Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 155

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 150←Archive 153Archive 154Archive 155Archive 156Archive 157→Archive 160

New Articles (January 18 to January 24)

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 v3.5 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 17:14, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

January 18

January 19

January 20

January 21

January 22

January 23

January 24

Non-needed categories:

  • RobTop games - From my knowledge, the only article they have is Geometry Dash. Until there is more to put in here, this is not necessary.
  • Polish male video game actors - Crazy specific for no reason. How many guys can actually be in this category? Just Michał Żebrowski?

Panini🥪 17:32, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately due to circunstances beyond my control, i cannot edit right now on PC due to issues with the light service in my living area... (a.k.a. I don't have light right now) Roberth Martinez (talk) 20:56, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

The dreaded 9th Gen discussion...

I'm going to link this discussion in from other related talk pages but its probably a good idea to either reiterate if we should wait on creating the 9th Generation of home video game console page for at least a few months (give time for the press to figure out where they sit and likely if the Switch sits in there as well - keeping in mind the strong industry rumor of a Switch Pro that may hit in March), or if we can do it now There is reasonable sourcing to do it now, but I wouldn't call it a open-and-shut case to call this 9th gen, given how many are calling the Xbox line a half-step. I also raise the possibility if we do it now that the Switch itself may be both an 8th and 9th gen system, but that's a harder call.

If we want to take the step, we can, but again, knowing that "we" are partially at fault for the current console numbering system we probably want to be careful going forward. --Masem (t) 00:59, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

We should totally wait a little bit. It's just gonna be a mess of people getting angry over a topic where nothing is final. Le Panini Talk 02:18, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
(Edit: I've changed my mind, but I still believe there will be a lot of controversy on the talk page n' such.) Le Panini Talk 15:52, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Do it now, the sources calling Xbox a half step are fake news sites too.2600:1003:B00A:4979:F575:6AA5:AEB7:375C (talk) 23:48, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
Thats...not one of the issues that are holding things up here... Sergecross73 msg me 02:56, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
There's going to be anger no matter what you do, why delay the inevitable? Major industry sources such as CNET and IGN say they are next gen, even mainstream media sources such as CNN and NBC say it too. There's no reason to delay it, though I would say it would be smart to tentatively exclude the Switch until we figure out the media consensus on that. 50.200.31.90 (talk) 00:20, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
An issue is still the Switch. We don't know how its going to be classified yet, and the approach to describing the 9th gen could be affected by that, which is why its a question of waiting. --Masem (t) 00:21, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
I'd say that the Switch would still be pretty solidly 8th gen (although possibly could be included on the 9th gen page with a table header indicating 8th gen if the rumoured "Switch Pro" doesn't happen) because I've not seen any sources calling the Switch "next gen" in the same article as describing the Series S/X and PS5 as "next gen". AsmodeanUnderscore (talk) 09:50, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
Couldn't you say the same thing about the sixth generation and the Dreamcast? flarn2006 [u t c] time: 23:17, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
I definitely ***don't*** think we should wait; no one outside of Wikipedia is any doubt that we are now in the ninth generation. I am still confused as to what the issue actually is - do people seriously think PS5 is actually part of the eighth generation along with PS4? News sources don't seem to reflect this confusion, and some even explicitly refer to the ninth generation - [1]. The fact that Wikipedia doesn't have an article on ninth generation seems a bit strange to anyone outside core editing community. Kidburla (talk) 14:05, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
To be brutally honest, I think the big issue is the Nintendo Switch. Yes XBSEX and PS5 are the ninth generation competitors. But is the Nintendo Switch and WiiU both 8th generation? Is the WiiU 8th and the Switch the first 9th before the others? Is the Switch both 8th and continues being Nintendo's entry into the 9th gen or is Nintendo putting out a new console (Switch Pro or whatever else) to compete with Sony & Microsoft into the 9th gen? Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 20:13, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
There’s no issue with identifying parts here and there, the problem is that reliable sources rarely outline the entirety of a "generation", so there’s always arguing and bickering over it. WP:OR and WP:SYNTH issues arise all over the place. As simple as certain you may think it is, there others who feel the same confidence over their very different version. And if there are no sources that outline it completely, the arguments just run circles over and over again without a consensus. Sergecross73 msg me 02:56, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
The discussions will have to happen soon, no doubt. I think it all comes down to whether sources are saying anything different now that they’re out. Now that they’re out, are sources saying anything different? Honest question - I haven’t been reading many of the new console release/review type articles. Sergecross73 msg me 02:56, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
I agree with trying to delay this until at least the new year, once we've seen multiple consoles on the market for a while. We're still at the mercy of third party sources but at least it will be clearer. Jontesta (talk) 19:37, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
As an interesting point all related to the Switch, Kotaku has an interesting way of putting this in this article [2] that because Nintendo has generally been "off the rails" compared to Sony or Microsoft, the console generations become easier to define by only looking at Sony and Microsoft's platforms (starting from the 7th onward). In other words, if there was more support on this idea in other articles, it becomes easy to frame both 8th and 9th gen on just those two consoles, and then say, for both, "The Nintendo Switch also considered a console of this generation, (crossing into the 9th)/crossing over from the 8th)." or the like. But, and this is why waiting a few months will help, this would need more sources to support this idea. --Masem (t) 23:13, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
I think there's no need to wait for this, it's clear that PS5 and Xbox Series X are 9th gen, while the Switch is cross 8th-9th gen. Kettleonwater (talk) 15:44, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

These so-called "generations" are largely a construct of what we perceive in our own minds – an unofficial way for us to organize something doesn't have standardized organization. It's all subjective, and there is a strong case to be made that these labels run dangerously close to original research. That being said, in cases like the Switch, there is no rule that says generations can't overlap one another. As far as how these consoles are positioned against their competitors, it makes a lot of sense to call the Switch a 9th Generation system that happened to have an earlier release. Had the Wii U been just a little successful, Nintendo would've stuck it out longer and released its next generation closer to Sony and Microsoft. The date a generation begins and ends is something we make up ourselves. What defines a generation should be how the products are positioned against each other when sold at market. Not arbitrary cycles of time that video game companies don't even adhere to themselves. 143.59.28.175 (talk) 21:37, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree. I've always personally considered Switch a ninth-generation system for this very reason, and the fact that most sources these past three years have labeled it as eighth-generation appear to stem largely from Wikipedia itself making the initial call. Considering that Switch's sales have still been riding high (with indications that it's on track to outsell PS5/X|S this holiday) and that Nintendo themselves have given no indication that they're in any hurry to replace it, it appears to me that its intended competition was always meant to be the PS5 and Series X|S and that its release was premature (explaining both its relative lack of power and the hardware being "undercooked" in terms of things like Joy-Con quality control). Remember, Switch's development and release also coincided with new leadership at Nintendo after Iwata's death, with their initial new CEO Tatsumi Kimishima in a hurry to replace the Wii U and get the Switch out as soon as possible; this is why Wii U's final year was so desolate, as a large number of intended Wii U games had been pulled to be retooled as Switch releases. Had Wii U fared better in the market and/or Iwata survived longer (as he was determined to ride the system out for as long as possible), Switch likely would've been held off for at least another year, but its early release shouldn't change the fact that it was always meant to be among the Gen9 lineup and that Nintendo is in it for the long haul with Switch. VinLAURiA (talk) 20:52, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Hold up on one point. "Wikipedia itself making the initial call" about Switch and the 8th gen... Much like with the very topic of 9th generation, we waited before reaching a consensus that sourcing at the time was placing the Switch within the 8th generation. In fact, we waited well over a year before making that call, to try to avoid leading sources on. Now in comparison we have infrequent editors arguing we should "make the call" after mere weeks. -- ferret (talk) 21:57, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Infrequent editors? That's some subtle ownership right there. No one is making big edits and blowing a hole in current consensus without testing the waters. This is just a discussion looking into if any of the points above hold merit. 143.59.28.175 (talk) 06:02, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
HUNDREDS of reverts have been performed in respect to the Switch's generation and the ninth generation by drive by editors. It's a simple fact. We've had to delete or redirect unsourced Ninth generation articles so many times that several full protections were required. This isn't a new issue. -- ferret (talk) 14:22, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
I'll rephrase. No one here is making big edits. I'd love to talk to you about the merits of the points made above. 143.59.28.175 (talk) 16:46, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Glad you agree. I think the story of the Wii U is key here. It was a console – like any system – intended to have a long life. Sales were awful and the plug was pulled. Nintendo shot ahead to their next generation with the Switch. Even if it was released to market along side the PS4 and Xbox One, Nintendo clearly meant for it to be their prizefighter versus the PS5 and Xbox Series X/S. Because overarching "console generations" is a made-up concept, we can define a new consensus here as to what that means. I propose these categories not so heavily be defined by release dates. More importantly, what defines a generation should be how the products are positioned against competitors in the marketplace. It's clear the Switch is in the fight for the long haul and meant to be Nintendo's entry into this so-called next generation. 143.59.28.175 (talk) 06:23, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
That's original research, considering that the other way to approach this is that with generations normally having been 5 years in the past, MS and Sony decided to do a mid-gen referece (Xbox One X + PS 4 Pro), leaving Nintendo the one that had to go to a complete new console line 5 years after the Wii U. I'm not saying this is any better of an explanation we can source, but the argument you present is all OR and why we can't just make our guesses here, we hvae to see what's going on with how the marketplace actually functions. Note that "console generations" was not something made up before Wikipedia came along (8-bit, 16-bit generations in notation existed), but it was our labeling of it and specific divisions that got sorta set in stone and why we're being really cautious here. --Masem (t) 06:39, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, I'm happy to engage with your ideas here. What specifically is original research on my end? That the Switch is really "meant" to be a competitor to other 9th gen systems? Well it competes against anything being sold by retailers right now whether you'd consider those other products 8th or 9th gen. And it is the next generation of Nintendo system after the Wii U, Nintendo's consensus "first" 8th gen system. That generations are/were normally 5 years is pretty irrelevant. Generations aren't consistent. These companies define what they want to sell when they want to sell it based on what they feel consumers want to purchase. They aren't following some absolute calendar that says a generation begins and ends on a particular date. That's original research: labeling what belongs in a generation simply because it doesn't follow the dates of the others or preconceived notions based on the past. Release dates might be part of the equation, but more important to capturing the definition of a generation is classifying major steps or stages in a product's evolution. It's why we don't call mid-gen iterations a full generation. That's because there is no such thing as the Eighth Generation of Video Game Consoles. There is only Nintendo's 7th Generation Console, Sony's 5th Generation Console, and Microsoft's 4th Generation Console…all of which are direct competitors…which is a much better and verifiable way of categorizing how generations of specific consoles relate to each other. These real generations cross over with one another. Lumping them all together under these made-up labels actually isn't verifiable. 143.59.28.175 (talk) 10:30, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
The original research claim that the Wii U sales were so bad that Nintendo dropped it quickly and rushed into the Switch; that's not supported at all, though we do know that the failures of the Wii U played heavily of how they designed and sold the Switch. For all purposes, the Switch appeared to be "on time" as a next generation console (Wii U in 2012, Switch in 2017).
And I can tell you that from economic analysis of the consoles, there is absolutely the idea of console generations (and not specific to manufacturers). There is strong agreement from the academic literature that you can group sets of consoles into generations based on common hardware features and/or sales periods, and this is how economics have looked at the console market and its interesting properties. What is the novelty when it comes to WP is how we've numbered them, that we named the home Pong machines and the like as a first generation, and so on, and which has become a numbering used by media sources. That's not to say there was a consistent method in academics as well with the generations, that was a mess too. So it is because we know that we've created the system that the media has adapted that we're not rushing forward with naming a 9th until we have a good picture of what they consider the 9th to be, and that's why its rather important to know how they will treat the Switch. Its clear that the Xbox and PS5 are part of this shift, but the Switch's role still remains vague, whether it is actually in competition with them anymore or just a different console in the same time period. --Masem (t) 14:35, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
That the Wii U was Nintendo's worst selling console by a large margin and drove them to move on quicker is consensus by industry watchers outside Wikipedia. That notion has more outside support than the criteria we use to even define what a generation is. There is no such thing as "on time" because these moves don't follow a predetermined calendar. The only generations that verifiably exist are the ones between consoles of the same manufacturer (e.g. NES to SNES. Or PS2 to PS3.) If we are to group consoles between different manufactures together, there needs to be stronger criteria than release dates. One day Sony may release the PS9 three years before Xbox Vista and the Nintendo Thingamabob but continue selling it all the way through with these competitors. So far this is how Nintendo is positioning itself with the Switch. It's fair to say that since all the following are true – that the Switch is Nintendo's latest, next full gen console after Wii U; not getting a replacement at the same time as PS5 and X/S; and competes in the market at the same time as these competitors – that it is a 9th gen console because release dates alone don't matter. If these verifiable criteria were used to define a generation instead of just questioning ambiguous release dates, it seems a lot of heartache would be washed away as to when a new generation article could be published. It would be clear cut. I'd argue one company's next generation can start before another company's and they still be considered of the same general generation. 143.59.28.175 (talk) 17:26, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
First, I can tell you, given that I wrote a significant portion of the Switch's article, that the presumption that Nintendo moved on quickly from the Wii U to the Switch is a guess. It may not be wrong, but there is nothing hard evidence wise directly from Nintendo's mouth that says this. We know that after the Wii U was out, they were already working on the next console (just as the Wii U was in progress right after the Wii was out, and the Wii just after the GameCube was out), and that in the year prior to the Switch's release they did sunset a lot of Wii U stuff earlier than they had compared to past transitions. But we have no RSes even calling out this was a rushed transition. Nor can I provide ones that say this was an ontime transition (though I know I can point to sources that talk about the Xbox/PS console refreshes as extending the generation). My point here is we have no reason for the exact timing on the Switch that we can use to enter into the definition of which generation it falls into.
Second, why it is a mess is why we're waiting to see what the media comes to terms with for this generation, which will take a few months. Perhaps the Switch is so far off the rails that this new gen is only the Xbox and PS5 because AAA games are only developed for those two (and PC), leaving the Switch with its own line of titles, to which point we have an answer. But if they still compare and contrast the games on all three, then all three are part of this generation. We (Wikipedia) aren't going to define this ourselves but wait for the media to give us enough of a comfort direct to make the call. Yes, at some point we could be at a point where the console releases are so spread out that its impossible to tag cleanly, but again, we'll let the media decide for us at that point. --Masem (t) 17:44, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
I'm going to agree the reason why the Wii U was moved on from probably can't be verified with a first party source. But although there is a lot of industry commentary regard this, the reason Nintendo moved on to Switch is irrelevant. It is the verifiable fact that Nintendo moved on at all that's important. Moving on to their next generation is a generational leap as we would define it with any other system, right? When they specifically do this isn't so important as that they make such a change at all. I get the sense we agree on some points a little more than our discussion lets on. We both seem to agree that defining a generation isn't as clear cut by when a system gets released. And how consoles are compared and contrasted to their peers based on market position is pretty important to determining if they are of the same generation. But we are not beholden to waiting on what the media says because the media are not the gatekeepers of what defines a generation. We need to define generations based on verifiable criteria. Console makers already define this for us. If console makers 1) have released new hardware wholly unique from their own previous generation, 2) are not launching an immediate replacement against their latest competition, and 3) directly compete against theses competitors with their latest offerings, it seems that is a better definition of a generation than the originally researched definition currently used. 143.59.28.175 (talk) 19:53, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
"But we are not beholden to waiting on what the media says because the media are not the gatekeepers of what defines a generation." Actually, we kinda are. We are beholden to what sources say. We don't define it ourselves, or at least we try to avoid doing so. Please read WP:V, and more importantly, WP:OR. -- ferret (talk) 20:05, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
And in the same frame, we don't want to follow manufacturers here as they are very much financially dependent sources that have a vested interest in having these consoles be called 9th gen. --Masem (t) 20:13, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
I'm saying we are using the wrong sources. Media commentary isn't a primary source and is no more authoritative than water cooler talk. I'm suggesting we find that authoritative source. Use what manufactures define for themselves as separate generations. It's their industry we're talking about after all. It's not controversial to say the Switch is Nintendo's next generation after Wii U. So why do we make up that they are both a part of the entirely made-up label of "Eighth Generation"? I feel like counter arguments are really picking at technicalities on supporting points I'm making. I'd love to discuss the heart of what I'm getting at: the merits for and against defining a generation by how consoles are positioned against competitors in the marketplace rather than making up labels based on how closely their release dates match up. 143.59.28.175 (talk) 21:03, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Manufacturers are primary, dependent sources and can't be used. Case in point: the whole situation around the TurboGrfx-16 advertising itself as a "16-bit" console. (We classify it that way now as in retrospect, most media and academic sources agree it falls alongside the SNES and Genesis). We'll take their word on their specifications which only they can tell us, but in terms of the "generation" their console is in, that's for the industry at large to determine, and that'll be first set through the media sources. --Masem (t) 21:08, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Per WP:PRIMARY, that’s not the sort of thing we use first party sourcing for. Otherwise, feel free to search for the “authoritative source” of all this, but the whole reason this debate is currently happening is because it doesn’t exist (or can’t be found, and if we can’t find it, you’d probably be hard pressed to call it the authority on the matter). Sergecross73 msg me 21:13, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
While the position of Switch by Nintendo and from the media is a factor, it should not be a primary factor on whether there is a 9th generation. SYSS Mouse (talk) 02:45, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
So to come back at a point Kotaku made earlier and to what the above IP has been talking about, Kotaku has just published another article in the same vein, that Nintendo themselves ignored generations with the Switch as they wanted to get away from the Wii U quickly. [3]. This comes back to a concept that has been floated that the Switch can't be classified as either 8th or 9th gen (compared to the Xbox One/PS4/Wii U or Xbox Series X/S/PS5 comparisons) and instead floats somewhere between them. This also semi-aligns on this interview with Xbox Phil Spencer in which in talking the "tribalism" of the console wars, it pretty much the Xbox vs the PS5. I'd like to see more media place the Switch in this foggy position between generations before we go that way, but that feels the right direction. --Masem (t) 23:49, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
To add to this, this Wired article [4] has also a similar idea that "Nintendo is being Nintendo" since the Wii as a means to ignore the Switch from the generation consideration. I'd like to see more as that would really help to define the ninth better, but this also makes defining the Switch's position a bit more difficult. --Masem (t) 20:50, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
And a third concurring point: GamesRadar "Games of the Generation" covering the best 8th gen game purposely omits the Switch, delegating their games to a separate article. [5] They state "As the Nintendo Switch defies the typical generation divide". More and more, taking the Switch completely out of the generation classification (leaving just PlayStation + Xbox as the primary drivers of what a new generation is) makes the segregation of 7th/8th/9th tons easier. --Masem (t) 00:51, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
I concur it's really bias and inappropriate for Wikipedia to arbitrarily categorize the gaming consoles into generations like this. Most other Wikipedia articles would've categorized them by decade e.g. 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, 2000s, 2010s, 2020s... I truly think that's the best way to organize the article. Even having this new "Current" generation as it is currently in the article is bias as it's implying that the Nintendo Switch isn't current, which it is. -- ProfessionalCost (talk) 02:45, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Again, prior to WP's creation of these articles, there was the concept of generations, like the 8-bit generation of consoles and so on. It is a natural way to group them that already existed to a point. What WP created was being more explicit on that and defining the numbering scheme, and this is where we are being very cautious. When the Switch came out, we watched and saw no one out in the media rushing to call it a 9th gen system, so we are keeping it 8th gen at the current time even though yes, it is still a current system. But there may be ways to deal with that. --Masem (t) 05:35, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
I agree 8-bit and 16-bit categorizations were used back then. I actually think having an 8-bit, 16-bit, etc. categorization is much more appropriate than this made-up 2nd gen, 3rd gen, etc. terminology. 8th gen vs 9th gen is arbitrary, but 8-bit vs 16-bit is not. A console being 8-bit vs 16-bit is a fact.
I actually think the idea of categorizing consoles into arbitrary generations should end going forward. Unlike what may have happened in the past, the console makers are under no obligation to release on a similar schedule and trying to arbitrarily categorize them like this is just problematic and inaccurate. Trying to keep this made-up numbering scheme is just going to cause more problems since there WILL be many more consoles in the future that won't clearly fit into this made-up numbering scheme. -ProfessionalCost (talk) 22:42, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
It's not going to be our decision to make, we have to follow how the industry approaches it. It is clear there is a 9th gen but its full shape is not yet known (why we're being careful here before defining it). There may not be a 10th gen if MS goes in the direction it has been speaking about, but we will follow what happens, not make that decision again. --Masem (t) 22:45, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
It seems you're not connecting to or acknowledging the foundation of the point being made. "We have to follow how the industry approaches it." Numeric generations do not exist. No one in the industry uses these terms. If the industry – the real industry, not the gamer blog industry – approaches anything remotely close to grouping competing consoles together, they do it by comparing what systems are currently competing against each other at market. "It is clear there is a 9th gen but…" No, it is not clear at all. The "Ninth Generation" only exists on Wikipedia. The only verifiably chronology here is the number of generations a company by itself has put out: Nintendo's 7th, Sony's 5th, and Microsoft's 4th. At any moment, the made up labels used to fit past or present consoles together can be blown out of the water by a company doing exactly what Nintendo did with the Switch. It isn't an argument to project into the future and say Sony or Microsoft would never do this. We just don't know. There are no written rules, and we shouldn't be documenting these things as if there are. --143.59.28.175 (talk) 04:38, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Both MS and Sony have called their newer consoles offerings in the ninth generation (though MS is also clear that the Xbox Series X/S is their fourth generation of their own console line). Nintendo has spoken of generations but tends to use the term as much as the others (either for consoles overall or for their own offerings). This numerical designation is used by the industry and by the journalism around the industry, today. As of maybe 15 years ago, the numerical system didn't exist or wasn't agreed upon until Wikipedia "created" it and set it in place, but regardless of what happened then, today there's broad agreement that we're moving on from the 8th gen to a 9th gen of consoles across industry and media. --Masem (t) 14:52, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

