Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 153

I've been working on a few Star Control related articles. Sourcing is proving tricky because it's not just pre-internet, but even pre-magazine to some extent. But one of things that has led to a small burst of internet coverage about this ancient DOS game is its influence on Mass Effect, as cited by BioWare co-founder Ray Muzyka. There's a few sources that go into more detail about the games' similarities. And I cited this fact in the Ur-Quan article:

• ... leading journalists to note the similarities between the games' villains, "as Sovereign's words -- and voice -- echo those of the Ur-Quan almost line for line".^[1]

This is based on a defunct Pennsylvania based game site called PikiGeek. According to a previous discussion about PikiGeek, one editor advised that it's only reliable for specific journalists. I might be more generous, since the staff page shows that they do have several editors for oversight and fact-checking. But as for specific journalists, the article was written by Chris Ullery, who now works with the The Intelligencer in Pennsylvania (a newspaper with hundreds of years of history). I also put some value that he's not making a statement of opinion, and more of an observation that is easily verified in the primary material itself.

I'd ask for some outside opinion as how to best handle it:

• Keep the above fact as reliable in this specific instance
• Rewrite the above fact as reliable, but qualify it with more delicate phrasing
• Remove the above fact as unreliable

Happy to answer any questions and otherwise go with the consensus here. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:56, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

• I would suggest rewrite and rephrase. Sources like IGN had described Mass Effect to be a big pastiche of multiple disparate influences not just from science fiction works but also from all over popular culture, so I have no reason to doubt the journalist's opinion that Sovereign's characterization and voiced dialogue borrowed from the Ur-Quan since Star Control was big back in the 1990's. However, how exactly do we verify that the character's "words -- and voice -- echo those of the Ur-Quan almost line for line"? Uploading an audio file to compare the copyrighted voiced dialogue? Direct quotations from both Sovereign and the Ur-Quan? I think a more elegant solution is to simply address that journalist's claims exist and was published without necessarily going into minute detail, since I assume the purpose of including the source is part of your attempt to assert the Ur-Quan's place and influence within its genre. Haleth (talk) 02:22, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
  • That makes sense to me. I think the spirit of the source is more important than the exact quote, and the important thing is that one character design is influenced by the other. Let's let others check in with their assessment. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:51, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

My point in the GAN is purely about it being a reliable source, not the question of phrasing. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 19:27, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

• PikiGeek is now archive material but it seems basically reliable. For verification it's probably fine, but I wouldn't use it at AFD to prove something is notable. It does prove an observable connection between Mass Effect and Star Control for this character design. It looks like PikiGeek had four editors. A quick search of the author shows he's a reliable journalist, or has at least become one. Is there a reason it shouldn't be considered reliable for this discussion? Jontesta (talk) 20:45, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
• Thanks for everyone who checked in so far. I'm good to abide by the consensus, and could use more feedback about whether this source is reliable enough to justify the statement in question. Tagging a few active editors (User:Masem, User:Namcokid47, and User:Dissident93) who have helped out on reliable source discussions, if you have a few minutes to review. (No pressure.) Shooterwalker (talk) 17:10, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

I have a concern on which dating format we should use for certain game articles. On games developed by Japanese, American and Canadian developers, we usually use the American MDY format. However, for games developed in the U.K. (like Banjo-Kazooie) Australia and New Zealand, as well as some of the games developed in Canada, Japan and the U.S. (including Crash Bandicoot 4) we sometimes use the British/Australian DMY format.

Which date format should be appropriate for use in games that are developed in North America and Japan? Same question, about those developed in Britain, Europe and Australasia? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:47, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Past discussions here have indicated that the developer should not be viewed as a "strong national tie". As such, the first date format used should stand unless there is some other national tie. For example, Lara Croft is no longer developed in the UK, but the topic of Lara Croft, a British character, still has a strong tie. Metro and Witcher both use DMY on the basis of being adaptions of books by famous Russian and Polish authors respectfully. On the flip side, Watch Dogs was developed by a Canadian studio, but is based wholey in Chicago and all themes within are US-centric. -- ferret (talk) 03:00, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

A question has come up at the Comics Project about what information needs to be cited to a third party source when a comic character appears in a video game. Any comments from this project would be appreciated. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:10, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi all, I've boldly updated your project's peer review page (Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Peer review) by updating the instructions and archiving old reviews.

The new instructions use Wikipedia's general peer review process (WP:PR) to list peer reviews. Your project's reviews are still able to be listed on your local page too.

The benefits of this change is that review requests will get seen by a wider audience and are likely to be attended to in a more timely way (many WikiProject peer reviews remain unanswered after years). The Wikipedia peer review process is also more maintained than most WikiProjects, and this may help save time for your active members.

I've done this boldly as it seems your peer review page is pretty inactive and I am working through around 90 such similar peer review pages. Please feel free to discuss below - please ping me ({{u|Tom (LT)}}) in your response.

Cheers and hope you are well, Tom (LT) (talk) 23:51, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

@Tom (LT): Why? The page already indicated it was inactive and in fact had The process was closed in July 2011 in favor of the general Wikipedia-wide peer review process. --Izno (talk) 04:13, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, I was weighing up these two things in my mind. Ultimately, in my opinion, although the process is marked as historical, it's still worth updating the page, because the chance of a future editor wasting time starting the process again is in my mind fairly high. I hope by making this change that future editor will be able to contribute somewhere else more productively. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:15, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Further update - thanks for your comment - I've made the template much clearer why it's been added. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:01, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I’ve done some massive reassessment work to the 38 unassessed articles last night and so far we have no unassessed articles in terms of quality and importance. To accomplish one of our goals (Start-Class or more), I think we should start doing an assessment drive to get the stub articles out of the way. Any ideas on how we can proceed? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:33, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

