just the issues with Strategy alone, ignoring all other changes you've made. With this level of change, discussion needs to be made beforehand on the page's talk page at minimum, if not here before any changes are made. 13akoors (talk) 23:21, 14 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
MOBAs, Auto battlers, TD, etc. are RTS games because they are strategy games played in real time. In fact, they began as mods for RTS titles (WC3, SC) or in the case of auto battlers, MOBAs (DoTA2, LoL). The only non-real-time strategy games are turn-based and to quote Wikipedia "The term turn-based strategy (TBS) is usually reserved for certain computer strategy games, to distinguish them from real-time computer strategy games."
Incremental games require strategy and are not action games. They are also similar to auto battlers in that you make strategic purchases and then wait in real-time for the result.
Time-management was already under strategy, I think. That can be moved into the Related > Design category if you would prefer.
I was making WP:bold changes. I did not realize that video games were such a contentious topic. TPI81AF (talk) 23:30, 14 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
I will agree with you that Time-management was already on the page. That was my mistake. It absolutely should be placed in design, you're correct.
I would argue there's a big difference between between making single, bold adjustments, and radically changing a page. Adding "Arcade" as an action subgenre is a bold change. Making 15 changes in a single day, and reworking an entire page is beyond that.
Video game genres often can be very contentious. For example, you're arguing that Action-adventure is a subgenre of Action. I would argue it isn't because it is treated as distinct from Action and Adventure, not just "Action games with Adventure in it". That is a significant change. Many people will argue on what counts as an RTS game and a RTT game, and that distinction is not clear. I will argue with you on making music a "Theme", and Rhythm a "Genre", despite Rhythm games being a subgenre of Music games.
I'm not against every change you've made. I just think that you're making a lot of really big changes, and maybe we should get other opinions on it all first. Can you tell me what all changes you want to make? 13akoors (talk) 23:47, 14 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
I have already made the changes that I want to make for now.
If arcade isn't a sub-genre of action, what genre would it fall under? It seems to meet the criteria of action games. It also nicely encompasses all those genres formerly languishing in the "other" category (maze, block-breaker, snake).
I think that action-adventure games are both action games and adventure games, thus action-adventure is a sub-genre of action and a sub-genre of adventure. I just put it under action since I believe most examples are more like action games.
Music is a theme while rhythm is a genre because rhythm games have a specific style of gameplay (making rhythmic inputs in-time with music), while music games are gameplay-agnostic. Music-making games are arguably non-games or sandbox games. Rhythm games are action games. Etc. TPI81AF (talk) 00:02, 15 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
I think a way to resolve your issue with RTS is to have Real-time as a non-linked group with Real-Time Strategy, MOBA, &c inside it. If needed, the same can be done with Turn-based. Categorizing strategy games by whether they are real-time or turn-based makes the template easier to read in my opinion.
I now believe that time-management is a genre and it falls under strategy and is real-time. Time management games all have near-indentical gameplay, similarly to other narrowly-defined genres. The most different time management game from the others is overcooked and it still roughly plays the same way. TPI81AF (talk) 01:49, 15 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
I can agree that Real-time should be a non-linked group, same with Turn-based. Keep RTS and RTT as genres within that category. That does make the section more readable. The issue you will have is that a lot of people will disagree with you on including things like Tactical RPG or 4X under Turn-based, as those games are not always turn-based. With this structure, there's likely to be constant arguments about which it should go under, unless you also want to have a "mixed" type.
As for Arcade, that change is one I'm mixed on. Personally, I agree with it. However, Arcade is contentious because it isn't really a genre. It's a term for a lot of old games that don't have a genre, so people started calling them "arcade" games. It's a catch all term that people have adopted, but I don't know if it's one that is notable and we can use. I'd like additional thoughts on this one.
For Action-adventure, I disagree with you completely. The way you seem to be viewing action-adventure is that it's a game that's action and a game that's adventure. That's logical. However, that's not how gamers usually view these games. The genre is treated as completely separate from either Action OR Adventure. One famous quote definining these games is as follows: An action/adventure game is a game that has enough action in it not to be called an adventure game, but not enough action to be called an action game[1]. I understand the idea to view it as just "Action, Adventure", but that's not how the gaming community views it as far as I've seen. This change would be one that I'd need to see a reputable source proving otherwise.
Moving on to other sections: Simulators. You've included "Digital tabletop" as a type of simulator. I've never heard of anyone referring to it as such, and none of the pages seem to suggest they are. What lead you to organizing them that way? Additionally, you've moved things such as "Photography" and "Cozy" to simulation, which confuse me. Cozy games do have an origin in Life sims, but the page itself seems to indicate they've evolved away from that, leading me to believe they're separate from Simulators entirely. And Photography games have history / mechanics in common with shooter games (see Pokemon Snap), but have evolved to be in all sorts of genres, like Action-adventure and Horror. What makes them Simulators? 13akoors (talk) 02:13, 15 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
