Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games

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

Goal: 7,500 or fewer Stub-Class articles

[edit]

I have been wondering if it would be beneficial to have something like a project subpage or taskforce page to assist with the goal of expanding stub articles to get them to start or better. I feel like it would help have such a centralized place to list the stub articles with the most potential in terms of how many sources have been found online but are not currently being used (or used much) in the article.

For example:

  • Sources are listed on the talk page or in the External links
  • Sources are noted on trusted external websites such as MobyGames or World of Spectrum
  • Sources are listed in a reviews table in the article but not anywhere else
  • Sources were found in a previous AFD or merge discussion

This would specifically list just the stubs where known sources have been identified and found online but not yet put to use, which would help any users with the time and interest in building up articles (especially if they don't find the sources themselves) and such a list would give users a direction to focus on.

I for one would be super extra happy to start forming such a list, checking to see which stub articles for games have sources that need to be implemented and thereby de-stub the articles. BOZ (talk) 14:41, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So to give an idea of what I am looking for, I started looking through the stub articles and found that the following articles about games have sources listed on the talk page or in the article itself, sufficient enough to easily expand the article beyond stub class or better:
I already stated that I wouldn't mind creating such a list, but the question is what would be the most helpful way to organize it? Alphabetically? By publication date? Platform? Something else? BOZ (talk) 08:10, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I actually made a for-funsies list of articles I was interested in improving as part of de-stubbification for whenever I'm in the mood for it: [1] - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 10:05, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh nice, so a list like this could definitely be useful then. :) I'll construct it as I find the time, probably on a user page for now. BOZ (talk) 14:21, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why I was expecting anything other than lust on the cover for 7 Sins... I opened it... currently in a sanctuary...
By platform seems the most helpful because I find people target articles to work on based on that parameter, but cross-platform and PC releases make this impossible to track. I suggest by publication date, which should give a rough idea to the user what generation of consoles they're in for example.
I like taking on stubs sometimes only if it's possible to greatly expand, because that's the most fun part for me. Games like Good Job! and Animal Crossing Plaza are games I have never played but were intriguing enough for me to work on. If a list were to exist I would definitely browse it, and whether or not I pick up something is up to what's there. I understand you're an absolute machine when it comes to this stuff BOZ, and like the machine you are you don't mind the labor(!, this would drive me nuts), but if I can help with anything let me know. We ought to give you a hand for all the work you do for the project. Panini! • 🥪 14:28, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK sounds good, I will aim towards listing them by age because some people definitely have a preferred focus on that. :) It may take some time to put this together, but we'll see. Thank you for the kind words! Good luck with the Donkey Kong GA review! BOZ (talk) 15:24, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I created User:BOZ/vg stubs to use as a sandbox page, listing the games in order by date of initial release, which would help draw people to the eras they are most comfortable working in. Anyone can feel free to make reasonable edits to this page. When I have finished it, whenever that is, I can make a page more like the one that Hahnchen listed below, and maybe we can link both from the main page or some other highly noticeable area? BOZ (talk) 06:18, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I went through the Nintendo Task Force stubs and added the articles with sources on their talk pages. Most of them don't, so from that point I'll probably go back around and add the source lists myself before adding the entries to your list. Panini! • 🥪 17:29, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome!  :) Thanks! BOZ (talk) 18:39, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I found tons of sources for Action Fighter, added them to the talk page. BOZ (talk) 13:01, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone through the first 200 pages in the stub category, and added 72 of them to my sandbox page User:BOZ/vg stubs. Hopefully that gives an idea of what kinds of short articles can be more readily expanded versus those where hunting for more sources would be required. BOZ (talk) 22:27, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was working my way through this, but lack of access to the Internet Archive has slowed my progress considerably. :( BOZ (talk) 20:15, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like the Internet Archive is working again? BOZ (talk) 05:06, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, most links still work if you already had them, but the search function remains down. :( BOZ (talk) 13:00, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Going to try to get moving on this again soon, now that IA appears to be fully functional again. :) BOZ (talk) 14:05, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just throwing this out there for anyone interested. Mid-Class stub articles would be a good place to make progress on the 7,500 stubs goal as well as the All Mid/High/Top-Importance articles C-Class goal. (Guyinblack25 talk 19:30, 21 November 2024 (UTC))[reply]

I'm going to start working on a sub-page this week collecting all of these ideas and resources people started here, to function as a focus for people to decide what they want to work on. :) BOZ (talk) 00:19, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

High traffic stubs

[edit]

I published a list of the most popular video game stub articles over the last month at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/High traffic stubs.

I recently returned to Wikipedia (not committing to anything, just dabbling again) and was thinking of where contributions would have most impact. Stubs seemed to be low hanging fruit, and coupled with traffic statistics - we can see where our readers want our attention to be. A lot of articles on that list probably aren't even stubs any more, so there should be some easy wins for a bit of admin. There's a lot of WP:RECENTISM in that list, but I'm sure there are some perennially popular pages that could do with some attention. For someone without clear editing goals, I think the list could be useful.

