Edge Rewrite
pun Source code View original
Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Add topic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Template talk:WPVG sidebar/testcases)
Latest comment: 8 hours ago by Wilbers in topic New Articles (July 27 to August 9)

Template:Video game genre changes

[edit]
Latest comment: 11 days ago25 comments6 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
cn ~2026-42404-60 (talk) 22:46, 31 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.

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

[edit]
Latest comment: 12 days ago14 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
This is what I'm talking about in terms of "recognized". What makes IGN, Eurogamer or Game Informer a "higher quality" source? All are seemingly more popular publications, but I haven't ever read anything about how one source is more critical is "better" than another outside more general familiarity with them as part of the video game press (and honestly, the video game press from a certain generation of editors). Andrzejbanas (talk) 06:35, 31 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
That's a good question. Template:Video_game_reviews#Review_scores is generally sound, if English-language centric. Still, my primary concern remains the problem of random selection of other reviews when they exist. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:10, 31 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
for one, these are sources with a very long history that we can trace, so we know how their review scores generally play out and typically are good representations of most all reviews (even taking in the jokes around IGN's review score approach). They are usually also the ones that get review copies so will have reviews up early and so on. They are basically dependable and a known quantity compared to many of the other reviews that Metacritic or OpenCritic will list. Masem (t) 11:17, 31 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

Nomination of Planet Zoo: South America Pack for merging

[edit]
Latest comment: 10 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Planet Zoo: South America Pack is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be merged.

The article is being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Planet Zoo: South America Pack until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may still edit the article, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the AfD notice from the article until the discussion is closed.

NewAccount7295 (talk) 15:22, 2 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Nomination of Cities: Skylines - Snowfall for merging

[edit]
Latest comment: 10 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Cities: Skylines - Snowfall is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be merged.

The article is being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cities: Skylines - Snowfall until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may still edit the article, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the AfD notice from the article until the discussion is closed.

NewAccount7295 (talk) 15:22, 2 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Podcasts as reliable sources

[edit]
Latest comment: 6 days ago6 comments6 people in discussion

Recently I listened to this episode of the Video Game History Hour about the economic history of Sega in the 90s and was insanely impressed by the quality and volume of information. The guest is Alex Smith, the author of They Create Worlds, both a 600 page book and 262 episode podcast on video game history. The book is obviously reliable but it's about $60 new and has less material than the podcast. I asked over on our sources page and it seems like given Smith's education, history of work, and publication, we could reasonably consider him to be a subject-matter expert. Does everyone here generally agree? There's a lot of material here and I'd love to integrate some of it. I also was wondering if anyone has already gone through all this material before? There's about 400 hours of content here and it would take me ages to go through all of it myself. Whipmywillows (talk) 17:11, 2 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

WP:SPS from a subject matter expert applies here. It seems it's generally reliable, but it falls short of any elevated quality standard like WP:BLP (as discussed here), and supporting the information from other reliable sources would be preferred (see here and here). I'd say general use for video game articles is absolutely fine. Given video games typically lack in-depth information on development sections, this could be a valuable resource; it's just making sure if aiming for the GA or FA level that it isn't the only thing holding it up. VRXCES (talk) 22:20, 2 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
SPS definitely applies, but I also think you need to be careful when using off-the-cuff type media like interviews, doubly so when it's presumably not heavily edited like podcasts—it's easier for there to be misstatements, hyperbole, etc. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 16:31, 3 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Seconded. Sergecross73 msg me 01:39, 4 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
If you ever want something from his book, let me know, I have a copy and can take pictures. —PresN 00:52, 4 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
I have used podcasts as sources, but ONLY if they feature an interview with a game developer. Those kinds of podcasts are 100% valid in my opinion. Roberth Martinez (talk) 13:04, 6 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
[edit]
Latest comment: 6 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This came up a year ago, but while we have the bot-run popular pages that say what's popular in a single month, it's sometimes nice to take a longer view, as well. It's also interesting to group by topic / category so that "lesser" topics don't get drowned out by the hyper-popular pages incidentally tagged as part of the video games project. Anyway, I've updated these pages for pageviews from August 1, 2025 to July 31, 2026:

The older set is still linked for historical interest. (Also, the grizzly details of all 29,600 pages tagged in Category:Video games and its subcategories to a certain depth with the usual exclusions are available upon request, as are the scripts used to generate this.)

