Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games

Alright, bit of a random inquiry here. But, one that I'm curious about.

In 2024, an editor attempted to create an article for a list of songs in Fortnite Festival. Because at the time I believed it failed WP:GAMEGUIDE and WP:GAMECRUFT, I nominated it for deletion, and it went through. Additional arguments that were made during that discussion that I did not bring up originally also included WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:NLIST.

In hindsight though, I've discovered the existence of a lot more articles that serve solely to document what songs are in rhythm games. As a matter of fact, we have an entire category of those lists. And among those lists include ones for almost every Guitar Hero and Rock Band game, and also SingStar I believe? These certainly are useful lists up to a point, and are based on reliable sources as well. But working off of the consensus at that deletion discussion, I feel like every "List of songs in X" article may fail NOTDIRECTORY or GAMECRUFT.

This is not an attempt at an "other stuff exists" argument, but I do believe that a lot of these soundtracks probably received the same level of coverage in sources as Fortnite Festivals: some reception towards the track variety from the games initial launch, but mostly being based on press release song lists or new song announcements. Since so many of these lists are similar in terms of scope and coverage, it's left me a bit uncertain. So, I'm here with two key takeaway questions:

1. Is a greater discussion of "list of songs in X" articles needed, based on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs in Fortnite Festival, where most of the arguments brought up there could also apply to other rhythm games? Do these types of articles fail WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:GAMECRUFT, given the same type of coverage shared across most of them?
2. If these types of articles are okay and the consensus at that discussion was wrong and/or inapplicable, should it be overturned and a new songs list for Fortnite be created to keep up consistency?

λ NegativeMP1 22:28, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

• Per WP:NOTDIRECTORY, Wikipedia encompasses many lists of links to articles within Wikipedia that are used for internal organization or to describe a notable subject. In that sense, Wikipedia functions as an index or directory of its own content. What is prohibited by this guideline includes listings of business information, family ancestries, those suitable for a phone book, and WP:CROSSCAT shit. So we still have filmography pages even though we're not IMDb, and we still have discographies even though we're not Rate Your Music or Discogs. WP:NLIST is the main relevant guideline here, at least if these lists will branch into their own pages. HUMANXANTHRO (What you say about his company is what you say about society) 23:39, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
  • If a list was within an article, this would really depend on the songlist. For example, forgetting whatever WP:GAMEGUIDE concerns you may or may not have, I already find the 57-track songlist of Just Dance 3 to be a little much given how long the other paragraphs on Development and Reception are, made worse by the fact that they list additional song packs with seemingly no WP:INDEPENDENT coverage. So imagine Fortnite's list of 615 tracks, which is a fuckton. The only way a list would be possible is if it wasn't within the article, which would require a lot of independent sources giving their two-cents on the games song choices. HUMANXANTHRO (What you say about his company is what you say about society) 00:27, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
  • I would also say for the Rock Band songlists to not list any additional downloadable songs if they're gonna get this fucking massive. HUMANXANTHRO (What you say about his company is what you say about society) 00:31, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

I am thinking we need to stick to only those songs released on disc, because the song selection of what is shipped with the game gets incorporated into the reception of the game (in this case, this is why Fortnite Festival would not get a song list because it its all DLC, though we can identify the headliners). DLC is wholly different, though obviously in a case like Rock Band, we should describe the scope and nature of DLC that was released, just not listing everything. Masem (t) 01:24, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Also, we should only include these lists if secondary sources include them. I know the early rhythm games would have those, but later games less so. Masem (t) 01:34, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

I will have to say list of songs in Guitar Hero is as WP:GAMECRUFT as list of guns in Battlefield 6, list of dinosaurs in Jurassic World Evolution 3 or list of cars in Forza Horizon 5. All of them gets coverage by our RS but we really shouldn't be documenting them. OceanHok (talk) 15:56, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Want to add Category:Dance Dance Revolution soundtracks here. I guess there are other Bemani games left out, Sega too. The inconsistency of arcade rhythm game articles is insane. MilkyDefer 17:35, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

To try and reply to all of the above:

@HumanxAnthro and Masem:, I think the downloadable content lists for Rock Band are kind-of an interesting case because the downloadable content sort-of characterizes the latter games, to the point where the on-disc songs stopped mattering as much (e.g. the RB4 base song list is often overlooked). I can think of a couple of solutions towards the RB4 in particular that wouldn't hinder the content itself.

@OceanHok:, yeah, that's the kind of sentiment that led me to write this post in the first place. I see why these would be considered GAMECRUFT, and we have a precedent right there with the Fortnite Festival songs list that these articles could be deleted under that.

@MilkyDefer:, I'm scared to touch arcade rhythm game articles with a ten-foot pole. λ NegativeMP1 05:15, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

The problem with the DLC lists for RB is that after the novelty of the game's release wore off after a couple years, while DLC kept going, it wasn't being covered by any RSes. Its fair somewhere to describe the shape and score of DLC for RB (like full albums, over 2000 tracks, etc.) from how RSes described it, but I dont think we can support the full list any more. Masem (t) 12:30, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

There were some "Cloud Edition" titles released on the Nintendo Switch platform (see: Category:Cloud-based Nintendo Switch games), where the game is purchasable on the eShop (for full price), but the game is actually running on and streaming from a cloud server to the Switch (i.e. the Switch hardware is not natively running the game).

Therefore, I find it misleading to indicate "Nintendo Switch" in the list of platforms of these games, since the Switch merely acts as a host of the cloud streaming feed, and the game itself is not actually installable on the Switch, nor is it playable without the cloud server, and it is disputable whether the game really was "ported" to the platform. Hence, I think "Nintendo Switch" should not be included in the list of platforms of these Cloud Edition games. TenthAvenueFreezeOut (talk) 16:00, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

I think there should be some sort of note, for context, to note the specific situation, but generally speaking, any game playable on a console through official means is generally fair game. The Switch label (with context) should stay. Sergecross73 msg me 16:03, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

We want to be careful with that. If one of the major cloud services like NVidia Now works on a console, that should not suddenly make all games offered by the cloud service as being games for that console. The Nintendo Switch cloud situation is unique, because they are cloud games specifically tailored to be played on the Switch due to whatever storage or computational limits the Switch has, and we should mark those appropriately. They should be considered Switch games, but marked as Sergecross suggests. Masem (t) 16:13, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Unique in what sense? There is the massive PlayStation Classics collection also available via cloud streaming. We are inconsistent on whether we label those as PS5 games. We list PS5 as a platform for Deus Ex (video game) and Doom (1993 video game) but not God of War III, Resident Evil 3: Nemesis or Heavy Rain. I would be more compelled by this argument if we could find substantial sourcing to back these decisions up.

