Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games

@Wikipedian12512 and I would like to start some form of subproject/task force regarding the real-life historical figures/buildings/units featured in the Civilization (series). If anyone would like to join, contact either of us. - PhilDaBirdMan (Talk | Contribs) 14:52, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

The following is an improved version of the messgae I left on my talk page:

I am here to propose a taskforce for helping articles that exist in Sid Meier's Civlization VI. This includes:

World wonders

Natural wonders

Civics

Techs

Leaders

Certain policy slots

Unique units

Unique districts

Great people

etc.

The point of this taskforceis not to add information pertaining to the game, but to have the game act as a catalyst for fostering improvement of the articles the game references.

Thank you!

If people would like to join, please put your name at the bottom. Once we have reached a satisfactory number of people, we will attempt to start.

Thanks again to anyone who wants to join.

Sincerely,

Wikipedian12512(alt) (talk) 14:59, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

While an interesting idea, I feel like what you're after would go well beyond the scope of this wikiproject, as you want to focus on the actual historical items?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:50, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, its such a narrow scope, you're probably better off just collaborating together on it at Talk:Civilization (series). You'll also want to make sure you're familiar with the concept of WP:GAMECRUFT. I feel like much of this effort may make more sense for one of those super-fan wikias or something too. Just a thought. Sergecross73 msg me 16:01, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Not that narrow. Go to civilization wiki, list of wonders in civ 6. Then multiply by 3 for the other games (there are some repeats). Then multiply by 9 for the leaders, great people, etc. That's a rough estimate, but it doesn't even count civics, (it does for techs, since I know almost all of those have Wikipedia articles). Plus, Wikipedia values quality over quantity. The goal would be to greatly improve the quality of some of these articles, not add a few sentences to some.

Moreover, as I have already mentioned, the game is to act as a way to gather enthusiasm for this editing project. Also, as has been mentioned, this would be a task force, not a project on its own.

Thank you. Wikipedian12512(alt) (talk) 16:16, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Okay, I'll let you figure it out on your own then. Good luck. Sergecross73 msg me 20:30, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Not annoyed, per se, it's just that I don't like unconstructive criticism. Constructive criticism is okay, I guess. Wikipedian12512(alt) (talk) 20:37, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

I understand that it goes slightly beyond the bounds of this project, but it goes more beyond the bounds of other projects. This would be the best place for it. Wikipedian12512(alt) (talk) 16:19, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Just to clarify, you are asking people here to collaborate on real-life elements that appear in Civ 6? So you are referring to articles like Eiffel Tower, Galápagos Islands, Isaac Newton, and Inca Empire? If that is the case, you should be asking people at Wikipedia:WikiProject History rather than here. OceanHok (talk) 16:48, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Yes, but also things that fit into biographies, biographies of women, science, mathematics, entertainment, etc. Wikipedian12512(alt) (talk) 16:59, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

The article "Mathematics" would be a valid candidate for this project. As would robotics, autocracy, rock bands, national parks, Triangular trade, Cardiff, Potala Palace, Trajan, The Statue of Liberty, Opera, and the Bermuda Triangle. Given that the only criteria for inclusion would lie under solely this WikiProject's domain, I see no reason why it should go out of this WikiProject's domain. Wikipedian12512(alt) (talk) 20:26, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Recruit for your hobby project if you want, but it should not be a sub-project or task force related to this WikiProject. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 22:28, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

This sounds like a bad idea. We dont just want a list of game items, even if you can link them all to existing historical articles.

If this is appropriate it needs to be through the lens of they are implemented in he civil games, and that I feel will be tough to support with sourcing. Masem (t) 22:40, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

There might be some way we can include some of the elements/list entries in either the article of 4X games or the articles for the specific Civ games, though a full list of everything, if unsourced or undersourced, seems like a bad idea. - PhilDaBirdMan (Talk | Contribs) 22:51, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Unless I've misinterpreted, I don't see anyone proposing a list of game items. This is just a project to improve history-related articles, using the Civilization series as a starting point to help select which articles to improve.

It probably shouldn't be a full task force, and ongoing discussion should take place elsewhere, but I don't see anything wrong with leaving this initial message here; it obviously has some crossover with video games, so logically there may be some editors here who are interested.

Good luck to all editors involved; it's a project that may take years, but it's an admirable one. Consider recruiting on other WikiProjects too, like WP:BIOG, WP:MIL, and WP:GEOG. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 23:20, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. I think people misinterpreted (I don’t blame them, see my talk page). The only reason we came here was to gather people to help, and I appreciate the idea of expanding.

Honestly, I just needed a way to get people for this that was more efficient than going onto the civilization page and looking for bold green numbers.

Thanks again! Wikipedian12512 (talk) 02:46, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Using the Civilization series as inspiration to improve a lot of history-related articles seems like a good idea to me. You can create a WP-space page listing, for example, all Civilization "leaders" with their quality class listed, and then also list what work may need to be done to bring the article to a higher quality. That will be very different for Lady Six Sky versus President Lincoln, which is fun about such a project. Definitely let us know if something like this comes about; I would be curious to see such lists at the very least. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 06:33, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Regardless of if you make it in project space or userspace, a to-do list of these leaders and other similar things sounds like a good idea. I have a to-do list you can look at to learn formatting. - PhilDaBirdMan (Talk | Contribs) 12:50, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm working on making a table for things to work on. It's in my sandbox. I have a poor idea of how notable each wonder is, so I may want a second opinion on those. I've finished wonders, and at this time, I am working on leaders. I'm not going to include the countries themselves, because I don't really understand why, say, America would be below an A. Wikipedian12512(alt) (talk) 20:21, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Everything should be decently notable because Civ 6 (a major videogame) included it. It’s no Atlas Obscura. I know class grading isn’t the best, with some articles that seem well-written being C-class. - PhilDaBirdMan (Talk | Contribs) 20:34, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I wasn't too clear there. I meant "For the wonders, I may have included unintentional bias towards what the goal for improvement should be." Wikipedian12512(alt) (talk) 20:56, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedian12512(alt) (talk) 16:55, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Just go to my sandbox for the better formatting. Wikipedian12512(alt) (talk) 16:56, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Working on the leaders now. Wikipedian12512(alt) (talk) 20:18, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Here is Wikipedian's sandbox as mentioned: User:Wikipedian12512(alt)/sandbox. Nice work so far :) ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 11:16, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! Wikipedian12512(alt) (talk) 19:48, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Would you like to help with this project? Wikipedian12512(alt) (talk) 18:52, 10 April 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 19:36, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