(comment rewritten) One thing that you might not have considered is that each generation has technology difference that stands difference from previous consoles, after the 16-bit:

  • Fifth Generation: 3D graphics
  • Sixth generation: Textures, early online gaming (in case of first xbox)
  • seventh generation: Online gaming, blue-ray and Full HD
  • Eighth generation: ?? (It could be argued that online distribution could be one)
  • Nineth generation: ray-tracing

SYSS Mouse (talk) 02:33, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

To give an example, GameFAQs has moved on and defined a 9th generation. [6] SYSS Mouse (talk) 02:38, 30 November 2020 (UTC)


Also, while this probably counts as original research, I always felt like Switch being Gen9 along with X|S and PS5 fits into the existing pattern:
Generations across the "big four" (only cartridge/disc systems, no single-game systems like G&W; bold for console, italic for handheld)
Company Gen3 (late '80s) Gen4 (early '90s) Gen5 (late '90s) Gen6 (early '00s) Gen7 (late '00s) Gen8 (2010s) Gen9 (2020s?)
Nintendo NES
　		 Super NES
Game Boy		 Nintendo 64
Game Boy Color		 GameCube
Game Boy Advance		 Wii
Nintendo DS		 Wii U
(New) Nintendo 3DS		 Switch
Xbox Xbox
　		 Xbox 360
　		 Xbox One (X)
　		 Xbox Series X|S
　
PlayStation PlayStation
　		 PlayStation 2
　		 PlayStation 3
PlayStation Portable		 PlayStation 4 (Pro)
PlayStation Vita		 PlayStation 5
　
SEGA Master System
　		 Genesis/Mega Drive
Game Gear		 Saturn
　		 Dreamcast
　		 　
Again, I recognize this most likely counts as original research, but the only real outlier to this cycle has been Nintendo ditching the Wii U early to get a head-start with the Switch. Unusual, but not unprecedented. Dreamcast similarly launched three years before the GameCube and Xbox did (after the Saturn's underperformance outside of Japan, much like the Wii U), but it's still counted as Gen6 the same as those are. What muddies things up this time is the unprecedented mid-gen upgrade during Gen8, with the PS4 Pro, Xbone X, and New 3DS and so I've seen people argue that Switch should be put in that same "Gen8.5" as those. But unlike those (and not counting the small handful of New 3DS-exclusive games), Switch is a brand new platform meant to have its own full library of games the same way PS5 and X|S are, rather than just a beefier version of an existing platform. VinLAURiA (talk) 10:24, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Your dats are wrong: Gen 5 would be mid 90s, Gen 6 would be late 90s, Gen 7 was mid 00's SYSS Mouse (talk) 03:41, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
Those are more about the general timespan of a generation as a whole, not when they kicked off. VinLAURiA (talk) 09:07, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

A possible generation solution

Based on Kotaku, GamesRadar, and Wired articles, along with other metrics we can go by, it is quite possible to ignore the Switch as a "home console" due to Nintendo being Nintendo, such that the 8th gen is clearly defined by the PS4, Xbox One, and Wii U, and the 9th gen defined by the PS5 and Xbox Series X/S. The Switch would be included in both but marked as not belonging to either generation specifically due to Nintendo releasing it "off schedule" from the others. This wouldn't change much of the 8th gen article (Switch would still remain listed as is) outside of establishing this, while the 9th gen should include the Switch again alongside the PS5/XBS/X tables. I'd still want to wait until January to affirm if any more press opinions on this come about. --Masem (t) 01:00, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

  • It's not going to be our decision to make Why would you say this? It's completely within our extremely limited editorial discretion to not merely mimic industry marketing and instead use our existing paradigms for splitting content. Namely, it would be perfectly logical to summary style split from History of video games (e.g., 2010s in video games or History of video games (20XX–20XX), similar to History of the Philippines). Summary style from our existing history article is a far better approach than the cat/mouse game of numbering generations for the industry to use. It would work the same way for any other theme in the overall history, e.g., given popular coverage comparing consoles, cover within the parent article; create a section if it becomes a standout feature of an era; split out if warranted by an over/disproportionate abundance of coverage; use generic article titles unless expressly titled by reliable media. czar 01:59, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
    • This is clear possible solution, but it would be DUE to still respect that we have to consider the console generations as this is far too accepted in the media. The generation articles should be strictly limited to consoles considered by RSes to be part of those generations and not because they fall into the same years as those generations. Eg, jumping to the Seventh generation of video game consoles, this would eliminate pretty much everything from "Handheld systems" and beyond, leaving only the major features of the seventh generation and comparison of the three consoles 100% included in the seventh gen. What we'd then need is just a "History of video games (xxxx-xxxx)]] series as you suggest, which point out where the generations would come into play but then would list out other consoles that were introduced in that period. --Masem (t) 18:00, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
      • Including handheld consoles within the framing of the home console generations has always been shoed in purely based on date ranges. I'm all for restructuring it, and especially purging console generations of handhelds (and removing the mention of a generation from their articles as well), outside of cases with clear reliable sourcing. This goes for dedicated / microconsoles as well. -- ferret (talk) 18:24, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
        Having good "history of video game" subpages obviates the need for many of the generational splits. E.g., the common name for fourth gen or that 198X–199X split is "16-bit era". Rescope it and the article still covers the "generation" but is freer to focus on the entirety of that period of time, other context, post-90s nostalgia, etc. Basically the answer is sitting right in front of us—just a matter of rescoping to be more about summary style history splits than tables comparing three consoles every "generation". czar 00:45, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
        I'm playing on this idea, so this is all brainstorming and trying to find faults or issues that maybe there's ways to work around.
        1. Do we want "History of video games?" (Which I would take to be inclusive of not only console HW + SW, but also computer, arcade, mobile and other types?) or do we just want "History of console video games?" (to cover just the HW + SW of consoles) or even just "History of video game consoles?" (to focus only on the HW?) From a high-level, we still do want a broad article and necessary subarticles that cover the history of video games as a whole, but when taking how to summarize the history of any of the broad categories (arcade, console, computer, mobile), you likely want an article(s) that focuses more narrowly on that as there's threads specific to that area that are irrelevant to others. These histories do touch at times, obviously, but they aren't as intertwined to be easily covered in depth in one series article.
        2. Focusing strictly on the console history line, while we do have some clearly defined periods for things like 8-bit and the like, once we're past the 64-bit it becomes more diffuse. (There's certain no equivalent "Bit" term for the Xbox One/PS4 consoles). That doesn't mean that we can't create the year range sub-articles to work around that, but those years are still likely to be influences by the introduction of console generations to a degree. EG, we will likely have a period to cover 2012 (Wii U) or 2013 (PS4/Xbox One) to 2019 (ignoring the Switch so as to cover up to the PS5/Xbox Ser X/S). We'd have one to cover 1987-1993 in title but clearly note that as the 16-bit era.
        3. We would still need to recognize that there are console generations, but these would be far reduced articles from the current generation articles, simply to identify the major consoles considered part of that generation; eg if in Fourth generation of video game consoles, only the four consoles listed in that table and nothing else. This gives us the wiggle room to place Switch as both 8th or 9th if that's how it comes out. What's important then is that in a History of video game consoles (1987-1993) we'd likely have a section called "Console Hardware", then the first part of that would be dropping the main link to the Fourth Generation article and brief explanation w/ pictures and then move into the other consoles of that period including the handhelds. What basically we're doing is dropping the pretense that just because a random console was released during the period that one of the major consoles of a specific generation was released, that that console must be considered part of that generation. From the economic research papers I've read and used for other parts, only a few dominate consoles really make up the defined "generation", there were other products but if they had little market impact, they typically were not considered part of the generation, just a console released around the same time.
        There's probably more ideas around this approach that I have, but this is just to see if this approach has legs. It makes sense, but may seem disruptive to others. --Masem (t) 19:59, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
        So, I really liked this idea on first reading it. The more I think, the more I'm conflicted, so instead of weighing in, I'm just going to ask some questions and (more than anything) make some comments.
        1. If we were to have an article along the lines of "History of video games (2013-2019), it isn't quite possible to just ignore the Switch from that. Instead, an article with that name would simply begin by talking about why that delineation was made (these big important consoles came out), and then say something to the effect of, "Nintendo's flagship console the Wii U was succeeded by the Switch on XXXX." There's no need to ignore anything in that instance, right? The consoles could all have their own sections, moving roughly chronologically, and including a section for the midpoint refresh/hardware boost.
        2. If that wasn't what consensus went with, and there was a clear preference for decades — "History of video games (2001-2010), for example — then it would require so much more work by editors. It would be near impossible to preserve most of the current structure without seriously reworking it. But then, when the next consoles came out, debate would arise over when it would need to be separated again. So, the question here is: for your idea (and I do understand you're just free styling), the question that has to be absolutely answered here is, how do we future-proof it to minimise discussions like this in the future?
        Excited to hear what you/anyone think/s! ImaginesTigers (talk) 20:41, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
        @Masem, my take: (1) As a general encyclopedia we still want a general History of video games as a broadest strokes overview of the medium (even broader than it is now, with less focus on generations and more focus on conditions/patterns, i.e., what the era was about). I think you're talking about a History of video game hardware, though, similar to the relationship between History of film technology and History of film. I'm honestly less concerned about History of arcade games, etc., as those are just summary style splits from Arcade game, not necessarily splits from the general history article, though any major theme in arcade history (e.g., early 90s rise of fighting games) should necessarily play into the general history (e.g., relation to 16-bit era). Region is a big intersection here. Regardless of wherever else we cover Britsoft, ZX Spectrum deserves substantive weight in discussion of that era even if its story has minimal relation to the U.S. narrative of competition between juggernauts. Same for Commodore/Apple II/PC gaming—we cover it elsewhere but a natural consequence of moving from gens to overall eras is to not confine an era to being about three/four U.S.-centric consoles.
        (2) I wouldn't wedge the Xbox/PS2 era into a specific name like 128-bit and I wouldn't be that concerned about the date ranges just yet. While historians like clear breakage points, I think these "eras" are more about the heyday of this or that, with some lead-in and ramp-down period for each. Again, building out from the existing "gen" articles, asking what technological advancements or cultural themes were mainstays of the era, and building sections around the heyday of each rather than around extended console definitions. Individual console articles exist for that information. That the 60GB PS3 edition was discontinued is not pertinent to a history of the general era.
        (3) I'm not really following the argument on the Switch and what "gen" it is. The answer seems academic and unless sources discuss it, I don't think it matters to the general reader who wants to understand the time period. If two history subarticles split at the year 2021, for instance, I would hope that the Switch is covered in relation to consoles both pre-2021 and 2021+ because that's how sources would discuss its influence. (I think this is what @ImaginesTigers is saying.) Moving to your example of 4th gen, what are the defining themes of that era? "Console hardware" doesn't strike me as a theme/section. "Console war" does and a component of that is the marketed (and actual) hardware processing power, not necessarily a full spec comparison. The comparative element doesn't need to be invented—it already exists in the narrative and we just need to cover it. (It's criminal that both our fourth gen and 1990s articles do not have any discussion of console war...) As for the comparison tables and whether random consoles are included, that's for editorial discretion, but I would recommend repurposing the gen articles rather than creating parallel articles, as they'll end up merged in the end. There might be a rare exception.
        And yes, doesn't seem like "decades" would be a good approach, though there is plenty to merge from Category:Video games by decade. czar 22:18, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
        On point 3, I'm already saying that the generation articles should be repurposed outside of the history; they should only be there to examine the generations as best defined from economic and academic analysis. (Hence removing all but the key home consoles of those generations). Everything else those articles articles have placed elsewhere in this scheme.
        To come back around to the first point there's two aspects here: First, we really need a better top level "History of video games" archive that looks at everything from a a super high-level and then comes back to hit key narrative points that float across the enter industry. As you say, here the generations don't have as that much importance but the interplay does: Nintendo becoming the dominant player after the '83 crash; the Sega/Nintendo console war, stuff like that. There's an interesting exercise I could see us doing as to take each year from 1975-ish onward, listing the known major events, and pulling together what are key narratives from that to serve as a single page "History of video games" article.
        And that goes to the second factor: We could then break that up into "History of video games (XXXX-XXXX)" and where each sub article can have detailed sections on the major branches - arcade, console, computer, etc. and note industry overlaps as needed. Whether that breakup is based on 5 year splits, 10 years splits, splits based on the generation factors, or the like, that's something else to decide. Alternatively, we could start from the "History of video games" and then break that to overview articles on 'History of arcade games" , "History of console video games", etc. (which may exist in other articles already). Where there is sufficient information, like for consoles and computers, *those* could be broken down further to year basis, again whether that's 5-year, 10-year, or other measure.
        And on point 2 of mine, yet another way to avoid some problems with "8-bit era" and trying to match years is simply to have standalone articles on the "8-bit era" which only serves to say what that period was defined as, and explain representative consoles and games from it, and its legacy, but it should not look like one of the generation articles. We can easily do the same with 16, 32, and 64-bit eras. It would be a 3rd layer of organizing information, but these multiple layers feel a better way of avoiding the shoehorning that we're stuck with now. --Masem (t) 22:37, 21 December 2020 (UTC)