I probably won't maintain it, but if it's helpful, I hope someone can just refresh the numbers every month. Why not add it to the mostly empty left hand side of Template:WPVG announcements? - hahnchen 21:52, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good idea too. :) BOZ (talk) 02:50, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
High traffic stubs updated with October figures. I couldn't find a good way of comparing September to October data other than just skimming through them on multiple browser tabs. There is definitely commonality between months, these will be the articles where edits will make most impact. - hahnchen 15:02, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Longest stubs

[edit]

Another page worth publishing periodically would be the largest pages in Category:Stub-Class video game articles. This would require Wikipedia:Database queries which I am not familiar with. - hahnchen 17:10, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's something to consider. BOZ (talk) 16:44, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hahnchen: Here's the query and resulting data: https://quarry.wmcloud.org/query/87337
The query pulls the top 100 pages in the "Stub-Class video game articles" category sorted by the "page_len" attribute, which is the uncompressed length in bytes of the page's source text.[2] Not as accurate as character count, but its a close approximation. Hope it helps. (Guyinblack25 talk 21:22, 4 November 2024 (UTC))[reply]
@Guyinblack25: This query sorts it by talk page length. - hahnchen 10:32, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. Sorry about that. I forgot that Categories are populated by Talk pages. I updated the query to pull the info on pages only in the Main namespace. https://quarry.wmcloud.org/query/87337 The caveat about the length of the source text still holds true.
PS- I did the query in a kinda roundabout way, so someone with more knowledge of Wikipedia tables/queries might want to update it to be more efficient. Regardless, hope it helps. (Guyinblack25 talk 21:43, 5 November 2024 (UTC))[reply]

@Hahnchen: I removed the special naming of the page length attribute, which looked like it was messing up the sorting before it grabbed the top 100. Should be more accurate now. After a brief inspection, it seems many of these are no longer stubs. For anyone inclined, reassessing them to their proper quality rating (Start, C, or B) could help make good headway towards the goal. (Guyinblack25 talk 22:00, 8 November 2024 (UTC))[reply]

@Guyinblack25: I saw the initial error a few days ago and published a query using the same logic at Quarry:query/86269, thanks. - hahnchen 12:45, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I published a list of the 250 longest stubs at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Longest stubs. Many of these articles are clearly not stubs. These are prime candidates for re-assessing, and doing so will make clear inroads towards the project goal. - hahnchen 12:45, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Several of those largest pages are people with lists of works and about a paragraph about the person themselves. Probably just reassess as start for the lot and move on? Izno (talk) 22:39, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Date correction on 'Fourth generation of video game consoles'?

[edit]

The Fourth generation of video game consoles is listed as '1987-2004' and the intro ends with: "This generation ended with the discontinuation of the Neo Geo in 2004." However, discontinuation refers to hardware, not software, and the Neo Geo (as per its article) was discontinued in 1997. That makes the '2004' date incorrect I believe? Sceeegt (talk) 02:59, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It really comes down to what sources say. What are the sources for all of this? Sergecross73 msg me 03:37, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Three reliable sources just found Time mag and Time Extention and Wired if necessary. Sceeegt (talk) 03:52, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, just checked, and we have the 3rd gen ending when the NES stopped production (2003), though the last game came out that same year, and the fifth ending with the discontinuation of the PlayStation (2006), not when the last PS game came out (2005) (also the 3rd gen short description has 2005). 4th should end when the console stopped, not when games for the Neo Geo stopped. --PresN 12:43, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objections if we're following the sources. I just know the the generation articles are just a constant magnet of POV-pushing and (unsourced) needless tinkering, so it can be hard to keep track of what the correct version should be sometimes. Sergecross73 msg me 18:37, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If sources allow, it would be nice to have these pages read more like "History of video game consoles (1987–1994)". ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:17, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think there does need to be an article on the history of consoles less geared from the generation side and more on broad innovations and changes in history. But to try to treat the generations as year ranges is a major problem because of various overlaps, and in particular the Switch. Masem (t) 20:06, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, unfortunately the current format is probably the least controversial way to handle it. We've had years to think of something better and haven't. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:23, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. But at the very least until such a history article is made, an obvious year error like this should be fixed too. I am going to be bold and change it from 2004 to 1997. We at least have the three reliable sourced I stated previously regarding Neo Geo. Sceeegt (talk) 19:30, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well just after the change I realized that there's the SNES. 3rd generation is stated to have ended in 2003 because of NES, so the same would apply to 4th gen with SNES also ending that year. Because of that, 2003 should be the final cutoff date. On the 4th gen article itself, I have completely removed that original sentence about "generation ended with Neo Geo" due to ambiguity and it's probably not necessary anyway. --Sceeegt (talk) 19:36, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re-evaluating Andrew Gower (programmer) as a redirect

[edit]

Recently, on 6 November, Andrew Gower (programmer) released an early access of a new game titled "Andrew Gower's Brighter Shores". Previously, Andrew Gower was only publicly known for his role in cofounding Jagex and creating RuneScape, a project he was involved with until 14 years ago in 2010, after which he left Jagex's board of directors and has had no involvement since.

In 2021, it was decided that the page Andrew Gower should be made into a redirect pointing at Jagex with this AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Gower (5th nomination). This was described as a "relatively controversial" decision, but done "mainly over the depth of coverage actually about the article's subject" and because "Content can be merged [into Jagex] from history".