I think digital tabletop games are simulators because they are simulating the real-life activity of playing tabletop games. In the case of Digital CCG, most have a physical counterpart that is being digitally simulated. I would say that Hearthstone bears much more resemblance to its physical simulated activity than some other "simulator games", e.g. Mario Kart.
I think if we agree to categorize genres that are gameplay-agnostic under themes it will be easy to reach consensus.
I placed photography games under simulators because they simulate real-life photography. It might be a theme rather than a genre, as it Pokemon Snap is an on-rails FPS while Fatal Frame is a survival horror game.
For cozy games, the holotypical game Animal Crossing is considered a social simulation game. Stardew valley is a farm simulation game. The only game that is not a simulator is A Short Hike. If that is to be considered a "cozy" game, then I would put cozy under themes (as horror and education are). TPI81AF (talk) 16:08, 15 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
I think you're having a fundamental misunderstanding of how this chart works. You say "I think digital tabletop games are simulators because..." but that doesn't mean anything. This chart isn't about what you or I think a Digital tabletop game is. It's about what the genre is notably reported as by the gaming community. You need to provide a source, from a notable website, that says Digital tabletop games are simulators. If you can't do that, then I'd argue this classifies as WP:OR, and should be rejected. 13akoors (talk) 16:43, 16 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Allow me to rephrase. I think it is so obvious that digital tabletop games are simulations of physical games that it does not need a citation (see WP:PEDANTRY). TPI81AF (talk) 18:09, 16 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Understood. I disagree with that analysis. Same with the idea that Action-adventure is under Action. These things are not obvious to everyone. Maybe even to no one but you. Please find sources other than yourself. Otherwise, I cannot agree with these changes.
Also, another question: what is your issue with "Other". You mentioned this before with Arcade games, saying they were "languishing in the "other" category". Why do you think every game needs to be under a major category? Why are Typing, and Party, and Fitness under Action? Why is being in "Other" a bad thing? 13akoors (talk) 22:20, 16 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Is it not obvious that Uno (video game) digitally replicates the experience of playing Uno (card game), or that Virtual Tabletop Games such as Tabletop Simulator are simulators? Are you comfortable with the existing categorization of Mario Kart as a simulator? I fear that we may not be able to come to a consensus on action-adventure and should request a third opinion on whether action-adventure games are both action and adventure or neither action nor adventure.
"An action game is a video game genre that emphasizes physical challenges, including hand–eye coordination and reaction time." Fitness games are all action games with motion controls. They're more physical than any other type of game by design. Typing games are all action games. They exclusively test hand-eye coordination and reaction time using a keyboard as the input method. Party games are all minigame collections where all the minigames are action games. Leaving genres in "other" is bad because it is blatant miscategorization when the categories they belong in are in fact included in the table.
Please understand that I will be offline for the next few days, so I will be unable to respond to any inquiries in that time. I will respond as soon as I am able. TPI81AF (talk) 23:36, 16 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Understood. I hope you enjoy your time offline.
Please understand that I do agree with you generally. I have strong opinions on game genres. For example, I don't think Shooter games should be classified under Action. I think they're so often discussed as distinct entities that they should be separate. But that's not supported by notable sources, so I can't put it on Wikipedia. Similarly, I agree that Horror is a theme, as it's not a gameplay-based grouping, but the video game community calls it a genre anyways, so we have to put it as one here.
I agree that we should absolutely get additional opinions on this, because my stance is that many of these genres do belong in Other, because while they may have Action elements, or Simulator elements, they are not categorized as such by the community, and is therefore original research for us to say they are. 13akoors (talk) 00:48, 17 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Dawg, they're like the most contentious topic on this entire website, besides geopolitics lol. Also you're making changes to a high traffic, high visibility navigation box on a topic that Gamers(TM) famously have a lot of opinions about. For my money, I dislike navboxes that have a lot of whitespace and lines with just 1 or 2 entries in them. They cease to be useful subcategories at that point and feel more like salami slicing. Anyway, as you know, the next steps in the cycle after BOLD are revert and discuss. An editor has invited you to discuss so the time for bold changes is paused for now. Axem Titanium (talk) 23:50, 14 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
We may need to make that a top level template for multiple genre subtemplates. This can mean that a more narrow genre can exist across multiple high level genres. Like looter shooters are first and foremost FPS/TPS, but yes, they also can be described as RPGs. Masem (t) 23:58, 14 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Just to be clear, are you suggesting something like Template:History of video games, where the subtemplates can be something like "Action", "Role-playing", "Simulation", etc, and they'd all be hidden except the main one that applies to that specific page? 13akoors (talk) 00:08, 15 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
That's what I'm thinking. Not 100% sure if it works fully. Masem (t) 23:53, 16 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
I think I agree with this idea, but also don't know how that'd work. Maybe I'll look into this once I'm done working on the List of Fighting games 13akoors (talk) 00:49, 17 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