• Articles deleted/removed: Eli's Ladder, Microgaming, TechnoMotion, House of Legacy, Persian Maze, Super Pro Fighter Q
• Drafts deleted/removed: Draft:Sarepta Studio, Draft:TreasureQuesting, Draft:AidYT, Draft:Cultural impact of Umamusume: Pretty Derby, Draft:Ossi Ketola, Draft:Dejobaan Games, Draft:Online gaming in Indonesia, Draft:Turbo Overkill, Draft:Xbox ROG Ally, Draft:Bytro Labs, Draft:Call of War, Draft:Conflict of Nations, Draft:Pneumata, Draft:Starship Home (video game), Draft:Tear Ring Saga Series: Berwick Saga: Lazberia Chronicle Chapter 174, Draft:AZUR, Draft:GregTech: New Horizons, Draft:Julian's Editor (Builda), Draft:Nickelodeon Dance, Draft:Shadowgate (video game series), Draft:The Rexxor–NortiTDZ Crobbery Showdown (2025)
• Articles redirected: GNOME Chess, Rotom, Jailbreak (Roblox), Tetris Block Party, Jai (programming language)
• Categories deleted/removed: Fictional Welsh people in video games, Female video games villains, Good Smile Company, Fictional Scottish people in video games, Overwatch League franchise relocations, Seoul Infernal, Vegas Eternal
• New categories: Kid Icarus games — HighlandFacts (newly tagged - originally created 31 days ago), Stefan Pavelka games — Asceno, Online games shut down in 2027 — LaundryPizza03 (newly tagged - originally created 2 months ago), Pokémon downloadable content — Omnis Scientia, Sonic the Hedgehog racing games — (Oinkers42), Video game-related legal disputes — SilviaASH, Video games involved in legal disputes — SilviaASH, Backyard Sports — WikiPediaAid (newly tagged - originally created 1 year ago), WMS Industries — Trivialist (newly tagged - originally created 13 years ago), Video games based on works by John Hughes (filmmaker) — Uriahheep228, Marvel Rivals — Kung Fu Man, Fate (franchise) anime — GranCavallo, Fate (franchise) characters — GranCavallo, Fate (franchise) manga — GranCavallo, Fate (franchise) novels — GranCavallo, Brownies (company) games — Waxworker, Edmark games — Waxworker, Gamenauts games — Waxworker, Pocket Trap games — Waxworker, Secret Mode games — Waxworker, Shiny Shoe games — Waxworker

--PresN 19:36, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Disco Elysium doesn't seem like it should be here. ~ A412 ^talk! 19:49, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Probably because of the ZA/UM article, which got created, draftified, and turned into a redirect all within the last update period, as far as I can tell. ScalarFactor (talk) 20:03, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

It had been created as an article back in 2022 but was WP:BLARed by OceanHok as seen here. I figured there's probably a case to be made that ZA/UM is or will be independently notable, so I moved it to Draft:ZA/UM and restored the article from the page history so that it could be developed further. silviaASH (inquire within) 06:00, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

On a spree of cleaning up articles I came across this article: Othello (1986 video game) which still needs a bit of help but tries to disambiguate between other Othello games by giving a brief history of Othello (a.k.a Reversi) video games. I realized first that it's overview of this topic was wildly incomplete, and second that the history of Reversi in video games is actually pretty complicated and too long to fit into the lead of a random NES game. I mean just off the top of my head you've got, Computer Othello (Nintendo's first video game), Othello (for the Atari 2600), Reversi (for the Intellivision), Dynasty! (for the Odyssey 2), the Othello Multivision (a clone of the SG-1000 with Othello on board), Othello (for the actual SG-1000), Othello (the NES game), Reversi (the original Windows game, shoutouts to Steve Ballmer), Othello World the SNES game, and more. All made by different people and using pretty similar names.

I wanted an article to contain all these games so articles like this could just link there instead of trying to disambiguate all of these properly, but I wasn't sure whether I should make a new article (maybe History of Reversi video games), add it all to Computer Othello which covers some of this stuff, or try and shove it all into Reversi. I was also curious if people knew of other Othello/Reversi games before I go hunting through games lists. Whipmywillows (talk) 07:41, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Computer Othello appears to be the page you want to add to, though I don't know if that name is a particularly good one. It may be better to move it to Othello video game and move Computer Othello (video game) to Computer Othello as primary topic (especially if it gets recreated into a full article). ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:13, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

It seems to me Computer Othello is going by the conventions of Computer chess and Computer go, all three of which are pretty focused on AIs designed to play the board game as opposed to software meant to recreate it. Those are related but I'm worried this might fall a little outside that scope. I might bring this to Talk:Computer Othello and see if anyone there feels strongly about it. Whipmywillows (talk) 17:22, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Good afternoon. Another user and I have a rather interesting situation. After initially arguing with Damien Linnane over the need for consistency in article formatting for games within a series, I suddenly noticed that the source they use to list the game as the seventh or eighth in the mainline (a guide for newcomers to the series) actually contradicts IGN's own review of Resident Evil 9, where they explicitly list the game as the ninth mainline, following Capcom's official numbering. This creates a strange situation where the same resource effectively lists the game as both the seventh mainline, ignoring the official numbering, and the fifth mainline, albeit indirectly following the official numbering. I believe this effectively invalidates the reference to the guide, not to mention its debatable status as an authoritative source, suggesting a compromise where the game is listed as the fifth mainline and the seventh in major releases. Another user objects, claiming that this is just my opinion, effectively implying that we need to separately prove that calling the ninth game the ninth also means they consider it the fifth (also pointing out that if IGN is considered authoritative, I supposedly cannot question the link to it due to contradiction with other articles on the resource). This is further complicated by the article's special status, and I really don't want to engage in lengthy debates there, let alone an edit war. Solaire the knight (talk) 14:13, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Tellingly, this situation is already echoing last year's discussions, when, while debating whether we should list Resident Evil Requiem as the ninth game according to official numerology, we actually encountered a situation where many resources followed the fandom categorization in the past or during the anticipation of the new game's release, but in their reviews or news articles, they unexpectedly followed Capcom's numbering and listed it as the ninth for now. I really want to put an end to this, because this section of articles regularly becomes both the target of fan changes and the object of constant debate and discussion among users. Even after a consensus was reached on the series' navigational template a couple of months ago, a new discussion on the matter was still started by an anonymous user. Solaire the knight (talk) 14:26, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The dispute can be found at Talk:Resident_Evil_5#"Major_games". I also very much want another opinion on the talk page, and also regarding the disputed changes repeatedly being made to a featured article without consensus.