It would be fair to say that Jagex as a company might view a dedicated section to Andrew Gower on their Wikipedia page as over-representative and an unfair focus compared to their achievements since his departure in 2010 (the valuation of the company ballooning several hundreds of millions of dollars in acquisitions since) as well as diminishing the contributions of the hundreds of other programmers that have worked on Jagex properties. Perhaps for this reason, no biographical information about Andrew Gower has actually been (inappropriately) merged onto the Jagex page since the 2021 AFD decision.

Now in November 2024, Andrew Gower's Brighter Shores is enjoying quite a bit of early success, though it would be fair to say that it remains to be seen how popular it will be in 2025 onward. The problem this presents is that at the moment Andrew Gower (programmer) is a redirect pointing at Jagex, which is not a company he has any official affiliation with any more (since 2010), and Brighter Shores is not a Jagex affiliated game, contrary to what the redirect might imply.

Whether or not Andrew Gower (programmer) meets the requirements of Wikipedia:Notability, the redirect should not persist with a target of Jagex now that he is actively and publicly involved in a new project unaffiliated with Jagex, putting his own name in the game's title, in the same style as Sid Meier's Civilization.

I first raised this issue at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 25#Andrew Gower (programmer), but it was not obvious if this was actually the correct place to begin discussion of the redirect, given its prior AFD history.

Quoting myself, these are the specific official recommendations for redirects on Wikipedia that I feel Andrew Gower (programmer) as a redirect is currently most in opposition of:

Per WP:RFD#DELETE, my opinion is that this redirect violates conditions 2 and 10.

  • It has potential to cause confusion that Andrew Gower is still affiliated with Jagex, and that Brighter Shores is a Jagex game.
  • The current target article Jagex "contains virtually no information on the subject", and as evidenced by the redirect's long edit history, "could plausibly be expanded into an article".

Per WP:RFD#KEEP, the redirect should also not be out-right deleted, since it includes a "potentially useful page history" for an article about a person who has made "unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment."

Andrew Gower has been a continued subject of public interest for decades. Despite being apparently inactive for 14 years, the "Andrew Gower" brand was enough to launch Brighter Shores to significant reception both in player count and in media coverage. I would personally like to see a consensus reached that Andrew Gower (programmer) is able to be an article, but if no consensus can be reached that this is possible or is likely to ever become possible, the redirect towards Jagex must still be rectified as it is misleading and problematic given his current public activity.