If you want somewhere to begin, I guess the highest-importance stubs/start-class articles or the list of popular pages in the last month are pretty good starting points. These articles often have a lot of available sourcing, so easy to get to start-class at least, and sometimes (especially for popular pages) have seen recent editing activity that isn't yet reflected by the quality assessment.--Alexandra^IDV 22:31, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Gotcha. And about the games that have very few sources for notability and/or reception, what is the best way to deal with this in terms of assessment? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:32, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

I like to assess only based on the info that is actually sourced, while ignoring the rest and assuming that it could be removed at any time. So if an article has a massive amount of unsourced plot information but only a couple sourced sentences, it's certainly not going to be a C-class article._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 02:55, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

In this particular case, do you think it should be Start-class? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:08, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

What case? Did you mean to post a link there?_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 06:26, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Example: This minor expansion took me only about 10 minutes, but made the article way more useful to readers. Start-class is, really, a very low threshold, and is easy to reach with almost any subject that has decent coverage in online sources. If one wanted to take this further to C-class, it would be pretty easy as well based on the game's available RS coverage.--Alexandra^IDV 13:35, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

@Sjones23: Well, one of the goals has been accomplished. It's not the Start-class one, though. That one obviously needs the most work, with several thousand articles to go through._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 19:07, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Given that, should we create a new milestone if necessary? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:52, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Should probably make a new section on ideas. GamerPro64 22:43, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:55, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

 A listing of all articles newly added to the Video Games Wikiproject (regardless of creation date). Generated by v3.4 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 03:40, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

• Articles deleted: Draft:ChilledChaos, SWLPC, Shattered World, Blob Wars (series), Castle Fantasia: Seima Taisen, Draft:Characters in the Paper Mario Franchise, Jumboplay, Project Arrhythmia, Pure Pure Mimi to Shippo no Monogatari, Draft:Untitled Mario & Luigi game, X-Change 3, Yin-Yang! X-Change Alternative 2
• Articles redirected: Online gaming in China
• Categories deleted: Ringu cycle video games, Mega Man (Original Series), 2014 pinball machines, Fallout characters, Creatures (artificial life program)
• New categories: Lumines, Puzzle Quest, Video game remasters, Video games about the Battle of the Bulge
• New templates: {{Firaxis}} by JimmyBlackwing (talk · contribs), {{Chocobo series}} by Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk · contribs)

"Your review may be more successful if you politely request feedback on the discussion pages of related articles; send messages to Wikipedians who have contributed to the same or a related field; and also request peer review at appropriate Wikiprojects."

Would anyone like to give their suggestions for the peer review of Paper Mario: The Origami King? I'm doing everything I can to make the Featured Article review as simple as possible. Le Panini ^Talk 15:16, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

There are two files showing gameplay for Mario Clash, one for Mario Clash (File:VB Mario Clash.png), and another for Mario Bros. (File:Mario clash.PNG). Which should be deleted and replaced so that we do not have two similar non-free files? (Oinkers42) (talk) 00:22, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

I would use File:VB Mario Clash.png for both since that use shows Mario initiating an attack on an enemy though the fair use rational will need to updated if we an image on more than on article. The replaces image will also be deleted in a few days time if not in use so we don’t need to do anything regarding deletion once of of the two images isn’t being used.--65.92.160.124 (talk) 00:33, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Thats a pretty rare game. Personally, I’d see if we could possibly justify both, just because they’re hard to come by. (Even beyond its rarity, I imagine it’s even harder to find someone who could take a screenshot of it. I own a VB and the game, but I can’t even begin to know how you’d get a screenshot off that wacky system.) Sergecross73 msg me 01:16, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Sergecross73, You own a Virtual Boy? I'm so jealous right now. Le Panini ^Talk 13:48, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, an Aunt/Uncle bought it for me as a Christmas gift when I was young when they went on clearance. I enjoyed playing it when little, but it wasn’t until much later that I realized what a rare gift it was. Anyways, I own a bunch of the games, and last I checked it still runs, so I can look into stuff if anyone needs it, though as I said, I have neither the means nor the tech know-how to get screenshots from the thing. Sergecross73 msg me 14:23, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Wait a second, looking at this closer, I’m confused about the problem here. Mario Bros. and Mario Clash are two separate games, and each article only has one screenshot each in its respective article. There’s no image issue here, in the same way there’s no issue in having a screen shot of gameplay in every Mario Kart or Smash Bros game article. They’re similar games, but not the same game... Sergecross73 msg me 14:42, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Mario Bros. actually has two screenshots, one for the actual game (File:Mario Bros. Gameplay.gif), which I have no problem with, and one from Mario Clash (File:Mario clash.PNG). I feel that the additional screenshot from Mario Clash (File:Mario clash.PNG), not to be confused with the Mario Clash screenshot (File:VB Mario Clash.png) on its own article, can be deleted and replaced. I am trying to figure out which screenshot is necessary, and which can be replaced.

• Why does this have to be a discussion? It really isn't important, just pick one. File:VB Mario Clash.png is probably better because it actually shows gameplay action with Mario throwing something. Just make sure to add another NFUR to the image being used. Also the screenshots were almost certainly taken in emulators. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 19:47, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello there! I'm actually the author of the VB Mario Clash screenshot. If anybody is wondering how I took a good gameplay screenshot is because I did it from the Mednafen emulator, using its snapshot feature. Roberth Martinez (talk) 20:16, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

It's been a few months since the last time, and there have been several nominations recently, so here's another thread for review exchanges and for drawing attention to articles that have been waiting for a review for a while:

Featured Article candidates

• Sonic the Hedgehog (nom) - been up since September

Featured List candidates

• List of Xevious media (nom) - this one has been up since July, and could really do with another review or two