I'm still skeptical on Switch being listed as eighth-gen at all. Its internals and the actual form factor of the system (the mini-tablet itself) places it in a handheld space, but with a TV-enabled dock and detachable wireless controllers that allow it to act as a home console. If anything, I would say it's a ninth-gen handheld, but one more along the lines of what Sony's handheld offerings were with the PSP and Vita's console-like capabilities - the PSP having a video-out port and the Vita having a separate, controller-enabled model for TV-only play - than the positioning of Nintendo's own handhelds in the past. Similarly to the Switch sharing some of the Xbone/PS4's space despite being "a generation ahead", Sony's handhelds had some library and lifespan overlap with the previous generation's home consoles due to being only marginally less powerful (the PSP and Vita were in the ballpark of the PS2 and PS3 respectively, the Vita TV model essentially being a tiny PS3), rather than how Nintendo had previously positioned their own handhelds, which generally focused on wholly unique libraries with very few multiplats due to a hardware target more in line with two generations prior (3DS roughly on par with the GameCube, DS with the N64, GBA with SNES, and so on).
The difference between Switch and both companies' previous handheld approaches is that Switch doesn't have a more powerful home console counterpart within the same generation acting as the target for the "big" games, meaning Nintendo had to abandon their previous handheld strategy for a more Sony-like approach in order to remain competitive but doesn't have a "big brother" rendering its console-like features redundant as the PS3/PS4 respectively did for the PSP/Vita. As a result, Nintendo's marketing necessarily focuses more on the Switch also being able to act as a home console as well as a handheld due to having to serve both roles at once in the market for them, even if its capabilities as a "hybrid" console aren't truly anything new. The fact that the Switch Lite - Nintendo's "dedicated handheld" this generation (and the closest thing there is to a "PSP 3"/"Vita 2") - only ditches TV output yet retains all its other features (including controller connectivity) and sees no drop in power compared to the main Switch model really demonstrates how much the Switch is more a ninth-gen handheld that serves as a console, rather than an eighth-gen console you can take with you. It's Nintendo's unification of their console and handheld teams that puts it in that hybrid position, but I still wouldn't call it eighth-gen. VinLAURiA (talk) 10:52, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
Additional data point on the Switch and its positioning (though it maybe further muddies those waters, rather than clearing them): Just yesterday IGN published "How Nintendo is Winning Next-Gen With a Last-Gen Console". -- FeRDNYC (talk) 18:05, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Building off Czar's concept...

So if we go from what Czar suggested and building on ideas, I can see us having series of articles as follows:

In any of the Year-range based articles, I don't know how exact the year range is to be defined, if its fixed on every 5 years, every 10, or a range that makes sense, but I think each would be best broken out by covering the major "events" for that area of that year. So if we are in the console history, and we're talking the year 2006, we can cover the PS3 and Wii's release, as well as the release of the "minor" consoles the HyperScan and V.Flash. (Handhelds, microconsoles, and other equivalent systems would go here too). Only thing here is that we'd want to avoid making these read like proseline and look for narrative threads. An example would be at 2008 if we start talking mobile gaming, as that's the year the iPhone came out and the app store. While that started the mobile gaming trend, it wasn't until 2009 when Apple introduced in-app purchasing that made mobile gaming take off; you'd sorta want to connect those type of dots if you can. What we can be free to do is outright ignore the console generation timeframes as guidance for the year ranges on those articles.

This might seem a bit complex but we have a lot of this already in place outside good detailed history articles (those are hard to write, I know, and the last most of us volunteers want to do since it requires the most research). There's content shuffling of course, but not so much erasure of existing info. --Masem (t) 16:41, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

In summary style, subarticles only need to be created when warranted by length. So something like 8-bit era might replace the need for additional, dedicated third gen and History 1983–1989 articles, i.e., redirect all three to the same place unless one's sourcing warrants splitting out from the other.
That second column (arcade games, computer games, mobile games) feels separate from this conversation, as those have to do with how their parent articles are organized, not how the general History of video games overview is structured. czar 06:13, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Keep in mind that the first column is meant to cover *all video games*, so while 8-bit is a major component of the 1983-1989, we cannot ignore that there were non-8-bit games (or at least games without the 8-bit aesthetics) coming from computer software during this time. That is, I'm seeing the fourth column being more about the aesthetics and concepts of games in those bit eras and their legacy today (eg impact on indie games, retrogaming) rather than necessarily a "history" style article. The generations articles themselves remain specifically forcused on home console hardware and their economics/market factors. Basically, what I'm presenting here is not four different spinouts of "history of video games", but two major spinout series- one that breaks up by years, and another that is specific to the platform types, along with two supporting series of articles that take the weight off the emphasis on console generations that have been bogging down the history articles in the past. --Masem (t) 18:50, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
FWIW the years scenario is similar to what was proposed at the beginning of 2020 when we last had a generational discussion. I used my sandbox to group consoles based on the proposals at the time which is still there if anyone wants to take a look. IIRC and based off my sandbox for years one proposal was for a hard 5 year limit, proposal two was for a floating limit that starts when a major next gen console was announced and when the last minor console was released. A modified version of the floating limit was to count major hardware only and split handheld & home consoles.
For example using the second proposal at the time, "History of video game consoles (1983-90)" started with NES & Master System but stopped at the Commodore 64. Restricting to major home consoles only created a clearer separation so "History of video game consoles (1983-86)" kept NES/Master System/Atari 7800 together then "History of video game consoles (1987-92)" was TurboGrafx-16/Genesis/SNES/Neo Geo. Doing a hard limitation such as 5 or 10 years poses a problem as too many consoles would be on one page. For example a 5 year limitation for "History of video game consoles (2016–20)" would require PS4 Pro/Nintendo Switch/Xbox One X/PS5/Xbox Series X|S to all be on one page using the current comparison charts unless we create a secondary break like consoles released in November 2020 move to a new page or put the two mid-cycle upgrades (PS4 Pro/Xbox One X) in a "History of video game consoles (2011–15)" article with the launch console. Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 14:22, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
What I think we're trying to do here is avoid trying to group consoles by years necessarily. We still want to talk about console generations in separate pages, but we should be far more selective of what those pages cover, limiting them to the home consoles (no handhelds) and only to the leading consoles of that generation, no microconsoles, etc. The (year-year) articles ideally would be based on 5 or 10 year periods irrespective of console releases, with whatever consoles were released in that period documented within those. --Masem (t) 14:32, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

One solution I've seen proposed to this is that there have been two "half-generations" over the years: a Gen4.5 and a Gen8.5, due to the odd transitional periods that ensued between the fourth and fifth and later the eighth and ninth generations. TVTropes had a good rundown on it, but the gist is that Gen4.5 was an attempt by many companies to get a head start on the fifth gen before the technology was truly ready, leading to a lot of "in-between" systems across the 16/32/64-bit spectrum like the Atari Jaguar, Virtual Boy, and 3DO, all of which were more advanced than what was on offer in their spaces in the fourth generation but quickly died out before the real battle between the N64, PS1, and Saturn began. More pertinent to the current discussion is Gen8.5, which (as I mentioned alongside the table above) entails the upgraded models to the non-abandoned Gen8 systems with the New 3DS, PS4 Pro, and Xbone X. Switch is often thrown into this category rather than base Gen8 if it isn't placed in Gen9. VinLAURiA (talk) 11:42, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

We can't use half-gens (4.5 or 8.5) like TVTropes is using because that site is essentially a wiki and fails verifiability and falls under user-generated content. There is no industry/reliable source I've seen that even refers to the gens by half. Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 01:14, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, we cant use half-gens. We can speak to the nature of the 4th and 8th having this half-gen idea on those pages, if that can be sourced (the half-gen for 8th I know we probably can going on the console refreshes), but that's not a distinction many use. --Masem (t) 19:55, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

A stop-gap measure?

The only thing that really seems to have any degree of Consensus at the moment is that we're not going to have Consensus for a while yet, mostly depending on Nintendo's direction with rumours of a Switch Pro which is at minimum two months away. In the meantime, it would be generally useful to have a comparison table between the commercially available consoles at the moment (PS5, PS5d / XBSX, XBSS / NSW) in the style of the 8th gen page. At the moment, Ninth generation of video game consoles redirects to a table at Home video game console#Current consoles which isn't really enough, especially given that regardless of Consensus on whether or not the Switch is 8th or 9th gen, it is inarguably "current". At least until Consensus is reached one way or another, an in-depth table like this ought to exist somewhere (although probably not a page on its own, which would only shift the discussion to renaming "current" to "ninth gen"). AsmodeanUnderscore (talk) 12:21, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it would be particularly outrageous to suggest that at some point in the future there will be a Ninth Generation article, so with a view to that I've started making a generation comparison table in my sandbox based on the one in the Eighth Generation article. Consensus hasn't been reached yet about the Switch (personally I reckon it belongs in both 8th and 9th because it was/is/will be sold alongside the PS4/XBO and PS5/XBS) so I've included it in the table for now, the column can pretty easily be yeeted out if necessary. AsmodeanUnderscore (talk) 06:28, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

The Nintendo Switch must not prevent to properly classify what is designed and marketed to fit clear categories

To help make a consensus about the 9th generation, we can notice that both Xbox Series, PlayStation 5 and Atari VCS were released in November and December of 2020 while both featuring Zen APUs (unlike 8th generation Xbox One and PS4 who featured pre-Zen APUs), and Xbox Series and PlayStation 5 are clearly marketed as the next generation after Xbox one and PlayStation 4 which are considered 8th generation.

And while in the early days the Atari VCS was expected to feature hardware from the same generation of 8th generation consoles (pre-Ryzen AMD APUs like Xbox One and PlayStation 4), Atari delayed their release to re-design their product with the next generation hardware, releasing it at the same time. Si basically the 8th generation Atari VCS was canceled and Atari released an 9th generation Atari instead.

The consensus may be different to reach with handled consoles or miniconsoles or hybrid consoles, but for consoles like Xbox Series, PS5 and Atari VCS, it's seems pretty simple to figure out. They even follow the generations of their components. We may also want to look at Wikipedia pages in other languages, like the French Wikipedia page about 9th generation with some references stating the release date for backers in December 14 of 2020 and stating the console aims to be a next-gen console along Xbox Series and PlayStation 5 and to not be a mini retro console.

Status of things like Xbox Series, PlayStation 5 or Atari VCS is non-ambiguous, as they both delivered at the end of 2020 and all feature state-of-the-art AMD APUs in their own level (Xbox Series X and PlayStation 5 being high-level, Xbox Series S being medium-level, Atari VCS being entry-level).

Lack of consensus is on things like the Switch, which dates from 2017, wich is an hybrid console, have features some 2020 consoles may have (raytracing) and Nintendo does not offer products in the Playstation 5 / Xbox Series / Atari VCS category, relying on the versatility of the Switch to keep a feet in the living room.

The difficulty to classify the Switch which is designed to span across multiple categories does not prevent to classify things in categories they obviously target. -- Illwieckz (talk) 07:57, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Raytracing or any other feature can't be a discriminant for generation, generation is about release cycle

I have seen people like SYSS Mouse previously trying to define generations in regards to features. Well, even if that effort for the 8th generation was not satisfying, it was proposed Raytracing for the 9th generation.