— Hubcapp (talk) 01:49, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The most critical issue is: What has changed, if anything, about Andrew Gower's notability? Although a redirect was the outcome of the deletion discussion, the core consensus is still "Not notable enough for an independent article". While there is a lot of valid procedural argument about about whether the redirect's current state is valid, there is no argument being made towards whether Gower is notable, and if so, presenting any sources to show that.
Andrew Gower doesn't get an article just because a suitable redirect target is difficult to determine. Andrew Gower must pass WP:N. -- ferret (talk) 01:54, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is correct, and perhaps a third solution exists besides either deletion of the page (and its history) or the creation of an Andrew Gower article (such as changing the redirect to something currently more suitable). I have reached out to the editor who created the Brighter Shores page for comment, since they express on their user page they would like to create an Andrew Gower article. I'm personally not prepared to present an argument that Andrew Gower is or isn't able to pass Wikipedia:Notability, most concerned with the current issues of the page as a redirect pointing at Jagex. — Hubcapp (talk) 02:09, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is redirecting to Brighter Shores an acceptable interim solution? Gower is heavily mentioned there and the article (and the sources) heavily trade on his role in developing RuneScape. Axem Titanium (talk) 06:04, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would say it is preferable to the current situation, but only as an interim solution. Changing the redirect from Andrew Gower (programmer) to target Brighter Shores resolves the concern that there is "potential to cause confusion that Andrew Gower is still affiliated with Jagex, and that Brighter Shores is a Jagex game."
However, it shouldn't be allowed to persist as a permanent solution for two reasons:
  • It is possible that this redirect target could be seen as placing advertisement for Brighter Shores on the Jagex and RuneScape articles. I'm not sure if the Brighter Shores redirect target is really acceptable as an interim solution for this reason, though I am not personally opposed to it.
  • It is likely still the case that Andrew Gower is most well known for his involvement in co-founding Jagex and creating RuneScape, at least as of now in November 2024 when "Andrew Gower's Brighter Shores" has been in early access for less than a month.
Perhaps a better interim redirect target could be Andrew Gower (disambiguation) and his description there changed to something of the effect
  • Andrew Gower (programmer) (born 1978): Co-founder of Jagex (1999), original creator of RuneScape (2001). Co-founder of Fen Research (2010). Since 2014, developing Brighter Shores, released in early access 2024.
Not sure if that's too many years or too much detail for a disambiguation page description, but as long as the redirect target points to articles on both of the endeavors for which he is publicly well-known, it can function as an uncontroversial redirect until such time that a consensus can be reached that Andrew Gower (or The Gower Brothers as a trio) can pass Wikipedia:Notability, regarding the availability of independent more-biographical sources. Perhaps RuneScape: The First 20 Years does qualify as one independent source that did not exist at the time of the 2021 AFD. — Hubcapp (talk) 06:57, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Broadly speaking, redirects are not endorsements. Redirects are not advertisements. In fact, nothing on Wikipedia is an advertisement. And practically speaking, the average reader does not know why or even notice when they get redirected to another page. Our goal as editors is to make the redirect process as invisible and and unastonishing as possible. They should find the information they are reasonably looking for at the target page. If that means redirecting to Jagex (or Brighter Shores, or wherever), then so be it. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:38, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying this. I think redirecting to Andrew Gower (disambiguation) as described above would be the least astonishing redirect, given that readers may click that link from either RuneScape / Jagex or from Brighter Shores / Fen Research. If a redirect to a disambiguation page is acceptable, I would definitely recommend that. — Hubcapp (talk) 15:43, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think redirecting to Andrew Gower (disambiguation) is a fine interim solution. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:03, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I stumbled across this after seeing the redirect page and tried to catch up with the conversation as best I could. From my perspective, I think the temporary solution of changing the redirect from his name to Brighter Shores from Jagex is the best way (currently) to avoid barriers in getting readers current and accurate information.
Whether or not he is warranted an individual page could still be discussed, but I think the more likely next step would be to link to a Fen Research page instead, if/when that company has released something other than Brighter Shores. The one caveat I have in mind is if Brighter Shores manages to explode in popularity and become comparable to Runescape level growth, then revisiting a page for him as an individual who has created two massively successful MMORPGs through separate, self-started companies would make the most sense.
I am far from experienced regarding any of these wiki policies, but just felt the urge to weigh in on the conversation as an outsider who cares about this particular topic and preserving an accurate history. JOOOOOOOOOSH (talk) 10:05, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a possibility to create an article on Andrew and Paul Gower? A glance at Google Scholar suggests there may be more sources there, and while most are leading to Runescape and Jagax's founding, there's possibly more with that. --Masem (t) 02:52, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this seems possible and acceptable. There is some biographical information about the Gower brothers' early life, before their work on RuneScape, published by Dark Horse Comics in the October 2021 book RuneScape: The First 20 Years, on pages 12 and 13. I'm not sure what scholarly sources you were able to find that might additionally supplement that. I would suggest that Ian Gower could be included in a "Gower Brothers" article, since he collaborated with Andrew and Paul on both RuneScape and Brighter Shores. — Hubcapp (talk) 03:29, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A disambiguation page can be reasonable, but what isn't is recreating the guy's bio when there's nothing in it that demonstrates additional notability versus the AfD, according to the version that was recreated. All that's new is the mentions of Brighter Shores; there's no additional SIGCOV, barrel-scraping of using credit lists and the like to try and verify facts, and still using unreliable sources from the AfD. Write a draft of what you think would pass AfD again, Hubcapp, first, before trying to recreate the page. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 16:00, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the redirect doesn't seem particularly appropriate given that Gower hasn't been part of Jagex for ~14 years. I had a thought to write an article about Andrew Gower anyway before this discussion, though I wasn't aware of the previous AfD and hadn't begun to look into whether he is independently notable enough to warrant one.