Good Article nominations

• Ace Combat 3: Electrosphere (nom)
• "All Ghillied Up" (nom)
• Maid of Sker (nom)
• Riot Games (nom)
• Kumatanchi (nom)
• Need for Speed: ProStreet (nom)
• Namcot Collection (nom)
• Kirby Star Allies (nom)
• Apple Arcade (nom)
• Genshin Impact (nom)
• Salamander 2 (start)

Peer Reviews, reassessments, and requests

• Wii (nom) (FAR)
• Microsoft Flight Simulator (2020 video game) (rev) (PR)
• Paper Mario: The Origami King (rev) (PR)
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Requests - this one still has a backlog of requests going back to 2017

I will review any article - PR, FAC, GAN, FLC, etc. - in exchange for a proper review of either my GAN Chicago by Night (nom) or my FLC List of Vampire: The Masquerade books (nom). (these two aren't VG related, but I'm asking here since the RPG project is so much less active than WPVG.) --Alexandra^IDV 13:00, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

The article was merged to Level (video games) by User:Occono without discussion. But I am skeptical that the content of the article is entirely contained within the concept of a level. Tutorials can encompass numerous levels as well as be outside the game itself, like help videos. I also think the article is of course individually notable. So I want to see if anyone else thinks the merge should be reversed._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 18:35, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Should be merged to Tutorial#Computer-based tutoring. --Izno (talk) 18:44, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

I was being bold and doing it because both articles were entirely insufficient and I thought it better in the long run to just merge them were more eyes can improve the whole picture, then spin tutorial back off later once it's ready, rather then going through a discussion which could take years to resolve, it feels like these days on here. I don't object to demerging at all, but I hope it actually leads to improving the tutorial article and not just doing it for the sake of it. Merging them until they're ready to be separated can help improve focused editing by drive by editors, there's too many loose articles on Wikipedia about super-niche aspects of things that would better off merged into a more complete and comprehensive single article.--occono (talk) 20:00, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

There is possibly something to be said in the presentation of a video game about the first "part" being the learning of the video game, which is often done by a tutorial, but there are numerous documented examples where this is not done, such as the platform learning approach of Portal, or the drop-you-in-and-learn of The Witness. And just doing a super quick search on Google, this is basically the evolution of the instruction booklet and can be documented further. This is more than just the concept of a tutorial level, so I think the merge is right to start, until we can firm up what this potential topic could be. --Masem (t) 20:10, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Fully support the merge. I support either target proposed above. Sergecross73 msg me 23:03, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

• I'm not opposed to a merge, but combining "Tutorial" with "Level" seems like the wrong choice. Many (if not most) Tutorials are not levels. Tutorial#Computer-based tutoring is a better choice, but I think the article has enough potential sources to be expanded and stand on its own. This source gives an important counter-example: "In Stellaris, tutorialization takes the form of thorough and elaborate tooltips. Every time you open a new menu, a window opens up telling you what that menu is for and what can be done in it. You’re also given nudges at various points about what you should do to get the wheels of your spacefaring civilization going. From all this, I mostly understand how the game works. It’s just not very fun." Jontesta (talk) 20:36, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

• @Jontesta: Exactly. I'm thinking something along the lines of tutorial videos integrated into a game, which are not levels. Or tutorial text or the like. There are numerous kinds of video game tutorials that simply aren't levels in a game._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:33, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

• I expanded it with both level-design and non-level tutorial designs. I think it makes it less appropriate for merging and more appropriate for a stand-alone article, but I feel more strongly that it is partially off topic in the level article. Jontesta (talk) 19:26, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't oppose it, the section in the level article is better now. I will just say that no improvements on the original tutorial article happened until I merged it, so it seems like I made the right move. :P --occono (talk) 15:33, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

No harm no foul. If there's an important game term, it's worth bringing it up for discussion here. I like these kinds of articles. I boldly recreated it as game tutorial. Jontesta (talk) 18:52, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

So, in addition to my plans to go nominate Sonic and Sakura Wars for GT/FT, I've also been thinking about a future project that we can all work on. The Kirby series debuted on April 27, 1992, so is it possible if we can rewrite the main series article or Kirby's Dream Land (a GA) and get either of them to FA status and feature it as a TFA on its anniversary date (April 27, 2022)? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:33, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Sjones23, I support it! I think Dream Land would be the easier project, but the series in whole would be the better option. Le Panini ^Talk 21:46, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

In addition, if we can get all of the main series articles up to GA/FA status, we can do it for GT/FT as well. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:48, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Sjones23, Now that would just be a challenge. A lot of Kirby related articles aren't in good condition. (eg. Kirby: Squeak Squad, Kirby Tilt 'n' Tumble, Kirby & the Amazing Mirror) Le Panini ^Talk 21:55, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Le Panini, indeed it would. At the moment, I think we should start working on getting Kirby Star Allies up to GA status and get Kirby's Dream Land up to FA. No rush. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:59, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Four articles in the series are currently Good Article status:

• Kirby's Dream Land
• Kirby's Adventure
• Kirby's Block Ball
• Kirby 64: The Crystal Shards

Just for reference. Le Panini ^Talk 22:04, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, the Dream Land article was promoted a long time ago, and looking at it now, I'd say it's B-class at best. JOEBRO64 00:04, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

In this case, we should do a revamp of the article to match the current GA standards. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:40, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

I wanted to tackle Kirby Super Star but I don't think i'm able to do one of my favorite games any justice with its article. I also wanted to tackle Kirby's Dream Course, since it was initially an original title without ties to Kirby titled Special Tee Shot, but i'all leave that one to someone else... Roberth Martinez (talk) 04:06, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do. CaptainGalaxy 08:20, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

I'll work on Star Allies while you guys focus on other articles, then. Star Allies is not that difficult to do, and is really a one person job. Once I finish, I'll move on to another. Le Panini ^Talk 18:45, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Got it. I've started work on the Star Allies lead section and expanded it to three paragraphs. I'll also help in finding development and gameplay sources. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:16, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