Backstory: Resident Evil 5 is the first featured article in Resident Evil series once the numbering of games does not match the order of release. When it passed through FAC, it explicitly stated it was the seventh major game in the series. In retrospect this may have been an oversight, but I didn't think this needed to be sourced as this can just be counted, and apparently neither did the FAC reviewers.

Solaire the knight has changed this to fifth main game in the series, citing the fact other (non-featured) articles only use the main numbering to determine main games: . Following WP:BRD, I explained it's not the fifth main game in the series, and also that the wording at lower rated articles should not be used as justification to change the wording at a featured article: . Solaire then requested a citation that it wasn't the fifth main game, and I provided one that backed up what the article originally said, that it is the seventh main game in the series . At this point, rather than achieving consensus, Solaire the knight removed the source I found, using the justification above (which I believe constitutes as WP:OR), and reworded the article to an unsourced version which they preferred, without consensus, even though there was an active dispute . All comments are welcome. Damien Linnane (talk) 14:28, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

I've already cited a source that effectively called this game the fifth, defining the newest game in the series as the ninth. What's more, it was published on the same resource you used. Although you yourself initiated this discussion by reversing others' edits, I'm willing to temporarily return to the status quo for the duration of the discussion, but until Wrath X is edited. That is, until my and your edits today. Solaire the knight (talk) 14:42, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Reversing an initial bold change once before attempting to achieve consensus on the talk page is very much allowed as per WP:BRD. However, I accept your offer to return to the status quo until the dispute is resolved. I will add in citations to address you concern but I won't change the prose. Damien Linnane (talk) 14:49, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

In that case, your attempts to effectively accuse me of intending to revert any of your edits without providing any sources for their replacement seem even stranger. But anyway, since you seem to have agreed, I've temporarily reverted the article to the version before today's edits. Solaire the knight (talk) 14:54, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

In particular, Eurogamer, in their article about a potential remake, calls the game "the fifth mainline entry." However, in their earlier guide, they also tried to expand the numbering (at the same time, they directly call Village the eighth mainline game, adding to the confusion). Your own source, by the way, also refers to the fifth and sixth games as "fifth and sixth entries" despite the addition of Zero and CV. As you can see, you're not the only one citing sources, and I'm not just pointing out the discrepancy." Solaire the knight (talk) 15:16, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

If it seems strange, then reading WP:BRD may explain. BRD only applies to the initial revert when a dispute first starts, which cannot be considered an edit war. Since a dispute was already active, your deletion of the source you requested without first obtaining consensus on the talk page is not covered by BRD. Anyway, I was legitimately concerned you would delete a source I added to the article again based on your previous behaviour of choosing to do exactly that AFTER you were already aware there was a dispute. Since you've now demonstrated you're happy for the article to return to the status quo, which I appreciate by the way, I naturally no longer hold that concern and am happy to wait for new comments from uninvolved editors. I would suggest you also wait for new opinions too instead of continuing to disagree with me here. Damien Linnane (talk) 15:56, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

I called it strange because I directly cited a source, albeit indirectly, and also said that if it would help smooth things over, I was willing to restore the status quo before the edit war began. Afterward, such accusations seemed clearly excessive and bad faith to me. But okay, this subthread has clearly gone off track, so I also agree to close the reverting part and switch to waiting for other opinions and discussing them. Solaire the knight (talk) 16:02, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

I don't think those sources are contradicting. The first one has two elements: the chronological order of how the RE story is told, and the release order which includes main and spinoffs. I'm not seeing anything in that IGN that says all games listed are considered "main" games just because they fall into certain release or chronological order (Legend of Zelda or Metroid, anyone?) Whether a game is main or side is what the second addresses. And speaking from dealing with Monster Hunter, another Capcom series, the company doesn't specifically set out games as main or side, so you're likely going to have to use what a summary of reliable sources say. And as with dropping the number system for MH World as to help with globalization, that sounds like the same rational they used to drop the numbering for Village (those still included that sneaky VIII in the title design). Masem (t) 14:31, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi Masem. Thanks for your comments, I appreciate them. Can I get your opinion on whether the contested, unsourced version should remain in place of a version approved at FAC that has since been sourced? I'm trying to avoid an edit war but if I'm the only person adding a reliable source back in again I think this user will just keep deleting it. Damien Linnane (talk) 14:37, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

The only one? I literally gave you a review from the same resource you used. And I would also ask you to refrain from such "predictions" about my actions so as not to violate WP:GF. Solaire the knight (talk) 14:42, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

We're discussing which games are considered mainline based on secondary, authoritative sources because, after (recent?) changes to Wikipedia rules, for reasons unknown to me, these have become considered superior to the official positioning of the creators themselves. Therefore, I believe there's a genuine contradiction here, as different materials from the same resource list RE5 both as the seventh mainline game, and the fifth according to the official chronology and Capcom's press releases. The motives behind this, both on the part of Capcom and the IGN editors, are an interesting question, but I doubt we can speak about it without sufficient sources. Especially considering they went back to prominent game numbering with Requiem Solaire the knight (talk) 14:42, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm going by what I have seen for Monster Hunter, in that Capcom does not call its own games as mainline or spinoff, at least for MH (see ). It seems to be reasonable that RE games are not cataloged as mainline or spinoff by Capcom, so for our purposes, we do want to recognize the release order of the games (that's indisputable) but whether it is considered mainline or not should be what we use our sources to determine since Capcom will not likely say so. Masem (t) 15:43, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Well, that's not entirely true, because they explicitly called Requiem the "ninth mainline game" in their official press release on their site, and a number of reputable sources have directly cited this , , etc. What are we to make of this? And even if we strictly follow ONLY the cited guides, we'll still run into a contradiction, because, as I showed above, they contradict not only other articles on their own resources, but even themselves. For example, Eurogamer's guide calls The Village the "eighth mainline game," while IGN's guide explicitly calls RE5 and RE6 the "fifth and sixth entries." Even if we ignore the fact that the "assumed logic as in MonHun" still needs to be confirmed by sources or at least reinforced by consensus, we're still left with contradictory and inconsistent secondary sources. This is why I suggested to indicate the original numbering and the series as a whole as a compromise, but the user rejected it. Solaire the knight (talk) 15:50, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

In the future, if there's a content dispute for a specific article with an existing talkpage discussion, I recommend inviting people to participate without going into detail about the nature of the discussion here. The original posts here can be viewed as going against WP:CANVAS guidelines. Linking the talkpage would usually be sufficient, and it's helpful to keep content-discussion centralized when possible. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 14:52, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Okay, I get it. I just thought a detailed post about the issue with inviting another user on the project page would help attract more people and avoid accusations that I'm doing something underhanded or trying to involve others in my dispute. Past attempts to simply invite people to the discussions on the talk page usually ended with nothing, as people saw the confusing conversation between several users and didn't intervene. Solaire the knight (talk) 15:00, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