Having had a look, I think Andrew Gower does now meet WP:GNG and is notable enough for an article in his own right. There are many sources (from publications listed on WP:RSP and WP:GAMESOURCES) which focus on Gower's involvement in Brighter Shores and which were not available at the time of the 2021 AfD discussion. Indeed, the whole reason Brighter Shores is being written about in the first place is because of Andrew Gower's notability (in the colloquial sense).
This is the only article I could find specifically focusing on Andrew and Paul Gower's role in founding Runescape:
An Evening Standard article from 2011 discussed Andrew specifically as the beneficiary of RuneScape's income:
  • CALLING all parents forking out [...]. Evening Standard, 14725223, 1/25/2011
I don't think the following award is well-known enough to qualify for WP:ANYBIO point 1, but the Develop awards in general are well respected in the UK games industry, and receiving the "Industry Legend" award goes some way to demonstrating that the Gower brothers are significant figures in the industry.
If we don't think he passes WP:NOTABILITY yet, I think the disambiguation page suggestion is the most appropriate, fitting people who are searching for his role in both RuneScape/Jagex and Brighter Shores. Quuxbazbarfoo (talk) 21:58, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.nme.com/news/gaming-news/runescape-creator-andrew-gower-drops-trailer-for-new-game-brighter-shores-3600703
  • "Routine coverage", doesn't really say anything about Andrew Gower as a person, except that he has released a trailer for Brighter Shores in March 2024.
https://www.eurogamer.net/original-runescape-designer-unveils-cosy-free-to-play-mmorpg-brighter-shores
  • Quotes "Andrew Garfield"'s [sic] (really...?) announcement and says nothing else
https://www.pcgamer.com/games/mmo/runescape-creators-new-mmo-has-an-unorthodox-solution-for-the-inevitable-waves-of-bots-giving-you-a-legitimate-way-to-bot-the-game-yourself/
  • This is a good article about Andrew Gower's design aspirations for Brighter Shores, but not biographical
https://www.gamesradar.com/runescape-creator-says-his-new-game-is-not-a-traditional-mmo-where-you-play-get-to-the-endgame-and-thats-where-the-game-actually-starts/
  • This is maybe the best article, it includes an actual interview by the reporter (Austin Wood) with Andrew Gower. In the interview, Andrew recounts that LucasArts graphical point-and-click adventures were an early influence on him, and he also says he is "glad there are no publishers or investors breathing down my neck", (not stated here, but this is in contrast to the pressures that lead him to step down from his role at Jagex). This source is biographical in that sense.
https://www.polygon.com/24099403/runescape-andrew-gower-brighter-shores-new-mmo
  • This article is short and handwavey, doesn't say anything. The journalist characterizes the departure of the Gowers from Jagex incorrectly, and generally seems unfamiliar with the story. This is "Routine Coverage" of Brighter Shores.
https://www.pcgamesn.com/brighter-shores/new-mmorpg
  • Routine coverage of Brighter Shores, doesn't say really anything about Andrew Gower.
The Gamesradar interview is good (though the interesting biographical bits about Andrew are brief). All together, these citations show that without Andrew Gower (or Fen Research) contacting most of these publications (or else Eurogamer would have at least got his name correct...!), Brighter Shores was able to attract a lot of media coverage and general public attention, despite being an indie game with no publisher.
https://web.archive.org/web/20100704175930/http://www.develop-online.net/news/34613/Jagex-duo-ascend-UK-rich-list-with-138m-fortune
  • This "Rich list" type article was specifically criticised by DDG in his 2021 AFD, and I think is why DDG incorrectly categorised Andrew Gower as a businessman[1] "The new rich list places the Gower family as the 483rd richest in the UK" (quote from the article), but doesn't talk about the Gowers biographically. The citation is quite stale, from 2010, not even reflecting the Gowers' current wealth, though I'd speculate they must be doing alright to have been able to develop Brighter Shores with no external funding for over a decade.
https://mcvuk.com/development-news/develop-awards-gowers-crowned-industry-legends/
  • I'm not sure of the notability of this award either, though it can definitely be mentioned if your opinion that the award is "well respected in the UK games industry" is "correct". In my opinion, Andrew Gower would deserve some kind of award, and wouldn't have to have one made up for him. His early use of Java Applets in the web browser as a mechanism for game distribution (no download required), as well as the Free-to-play model he chose, were genuinely very innovative and inspirational for the games industry. Perhaps if someone notable stated as much, that could be used as a source.
I would personally like to see your draft of an Andrew Gower article, and could help contribute towards it after you do a first draft, but actually if you can include Paul Gower (per Masem's suggestion) and Ian Gower (my suggestion) for a more broad "The Gower Brothers" article, I think that does have a chance to be less controversially WP:N.
The biggest problem with "The Story of Andrew Gower", and why so much of the coverage is wrapped up in RuneScape, is because his general life timeline looks like this:
  • 0 to 7: Child in England
  • 7 years old: began programming at an early age
  • College
  • Immediately out of college, and actually a bit before he left college, he was working on RuneScape. His graduating thesis (May 2000) described the mechanism of RuneScape's game engine (though it was not called RuneScape yet, the code would be used as its foundation). I state this to say: There were no adult years of Andrew Gower's life that weren't involved with RuneScape until 2010.
  • 2001 to 2010: Very involved with RuneScape.
  • 2010 to 2024: Developing tooling and game technology at Fen Research. Gower wrote the game engine for RuneScape from scratch, and although it can be said there were later many valid choices for pre-built Game Engines (both in 2010 and now), Andrew still preferred to build his own. The studio released two smaller games that were not Brighter Shores during these years, and stated they would like to offer to license the in-development Fenforge engine, though it wasn't ready yet.
  • 2024: The "Top secret game" (as teased on Fen Research's website) was finally announced as "Andrew Gower's Brighter Shores". It was released on Steam in early access this month.
Some biographical sources do cover Andrew Gower as a child (such as the previously mentioned October 2021 book RuneScape: The First 20 Years) but after that, his story is the story of RuneScape's first decade. After 2010, he seemingly enjoyed privacy and doing his own thing, only recently interacting with the public again through involvement in Brighter Shores. I'm not currently aware of any sources that can state what Andrew has been doing since 2010 in a biographical sense, except that he has been "developing Brighter Shores for over 10 years". It is still very early, and we may need to wait a while for a new book titled "Brighter Shores: the first 20 years" if there aren't more biographical sources available.
— Hubcapp (talk) 15:14, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and changed the redirect per discussion above. His disambiguation bullet currently links to RuneScape and Brighter Shores, given no current article for Fen Research and these being the two games for which he is currently most well known. — Hubcapp (talk) 22:43, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Aside: he is really not a businessman, nearly shutting down RuneScape in November 2001, before Constant Tedder (an actual businessman) was hired as CEO and saved Jagex, helping to implement its subscription model & generally guiding the company. Andrew Gower is a programmer at his core, despite having to sometimes act as a businessman.