If anyone needs help, please feel free to look at the Kirby series here and see which articles are of need first. CaptainGalaxy 20:32, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Dream Land I think would need a lot of work. The number of modern sources that are likely not featured is quite large, even besides quality issues. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 00:51, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Abryn, that's true. There's a lot that needs to be done with this, but I'm gonna help anyways. Le Panini ^Talk 02:19, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Would you guys suggest making a Kirby Fighters 2 article? It has brief mentions in other Kirby related articles, but now seems to be notable on its own after the game's release. (Draft:Kirby Fighters 2) Le Panini ^Talk 13:14, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

There’s plenty of sourcing out there - I found a bunch with the simplest of Google searches. If someone wants to make it, it’d be very easy to argue it’s notability. Go for it, if you want to do it. Sergecross73 msg me 03:01, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Sergecross73, Already did. I'm gonna publish it soon, as the base of the content is already there, but will still greatly improve on it.

It’s looking good so far. It already looks good enough to avoid deletion discussions, in my opinion. Sergecross73 msg me 03:07, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Sergecross73, I submitted it for review, and it got accepted. However, its listed as Kirby Fighters 2 (video game), and I want it to just be Kirby Fighters 2, which is currently a redirect. Do you know how to fix this? Le Panini ^Talk 17:36, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

The generic request process is WP:RM/TR for such a change. --Izno (talk) 17:49, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Yup, that’s where you’d want to go. In the future, if you want, you can also leave me a note on my talk page, and I’ll generally do it for you too. Sergecross73 msg me 18:35, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

GT Status for the Kirby series

Kirby series to Good Topic: 31% complete

There is already four articles from the Kirby Series that are good article status, with Kirby Star Allies approaching review. All we need is the main series article (Kirby (series)) to be promoted to GA status, and then it will merit being a Good Topic. Shouldn't this article be our priority? Le Panini ^Talk 11:42, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing something, I'm counting 12 main series articles. Only 4 are GA so the other 8 would need to be improved and promoted before a GT can be considered. That's a lot of work. People can work on whatever they want I guess, but I'm not understanding this drive to promote Kirby articles for a GT when there are other topics much closer to GT. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 12:52, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

TarkusAB, Oh, that's how it works? Well then, nevermind. I'd also like to say, though; when I said "our", I really just meant the people interested in helping, not the Wikiproject as a whole. Le Panini ^Talk 13:04, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

For reference, here what the table would look like with its current status so far should it go to GT.

edit | discuss

Kirby series

12 articles

Kirby's Dream Land

Kirby's Adventure

Kirby's Dream Land 2

Kirby Super Star

Kirby's Dream Land 3

Kirby 64: The Crystal Shards

Kirby & the Amazing Mirror

Kirby: Squeak Squad

Kirby's Return to Dream Land

Kirby: Triple Deluxe

Kirby: Planet Robobot

Kirby Star Allies

Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:16, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Rich Diamond was deleted but I had it moved to draft space: . This archived version of the developer's page shows a few reviews were done of the game in the 1990s, including one in Newsday (apparently under the title ""PLUG & PLAY Cruising the Entertainment Highway / REVIEWS / A Sparkling Debut / New firm's `Diamond' is polished and pleasing") and one in Games Magazine as well. I don't know that any of the other sources listed on that page are WP:RS for terms of meeting the WP:GNG? There was also a review in the Orlando Sentinel which I have already been able to add to the draft page. If anyone could access either of those two magazines or any other source, and either share them with me or add them to the draft that would be much appreciated. BOZ (talk) 22:29, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks to Czar we have the Newsday article, so does anyone have access to Games Magazine? I believe that we are probably talking about the same magazine as here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Reference library/Games, so maybe Thibbs has access? BOZ (talk) 04:37, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

I missed it, but Czar pointed out that the index page shows the review was in Games #155 (Vol 23, #7). :) Aha! BOZ (talk) 13:26, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Games review is sent. Good luck with the article. :) -Thibbs (talk) 14:36, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks everyone who helped. :) BOZ (talk) 15:14, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

• Related: According to this press release, the game was released on May 11, 1999, for PC, self-published by Core Concepts. Ubi Soft is only mentioned in Next Generation in connection with a Nintendo 64 version. There was an iOS version in 2009, and here is a news clipping via Newspapers.com. Unfortunately, I don't have a Newspapers.com subscription, so I can't tell what it says. Maybe someone else can help you out with this. Regards, IceWelder [✉] 15:50, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

  Here's that clipping but it's just a reprint of the Newsday article. Wikipedia editors can get Newspaper.com access from WP:TWL. czar 05:05, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Category:Sandbox video games currently redirects to Category:Open world video games, but I feel like they should be two different categories, since not all sandbox games are also open-world. Thoughts? Off-topic, but I also think it should be "Open-world video games" (with a hyphen). IceWelder [✉] 20:06, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Given that we have figured out how to have separate articles on the concepts, they should be separated, though several games will be in both. Also, because "open world" is a gameplay concept and not a genre, the category probably should be at Category:Video games featuring open worlds or something like that. --Masem (t) 20:25, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Or maybe Category:Open worlds? IceWelder [✉] 20:44, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Too vague a category name. Think of it from a non-video game reader's standpoint, that term would make no sense. --Masem (t) 20:58, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

This is such a complicated area of subject matter because people use these words in really ambiguous ways. In popular culture, there was a time where open worlds and sandboxes were basically the same thing, because you're talking about a style of level design. But there is some narrow area where sandbox refers to a mode where you basically make the player invincible or turn off victory conditions and let them do whatever they want. I personally don't think we should create a separate category for that, but if we do, it should be Category:Video games with a sandbox mode. I personally think the Sandbox article could be merged to a better article about similar concepts like emergent gameplay or nonlinear gameplay. Jontesta (talk) 20:51, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