I am also not sure how you add a “note” on a category, which is what the original question asked, but this may be my lack of knowledge on categories. ~2026-13353-84 (talk) 18:10, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

For Deus Ex and Doom, that's because the remastered version is to be released on those platforms, so its appropriate to list - though the Infobox should clearly distinguish between original (and ports) vs remaster console targets, like it does for the release line. Games that are available to play on the PS5 through its backwards compatibility like for GoD 3 and Heavy Rain are not specifically released for those platforms, so not included. Masem (t) 18:14, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

The note would be for the game's articles, and WP:INFOBOX, not the category. You can't really add a note to a category. You could create a new category, but really, the category of "Cloud-based Nintendo Switch games" already has that covered. Sergecross73 msg me 18:54, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

• For context, this topic was brought to attention by Scott the Woz in a recent video about Nintendo Switch cloud versions, where he specifically mentions Wikipedia and questions whether Nintendo Switch should be listed as a platform for those games. See "Nintendo Switch Cloud Versions" at minute 5:54. Skyshiftertalk 18:36, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

  Thanks, it's helpful to know background like this, especially if it ends up leading to a large influx of inexperienced editors to comment on it. Sergecross73 msg me 18:49, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Out and about on various Atari pages I've seen a handful of WP:RS/SPS sources that I've had some concerns about. They're useful resources but I don't think I've seen any consensus on them yet:

• Atari Archive maintained by Kevin Bunch. Of all of these, this is the source I'd fight for the most. Bunch is a well respected member of the video game history world, he has a published book on Atari games , he's been interviewed by VGHF and others, and has given quite a number of talks at various expos about video game history. Both his website and his youtube channel are as far as I'm aware self-published, but everything he puts out is immaculately well sourced and he often does his own interviews with former developers at Atari and elsewhere that would be really valuable to have on this site. The main thing this source provides is really good release dates. NA release dates from the 80s and earlier are a nightmare and having tried a certain amount of this work myself for the Atari 7800 and Atari 5200 lists, it fairly quickly starts falling into WP:OR territory. Bunch's lists are sourced and do all of the extrapolation work needed. It's unlikely we'd get better dates anywhere else unless these ones were official published.
• Atari Protos maintained by Matt Reichert. This one contains a bunch of info about released and unreleased atari games. There's a lot of useful stuff on here but the biggest problem is practically none of it is sourced. Reichert, also known as Tempest, is a moderator over on the Atari Age forums and seems to be pretty well respected over there. I just have no idea where a lot of the info is coming from, especially all the development details a lot of these articles have.
• Atari Museum created by Curt Vendel. Vendel was apparently a pretty well respected member of the Atari preservation community and a large collector of old Atari documents. He was even rehired by Infogrames's Atari to work on the Atari Flashback consoles. Vendel passed in 2020 and the site is now preserved by youtuber Ctrl-alt-rees who explains the whole situation here. The main thing this website has going for it is a whole bunch of official documentation including internal Atari memos and schematics. It also has a number of articles about historic details that I've struggled to find anywhere else. Again, nothing here is really sourced and it's 100% self published but I would be okay with keeping this one given Vendel's reputation.

To sum up, I'd feel really strongly that Atari Archive is reliable, I think we should consider the reliability of Atari Museum, but I don't think Atari Protos really passes WP:RS. Whipmywillows (talk) 04:07, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Definitely agree that Atari Protos is unreliable. Not sure about Archive or Museum, both seem like fine fansites....but Wikipedia doesn't usually allow for fansites as sources... Sergecross73 msg me 21:28, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

I think my only concern with getting rid of atari protos is how useful it's been for specifically unreleased games. The 5200 is a good example for this because there are a lot of unreleased games for the system. So the system has about two thirds the amount of unreleased games as released games and lots of them are floating around the internet as prototypes. Fan listings aren't always great about distinguishing released games from prototypes so sometimes editors come by and add stuff they shouldn't. About five months ago someone tried to add RealSports Basketball, which was unreleased, to the 5200 list for example. Atari protos is a pretty good source for clearing that stuff up, but I suppose if it is a good source then that info has to be somewhere else right. Whipmywillows (talk) 02:09, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Atari Archive is okay in my opinion, because Kevin Bunch is a published (not self-published) author on the subject. Indrian (talk) 15:48, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Honest question - is Limited Run Games a good sign for being published? I just know they tend to help out more niche, small run stuff. Sergecross73 msg me 16:30, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Nevermind, I just saw that they're owned by Embracer Group? I don't think I knew that. They're a large corporation, so I guess that does give them more cred as a "big publisher". I had previously thought they were more of an "indie" project. Sergecross73 msg me 17:31, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

 A listing of all articles newly added to the Video Games Wikiproject (regardless of creation date). Generated by v3.21 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 13:52, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

• Articles deleted/removed: Game Jackal, Tsurikko Penta, Malfador Machinations, Roberta Lucca, Amber Light of Death, Amber light of death, Blooket (game)
• Drafts deleted/removed: Draft:Brent Watanabe, Draft:MT Lynx, Draft:Asura (game engine), Draft:Combat Master Mobile, Draft:FlightSimExpo, Draft:Highland Simulations, Draft:Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney Trilogy HD, Draft:Reewaz Rimal, Draft:Starseed Forest, Draft:Āstraverse, Draft:Inner Esports, Draft:Starbasesim, Draft:Materia Collective, Draft:Moraff's Dungeons of the Unforgiven, Draft:Going Corporate, Draft:Medal of Honor (upcoming film), Draft:Super Bomberman Collection, Draft:Granny (horror video game), Draft:Rust Server Management Tool
• Articles redirected: Arcade Game Series, List of Paper Mario characters, Sandy's Circus Adventure, EB Games Australia, Soldam: Drop, Connect, Erase, God of War (upcoming TV series), Mario Teaches Typing 2, Characters of Fire Emblem Fates, World's Edge
• New categories: Toontown Online location redirects — TAnthony, Video games about bullying — Entranced98, Video games based on DC Comics films — (Oinkers42), Wonder Woman video games — Sc2353 (newly tagged - originally created 1 year ago), Disney Sports — BrookTheHumming, The Coffin of Andy and Leyley character redirects to lists — Pcartoon678, Chibig games — Waxworker, Honkai: Star Rail character redirects to lists — Gommeh, Omnics — Kung Fu Man, Honkai: Star Rail characters — Gommeh, Mega Man video game compilations — (Oinkers42), MiHoYo characters — Gommeh, Annie Award–winning video games — Rhain

--PresN 13:52, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

The inclusion criteria for the various "List of cancelled [blank] games" lists is much too weak. At the moment, each of their talk pages list the main criteria as

For a game to be listed, there must be at least one reliable source that directly states that the game was ever announced or in development for the [blank].

Beyond the fact that this wording technically allows for every single game, unreleased or released to be included in each list, we should be striving for more contrete inclusion than "was announced".

