www.fgks.org   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
MilkyDefer (talk | contribs)
309 edits
Line 393: Line 393:
:::::Are sources calling it a Yuri game? You need reliable secondary sources. Categories are not exempt from [[WP:V]]. -- [[User:Ferret|ferret]] ([[User_talk:Ferret|talk]]) 20:13, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
:::::Are sources calling it a Yuri game? You need reliable secondary sources. Categories are not exempt from [[WP:V]]. -- [[User:Ferret|ferret]] ([[User_talk:Ferret|talk]]) 20:13, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
::::::: I can find a bunch of Japanese sources because they have a very broad definition of yuri in recent years. But on a more serious note, I think that if any case requires sources, then there will be no problems. While there may be some debate about yuri googles, that's a completely different matter. [[User:Solaire the knight|Solaire the knight]] ([[User talk:Solaire the knight|talk]]) 20:25, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
::::::: I can find a bunch of Japanese sources because they have a very broad definition of yuri in recent years. But on a more serious note, I think that if any case requires sources, then there will be no problems. While there may be some debate about yuri googles, that's a completely different matter. [[User:Solaire the knight|Solaire the knight]] ([[User talk:Solaire the knight|talk]]) 20:25, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
:A saying goes in Chinese-speaking regions that most "yuri" works in Japan are only "light yuri", similar to "[[light novel]]". These works seldom contain any male characters, only focusing on the casual interactions between female characters, not including romance between them. Typical examples include comics from [[Houbunsha]]. Even a kiss can be categorized as "a kiss of pure friendship", "a kiss as lover", maybe more. I think all works mentioned here, like [[Blue Reflection]], [[Azur Lane]], [[Kantai Collection]], only fall in the realm of "light yuri", but not "serious yuri".
:Light yuri can be considered yuri, but light yuri cannot be considered LGBTQ-related. [[User:MilkyDefer|<span style="color:#09C">Milky</span>]][[User talk:MilkyDefer|'''<span style="color:#F09">Defer</span>''']] 12:43, 25 June 2023 (UTC)


== User uploading new images and overwriting perfectly valid >
== User uploading new images and overwriting perfectly valid >

Revision as of 12:43, 25 June 2023

WikiProject iconVideo games Project‑class
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles
ProjectThis page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

OpenCritic listed alongside Metacritic as main video game score-aggregator in the reception sections of videogame articles

Well, I think that just the title speaks for itself. So, what do you think? https://www.videogameschronicle.com/news/zelda-tears-of-the-kingdom-is-the-highest-rated-game-ever-on-opencritic/

https://www.nintendolife.com/news/2023/05/zelda-tears-of-the-kingdom-is-now-the-highest-rated-game-of-all-time-on-opencritic

https://culturedvultures.com/the-legend-of-zelda-tears-of-the-kingdom-reviews-metacritic-opencritic/