In order to re-focus the conversation, I'm creating a list of all the potentially controversial changes for people to see. This doesn't include names shortened, just things moved / added.

  • Action changes
    • Moved Action-adventure to be a subgenre of Action, rather than a main genre
    • Created a subgenre called Arcade, and moved Maze, Block breaker, and Snake to it. Removed Pac-man clone rather than place it here
    • Moved Rhythm from "Other genres" to Arcade
    • Moved Beat 'em up, Fighting, and Survival from "Other Action" to be main subgenres.
    • Moved Fitness, Party, Friendslop, and Typing from "Other genre" to "Other Action". Also made Friendslop a subgenre of Party games
    • Moved Stealth from "Other Action" to Action-adventure
  • Simulation changes
    • Moved Digital tabletop to be a subgenre of Simulation, rather than a main genre
    • Moved Cozy from "Other genres" to Life sim. Also added Job sim here
    • Moved Photography from "Other genres" to "Other simulator". Also added Pinball here
  • Strategy changes
    • Split Strategy into "Real-time" and "Turn-based" sections
    • Moved Incremental games from "Other genres" to Strategy (real-time)
  • Misc changes
    • Moved Programming from "Other genres" to Puzzle
    • Moved MUD from "Related concepts" to Role-playing
    • Completely eliminated "Other genres"
    • Moved Horror from "Other genres" to Themes
    • Moved Music from "Other genres" to Themes
    • Removed the "Other related concepts section", Most of which ended up in Design
    • Added a "Platform type" section to Related concepts

This is a summation of most of the changes made, some of which are probably not very objectable. However, since I don't know what everyone will object to, I've included everything to be thorough in this discussion 13akoors (talk) 22:48, 21 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I don't know, a lot of these seem just to fall under WP:OR.
  • Are all action-adventure games just action games? I'd think so on my own terms, but its not backed up by the Action-adventure game article.
  • Generally speaking all these "arcade" style games, all require twitch controls (i.e: key button presses at the right time), so are these not action games?
While I don't really disagree with at least some of these, they need to be backed up by some sources in their reflective articles. Otherwise, we're just making up our own ideology. Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:37, 23 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Arcade games are indeed action games. The foregoing comment forgot to mention that Arcade was created as a subcategory of Action.
Is it a general rule that template changes need to cite sources now? It's hard to reconcile that with the absolute lack of citations in every template change log I have ever come across. TPI81AF (talk) 16:28, 23 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
There isn't a general rule that templates need citations. It's just in this case, where most of these edits are not something the pages themselves say, so I am requesting sources. But that discussion can remain in the Third Opinion section. 13akoors (talk) 16:36, 23 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Oh I don't think templates do, but like, if we're suggesting a game is a sub-genre of another game, it should probably be reflective of material in the article instead of actively against it. That said, that is a lot of work that may be prove to be more complicated in the long-run as genre definitions are often complicated and muddy waters on how we think about it. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:55, 27 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

References

  1. ↑ Aya (2005-08-02). "A Brief – But Comprehensive – History of the Action/Adventure Genre". Archived from the original on 2009-01-29. Retrieved 2009-02-04.

The game itself: To cite or not to cite?

[edit]
Latest comment: 14 days ago6 comments4 people in discussion

Hi folks, I've been running into an issue with regards to maintaining "older generation" featured content. As a quick history lesson, it used to be common practice to cite the game's script for various aspects of the plot, characters, setting, etc. in video game featured articles circa 2010 (including much of the output of WP Square Enix back in the day). In the years since, citations in the Plot section have become much less common, with references to the game script being reserved for so-called "contentious" claims which may not be obvious from a surface reading of the text. All the "obvious" stuff is assumed to be cited to the game itself without a formal reference. It's certainly made writing Plot sections a lot easier and faster for me under the new convention, not having to hunt for script refs.

My question is about what's to be done for older articles that already have a substantial number of references to the game script? In terms of verifiability, the references to specific lines in the script certainly aid in helping the reader verify specific claims more easily. Since they're usually very small snippets of script, I don't think there's any fair use/copyvio concern. Is there any discernable harm to just leaving most of these references in? It seems like a waste of effort (current and historical) to actively try to remove them. Axem Titanium (talk) 00:14, 15 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