I propose that only games that we have reliable sourcing definitively stating that they were either cancelled or were unreleased should be included. Cronacrab (talk) 19:51, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes, the list should be limited to games that were notable for a standalone page or likely could have had one. That usually means more than just press releases about the games announcement and cancelation, and likely should detail why the game was cancelled. Masem (t) 20:25, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

That's generally the goal, to have a source that directly states that it was cancelled. But so many games are announced and simply...never materialize. For example, they officially announced a version of Bubsy 3D for the Sega Saturn. They never announced a cancellation. It simply never came out. Why not list it as cancelled when its easy to prove it was a PS1 exclusive and its impossible to officially license a Sega Saturn game for release in 2026? Sergecross73 msg me 20:34, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm with Serge. While it'd be great to have announcements of cancellations or explanations why, most of those simply don't exist, and excluding half of a list simply because they vanished one day feels counterproductive. We already exclude plenty of games that are known to exist thanks to prototypes but don't have any reliable coverage, so it's not like the existing lists are just indiscriminate information either. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 21:27, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

But how can we say that it didn't come out without a source saying so? Perhaps at least some of these dissappeared games did get released in some capacity. We don't include things on Wikipedia due to lack of sources. If we don't have a source saying they were canceled/unreleased we simply shouldn't be saying anything. It's plain WP:OR otherwise. Cronacrab (talk) 23:25, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

I've certainly removed entries from the lists on those grounds, when I couldn't confirm the ultimate fate of a game. But what about examples like the above? What exactly are you proposing? Maybe Bubsy 3D did come out for Saturn? That Nintendo is still working on an edition of Super Mario 64 for the 64DD? At a certain point you've got to apply some common sense. Sergecross73 msg me 23:45, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

As I said above, If we don't have a source saying they were canceled/unreleased we simply shouldn't be saying anything. Cronacrab (talk) 23:53, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

The examples I'm giving do have sources saying they weren't released. I thought you were asking for definitive proof they were cancelled. Still, I believe there's room for common sense application through WP:IAR of obvious cases here of things that were announced and simply never released. Sergecross73 msg me 00:14, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

This does feel like an IAR situation, yeah. I would argue that if we have a source confirming it was announced but no source indicating that it released, that makes it just as eligible for inclusion as a source explicitly saying it wasn't released. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 00:47, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, and I'm all for exercising caution when there's good faith reason for concern. Like games that can't be identified. For example, I've removed entries like "Untitled Sega platformer" because it's so vague it can be hard to see what it's even referring to, let alone if it released. And it's never applied to any active consoles where games are still being released for it. But we know that Super Mario 64 2 never came out for the N64 during its lifespan whether a source directly states it or not. Sergecross73 msg me 01:03, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

An issue is here on the announcement side. We have many WP:VG/S-meeting sources that will do routine announcements of new games (Gematsu notorious for this), which would establish that the game was announced, but the game never gets covered by any where else, including its cancellation. Those are cases we dont want to be documenting. But like, for example, Agent (video game) or Prey 2 are examples of where we absolutely can document the game and its cancellation. Masem (t) 01:42, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

...why not? -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 01:44, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Most articles from our VG describing the announcement of a game are pretty much regurgitations of a press release or similar marketing from the publisher or developer. Maybe the author of the piece will discuss what they see in the announcement video ("It looks it plays like a traditional tactical RPG...") which while "secondary" information isn't really helpful. We really want to see what the journalist say about a game after trying it out or talking in depth with the developers about it. Masem (t) 01:52, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

That would be true if we were trying to establish notability for a standalone article, but for a list where the core inclusion criteria is "this existed and then it didn't", while development/cancellation details are welcomed and should be included if available, their absence shouldn't automatically preclude their presence on the list. (And trying to judge based on if they were "notable for a standalone page or likely could have had one" is foolish, because it's all based on hypotheticals. By that logic, every game on the list could potentially have had a standalone article if they came out because people would have had something to write about. We don't based inclusion criteria on "what could have been".) -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 02:02, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

With the ability to self publish now, there is no way that we can document all possible games announced or even released. And if all that is known about a game was it's announcement and cancelation with minimal commentary, that's not stuff that WP should be writing about. Masem (t) 16:40, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Kind of like Cyberlink was saying, I'd completely agree if the subject was determining whether or not a standalone article for a specific cancelled video game is warranted. But I'm also not following why its an issue for individual list entry. It's much like the whole WP:PSTS breakdown. Primary sources aren't preferred, but they're also not banned, and are completely fine for rounding out non-controversial details of an article. Same concept here. It's infinitely more interesting to write a substantial, meaty entry about Sonic Xtreme, but there's nothing wrong with also documenting that Gematsu reported that some small company announced and then cancelled yet another Mario clone with little fanfare too. Sergecross73 msg me 17:00, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

We already have the problem that the lists for "games released in year" are too long. We have to admit we cannot ever cover any game published, and the same logic should apply to a list of all cancelled games. I'd at least be okay when at minimum both the announcement and cancelation are covered by third party sources ( including Gematsu) as to show more than promotional coverage. Masem (t) 19:05, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Disagree. Most cancelled game lists are already shorter than the year lists due to the pruning and refining that's been done over the last few years.. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 19:12, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

I think it's reasonable for us to be approaching different periods of time differently. There are too many games released in the modern day to cover all of them, I agree. But 40 or 50 years ago, the volume of games was much more manageable. A cancelled games list for the Sega Master System perhaps is not going to meaningfully affect it's length or push it into WP:TOOBIG territory. Whipmywillows (talk) 19:15, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

We haven't had to split a single one of the cancelled game lists yet. A couple are approaching "a bit long" territory, but none are remotely close to the technical limits like the regular ones are. Sergecross73 msg me 19:21, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm just saying that any of inclusion or exclusion criteria we are using for other game lists should also apply to the list of cancelled games (with of course the added requirement that it's cancelation is sourced). Masem (t) 19:32, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

It already does. We've been pretty stringent on what gets onto the list, to the point where at least one user complained that our inclusion criteria was too strict. (Not eager to revisit that whole saga.) As for sourced cancellation, I once again argue it's the opposite: the verification should be focused on finding release confirmation for the games. If we can't verify it released, that should make it eligible for inclusion. Hell, we literally employed this a few months ago when we removed some games from the cancelled Sega Genesis list after a reliable source verified they were released. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 19:41, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Which inclusion criteria are we using elsewhere? I'm not really aware of any outside of more or less following "add a source to verify the game is coming to the platform" (WP:V), which was more or less what I was thinking of when I created the inclusion criteria for the cancelled ones. (The actual inclusion criteria for the cancelled game lists can be seen here, for the record.) Sergecross73 msg me 19:45, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