List of longest-running video game franchises

[edit]

List of longest-running video game franchises. I'd like input. It's obviously a massive unsourced, WP:OR mess. But is it salvageable, or should it be sent to WP:AFD? Sergecross73 msg me 23:29, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AFD. Its not a notable way how video game series are tracked, and definitely brings OR to mind. All you need is an old game, and one modern remake, and suddenly you have a franchise at the top of the list? Nope. Most games, perhaps, best-selling, definitely (though that has a lot of OR in terms of what contributes to a franchise), but longest-running by absolute time is not. Masem (t) 23:50, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. There's not much here and what does exist is OR or something that fails Wikipedia:INDISCRIMINATE. It's entirely non-notable. There's a lot of listicles for this stuff, but those are top ten rankings that fluctuate depending on the author. There's no clear consensus, and what can be gleaned is something that doesn't need to be an article. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 03:15, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is where I was leaning too, but wanted to make sure. I'll probably be the "big bad mean admin" for this one, as I'm pretty sure newbie editor is using the article as an OSE excuse as to why "sources aren't needed" on Wikipedia. Sergecross73 msg me 15:51, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would also endorse deletion - any franchise that hasn't been obviously cancelled is arguably still "running" regardless of game release, so this is no better than misinformation. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:20, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. There's a lot of misleading stuff like that in there when you look close and think about it. Is it a "30 year franchise" when they release 2 games 30 years apart with decades of inactivity in between? And if it is, what's the importance of that? What's the worth of comparing it against a franchise with 30 games in 30 years and, without context, they look like equals on this chart? Sergecross73 msg me 00:44, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I thought they didn't allow for large gaps in releases? Did they change this? - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 05:27, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The page does specify that it needs to have "regular releases, with no more than 10 year-long gaps in-between, for at least 25 years" to qualify, which might help with excluding certain entries but does seem to be created out of whole cloth to make the page viable. Harryhenry1 (talk) 06:46, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like the lead does mention that. But still, sub out 30 for 10 and my point still largely stands. Sergecross73 msg me 18:01, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with other editors that this is mostly WP:OR. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:54, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm stuck on mobile for the next few days. If anyone wants to nom it, go for it. Otherwise I'll take care of it next week or something. Sergecross73 msg me 18:02, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of longest-running video game franchises. Have a good weekend everyone. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 20:53, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I missed this discussion, but just wanted to say thank you - this article had bothered me for years, and I'm glad something was finally done about this. It's a potentially interesting topic, but there's just no reasonable way of handling it as a list on WP.--AlexandraIDV 04:52, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adding Characters to Articles

[edit]

Me and Soetermans currently have a dispute regarding the inclusion of characters in Wuthering Waves. I believe characters should be added, they do not. The reason why I added the characters is because both Honkai: Star Rail and Genshin Impact have characters listed, with Genshin having entire articles dedicated to the characters themselves (Zhongli, Yun Jin, Furina, etc.).

Just wondering what the proper way to go would be. Thank you! Jeffrey34555 (talk) 19:55, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oof. Quite frankly, your version included far too much information with an unnecessary table, unnecessary flag icons, obnoxious colors that probably don't meet WP:ACCESSIBILITY, with a single routine coverage source (WP:RSPBTVA). I wouldn't be opposed to including some characters, provided that they're widely covered in reliable, secondary sources (and not listicles), maybe in a basic list. For the record, I also think those Honkai: Star Rail and Genshin Impact articles look awful, they likely violate our guidelines, and I wouldn't shed a tear if they went away. Woodroar (talk) 20:58, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. The character stuff is extremely excessive for Wikipedia. Sergecross73 msg me 21:21, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how I feel about the fact that these comments are directed towards a group of articles that I heavily contributed to (I wrote Furina and Paimon, and got both to GA). Yes, some of them are bad (Yun Jin, for example), but I don't think they are straight up atrocious or "violate our guidelines". I also think that Raiden Shogun and Hu Tao are good as well. λ NegativeMP1 21:36, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I feel they mean more the lists in this case in general, such as the one in Honkai: Star Rail#Characters--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:42, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that and List of Genshin Impact characters (linked as "Genshin Impact" in the original post). Woodroar (talk) 22:04, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nuked all the flags in the Genshin article at least.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:21, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was only commenting on Woodroar's dif, not anything else. Sergecross73 msg me 22:28, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, is there a reason why these character lists are presented in tables, and not in paragraphs like List of Fate/Grand Order characters?
Also, a suggestion: For List of Genshin Impact characters, the "Design" and "Reception" sections are quite short, and could definitely benefit from a translation of their Chinese versions. SuperGrey (talk) 12:20, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As an added comment , the use of flags on those characters articles violates the allowed use of flags. The VAs are not representing their countries. --Masem (t) 21:27, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the input everybody. Jeffrey34555, if you like to improve the article on Wuthering Waves, the gameplay section can definitely be improved. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 11:05, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for all your inputs! Jeffrey34555 (talk) 17:56, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pygame tutorials

[edit]

Hi.

i wonder if we should move Pygame tutorials from references into external links, maybe via subsection? What do you guys think?

Best wishes --Kaworu1992 (talk) 15:48, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They should probably be removed totally. They serve no purpose to the lay reader at all. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:44, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Issue with the post-AfD results of Dr. Wily

[edit]

I could use some third party eyes on this subject. So awhile back, I had BLAR'd Dr. Wily, as the article's reception was resoundingly weak. It recently got revived by another editor to be AfD'd to ensure it should have been merged, and the consensus was it should be re-merged and the existing reception was indeed too weak. Feeling all the information was already merged, I re-redirected it. Editor Daranios reverted it and complained that the reception was not carried over, and I pointed out there was no policy to my knowledge requiring how much to be merged, and that the weak reception may create a WP:UNDUE issue for that section.

