Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games

Template:Video game reviews RfC

Per this discussion, should the source FiringSquad be added to Module:Video game reviews/data with the parameter FS, to be used for adding scores in the Video game reviews template? Big Blue Gnu 18:21, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

...Why do people keep trying to use RFC's to get entries added to the template....? Sergecross73 msg me 18:48, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This should happen at the template. I've replied there. -- ferret (talk) 19:31, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Have a read of RfC before - before instigating an RfC :o)
Thanks Lukewarmbeer (talk) 10:16, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Need help writing Draft:GameMill Entertainment

While there are a lot of sources that mention the company, almost all of them focus on the games the company published and not the company itself. Still, more info could likely be found as I only did a quick search for sources in Google News. Dabmasterars [RU/COM] (talk/contribs) 16:09, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

i wrote that article in the past and hit several dead ends. I doubt this topic will ever be notable; it was rightfully deleted. Not even the transition from GameMill Publishing to GameMill Entertainment is covered properly anywhere. IceWelder [✉] 00:31, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did an extensive search but I'm not seeing anything either. Timur9008 (talk) 14:21, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like this article is currently a lost cause. We need to wait until GameMill gets covered by more sources. Dabmasterars [RU/COM] (talk/contribs) 14:54, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm new here.

They are not, in fact, new here. Another sock. Sergecross73 msg me 14:33, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion 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.

What can I do here? Seems a bit daunting. My goal is my first FA to be shown in the middle of next year, so there is plenty of time. Samuel Thomas Gu (talk) 00:23, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO, the most useful possible thing is content creation because it takes the most skill, and there is the greatest dearth of content creators. WP:VG/R is a good place to start as nearly every potential article there has been vetted for notability, comes with reliable sources, and is unlikely to ever get contested or deleted. You can work your way up to making good articles and eventually featured articles. You could also try to make pages on things you know of but Wikipedia doesn't have, but it can be a struggle for new editors to realize what is notable and what isn't. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:52, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your advice! Samuel Thomas Gu (talk) 00:58, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome. We're all volunteers here, so I always remind people to do what makes you happy. That said, the FA process can be quite difficult. There may be other things you find more fulfilling on Wikipedia, so don't get stuck hyper-fixating on FA stuff. Sergecross73 msg me 01:53, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are many FAs like the content from the Green Star Collector that are quite sparse but are FA standard nonetheless, his content even made it to the main page like the Mario Party articles. Samuel Thomas Gu (talk) 01:55, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not familiar with their FAs, but they're difficult regardless of their output. Sergecross73 msg me 02:14, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to write complete, individual articles to the best of your abilities, you should do so. There's always a bunch to go around, and it would be appreciated. I don't know that, having written nothing yet, it's very helpful to claim that other people's articles are "sparse" and therefore you can do the same easily. --PresN 02:15, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Within the context of our project, you might enjoy going to video game review websites and see what games are being reviewed that don't have articles yet. Creating drafts first can feel nice. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:42, 31 December 2025 (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.

Discussion at Talk:Donkey Kong Country § Plot and gameplay section ideas

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Donkey Kong Country § Plot and gameplay section ideas, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:57, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Page for repairing RRoD errors?

Hey, there. A relatively new editor, MetroidPrime4BeyondFOREVER!, has proposed a page on how we should we repair Xbox and Xbox 360 RRoD errors titled XBOX RRoD Error Repairs. However, I'm also concerned that this might contravene the relevant guidelines and policies (such as WP:NOT, WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:MOSVG) if we should create one. Thoughts? sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:05, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You would be correct. It'd violate WP:NOTHOWTO. Sergecross73 msg me 03:20, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
that is what I had thought as well, however at first I was uncertain. Thank you for helping clear that mess up. MetroidPrime4BeyondFOREVER! (talk) 05:58, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No hard feelings. sjones23 (talk - contributions) 06:04, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
also, are you active on my page right now, as I am uncertain if I should improve the FFIX article or if i should not? MetroidPrime4BeyondFOREVER! (talk) 06:20, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You're free to edit whatever you want. That said, that article is already an WP:FA - the highest quality rating a Wikipedia article can get. Sometimes new editors have a hard time starting on an article like that, because there aren't any simple, easy fixes to be made. Sergecross73 msg me 14:10, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, they did not include a section for minigames under gameplay, which I feel is necessary as at barely past the beginning of the game, you must get some items required from the minigame as consolement from the ticketmaster when you discover your ticket to the annual show is a fake, regardless of whether you play it or not. MetroidPrime4BeyondFOREVER! (talk) 16:56, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Shoot 'em up

Shoot 'em up has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 16:08, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Saw (video game)

Saw (video game) has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 16:09, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Last Vital Start-class article