https://thetab.com/uk/2023/05/12/zelda-the-tears-of-the-kingdom-metacritic-opencritic-reviews-nintendo-ranking-308010 151.38.77.188 (talk) 04:22, 23 May 2023 (UTC) strike sock-- Ponyobons mots 21:25, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think that Opencritic is valuable in the different way it judges reception. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 06:09, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Am I missing something or does it not carry reviews from Edge? I can't find any on there. If they don't carry them, that would be a big negative mark in the comprehensive category for me. Probably it's because Opencritic seems fixated on naming the reviewer and Edge never carries a byline on its reviews, specifically so that the reviewer can write what they want unhindered by any repercussions. Seems a bit odd for a site that is fighting for honesty in reviews to not carry the magazine that started it decades ago. - X201 (talk) 07:15, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
https://opencritic.com/game/1130/edge/charts 151.36.53.161 (talk) 10:58, 23 May 2023 (UTC)strike sock-- Ponyobons mots 21:25, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's a game called Edge. I'm talking about the magazine Edge (magazine). - X201 (talk) 11:12, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't appear so. On their FAQ Page there is a list of all publications they use and Edge does not appear to be one of them. In addition there is a clause: Reviews must be freely available online. Reviews behind a pay-wall or print-only reviews are not permitted. As far as I am aware, Edge is print-only, correct? - Skipple ☎ 13:21, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how those sources change anything. Websites routinely write best/worst article like this. I think it's saying more about that than OpenCritic in particular... Sergecross73 msg me 11:50, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't get your reluctance to add OpenCritic as score aggregator alongside Metacritic, you did add GameRankings when this was still active and OpenCritic has gained popularity among gamers and games magazines and adds another perspective like GameRankings did. What problem do you have with OpenCritic? 151.36.3.3 (talk) 12:01, 23 May 2023 (UTC)strike sock-- Ponyobons mots 21:25, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone has a problem with it, and GameRankings is generally only used today if there's value that Metacritic lacks. For example, I've seen Metacritic scores that don't cover certain RSes, and of course, certain platforms are not covered on Metacritic. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 12:03, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But GameRankings is dead, while OpenCritic is active, still I don't see the latter in the reception sections of video game articles. 151.44.72.68 (talk) 12:12, 23 May 2023 (UTC)strike sock-- Ponyobons mots 21:25, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I just don't see the value in every reception section starting of as "(Game) has an aggregate score of 82 on Metacritic and 81 on Opencritic" which is almost certainly the main way it would be implemented in articles. If there were notable difference scores, I wouldn't oppose inclusion. But they're usually just a couple of points different, if that. Sergecross73 msg me 12:57, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OpenCritic's approval ratings percentage has been brought up several times in these discussions as an alternative to its average critics score—so articles would instead say something like "(Game) received 'generally favorable reviews' according to Metacritic, and an approval rating of 91% on OpenCritic". Disagreeing with that inclusion is perfectly valid, of course, but it's not a redundant measure. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 23:32, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this and have been including OC's approval metric on articles I frequently edit. Policy follows practice and I have certainly been practicing. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:43, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The long-standing issue with editors pushing on OpenCritic is that unlike MetaCritic which does weigh review scores from more reputable sources higher than others, OpenCritic is a pure average. That means that when a game that typically has raised the ire of the playerbase but which the main critics are positive on, MC will be artificially higher while OC will be somewhat lower, which to those players upset at seeing high MC scores on a game they loathed, will be more appreciative of. There's nothing wrong with how OC has chosen to do this, but because their aggregation is different from MC, we really can only use one or the other, lest we present a fan-driven selection of which aggregator to use. Masem (t) 12:32, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The same could be said about GameRankings, but you people didn't have problems adding it in the reception sections of every video game article alongside Metacritic, because both sites gave a different perspective on how total of reviews and scores were collected and users and gamers preferred one than the other, so why suddenly Metacritic is more important than the other and it's the only one worth of consideration despite the other aggregator site is not less respected or efficient? 151.82.245.201 (talk) 16:37, 23 May 2023 (UTC)strike sock-- Ponyobons mots 21:25, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, we did have a problem with GR though. GR is either "not used" or "not used unless MC is absent or substantially different". I forget what the current status is, but GR is rarely used these days. Sergecross73 msg me 16:50, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This logic sounds backwards to me? Because MC's weighting is concealed, there's no way to know what their metascore is reflective of, without doing a bunch of non-WP:ROUTINE calculations to back out the weights. On the other hand, OC's score can't be "fan-driven" anything because it's simply all scores, equally weighted. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:43, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, since it doesn't seem to get enough attention—OpenCritic has an approval rating (Critics Recommend), akin to Rotten Tomatoes' Tomatometer, that's completely different from the weighted average that Metacritic uses. As a different method of measurement, it's not redundant to the MC score (which is the issue OC averages often run into, they're often so similar that they're not worth including) so I think that it's more than worth including. The fact that OC has started to be adopted by RSs alongside MC also gives it some weight, from my perspective. JOEBRO64 16:58, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
None of the above sources I would consider particularly good examples of adoption by RS, though, in that they're just news items on a game getting a score, versus discussing OC scores in a wider context than just "Zelda is the new hotness" (and I mean, it should go without saying Nintendo Life deciding to write a story on that is less than noteworthy.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:17, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm cold on review aggregators in general, and OC seems like a lower quality version of MC. I don't see what these sources add that make OC anything more than redundant to MC. If a game is well rated, then that's already covered by the individual sources. If someone thinks OC's aggregated score is really compelling and important information, they can visit OC. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:05, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what makes it of lower quality compared to Metacritic, considering also that mainstream magazines consider both the scores of MC and OC equally, and it's like saying GameRankings was of lower quality compared to MC, based on who knows what basis. I don't understand why MC yes and OC no, what's the problem? P. S. I took sources talking about TLOZ:TOTK because I started the conversation based on what they suggested me to do on the game's article's talk page. 151.36.233.77 (talk) 21:37, 23 May 2023 (UTC)strike sock-- Ponyobons mots 21:25, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I told you to start a discussion here because the Zelda talk page wasn't the place to make a decision on something that's much bigger than just that game. As far as your question goes, MC is more widely considered the industry standard in both games and other entertainment media. It's been around longer, while OC is newer and redundant. It's not that complicated. Sergecross73 msg me 22:10, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'd contend that the Rotten Tomatoes-like measurement, which Metacritic lacks, may be worthwhile to include. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 22:15, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And again, I used the Zelda sources because I had them in my hand ready previously and I planned to use them in its talk page before being sent here. Plus, the fact that OpenCritic is newer (2015 I guess) it's not a justification not to use it on Wikipedia alongside Metacritic, and it's not less efficient than Metacritic or even GameRankings. 151.36.233.77 (talk) 22:35, 23 May 2023 (UTC)strike sock-- Ponyobons mots 21:25, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No one is faulting your use of Zelda sources for being about Zelda, we're just saying it's more of an example of "routine coverage for a well reviewed game" than than commentary on the importance of OpenCritic. Sources more focused on the importance of OpenCritic itself would probably be more persuasive. Sergecross73 msg me 23:27, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but it's stronger than me, it's just I can't really understand this big deal and refusal to not wanting to use OpenCritic as a source on Wikipedia as an alternative games' score-aggregator, it's like you have a personal resemtmemt or feud against it. 151.38.233.234 (talk) 23:52, 23 May 2023 (UTC) strike sock-- Ponyobons mots 21:25, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You...can't understand a simple concept like "redundancy", so you turn to a baseless theory of me feuding with...OC...? What...? Sergecross73 msg me 00:23, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What? No! For Pete's sake, it was just a figure of speech, I didn't mean literally, it was to say my confusion in trying to understand this refusal to accept OpenCritic as a reliable source and aggregator and really I don't see any valid reason why it shouldn't. 151.38.233.234 (talk) 00:34, 24 May 2023 (UTC)strike sock-- Ponyobons mots 21:25, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Might I suggest avoiding such figures of speech. You are in a discussion with humans, directing said figures of speech, which look like an accusation, at said humans. We deal with all the time where people get personal because their favorite source/figure/game/whatever isn't being presented the way they like, but are otherwise in line with Wikipedia policies/guidelines or consensus. -- ferret (talk) 00:36, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, really, but I wrote it in a way it would be understable it wasn't serious, I would have never guessed somebody would have taken me seriously, mine was just a weird way to describe my confusion. 151.38.233.234 (talk) 00:45, 24 May 2023 (UTC)strike sock-- Ponyobons mots 21:25, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If it's just RT for games, I don't see why this wouldn't be useful in theory. Percentage approval and average score aren't quite the same. Toa Nidhiki05 00:08, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In a way it is RT for games, it uses percentages just like it, both for critics and audiences. 151.38.233.234 (talk) 00:46, 24 May 2023 (UTC)strike sock-- Ponyobons mots 21:25, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just as films only use the critics measurement from Rotten Tomatoes and not the user score, we are not going to use the user score aggregation from either MC or OC. The existence of review bomb is reason enough to avoid these. Masem (t) 02:02, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstand, the point being made is that Opencritic shows critic recommendation, and Metacritic does not - just the weighted average. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 02:19, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the approval rating is different from the average score and thus not redundant to MC. It should be more than fine to include. JOEBRO64 12:31, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I support adding OpenCritic.
Some complain about redundancy, but that certainly isn't the case when it comes to some niche or smaller indie titles. OpenCritic still vets the publications it includes, but has a much wider range of them. This sometimes means that niche games have scores on OpenCritic, while they have none or don't have enough for an overall score on MetaCritic. It could also mean a more comprehensive overview for titles with few reviews generally.
It's certainly known in the industry too, even being included on multiple store pages, including the Epic Game Store.[1] DarkeruTomoe (talk) 17:10, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since there seems to be some agreement that OC's Critics Recommend isn't redundant to MC, I've drafted this in case we ever decide to add it to WP:VG/S:

OpenCritic provides two metrics of review aggregation: "Top Critic Average", an average score similar to Metacritic's Metascores, and "Critics Recommend", a percentage of positive reviews similar to Rotten Tomatoes' Tomatometer. Top Critic Averages should only be used if a Metascore does not exist, since it is usually too similar and therefore redundant, but Critics Recommend can be used alongside Metacritic as it is a distinct form of measurement that serves a different purpose.

JOEBRO64 20:28, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I support it. Axem Titanium (talk) 07:30, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am also in support. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 08:13, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This has my support as well. Toa Nidhiki05 14:01, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This needs a proper RFC and I believe it should happen at MOS:VG. If approved, once worked into the aggregator details of the MOS, then I'll be more than happy to add it to the review template. As it stands, the last site wide RFC was in 2017 and established a consensus NOT to include OC. -- ferret (talk) 17:18, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As User:DarkeruTomoe pointed out above, I think direct integration into the Epic Store is a significant development that was not brought up at all in the most recent 2021 discussion. That alone warrants a revisit, IMO Axem Titanium (talk) 18:12, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not debating a revisit or the need for one, just saying that a proper RFC at the MOS is needed to settle the issue. -- ferret (talk) 18:15, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Sergecross73 msg me 18:32, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. I don't see a consensus for this. I am skeptical that OC adds anything reliable, but let's start with a proper RFC where people can discuss. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:30, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll get around to setting one up tomorrow or sometime in the weekend. Will probably have two separate sections for the different forms of aggregation that OC has. JOEBRO64 22:23, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So? When can we start to include OpenCritic in the Reception sections of video game articles as aggregator? 84.222.66.203 (talk) 16:53, 2 June 2023 (UTC)strike sock-- Ponyobons mots 17:36, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If and when the RFC closes with a consensus to add it. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:17, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RfC is live. Go nuts. JOEBRO64 14:14, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Concluded

The RFC at the MOS has closed and OC has been added to {{Video game reviews}}. Actual MOS:VG guidance still pending. Please see follow up discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Video_games#Implementing. -- ferret (talk) 20:11, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In case this is of interest: inspired by this RfC, we now have User:Josh404Bot populate the OpenCritic Critics Recommend (Q119576498) scores − only 284 so far, but it will catch up to the 4000+ OpenCritic Top Critic Average (Q114712322) that it already had done, and more generally to the 5500+ uses of OpenCritic ID (P2864). See this SPARQL query for the list. Jean-Fred (talk) 12:15, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(We’re now at 1546 OpenCritic Critics Recommend (Q119576498). Jean-Fred (talk) 07:41, 22 June 2023 (UTC))[reply]