There is a clear distinction on "open worlds" and "sandbox" however - that's level/map design versus gameplay, though I will agree that early on when GTA3 first hit, these terms were intermingled. Gaming media has come better to distinguish the terms, recongizing not all open world games are sandboxes nor vice versa. I do agree that "sandbox" and "emergent" may be closer, and that if we are going to categorize games, we have to talk about explicit sandbox modes (an objective determination) and not games that have sandbox-like gameplay (a very subjective determination). --Masem (t) 20:57, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

My understanding is that GTA3 popularized both the term "open world" and "sandbox", in reference to its free-roaming structure and emergent systems that interact dynamically in the world. For several years afterward, most sources used these terms interchangeably. Over time, though "open world" has increasingly referred to non-linearity in any game regardless of its emphasis on emergent systems, while the term "sandbox" has come to refer to just the emergent systems aspect regardless of whether the game has a defined goal. Phediuk (talk) 22:22, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

See Sandbox game, as we've been to expand on it, but you're basically in the ballpark. Pre-GTA3, sandbox games were those that were more about non-linearity, so the Elites and the SimCitys. Then you had GTA3 which created the idea of sandbox games being based on multiple systems that allowed for emergent gameplay, and the Sims where there was more guidance and goals in sandbox gameplay (compared to Elite/SimCity), but still being freeform to get there. --Masem (t) 22:34, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Connected to an earlier discussion about the Sandbox game article, this is why it's misleading to name every game design article "X game", like "Physics game", "Loot game", "Emergent game", or "Replayable game". Despite being short and common names, they end up inviting indiscriminate lists and categories, where people argue about how much X you need before it's an X game. (How much loot before it's a loot game? How much physics before it's a physics game?) And I don't think this can be resolved by finding every time a game journalist calls something a "loot game" or "physics game", as that tends to be just as arbitrary. Most of these articles should be "X gameplay" or "X in games". The Sandbox game article really is referring to multiple different things, and that's going to make a category inherently problematic, suggesting a need to rename both. Jontesta (talk) 19:36, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Does the use of a Game Trainer (Trainer_(games)) count as sandboxing? There is a lot of technical voodoo involved with creating these kinds of gameplay modifications, and even the legality of it is questionable at best. But, as a category, it has a history and is expandable. 2601:18C:C900:FC80:8024:FA61:23FC:D07F (talk) 14:36, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

If the trainer is only there via user mods, this does not make the game, for WP's purpose, one with a sandbox mode. We only consider what the game officially supports as released by the developers/publishers in considering the base features and thus how it is categorized. --Masem (t) 14:40, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

A peer review of Paper Mario: The Origami King is well underway. There are a lot of bold changes suggested that I would like to gain opinions for before making them, however.

1. Should I have both images for gameplay, or remove one? Two things to keep in mind: 1. "The reason I have two images is because ring style combat of regular battles against boss battles are actually distinct, with Tanabe calling them the exact opposite. 2. These images are however, fair use.

2. How in detail should the plot go? Should it rather explain the whole storyline, or just a rough "Mario goes and clears the streamers" kind of thing?

3. How should the reception be phrased? I currently have it so each reviewer has their own explanations in different categories of general likes and dislikes. CZAR made it aware that nobody *ahem* really cares, and would rather just know what each review had to say about what. check out the review for a deeper explanation.

4. How far in depth can the gameplay go? The Origami King introduces an entirely new style of combat; should it rather use a video? Maybe a list?

Thoughts? Le Panini ^Talk 03:45, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

1. The boss battle image is not necessary because it's just a variation of the standard boss battle. Rather, use an image of Mario walking around the environment normally. That's oddly missing.
2. You don't need to mention every story beat. Mention the key plot points and explain what the game is about high level. Skip mentioning inconsequential places and characters.
3. Yes you should find ways to combine critic comments within the same phrase. It reads almost like you were afraid to put two or more critic comments into the same sentence. In fact, now looking back at the article, it seems you are afraid to attribute information from more than one source for any sentence. You can and should combine information from two or more sources into a sentence if it enables better writing. Citations can be made mid-sentence or combined at the end.
4. No no no. Explain gameplay to give a general audience a high level feel of how the game plays. If some boss or sequence does some wacky one-off weird shit, don't mention it.

TarkusAB^talk/contrib 05:23, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

TarkusAB, Yeah, it seems I'm getting "summarizing" and "synthing" very confused. So you're saying to cut the boss battle section entirely? It seems to be a bit notable in some reviews. Le Panini ^Talk 05:45, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Yea don't be that afraid of synth, take a look of WP:SYNTHNOT. Regarding boss battles, sorry I read your question wrong. If reviewers describe boss battles separately from regular battles, then what you did is fine. However it doesn't seem to need additional visual aid like you are suggesting. Boss battles look very similar to standard battles, and since you already have a picture of a standard battle, prose alone should be able to paint the picture in their head. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 11:11, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

TarkusAB, Got it. Thanks for the input! Le Panini ^Talk 16:20, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

As long as I've been in WPVG, early access games have been called "upcoming" in the first sentence because, in the traditional sense, these games are not out yet and you instead have the option to pre-order the game and play the alpha version of it. This wording was recently challenged on my article Teardown (video game), which is when I noticed that we do not have this explicitly put down anywhere. The only thing we currently have is not listing early access dates in infoboxes, per Template:Infobox video game. Is there broad consensus to call early access games "upcoming"? If so, this should be added to our MoS. IceWelder [✉] 20:09, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