As long as it's generally following WP:PRIMARY, I see no benefit in actively taking the effort to remove them. Sergecross73 msg me 01:40, 15 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Leave them. They may not be considered necessary nowadays, but there's no issue with having such refs. --PresN 02:42, 15 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
I'd partially agree. I agree they comply with WP:PRIMARY and shouldn't be touched for the sake of it. But I think about cases like this old version of Pokemon Channel, where they can be unhelpfully obvious or overly cumbersome in volume: such as citing the text "The End" as evidence the game is over! Maybe in those cases it's worth trimming it down. VRXCES (talk) 05:20, 15 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Yeah, that's fair too. I know I've removed some like that too, where someone cited five sentences of dialogue to cite a statement like "Sonic walked into the sunset." Too much of that can clutter/complicate editing things. It's fine if people remove like that if it's getting in the way. I just don't think we need people starting a pseudo-"Remove primary sources from video games" task force or something. Sergecross73 msg me 18:56, 15 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
On the same page, I trust editors have pretty good discretion to figure out the difference without needing a systematic approach. VRXCES (talk) 02:16, 16 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Requested move at Talk:Ray Chase (voice actor)#Requested move 11 July 2026

[edit]
Latest comment: 15 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Ray Chase (voice actor)#Requested move 11 July 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 06:30, 15 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia:WikiProject Software question

[edit]
Latest comment: 5 days ago9 comments7 people in discussion

So I'm not sure where to ask this but is possible to merge Wikipedia:WikiProject Software with our own? (given the overlap I think), or at least link them at our project page.

By overlap I mean the following:

Would love to hear what others think. Timur9008 (talk) 15:43, 16 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

It is a much smaller WikiProject than video games, but there is a lot of software that is not game-related. BOZ (talk) 15:58, 16 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Absolutely not appropriate. Video games are a subset of software, a much broader and vastly larger category. The fact that editor interest is stronger for video games rather than software in general doesn't mean we should absorb them. It just means it would be continued to be neglected while being mislabeled as "Video games". And those that do maintain and focus on software would absolutely object. -- ferret (talk) 16:42, 16 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
I think this touches on a genuine taxonomical issue as the line between games and software can be unclear, particularly where the software market was diverse and sources used more neutral language in the 90s: I encountered this with Puppet Motel and Barbie Fashion Designer. But there is a distinction and I think the way forward is to consider how to deal with matters of classification where sourcing may be unclear. But as a project merge - probably not. VRXCES (talk) 00:01, 17 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
I mean, nothing says a topic can't be covered/claimed under multiple wikiprojects. -- ferret (talk) 01:10, 17 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Of course, and that's the right approach. I guess I mention it more in the sense that absorbing 'software' entirely would mean accepting and working with those quirks of taxonomy. VRXCES (talk) 02:42, 17 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Isn't it one of those things like "All video games are software, but not all software are video games?" Things like Microsoft Word or Microsoft Outlook are certainly software, but they're not considered video games by any metric. It's okay that their Wikiproject isn't that active. Most aren't, honestly. WP:VG is more of a rarity as far as its consistent activity and participation. Sergecross73 msg me 01:30, 17 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
And not all video games are software - for example, Computer Space or the Magnavox Odyssey. Adam Sampson (talk) 01:24, 18 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Generally speaking whenever you try to have a solid rule, our brains are always going to go with outliers like the one above. As discussed elsewhere, it also becomes tricky when things which are primarily not "games" like Mario Paint exist, but are made for video game consoles. The software work would probably have a lot more different kind of material than just the video games one. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:53, 24 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Questions about sourcing & contextual significance of gameplay screenshots

[edit]
Latest comment: 10 days ago6 comments5 people in discussion

Hello, I'm working two Barbie game articles & want to include gameplay screenshots. I want to comply with non-free image use requirements (especially "contextual significance" standards for non-free image use) & also use proper sourcing:

  • Barbie Riding Club - given how much review content discusses the horseback-riding simulation, I think a screenshot of the horseback-riding would be clearly contextually significant, right? Can I source a screenshot from a YouTube "Let's play" video (with no channel branding) or even a Reddit thread? I tried to find an example of a non-free gameplay screenshot from one of those source types, but didn't see any.
  • Detective Barbie in the Mystery of the Carnival Caper - Reviews talk about finding clues, so this screenshot from MobyGames showing the magnifying glass revealing a footprint would meet "contextual significance" standards, right? I've seen several game screenshots sourced from MobyGames, so that should be good as a source?