This again? You bludgeoned the first discussion about this issue, the second discussion, and you're doing it again here. Most editors disagree with your direction, but we can never make meaningful progress because you bludgeon every discussion about it. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 22:30, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Me? The first discussion essentially ended with me finding the official sources and the secondary sources they cited. The second was your attempt to challenge the first, which stalled due to a lack of resolution and unresolved contradictions in the sources. At the same time, not only did I help find compromise and consensus in several discussions of templates (and with the editors, who you write now as "the majority of those who disagree with me" based on your own discussion), but I was also the loudest complainer about this topic coming up too regularly despite the lack of new arguments. I'm clearly not the one to blame for constantly raising this issue or opposing the "dominant dissent," as you try to portray it. I was even the one who suggested addition of your proposed Zero and CV to major games in the template as well, although you are now accusing me of trying to prevent this. If you want meaningful progress, then participate in the discussion, propose compromises or meaningful solutions to the situation, without blaming anyone or refusing to discuss when things don't go your way. Discussing the navigational template demonstrates that this is entirely possible with a mutual desire to reach consensus.Solaire the knight (talk) 22:51, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Resident Evil Zero (2002),Resident Evil – Code: Veronica (2000), RE1 remake are considered mainline games, which is why Resident Evil 5 can be regarded as the eighth mainline entry in the series (I will agree with@Damien Linnane). I understand the numbering thing though. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 23:18, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

If this were the dominant and consistent consensus of the source without any caveats, I wouldn't have any problems. But ultimately, as I demonstrated above, sources can't be consistent even within a single piece, so I proposed "the fifth numbered/mainline game and the seventh major release in the series" as a compromise. Or even create a separate section about these nuances But it seems this is increasingly becoming a conflict of interest due to clashing views on the "truly correct" numbering. It would be simpler to remove it from the articles altogether to avoid it becoming a constant source of controversy. Solaire the knight (talk) 23:28, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Hello everyone. I need help in writing Draft:Super Mario Bros. speedrunning. I usually write and publish all drafts myself, but I'm not too familiar with SMB1 speedrunning and the structure of the page looks a bit up in the air for me. Plus, this isn't even my draft to begin with, it was created by User:Ivyydoeswiki.

The draft seems incredibly promising, considering SMB1 speedrunning has a long and detailed history that has been covered by various reliable sources. There are already pages about notable SMB1 speedrunners such as Darbian and Niftski, so an entire page documenting the whole scene looks like a no-brainer.

I'm currently thinking whether to separate the history paragraph into the history of the scene and world record advancement. Dabmasterars [RU/COM] (talk/contribs) 15:34, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

I want to see this one happen and I might be able to help. I know a good amount about the speedrunning scene though I've only ever had a passing interest in SMB1 itself. Not verifiable I know but Kosmic is a former world record holder that has a lot of good content about the speedrun and Bismuth is a trusted name in the community who also has a bunch of good SMB1 videos. Would need to do more digging to see how much of that stuff can be properly cited.

As far as world record progression, I'm wondering if that's the kind of thing Wikipedia is not. I mean I guess we do that kind of thing for real life sports, (ala World record progression 4 × 100 metres freestyle relay). But the community doesn't really look to or trust outside sources to keep track of that stuff. It might be better to focus on notable barriers being broken, like previously impossible times being achieved. Also there should definetly be a section on the tool assisted speedrun as well. Will look to see if I can't make some improvements when I have a bit more time. Whipmywillows (talk) 17:57, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

So this project kinda sucked me in. I think it's pretty close to being undraftable but the history section has kinda been my white whale. It's easy enough to just sort of go down the list of a world record progression, which is kind of what my first attempt has been so far. But I think the world record table that's there now kinda does a better job of that anyway and the actual prose is a bit dry "then so-and-so got this time, then so-and-so got this time, etc." I've also been a little concerned about what the focus of the article should be, there aren't really many articles like this on the site yet (I think Minecraft speedrunning is the only other one) and while notability isn't really a concern (with at least 38 reliable sources), I'm still somewhat worried about the article coming off a bit WP:CRUFTy.

In my opinion the article should really be most focused on the people involved: who are they, what are their goals, what have they accomplished, and how do they interact with each other. I think that matches with what the sources have to say as well. The glitch breakdowns and strategies can be good context, it's kind of unreasonable to talk about sockfolder brute forcing flagpole glitch setups without explaining what the flagpole glitch is, but I think if we lean too hard into that stuff we run into WP:GAMEGUIDE territory and it doesn't really help anyone.

I think I need to take a step back from this for a moment, and was kind of hoping you or another editor could take a serious stab at this history section. There's plenty left in the sources to make something work, and I've made an index to help sort through them since it was starting to overwhelm me. I'm also thinking of adding a "Notable community members" section which might be better at covering some of this stuff too. Whipmywillows (talk) 05:52, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions. I can definitely find more info and sources, though I'm not sure about the focus of the article. There is actually another speedrunning page, Eggplant run (more of a challenge run, but still), which documents the origins of the speedrun, an overview with some info on runners and a "legacy" section. Though I don't think that layout particularly fits SMB speedrunning due to the latter article's sheer size, it is still reassuring that even such an obscure topic can be notable. Dabmasterars [RU/COM] (talk/contribs) 06:07, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Hello! I have discussed the idea of the creation of a Taskforce about the references to real life in the Civilization series. I have started a list in my Sandbox (see here).

I have recruited 5 people (6, including myself) to help in this endeavor. Other people may join, if they want to.

We are still working on the list of things, but we're getting closer to finishing it.

The goal of this is to greatly increase the quality of a few articles. None of them have a goal status lower than B.

We might expand to other games in the Civilization series, but I personally will not do the majority of the list.

Please put any of: agree, disagree, or neutral at the bottom, and give a reason. If you have questions or want clarifications, ask on my usual talk page, ask User:PhilDaBirdMan, or ask on the discussion above. Please do not put disagree just because you don't understand this.

If not only do you agree, but you also want to join, tell me on my talk page, and also put agree.