There may be efforts to retro-actively name features that may be discriminant over N and N+1 generation, but that's not how it works. The generations are pretty basic: they are driven by existing forces in presence in a competitive effort. Both Microsoft and Sony markets their Xbox Series X and PlayStation 5 not as updates or refreshes of Xbox One or PlayStation 4 but as next generations, as new products succeeding to previous ones. At the time Sega and Nintendo where dominants, that was Sega and Nintendo who decided it was time to renew the market. The same way Atari redesigned its product to not miss the “next-generation”. Those brands decided it was the next generation and they obsoleted the previous generation, that's all. With time passing we may see some features or technique being dominant in some generations, but those features do not define generations. The network connectivity did not defined a generation, the Eye Toy did not defined a generation, the Wiimote did not defined a generation, the ability to host streaming apps did not defined a generation, the dematerialized stores did not defined a generation, 64-bit CPU itself did not defined a generation because there was 32-bit CPUs after 64-bit one.

Raytracing in particular is not a discriminant for ninth-generation. Since I just quote the Atari VCS, let's look at it again: it has state-of-the art AMD APU but because this APU and this console are targeting entry level there is no raytracing. As said, The Atari VCS was first designed in 2017 to be an 8th generation console, with a pre-Ryzen AMD APU like the Xbox One and the Playstation 4, but then this 8th generation Atari VCS design was canceled and the product was delayed and redesigned to use a Ryzen-based APU like the (then in development) Xbox Series and PlayStation 5 and to be marketed in the 9th generation category. That final product was released in the end of 2020 (December 14), one month after the Xbox Series and the PlayStation 5, designed and released to take the train of the same generation.

Also if any future “economic” console (or economic variant of existing 9th generation console) has raytracing disabled, this would not put them in the 8th generation.

The 128-bit craziness has ended for the good. This or that feature do not define a generation, vendors just decide it's time to make a new generation to dope their sales and renew the customer hardware landscape, deprecate the previous hardware, and they pick the best or more popular features they can at the time, along contemporary manufacturing techniques. Because yes, manufacturing techniques may also be specific to some generations but do not define them. Features, techniques, they are all contingencies. Those generations are all about release cycle. -- Illwieckz (talk) 09:19, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Possible solution(s)

I have created a suggestion of how to move forward in my second sandbox. This is taking into account the 2020 discussion and this current discussion and using ideas brought up like from Czar, Masem and various other editors. It seems we (as editors) are being constrained due to "generations" being in the article title. To help reduce this friction and reduce the problem down to the main issue (where does the Switch go) my proposals do not mention generation anywhere in the title, moving that to the lead. This allows us the benefit to place a new console in a respective time period article more quickly with a hatnote that its particular generation is unknown/not established. It also breaks the handheld consoles out into their own articles from their home counterparts. Please see this sandbox on how it all works. Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 21:37, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I think that's getting a bit too far. We still want/need the generation articles but as I've said before, these need to be strictly limited to the main consoles of those generations - no microconsoles, no handhelds, and should be more about the competition in that generation leading from the prior and into the next as these are terms dominated by economic analysis. We still separately want to have a running history of home and handheld consoles that are just chronologies that should outright ignore the generation boundaries, and as most of these should just be the lists of consoles with some bits of running prose (no massive comparison tables), we don't need sub-articles breaking apart by year range segments there; I'd just have separate articles for the history of home (including microconsles + hybrids) vs handhelds (including hybrids).
The idea here is to stress that not all video consoles fall within a generation, or another way only some consoles are considered to be within the console generation scheme. This makes the generations an alternate series rather than the main series on console history. But in a way that gracefully reuses most of what we already have:
  • I'd want to make Home video game console generations as to bring the section on "Generations" from History of video game consoles into that to explain the nature of generations, and then lay out brief summaries of the eight/nine generations as also from that page. (no handhelds) In this manner we aren't committed yet to including Switch in either or we could include in both as we're no longer committed to "a console must belong to one generation".
  • History of video game consoles may need to be split to History of home video game consoles and History of handheld video game consoles but this is where we'd just make H3 level blocks of every 5 years or so and hit the major trends, with a brief table like currently in History of video game consoles summarizing each time frame. Much of the content of these two articles can pull in information that is now excess on the former generation articles (info about the non-main consoles and handhelds). Generations may be briefly mentioned when they kick in, but they should not be the drivers of content on these pages.
The only info that I can't find a good home for then is the comparison of handhelds that are presently in the generation tables, but in light of that, I rarely recall handhelds being compared in that technical manner like home consoles. --Masem (t) 15:26, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Masem, I think splitting home and handheld to separate articles is a really good idea. That's all I have for input on this. Panini🥪 18:31, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I do not understand how an article with a current console representation. Does not currently have Nintendo's console they currently produce games for. No brand has ever released two drastically dissimilar consoles in a single generation, why would the Switch be the one exception? DesuDemon (talk) 08:46, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Draft in progress

So over the weekend I started making up User:Masem/drafts/Home video game console generations, which I would envision as a means to isolate the discussion of console generations from general history of consoles. This is presently taking what's at History of video game consoles and focusing it only on the generation facets. I want to stress that the idea here is that not every home console made falls into a console generation; what consoles fall into a generation are determined by market factors/sourced documentation from economics and academics and not from the typical video game sources we use (since I'm 99% sure you can pick a random console and find a source to prove that, but that won't be backed up in the scholarly literature).

Now, what would be needed to support this? Excluding the need to change the main generation articles to cut out the stuff about handhelds and minor home consoles, I think the other changes would be:

  • History of video game consoles would need a major rewrite to approach from a business standpoint and less focused on the generation facets. This would probably still need to be broken down into 5 year periods for comfortable reading/sectioning, and it is bound to touch on generations at points (eg crash of '83) but I think this needs to focus on makers and technology trends and less specifics on consoles themselves. This can include discussing handhelds, microconsoles, and other console systems too in these broad strokes since we're no longer bound to the generations.
  • Home video game console should be listified by year segments as it mostly already is, broken to 5 year periods rather than generation, but we can note when a console has been included in a generation in the table (again, as above, not all consoles necessarily fall into a known generation).
  • Handheld video game console can probably stay close to as it is, for the most part, though I'd still make the last part a table rather than a list to match what I'm thinking on Home video game console

Again, the net goal is to try to disentangle the console generaion concept as the main driver for how we document the history of consoles and businesses around consoles. They are tied concepts and we can't eliminate generations, but we can still disentangle them from the gordian knot we have right now. --Masem (t) 05:32, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Quick survey: Start a Ninth Generation article?

Given we're nearly 3 months after launch of both PS5 and XSX/S, and there's no word out from Nintendo of an upgraded Switch (despite rumors that keep popping up), I'd like to propose a quick survey to see if there's of starting a Ninth Generation article that omits the Switch for the time being and only covers the PS5 and XSX/S at this point. This doesn't deter from above efforts to refocus the other parts of the coverage of our hardware which still need to be detangled in other areas and as long as focus only on the home consoles and nothing else in this ninth generation, we should be fine. (There is definite sourcing to call this ninth generation, its only the question of the Switch's inclusion).

So just basically a straw poll here. Yay or nae or something in between for setting the ninth gen at this point. --Masem (t) 20:14, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Support for starting ninth gen page. --Masem (t) 20:14, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Sorta Support - Okay with starting, but 100% omission is just going to lead to infinite edit warring. It should probably be mentioned in some capacity. Sergecross73 msg me 20:46, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
    • I would think we keep the Switch out of the comparison table for the time being (as its specs do not compare at all, and I've not seen any 3rd party making that comparison, but between PS5 and XSX/S, absolutely), but we can talk from a marketing that Nintendo's Switch and Stadia as also target release platforms for games alongside those released for ninth generation, using examples of Hitman 3 and Control being released in cloud-based versions. (Keeping my idea above that "generation" here should be around the economics and marketing, and not just because a game console falls into a year range). --Masem (t) 22:27, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support. I think someone's going to have to visit WP:RFPP not long after the page is created, but if there's reliable sourcing like Masem says, holding back is problematic. Not including the Nintendo Switch completely, though, is going to cause trouble. Masem, are there high quality reliable sources which talk about the ambiguity with regard to the Switch (rather than staking a position one way or another)? — ImaginesTigers (talk) 20:52, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support It's getting a little silly to have the XSX/S and PS5 listed separately from gen 8 but never explicitly name their generation. --PresN 21:09, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support There's no concrete plan yet on any sort of reorganization effort, and sources are definitely using the phrase. Creation of it for consistency and to stop well-meaning but uninformed drive-by edits will reduce disruption until/if something else happens. -- ferret (talk) 21:20, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Mostly Support As I outlined earlier, there really ought to be at least a comparison table. I've already started drawing one up in my sandbox that includes the Switch at the moment (but it can be yeeted out if necessary, although I think it should probably stay). AsmodeanUnderscore (talk) 20:01, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

RfC announce: Hytale

Your participation in the following RfC would be helpful. Talk:Hytale#RfC: Hytale video game release date --Guy Macon (talk) 02:40, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Assassin's Creed Valhalla

Can a project member or two take a look at the recent edits here? There's a lot of name- and gender-changing that's been reverted in part by an IP, and having never played the game I can't speak to what's correct. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:38, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I'll refer to the discussion on the talk page Talk:Assassin's Creed Valhalla#Gender where User:Jasca Ducato has apparently properly argued that the game canonily gives the main character a female basis, though there are elements of player-selected gender after that. --Masem (t) 04:42, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping. Yes, the game does offer the ability to gender-select your character's Animus avatar, but importantly within the story (and thus needing to be reflected in the Plot section), the gender of the historical character does not change – she is female. I have made several attempts to clarify this point, including leaving a note within the Plot section itself, but these are often simply being ignored and/or removed by a number of anon and newly-created users. -- JascaDucato (talk | contributions) 09:50, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

PMTOKTFA

Kensuke Tanabe
Kensuke Tanabe

Paper Mario: The Origami King is a cross-genre video game, developed by Intelligent Systems and published by Nintendo; it released exclusively for the Nintendo Switch console in July 2020. The story follows Mario, teaming up with the new ally Olivia, to prevent the Mushroom Kingdom from being transformed and folded entirely into origami. The land is designed to look entirely like paper with multiple open world areas allowing for exploration. Turn-based combat is organized into circular rings, which can be rotated to line up enemies to deal more damage. The producer, Kensuke Tanabe (pictured), assuming he could not satisfy every fan, opted for entirely new gameplay and concepts compared to previous games in the series. The game received generally positive reviews, being praised for its graphics, writing, and characters and critiqued for the lack of other role-playing game elements, such as experience points. Reception on gameplay, mostly the puzzle-style combat, was mixed. (Full article...)

How is this looking? First timer, so just popping in to get some opinions. Panini🥪 11:37, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

The logo is a non-free file and should be removed or replaced with one that is free. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 20:57, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
It actually is a free file, due to the logo being generic. (Oinkers42) (talk) 21:03, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
There's no way I'd consider that "generic" given the amount of colors and textures it uses, so that seems like it's been inappropriately filed. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 21:11, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
It's probably of Japanese origin so their copyright rules apply on whether Commons will accept it. In short they would, a sequence of letters than can be read as such, means that it's not copyright. - X201 (talk) 22:10, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
I could see a version of this image that doesn't have the texture and rendered cardboard effect being generic enough to work on Commons... aside from those elements it's a basic angular font with an outline. But regardless of that, I think this looks like an ad when combined with the logo - less than ideal with an article about a recent game, featured on the front page. I would suggest using the picture of the game's producer Kensuke Tanabe (or a cropped version of it more focused on his face...) instead.--AlexandraIDV 21:18, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
@Alexandra IDV: I've changed the image. I've opted not to use the image on the article currently because it's too long long length-wise, too dark at a small scale, and messed with the general formatting as a whole. Panini🥪 02:11, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
@Panini!: That image really is not great. I did a tighter crop of the one you use in the article, that I think should be fine: File:Kensuke Tanabe at E3 2013 crop 2.jpg--AlexandraIDV 02:59, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Ooh, I like that. Panini🥪 03:01, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
@Panini!: By the way, make sure you mention that Tanabe is the producer - the current wording only vaguely implies that he's part of the development team.--AlexandraIDV 03:23, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Alexandra IDV, I had that in the original draft, but I guess I accidentally left it out. Panini🥪 03:25, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Looks good, though I would adjust the "(pictured)" so it is in italics as it seems to be standard for TFA like this (pictured) .Regards  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 23:12, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Spy-cicle, I've noticed this a bit back and made the change on the official nomination page. Panini🥪 23:19, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Any opposition to including a section on deaths of notable individuals tied to the VG industry (this would include not only devlopers, but businessmen, voice actors, recognized artists/composers, and even to notable players)? We have a few cases where we've noted deaths in the Events tables, but I'd consider just pulling that to a non-tabled list/column section. Inclusion would be either the person had a blue-linked, stand-alone article, or at least VG/S-meeting source reporting on the death. --Masem (t) 19:04, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't personally see any reason against it. Year articles for other media include them, and deaths of major figures are indeed significant events for any given industry. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 19:24, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Same. No problems from me. It's standard practice in the "Year in (music genre)" articles. Sergecross73 msg me 19:51, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Seems like a reasonable idea, as long they have an article.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 23:06, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
That's generally my personal stance when considering them for conclusion, though I'm not sure if that's generally how it's done, for what it's worth. Sergecross73 msg me 02:17, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
I assumed this was a thing we did anyway. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 01:29, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Do you think we should also include VG industry related births as well? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:09, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
In case my sarcasm detector is off - while we certainly now have devs that would have been born in the range of YYYY in video game pages we have (eg someone like Etika), I would say no. Deaths are noted in the industry (like Allman today, hence why I brought it up), but they do not routinely cover births. --Masem (t) 02:14, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Births arent usually documented from what I've seen. I imagine because their birth date itself generally doesn't have any effect on the industry at the time. Sergecross73 msg me 02:17, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
That would be way more relevant to the 90s and before, so I don't think so. And while I'm aware that year in music articles have this, there are also way more notable people in that industry than video games. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 02:21, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Input/advice request

I've got something that needs some external eyes. Over the past year or so, I've been gathering sources and doing edits on entries in the Dead Space media franchise. I brought the original game article up to GA last year, and have been doing expansion and edits to its associated comic and movie prequels. I'd definitely like some eyes on these articles, and an opinion whether they're ready for GAN and which category to nominate in.

My interest in this series has grown to a point where I've been thinking of turning the franchise as a whole into a GT, since it's pretty much dead (pun intended) and thus safe to work on long-term towards this goal without a new entry coming along. But I also realise that my interest drops sharply when it comes to the next two mainline entries. For anyone interested in those articles, I've left multiple sources on their respective talk pages, focusing on developer interviews and similar. --ProtoDrake (talk) 14:23, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

@ProtoDrake: - I think I may be able to help with Dead Space 2 and Dead Space 3 once I have finished my current projects. OceanHok (talk) 18:44, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
@OceanHok: That would be great. I've been looking things over, and recently created Music of the Dead Space series. I think Salvage and Martyr will need folding into an "Additional Media" section, since there's little to no commentary on either of them compared to Aftermath, Downfall and the comic. --ProtoDrake (talk) 20:22, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Linking to Square Enix Europe from game articles

Hi, would it be fitting to add a Square Enix Europe link from game articles?

For example, Shadow of the Tomb Raider is primarily published by Square Enix Europe/West, but the article only links to the main Square Enix article.