As someone who's written much of this content, this has not generally been my experience. It's generally been much easier to get cancellation confirmation in the modern age - devs/publishers are far more likely to announce cancellations through social media, and WP:VG/RS websites cover it a lot. The stuff that's been hard to source directly is more like "Hudson Soft announced at CES 1990 that they're developing a video game adaptation of The Berenstein Bears for the NES", covered in a tiny blurb of an issue of EGM, has been the harder thing to source, because it's 1) locked away in print mags and 2) not really all that popular to your average video game fan. Sergecross73 msg me| Sergecross73 msg me 01:58, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Okay folks, back to the topic at hand, we can't use the absence of sources as a source. How would anyone verify this absence anyway? They would have to check every single video game magazine from a game's announcement until the end of its console to see if it ever gets mentioned again! This files in the face of WP:Verifiability. Cronacrab (talk) 15:41, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

You're looking at it the wrong way. The announcements verify that the game was in development. Other sources, such as release date announcements, reviews, etc. verify it actually came out. You've argued that "Perhaps at least some of these dissappeared games did get released in some capacity", but THAT is what needs to be verified, not that it didn't. You can't cite an absence of information. And if you can't verify that it released, (or more preferably, a source exists saying it was never released), then that should make it eligible for inclusion on the list. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 16:07, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

That is neither an accurate description of the situation, nor is it what anyone suggested be done. This reminds me of the sort of ill-conceived arguments that come up like "any article for a video game that isn't released yet is a WP:CRYSTAL violation - therefore don't create articles until release date". It's a one dimensional, robotic interpretation of policy that lacks all common sense. Sergecross73 msg me 16:28, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

If there's no sources for something not coming out or being canceled, why are we including it at all? That a game or port vanished from the earth and nobody cared is pretty good evidence it shouldn't be in a list here. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 17:46, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

I find that the reason these games should be included in these lists is because it provides answers for the people who do go digging through the sources. Someone starts to go through old magazines, finds a game they've never heard of, they wonder what happened to it or if there's more info somewhere. Especially if it's a port of another game, providing a link to that game filed under Unreleased or Cancelled is fairly cheap and helps provide all the necessary answers quickly. Whipmywillows (talk) 18:54, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

That's an argument for WP:ITSUSEFUL, not really an argument based in our policies and guidelines. If you can't verify it outside of "well I searched for it and found nothing", it's not something that should be on Wikipedia in the first place. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 18:56, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Since when was it unencyclopedic? We have reliable secondary sources verifying these games existed at one point. That is literalaly as in-line with Wikipedia policy as it gets. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 19:07, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

We're specifically talking about inclusion criteria for a list where the defining trait is that they were cancelled or unreleased. We look to secondary sources all the time for what we should be including. If no reliable source ever cared enough about a game to follow up on a press release, how is it important enough to mention? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 20:47, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

I think it depends on how you look at it. For example, with the N64. To be clear, many entries have sources outright denoting cancellation. But at the bare minimum, they have a source about them being announced/in development for N64. The WP:FA List of Nintendo 64 games has master lists of all N64 games ever released. Between the two, its pretty easy to verify which games were cancelled. I always prefer direct confirmation, but methods generally remove good-faith doubt on the matter. The truth is, this industry is weird about stuff like this.

Its for situations like that that I'm hesitant to establish these blanket rules for inclusion. I've preferred simply removing ones I have specific good faith doubts about, or adding "better source needed" tags. Sergecross73 msg me 21:22, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

This isn't some brand new issue. The OR these lists contain has been discussed previously. To quote Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cancelled Sega Genesis games (which was kept) from December 2020, in his !delete vote, one user complained Because every ref I check here does not verify the basis for the article, that the game was canceled. This list is a collection of times a source has mentioned a game for a platform, not giving any indication of cancellation. To which another user reassured him, The unreliable sources and original research can be removed as well as the non-notable titles to improve the quality of the content.

It was also brought up by Masem in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cancelled games for Microsoft consoles, where he seems to have been assured that it could be fixed.

Even more recently, in Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of cancelled Nintendo 64 games/archive1, a user expressed this same concern when he said, Now, I hate to do this, but I feel like I must oppose this nomination. In my spotcheck, I went through 0-9 and A, and I found that nine out of 17 had minor to major citation issues, not even accounting for ambiguity re: whether something was cancelled. This leads me to believe that there are likely dozens of potential issues of OR.

Cronacrab (talk) 16:17, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm well aware - one of the reasons I started rewriting these articles was because people kept complaining about them. They've come a long ways, but they're also still very much so a work in progress. Most of them looked more like the cancelled Atari Jaguar page you're gutting originally. That was one on my list to eventually rework too, but they take a tremendous amount of time and research to write, including wading through large swaths of unreliable sources on the internet to find the verifiable information. It's a long, laborious process, but it is improving. Sergecross73 msg me 17:30, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

But those rewrites don't address the OR concerns. List of cancelled Nintendo 64 games was submitted to be a featured list, yet multiple entries don't have sources supporting their cancellation. For example, 3Sixty is sourced to 3Sixty: Fun On Water With the French, which is only an announcement for the game and doesn't say anything about cancellation. Just going through to the end of "A", the sources for 64 Wars, 7th Legion, Actua Golf 4, Airport Inc., Animaniacs: Ten Pin Alley, Aquaria, Assault, Attack!, and Automobili Lamborghini Add-On also don't say anything about these games being cancelled/unreleased. Cronacrab (talk) 18:07, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

As I already said, we have master lists of every single N64 game ever officially commercially released. Every single one of those games received have reliable sources mentioning their announcement and/or being in development. None of them appear on the official released lists. There's no room for confusion here. I mean, I get it, its nice to have a sources that says "The answer equals 2", but sometimes you can still make a source-based decision based on having sources that says "The answer is a whole number less than 3 and more than 1" without it being OR. Sergecross73 msg me 19:00, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Also, please take a closer look and read the entirety of that IGN source you linked to for 3Sixty. Scroll down farther. There's a part that literally says "release cancelled" with the N64 symbol next to it. Sergecross73 msg me 19:04, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

I agree with your line of thinking when it comes to open platforms like Windows and MacOS that don't require publishing licenses. However, for closed platforms like N64 that ended their commercial lifespan, I don't see the OR concern. There is no reality where a N64 game was released and nobody knew about it. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 19:12, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! This is what I've been trying to convey! Sergecross73 msg me 19:15, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Could you find lists of all released N64 games, then? Because those, you could cite as a source in combination with a source saying it was developed, and that would make it verifiable. Otherwise people trying to verify a video game wasn’t released just have to hope their search engine is good enough to find articles if they exist. Verifiability doesn’t require things to be verifiable in theory: it requires explicit and clear instructions on how to verify something. “Look for articles on its release and see that none show up on google” is not clear and solid verification instructions. Mrfoogles (talk) 23:13, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

(Arriving here from NORN) For uncontrolled platforms (mac, windows, etc.) or currently active ones, it's definitely WP:OR to use a source saying the game was announced, then because nothing says it was released, claim it's canceled. Duke Nukem Forever is a great example of a title that was announced, and would have been considered canceled by the above criteria, but ultimately was released.