We should be more clear on this. The early access period is equivalent to an open beta/etc. and not the true "release" of a game. Only when the game is released out of beta/early access is when we actually "date" it since that's the same metric used by awards and the like. This advise is stated in Template:Infobox video game/doc but I don't know if we need to say it anywhere else. --Masem (t) 20:26, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

I do think that for a lot of people, early access does mean released. We should not call it released, of course, but instead of saying upcoming, note that it is in early access status, or whatever. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 20:58, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

This seems like an area where we shouldn't outsmart ourselves, and simply call an early access game an early access game. Jontesta (talk) 18:53, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

This. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 19:27, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Are there good constructs to point out early that the game is in early access without having to double-use "early access" when later addressing on which date the game came out in early access? IceWelder [✉] 19:46, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

 A listing of all articles newly added to the Video Games Wikiproject (regardless of creation date). Generated by v3.4 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 22:32, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

• Articles deleted: Draft:Maneater (video game), Draft:BeastBoyShub, Itazura Gokuaku, Jinkō Shōjo 3, Draft:Massimo Guarini, Draft:NAVGTR Discontinued Categories, Perverted Thomas, Draft:Shujinkou, Draft:Tsuki Adventure, Nunchuck Games, X-Change (series), PSEmu Pro, Blood of Steel, Draft:Mundo Gaturro, Nightmare LPMud, Draft:Screeps, Sore ga Bokura no Renai Seikatsu, Draft:The Race All-Star eSports Battle
• Articles redirected: Goemon (series), Peter's Adventures, Shiren the Wanderer GB: Moonlight Village Monster, Warcraft: Legends, Alex (Street Fighter), AEW Games, Motaro, Space Invaders: The Original Game, Steve (Minecraft), Steve Feak
• Articles moved to draft space: Scarra (Gamer)
• Categories deleted: Far East of Eden, Old requests for CVG peer review, Athena series, Video games based on Biker Mice from Mars
• New categories: 1967 in video gaming, 2022 in video gaming, 2022 video games, Australian esports players, Cinematic platform games, Contra character redirects to lists, Defunct video game companies of Argentina, Defunct video game companies of Australia, Defunct video game companies of Austria, Defunct video game companies of Canada, Defunct video game companies of Chile, Defunct video game companies of China, Defunct video game companies of Denmark, Defunct video game companies of Finland, Defunct video game companies of France, Defunct video game companies of Germany, Defunct video game companies of Iceland, Defunct video game companies of India, Defunct video game companies of Ireland, Defunct video game companies of Italy, Defunct video game companies of Japan, Defunct video game companies of Mexico, Defunct video game companies of New Zealand, Defunct video game companies of Norway, Defunct video game companies of Poland, Defunct video game companies of Russia, Defunct video game companies of Slovakia, Defunct video game companies of Slovenia, Defunct video game companies of South Korea, Defunct video game companies of Spain, Defunct video game companies of Sweden, Defunct video game companies of Taiwan, Defunct video game companies of Turkey, Defunct video game companies of the Czech Republic, Defunct video game companies of the Netherlands, Defunct video game companies of the United Kingdom, Evercade games, Fictional Serbian people in video games, GSC Game World games, GameClub games, Hunting in video games, Impact of the September 11 attacks on the video game industry, Incest in video games, Marathon engine games, Micro Machines (video game series), Midnight Club, My Little Pony video games, Mythology in video games, NBA 2K players, NBA 2K teams, One Piece: Pirate Warriors, Overwatch commentators, PlayStation 5 game covers, Quotations from video games, Railroad business simulation video games, Red Dead Redemption, Red Dead Redemption 2, Scrabble software, Sierra Entertainment employees, Sports video games by country of setting, Sports video games set in Canada, Sports video games set in Japan, Star Wars: Rogue Squadron games, Story-driven video games, Tengai Makyo, Terminator (franchise) video game covers, Video game characters introduced in 2020, Video game companies disestablished in 2020, Video game companies established in 1967, Video games about birds, Video games about dogs, Video games based on Fantastic Four films, Video games based on actual events, Video games based on works by Don Payne, Video games based on works by Edgar Rice Burroughs, Video games based on works by James Schamus, Video games based on works by Jeb Stuart, Video games based on works by Stephen Sommers, Video games based on works by Tim Burton, Video games scored by Joe Hisaishi, Video games scored by Kow Otani, Video games scored by Michiru Ōshima, Video games set in Aichi Prefecture, Video games set in Atlanta, Video games set in Baltimore, Video games set in Belgrade, Video games set in Chiba Prefecture, Video games set in Cincinnati, Video games set in Cleveland, Video games set in Denver, Video games set in Fukuoka, Video games set in Fukuoka Prefecture, Video games set in Guatemala, Video games set in Hiroshima, Video games set in Hiroshima Prefecture, Video games set in Hokkaido, Video games set in Houston, Video games set in Hyogo Prefecture, Video games set in Japan by prefecture, Video games set in Kanagawa Prefecture, Video games set in Milwaukee, Video games set in Minneapolis, Video games set in Minnesota, Video games set in Miyagi Prefecture, Video games set in Nagoya, Video games set in Osaka Prefecture, Video games set in Philadelphia, Video games set in Pittsburgh, Video games set in Saitama Prefecture, Video games set in Sapporo, Video games set in São Tomé and Príncipe, Video games set in Transylvania, Video games set in Yokohama, Video games set in a fictional country, Video games set in a fictional location, Video games set on uninhabited islands, Video gaming by decade, World War III video games, 1964 in video gaming, 1964 video games, 2020 video game awards, 2020s interactive fiction, Animal Crossing video games, BMX video games, Danish video game actresses, Defunct and inactive Overwatch League academy teams, Eidos, FM-Class indie game articles, Fate/stay night characters, Fate/stay night video games, Ford video games, GameMill Entertainment games, Hudson Soft, Mirage Technologies (Multimedia) Ltd. games, Motorsports video games, NA-Class Esports articles, Pandemic Studios games, Social deduction video games, Type-Moon games, Video game companies of Israel, Video game franchises introduced in 2020, Video games about death games, Video games about insects, Video games based on Arabian mythology, Video games based on Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde, Video games based on Treasure Island, Video games scored by John Debney, Video games scored by Tsuyoshi Sekito, Video games set in Kolkata, Wii and Wii U-only games, World War I flight simulation video games, Xbox Series X and Series S, Screenshots of PlayStation 5 games, TrackMania, International Games System, International Games System games, PolyGame Master, PolyGame Master games, Screenshots of PolyGame Master games
• New templates: {{Commandos-style video games}} by Kurzon (talk · contribs), {{Conspiracies series}} by Ergotelis123 (talk · contribs), {{HPS Simulations}} by JimmyBlackwing (talk · contribs), {{Shadow Warrior}} by OceanHok (talk · contribs), {{Stoic Studio}} by OceanHok (talk · contribs)