Console and Handheld separation in Video game series templates

Hello! So User:TheJoebro64 referred me to an older discussion on this topic of separating series titles by console and handheld releases after they reverted my edits on the Donkey Kong series template. The consensus reached seemed to be that it wasn't a major issue and to go about it from series to series based on what seems most convenient. I personally believe that separating games by console and handheld is very arbitrary and becoming more and more outdated in concept. The Nintendo Switch is an obvious contemporary example of how certain games don't neatly fit into either, but there have also always been games that have had simultaneous releases on console and handheld; for example, Dr. Mario released on both the NES and the Game Boy on the exact same day. If a game is released on PC as well, is it a PC game or a console game? I know that's a silly question, but my point is that the distinction doesn't really matter. Donkey Kong might not specifically be facing these issues, but I think it should be avoided nonetheless whenever possible. I do think I reached a better and more effective categorization of the main series titles by separating the games into original arcade series, Donkey Kong Country series, and "other". But I'm probably a bit biased to my own edits, lol. I'm completely new to using these discussion pages so sorry if I'm going about this in the wrong way or anything. I don't really know what's required to reach a consensus or whatever, but I know that User:(Oinkers42) shares similar thoughts to mine as well. Cheers! TehRYNOL (talk) 15:52, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes it'll make sense, sometimes it won't. I can't imagine we're going to come to a Wikiproject-level consensus on how to handle every template - game series vary wildly. I'd recommend creating discussions at the template talk page(s) you wish to change, and notifying the WikiProject for more input if you're not getting much feedback at the respective talk page. Sergecross73 msg me 16:01, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. For example, I feel like it makes sense for Mario, but not Fire Emblem. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 16:02, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. I believe this originated from the Sonic template, and I know that part of the argument there was that it didn't particularly make sense to integrate the minor Sonic and Tails and Sonic Triple Trouble handheld titles in between the major Sonic 3 and Sonic & Knuckles titles. Sergecross73 msg me 16:09, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fair. Ultimately I suppose trying to categorise games in templates like this does just become an arbitrary way for us to make it more convenient and better ease-of-access. But then I don't exactly understand what the issue with the Donkey Kong template was, as the main series list was edited back to how it was several months ago with the claim that "There's been consensus for this for a while, not sure why people can't get that through their heads". But I'll take it to the talk page, thank you! :) TehRYNOL (talk) 16:15, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am not opposed to setting the Donkey Kong Country series and the arcade games aside, leaving the other games in an "other" section, although I would still prefer my method. Also, what consensus is @TheJoebro64: talking about, he is seemingly the only one who thinks this way. (Oinkers42) (talk) 17:04, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You guys should probably start offering some WP:DIFs if you're really looking for input on these sorts of questions... Sergecross73 msg me 17:07, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is the proposition I'm making. Thanks for linking that help page. TehRYNOL (talk) 18:16, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The template has stably used the arcade/console/handheld distinction since at least 2020, which is consensus through editing. There was no consensus to change it in the discussion last year (therefore, we retain the status quo) and two editors (myself and Soetermans) have reverted efforts to change it without discussion. It should have been more than clear that the distinction should not be changed unless there is a discussion and consensus to change it. JOEBRO64 21:13, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fear & Hunger

This discussion could use some input. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:29, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Skyrim Sales issue

This discussion needs more experienced opinions: Talk:List_of_best-selling_video_games#Skyrim_has_apparently_sold_over_60_million_copies.

Todd Howard offhandedly said Skyrim has "60 million copies" in an interview about Starfield. My thoughts and opinions on this at the linked section. We're also seeing some clear citogenesis on this topic from RS's. -- ferret (talk) 16:45, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pokémon Crystal

Can somebody please close this split proposal? It has been open for a month after discussion ended. QuicoleJR (talk) 00:16, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Handling sparse multiplatform, multi-generational review tables

Eg Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney Trilogy - that's a huge table with half the entries as NA.

I don't know an immediate good solution. My first !vote would be to group generational releases (in this case, you'd have 3DS, the iOS, then the Switch/PC/PS/Xbox) and if there happens to be a different or specific version score in that group (like for PCGamer), to add the specific version with it. That narrows that down from 7 total columns to 4 but may lengthen the table. Masem (t) 00:16, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I agree, no need to separate the most recent releases, everything but one secondary IGN score is the same. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 01:05, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know that a table is a useful way to convey this information. To begin with, it's dozens of reviews, of which only a small fraction are actually used in the prose. You might nix the table entirely or just keep some of the platform aggregators. Some of the metascores are based on only a handful of reviews so they're not particularly reliable to begin with. Axem Titanium (talk) 07:20, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We absolutelyndo need to stress that any review put into the table is expected to be used as part of the reception...we are not just gathering reviews. We have gotten lazy on this area for a few years. Masem (t) 16:20, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's an explicit instruction at Template:Video game reviews but it could be more clearly spelled out in MOS:VG#Reception. Beyond that, it's just whack-a-mole where you see it and/or have the energy to fix it. Driveby editors see a table and feel possessed to fill it, alas. Axem Titanium (talk) 16:49, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
More reason to just get rid of it and force editors to add it as prose. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 17:00, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I hate the multiplatform format. Nothing further to comment. There's no reason this can't be handled like we do for Metacritic on most normal review tables. -- ferret (talk) 17:10, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed that the multiplatform table is terrible - the majority of it is empty space and it's massive and in my opinion it's just better to use the regular video game reviews table and note platform reviewed in parentheses next to score. Waxworker (talk) 18:43, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My recommendation is to axe the table entirely and just leave the Multiplatform Metacritic rankings as a vertical rather than horizontal list; right now the table is taking up more room than the prose, and that's simply not the intended use (it's also damn hard to read anything on it given most cells are functionally empty.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 17:51, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should just kill the multiplat table. It looks absolutely terrible and is far harder to read than the normal one. Also support spelling out "reviews in the box must be used in prose" at MOS:VG. JOEBRO64 18:18, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If there is support for this, I believe I can rework the module to, instead of generating the big table, instead list the reviews in the typical Metacritic format of (Platform): Score in a list. This would mean nothing needs retrofit or cleaned up. -- ferret (talk) 18:23, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Game Rankings link

Hi, I need help getting the Game Rankings link for Trouble Shooter. Apparently, multiple pages for the Genesis on Game Rankings are not archived, and I can't figure out how to get to the Trouble Shooter GR page (if it's even archived). - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 15:51, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Cukie Gherkin: Here's the Trouble Shooter GR page. If you're looking through Wayback, then just put into "https://www.gamerankings.com/ (insert platform here)" into the Wayback search bar. In the browser's address bar, add a "*" in front of it and/or in place of any date range the website comes up with. It'll bring up a list of saved URLs of that type, which can be searched through based on type, date, or name. --ProtoDrake (talk) 16:21, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here's an example of the above: https://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.gamerankings.com/genesis/*. --ProtoDrake (talk) 16:22, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Much obliged! - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 16:22, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New Articles (June 5 to June 11)

Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements
 A listing of all articles newly added to the Video Games Wikiproject (regardless of creation date). Generated by v3.15 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 18:50, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

June 5

June 6

June 7

June 8

June 9

June 10

June 11

Genres in List of DSiWare games and applications

I think that the genres list is incredibly difficult to maintain at the best of times, but for a list of games with as high a percentage of non-notable games compared to a lot of other platforms, it's even more difficult. I saw multiple games where I felt the genre was incorrect, and I figured that rather than citing this information that I would not consider valuable for a list, I decided to delete the information. A while later, @NPI WOL: reverted it, arguing that this info should be fixed and sourced instead of removed. I'd like to get consensus on whether the genres column should be retained. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 05:46, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because (IIRC) anyone could publish on DSiWare, similar to the Switch store today, that that list must be cut down to those games that are blue-linked notable or that there is at least one third-party source that affirms the game's release on the store. Otherwise, we are way into WP:IINFO/WP:NOTCATALOG. The consoles' digital storefronts are not the same as heavily curated physical carts/CD games of the past, and there should be no expectation we can document each one. --Masem (t) 12:33, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I personally think we should be cutting subjective items like genre out of all of our lists. I don't include it in the ones I create or rework. Sergecross73 msg me 12:40, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm uncertain if DSiWare was an open platform or not. Could you weigh in on the genres bit though, Masem? :) - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 16:28, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that would be news to me too. I didn't think Nintendo really started "opening up" until the Switch launched really... Sergecross73 msg me 17:05, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My bad, seems like both DSiWare and WiiWare were curated more by Nintendo per [3], but that said, there is something about this approach, which isn't quite self publishing but also not solicitated/sought after by Nintendo that makes me concerned about the full list of games... it would the place Steam was at Steam Greenwich compared to new. Masem (t) 17:31, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Did Nintendo open up in Switch era? That's news to me. MilkyDefer 09:15, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See [4]. They still have a casual review of game content (eg no porn games like on Steam) but the process is far less hands off by Nintendo. So we do not try to list every Switch eshop game, just like we don't like every Steam game. Masem (t) 12:18, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
From a practical standpoint, genre discussions are a huge time sink on Wikipedia. It'd definitely be nice information to have in a game list, but if it's causing issues or can't be readily verified, I agree it should get axed (and yeah the list should just be notable games.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 17:28, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Pikachu

Pikachu 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. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:20, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've done some work trying to fix up the reception but it needs a lot more. If anyone's able to help it'd be appreciated.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:05, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Eltomas2003

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

It's basically in the title. There's an investigation opened into the activities of Therealgamer1234, who is suspected of possibly being a sockpuppet of banned user Eltomas2003 following the sudden FAC of Tokyo Mirage Sessions ♯FE. More people coming in and helping would be appreciated. I'm trying to be impartial, but Therealgamer1234 behaving in a very odd way on my talk page. It's making me nervous, and whatever the conclusion it would be good to resolve this quickly. ProtoDrake (talk) 19:46, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ProtoDrake: I'm sorry, I was just curious, these replies won't happen again. Therealgamer1234 (talk) 19:55, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming you are not a sock... I took a look at the messages you left on ProtoDrake's talk page, and I have to agree they're unwelcome and are borderline harassment. You were informed a few times that Wikipedia is not a social platform, yet you continued to press for personal information. If you want to be an "ally" then keep all your interactions to collaborating on improving articles, not looking to make "friends." ThomasO1989 (talk) 20:13, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Eyes are on this. -- ferret (talk) 20:00, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Machine-translating vertical Japanese text

We've had some real success at the Chrono Compendium recently by using Google's OCR to feed magazine pages into DeepL (though we're rapidly reaching diminishing returns on Chrono content). But some articles are presented using the vertical format, and I have yet to find a rock solid solution for extracting those. Game magazines often have a complex format, with some horizontal text also presented under screenshots (a classic example is here). Does anyone have a preferred method for OCRing these? ZeaLitY [ Talk - Activity ] 04:06, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge discussion input needed re Switch Lite

Talk:Nintendo Switch Lite#Merge could use additional input as I think the results of that would be pertinent to other similar hardware offshoots. Masem (t) 18:38, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Kain (Legacy of Kain)

Kain (Legacy of Kain) 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. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 12:57, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New Articles (June 12 to June 18)

Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements
 A listing of all articles newly added to the Video Games Wikiproject (regardless of creation date). Generated by v3.15 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 16:56, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