The case of controlled platforms is interesting, but I believe it's still OR. Not all released games are "official". As I understand it, as long as you don't use Nintendo assets or their SDK, you can make your own N64 titles and sell them now. There's also the question of what constitutes "cancelled". If a game gets rebranded due to copyright negotiations (e.g., Warcraft) is that canceled? What if it's reworked but the concept is the same? Or if the company is acquired by another, and so on?

WP:SYNTH explicitly forbids taking two separate data (Title was announced, title does not appear on list of released games) and drawing a conclusion not explicitly stated in the source (title was canceled). It may be true, but Wikipedia is not a collection of true statements, it is a collection of statements made by reliable sources. EducatedRedneck (talk) 03:22, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

1. I think the case of aftermarket releases (e.g for the N64) can almost always be fairly easily handled. No notable unlicensed games to my knowledge were released for the Nintendo 64 during it's shelf life (1996-2002). Unlicensed N64 releases are a pretty new phenomenon with the trend starting sometime around 2018, so after a 16 year gap. I think we can handle aftermarket releases and officially licensed releases separately in this case without running into any conflicts. Other cases might not be as clean but we should be handling unlicensed games with more scrutiny anyway.

2. Isn't "announced, but never actually released" essentially the definition of "cancelled"? Is that really WP:SYNTH? I mean I guess the only other possibility is "delayed indefinetly" (like the Duke Nukem Forever case) but a licensed N64 game can't have been delayed indefinetly because Nintendo stopped handing out the license more than 20 years ago. I mean if the article was named "List of N64 games that were announced but never released during the console's lifespan", then there wouldn't be any synth right? I think "List of cancelled Nintendo 64 games" is just a less clunky version of that. Whipmywillows (talk) 04:06, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

• A bit more context: For the record, I don't think we have any of these lists for any uncontrolled platforms - there is no "List of cancelled Windows games", nor am I aware of any plans to create them. And any lists for active platforms that still actively have games coming out, only have entries with reliable sources that very directly state they were cancelled. So this has only been a thing on older, closed platforms, where it's no longer possible to officially commercially release a game on it any more. I've always felt this approach as closer to WP:CALC and WP:BLUE. Sergecross73 msg me 12:15, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

• I'ma just say, I'm pretty well convinced that, so long as the existence of a game can be verified and its lack of a release date can be verified, that's good enough sourcing for me. I can confidently say I've never seen a closed-system release for a game console where a game is announced to exist, releases, but has no release date or verification of its release anywhere. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 02:04, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

  I guess to drive to a consensus then, we have two different standards:

  • closed-system i.e. games for platforms with reliable and comprehensive game catalogs. To be listed as a cancelled game for that platform, games only need WP:RS stating that the game was announced for that platform, since cancellation can be verified in the aggregate. Games fitting this criteria should only be listed as cancelled for that specific platform, games should not be listed as cancelled in general without explicit citation saying so. Examples would include licensed games for home consoles, and games for long discontinued platforms with adequetely thorough coverage
  • open-system i.e. games for platforms where game catalogs cannot be verified as comprehensive. To be listed as a cancelled game for that platform, games need WP:RS citing that they were announced and that their production was terminated. Examples would include home computer games, arcade games, mobile games, web games, games for platforms that are still being actively maintained, and unlicensed or aftermarket games for otherwise closed systems.

  Cancelled list articles should make clear in their lead what the criteria for inclusion is and, in the case of closed platforms, why the platform can be considered closed. (i.e. a verifiable date for when the platform stopped being supported and a link or reference to the full catalog). I think in most cases this isn't too dissimilar from what these articles are already doing, so it should be fairly easy apply in practice. Whipmywillows (talk) 04:01, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

As an expansion of this, for closed system platforms, I think it makes sense to establish a hard cutoff date, or at least a year, for an announced game to not have come out by to be considered cancelled/unreleased. For example, there are reilable sources that put 2002 as the year of the N64's discontinuation, and 3DS or Wii U can use March 27, 2023, the date when their digital storefronts were fully shut down (ergo, the date at which games no longer could be officially released for those platforms). In a few very rare cases, there are games that were officially released well after their systems were officially discontinued, such as on the Dreamcast or Wii, but there should be sources that establish these as the final official releases for their systems, meaning their release dates can be used as the cutoff instead. I've started implementing this on several articles, both as as a proof of concept and to hopefully discourage erroneous inclusions. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 05:29, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

I've done some research and a lot of these older platforms have these books published that chronicle every released game for a system too, so the sourcing does exist even beyond what I was already aware of. Sergecross73 msg me 18:02, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

To throw another example, look at the list of Atari Jaguar games that were never released: tons of them were listed, announced and/or previewed in print magazines, online magazines, trade shows, or featured in VHS tapes by magazines like Atari Explorer Online. Worse yet, we are still finding about even more unreleased Jaguar titles via interviews with former Jaguar developers or in disks from Atari staff recovered by folks like Atarimania. I will say this though: the cut-off point for officially announced but never released Jaguar titles is between 1996 (when Atari ceased support but let third-parties like Telegames to release the games they licensed for it from Atari) and 1998 (when the last officially released game for the system was released, that being Worms). Anything after Hasbro Interactive declared both the Jaguar and the Atari Lynx as open platforms cannot be included. Roberth Martinez (talk) 16:19, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

@Sergecross73:I am the one responsible for the mess that is the list of unreleased Atari Jaguar games so i want to say that if i don't get around to it at any point, i can at least try to help finding sources for each entry that i've found so far. Something we have to also take in consideration is interviews with or anecdotes by former game developers hosted on fan forums. For example, i had one GA review where i had to clarify that while an interview hosted on a fan forum about Native (Sturmwind) and by extension Iron Soldier 3 did quote stuff from other sources, that was more to provide a context around the game's development and the main interview content of the source was actually original material not found anywhere else. Same with stuff like an interview with David Wightman of Baldies or anecdotes by Scott Corley of Ruiner Pinball and Olivier Nallet of Super Burnout. In the case of Corley and Nallet, we know their anecdotes are by them because they introduced themselves on a post in a topic of the forum. Roberth Martinez (talk) 16:59, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