Thank you for your help — Chao Garden 🌱 ~ say hello 01:40, 19 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Using a shot from Mobygames should be fine for non-free. I'd be just a be wary of Let's Play screenshots in case the creator added or modified the game in any way, and would try to look for trailers or other places for that, but if you do feel nothing has been changed from that (in that there is no additional copyright that the creator could claim) that would probably be okay. Both uses are good examples of a screenshot in context of what sources identified as key elements of the game. Masem (t) 13:41, 19 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
For one gameplay screenshot, you really don't any strong particular contextual significance, as any gameplay screenshot is really helpful for the reader to understand the game much better. Try to choose one that demonstrates the general gameplay best. MobyGames is good because those screenshots are usually in the original aspect ratio. Taking a still from a video is not ideal as it is likely higher resolution, emulated, stretched, you never know. TarkusABtalk/contrib 17:10, 19 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
In addition to this, what I do for some gameplay screenshots is take the screenshot myself if a good one isn't available from elsewhere. In solidarity, Gommeh (talk 🎮 sign) 17:52, 19 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Thank you all for these notes! Personally I would love to take a screenshot of these two games myself, but I lost my copies of both games long ago & don't feel comfortable trying to find alternative means to run the game. — Chao Garden 🌱 ~ say hello 18:02, 19 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
I would recommend using emulators that lets you take in-game screenshots, as some of them allow you to take screenshots under their original native resolution, like Mednafen and SNES9x. I did that for the Virtual Boy games. Roberth Martinez (talk) 21:31, 19 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thoughts about Template:Video FPS

[edit]
Latest comment: 10 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello again, all. I'm currently doing some cleanup on the video game sidebar templates, and learned that there was an FPS sidebar template I didn't know about.

Looking into it, I can already tell the page needs renamed to "Template:FPS video games", to match the other genre sidebars. But that's something I could do myself. The bigger question I have is should this template exist?

On the one hand, we already have Template:Action video games, which includes Shooter games. On the other hand, Shooter games already take up a huge portion of that template, and I can see rationale for it having its own template. But in that case, I feel like the template should be generalized to all Shooter games.

Any thoughts on how I should proceed? 13akoors (talk) 16:49, 19 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Missing "video" in categories about video games

[edit]
Latest comment: 9 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Let me illustrate what I mean with specific examples. Consider:

Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:51, 20 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

this makes sense paryicilar when there can be both physical and video games from the same franchise. Masem (t) 19:55, 20 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Help sourcing Australian release information for Star Wars Galaxies

[edit]
Latest comment: 9 days ago11 comments4 people in discussion

Hey y'all.

I've been working a good bit the last week-ish on improving the Star Wars Galaxies page, hoping to get it to GA status. One thing that's been driving me absolutely NUTS is finding information about a supposed Australian release.

Web searching, including through the project's RS custom engine, has yielded nothing. There's an uncited date of 2006 on the article, as well as other wiki-like sourced that quote this (see , , and ). The closest I can find to something official is an old fan blog and evidence of AUS/NZ guilds forming on other servers prior to the anticipated launch of an Oceania server .

Wiki sources on server listings show names with no prefix, and those for Europe and Japan. .

I started trying to comb through old Hyper magazines where I can find them, but seems like a daunting task. Does anyone know of any other corners I could try and look down for this info?

P.S. If you're interested in the game, please help out with the article! The game has a significant legacy and most of its copy is pretty old and poorly sourced. There's potential for a great GA here. Yojo98 (talk) 18:27, 20 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I can't actually see the fulltext for some reason, but this seems promising:
From the preview:
  • Star Wars Galaxies: The Complete... ...available throughout Australia.
ScalarFactor (talk) 19:24, 20 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Hm... looks promising as you said but it isn't displaying any text for me either Yojo98 (talk) 19:35, 20 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Hey, I remember this in Australian stores at the time! I think the comment is correct that the reason you're encountering this issue is that the game wasn't distributed as An Empire Divided, only as The Complete Online Adventures. As said in this Hyper review, international players simply imported and played the US release in 2004: this was a common practice and would have been no different from other global markets. I think it can be omitted: unless it's a major market or there's good sourcing, the first time every distribution market recieved a retail release of a form of a game doesn't need to be captured in an infobox. Otherwise you'd be wanting to put in the 2004 German release and the 2005 French and Canadian release of The Total Experience. VRXCES (talk) 22:36, 20 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
this is super helpful!! Thank you so much. I'll go ahead and remove the mention from the article when I next edit. Totally makes sense that imports would be the move, and the lack of any Oceania server ever existing also feels like it puts a nail in the coffin for it getting sigcov for that release Yojo98 (talk) 22:49, 20 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
FWIW, per MOS:VGDATE, non-English releases like French and German should be excluded anyway, unlike Australia/New Zealand (and the Canadian release is already listed, under North America). According to GameSpy, The Complete Online Adventures was released in Australia on November 15, 2006, which seems roughly in line with the aforementioned Sunday Mail article. – Rhain ☔ he
him 23:21, 20 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Nice find, looks like that broadly wraps it up! VRXCES (talk) 00:51, 21 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Ah good find! I'll go ahead and add the AUS release info in and cite.
One follow-up about the MOS:VGDATE point; wouldn't the Japanese release merit inclusion in the infobox? It's a separate region from AUS, and had a pretty WP:DUE amount of coverage in reliable sources around its launch and relatively sudden shutdown. Yojo98 (talk) 01:14, 21 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Per MOS:VGDATE, Releases in non-English countries should otherwise not be included in the infobox, but if determined to be necessary to include, can be discussed further in the article's body. Exceptions may apply, of course, but that's the current guidance. – Rhain ☔ he
him 01:30, 21 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
I would lean towards including since frankly it got more press (at least in the US/easily web searchable) than the Australian release (hence my journey here lol). It's also already discussed in the body. Does it make sense to include then? Yojo98 (talk) 02:02, 21 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Personally speaking, I would follow the MoS: keep in in the body, not the infobox. – Rhain ☔ he
him 02:17, 21 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