Thanks! Wikipedian12512(alt) (talk) 17:05, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Wasn't there already a long discussion about this? It's an interesting effort to use the Civilization series as a jump point for improving real life figures and topics, but it's outside the scope of this WikiProject. -- ferret (talk) 23:18, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

That was about the gathering of participants for this task force. Wikipedian12512 (talk) 02:13, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Oppose: This WikiProject is for improving video game coverage. Your idea is out of scope. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 02:57, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Comment - no one project covers this well. While Civ 6 (and the other games in the series), are, well, games, the rest of the project (articles to improve/maintain) are spread across history, biography, architecture, etc. Such a wide field would need some kind of focus/centre. - PhilDaBirdMan (Talk | Contribs) 03:05, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

I don't think Wikipedia has a formal structure for such a broad initiative. WikiProjects have clearly defined scopes (WP:PROJSCOPE), and task forces are even narrower. Discussion about improving Alexander the Great doesn't belong here. Neither does discussion about the Audi R8 because it's in Gran Turismo, or the red panda because it's in Planet Zoo. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 04:04, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

I think we’d have to settle for something outside the formal structure and just keep it as is: unofficial, unmoderated. I don’t think any WikiProject has a big enough scope to take us under their wing. - PhilDaBirdMan (Talk | Contribs) 04:09, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

As already explained multiple times now, this doesn't fit with what Wikiprojects or Task Forces do. You're free to do whatever you want in places like WP:USERDRAFTs as long as it can loosely be argued that it's in effort of improving an encyclopedia, but you're on the wrong track again with trying to make it be a Wikiproject or Task Force, and you've likely drummed up all the interest you can from WP:VG considering this is the second topic this week on this proposed project. Sergecross73 msg me 15:02, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

The healthiest way this works, is that you naturally expand the scope of the project as it grows. Creating an 'official' WikiProject or Task Force is not going to magically improve your project. It's all about the seat and tears that people put into the project. Feel free to create pages as they are actually helpful for the aims of your group! :) ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 16:36, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

The real reason I’m trying this here is because, on average, if it can become “official”, there is a higher chance that people who may want to join a something like this will find it. I am fully aware that I can simply control all of this without “approval”, but it does help to have more people (I think that, on average, it being “official” brings in 2 to 3 more people). In all likelihood, I’ll have to do this “unofficially”, but I like to try the most useful options first. Wikipedian12512 (talk) 16:56, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Recently I created a Category:Ski jumping video games on pl wiki (https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q137895934); the category has a dozen games, all of which appeare notable (based on reviews listed on MobyGames; I copyedited a few articles). I was surprised that not only that category does not exist en wiki (or any others, I'd have thought it would be popular in German or Scandinavian countries, where quite a few titles originated). Even more surprising, I couldn't locate a single ski jumping game on en wiki to start the categorization process. I do wonder why ski jumping games are unpopular on en wiki (in the English speaking countries)? Or is it just an accident due to no editor on en wiki ever caring about this genre? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:53, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

We do have articles on games that feature ski jumping such as Winter Games, Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Winter Games and Wii Fit, but I don’t think there are articles about games that only feature ski jumping and nothing else on it Haddad Maia fan (talk) 08:20, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Right, the ones I reviewed on pl wiki are, as far as I can tell, dedicated to ski jumping. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:30, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Honest question - have there been many recently? Or are we talking about older games? I just ask because, I just can't even think of any in the first place. I don't think I'm exposed to them in the first place. And I read a lot about video games - both for Wikipedia editing and just general enjoyment. The only ones I can think of is simply mini games of it in Olympic/Sonic+Mario games. Sergecross73 msg me 13:38, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Are they unpopular, or simply not notable by Enwiki's policies/guideliness? -- ferret (talk) 14:43, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Games which have articles, all include ski jumping as one of the events:

• Winter Games
• Downhill Challenge
• The Games: Winter Challenge
• Winter Olympics (1986 video game)
• Winter Heat

Notable games which don't have articles (include ski jumping as one of the events):

• The Games: Winter Edition (MobyGames: )
• Daley Thompson's Super-Test (MobyGames: )
• Olympic Skier (MobyGames: )
• Winter Events (MobyGames: )
• Winter Challenge: World Class Competition (MobyGames: )
• Winterspiele (MobyGames: )
• Every game in the RTL Ski series seems notable, except the 2014 mobile game: --Mika1h (talk) 17:07, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

  @Mika1h @Sergecross73 @Sergecross73 In addition to the lead above, pl category lists Deluxe Ski Jump, Ski Jump International (series), RTL series Ski Jump Challenge 2001, Ski Jump Challenge 2002, Ski Jump Challenge 2003 (some of them are listed under localized names), and Polish RTL spin-off Skoki narciarskie 2003, Skoki narciarskie 2005, Skoki narciarskie 2006. All of them seem notable (MG lists numerous reviews for each in general, links are in pl articles). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:01, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

  Thanks for the info. Must just be that they don't make it to my reading materials, and/or there's just a gap in interest in Wikipedia. Sometimes that happens. I know when I was in my phase where I was creating a lot of song articles in the late 2010s, there's were some very popular rock bands releasing clearly notable songs, but it just didn't seem like there was anyone interested in creating them. Could be a similar situation here. Sergecross73 msg me 01:44, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

  Deluxe Ski Jump was quite popular in Norway in the early 2000s, but getting significant coverage in the media was another thing altogether. Geschichte (talk) 03:45, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

  @Geschichte I accidentally stumbled just earlier today on an article in a reliable Polish video game magazine about the game (not just a review, it's more comprehensive). I can send it to anyone who is interested.(PC Extreme, p. 124, article title "Fenomen Deluxe Ski Jump", 2p long). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:00, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

  I actually found loads of reliable coverage in regular media about various entries in the RTL Ski series. Geschichte (talk) 09:02, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Hey, I created The Games: Winter Challenge and enjoyed playing it a lot on my parents' Mega Drive. Nice to see some suggestions here: I'm happy to see if I can take a crack at them. I suspect the games being named variations of Winter Games adds a challenging layer to identifying sources that may be deterrent for some. On why they're not commonplace, I think the winter sports type of game got swallowed up by the extreme sports genre very quickly, and publishers followed the money. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 08:28, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

@Vrxces Interesting topics for some solid write up article (off wiki?). Although we do have a lot of game genras that need to be covered (football manager (game genre) is on my to-do list). We don't have Winter sports video game main article, either. What I found while improving the articles on pl wiki (just a bit, I was concerned whether they were notable - which they are, they were just very poorly written and referenced) was that the genre exploded in popularity in Poland due to pl:Małyszomania - a few years of ski jumping becoming very popular in Poland after the rise to fame of Polish Olympic ski jumper Adam Małysz. This led to the "Polish branch/series" of the German RTL series. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:39, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

I'd love to try my hand at more topic-based articles - much trickier to find coverage for! As a similar aside, my current focus is video games from 1997 and I can't tell you how many games are being held up by survivng WP:NONENG coverage - so many unusually well-documented German print magazines. Made me realise the bar for notability is so much more achievable when breaking the language barrier. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 11:46, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