June 12

June 13

June 14

June 15

June 16

June 17

June 18

Fictional character

Is "character" or "fictional character" better to use? I believe it is "fictional character", but Greenish Pickle! disagrees. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:06, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Usually "fictional character" on first use, unless a different adjective is used like "Pokémon character." For reference on what is being discussed: [5] [6]. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 14:18, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just "character". "Fictional character" is tautological — characters (in the standard sense of the word) are always fictional, unless we tell the reader otherwise. Popcornfud (talk) 15:19, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The adjective "fictional" would indicate what definition of "character" we're using. It disambiguates from Character (symbol), the concept of an agent's "character", and other pages listed here. Moreover, legendary/mythological figures might also be called characters, as do archetypes I think? It's clearer at least. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 16:15, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, but you’re optimizing for the wrong thing. “Fictional character” doesn’t add information anyone needs. For example, in sentences such as “Ellie is a character in the video game series The Last of Us by Naughty Dog”, no one is going to wonder if Ellie is a sort of typographical symbol.
Mythical creatures should be described as mythical creatures and not characters — because that’s what they are, except in cases where we’re talking about, you know, characters. Popcornfud (talk) 20:52, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good argument, but languages rarely make logical sense. "loup-garou" literally means wolf-werewolf, which is one of my favorites. "Fictional character" emphasizes that the character is fictional through repetition, much like "free gift" emphasizes that something has no strings attached. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:28, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think "free gift" is a useful emphasis, though — I think it's just an idiomatic set phrase, a kind of cliche. It's common in speech or marketing materials etc, but when writing an encyclopedia I can't think of an example of how it would be helpful to write "free gift" over "gift", and if there is such a situation it's not typical.
See dozens of other common tautologies such as "end result", "first began", "personal opinion", which we're all used to and use without thinking — but which add nothing to prose and which readers don't miss when they're not there. Popcornfud (talk) 09:29, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Another comparison might be characters based partly or completely on real persons? I do like a bit of tautological emphasis in this situation, as well as the clarity. But it seems mostly a style thing and might just depend on what sort of phrasing you're used to. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 07:05, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
“Character”. “Fictional” is 100% tautological. JOEBRO64 09:33, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just "character". As a note, I actually don't mind repetition-for-emphasis and am mildly annoyed at other editors removing quite intentional word choices out of a misguided dedication to concision (i.e. "inauthentic forgery", "end result", etc. are fine as far as I'm concerned). However, why do we even want to emphasize "fictional character"? As best I can tell, the movement to label everything "fictional character" came about in the 2006-2008 struggle to adopt a more real-world and less fannish perspective. Just driving home that yep, we're talking about fiction here, this isn't real. But... I don't feel that is actually necessary, and is just some Wikipedia inside-baseball that readers won't care about. We should take cues from the literary world: someone might call Romeo & Juliet "characters", but they are exceedingly unlikely to call them "fictional characters" except, perhaps, in the context of speculation of whether Shakespeare based the play on some historical event (he didn't). There's no need for such emphasis. The only time "fictional character" is useful is in the rare case of discussing characters based on actual historical figures, if there's a desire to separate the character from the person - something like Stephen Colbert (character), or maybe when discussing the various Fate characters based on real people. Otherwise the repetition isn't adding anything. SnowFire (talk) 18:26, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your Romeo and Juliet comparison has convinced me that "character" is slightly better. Adding 'fictional' indeed seems like a more modern phrasing? ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 19:52, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What is misguided about aiming for concision? What is the advantage of writing “end result” over “result”? Popcornfud (talk) 20:11, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Think about this abstractly: suppose phrase A and phrase B are perfect synonyms. Not even any change in emphasis. Dedication to concision suggests something like "always pick the phrase with fewer syllables and never ever use the synonym" which isn't how real writers write. It's even worse if, for whatever reason, the "longer" version is actually more popular, and the short version is an uncommon construction. Add in the possibility of a change of emphasis or avoiding a close repetition, and you have a solid reason to use a slightly longer construction sometimes... except on Wikipedia, some people who want to help out will come "fix" the issue that didn't need to be fixed.
That said, per above, my problem isn't with longer phrases per se, just that the additional emphasis makes the most sense with something like "Peter Brand is a fictional character invented for the film Moneyball, while the other main characters are real people", which is rarely the case in the video game sphere. (And, of course, there are many times where the shorter phrase really is the better phrase - just the reason to replace then isn't that it's shorter, it's that it's better, like getting rid of extraneous "very"s.) SnowFire (talk) 20:47, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"which isn't how real writers write" is kind of begging the question, isn't it? For what it's worth, I am a "real" writer — which is to say, I make my living from writing (though I am still waiting for the check from Wikipedia).
I'm not sure what you mean by one turn of phrase being "more popular" than another. If you mean that A is in more common use than B, that would likely make A more widely understood and therefore the better choice, regardless of length — at least when keeping the goals of an encyclopaedia in mind. Ease of comprehension might not your goal when writing song lyrics, for example.
But the goal is to remove elements that offer no utility. If an element makes something easier to understand, then that adds utility. I agree there are circumstances where "fictional character" aids clarity, it's just that there aren't many of them. When we write, we should be conscious of the choices we're making, know why we're making them and avoid writing simply out of habit. Popcornfud (talk) 21:06, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, wasn't trying to throw shade at you, and it sounds like we agree on this anyway. When I meant with "real writer" wasn't intended to imply there was a class of "real writers", but rather just that "real" authors have radically different writing styles, and that's okay. H.P. Lovecraft probably would have infuriated Strunk & White if he'd sent his stuff into the future to them to be edited (he can be rather... long-winded and tell-don't-show at times), but he's still a "real writer". Wikipedia, similarly, can support a range of writing styles (maybe not James Joyce tho). SnowFire (talk) 04:05, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rereading my comment this morning, I think it sounded more wounded than I meant! I was just trying to unpick some of the ideas you posted here. Anyway, yes, I think you gave some reasonable examples of where an attempt to be concise can come at the cost of other things. Concision isn't the only goal — we also have clarity, etc... Popcornfud (talk) 09:13, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"fictional character" is fine.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 00:03, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Daithi De Nogla#Requested move 13 June 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Daithi De Nogla#Requested move 13 June 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 16:47, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On a recently deleted category...