New Articles (July 13 to July 19)

[edit]
Latest comment: 9 days ago3 comments2 people in discussion
 A listing of all articles newly added to the Video Games Wikiproject (regardless of creation date). Generated by v3.23 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 19:44, 20 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

July 13

July 14

July 15

July 16

July 17

July 18

July 19

--PresN 19:44, 20 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Category:Rick and Morty (video games) should probably be renamed. Also, I am not sure if there is really enough entries anyway. (Oinkers42) (talk) 19:50, 20 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

On discussing the "end" of physical media

[edit]
Latest comment: 7 days ago6 comments4 people in discussion

most probably are aware of the concern about Sony no longer planning to release games on physical media. This is probably something that we shpuld discuss more in an article since its generating a lot of reactions. That said to pin this on Sony (eg expanding at SIE) would be misplaced since Rockstar's also said no media for GTA VI.

I have populated the possible issue at some other relevant articles like video game preservation but again, going into the analysis of this doesnt seem appropriate there.

What I think the solution is partially based on that we have Digital distribution of video games, in that we lack a good article on the history of video game distribution. So im thinking video game distribution may be a posdibke target that can include the various formats abd their history, in which now a full analysis on the possible end of physical media would clearly fit. Theres a few other articles that i can move things from like parts if video game monetization. But id like to make sure this approach makes sense. Masem (t) 14:41, 21 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I've seen huge backlash on the internet, but I haven't seen it impact my Wikipedia watchlist. Am I just maintaining the wrong article cross-section? Sergecross73 msg me 15:00, 21 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
there hasn't been much at all beyond what I've added, and its probably like the lack if a topic. And i dont propose standalone articles for just this alone. Masem (t) 15:42, 21 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
I agree with your approach. Video game packaging covers some of the physical aspects, and could potentially be merged in. TarkusABtalk/contrib 17:07, 21 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
+1 In solidarity, Gommeh (talk 🎮 sign) 17:46, 21 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
adding this cnbc article here to save. Will see what i can do this weekend. Masem (t) 16:54, 22 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Help with The King of Fighters '98 reception

[edit]
Latest comment: 6 days ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Last week I tried expanding The King of Fighters '98's reception to test if the article has potential for a GA nomination but there is something bothering me. The first paragraph focuses on the Dreamcast port from 1999 called "The King of Fighters Dream Match 1999" (not to be confused with The King of Fighters '99) but I couldn't find the metacrtic score for such port despite there being so many reviews. On the other hand, the GameRankings' archive does have an article focused on the Dreamcast port https://web.archive.org/web/20090516025049/http://www.gamerankings.com/dreamcast/197723-the-king-of-fighters-dream-match-1999/index.html but I don't know if I should use it on the prose similar to what we use to with. Is there any other advice you have in regards to what to use for the reception section? In contrast to other games from the series there isn't much of a narrative in '98 which is why I avoided focusing on it. Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 18:12, 23 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

MOS:VGREC and WP:VGAGG provide guidance on how to use aggregators in reception sections. They suggest that use of GameRankings is absolutely fine for older games, particularly as in the case here where there is not a corresponding Metacritic aggregator score for the game. VRXCES (talk) 21:47, 23 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
I'm not familiar with handling GameRankings. Is there a rule scores similar to Metacritic's "generally favorable" or "critically acclaimed"? In GameRankings, the score is that of 70.76%. Should I just mention the average from GameRankings in the reception section?Tintor2 (talk) 21:57, 23 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Take a look at how other pages are using it in GA, I think it would be fine to say something like According to review aggregator GameRankings, the Dreamcast version received an average score of 71%. MOS:VGREC says not to do overdo this, but if there's no overarching Metacritic or platform-wide source about its reception, doing this is better than paraphrasing the game's reception. VRXCES (talk) 00:19, 24 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
I understand. Thanks Tintor2 (talk) 00:26, 24 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Help assessing Pom-Pom's notability