Potentially of use if anyone is looking to "adopt" a high-impact Start or C class article! SnowFire (talk) 04:53, 6 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Requested move at Talk:Culdcept (video game)#Requested move 23 July 2026

[edit]
Latest comment: 6 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Culdcept (video game)#Requested move 23 July 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. –Maltazarian ᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ 09:37, 6 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Cover arts for games that changed

[edit]
Latest comment: 23 hours ago7 comments6 people in discussion

Hello y'all!

A few years ago, I changed the cover art used in Imperator: Rome to this as the prior one was just the logo, which isn't standard practice. However, when I was looking for the image before changing it, I came across two cover arts; the one that was used at the launch and a later one used after the game underwent a complete reboot.

I chose the latter, but have always wondered if I should have chosen the former. Is they're any standard procedure for which one should take precedence? — Knightoftheswords 04:50, 9 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

I think I've always felt that the main point of the cover arts (besides just visualization) is better context. I always imagine a reader who physically has the game in their hands and wants to be absolutely sure they're reading the right article. From that perspective, the better cover art would be whatever readers would be most familiar with. Given Rome: Imperator is only a computer game and maybe doesn't even have a physical box, most people would probably be familiar with the game through digital store fronts that are updated regularly. The latter was probably the correct choice but I don't think it would have been a big deal either way. Whipmywillows (talk) 06:05, 9 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
What is familiar can be a very subjective exercise. This seems like something editors must have grappled with earlier, hopefully more recently than here and here?
If I were creating an article from scratch and selecting an image from many iterations, my preference be the original release cover, with the exception of a non-English cover where an English release has been made. If grasping at straws between simultaneous English US and EU releases, I'd say it doesn't matter with a weak preference to the market the developers are based in. When differentiating simultaneous identical physical and digital covers, I'd go physical if one exists as it tends to have more identifying visual elements, but that's also a weak preference. VRXCES (talk) 08:46, 9 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
In the book wikiproject, their advice generally has always been the cover of the first print in the first country of release (eg Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone is both the UK title and one of its first covers, but not the cover you'd find in the wild today). Masem (t) 12:26, 9 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
From MOS:VG:

The identifying art should be from the game's original release.

There is a good copy of the original at MobyGames that could be uploaded boldly. IceWelder [✉] 12:45, 9 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
WP:VG used to have guidance that was basically WP:ENGVAR but for box art, and it's still what I use, even though I'm not sure it's around anymore, given how no one's citing it. Basically, use the most recognizable one, and it's that's contentious, there's no reason for change and you just stuck with what was there first. Sergecross73 msg me 18:24, 9 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Alright, thx! — Knightoftheswords 20:02, 11 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

New Articles (July 27 to August 9)

[edit]
Latest comment: 8 hours ago4 comments3 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 18:09, 11 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

July 27

July 28

July 29

July 30

July 31

August 1

August 2

August 3

August 4

August 5

August 6

August 7

August 8

August 9

Two weeks in one. --PresN 18:10, 11 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Two weeks in one? What a deal! Panini! • 🥪 18:41, 11 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Three pinball video game articles on one list! (one written by me) Wilbers (talk) 11:05, 12 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Additional sources

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

Hi all. This might interest some folks but sources from my sandbox , might be of use. (slowly adding stuff there). Not all of them from reliable sources but a lot are and not all are used.

@IceWelder @Vrxces @Rhain might interest you guys. Timur9008 (talk) 09:22, 12 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games&oldid=1369018586"