Category:Video games with alternate endings was deleted per Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_May_6#Category:Fiction_with_alternate_endings (which was initiated by @Zxcvbnm:) specifically on a NONDEF rationale. Now, my first inclination is that was a poor one, but I think on further consideration I agree with it. That said, I do think we lost something in terms of "video games with branching narratives", and this more than "you get one of two endings depending on what option you made at that point in the game", but specifically things like the Telltale or Dontnod games, for example. I think this is a more refined cat that is defining, as long as we are keeping it clean of far misses. For example, one could argue GTA V is such a game, but open world games by their nature are more freeform without a hard plotline to follow, whereas these branching narratives are ones that you stay the course of a main narrative but the smaller events within it are up to choices the player has made. And again, we should not include, like, Bioshock or similar ilk in this. I want to get opinions before creating this category to repopulate it to some degree, hence this discussion. Masem (t) 04:10, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Masem: Not sure even branching narratives is definitive for a game. It's pretty common to the point it is often mentioned in passing if at all. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:15, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple or alternate endings is certainly non-defining nowadays, but I completely disagree with the branching narrative, particularly when you consider how The Walking Dead defined the concept of choice-based storytelling by RSes. Masem (t) 12:08, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe Category:Video games with alternate storylines or something of that nature? (Oinkers42) (talk) 04:37, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that branching narratives would make a good category. The problem with the "alternate endings" category is that it featured everything with ending variations, no matter how minor, which are non-defining. However, entire alternate branches of narrative can be a defining feature of a game. For example, 80 Days's branching narrative is the central feature of the game, one of the first things mentioned in almost any coverage of it. As long as RSes identify the branching narrative as a key feature of the game, I believe a corresponding category will work. A quick look in the reliable source search engine for "branching narrative" turns up a spate of material on the topic. Phediuk (talk) 15:16, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's possible we could put a Category:Interactive narrative video games as a subcategory of Category:Interactive narrative, but as a parent category of Category:Interactive fiction? I like the idea of removing the "with" so it emphasizes its primacy within the game. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:21, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that a core category guideline - one that is unfortunately commonly broken in the video game space - is that categories require clear inclusion criteria. If that can't be done, then it's not suitable for a category - see WP:SUBJECTIVECAT. Assessing the sources is fine for prose, but not for categories, which by their nature are disparate and maintained by random other editors on other articles. If the inclusion criteria is vague or contestable, the inevitable result is overcategorization as the category will slowly grow to every single vaguely related article. Again, I'm not saying that there aren't games where branching paths aren't important; there clearly are. It's a bad fit for categories, though. (For one trivial example: Fire Emblem Fates as a whole technically has a branching narrative, albeit it's a single branch very early. But in practice, it's really just three games that share a prologue and system; you could go to the store and buy just a single path and not have a branching narrative. Does this count for such a category? The answer is probably "it's complicated", and that answer itself shows why such a category is a bad idea.) SnowFire (talk) 18:47, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, this is along the lines of what I was thinking myself. For some games it's major, for others it isn't, so it will be hard to keep the category focused. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:24, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am pretty confident we can carve out the category to only include games which are principally built around the branching narrative approach. But that said i think i would like to make sure the key article this cat would cover or extend from, Narrative of video games, discussion specificly about branch narratives and how they differ from most other games. Masem (t) 21:14, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that starting with a prose article is probably a good idea, but even if one is created with a section on branching narratives, I'm not at all confident it'd lead to a good category for the reasons stated. Does Fallout: New Vegas have branching narratives? You could argue that the branches in "solve a bunch of quests however you like" are more significant than the branches in a Walking Dead game, and I'm sure a search would show some sources talking about it, but is that really the focus of the game? What about a game with a lot of small choices that all feed into some morality meter, and that morality / faction alliance / whatever meter determines the branches, and that's really important? And so on. But maybe there's some adjacent term out there that does have a clean inclusion criteria. SnowFire (talk) 02:32, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Super Mario RPG

So, I reckon since the remake was announced, it may be worthwhile to move the SNES game to Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars to reduce the potential for confusion (should a remake page be created). - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 02:59, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That will not reduce the confusion, as there's a likelihood people will call the remake that too. I think the best course of action is to leave the original where it is, and then disambiguate the remake, as with Demon's Souls. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:14, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps people familiar with the original, but I don't think that there's so many people aware of the subtitle that they'd call it that. I mean, I've never seen anyone call the remake "Legend of the Seven Stars," though it's certainly a YMMV situation. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 03:56, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The best call is to wait. Right now what is announced is a remake. It does not require an immediate spin out, and it's entirely possible if unlikely it *never* spins out. -- ferret (talk) 13:11, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FFXVI diversity

Hi. Edit conflicts are beginning to appear on Final Fantasy XVI over the stuff surrounding its portrayal of gender and different ethnic groups (or lack thereof). It's becoming a bit of a mess of "well actually it's like this". Recently done...a lot of edits, so I'm burned out on XVI. I admit i was contributing to the conflict, which is why I'm pulling out. Any other opinions are welcome, since this is becoming a needlessly thorny issue. ProtoDrake (talk) 13:45, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your efforts on the article. It's launch day so it's probably not productive to spend a lot of time fighting the tide on the content editing front. Other than obvious vandalism, it's probably wise from a mental health perspective to let the article be a little wrong and unfinished for a few days until the wave breaks and reassess then. Axem Titanium (talk) 16:53, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Axem. You have done a ton of work on the FF XVI page, so you can take a nice rest from the page until you feel the tide has been settled. Roberth Martinez (talk) 18:34, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RFC at WP:NOT about whether articles should list of every version/beta/patch

There is a (second) RFC about how Wikipedia articles should treat complete development logs in articles, which can be found at this subsection. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:47, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Someone broke the project banner