A list of such games exists under: List of Square Enix Europe games

IgelRM (talk) 02:38, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm not clear on what you mean by "primarily published". I checked the two sources used to support the game's inclusion in List of Square Enix Europe games, and neither of them make any mention of Square Enix Europe.--Martin IIIa (talk) 01:58, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Just to be frustrating, "Square Enix Europe" is a brand name; the actual company's name is "Square Enix Limited", so ref 122 (the press release) is the one that tell you that it's that company, though you'd be able to guess because the Tomb Raider series has been published by Eidos/Square Enix Europe since creation. Basically, when Square Enix bought Eidos in 2009, they didn't really change anything for a long time- ex-Eidos kept publishing games in the same series by the same dev studios that Eidos had owned before acquisition. In the last year or two it's morphed into using the brand name "Square Enix External Studios", though it also runs the "Square Enix Collective" brand for indie games which makes renaming the list problematic. The distinction remains- "western" games from European or North American dev studios like Tomb Raider or Hitman are published by SEE; games by Japanese studios are published by Square Enix (Japan).
To answer the original question: you can if you want. SEE is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Square Enix, so it's not "wrong" to just say Square Enix, but you can be more precise if you want. It's like mentioning which specific studio of Rockstar developed a game. --PresN 03:47, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks PresN. To add to that, games of Square Enix Europe managed studios should generally be primarily published there. Found a Variety article that used the SEE name.
What would be a good way to mention it, just replacing the SE name in the text and infobox with SEE or adding that it's by Square Enix's European subsidiary? IgelRM (talk) 15:06, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation, PresN. Corporate structures confuse the heck out of me sometimes.
IgelRM - Just replacing Square Enix with Square Enix Europe should be fine in the vast majority of cases, though I'm sure there are occasionally times where the context makes it more sensible to change the wording up.--Martin IIIa (talk) 04:01, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Ok. I used the "Square Enix's European subsidiary" wording in the article leads to link to both. I haven't edited the infoboxes, perhaps we just leave them as is. Alternative ideas for the infoboxes; changing the underlying link to SEE like "Publisher(s) Square Enix" or even "Square Enix (Europe)" IgelRM (talk) 17:20, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Are we certain in most of these cases that SE Ltd. was the sole publisher, and not just the one releasing the European boxed version? If multiple SE subsids are involved, just putting SE as a whole should suffice. In any case, listing SE Ltd. needs a source. IceWelder [✉] 17:38, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Rockstar San Diego PR

I just opened a PR for Rockstar San Diego, which I have been working on for some time. It's not a Namco, but I'd like to FA it at some point. Comments are welcome: Wikipedia:Peer review/Rockstar San Diego/archive1. Regards, IceWelder [✉] 19:19, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Release Date Clarification

So, I was doing some research into the release date of Ms. Pac-Man, and came across a strange scenario I wanted some feedback on before proceeding.

While we have reliable sources confirming that Ms. Pac-Man "debuted publicly" on February 3, 1982, this source indicates that this was "in typical showbusiness style at a press conference at the Castle Park Entertainment Center in Sherman Oaks," and clarifies that "[t]he game is expected to appear in many video arcades during the next few weeks." This release date, which is currently used for the article, is neither the date of general availability (GA) nor the release to manufacturing (RTM) date. Instead, it appears to be a post-RTM, pre-GA "pre-release" event for press, which I would argue does not constitute a "release date" per Wikipedia standards. (My understanding is that Wikipedia's preferred "release date" is the RTM date, as searching "release date" redirects to the RTM section of the above article.)

The author of the article I cited above, Benj Edwards, confirms in a blog post that his source for this date was the latter of the two sources I cited, the 1982 article from the Los Angeles Times. He also notes that, as of February 3rd, 2017, Wikipedia listed the release date of Ms. Pac-Man as January 13, 1982. He disputes this, and mentions that he interviewed Ms. Pac-Man's creators, GCC, and they didn't know what that date referred to.

The date of January 13, 1982 was sourced from the US Copyright Office's Public Catalog, which lists the "Date of Publication" as "1982-01-13" and the "Date of Creation" as simply "1981." (Registration number is listed as PA0000140275, for reference.)

Further complicating matters, Bandai Namco officially considers Ms. Pac-Man's release year to be 1981, as evidenced by the official Pac-Man website's History section and the existence of the Ms. Pac-Man/Galaga Class of 1981 arcade cabinet, which released in 2001 to celebrate the game's 20th anniversary, then re-released in 2006 for the 25th anniversary.

Given all of this background, which of these dates, if any, is the "release date" that should be used? 1981 (Date of Creation), January 13, 1982 (Date of Publication), or February 3, 1982 (Public Debut)? I'm not confident that any of them is equivalent to an exact RTM date. It's possible that late 1981 may have been when manufacturing started, but that the Copyright Office's Publication Date lagged behind a little (>2 weeks.)

I also asked on the Ms. Pac-Man talkpage, but it's kinda inactive there. Pacack (talk) 21:37, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

EDIT: *former of the two sources, not latter. Pacack (talk) 21:38, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
I'm not as knowledgeable about 80s arcade games, but I've worked on early 70s arcade games, so my perspective based on that: Neither. Arcade games are difficult to pin down to a "release date" at all. Unlike consumer video games, there's no need to ship to stores and build hype to get people buying all at once; instead, as soon as it's done, they hype it at trade shows and push it to distributors. Given the dates seen here, you can just ignore the Jan 13, 1982 date outright- the date a copyright is published has absolutely nothing to do with when the product is "released", only when they filed for the copyright and how long it took to make it's way through the copyright office. I also wouldn't use Feb 3 - that's a trade show it was displayed at, not when it was "released"- as you say, that's typically not the date it was "generally available" to distributor. Without evidence that it first made available on that day, do we even know if that trade show was before or after they began to sell to distributors? (Some 70s arcade games got displayed a month prior to the actual production run starting, don't know if that's true here). I'd suspect that you're right that the end of 1981 was when they started manufacturing, but it's hard to say. I'll see if there's any advertisements around the launch of the game this evening. --PresN 00:47, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Okay, it's good to have at least another person agreeing that the previous two dates used in the article were incorrect. That said, do we have a precedent on Wikipedia for what constitutes a "release date" for arcade games? I think the standard may have to be different than with more modern software releases, as you were hinting at. The Los Angeles Times article clarifies that the arcades were "expected to appear in many video arcades during the next few weeks," which gives us a general range for the general availability date, but I'm unsure if that's the current standard.
Alternatively, if we do apply the same standard to arcade games as we do to modern releases, would we simply consider 1981 the "release date" because that's the release to manufacturing date, or am I misunderstanding that? It falls in line with what Bandai-Namco themselves seem to think. Pacack (talk) 01:48, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Okay, looked closer into it; I'd personally just go with "February 1982", due to the "will appear in the next few weeks" line. You can't really pin down a day more than that, as they didn't really have a "launch day" beyond that initial press showing. In the text, you can describe exactly that- it was shown off at a press conference on Feb 3, and became available to the public later in the month.
So, for arcade games we do the same thing as we do for non-arcade games: the release date is the generally-available-to-public date, as narrow as you can get. We don't use the RTM date for games of any sort. There's precedent, especially for earlier arcade games before "release dates" became a bigger thing, to just use a month, so no worries there. Additionally, there's plenty of precedent for companies to get their own release dates wrong for older games, which is why it doesn't surprise me to see a 1981 date coming out of Bandai-Namco even though there's no evidence it was shown before early 1982. --PresN 02:59, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Much appreciated to have that clarified. I'll make those edits. Thanks again. Pacack (talk) 03:49, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Oh, I should mention that the current redirect for "release date" on Wikipedia is to this section of the "Software release life cycle" page, which gives the impression that the standard is to use the RTM date rather than the GA date. I'm not sure how to fix this redirect, so could I ask you to? Thanks Pacack (talk) 03:57, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Sure, done. --PresN 05:35, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Apologies for coming back to this issue, but I've found the original certificate of copyright registration, and it has some useful clarifications. The effective date of registration is June 25, 1982 and the application was received and certified on June 29, 1982. However, the application separately asks for "year in which creation of this work was completed," which is listed as 1981, and also for "date and nation of first publication of this work," which is listed as January 13, 1982 in the United States. Based on my plain understanding of what publication is, I'm inclined to think that this is the proper release date, and that the February press showcase was the first formal showcase to the press, but not the first time the game was made available to the general public. This makes sense from a marketing perspective, since they'd want to send machines out and make sure they were received by arcades before they started advertising it. That January 13 date could be when they started selling the machines, even if it took awhile for the shipment to be received by the buyer. This wouldn't contradict the reporting above, either, as "[t]he game is expected to appear in many video arcades during the next few weeks" implies that many arcades already purchased their machines, and were simply waiting for them to arrive.

Is this a good date to go by, or does the distinction between "available to purchase" and "available to play in arcades" matter? Pacack (talk) 00:41, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikidata's platform (P400) on video game items

Hi folks,

Over at Wikidata someone thought it a good idea to unilaterally move all OSs (eg Microsoft Windows or macOS) on video game items from platform (P400) to operating system (P306) − see d:User_talk:Reseletti#Removing_platform and d:Wikidata:Administrators'_noticeboard#Batch_removal_of_P400_from_video_games. We’re sorting it out, but as you are using this via {{Infobox_video_game}} I thought I would give you a heads up. Sorry for the inconvenience. :-/ Jean-Fred (talk) 09:54, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

New Articles (February 1 to February 7)

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 v3.5 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 14:05, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
A bunch of old categories that just got tagged this week

2020 Overwatch League standings templates, Atlanta Reign templates, Bandai Namco templates, Boston Uprising templates, Call of Duty League navigational boxes, Call of Duty League roster navigational boxes, Call of Duty League roster templates, Call of Duty League standings templates, Call of Duty League templates, Chengdu Hunters templates, Dallas Fuel templates, Esports standings templates, Florida Mayhem templates, Guangzhou Charge templates, Hangzhou Spark templates, Houston Outlaws templates, Konami templates, London Spitfire templates, Los Angeles Gladiators templates, Los Angeles Valiant templates, New York Excelsior templates, Overwatch League roster templates, Overwatch League team navigational boxes, Paris Eternal templates, Philadelphia Fusion templates, SNK templates, San Francisco Shock templates, Seoul Dynasty templates, Shanghai Dragons templates, THQ Nordic templates, Toronto Defiant templates, Vancouver Titans templates, Video games scored by Rafael Dyll, Washington Justice templates, GameStop people, Nintendo task force, Video games scored by Rod Abernethy, 1940s in video gaming, 1947 in video gaming, 1948 in video gaming, 1951 in video gaming, 1952 in video gaming, 1958 in video gaming, 2020s in video gaming, 2021 in video gaming, Sega Games franchises, City Connection (company), Defunct video game companies of Hungary, Defunct video game companies of Ukraine, Gainax, GungHo Online Entertainment, Hamster Corporation, Midway Games, NetEase, Nvidia, OLM, Inc., Red Thread Games, Shanda, Sina Corp, Sohu, Techland, Technical Group Laboratory, Toei Company, Toho, Tokuma Shoten, Video game characters introduced in 2021, Video game companies disestablished in 1986, Video game companies disestablished in 2021, Video game companies established in 1950, Video game companies established in 1953, Video game companies established in 1955, Video game companies established in 1969, Video game companies established in 1972, Video game companies of Malta