[edit]
Latest comment: 5 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I'm considering whether or not to make an article on Pom-Pom from Honkai: Star Rail using the sources listed at User:Gommeh/Character notes and sources#Pom-Pom, but even after taking a detailed look at the sources myself I'm on the fence about notability. I think it would be better to at least have someone else take a look and let me know what they think in terms of potentially meeting GNG. A decent amount of those sources are also on zh:帕姆, which if I translated it as-is, would likely need some sort of re-working to bring it up to my standards though, especially given some of the sources there are considered unreliable here. I'm on the fence about this and could use another set of eyes here, so any input is appreciated. In solidarity, Gommeh (talk 🎮 sign) 14:18, 24 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

"First game in French West" DYK concerns

[edit]
Latest comment: 5 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

My new DYK about a video game at Template:Did you know nominations/Colorado (video game) has a reviewer raising concerns regarding the claims that it is the "first" (1990) game set in the French West ("territories west of the Mississippi River" rather than "French Louisiana"). (The hook is "that a 2023 study identified the 1990 video game Colorado as the first to depict the French West before it became the American Wild West?"). Comments appreciated, both on the subject matter and on the possibility to rewording the hook or proposing something else that is interesting. I have already proposed another hook that the reviewer did not find interesting ("that reviewers praised the 1990 video game Colorado as a refinement of Silmarils' action-adventure formula, highlighting its 100-plus locations and canoe sequences?"). Sigh. It is becoming increasingly difficult to propose video game hooks (see ogoing related discussion on the broad issue of problems with DYK hook strictness, if interested). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:59, 25 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Requested move at Talk:Herdling (video game)#Requested move 19 July 2026

[edit]
Latest comment: 3 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Herdling (video game)#Requested move 19 July 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 1isall (talk | contribs) 22:49, 26 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

How many reviews should a Good/Featured article about VG have?

[edit]
Latest comment: 20 hours ago11 comments7 people in discussion

Do we have any written recommendations? When I write a VG article, I try to locate as many reviews as I can, then summarize each, then in next pass I try to rewrite such articles to focus on themes rather summaries. But the point is, in my articles I try to at least mention every reliable review that I am aware of. At minimum, I think each reliable source should be in the infobox that gathers review scores. But maybe my standards are too high? Do we want our articles to list in one way or another all RS? We all know that for the more popular games, this means dozens of sources. Is ensuring each is mentioned in the article part of the Good/Featured requirement of being comprehensive? As a reminder: WP:GAC has a requirement that it should be broad in coverage, so arguably it does not need all reviews (see Wikipedia:Good_article_criteria#cite_ref-5). But FAC requires "comprehensiveness", defined in Wikipedia:Featured article criteria as "it neglects no major facts or details". IMHO, each review in a reliable source - both the content and the fact that it was written - is a major fact and therefore, a Featured video game article should mention each and every reliable review we can locate. Thoughts? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:41, 27 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

As I understand it, the question is really: is it alright to omit detailed RS reviews on an article? If it's a one-paragraph magazine column write-up that doesn't add anything not already covered by longer pieces, then that's probably fine, but if a subject is covered a dozen highly-detailed reviews as well as more dozens of four-paragraph reviews... At some point I'm sure it's fine to omit some of the shorter ones. Writing a reasoning for exclusion on the talkpage might be very helpful/insightful, though. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:16, 27 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Genuinely, my standard for inclusion boils down to:
  1. Does the review add anything by being included?
  2. How strong is the source?
I excluded some reviews from Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 2 (GBA video game) based on those two points. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 09:28, 27 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Depends on the game, but if it's one with a ton of reviews, I'll take the 10-12 or so most "high-quality" ones (if it's an older game with scant reviews, I'm probably grabbing every single thing I can find, though that's often going to be around 10 as well). Beyond that, generally reviews are just repeating each other, so unless there's one with truly unique perspective/criticism, I don't think it adds much. I don't cite a review just to cite it, which is clearer if you don't organize the reception section as a list of opinions but prose-by-theme. They should not all be in the review box, though; while every review in the box should be in prose, the opposite is not true, and a lengthy box is an eyesore. I personally go with 7; we used to have guidance of 5-10. I'm mainly using it to visually show "is that 80% a pile of 4/5s, or are there a lot of 3s and 5s that just average to 80%". --PresN 12:40, 27 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
One of the purposes Wikipedia can serve is to be a reference guide for writing on a subject. It can be ideal to be able to find as many potential sources on a subject as possible. This is why Piotrus' suggestion of including all sources appeals to me and why I suggested listing unused sources on the talkpage for those who want to dig even deeper. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 12:56, 27 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
I generally agree with what folks say here, but on the topic of newer games, what qualifies as a higher quality source? Is there some metric to follow here as I'm often at odds with what that may entail, but I guess it all depends on various factors and probably has to be done on a case by case basis... Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:59, 27 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Andrzejbanas Nobody used the term "higher quality source" here so far, so I am not sure what you are referring to. I'd say that any source considered reliable in WP:VGRS and comparable (many, particularly, non-English sources are missing from it) should be mentioned in the article (at least in the review box, to acknowledge it's existence). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:07, 29 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
We actually do define the sources that are like the best recognized review sources for video games that are preferred over others at the template instructions. Sites like IGN, Eurogamer, and Game Informer. This is equivalent to how there are top film critics preferred over others. That doesn't mean others can't be used but reviews from these sources should always be included before adding others. Masem (t) 11:24, 29 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
@PresN "They should not all be in the review box, though; while every review in the box should be in prose, the opposite is not true, and a lengthy box is an eyesore." Is this based on any written practice/guide or is it just a personal preference? I concur with the latter, but a long box can always be solved by making it fully or partially default-collapsible. For reviews which are redundant, I think a better place is the box rather than the text (as long as they provide a parameter for the box). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:06, 29 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
every review in the table should also be included as part of the reception, do this should set an upper bar. Too many game articles include every RS reviews in the table and fail to include them in the prose. That's probably good for 5 to 6, max. On the other side, at least two reviews are likely necessary otherwise the gane may be too niche and non notable Masem (t) 14:07, 27 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Cited reviews should be reflected in the prose in a meaningful way. Some articles that aren't quite at FAC standard simply daisy-chain all the available reviews to convey a sense of completeness of sourcing, but are only really superficially quoting each. I think it's sound to consider all RS reviews and then use them to support stacked claims over individual reviews which is encouraged in WP:VG/MOS. However, while there isn't a hard and fast number, the tendency seems to be once the review template has ten entries, that's at a limit; whilst that is a cosmetic decision, it does shape the standard of how the project drafts articles. I'd say anything over is not absolutely necessary to introduce for the sake of it unless additional sourcing introduces meaningfully new input to the section or supports stacked claims about the consensus as a whole. If there are a significant number of reviews, the most relaible sources should be prioritised for inclusion first. The spread of perspectives indicated by review scores should be considered too. VRXCES (talk) 23:17, 27 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