Self-explanatory. All Low-Importance assessments have been converting into Unknown-Importance. QuicoleJR (talk) 01:18, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like an issue for Template talk:WPBannerMeta rather than the Video games one in particular. It affects all banners. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 01:21, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, on second thought it could have been the edit in April that broke things. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 01:22, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I could not find any other projects affected by the error. QuicoleJR (talk) 01:27, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@QuicoleJR I had reported it to the maintainer before you posted. It should be resolved shortly. -- ferret (talk) 02:12, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, sounds good. QuicoleJR (talk) 02:13, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PresN is looking into it as well. -- ferret (talk) 02:15, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed, I think- something about the way our banner worked was unlike any other project's and broke when WPBannerMeta got updated today. Categories seem to be repopulating and talk pages look correct, so ping me here if anyone sees any problems regarding importance categories. --PresN 02:23, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But now the question is who broke the banner?
My guess is that it was Salvidrim! with the barnstar in the newsletter room. Panini! • 🥪 21:00, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, WPBannerMeta got updated to use code instead of wikitemplates, and we were the only project with a weird way of handling importance. Specifically, for redirects, our banner ignores whatever editors put as the importance and leaves it as NA-importance. I've now gotten that working again, and as a treat added a similar bit that forces any article that's a redirect to be redirect-class, no matter what you put in the talk page template (so, making an article a redirect will make the talk page template update automatically to redirect-class, in case you forget to update it to |class=Redirect). --PresN 22:14, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Nathan Drake (Uncharted)

Nathan Drake (Uncharted) 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. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 10:32, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Categorization of Japanese games with lesbian elements

Hello! I have a question! I removed the yuri category from the latest Blue Reflection because as far as I remember this game has yuri elements but is not a yuri game per se. But I have doubts, so I want to ask. What games should be added to this category, given that it is already included in the category of LGBTQ-related games. Any Japanese games with a canon lesbian element of varying degrees of importance like lesbian subplots, token yuri characters, etc., or only games like Flowers that officially belong to the genre and have it as a main/one of the main ones? Solaire the knight (talk) 19:22, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

LGBT-related should be games that explicit discuss and focus on LGBT representation or themes, not games that simply have LGBT characters. -- ferret (talk) 19:40, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that, I'm interested in the yuri category, since in this case we are talking about a separate genre / its elements. This franchise has always had a certain LGBTQ subplots or aesthetic, so I don't question that. Let's take a simpler example then. Azur Lane and KanColle have a notable amount of canonical bisexual characters and this has been the subject of subplots several times. Does it deserve only the LGBTQ category or the yuri category too? Solaire the knight (talk) 19:46, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merely having "elements" does not make it defining per WP:NONDEF - it has to be significant enough to be mentioned in most reviews or discussion about the game. I don't think a game simply having a LGBTQ character, for example, would be enough to place it in any such category. If one would not call Azur Lane a "yuri game", then it probably shouldn't be there - generally that means only romance-centric games would qualify. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:55, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Or neither". The case of "this game has some LGBT characters and sometimes romance subplots" does not a "LGBT-related" (or yuri) game make. If I were talking to just a random person about Azur Lane, is "Yeah, it's that game that focuses on LGBT" going to be part of the conversation? Not at all. -- ferret (talk) 20:00, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is, yuri category for lesbian romance-centered games and at least if it's not the main, but still one of the important genres of the game like in Honkai 3D case? While the LGBTQ category is for games that have enough of this for reputable sources to take notice and describe it as in D4DJ? Solaire the knight (talk) 20:04, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are sources calling it a Yuri game? You need reliable secondary sources. Categories are not exempt from WP:V. -- ferret (talk) 20:13, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can find a bunch of Japanese sources because they have a very broad definition of yuri in recent years. But on a more serious note, I think that if any case requires sources, then there will be no problems. While there may be some debate about yuri googles, that's a completely different matter. Solaire the knight (talk) 20:25, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A saying goes in Chinese-speaking regions that most "yuri" works in Japan are only "light yuri", similar to "light novel". These works seldom contain any male characters, only focusing on the casual interactions between female characters, not including romance between them. Typical examples include comics from Houbunsha. Even a kiss can be categorized as "a kiss of pure friendship", "a kiss as lover", maybe more. I think all works mentioned here, like Blue Reflection, Azur Lane, Kantai Collection, only fall in the realm of "light yuri", but not "serious yuri".
Light yuri can be considered yuri, but light yuri cannot be considered LGBTQ-related. MilkyDefer 12:43, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User uploading new images and overwriting perfectly valid ones

A new user X2025 (no relation), has been overwriting cover images and other images with new files, when perfectly valid images already exist. No edit summary has been given explaining a reason why. It's worth having a look at their contributions list as I haven't seen a single image that warranted changing yet. - X201 (talk) 09:51, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me that the user wants to upload higher res images of current covers but isn't aware that a bot will just reduce them back to the previous size again. --Mika1h (talk) 11:44, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looks that way. A load of needless work and disruption. - X201 (talk) 16:10, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Should definitely be brought to the attention of admins to stop that, per WP:CIR. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:40, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Has anyone tried talking to them yet? Sergecross73 msg me 17:41, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
^-- Step 1. Sysop is not required to let them know why this is problematic and ask them to stop. Sysops come in when they refuse to listen. -- ferret (talk) 17:53, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I left a caution this morning User talk:X2025 Masem (t) 17:54, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They...uh...handled your warning very poorly, so I indeffed them. Sergecross73 msg me 01:28, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games&oldid=1161854243"