So now we have a double issue: Daranios has merged the reception, which has created a large block in the article that I feel gives the wrong impression it should be spun back out and if I try to trim it down it will border on disruptive. Additionally another editor, Christian75 is reversing the redirect saying that additional content should still be merged. So I could use some input on this because I don't want to cause a problem, but I feel one is brewing. Kung Fu Man (talk) 12:42, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly this feels like it might WP:BOOMERANG, you should really not be edit warring after you got reverted once. Maybe next time WP:AGF and ask on Daranios' talk page why you got reverted and try to come to an agreement rather than reverting the revert. It seems like he did the merge shortly afterwards, anyway, so it would have been pretty simple. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:19, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There was a discussion on Talk:Dr. Wily, and this wasn't the first time I've felt I've had this discussion before where an editor insisted a merge should happen again after there was already merged content, and it was agreed there's no policy forcing additional merging unless otherwise directed. I do strongly feel the added reception is a bit of an UNDUE issue though, and some of it may be stretching what's there.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:26, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kung Fu Man: Obviously I don't feel like what I've merged is UNDUE nor stretching what's there. Everything is referenced to what I believe are reliable sources, and I have done some condensation compared to what existed in 2023. But to explain again in this context here: I do not believe what you had previously merged was considered by the participants of the deletion discussion !voting merge. Rather, I believe these opinions were based on the status of the articles as of the time of the discussion. Which means if they thought everything relevant was already present at the target at that time, they would have !voted redirect, not merge. These are obviously different outcomes. And if the closer had supported your view, I assume they would have performed the redirect themselves, as this is recommended by the guideline and common practice.
All that said, from my side I am finished with what I thought should be merged, and am fine with Dr. Wily being a redirect now. Daranios (talk) 20:41, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All of that type of reception looks like listicles, which do not offer much value to actual encyclopedic reception. — Masem (t) 20:47, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Contentwise, they support that it was a popular character, and why. I feel like that falls under the reception and significance expected for fictional characters, just like design and development as merged there by Kung Fu Man is. Daranios (talk) 21:27, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The VG project has had a long problem with reception of characters tied to top 10 lists where there is no real discussion of the actual character, since these type of lists are extremely common in VG journalism. KFM has a pretty good handle on when such lists are actually useful, and when they are just a problem. Masem (t) 22:07, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It definitely needs some trimming. Stuff like "IGN called him persistent" is shallow, pointless commentary. Definitely room for improvement. Sergecross73 msg me 22:04, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For real, it's hardly even commentary. I would contend that persistent is just what you'd call any villain across two dozen games. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 02:11, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. We don't need to extract every mundane statement reliable sources say about a subject. We need to remember that yes, reliable sources are required for inclusion on Wikipedia. But we're still not compelled to include every little thing they say. Sergecross73 msg me 02:36, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tearing through it its even worse: the IGN one is probably the strongest one, most of the others either didn't mention what they said (Gamespot), or were never archived (GameDaily), and the one GameDaily ref that was was cited for a passing thought at the end. Many of the refs spend more time recapping who Wily is than any examination or discussion of his character. I trimmed it down and still think the two there are really too weak.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:34, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While I disagree on many individual reasons of Kung Fu Man trimming down the content merged by me, it's good to have gotten more input clarifying merge !votes. Out of general interest, did this stance on the use of "listicles" enter policies and guidelines anywhere? And before I put in further work which is then possible regarded as lacking, Kung Fu Man, what do you see in this article, which being by a Destructoid editor should be reliable, and is not a listicle? Daranios (talk) 10:07, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The way I see it, saying "it's a listicle" is shorthand for "it's trivial coverage". It's rare that listicles support substantive coverage of their topic. This essentially only matters for AfDs. When talking about using them strictly for content in articles otherwise notable in other ways, there is no restriction on using them. I find it odd that KFM would remove something for not being "SIGCOV" when it is not required to be. "Passing thoughts" are perfectly allowed, since it's not trying to support a standalone article on Wily. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:36, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In a list, it represents undue coverage and makes an already bloated article even more bloated. As Serge intimated, the article needn't be an indiscriminate collection of everything said about the subject, and frankly, it just reads really poorly to effectively be a list of times Wily is mentioned. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 11:46, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Zxcvbnm If you want to work that one GameDaily ref back in I won't be opposed, but to be frank 99% of the time GameDaily is so low quality and more often than not can undermine an article, and it came across in terms of wording more as a passing statement to justify him being in the list than actual reception. The fact many of those sources weren't checked to see if they actual still *exist* on Archive.org before being put over there was more troubling. Daranios as for the Destructoid source, at most I'd say you could get that him grovelling when defeated has become an iconic aspect of his character, but it'd be hard to justify as SIGCOV I feel.
For the record I do think there's use for a lot of list-based article content, but one has to consider what's being said and that's the point people are making or if it's just a content mill to fill a quota. You don't want to just grab anything not nailed to the floor.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:20, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the issue is more "removing stuff for a reason that is not even relevant to the article" as opposed to discussing it and removing it based on consensus. You did not mention the link being dead before removing it, so I am not sure if you checked either to make sure it couldn't be improved from what was written there already. It seems you deleted it *just* because it was a listicle, which is not fantastic either. I'd have checked to make sure that was truly the only thing the author said before getting rid of it. I agree that what was there was hardly worth writing about but there could've been more. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:55, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kung Fu Man: Ok, I was thinking about adding something like you suggested from the Destructoid article. I don't quite get what you mean with the reference to WP:SIGCOV, though, as the notability discussion is done. Does that mean you would be ok with such an addition or object to it? As you have your ideas about how things should be done here, would you perhaps be interested in adding that yourself rather than reworking what I'd write, saving us both work? Daranios (talk) 16:08, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Zagreus § Source for "In popular culture" section. This is a follow up to the 2021 RfC which established sources used in the subsection & is focused on if these sources should be replaced. Sariel Xilo (talk) 20:07, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for The Legend of Zelda CD-i games