@Vrxces You might have seen my miniproject at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Board_and_table_games/ŚGKVG#1997, but if not - enjoy. It may have some useful sources. FYI, most of Polish magazines from that era are online. There is an incomplete list of reviews here, but stress on incomplete. Googling for "title+recenzja+"Internet Archive" often works. Or just ping me for any title you care about, and I'll see if I can dig up Polish reviews for you. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:51, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

This is seriously a great help - bookmarked. I've been doing the same for Australian magazines but haven't found an online home for it. Yes, I have been seeing a lot of CD-Action! ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 11:57, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

@Vrxces For the record, recently in Polish VG project we bought CD-Action archives 2012–2020 and pl:PSX Extreme (2011-2025). On the off chance someone needs a review from one of these (they are not in IA as both magazines are still active and they sell these issues, and we obviously don't want to hurt them...), ping me. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:34, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

An idea, if these other games cant be found to be notable but can be verified through third-party sources to have existed, that you can make a list article like "List of video games featuring winter sports" (or some other title) to include the notable and non-notable ones (and I would make it clear that the game must be focused on the winter sport(s) as a sport video game, not just happen to have a snowboarding section ala Sonic). I would caution against creating a page like "Winter sports video game", as while "sports video game" is a genre, the distillation that far down doesn't seem to exist, but you can "bypass" that with a list. Masem (t) 14:16, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

@Masem Fair point; in either case, we need to start with sources. My point here (getting OT a bit from my original one anyway) is that topics like winter sport video game or football manager or such may be notable, and bear looking into. After all, each category should have a main article. Or, yes, sometimes a list will do, if sources are too poor for an article. This is particularly an issue for some genras which are not well defined but used to categorize stuff. OR in categories is a hidden problem. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:04, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

I think Winter Sports games are a big enough genre. There’s plenty of Winter Olympics games, NHL/hockey games, skiing games, etc. Seeing as you’re dealing with a lot of Polish articles, you could translate them or ask another editor who knows Polish (i don’t) to help. Check in draftspace for articles as well. - PhilDaBirdMan (Talk | Contribs) 01:49, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

If we agree on a list, I have some questions:

• How would it be organized? By release date? Alphabetical order?

• Would it have subdivisions? (Ex: by sport/by production company/ by console/ by year)?

• Wouldn’t it be a massively long list?

• Should games from franchises like the NHL games or the Mario and Sonic games be included as one entry or we would include every released game?

• If we subdivide by sports, would games like Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Winter Games and Winter Games be included on a category of “Multiple sports games” or something similar? Haddad Maia fan (talk) 01:50, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

I think we’d just add more categories under Lists of sports video games. They already have Snowboarding, olympics, and ice hockey lists as subsets. - PhilDaBirdMan (Talk | Contribs) 01:59, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

That seems pretty reasonable Haddad Maia fan (talk) 02:03, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

List of ski jumping video game can be easily created based on the linked pl wiki category. Should use {{ill}} to avoid the problem of it being entirely(?) red. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:56, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Not that I'd expect that anyone would miss me or even would be aware of my absence, but I of course had to use a video game reference as a title for this message. After a long hiatus I am slowly getting back into editing. Small edits, here and there. Mainly just occasionally checking my watch list. I'll get around to the new video game articles soon. Par for the course, I am already being accused of edit warring. Oh, Wikipedia.

As you can imagine, I have missed editing quite a bit. Can you friendly WP:VG people bring up to speed? What's been going on? Is neutrality still or thing? Is Niemti back? Are personal attacks finally allowed, you stupid morons? In all seriousness, I was utterly confused when I saw the new 'assigned' usernames for IP addresses and was convinced there was a orchestrated hostile attack going on. Any changed guidelines I definitely should know about?

On a personal note, I've been through some mental health issues, a stress-related burnout (don't worry, I live in the socialist utopia of the Netherlands, so I consider myself very lucky) but it's looking better and better. Last year a friend gifted me his Switch, and I finally got around to Breath of the Wild, I was blown away, what a masterpiece. For any new(-ish) editors, I've been here twenty years, but don't expect any major contributions from me, but I'm always happy to help out copy-editing or go through a draft. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 19:49, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

I think the only really big changes are that Proposed Article Mergers is in the process of being merged with AfD after this RfC and that archive.today is no longer allowed for archival links. Otherwise nothing that I've noticed, and certainly no major guideline changes specific to the VG WikiProject (and if there were, I missed them). silviaASH (inquire within) 20:50, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Good to see you around again, welcome back. All formal merges going to AFD is new too. (We should share switch friend codes, I love seeing what wiki-friends are playing.) Sergecross73 msg me 21:47, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

If you work in anti-vandalism with any frequency you can request the ability to view IPs for temporary accounts at WP:PERM/TAIV, though mind the application/disclosure guidelines. ScalarFactor (talk) 21:49, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Glad to have you back! I will be reporting you for that personal attack momentarily, you jerk. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 01:00, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Welkom terug Soetermans, it's good to see your name again ^_^ ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 10:49, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

So glad to see you back. Despite everything, it's still you. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 02:13, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

GTA VI slipped. Again. But thanks to that you'll get to take part in the absolute shite storm that is a GTA release, so the stress-related burnout will be back in no time at all. Glad you're back. Look after yourself. - X201 (talk) 07:22, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Exit 8 (film)#Requested move 9 April 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. silviaASH (inquire within) 14:37, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

So, as I am an avid tennis fan and video game enthusiast, often editing on both topics here on Wikipedia, I looked for the article on the Top Spin video game series and noticed it doesn’t exist, just the ones separated by each entry.

Because of that, I started the draft Draft:Top Spin (video game series) and wanted to know if anyone here is interested on helping me on that.