  • New templates:
Like a hundred old templates that just got tagged this week

{{2018 NBA 2K League Rosters}} by ZooBlazer (talk · contribs), {{2018 Spring League of Legends}} by Punfixmoscero (talk · contribs), {{2019 NBA 2K League Rosters}} by ZooBlazer (talk · contribs), {{2020 Overwatch League Asia Countdown Cup standings}} by Pbrks (talk · contribs), {{2020 Overwatch League Asia Summer Showdown standings}} by Pbrks (talk · contribs), {{2020 Overwatch League Asia standings}} by Pbrks (talk · contribs), {{2020 Overwatch League North America Countdown Cup standings}} by Pbrks (talk · contribs), {{2020 Overwatch League North America standings}} by Pbrks (talk · contribs), {{2021 in League of Legends competition}} by CentreLeftRight (talk · contribs), {{4TeamDEGroupBracket}} by Brandon Downes (talk · contribs), {{ATL Academy roster}} by Pbrks (talk · contribs), {{Atlanta FaZe roster}} by Pbrks (talk · contribs), {{Atlanta Reign}} by Pbrks (talk · contribs), {{Barnstar Pokémon}} by Blake (talk · contribs), {{Bilibili Gaming (Overwatch) roster}} by Pbrks (talk · contribs), {{Boston Uprising}} by Pbrks (talk · contribs), {{British Hurricane roster}} by Pbrks (talk · contribs), {{CDL player}} by Pbrks (talk · contribs), {{CDL roster footer}} by Pbrks (talk · contribs), {{CDL roster header}} by Pbrks (talk · contribs), {{CDL standings begin}} by Pbrks (talk · contribs), {{CDL standings header}} by Pbrks (talk · contribs), {{CDL standings row}} by Pbrks (talk · contribs), {{Call of Duty League}} by Brandon Downes (talk · contribs), {{Campeonato Brasileiro de League of Legends}} by Nidaloove (talk · contribs), {{Capcom Cup}} by Maplestrip (talk · contribs), {{Capcom Pro Tour 2017}} by Maplestrip (talk · contribs), {{Capcom Pro Tour 2018}} by Maplestrip (talk · contribs), {{Chengdu Hunters}} by Pbrks (talk · contribs), {{Crush Pinball video games}} by Frietjes (talk · contribs), {{Dallas Empire roster}} by Brandon Downes (talk · contribs), {{Dallas Fuel}} by Pbrks (talk · contribs), {{Eternal Academy roster}} by Pbrks (talk · contribs), {{Evo}} by Maplestrip (talk · contribs), {{Final Lap series}} by Namcokid47 (talk · contribs), {{Florida Mayhem}} by Pbrks (talk · contribs), {{Florida Mutineers roster}} by Brandon Downes (talk · contribs), {{Gamer}} by TheSmartPersonUS1 (talk · contribs), {{Gladiators Legion roster}} by Pbrks (talk · contribs), {{Guangzhou Charge}} by Pbrks (talk · contribs), {{HaloBarnstar}} by David Fuchs (talk · contribs), {{Hangzhou Spark}} by Pbrks (talk · contribs), {{Heavy Iron Studios}} by S-1-5-7 (talk · contribs), {{Houston Outlaws}} by Pbrks (talk · contribs), {{Hugo}} by Sheila1988 (talk · contribs), {{Infobox CDL team season}} by Pbrks (talk · contribs), {{Infobox OWL season}} by Pbrks (talk · contribs), {{Jagged Alliance}} by JimmyBlackwing (talk · contribs), {{LGE.Huya roster}} by Pbrks (talk · contribs), {{League of Legends Champions Korea 1000 Kills Players}} by Rrrrr18 (talk · contribs), {{League of Legends Champions Korea 2000 Kills Players}} by Rrrrr18 (talk · contribs), {{League of Legends Continental League}} by CentreLeftRight (talk · contribs), {{List of arcade video games header}} by Op47 (talk · contribs), {{London Royal Ravens roster}} by Brandon Downes (talk · contribs), {{London Spitfire}} by Pbrks (talk · contribs), {{Los Angeles Gladiators}} by Pbrks (talk · contribs), {{Los Angeles Guerrillas roster}} by Brandon Downes (talk · contribs), {{Los Angeles Thieves roster}} by Poklane (talk · contribs), {{Los Angeles Valiant}} by Pbrks (talk · contribs), {{MLBBesports}} by Dwaynex18 (talk · contribs), {{Minnesota ROKKR roster}} by Brandon Downes (talk · contribs), {{New York Excelsior}} by Pbrks (talk · contribs), {{New York Subliners roster}} by Brandon Downes (talk · contribs), {{OWL color}} by Pbrks (talk · contribs), {{OWL game log section}} by Pbrks (talk · contribs), {{OWL game log start}} by Pbrks (talk · contribs), {{OWL player}} by Pbrks (talk · contribs), {{OWL roster footer}} by Pbrks (talk · contribs), {{OWL standings header}} by Pbrks (talk · contribs), {{OWL standings row}} by Pbrks (talk · contribs), {{OpTic Chicago roster}} by Brandon Downes (talk · contribs), {{Optic Gaming Los Angeles roster}} by Brandon Downes (talk · contribs), {{Paris Eternal}} by Pbrks (talk · contribs), {{Paris Legion roster}} by Brandon Downes (talk · contribs), {{Philadelphia Fusion}} by Pbrks (talk · contribs), {{Pokestart}} by Minun (talk · contribs), {{Pokémon color}} by Arkhandar (talk · contribs), {{RunAway roster}} by Pbrks (talk · contribs), {{SK Telecom T1 2016 League of Legends World Championship winners}} by Rrrrr18 (talk · contribs), {{San Francisco Shock}} by Pbrks (talk · contribs), {{Seattle Surge roster}} by Brandon Downes (talk · contribs), {{Seoul Dynasty}} by Pbrks (talk · contribs), {{Shadowgate}} by LonerXL (talk · contribs), {{Shanghai Dragons}} by Pbrks (talk · contribs), {{SimStar}} by Martin23230 (talk · contribs), {{Team CC roster}} by Pbrks (talk · contribs), {{Team Envy (Overwatch) roster}} by Pbrks (talk · contribs), {{Tempo Storm}} by Prisencolin (talk · contribs), {{The Guild}} by Abani79 (talk · contribs), {{The One Winner roster}} by Pbrks (talk · contribs), {{Toronto Defiant}} by Pbrks (talk · contribs), {{Toronto Ultra roster}} by Brandon Downes (talk · contribs), {{Uprising Academy roster}} by Pbrks (talk · contribs), {{User Arc Games}} by Byrappa (talk · contribs), {{User Battle.net}} by Byrappa (talk · contribs), {{User Club Penguin}} by LB22 (talk · contribs), {{User DLive}} by Byrappa (talk · contribs), {{User Doom}} by YellowberryHN (talk · contribs), {{User Dragonborn}} by Endry ondrop (talk · contribs), {{User Elite Dangerous}} by Estamel Tharchon (talk · contribs), {{User Epic Games}} by Byrappa (talk · contribs), {{User EveOnline}} by Shrikey (talk · contribs), {{User FSX}} by Jackelfive (talk · contribs), {{User Facebook Gaming}} by Byrappa (talk · contribs), {{User Fighting games}} by 8en (talk · contribs), {{User GOG.com}} by Byrappa (talk · contribs), {{User Game Cloud}} by Ftiercel (talk · contribs), {{User Gamestudio}} by Cowabanga (talk · contribs), {{User Gran Turismo 1}} by Sam 1123 (talk · contribs), {{User Gran Turismo Full}} by WiiKiBoyz (talk · contribs), {{User Gran Turismo series}} by WiiKiBoyz (talk · contribs), {{User GuildWars}} by Interactii (talk · contribs), {{User Half-Life}} by Kur0 (talk · contribs), {{User Halo 3}} by Runningonbrains (talk · contribs), {{User International A-class}} by Sam 1123 (talk · contribs), {{User J2ME Games Programmer/Software Engineer}} by Fooboo (talk · contribs), {{User Legend of Zelda}} by Kata89 (talk · contribs), {{User Loves Minecraft}} by Chris4315 (talk · contribs), {{User MMTF}} by Eleventhblock (talk · contribs), {{User MW3}} by TCN7JM (talk · contribs), {{User Mario Kart Wii}} by Alexblower (talk · contribs), {{User Mega Man}} by Doug teh H-Nut (talk · contribs), {{User Mega Man X}} by Eleventhblock (talk · contribs), {{User Meteos}} by KevinJr42 (talk · contribs), {{User Mixer}} by Byrappa (talk · contribs), {{User Mortal Kombat}} by Needlenose (talk · contribs), {{User Moshi Monsters}} by SpinnerLaserz (talk · contribs), {{User NP task force}} by IAmTheCoinMan (talk · contribs), {{User Neopian}} by Pacaman (talk · contribs), {{User PS3}} by PhoenixMourning (talk · contribs), {{User PS3-Love}} by PhoenixMourning (talk · contribs), {{User PSP}} by Heymid (talk · contribs), {{User Pirates online box}} by Barkjon (talk · contribs), {{User Portal}} by Urda (talk · contribs), {{User Portalfan}} by Kaini (talk · contribs), {{User Psychonaut}} by Ptikobj (talk · contribs), {{User S.T.A.L.K.E.R.}} by Royaljared (talk · contribs), {{User ScribblenautsRemix}} by Milomilk (talk · contribs), {{User Star Citizen}} by Estamel Tharchon (talk · contribs), {{User Temple Run 2}} by Cyrus noto3at bulaga (talk · contribs), {{User Total Annihilation}} by TAnthony (talk · contribs), {{User Tourist Trophy}} by WiiKiBoyz (talk · contribs), {{User Tower Defence}} by Rockreader (talk · contribs), {{User Tremulous}} by Paradox4600 (talk · contribs), {{User Tunnelrat}} by The Ronin (talk · contribs), {{User Video Games}} by Minun (talk · contribs), {{User Wii2}} by Monkeynoze (talk · contribs), {{User World of Tanks}} by BiH (talk · contribs), {{User World of Warcraft}} by Deiaemeth (talk · contribs), {{User YouTube Gaming}} by Byrappa (talk · contribs), {{User dni-1}} by IanWatson (talk · contribs), {{User fs9}} by Whale plane (talk · contribs), {{User garrysmod}} by Toneoyay (talk · contribs), {{User godot}} by Astrophysicist365 (talk · contribs), {{User gtatfuserbox}} by .:Alex:. (talk · contribs), {{User kol}} by Thoughtstipated (talk · contribs), {{User lemmings}} by Patrickmc82 (talk · contribs), {{User need for speed}} by Wikipeedio (talk · contribs), {{User orbiter(sim)}} by Jer10 95 (talk · contribs), {{User osu!}} by Staph aureus (talk · contribs), {{User plays Atari}} by D Rhindle (talk · contribs), {{User starcraftzerg}} by G Rose (talk · contribs), {{User video game developer}} by Obsidian Soul (talk · contribs), {{User video game tester}} by Byrappa (talk · contribs), {{User xbox 360}} by Gearfinger (talk · contribs), {{Userbox/Minecraft}} by OussDB (talk · contribs), {{Vancouver Titans}} by Pbrks (talk · contribs), {{Washington Justice}} by Pbrks (talk · contribs), {{XL2 Academy roster}} by Pbrks (talk · contribs), {{User Nintendo task force}} by MuZemike (talk · contribs), {{NGDEV}} by TarkusAB (talk · contribs), {{NEC video game consoles}} by Pincerr (talk · contribs)

February 1

February 2

February 3

February 4

February 5

February 6

February 7

So many newly-tagged categories and templates that I felt I needed to collapse them! I'm not sure that we tag vide game-related userboxes, though... --PresN 14:05, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Why was NGDEV missed? It was created and tagged on February 5. TarkusABtalk/contrib 14:42, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Music of the Dead Space series was created on Feb 5, but it doesn't have a talk page/status yet. --ProtoDrake (talk) 15:00, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Just tagged it. By the way why is Power Pad absent? (Oinkers42) (talk) 15:06, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Power Pad was already tagged in 2008. IceWelder [✉] 15:13, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Wow. Sorry I did not see that. (Oinkers42) (talk) 15:17, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
All good. The former banner was misplaced within a section. I corrected it now. IceWelder [✉] 15:19, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
(ec) NGDEV is missing from the 1.0 log... or rather, the {{NGDEV}} is there but not the article by the same title- don't know if that did anything? Manually adding. And yeah, ProtoDrake, talk pages don't tag themselves :) it'll show up next week. --PresN 15:20, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Primary topic of Paper Mario?

Should it be Paper Mario the videogame or Paper Mario (series), just moved from draftspace at request of Panini!? It is my understanding based on WP:NCVGDAB that the series is usually PRIMARY. (t · c) buidhe 15:24, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I'd say the series is the primary topic. --PresN 15:27, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
I was going to request move changes. Right now, I'm filling in fair use images. Panini🥪 15:31, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

On the topic

Super Paper Mario was going to be reviewed by The Ultimate Boss, but judging the note they left on their user page I'm assuming they retired. Does anyone want to pick it up? Panini🥪 16:47, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Whoa, any idea what set them off? Sergecross73 msg me 17:44, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Sergecross73, The Ultimate Boss has repeatedly been trying to complete a FAC, attempting four times at Cups and recently at another song article. I assume they seem to be getting comments for changes and negative feedback mixed up. You could look into it if you'd like, but let's be nice, they seem to be pretty young. Panini🥪 17:48, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, looking a bit, looks like they did a lot in music. It's no big deal, I had just wondered if there was another WP:VG "they deleted my character article" type blowup I missed somewhere or something. Sergecross73 msg me 18:01, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
They got upset that someone wanted to AfD a song article they made, and nominated it themselves out of pique. It has proceeded to get 'redirect' votes, and they flipped their lid and left in a huff. Doesn't look like anything related to WPVG; even money they come back once they cool off. --PresN 20:57, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
PresN, Sergecross73, Panini! It happens from time to time. After all, I'm a still a teenage boy. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 05:38, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Wow! The countless tantrums and expectations to simply forgive and forget are inexcusable for anyone at any age when dealing with what's supposed to be a collaborative environment. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 01:07, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

IGN wiki reliable?

There's a question of whether Wiki from IGN is considered reliable. Although there is IGN staff that contributes to the Wiki, there is also non-staff contributing to it as well. What are your thoughts on this? Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 16:10, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Although the fact that it uses wiki software doesn't inherently make it unreliable, anything that we can't confirm is 100% by staff should be treated as unreliable. I will also say that even if a given page is confirmed to be by staff, if a fact is only covered in a strategy guide I would question whether it even is notable enough for us to mention in the first place.--AlexandraIDV 16:21, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
It would fail WP:USERG. Sergecross73 msg me 16:26, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
In context of a source in the newly created Paper Mario article. I have since removed this and replaced it with another guide from USGamer, this one confirmed to be written by a staff writer. Also, when writing this section, I only pulled from the first reliable result to appear; I now have added two other secondary sources, and more exist out there if necessary. Panini🥪 16:34, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

ESP Ra.De.

Knowing that it had a (IMHO) an excellent conversion by M2 for the Nintendo Switch and PlayStation 4 in 2019, i rushed to make a draft for ESP Ra.De. by Cave at the end of January this year but since i'm busy with other stuff here on Wikipedia, i wanted let you know guys that if anybody wants to expand it further (as there are references for its gameplay, development, release and reception), i'll leave the Draft:ESP Ra.De. here for those interested in it. If anybody needs help in regards of additional sources for a potential ESP Ra.De. article (aside from information on its article on the Japanese Wikipedia) then let me know on my talk page! Roberth Martinez (talk) 03:13, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

New Articles (February 8 to February 14)

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 v3.5 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 05:15, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

February 8

February 9

February 10

February 11

February 12

February 13

February 14

Atari 800 (Homecomputer), in addition to the incorrect (and unneeded) disambiguation, seems to have some issues with direct translation from German in wording, though it's not the worst ever. --PresN 05:15, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Should absolutely be moved to Atari 800, which currently redirects to it. And if we're gonna cover the Atari 800 in a standalone article, shouldn't Atari 8-bit family be refocused on the Atari 400 to avoid covering the same subject in two articles? Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 08:39, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

TFA articles for Sonic the Hedgehog

As we know, this year marks the 30th anniversary of Sonic the Hedgehog. That said, I have a question: should we consider making Sonic the Hedgehog (1991 video game) a TFA for June 23? If not, which FA articles on Sonic would be considered useful to include on WP:TFA? Thanks. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:59, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

No, because it's not an FA. I've already got Sonic the Hedgehog ready to be nominated for TFA on the 23rd. JOEBRO64 12:05, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Gotcha. I've been thinking about getting the article on the original video game as an FA for quite a few months. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 12:47, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
I have too. The development section still needs a lot of expansion and I think the reception and legacy sections could benefit from facelifts. I'm currently preoccupied with Doom Patrol and plan to move on to Sonic the Hedgehog 2 after that. JOEBRO64 12:53, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Requested edits

Hello, all. According to this query, there are three WPVG articles with open requests for edits:

Some of these look easy. I think, in general, that it would be a good idea for WPVG editors to handle this type of request, rather than leaving it to editors who might not be familiar with reliable sources for this subject area. If you have a newsletter or a similar announcement, maybe you could make this list a regular feature? Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:43, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

New article on console war

I've been spending a few months writing up a proper article for Console war (now in mainspace), and while I've asked User:Indrian (who has a good knowledge of the early console history) anyone that knows more intimately of the Sega/Nintendo stuff I'd like to have a look over.

(I note that we've had poor versions of the console war article in its history (you can review)) mostly on original research, but this version I've stuck with the console war - Sega v Nintendo, as well as the obvious one that is currently Sony v Microsoft but which is less "exciting" to read about. Just because console A goes up against console B doesn't make it a console war, as past iterations of this article have tried to argue). --Masem (t) 20:31, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Nice job. I can't help but notice the article is 98% about Sega/Nintendo and 2% Sony/Microsoft. I'm not sure if that is a reflection of sources or your research bias. Would it make more sense to title the article "Nintendo and Sega console war" and make that the main scope, and spinoff the Sony/MS stuff somewhere else? TarkusABtalk/contrib 21:18, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
There definitely could be more to say about Sony/Microsoft, but I don't think sources treat that competition as a "war" with the same intensity as Sega/Nintendo had. Their competition is called a "console war" in enough places to not be absent from the page, but it doesn't have the same type of deep analysis that we have on all the factors to Sega/Nintendo. There are probably some other similar console competitions that could be here but again, the term is mostly synonous with Sega/Nintendo. --Masem (t) 21:24, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
This seems like a good candidate for some kind of disambiguation and/or re-naming. You could have a WP:HATNOTE saying "this article is about the Sega-Nintendo console war. For other consoles, see First generation of video game consoles. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:34, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Input request: 13 Sentinels: Aegis Rim

Recent user DamnedFoX performed edits on the plot synopsis for 13 Sentinels: Aegis Rim. Having looked at the edits (see version here), I reverted them because they seemed to add nothing to the essential synopsis, and now they've gone to the talk page about it. I may have been in the wrong, but I'd like other input on this matter. If I acted rashly, I accept that, but the edits seemed to be bloating the synopsis with unnecessary detail. --ProtoDrake (talk) 18:28, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

There was some discussion on that Talk-page between me and another user about similar situation in another article concerning the subject. Now, regardless what I and ProtoDrake may prefer, a common decision in how to approach the subject has to be made and upheld. I'm of the opinion that it's a matter that deserves full disclosure and you can't go wrong in verbosity on it (as long as it's visually readable and factually correct), keeping same content in shorter form is improvement only as long as you actually express and have it, because it is a mistake to treat that game as just another cute time-waster with some interesting ideas and public notice. This is a work that comes once in decades, not from budgetary and popular fame perspective but from story-telling quality and cultural significance and scope of expressed ideas. Personally, I'm done with trying to do anything on this site or that article in particular (mostly because of what happened in another article with smaller but more contested addition and not this). But those are things to think about for those who aren't. DFX (talk) 15:39, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I agree with ProtoDrake. It's classic plot bloating. I left a comment on the talk page too, if you can find it amongst the walls of text present. The article isn't the only place suffering from bloat...) Sergecross73 msg me 15:52, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
I did a short peer review of the article, that's my input. -iaspostb□x 18:53, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

third opinion request on Crash Bandicoot navbox

I'm requesting a third opinion (or more) on the Crash Bandicoot Navbox regarding "Nitro Kart". The discussion is located here.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 22:13, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Reception box

Hi guys, could someone give me a hand fixing up the reception box at Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (video game)? It's ridiculously wide, but I don't know much about how we create these boxes. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:31, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

The multiplatform format strikes again. You can chose "wide" or "long". Personally, I hate the multiplatform version, as width is always at a higher premium than length. -- ferret (talk) 13:36, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

IS it possible to split the DS/GBA versions onto their own article? They both have different gameplay (and most likely different development) than the 3D ones.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 14:08, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

How do you join?