[edit]

The Legend of Zelda CD-i games has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:10, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New Articles (November 25 to December 1)

[edit]
Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements
 A listing of all articles newly added to the Video Games Wikiproject (regardless of creation date). Generated by v3.20 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 23:44, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 25

  • None

November 26

November 27

  • None

November 28

November 29

November 30

December 1

Seems like we're all just twiddling our thumbs until the next console rotation comes out. Panini! • 🥪 04:59, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's been a while since I've seen multiple empty days in one post. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:54, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the gaming news cycle has been pretty slow lately. I'm pretty motivated to write about anything and everything Switch 2...but currently there's nothing to write or create... Sergecross73 msg me 01:42, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neo Geo Pocket

[edit]

Requested move at Talk:Neo Geo Pocket Color still open and in need of opinions. Sceeegt (talk) 04:52, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Call of Duty retrospective rankings

[edit]

With the Call of Duty series now over 20 years old, I'm thinking it would be beneficial to add retrospective rankings of the games, i.e. from worst to best. As a CoD player myself, the CoD community has specific ideas on what are some of the best games and some of the worst. Additionally, reception to the games themselves has changed a lot over time; even critic and fan reception on launch is different than the end of every game's life cycle (especially in recent years). I was interested to see what critics and publications think so I did a little research and there are plenty of sources that rank the main games and/or pick the best ones. Here's a few:

I'm sure there are more but you get the gist. Basically, I think it would be beneficial to start adding retrospective rankings into the respective articles, as the majority of them only have initial reception, which can change over time. It would be nice to see in prose how these games hold up years down the line and how they are viewed within the franchise as a whole. I'm willing to get a start on this but I wanted to see what others thought first. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 17:55, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It would be good to add some retrospective reception to the articles on individual Call of Duty games. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:34, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seconded, although I recommend only using a few of these lists at a time to try and avoid repetition, and also attribute who exactly ranks the game at that place. λ NegativeMP1 22:48, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I basically agree with the other editors. Offering a different take on NegativeMP1's advice, I recommend that we avoid having one sentence per source (e.g.: 10 sentences / one long paragraph). I wouldn't mind including most or even all of the sources, but they could probably be summarized in fewer sentences. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:09, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You'll probably want to avoid things like "John Doe ranked X as the 7th best game in the franchise, while Jane Doe ranked it as the 8th best game." However, something like "Both John and Jane ranked X as an average game in the franchise in a 2024 retrospective" would be good, preferably of course with matching reasoning. When multiple writers point out the same things, then that's definitely worth including. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 12:45, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion to merge console game into video game console

[edit]

Most of console game is a heavy WP:OVERLAP with video game console or simply video game in general. All in all, there is nothing particularly distinguishing about a video game when it is played on a console as opposed to a PC, save for select - usually Nintendo - consoles that utilize non-standard control methods that are not a typical controller. I also feel like PC game and gaming computer suffer similar WP:OVERLAP issues, with a large chunk of the PC game article being about hardware tech. I would like to solicit feedback about a potential combination of the articles. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:37, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I could see part of that serving as a starting point for History of video game consoles which would try to be agnostic to the generations and focus on the larger trends. And other parts could be shuffled elsewhere. — Masem (t) 17:08, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the console history page definitely needs a rewrite. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:43, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This looks like a good case for a merge. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:30, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I have created an official merge discussion, so interested parties can comment at the page itself. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:36, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Appy Awards FLCR

[edit]

I have nominated Appy Awards for featured list removal. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. GamerPro64 03:01, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On this note, can I get some eyes on my FL for another video game award, the Nuovo Award? I'm slightly concerned myself that the sourcing is too bare-bones for a FL, though perhaps I'm being too hard on myself. I'd just like some opinions on whether or not it is good enough to retain or whether I should nominate it for FLRC. Fathoms Below (talk) 15:23, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinball FX

[edit]

Hi. I wanted to create a page based on the Zen Studios game Pinball FX (the new version not the original). I dont really know how to build pages so I was wondering if more expierenced editors might help me. (Creating an info box, setting up citations etc.). I created a chart listing the tables but that's really it. Its about as barebones as you can get. Here is the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Pinball_FX_(2022_video_game) Any help via editing would be appreciated.Wikieditor9117 (talk) 15:20, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As a quick comment, in the first column of the DLC you have links that are mixing links to notable pinball tables (eg the Williams ones) with links to just general fiction franchises or similar works. I know it seems simpler to have the single column for that but given that there are real-world tables included in the game, you may need an indicator for identifying the physical tables brought into the game. Masem (t) 15:48, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
JSYK, the game seems to be borderline notable, I found only 2 reliable reviews for it: Push Square and Digitally Downloaded. --Mika1h (talk) 16:20, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's odd. Pinball FX, Pinball FX 2 and Pinball FX 3 all have pages. That's why I was trying to create a page for this game (which is essentially Pinball FX 4).Wikieditor9117 (talk) 16:47, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games&oldid=1263257720"