That massive pile of new categories is real; Thibbs found a ton of untagged categories this week. Also, Stardock Systems Inc. v. Paul Reiche III and Robert Frederick Ford is a fun read. --PresN 22:32, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

That's a pretty good start on that one given how significant that issue is. I still need to write something comparable on the Tetris vs Mino case which is *the* case law on the concept of copyright of look & feel that persists today. --Masem (t) 22:40, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

• I'm not sure why Kirby Fighters 2 isn't on this list. It was published November 16. Le Panini ^Talk 23:03, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

The talk page tag was added in the revision dated October 8th. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 00:21, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

• Fortnite was just created on Nov.18th? About time! (I assume it was relisted here due to the talk page vandalism?) Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 00:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

It's a game that's completely flown under the radar :P --Masem (t) 01:07, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Whoops, yeah, the vandalism mucked it (Fortnite) up and I missed it. As for Kirby Fighters 2 - it absolutely should be here; I think this is a bug, as I see in the bot log the "move" from redirect to "real" article, but the script dropped it for some reason. It's obviously new: added. --PresN 04:22, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Category:Video games featured on Angry Video Game Nerd. Having a list of AVGN games, OK, I could understand an argument for it, but a category? Being featured on AVGN is not a defining characteristic of a game. - X201 (talk) 08:27, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, it's a bit much. Notable things and people are featured in other notable things all the time.--Alexandra^IDV 08:29, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

If others are in agreement that this is a bad category, I think it’s a fairly straightforward nomination for deletion. ImaginesTigers (talk) 17:13, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Link to the CfD: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_November_25#Category:Video_games_featured_on_Angry_Video_Game_Nerd -- ferret (talk) 17:47, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

This is a general appeal for help. 13 Sentinels: Aegis Rim currently has a massive, bloated plot synopsis. I've begun something on the article's talk page (link here) looking for suggestions on how to trim it down while taking its complex plot into account. Suggestions and article examples dealing with complicated non-linear plots would be helpful. --ProtoDrake (talk) 16:20, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Hey there. I'll see what I can do to help. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:53, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Per , the "old school" Mac OS categories have been moved to "Macintosh" (eg "Mac OS software" to "Macintosh software" as to resolve the "Mac OS" vs "macOS" conflict. I recommend that given there's a desire to have consistency on category names and mainspace, that we also go through and use "Macintosh" as the platform for these older games to match. It may need a few hands working at AWB to process through Category:Macintosh games to make those substitutions. --Masem (t) 02:58, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

No, there was obviously a mistake in the move set. The rationale given in the CfD is that the parent categories of various "macOS" and "Classic Mac OS" categories should be called "Macintosh". However, we did not have a separate parent category for games on both systems, so the category for Classic Mac OS games was moved instead. We should create a new "Classic Mac OS games" category and put both that and "MacOS games" as subcats of "Macintosh games". Compare this to Category:Macintosh software, which has both Category:Classic Mac OS software and Category:MacOS software as subcats.

We should not use "Macintosh" in-line in articles. Macintosh is a hardware series that runs to this day, including all systems running the modern macOS. There would also be a divide in using a hardware name for old Mac games but an operating system name for new Mac games, which makes no sense at all. IceWelder [✉] 07:06, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Indeed. It's also worth pointing out even in the Classic Mac OS era, Macs weren't actually called Macintoshes for a large part of it (Power Mac G3s and G4s were a permanent naming shift away from it.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 17:27, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

@Masem: I've gone ahead and created the new categories and filled them partly. I will AWB/JWB over it later today, maybe you could aid me in that. IceWelder [✉] 11:01, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

That should be fine, using "Classic MacOS" instead. What I know is that we want the consistency on category name and in the article, based on past category issues. --Masem (t) 14:12, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't think that this is always possible. For example, Microsoft Windows is the name of the article, but the category is located at Category:Windows games. We also still uphold the Mac OS X/OS X/macOS distinction, while all three are categorised into Category:MacOS games. I don't think the category name should strictly affect the name used in the article, nor do I think that we should just do such a change on all articles. Let's start with the category and leave the naming within the article for later discussion (also discussing "Windows" vs. "Microsoft Windows" then). IceWelder [✉] 17:54, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Recateogrization done. New cateogries:

• Category:Classic Mac OS games
• Category:Classic Mac OS-only games
• Category:Cancelled classic Mac OS games
• Category:Classic Mac OS game covers

Please let me know if I missed something. Regards, IceWelder [✉] 11:08, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

I tried to build Heads Up (aka Heads Up Action Soccer), Sargon III, and Railroad Tycoon Deluxe from existing redirects, after finding multiple reviews for each of them, but they were reverted to redirects. Are there other sources that will help to establish notability for them to ensure that they demonstrate that they meet the WP:GNG? 2601:243:1C80:6740:DD50:EB04:4574:A2C0 (talk) 03:29, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

You could sell me on Sargon 3 and Tycoon. If Tycoon really is a remake and following discussion deems it still a redirect, it should probably live at the original game article, not the series page. Based on the chatter in the edit summaries for Heads Up, probably not a valid article, though I'm sure its target would take the content if it didn't have it. --Izno (talk) 04:19, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Well, two out of three ain't bad! :) What more would need to be done with these to make them convincing as articles? I found one more review for Sargon III: 2601:243:1C80:6740:DD50:EB04:4574:A2C0 (talk) 15:27, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Well, the articles need to follow WP:MOS/VG. They need to be have sections for gameplay, development, and reception. If they have enough of a historic mark, there can be a legacy section. If there's a plot to the game, then a plot section.