I really want to join.. Yet the article doesn't have a "join" button. 🤔 please help! MarioFyreFlower MarioFyreFlower (talk) 11:11, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

You don't have to, the list is automatic and you're already on it. However, you can add Template:User WPVG or Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Advert to your userpage.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 12:15, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
MarioFyreFlower, Simply actively contributing to video game-related content on Wikipedia makes you a part of the Wikiproject. Welcome! Panini🥪 12:27, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Panini! (Nice name by the way. 😉) MarioFyreFlower (talk) 13:04, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

MarioFyreFlower, Oh, and assuming by your username you might be a fan of Nintendo; you might want to consider joining one of our sub-projects, Wikiproject Nintendo in which you can add your name to the list of active editors. Panini🥪 13:14, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Splatoon 3

Currently going back and forth between Mario Golf: Super Rush and Splatoon 3 to make sure they are of top quality because they are hot topics. I went back to the Splatoon 3 article and found that there was a drop in quality since I last checked and some detail was reintroduced. The biggest portion that concerns me of which is the mention of Octolings as playable characters. In the teaser, this is not mentioned, and my opinion is that this needs to be confirmed to be true as it is only a DLC in the previous game and it might not come back. So this raises the question, should this article only mention what is confirmed to exist? It seems assumptions about other gameplay details were made as well. Panini🥪 16:40, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Nah, I'm gonna redirect the article. Unlike the golf game, there was next to no information given about this game that currently deserves splitting. For now, until there's any more info, I'm gonna put it in Splatoon 2. Panini🥪 18:05, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
@Panini!: A redirected sequel page should go to the series/franchise, not the last game released. -- ferret (talk) 19:14, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 Done.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 19:23, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Should video game articles have rating boxes?

In most articles, there is a table. On video game articles, should there be a space for the rating. What do you guys think? MarioFyreFlower (talk) 13:38, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

If you are talking about ratings like ESRB, etc., no, we have discussed this many times before and decided against this. This is consistent with other works like films that are also rated, but that WP does not include that information. The problem is that there's too many different national systems, and even if just limiting it to English speaking regions + original country of release for JP-games, its a consumer-oriented field that rarely has any point of discussion in the game article. If the game's rating is something that is discussed , and that is usually due to controversy over it (eg Left 4 Dead 2) then we include that discussion in the article's body, but still not in the infobox. --Masem (t) 14:30, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Adding that this is covered by WP:VGSCOPE now too, for anybody who doesn't keep up with the MOS. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 22:16, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Nintendo Online Magazine

This is for those interested. While researching for reviews of Famicom Tantei Club, i came across with this online publication dubbed Nintendo Online Magazine (https://www.nintendo.co.jp/nom/backnumber/index.html), which seems to have interesting information such as titles released in the Nintendo Power flashcart for example. Roberth Martinez (talk) 23:02, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

FAR notice

I have nominated Frank Klepacki for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm Talk 00:16, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Category:Miscellaneous video game character redirects to lists has been nominated for deletion

Category:Miscellaneous video game character redirects to lists has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 02:17, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Need an RS

Looking for an RS with a brief definition of "consolitis" or "console-itis". Doesn't have to go in depth. Just looking for evidence that the term exists and its (very) basic meaning. The best I can find is this but it just looks like some dude's blog. ➧datumizer  ☎  06:08, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Datumizer, There's a mention here on ArsTechnica, a reliable source. I also found it being noted here on Shacknews. Panini🥪 12:38, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

New Articles (February 15 to February 21)

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 v3.5 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 14:13, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

February 15

February 16

February 17

February 18

February 19

February 20

February 21

Looking for suggesting on a parent article

With news about Take Two taking down the GTA III fan reverse engineering, I was looking to see what we have in terms of fan-made recreations, and basically seems that we have the follow articles:

And possibly a few others. Note that I'm specifically looking at the recreation or near recreation of an existing game (eg would fall into the nature of a video game clone for all purposes), rather than a wholly unique game inspired by existing titles. I'm looking for some way to have a parent article that talks broadly on fan recreations of video games that would cover all these as to broadly add sections related to legal concepts and challenges, but I don't know if there's a nice clean name for all that. ("Fangame" doesn't quite cover the engine recreations aspect). --Masem (t) 16:58, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

If I am not mistaken, AM2R would fall under that category. The article uses "unofficial remake" which links to Fangame. I would say use that. (Oinkers42) (talk) 17:59, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Fangame would cover AM2R, as well as things like Black Mesa but would not properly cover things like ScummVM. That's why there's a higher term that we should have to cover fan-made efforts related to video games. --Masem (t) 18:34, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
I don't have an answer, but you may want to consider including Homebrew (video games) and Doujin soft within this umbrella. TarkusABtalk/contrib 18:43, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Those are even a bit different, as that's getting more towards indie games, but I'd agree they are closely related. --Masem (t) 19:14, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Could the article exist at a phrase rather than a single word, like at Fan recreations in video gaming or something? ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 19:17, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Switch pro officially deconfirmed

The nintendo switch should be listed as a 9th generation console. DesuDemon (talk) 04:06, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

What in the world are you talking about? Sergecross73 msg me 04:37, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
He's talking about the fact today's Nintendo Direct did not contain news about a rumoured Switch Pro. Which is, of course, completely different from an "official deconfirmation" and also does not mean that news sources will suddenly start labelling the Switch as a 9th generation console. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 05:39, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
A console can be 8th gen and still compete directly with 9th gen consoles...ZXCVBNM (TALK) 06:04, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Not to get political or anything, but as the Switch is doing right now, in my opinion. Panini🥪 10:44, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
The solution that works right now until we have more data points in the 9th gen is how I wrote the Switch into the 9th gen - its mentioned, but not alongside the PS5/XBXS as Nintendo's off on its blue ocean tour. In six months we may have more to know. --Masem (t) 14:32, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Actually no BEN. President Shuntaro Furakawa himself released an official statement thatvthe company has no plans to make a rumored "switch pro" and expects the life of the normal Switch to extend for another 4 years. A gen 8 console competing with gen 9 consoles makes no sense? Its misinformation at this point... DesuDemon (talk) 17:45, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure how it's "misinformation at this point", all I'm understanding is that the Switch, introduced as an 8th generation console, remains out in the wild at the same time as 9th generation consoles are being developed for. Which, as I understand, is how the Home video game console article is approaching it. I'm not sure what doesn't make sense about it. It doesn't become 9th gen simply because it continues to be developed for contemporaneous with 9th gen consoles, despite it being introduced earlier. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 18:02, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

How was it introduced as an 8th gen console? Current generation is what the article says how is the Ps5 and XBSX in current gen, however the current gen Nintendo console is not? You yourself do not get to pick and choose what you want as a generation. Not a single time in Video Gaming History has a brand released 2 seperate consoles in a single generation. Why would the Wii U and Switch be the exception it does not make sense. DesuDemon (talk) 18:18, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

The "generations" are based on economics, not the technology, when you look at sources. Which consoles competed against each other. This has normally always been in line with the advancements of the next iteration of each manufacturer's own consoles, but not always (Atari 5200/7200, and Nintendo skipped the 32-bit generation for example). Both the Wii U and Switch have been seen to compete with Xbox One + PS4, so hence they are both considered 8th gen. Switch may also compete with PS5/XSXS so it may also be 9th gen. --Masem (t) 18:52, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Here we go again!

Here is a previous discussion on the matter. I don't want to read the whole thing to give my own insight, so take this as you will. Panini🥪 18:23, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, however the Atari 5200/7800* are basically the same as far as hardware is considered. The Wii U and Switch obviously are radically differing. I disagree with generations being decided by economics, it has some role to play, however the deciding factor of a generation is it's chronological order. It is the very definition of generations. DesuDemon (talk) 19:08, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, you are extremely late to the party, this was being discussed for months, and we've already come to as good of a consensus as we can with the current reliable sourcing on the matter. Consensus can change... but you're really struggling to put together a coherent argument on some of these points. I don't see it being very persuasive so far. Sergecross73 msg me 01:36, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Can't find any PC Accelerator review on Pro 18 World Tour Golf

I have a problem. The GameRankings link for Pro 18 World Tour Golf claimed to have a PC Accelerator magazine score of "6 out of 10". But I've searched through all of the magazine's 1999 issues and I can't find anything that has the review on the game (save for one in the "1999 Year in Reviews" on this link). Did GameRankings lie to us? Is there no PC Accelerator magazine issue that has any real review on the game? Can you please find it? --Angeldeb82 (talk) 01:00, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

@Angeldeb82: It's in issue 7, cover date March 1999, page 98.--Martin IIIa (talk) 01:03, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, I finally found it myself a few days ago, but thanks anyway. --Angeldeb82 (talk) 03:03, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Video game sales in the 1980s and 1990s

I gotta be honest, we need to find print sources from the 1980s and 1990s that include information about video games' commercial performances at those periods. Sales info of old games are rare and always come from retrospective sources about the most notable games; even articles like Super Mario All-Stars, Super Mario World, and Donkey Kong Country depend mostly on retrospective sources for a comically little amount of info and analysis on the commercial performance. We've found way more of this kind of stuff for films, music and television (there's even online databases for charts and box office numbers of older music), so I'd really like someone to find old-school print publications that specialized in that.

P.S. I'd like to know where I can find archives for 20th century Japanese print sources of video games released in that era (apart from Famitsu). Thanks HumanxAnthro (talk) 03:08, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

The CESA white paper should have sales numbers breakdowns, IIRC. JOEBRO64 03:10, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Um.... CESA... what? Link, please? HumanxAnthro (talk) 04:31, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Oh, never mind, I looked it up. Also, I wasn't just talking about sales in Japan, but Europe and North America as well. HumanxAnthro (talk) 04:33, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Remasters vs Remakes (Activision Edition)

Even though the terms "remaster" and "remake" have their distinctions, the video game industry still chooses to make it confusing and I think the main confusion I've noticed has been with Activision. All of their recent remakes have been advertised as "Remasters" including Crash Bandicoot N.Sane Trilogy, Crash Team Racing Nitro-Fueled, Spyro Reignited Trilogy, and Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 1 + 2. There are some sources that accurately call these game collections remakes and not remasters, but they're not the majority and it's because of that reason, it appears the articles all have the same erroneous label. How should we handle situations like this? Should we create a new guideline related to this confusion?Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 21:40, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

We should follow what reliable sources say, regardless of what the publisher or devs say if this differs. It reminds me of one of the MOBA titles that wanted to be known by a very different name for the genre, but we stuck with MOBA as no one called it the publisher's version (though we did document that term by the publisher). same can be done here if the rationale that Activision uses "remaster" for these is discussed. --Masem (t) 21:55, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
@Masem: Well i do want to discuss the rationale for Activision titles. Based on your example, perhaps the most ideal solution is label them as remakes but add a footnote that they're advertized as remasters?Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 13:39, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
I know reliable sources are a good standard to keep out the most glaring errors but even reliable sources are often getting this wrong. Also for your consideration Diablo II: Resurrected was just created and I'm curious what it takes for this to be its own article versus a section in the Diablo IIO article. Archrogue (talk) 19:10, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
The only time I see it get very confused is with Activision remakes. it could be beneficial, to have a video game remaster article so it can be very clear. As much as reliable sources are getting it wrong, it could be WP:WIKIVOICE to pass off these obvious errors as factual.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 14:25, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Wii FARC

FYI, the Wii article is now at FARC here. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:34, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

A VG gameography infobox template?

The infobox artist discography template summarizes the number of studio albums, compilations, EPs, and other types of albums into one infobox. Would it be beneficial to have a "Gameography" for long-term video game series? The possible items that come to mind are Mainline title, Spin-off games, Spin-off series, Subseries, Remakes, Remasters, Collections. Or we can have customizable items too. What are your thoughts?Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 23:35, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

This template could potentially be beneficial to the following articles: Final Fantasy, Dragon Quest, Kingdom Hearts, Super Mario Bros., Sonic the Hedgehog, Crash Bandicoot, Spyro, Legend of Zelda, and Resident Evil.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 23:41, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Unlike artists where this is more common, we don't have that much in video games that I can see this being useful, in addition to starting "wars" over what is what (main vs spin-off, remake vs remaster). However I would support a "Number of titles" entry in {{Infobox video game series}} template as long as we have a strong definition of what is included in that count to avoid artificial inflation. --Masem (t) 23:54, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
I don't think it would be a problem if remakes and remasters are in the same category. for the main game and spin-off, I can understand that can be difficult. I personally think it would be a good idea to have a customizable template. I personally still think it's beneficial to see the ratio of this variety. But I suppose a number of titles in the main infobox could be just as good too.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 14:12, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Maybe only list the games that have been documented in the article or list of video games article?Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 14:15, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Then you'd have some people adding in non-notable games and cameos to inflate the number. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:10, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Can you define what you consider non-notable games that you believe shouldn't be included in the count? For cameos, we can easily monitor that. It's still useful information to have on articles.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 21:21, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Blue Pumpkin Pie, people counting games like Super Smash Bros. as a Mario title, for example. For a franchise as large as that, how exactly would we settle on a single number that won't be prone to edit warring over a long period of time? I like the suggestion but I can't see this working very well in practice for larger franchises. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 00:00, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
I would oppose such an idea, since we will surely have a flood of editors trying to balloon that number up with cameos, compilations, etc. that obviously don't count as new releases. Namcokid47 16:19, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
I personally don't understand opposing a good idea because for the sole reason that bad editors exist. We have similar titles such as release timeline. If we go with Masem's idea to only have a number of titles, I think would be too difficult to keep track of larger series such as Mario and Final Fantasy that range over 50 titles. And if an editor with bad-faith wants to inflate the number with cameos, I think the total number of games in the main infobox would be harder to monitor. If the gameography template I propose exists, it's easier to monitor we can just notate in the documentation "do not include cameos". I personally think this type of information is not only preferential but vital to give readers a clear understanding of a series. But I rather not beat a dead horse here. It's clear no one wants to support this, so I'll leave it be. maybe I'll propose it in a year or two.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 20:55, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
I agree that the potential for abuse isn't a valid opposition here. By that argument, we should remove the release date field from Infobox video game, because unseasoned and bad faith editors love to edit war over that, and the disinformation presented as a result is more serious than a video game count including compilations. What keeps me on the fence is Masem's first objection: I don't think there are that many articles where such a template could be useful.--Martin IIIa (talk) 22:36, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Martin IIIa, release dates aren't subjective like a total count of games within a larger franchise would be. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 00:01, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Exactly. So even if the game count becomes a subject of edit warring, in all likelihood it will always at least be correct from a certain point of view.--Martin IIIa (talk) 00:44, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
@Martin IIIa:, a good list i can find is based on List of best-selling video game franchises can be a good example. I can think of at least 20 franchises that can be useful. It doesn't have to be a big franchise with over 50 titles. If it has a form of spin-offs or subseries, the gameography template can be useful.
@Dissident93: I'm open to discussing your views on this. You mentioned earlier about non-notable games and you are talking about a subjective count which I would be happy to get a more clear understanding of your point of view. What makes the count subjective and what do non-notable games have to do with the total count?Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 01:41, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Blue Pumpkin Pie, let's start off by answering exactly how many Mario games have been released. And with that number, did you include confirmed upcoming games, guest appearances, compilations, remakes, sub-franchises such as Mario vs Donkey Kong, and/or more obscure non-canon games such as Hotel Mario? Like I said above, I don't disagree in theory, but this just seems like something that would consistently be up for debate unless we can find a solid number that multiple sources also agree with, which I doubt. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 01:48, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
I'm in the same boat as some editors; qualifiers such as spin-off, mainline, remake, remaster, aren't always cut and dry. Super Mario constantly has editors arguing over what games qualify as the mainline games even if there are reliable sources. Sometimes the primary source (e.g. Nintendo) will flip-flop over what was considered "canon," which makes tracking these kind of things daunting. The other thing is that, for small series like Zero Escape that only have a few games, this template would be a bit useless, with only one field "mainline" to fill in. It also opens the door to other WP:OTHERSTUFF-based arguments when editors try to shoehorn the template into such smaller articles, and then try to justify its inclusion by adding data to bloat the size, such as counting unrelated games as spin-offs. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 01:49, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

@Dissident93: for Mario i haven't counted the games just yet. But i won't say impossible. Any games upcoming releases should obviously not be included per WP:CRYSTAL. Guest appearances are just the same as cameos and I already addressed that we can include a clause in the documentation of the template to not include them if it were ever to be brought up. But remakes/remasters, collections, subseries, spinoffs are on the table. Even so-called "non-canon" games like Hotel Mario and educational mario games are indeed worth including and informative to readers. And we should also include games that dont have an article but there existence is verified and notated. It would be too subjective to consider them unrelated. The total of games doesn't correlate to how many are canon after all.