No worries, I was planning on cleaning up the Atari Jaguar/Lynx ones eventually too, I just hadn't gotten around to them yet. They're a bit more work for me just because I don't have a ton of background knowledge for those platforms - I've never followed Atari all that much. The editor who started this discussion did some pretty heavy-handed cuts to that list, but they can still be reviewed from the page history and restored with proper sourcing. I've tried to avoid using any messageboard posts per WP:USERG, but usually it seems like with enough digging I can usually find some sort of sourcing out there somewhere. Sergecross73 msg me 18:00, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Can you please explain to me what exactly was heavy-handed about my edits at List of cancelled Atari Jaguar games? Looking back at my edits on that page, nothing stands out to me as such. 🦀Cronacrab🦀 | talk 21:25, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

You removed 12k of info and and entire column without any effort put towards adding or replacing anything? Sergecross73 msg me 22:24, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

I mean, I removed that column because I saw it wasn't in any of the other similar lists, and I don't think replacing citations to wikis and forum posts with Template:Citation needed is considered heavy-handed at all. 🦀Cronacrab🦀 | talk 22:50, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

I didn't say it was wrong. If it was, I would have reverted you. But it was a lot of deleting with no effort to actually source anything yourself, which is also like 99% of your recent edits to the article space these days. Sergecross73 msg me 23:36, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

@Sergecross73:Although to be fair here, Cronacrab pretty much update the list formatting to be more in line with your reworked lists. Roberth Martinez (talk) 22:40, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

@Sergecross73:The only reasoning i have with using message board posts is if it features an interview with a game developer, if a game developer decides to share anecdotes about a particular game in a topic inside the forum, or if it features internal documents from a company detailing about the game's fate unearthed by fans of the platform. Roberth Martinez (talk) 18:50, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Documents hosted on a forum can be used as sources, but nothing from the surrounding discussion should be used. Interviews hosted on forums can perhaps

be used for WP:ABOUTSELF or sometimes as subject-matter experts' opinions. The main problem I have with these is lack of proof that the poster is who he says he is. Reddit AMAs are an example of forum interviews that are used somewhat widely on Wikipedia. See WP:RSREDDIT. 🦀Cronacrab🦀 | talk 22:04, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

@Cronacrab:About that part regarding developers sharing who they are on a topic and their anecdotes, here are two examples that i'm speaking of: Scott Corley from High Voltage Software (Ruiner Pinball) introducing himself and Olivier Nallet of Shen Technologies (Super Burnout) stumbling upon the AtariAge forums and later sharing his anecdotes with the users. Roberth Martinez (talk) 22:40, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

I would say no without proof of identity. I'm not sure exactly what that could entail, though. WP:ABOUTSELF says so long as "There is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;" but doesn't include what that means. I think the internet standard has frequently been a picture. Maybe a known account of the developer confirming they did it? Or a news source reporting it as true (but then you could just use the better source.) Or even more hypothetical here, if the forum has a reputation for hosting quality interviews?

Looking at those two makes me wonder if being the subject of the thread matters or not. To me, it just looks less legit to be a response in an existing thread vs. a dedicated one. 🦀Cronacrab🦀 | talk 23:24, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

@Cronacrab:Okay then, in that case, what if publications dedicated to retro video games like Retro Gamer and Time Extension haven't done a feature on those two particular games as an example? From my point of view, pretty much anything relating to a game in question goes into the development section, particularly when you're dealing with games that were on least successful platforms or were late releases in the platform's lifespan. In the case of Ruiner Pinball, i had to look for sources to back up the poster identifying himself as Scott Corley on the 3DO Zone forums outside of the game's manual, which thankfully i did managed to look up. Heck, i have used Twitter posts of former game developers and not just me but also many other users here on this WP, as they are sharing anecdotes that is not even featured in any interview. Sorry if i sound very defensive but that's just my opinion. Roberth Martinez (talk) 00:37, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Today's the 9th anniversary of Breath of the Wild. Anyone interested in bringing this article to FA for its 10th anniversary, main contributors or otherwise? Would it be doable within one year from now? Also posted on the article's talk page. PantheonRadiance (talk) 23:03, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

I can help look up sources to add, sure Cukie Gherkin (talk) 23:29, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Sonic the Hedgehog 4 (film)#Requested move 4 March 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. silviaASH (inquire within) 07:43, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Just notifying members of this project that there is a Conflict of Interest edit request relevant to this WikiProject at the Julian Togelius article. DrThneed (talk) 03:02, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

The example I have for this is in the page for A Short Hike which says 'to reach the top, the player has to obtain at least seven [golden feathers]' with 2 reliable sources attached. The only slight problem is that the claim is demonstrably false as can be seen by looking at any speedrun (although it is possible to reach the top using only intended mechanics and fewer than 7 feathers). I was planning on replacing it with something like 'the game encourages you to find 7 feathers before you reach the top to encourage exploration although it is possible with fewer'

Is there a standard for how to cite this and similar things? I was planning on linking a speedrun which would get the point across but feels a bit strange to use. Flapjack06 (talk) 18:46, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Are the speedrunners breaking the game to accomplish this? Because we would only write about the game as it's meant to work. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:04, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

As someone who loves playing that game (and that was recently promoted to GA), I remember doing it with just 7 feathers the first time, and also states that new players should consider getting more. But anyway, the answer is verifiability, not truth. Even if that page never existed, its always safe to assume its going to be a novice/average gamer reading the article. And reliable sources haven't really talked about speedrunning the game, so inclusion of it (including that it can be beaten with <7 feathers) is considered WP:UNDUE weight. JuniperChill (talk) 19:24, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

I think you can look at FA and infamously broken game Super Mario 64 for reference. The gameplay section describes the gameplay as designed: The final level of the game is blocked by "endless stairs" similar to the Penrose stairs concept, but Mario can bypass them by collecting seventy Power Stars. Speedruns and glitches that allow players to bypass this, while mentioned later in the article, are not referenced in the gameplay section. ~ A412 ^talk! 19:24, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

To add to this:

1) This is entirely possible without breaking the game (see this run and note that the level of precision required drops massively if you have 5 feathers not 2). I wanted to use a speedrun because it is the easiest way to find a video of someone who does not want to collect golden feathers and the existence of moderators means there is at least some proof that the thing was not faked.

2) I would call this an alternate route not a speed-running thing. it is slightly harder but not massively so and the bouncy flowers are an intended mechanic.

3) I think the fact that I can show a video of someone doing the thing combined with the fact that the other sources do not focus too much on it means WP:TRUTH does not apply.

4)I think points 1 and 2 are enough to beat WP:UNDUE given that I am adding 5 words.

5) I do not think the Super Mario 64 example is directly relevant because of points 1 and 2.

@A412 @Darkwarriorblake @JuniperChill You all replied very close together putting this in one comment means I am not in 3 slightly different debates at the same time. Flapjack06 (talk) 19:53, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

In any case, youtube is normally not a reliable source per WP:RSPYT. And citing that speedrun is effectively the same as citing yt because it came from the yt video, not the speedrun.com site. So anything to do with speedruns, or that it can be beaten with <7 feathers should not be mentioned, especially since A Short Hike is a good article and inclusion of that would fail WP:GACR 4. JuniperChill (talk) 20:19, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

I would of thought that by putting the video on their website speedrun.com would have said that they agree with the content of it. Obviously this is a dubious case at the best of times but if the website that had the video on it was generally held to be reliable source material is there a policy that says that the website giving it their aprova does not make it a good source?