Additionally, there needs to be an infobox, and the lead section's length is determined by how long the article is. Happy Thanksgiving! Le Panini ^Talk 16:40, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

OK, fair enough! I will find some time over the long weekend to give it another try. :) 2601:243:1C80:6740:DD50:EB04:4574:A2C0 (talk) 19:12, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Wii had been named at FAR a month-ish ago, but I've been pinging away at it to fix most of the problems - part of the issue was that it was written from a Nintendo enthusiast' POV and lacked the same type of coverage we give consoles now. As such there is a lot of newish writing and I would like some help with readthrough and copy editing. I still myself have to work on source reviews and some other MOS fixing so its not a rush here but it would help clear up the FAR problem. --Masem (t) 23:03, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

 A listing of all articles newly added to the Video Games Wikiproject (regardless of creation date). Generated by v3.4 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 16:08, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

• Articles deleted: GlowTag, Draft:PlayStation Studios, Draft:Undermine (video game), Zest3D, Draft:SimpleRockets 2, The Last Outpost (video game), Draft:Cow Chop, Draft:MGP Live, Draft:NAVGTR Award for Lighting/Texturing, Popup Dungeon, Draft:Record of Lodoss War (Mega CD), Draft:Record of Lodoss War (SNES), Draft:Wynncraft, Spooky's Jumpscare Mansion
• Articles redirected: Frogger (Xbox Live Arcade), Wii sales, City Connection (company), Roll & Rocker, Darkness Falls: The Crusade, Fable (upcoming video game), Smart Games Challenge (series), Railroad Tycoon Deluxe
• Categories deleted: Nintendo locations, Video game franchises introduced in 2020, Cancelled Fallout video games, Video games based on Code Lyoko
• New categories: Slightly Mad Studios games, Cancelled classic Mac OS games, Classic Mac OS-only games, Classic Mac OS game covers, Classic Mac OS games, AQ Interactive, AQ Interactive games, Artoon games, Feelplus games, Harmonix games, Helicopter video games, Marvelous (company), Marvelous (company) games, Marvelous Entertainment games, Sonic the Hedgehog spin-off games, Victor Entertainment games, Victor Interactive Software games, Video games about cats, Video games about primates, Xbox Series X and Series S game covers, Xbox Series X and Series S software
• New templates: {{Tomodachi Series}} by Gamerknowitall (talk · contribs), {{TrackMania}} by Zxcvbnm (talk · contribs)

• Who else is sick of dumb categories like Category:Video games about cats? --Izno (talk) 17:21, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
  • It's misnamed first of all. They're video games that (happen to) feature cats, not about cats. The mere presence of a cat character should not qualify admission into this category, but that's how it's being used currently. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:16, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Back on January 29, 2014, fresh off of getting 50% of our articles to Start-class or better, we started a goal of reaching 20% C-class articles- articles with a solid structure and references, but too rough around the edges or lacking in details to be B-class or higher. At the time, we were at 3101 C+ articles out of a target of 6007. Today, 6 years and 10 months later, we made it, with 7458 Cs or higher out of a target of 7455!

It's time, then, to pick a new goal. Currently, we have goals to reach 10% B+ and 75% Start+, both of which were also started in 2014 and have a ways to go (slow but steady progress). We've previously had goals to reach percentage or static targets of classifications such as GAs or FAs, as well as Start-Bs. As always, we can do something more esoteric like all High-importance articles being C+ or number of good/featured topics or whatever we want- the aim is to pick a goal that inspires people to work at it. Any ideas? --PresN 23:01, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

• I think more High-Importance articles should become higher classed here. Meanwhile, I'm wondering if it is possible to properly automatically track the number of good and featured topics we have. GamerPro64 23:37, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

• There may be some way, though I don't know of any besides changing {{WikiProject Video games}} to make topic go into their own category instead of just Category:Project-Class video game articles. We could do it manually, though, it's not like new topics get promoted terribly often. --PresN 00:10, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

• I think the next goal should be something along the lines of Good topics. Right now, we have 21 ish good articles, and maybe we should shoot for 40-50. Le Panini ^Talk 00:12, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

• Well, according to Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Good content and Featured content, we have 30 GTs and 10 FTs, so a goal of 50 would look like this:

Or:

Or something like that. --PresN 00:41, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I think the first bar works better because then it feels like we're closer to completion. CaptainGalaxy 00:44, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

• A static amount of GT/FT is not bad but I feel like we're already so close, meeting the goal would not amount to that much improvement. I definitely favor improving the quality of high-importance articles. How about getting all top, high and mid importance be C-Class or above? We're at 2092/3210, about 65.1%. It's fewer articles than in the original goal (a bit more than a thousand) and 65% feels like a decent percentage to start at -- high enough that it feels achievable, but middling enough that there is a lot of work to accomplish. Plus I feel this will focus efforts on the most important content, the most read and critical articles, thus resulting in the highest impact to effort ratio. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 01:23, 17 November 2020 (UTC)