The goal of the gameography template also isn't to identify the total of games of a series, that was Masem's idea (but I don't oppose it either). My goal with the gameography template is to help readers have a clearer idea on the scope of those larger series similar to how discography templates do es. We're also ignoring a key component to the idea: creating customizable parameters if main series/spin offs is just too restricting or debatable.

Lastly if we're concerned with some editor arbitrarily changing the total count in the gameography template, we could customize the template to calculate the total count based on what each parameter reflects, if possible. That would make it more of an objective count and wouldn't be disputable. If thats not possible, we just don't include it as part of the template.


@ThomasO1989: i already addressed that this is designed for bigger series only. that doesn't mean the inclusion of such template shouldn't exist. And I haven't seen any editors attempt to shoehorn a template before with video game related articles. i once again disagree with the notion that we should be against a template because bad editors exist. The templates documentation should notate when it should be used. So that at least if someone does choose to add the template for a smaller/simpler series, reverting it would be as simple as referring to the its usage guide.

If you're still concerned, we can support both my idea and masem's idea at the same time. For simpler series it can still be beneficial to have a total games parameter in the main infobox. I doubt inexperienced editors will edit-war over the template's inclusion if there's another area to reflect it.

As for Nintendo flip-flopping on what is mainline and what isn't. We also take advantage of customizable parameters, we don't have to use mainline/spinoff with Mario. We can follow similar to how the navbox chooses to organize it. For Mario as an example,it can be organized with the following parameters: Super Mario, Mario Party, Mario Kart, Mario Sports, Educational, RPG, Subseries and Spin-offs for any that don't fit the previous categories.

I genuinely believe that if template is created, it will be easily proven how vital it is for it to be used.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 08:00, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Blue Pumpkin Pie, the total number or spread out by type (main, spinoff, remake, compilation) have the same exact problem, you're just splitting them apart instead of adding them together. And my argument against this isn't just because of bad editors (although you can't deny it would be to some extinct). I can only see this being an infinitely contested issue (even all in good faith) that has to be settled by us editors for nearly every large franchise like a Mario or Zelda or Final Fantasy, since I don't think you're going to get a cited stable number from any reliable source(s). I also don't see much of a point to just counting linked games within a template as it would not be all-encompassing (isn't that the whole point to this) and any reader can do that on their own already anyway. As for simply listing sub-series and not any numerical count, the infobox already has the spinoff parameter we can use, unless I'm misunderstanding. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 23:57, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
@Dissident93: Although i acknowledge that the usage of the template is bound to be discussed, I don't believe that outweighs its usefulness. There are still assumptions being made here. Trying to quantify all of the games into a single number arbitrarily first vs trying to find the key categories and quantifying those within the category are two completely different scenarios and methods. The goal of the template again isn't to find a grand total of games. The goal is again, to give readers a scope of how each video game series is organized. FF for example has 15 mainline titles and over 40 spin-offs that are part of over 5 subseries and some stand-alone. That information isn't exactly easy to see in the Final Fantasy article.
Second, if you're familiar with the template:infobox artist discography's usage, you will see that there is rarely a need to verify a number of singles. So long as each game included in the count is verified, we don't have to worry about original research.
Third, the goal is that it's all-encompassing. Games without articles will also be included so long as they are verified and notated. For example, if hypothetically there is a Mario video game out there called "Mario X" and it's not notable to have its own article, but it's verified in the series, we can add that in. I believe this emphasizes coverage, not subjective count.
Of course for a bigger series like "Final Fantasy" and "Mario", those particular series need some consensus on how to organize it. And those are indeed worthy topics to discuss on how to organize it. But outside of Final Fantasy and Mario, the rest feel pretty easy to quantify. Would it be better if I showed you an example on Mario and Final Fantasy first before denying it for others. Would you be willing to see an example?Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 01:03, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Take on/On Helicopters (title conventions)

Please have a look at Talk:Take On Helicopters#Title conventions. Thank you in advance. Kintaro (talk) 03:28, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

How many gameplay images should a series article have?

A discussion has been brought up in talk:Paper Mario regarding too many images and it also brought up Super Smash Bros.. Maybe it can be discussed here. Paper Mario and Super Smash Bros have over five NFCC images, most of them being gameplay of each game. What are your thoughts? Do these articles require that many NFCC contents get their point across?Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 23:39, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Blue Pumpkin Pie, the fewer non-free use images an article uses, the better. However I'd say they should be limited to three max (including the logo perhaps), as any more just looks like it has no regard towards the entire policy. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 23:45, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
@Blue Pumpkin Pie: Dissident93 as it right for the policy point. Speaking from another angle, I think for Gameplay, you should really only use one for the most common or recognisable gameplay type. I've had articles which required multiple images (Persona (series), Sakura Wars), but I treat those as special cases/exceptions to a general rule due to wildly-different mechanics needing to be displayed in some form. Certainly for the samples you mention, having one image per game mentioned is going too far. --ProtoDrake (talk) 23:51, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
The "had one image for every game" part was not true, but two of which have since been removed. Panini🥪 00:27, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
For Super Smash Bros. how comfortable is everyone just having a single gameplay image to reflect the series?Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 16:32, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
It makes sense to me to just use the one image. If those five images were illustrating important differences between the gameplay of the various installments, it's not at all clear to me from looking at them.--Martin IIIa (talk) 03:27, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

E3 2021

I'm starting to see edits related to E3 2021 possibly cancelled, and reports in multiple sources seem to say this is from the Convention Commission of the City of Los Angeles (Board of Los Angeles Convention and Tourism Development Commission). Is there a chance we should revert such edits on the associated article as well as all relevant edits until we know more? Jalen Folf (talk) 18:26, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

JalenFolf, I thought sources made it clear that only the live event at the Convention Center has been cancelled? There is still supposed to be a virtual event unlike last year as far as I know. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 02:51, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
The source I’ve just look at specifically mentioned the live event being cancelled.--70.27.244.104 (talk) 06:21, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
It should be pointed out that ESA has not actually stated anything officially, this is through the LA tourism board. There's still going to be an E3 virtual event and they still sound like they will handle some of the virtual event hosting at the LACC since they have the space and no one else will be using it. --Masem (t) 06:40, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Super Paper Mario

I know the words "Paper Mario" have been thrown in your faces for a while now but I'm almost done with the GT. I have since begun a new GA review per discussion here, and I'm putting this here because the change might have and probably would've been unnoticed. I'll be willing to do a QPQ or review a PR of an article the same size in return. Panini🥪 15:46, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikiproject Video games Newsletter survey

For our upcoming newsletters, I plan to conduct surveys from members of our Wikiproject on issues and concepts to help determine consensus and opinions on certain matters. For this upcoming survey, I have asked the following question:

How do you determine what makes a video game character notable enough for their own page? Do you follow pre-existing guidelines or have your own opinions on the matter?

I have received a lot of feedback from good reviewers so far, but the survey would obviously benefit from a couple more responses. If I have not reached out to you and you would like to participate and answer the question, please do so by leaving a reply on my talk page. Thank you! Panini🥪 16:46, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I do think this is worth contributing to. It's nice to just write out a response all by itself, without it turning into drawn out, heated debates that results in hurt feelings. Sergecross73 msg me 18:11, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Closing the gender gap

Many of you probably saw the banner that March 8 is International Women's Day and the month of March is Women's History Month. With the video game industry being historically male dominant, it is sensible that we place effort into writing about women in the industry. So this month, consider helping to close the Wikipedia gender gap by improving biographies of women in and around the video game world. Here are some lists to peruse:

TarkusABtalk/contrib 02:09, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder! Definitely something to keep in mind this month (and every month). Axem Titanium (talk) 03:51, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

If you have an opinion, please comment

Talk:TetraVex#Please_Restore Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:16, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Super Mario 64 featured article discussion

I don't know if anyone's heard, and I probably should've posted this the day I wrote the section, but I've started a discussion on the talk page of Super Mario 64 talk page and how it may be in need of FA review; I consider this significant cause Mario 64, like all the other titles in the Mario series, is one of the most significant parts of video gaming history and has been a featured article since 2008, but it looks like an article that hasn't maintained its status since it was nominated. Let me emphasize something: I haven't nominated it for FA review, just started a discussion about it possibly being considered for review. Thanks. HumanxAnthro (talk) 12:38, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I've already volunteered to help get this right, but I could use some support to make this happen. I'm rather time-limited anymore. If it helps, I'm focusing on the sourcing and reference issues, so anyone who loves working with prose and writing more on the subject would be a great help! Red Phoenix talk 03:04, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Template:Game Boy line splitting

I believe that there should be a separate template for the Game Boy Advance line. Grouping them makes little sense and is somewhat confusing, since both Template:Nintendo DS and Template:Nintendo 3DS are already separate. (Oinkers42) (talk) 04:33, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Something akin to this:

(Oinkers42) (talk) 21:39, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

I support this.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 22:27, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Created. (Oinkers42) (talk) 06:17, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Paper Mario series GTC

Just wanted to mention, the Paper Mario series is currently a good topic candidate here. Panini🥪 15:50, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Izuru vs Hajime

I recently created the article for Danganronpa character Hajime Hinata. To make it short, he has an alter-ego named Izuru Kamukura who debuted in Danganronpa before Hajime debuted properly. As a result a user moved the article's title to Izuru. A fellow user proposed a move to Hajime at Talk:Izuru Kamukura#Izuru and Hajime in regards to a proper move. You are welcome to talk there.Tintor2 (talk) 03:18, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

  • As I said on my talk page: There just was an AfD on Hajime last month, and I wonder if this one really has addressed the GNG concerns (one thing we noted was that Hajime p much only seems to be covered in reviews of games/anime) tbh.--AlexandraIDV 04:48, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
The article has three paragraphs of reception with most of them focused on how he received in the games, popularity within his own actors and big overview in his anime role. The old article from January was rushed and had no such content. The same goes for the creation section. I'm pretty sure the article passes wp:notabilty without the old articles' usage of repeating top tens for old articles.Tintor2 (talk) 12:05, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
No offense, but I took a look at the article yesterday because I'm a (talk page stalker), and I struggled to give any input because I found the article to be quite convoluted and confusing to read. And this is coming from someone who played the Danganronpa games too, albeit years ago. Even if the GNG is met (unclear if it is)...it's a difficult read. Sergecross73 msg me 12:42, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
What does that have to do with the notability? If you find it confusing, you can simply tag it. Most of the information was rewritten by another user to expand appearances. The reception section has more coverage than the actual Street Fighter characters which is why I found the direct merge too forced as such move only focused on what happened in January when I wasn't even editing Wikipedia due to a break.Tintor2 (talk) 16:13, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Perhaps you're confusing two separate discussion points? I was agreeing with Alexandra that the notability was unclear. To recap the discussion in relation to you: You appeared to be asking for input on the article title. My response was that the article was so confusingly written that I really don't know either way. My point was merely, after an initial read through, I have no idea what the article should be titled or if it should exist. Sergecross73 msg me 16:35, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Regardless of the GNG argument, any name change should fit WP:COMMONNAME. As Hajime is the focus/protagonist of an entire game, I'd be surprised if he wasn't the primary topic here. We don't really judge this based on when a character appears in a series. I've only played the games, so when did Izuru appear first? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:14, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Izuru's name first appeared in a prequel light novel from 2011. Hajime appeared in the 2012 game. Still as soon as I revised the article's weird in-universe info and requested a copyedit from the guild, a person deleted it....Tintor2 (talk) 20:11, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
I decided to be bold and undo the redirect on their part: they're going with a guideline that's against recreating articles after they've just been nuked, but it makes little sense for that to affect someone being able to do a fresh take on the subject as long as there's enough content and material to satisfy notability.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:47, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Alright, so do we need to start up 2 discussions, better defined, related to notability and article title then? I don't feel like this discussion was really framed to go anywhere as is. We're not going to get anywhere with a simple "Whatcha think guys?" discussion. Sergecross73 msg me 00:02, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Article is being discussed at DRV already, edit warring on the redirect feels off, and may fuel sentiment to salting. Let's be clear: AFD was barely over a month ago. The question of GNG was essentially settled at that time.. WP:N is not about content. Rewriting an article will never make it gain WP:N. Now, finding new sources and new developments may change the GNG picture, but "It was rewritten" won't. And in a mere month, new development of notability for this character is almost certainly not the case. -- ferret (talk) 00:16, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
There is precedent of an article being recreated six weeks after a previous AfD resulted in a clear and unanimous consensus for deletion, which was not speedy deleted under site policy, and the subsequent AfD discussion did not result in another clear cut deletion consensus. Assuming good faith on Tintor2's part, I would assume that they have found sources the AfD participants may have missed if they had gone to the trouble of putting work into the article. Haleth (talk) 05:41, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
I'm all for good-faith...but if that's the case, why hasn't sourcing been mentioned by Tintor? I don't see that as being part of his argument thus far, here or at DRV. It's all just been "I reworked it". Thus, our responses about that. Our responses are the natural profession to what he is saying. Sergecross73 msg me 13:37, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Obviously I can't speak for @Tintor2:, but now that you have clearly identified the main concern here, maybe they could now provide a reasoned response. Haleth (talk) 16:59, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Roblox

I've noticed that the section Roblox#Popular_games is getting bigger and bigger, and in my opinion it's slowly going for WP:UNDUE at this point. Should the section stay as is, or go for certain alternatives (such as splitting off, shortening)? Curious to hear your opinions on this subject. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:01, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Given the nature of Roblox, I don't think a short list of popular games (sourced) is undue. There's no SIZE issues yet at play but it would likely be the first section to split off in summary style if there were a size issue. --Masem (t) 14:16, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Plants vs. Zombies

I am currently working on getting Plants vs. Zombies to FA status. It is currently on peer review if anyone wants to help, or any recommendations can be put here in the talk page post. Lazman321 (talk) 18:45, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Archive_155&oldid=1012581895"