To be clear I have at this point lost the argument and think we should either follow WhipMyWillow suggestion of saying 'encouraged to' or leve it be. I'm just curious. Flapjack06 (talk) 23:12, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Speedrun.com is WP:USERGENERATED. The leaderboards are moderated but they're moderated by each game's community. There is practically no oversight by the website administative staff or any other central editorial body. None of that is really a bad thing, in fact it's pretty similar to how Wikipedia operates. But you also can't cite Wikipedia on Wikipedia for the same reasons. Whipmywillows (talk) 10:59, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Generally, for plot aspects of articles (video games, books, etc), the media piece itself is considered the source. But as soon as you cross into analysis of the media, you need to provide reliable secondary sources to avoid OR. Per MOS:VGGAMEPLAY, "while secondary sources like reviews are preferred, primary sources like game manuals and game guides are acceptable, though articles should not incorporate too many gameplay-related details". Basically, if you're analyzing the gameplay (ie. "here is this non-standard path"), you need a source that isn't the game itself. And I'd argue you need a secondary source highlighting why the speedrun aspect is important/notable (see WP:NOTGUIDE #3). Sariel Xilo (talk) 20:28, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Going off of others, the Gameplay section should detail how the game is intended to function, and sidenotes about how you can glitch out the game is out of scope for the article unless notability is demonstrated; for example Big Rigs: Over the Road Racing is so buggy that it impacts the Gameplay, so it's mentioned there. Both Super Mario World and Ocarina of Time can technically be beaten with an "alternate route" (i.e. arbitrary code execution) but we're not going to update the article to say, "The player wins the game by rescuing the princess or by glitching the game to wrap to the credits." ThomasO1989 (talk) 20:31, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Agreed; it should be how the game is supposed to work, if you can technically sequence break the game, it shouldn't be mentioned unless that exploit is in itself notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:33, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

I wonder if the wording similar to what A412 mentioned wouldn't be fine here. "The final level of the game is blocked by "endless stairs"...but Mario can bypass them by collecting seventy Power Stars." It doesn't say Mario needs 70 stars to bypass the stairs or that there might not be another way to bypass them. It just says that 70 stars will bypass them, which is true. Perhaps something like, "Players can collect 7 feathers to bypass certain barriers blocking the player from reaching the top of the mountain, out of 20 total." or something like that. I haven't played the game so the proper details would need to be added here but that would sidestep WP:UNDUE concerns while also being true.

To note, I'm pretty sympathetic to your plight here. One of my personal bug bears is this PC Gamer article which is verifiable under the rules of Wikipedia yet is full of factual inaccuracies. Even that tagline, "The zip glitch that makes this possible is removed by the v1.03 patch." is just straight up false and could have been fact checked within seconds by asking anyone within the speedrunning community. I think it's a pretty constant struggle in this WikiProject to have to deal with sources that don't have as thorough an editorial process as we might want. But unfortunately this is how Wikipedia works. We're not supposed to be the source of information only the collectors of it, and we have to agree on what information to collect and what not somehow. Whipmywillows (talk) 22:34, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Also to note the sources here don't really say "You must get seven feathers to complete the game". Washington Post here says, "it’s stated that people trekking up Hawk Peak should have at least seven feathers in their possession". The GDC talk says, "You wouldn't be able to get to the top of the mountain unless you had collected at least seven golden feathers...[but] I knew there were a lot of shortcuts you could take. Like, I had this main plan but there are lots of ways you could get around it"". Personally I think "Players are encouraged to find seven golden feathers" does actaully WP:STICKTOTHESOURCE here. Whipmywillows (talk) 23:00, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

I agree. this is probably the best route forward Flapjack06 (talk) 23:02, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Not perhaps quite the same but a bugbear I've had for years (and probably no one else on WP cares but me) is that the game Cities XXL is split out into its own page when it's literally the same game as Cities XL with less changes between them than between some versions of the latter game. but because of the very slightly new name RSes made it out to be a 'sequel'. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 06:45, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

You could say, consistent with sources, "The player must find a number of feathers to be able to progress to the mountain." avoiding the actual number while still being in spirit of what sources say. Masem (t) 22:48, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

I second Masem's proposal. Unless there's another significance to the number 7 (for example, if they picked that number for a specific reason), there's not really much reason to include it anyway. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 07:54, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

So, there are some confusions and reservations I have with how sources are categorized and all at WP:VG/RS. IGN China is listed as seperate despite no other language branch (besides one I'll mention) being listed seperately. Same with Automaton Japan. Meristation is in English, but it's still arbitrarily placed in the Spanish area since that's how it originated. I'm bringing it up here so that people can discuss and consensize and somesuch. But I will be changing it if no one ends up objecting. EnvironmentalDoor (talk) 11:51, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

I think it may be more of an afterthought to organize it like that, as ultimately, to me, it doesn't really matter what language it is. I have no problem with you changing it, but it may be good to see if anyone else has any insight on it first. Sergecross73 msg me 12:18, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

I think it would be useful to clarify which IGN it is. Some games for example I've found reviewed seperately and will have some unique view points. This happens with Yuppie Psycho, a Spanish-French co-production which got reviews from IGN Spain and IGN Japan, with IGN Japan being key as its review does have a unique perspective on the anime-styled artwork for a game not made in Japan. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:51, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

I agree, it's worth noting/documenting the regional variants. I'm just indifferent on if it factors into how we organize it. Sergecross73 msg me 00:31, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Can someone tell me which category is generally needed for peer reviews to appear on open tasks? I chose General for Stardew Valley, which is probably wrong. Vestigia Leonis (talk) 08:29, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

I guess the arts section? This is because video games fall under the works of art category, which is why they are written in italics. Also, congrats on getting Stardew to GA and planning to get it to FAC! JuniperChill (talk) 23:32, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, and yeah, I checked the full list of all peer reviews now. Both arts and everyday life have a video game related article, so I probably need to take one of them. Vestigia Leonis (talk) 12:17, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

 A listing of all articles newly added to the Video Games Wikiproject (regardless of creation date). Generated by v3.21 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 13:24, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