Any help would be greatly appreciated. Haddad Maia fan (talk) 02:22, 13 April 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 21:43, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

• Articles deleted/removed: Bill Catambay, Edna (video game), Eneba (company), Excalibur: Morgana's Revenge, Hiroshi (Pokemon), Richie (Pokemon), Richie (Pokémon), Ritchie (Pokémon), Tears (video game), The Edifice, City Bus Manager (Video Game), Cooking Companions, Fish in a Bottle
• Drafts deleted/removed: Draft:Cataquack, Draft:Tanuki Justice, Draft:Polypine Draft, Draft:Yooka-Replaylee, Draft:ST Offline Tournament, Draft:The Slingshot Formula, Draft:Chicken Road, Draft:Minion Rush, Draft:Aggro Crab, Draft:Garten of Banban, Draft:Chess Universe, Draft:Leonida (Grand Theft Auto), Draft:Upload Labs, Draft:Wernamo Poxel.io Clan, Draft:Sarepta Studio, Draft:TreasureQuesting
• Articles redirected: Fate of Monkey Island, Focus Multimedia, Night of the Hermit, Fear & Hunger 2: Termina, Battle Racers, Wolf O'Donnell, List of highest-earning Fortnite players, SD the Great Battle, Music of the Fate franchise, GNOME Chess
• Categories deleted/removed: Video game villains, Fictional Black British people in video games, Fictional Black English people in video games, Fictional Welsh people in video games
• New categories: Apex Legends characters — Kung Fu Man, Hero shooter characters — Kung Fu Man, Pages using vgrelease with incomplete parameter pairs — Pppery, Superhero video game characters — Kung Fu Man, Video games about pizza — CooperCool23, Marvel Rivals characters — Kung Fu Man, Tactics video games — Piotrus, 2026 first-person shooter tournaments — Betseg, Kid Icarus games — HighlandFacts (newly tagged - originally created 1 month ago), Stefan Pavelka games — Asceno

PresN 21:43, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

• Feels like it was a slow week overall.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:23, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

  I mean, hey, not to toot our horn here but the character articles seem to have filled out the week well, especially yours. CaptainGalaxy 23:00, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Is there any precedent for licensed game characters in a non-story game to have their own article? The foundations for Emma Frost (Marvel Rivals) and Invisible Woman (Marvel Rivals) are kinda weak. The SIGCOV are really discussing "character design" problems of Marvel Rivals and not about these individual characters. The rest are sources that are rather superficial in nature, discussing nearly exclusively about players' reactions to their appearance (essentially RS-covered WP:USERG). I don't think we need standalone articles to discuss only the appearance of a variant of an existing character. OceanHok (talk) 17:46, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Bringing back an old classic because there are a lot of things that need reviewing. So if anyone is interested this would be very much helpful.

FAC

• Horizon Zero Dawn (nom)
• Rain World (nom)
• Rugrats: Search for Reptar (nom)
• Dredge (video game) (nom)

FLC

• List of JoJo's Bizarre Adventure video games (nom)

FTC

• Metroid Prime: Trilogy

GAN

• Noctis Lucis Caelum (start)
• Space Invaders Infinity Gene (start)
• Bloody Roar (video game) (start)
• It Takes Two (video game) (start)
• Jak II (start)
• Pearl and Marina (start)
• Talking Flower (start)
• Kirby Air Riders (start)
• Ryan Davis (video game journalist) (start)
• Kafka (Honkai: Star Rail) (start)
• Machines (Horizon) (start)
• Volition (company) (start)
• Aloy (start)
• Invisible Woman (Marvel Rivals) (start)
• Horizon Zero Dawn: The Frozen Wilds (start)
• Typhoon Studios (start)
• Horizon Forbidden West: Burning Shores (start)
• Fate/stay night (start)
• Fate/hollow ataraxia (start)
• Mauga (Overwatch) (start)
• Zenyatta (Overwatch) (start)
• Extrasolar (nom)
• Slender: The Arrival (start)
• Alien vs Predator (Atari Jaguar video game) (start)
• Streets of SimCity (start)
• Junkrat (start)
• Fate/unlimited codes (start)
• Mario Teaches Typing (start)
• Mario & Luigi (start)
• Geth (nom)
• Luna Snow (start)
• King Dice (start)

FAR

• Characters of Final Fantasy VIII (nom)

Peer Reviews

• Talonflame (rev)
• Visual novel (rev)
• God of War Sons of Sparta (rev)
• Tomodachi Collection (rev)
• Transfer Pak (rev)

GamerPro64 16:07, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

A Short Hike is also up at PR. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 16:11, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

you can add it to the list then. GamerPro64 16:55, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

The Talonflame PR is closed despite still showing up as open. SilverTiger12 (talk) 22:25, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

I believe it closed due to timing out and nobody taking it.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:28, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

I wanted to review ProtoDrake's article as thanks for how he often helps me but I also edited the Noctis in the past. I might do an exchange review with anything else after The Heroic Legend of Arslan (manga) is copyedited by the guild.Tintor2 (talk) 22:57, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Russ Crandall (start) is also video game-related; I didn't categorize it as such due to his past as a notable food blogger, but members of the project might be interested. Skyshiftertalk 18:42, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Please fix the issues tagged. Bearian (talk) 20:27, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

What's stopping you from doing so though?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:30, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Someone with 132,000 edits over 19 years has no business slapping a copyedit tag on a short start-class article and then going to the wikiproject to ask other people to work on it like there aren't 50,000 articles in that project. --PresN 20:48, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

What part of "absolute obedience" do you two not understand? Get to work! Panini! • 🥪 18:50, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, they occasionally do this sort of thing at the music Wikiprojects too, and I've been equally confused by the move. Sergecross73 msg me 19:12, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

So, basically they run into an issue on the article and instead of fixing themselves, they go to a Wikiproject and demand that someone else does it? Haddad Maia fan (talk) 19:17, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Sounds... efficient...^[sarcasm] toby ^(t)(c)(rw) 19:29, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

They are, generally speaking, a good editor in good standing with the community, in my experience. It appears to be some sort of bizarre quirk they picked up in 2026, for reasons unknown (I don't believe they've ever responded to my confusion on it.) Sergecross73 msg me 19:41, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Slap them with a WP:TROUT. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:45, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

Opened discussion at Talk:Halo 7 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Natxeulaa (talk) 22:25, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Few months ago on this Wikiproject, I started a discussion on creating an article similar to the list of video games listed among the best, focused on video game characters with the "best-of lists" criteria, the same utilized for the games. I know many editors didn't like that idea, so I thought of changing the inclusion criteria. The characters would be selected based on significantly positive coverage from at least three different publications primarily focused on the said character. Like for Mario, sources exist like: This way, the selection won't feel random but deserved. Kazama16 (talk) 01:27, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

I think the biggest problem I have is that "significantly positive" is pretty up in the air. It's easy enough to say three articles all about how Mario is a gaming icon is significantly positive. But if I found three articles all about Sub-Zero that all called him "cool", would that be significantly postive? What if he was "the coolest character on the roster"? What if I found three articles about Freddy Fazbear that called him "the scarriest video game character". Significant maybe, but is that positive? I think you're best bet would be to drop the "postive" part and just have a List of prominent video game characters but I mean that feels pretty close to the WP:GNG for character articles anyway so not clear on why it wouldn't just be List of video game characters. (which admittedly is a pretty terrible redirect right now so ripe for the picking I guess) Whipmywillows (talk) 02:51, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