New Articles (July 20 to July 26)

[edit]
Latest comment: 1 day ago9 comments5 people in discussion
 A listing of all articles newly added to the Video Games Wikiproject (regardless of creation date). Generated by v3.23 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 13:22, 27 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

July 20

July 21

July 22

July 23

July 24

July 25

July 26

Don't get used to this being on time- I'm out of town next week, lol. --PresN 13:22, 27 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Not expecting Senren Banka receiving an anime adaption and hence an article. There is one concern I want to raise. Someone linked the voice actresses from their aliases to their true identities. It is a common practice for voice actresses to come up with one, even multiple aliases when they perform for eroges; this seperates their work on the hentai side apart from their work on the normal side. Their connections are usually revealed when the eroges receive all-age versions without changing the voice clips, and the cast revert back to their usual names. Besides this, there is very little source to back up such connections. The actress aliases featured in this game are well-known in the VN community, but is it a good idea to actually link them? MilkyDefer 00:31, 28 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
WP:NOTCENSORED applies, but if there is genuinely no reliable sourcing for attribution, and the WP:PRIMARY work uses the alias, the alias should be used. Similar principle as MOS:STAGENAME if the sourcing supports a particular name. VRXCES (talk) 06:10, 28 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
I'm not concerned with NOTCENSORED. I am actually concerned with the complex logic behind this. An example goes like this: In Aokana, the character Saki Inui is voiced by "Yūka Kotorii" in the original eroge release, and by Natsumi Takamori in the PSV and anime versions. A same "Yūka Kotorii" now voices another character in the Senren Banka article, is it appropriate to link the voice actress as [[Natsumi Takamori|Yūka Kotorii]] as in the current version, without running into, say, WP:ORIGINAL or WP:SYNTH problems? MilkyDefer 08:15, 28 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Ah! My bad for skimming, not sure why I interpreted it that way. The Takamori article sources the link directly from a fansite so I can see the issue with just holding out for an RS. I imagine a larger problem arises where a link exists only because the alias appears in another game's credits, and as you say WP:SYNTH arises when inference combines two sourced facts into an unsourced third one. Agree it wouldn't be a great substitute for a source on the credit and I'd rather leave it unlinked than lean on a fansite doing the same inference we're trying to avoid. VRXCES (talk) 09:38, 28 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
I think you cannot assume that a character will be voiced by the same seiyuu in a new release, and we cannot use fan-sites to make these connections. Unless a reliable or primary source explicitly connects the pseudonym with an established voice actor, we cannot link them ourselves. These seiyuu are using the pseudonyms for a reason. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:43, 28 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
I am going to @Tebus19 to bring to their attention of this discussion regarding Special:Diff/1366392849. MilkyDefer 13:02, 28 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
I'm sorry, i removed the links to them. I didn't know about this. Tebus19 (talk) 13:06, 28 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games&oldid=1366664465"