• Articles deleted/removed: CTGP Revolution, Farcana, Tiny Bull Studios
• Drafts deleted/removed: Draft:Allconade, Draft:Behold Ventures, Draft:Best Selling Xbox Series Games, Draft:Blox Fruits, Draft:Bracket City, Draft:Dev Null Productions, Draft:Dstroy, Draft:Elscar Games AB, Draft:Foxo, Draft:Fredrik Präntare, Draft:Glory to the Heroes (video game), Draft:MPINGA Janson, Draft:Michael, Draft:Minecraft 2025 black rock, Draft:Pippols, Draft:Stepford County Railway, Draft:Sword Route, Draft:The Longest Tale, Draft:The Lost Battalion MilSim, Draft:Ulf Andersson (game designer), Draft:World of Tanks Modern Armor
• Articles redirected: BT-7274, List of Telltale Games video games, Mr. Game & Watch, Pretendo Network, RORTOS
• Categories deleted/removed: Pump It Up (video game series) competitions, Video game consoles that sold fewer than 1 million units, Video games developed by SonderingEmily
• Templates deleted/removed: {{Genshin Impact}}, {{Honkai: Star Rail}}
• New categories: Kingdom Hearts games — Cat's Tuxedo, Kingdom Hearts music — WinstonDewey, Lego Star Wars video games — (Oinkers42), Nintendo fandom — HighlandFacts, Oro Interactive games — Waxworker, Video game companies of Holland — GhostInTheMachine, Video games about depression — Knarcurama, Video games based on Internet-based works — (Oinkers42), Video games based on web series — (Oinkers42), Video games designed by Albert Birney — HighlandFacts
• New templates: {{Famicom Detective Club}} — Kulik5120, {{Terrible Posture Games}} — ~2026-36641-4

The bot was broken for most of the week, so when it came back it dumped all of the changes in the final day (and my script doesn't attempt to fix that). So, here's a clump of articles. --PresN 13:24, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Ehh, Getter Love isn't really a new article. It's been sitting as a stub for years, until I spent the last few months pulling it up to C. The script might have just mistaken it for one because of a recent page move. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 17:44, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

I have destubbed Star Reach (video game) (1994) and expanded it based on some reviews (MG lists a few more, but I haven' found them yet, PC Gamer might be in this ~35gb mess at IA ...). Anyway, I would like to DYK that, but first, the classification of this game is hard.

Before my edits the lead called it a "an hybrid action and real-time strategy", while the infobox had "Real-time strategy, Economic sim, Space flight simulation game". Categories were for RTS and Category:Action-strategy video games but we have no main article for that concept (Action-strategy game?).

Economic sim was obviously wrong (it's pretty clear this is a downsized 4X strategy game, with economy being just one dimension). The problem is with the RTS and flight-space sim game stuff.

Many reviews / sites confirm the game has a real time element, but I am not sure it is fair to call it a real time strategy. The reviews make it clear the game has an arcade/Star Control-style ship piloting part, in which player can travel between planets and take part in combat, but that's more of a shoot 'em up (per Star Control II) thana space-flight sim genre. Abd having read the four reviews I am still unsure how the game is played outside the time you are piloting the ship (if the shoot 'em up top-down view is "piloting"). At least one review mentions turn-based gameplay as well (Polish - quoted and verified, it's online too if you want to double check), but the others don't mention turn-based play. Currently the lead calls it a "a hybrid turn-based strategy and arcade-action space flight simulation" but and the infobox, "Space flight simulation game, strategy game" but I think shoot 'em up is > to Space flight simulation. Would "a hybrid turn-based strategy and arcade-action shoot 'em up" make sense? (And does the game really have turns??).

For what it's worth: MobyGames keywords it as "Genre: Action, Strategy / tactics. Perspective: Top-down. Pacing: Real-time. Gameplay: Managerial / business simulation, Shooter", MyAbandonware is very similar. ibiblio.org/ capsule review has a soundbite "real-time, simulataneous action/strategy game... a blend of economic strategy with pure reflex outer-space combat.". Sigh. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:17, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

"Strategy video game" or "action strategy video game" seem to be the common terminology for primary and secondary sources, though I haven't dug through them deeply. I think it's easy to overthink a genre. You don't need to be overly specific on the genre tags if the sources aren't. The gameplay description serves the purpose of what the game is actually like to play. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 12:36, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

I think as a general principle, think of it from a general audience point of view, anything more than two genres will confuse the average player on what to expect and most people don't know game genres outside a gaming audience. Sources that go more into depth on how the game is played can help expand how the game fits a genre or what kind of game it may be without playing it. In the case of your example, I wouldn't use database information if its complicated to pile on-genres. The turn-based stuff can go into gameplay section. If its overtly complicated and hard to pindown, go with a brass-tacks approach, its still probably a strategy game from what you've suggested. You can go into details about what kind of game it is via the gameplay prose. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:06, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

@Andrzejbanas @Maplestrip Good points. I am all for simplifing the lead to "action strategy video game", but what do we list in the infobox and categories? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:24, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

If no source calls it a hybrid but say one and the other or something, would "Action, strategy" be applicable? If not, you could just leave it blank. Sometimes games just don't fit into a genre in a simple way. Andrzejbanas (talk) 10:52, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

@BOZ A friendly ping in case you can locate any review I missed (PC Gamer perhaps?). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:01, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Not more than what you see here: BOZ (talk) 02:31, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Is your recommendation to list it there as "Action strategy / tactics", and to ignore the items listed under "Pacing" and "Gameplay" and such? ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:03, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

PC Gamer review Timur9008 (talk) 16:27, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

@Timur9008 Thanks, but it's just the summary, not the review proper? But I found the file at , will read shortly. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:49, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Just notifying members of this project that there is a Conflict of Interest edit request relevant to this WikiProject at the Microgaming article. DrThneed (talk) 00:56, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

With GDC thus week, there continues to be freely licensed photos taken during sessions from the conference . They arent labeled so you'll have to dig to figure out who's who. And when the GDCA/IGF awards happen tomorrow there has always been a post award "red carpet" photoshoot as well as during both presentations and those are often very good for Dev and tram shots. Masem (t) 19:13, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Commons gallery: c:Category:Game Developers Conference 2026 TarkusAB^talk/contrib 04:59, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

This page, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_Sega_Genesis_games, mentions Mortal Kombat sold 4.33 million on Genesis, based on the source "Acclaim sold approximately 6.5 million Mortal Kombat cartridges. The Genesis version, which included the original arcade fatality moves, outsold the edited-down Super NES version by nearly three-to-one." As if to say that the SNES version sold 2.17 million, but wouldn't that account for the Game Boy and Game Gear versions which were also cartridge-based?

Electricmastro (talk) 03:19, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Alan Wake has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 17:49, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

i have two flyers for the games Blaster (video game) and Sinistar

https://flyers.arcade-museum.com/videogames/show/2413

https://flyers.arcade-museum.com/videogames/show/1388

GyroidGalaxian (talk) 21:48, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Feel free to participate in the split discussion. Dabmasterars [RU/COM] (talk/contribs) 18:30, 14 March 2026 (UTC)