Actually thinking a little more on it, with a bit more focus it could become List of characters considered gaming icons. Some number of WP:RS need to call the character a "video game icon", "gaming icon", etc. That's pretty well established language, here's five for Lara Croft for example, and could make the inclusion criteria clear to all. Whipmywillows (talk) 03:07, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

By "significantly positive coverage" I meant the coverage (text) should be worth chunks of praise from critics like huge paragraphs discussing the character positively, not just "The best character in gaming", or "The gaming icon/legend". Though I find your idea interesting. Kazama16 (talk) 09:11, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

I think the cut-off, a reason for inclusion is a difficult issue here. Even if positively received in x amount of reliable sources, characters aren't tangible. Units sold or a review summarised in a numerical value are something to go on. Even a List of video game mascots is clear. Best received, most liked, most often discussed becomes a matter of opinion. And more units sold means more popular character already. The longer lasting the franchise, the greater the impact. It looks to me you might need to make some rather arbitrary decisions for inclusion. You also get into weird opinions like The 15 Most Influential Video Game Characters of All Time: the Tetris Z-block is a character? Or recentism: Players’ Poll: The Most Iconic Video Game Character of All Time, not one, but two characters of Baldur's Gate 3 are the "most iconic"? Get da fuck outta heeere. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 09:51, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

A problem compounded by the word "iconic" now being overused to the point of meaninglessness. Popcornfud (talk) 10:46, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

The lists of creative works by critical reception are already beyond what we as Wikipedia should probably be doing, but those lists have a lot of advantages that a character list would not have. There's a very well-established history, format, and function for 'best-of' lists of creative works. Also, creative works are relatively stable and singular. Characters are also much more dynamic, and as such harder to pin down. But the main issue is that inclusion criteria would be even vaguer than the list of best games, as you're working with fewer list sources with a more difficult to define criteria. I will note that we have List of video game mascots. Trimming the uncited entries there might leave you with exactly the kind of list that people might be looking for. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 07:35, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

It seems we are running out of steam to update it. Over the past few months I have participated in a number of discussions about sources at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources, and started a few. But I am loosing motivation, fast, because many discussions don't elicit a single comment, and others that do still don't get listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources (you can find a number of discussions I started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources/Archive 38, majority, including the ones where someone else did comment, and where we have what appears to be consensus, are not reflected at the main list). Perhaps this is a recent problem (a source I listed and that was discussed in Archive 37 was transcluded)? But something is breaking down this year. Just earlier today someone mentioned that several vintage (90s) video game magazines I used as sources may not be reliable because they are not in our list; I told them they should start discussions about them at the source subpage, but then - what's the point if they are going to be ignored, or if they get comments, not transcluded? :( I thought I would start pro forma discussions about adding a bunch of missing vintage Polish and German magaziens to our Source pages, but it seems there is not enough interest in this... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:38, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

Have you tried the main sources noticeboard? You might get more discussion there since it's more likely to attract the attention of the wider Wikipedia community, not just this Wikiproject. Toast of Fate ♡ talk to me! 21:33, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

I thought we should use our subboard for that. It worked fine until recently (at least that's what I thought...). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:01, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

We are looking to generally positively identify good sources, whereas RSN/RSP is meant to identify questionable sources or those frequently questioned. Very different purposes. Masem (t) 00:11, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

@Masem Right, but we also list sources we deem unreliable, and ones we reached no consensus. Our Sources page is excellent, which is why I want to draw attention to the recent slips. We need to go through the archives (just the last few months) and add sources to the page. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:34, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Yes, we do want to increase participation there, but its not the type of thing we need the full wiki community to provide input on. It might be just, weekly, posting open source discussions at this page (WT:VG) so that we get more !votes. Masem (t) 01:52, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Bringing this here so it's on record and can get full and transparent discourse and assessment without turning into an edit war. @Leptitgay is insisting that SMT If, Nine, and Strange Journey are mainline SMT entries based on a single source: a history piece from the official Atlus website. This is direct contradition to interviews cited in the articles themselves from developers that state these titles were/are spin-offs rather than mainline entries. I don't want this to turn into an edit war, but if people have more than a single source to back up the mainline claim, please show it, because the sources I found when editing those articles originally support their spin-off status. Also pinging @Sergecross73 since they've also had some dealings with Leptit relating to the Tales series. ProtoDrake (talk) 19:17, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

Oh no, here we go again. We just went through a very long discussion about whether Resident Evil Zero and Resident Evil – Code: Veronica counted as "mainline" RE games. Personally I'm wondering if calling games "mainline entries" even has a place on the website at all. I mean clearly sources are pretty inconsistent about it. I'm guessing most readers and most editors don't really care one way or the other but a handful of editors really care in a way that causes a bunch of conflict.

If the only source backing up the other users claim is WP:PRIMARY and there's multiple WP:RS disputing that claim, then I think it's pretty clear those three games should be considered spinoffs. Whipmywillows (talk) 19:56, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

It has its place, we just need to be following sourcing, particularly WP:PSTS. Sergecross73 msg me 20:03, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

Yes, let's lay out the sources that support each stance. Sergecross73 msg me 20:05, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

If one sources states that they are main entres then OK, but if several sources state that they are not then those sources outweight the sole source stating the contrary. I undid the changes made by Leptitgay. Roberth Martinez (talk) 23:35, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

Without commenting on whether these specific games are or aren't mainline (I'm a longtime Megami Tensei fan, but haven't looked at the sources, and am not particularly invested in this type of classification), I think that we should be careful about accepting official websites as authoritative sources on this when contradicted by other sources, because the main point of a series' official website is marketing and promotion, whether that means making a currently-sold game seem important, or making a series seem like it has a deep history. I am reminded of how Nintendo at some point called Super Mario Maker a mainline Super Mario Bros. game on their website, something probably very few RSs would agree with them on.--Alexandra^IDV 02:10, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Pot Farm 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) 00:44, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Turian (Mass Effect)#Requested move 1 April 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 01:00, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Does anyone see more sources for MacHome Journal? (competing publication to MacUser and MacWorld). I've though about creating the article if more sources are found.

This is all I found.

• https://web.archive.org/web/20000816093159/http://www.marketingcomputers.com/news/9709/04_04.asp
• https://web.archive.org/web/20210621020512/https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bs-xpm-1998-08-10-1998222070-story.html
• https://www.newspapers.com/article/edmonton-journal/190772965/
• https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-philadelphia-inquirer/190773130/
• https://www.newspapers.com/article/anchorage-daily-news/190773619/

Timur9008 (talk) 14:59, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Dracula's Castle (Castlevania: Symphony of the Night)#Requested move 1 April 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 11:07, 20 April 2026 (UTC)