We've come up to the end of our goal to get all Vital articles to C+ class! The only article remaining (as I've made a bold decision to call home video game console a C-class-equivalent list) is social deduction game - if anyone's willing to put in 10 minutes of research, we can call the whole thing done! --PresN 14:19, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I threw some ref ideas on the talk page - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 14:39, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I shoved more information into it from those and a couple more sources, and Izno on Discord said it was probably a C now, so that's the goal complete! --PresN 23:30, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
As per Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 182#Stub goal, I'll replace that goal with the new goal of 2600 GAs (for 2026). --PresN 23:32, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
+1 on it being C-class now. Not sure what's up with sourcing some of the "notable games" in that section. Should we really just have a random list of some games? Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 23:34, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, if anyone wants to keep improving the article, one step is definitely going through that list with a chainsaw, if not removing it altogether. I mostly left it because I didn't easily find a good source for the overall "history of the genre" which would then give a justification for which games to call out by name. --PresN 23:41, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That's probably a good approach. Listing every title is a bit complicated, but lists aren't a bad substitute when there is no citable history section I suppose. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:33, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

With the goals swapped out, we're now 182 GAs away from the new goal, or 44 away from the 1980s games one. We're also 3 topics away from goal #4, with the new Trauma Center GT getting promoted. --PresN 23:41, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

New Articles (December 22 to January 4)

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 v3.20 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 15:05, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

December 22

December 23

  • None

December 24

December 25

December 26

December 27

December 28

December 29

December 30

December 31

January 1

January 2

January 3

January 4

Double-week update since I forgot last week with the holidays; let me know if anything got missed. --PresN 15:05, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Missing Human Code, The Cartoon History of the Universe (video game) and List of canceled Bethesda Softworks games. Timur9008 (talk) 00:06, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Man, there's something about the way you create new articles that the script just doesn't like. One of these days I'll figure it out... --PresN 02:20, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've fixed it, it's something about the way the bot sometimes records new creations where there's no quality rating set but there is an importance rating. I guess we'll see next week! --PresN 04:05, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That said, there will always be misses; I need to completely rewrite the script to not trust the bot output (which I've been avoiding for years). For example, the list above correctly has "Maseylia: Echoes of the Past" and "F24: Stealth Fighter" as created on the 30th, but if I rerun the script today, they aren't there. Why? Because the bot removed them - that was today's update the the log, and if you ctrl-f for that title, you can see that it just... removed those lines from the post it had made on the 31st. Why? As far as I can tell, the bot really struggles with the combination of creating a talk page tag with no class assessment, and then later in the same week adding an assessment to the banner shell template, and someone assessed those two today. It's frustrating; just know that if your list doesn't get posted in the weekly summary, it's not personal, sometimes things just vanish. --PresN 04:29, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No worries :) Timur9008 (talk) 04:45, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's my fastest turnaround for a GA nomination with A Kappa's Trail - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 00:35, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hey!

I saw this game in the Atari 2600/7800: A Visual Compendium that i think should be on there


Its called Moonsweeper


it was on the Atari 2600 , ColecoVision , Commodore 64 , MSX , TI-99/4A , ZX Spectrum


Here's some Links about the game and a Video on it


https://glitchwave.com/game/moonsweeper/

https://www.ign.com/games/moonsweeper


https://www.atarimania.com/game-atari-2600-vcs-moonsweeper_7387.html


https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=TagynFo1Y-Q&pp=0gcJCR4Bo7VqN5tD


GyroidGalaxian (talk) 22:59, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Seems notable, it got some contemporaneous reviews. So either add it to WP:VG/R or (the far better option) make it yourself. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:52, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
can you show me where to i add it so that i dont accidentally vandalize the page GyroidGalaxian (talk) 02:01, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @GyroidGalaxian! I'm glad you are interesting in developing articles on early games so welcome! From the links you've shared a lot of them are mostly database entries about a game. Usually we require more proof that something exists to create a solid article about it, it needs some commentary on it whether its development/history/reception so someone outside a fanbase of games would know that the topic has some relevancy (you can read more about what we try to put into articles at MOS:VG and Wikipedia:Notability (video games). I would suggest maybe creating a draft page to do some test edits if you are concerned other editors think you may be vandalizing an article. Perhaps you could start on your user page by testing and creating some edits at User:GyroidGalaxian/Moonsweeper ? I'd be happy to help you out if you had any questions. :) Andrzejbanas (talk) 11:20, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion about methodology at Talk:List of video games considered the best

There is talk page discussion that may interest members of this WikiProject. TompaDompa (talk) 00:05, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Refocus Creeper World article to cover series

Hello! Relatively inexperienced Wikipedian here, I want to change the Creeper World article to move its topic from the first game to the whole series. Splitting it up into five articles seems excessive. I've got a couple questions though.

  • Do series articles need to be included in categories for each release? That is, it would be under 2009 video games, 2011 video games, 2013 video games, 2020 video games, and 2024 video games, and likewise for platforms.
  • There are a couple sources describing shared elements of the series but they don't cover all five. So if I want to rewrite the summary paragraph to be about shared elements of all five games (e.g. having an amorphous blob as an enemy that you defeat with placeable guns while worrying about energy management), is it enough to reference this article which asserts those things for the first three games, and rely on "you can tell at a glance" for the same being true for entries four and five?
  • Is there any other Wikipedia magic I need to do, consensus I need to establish or whatnot, before I can change the topic like this?

See also my question on the talk page Talk:Creeper World, but given that I'm the first person to edit there in 15 years I don't expect to hear much. Harmenator (talk) 14:19, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Simply, do not. We don't just suddenly change the scope of articles like that, and we don't cover video game series that aren't independently notable. A brief summary of the series at the end of the first game's article should be sufficient, or, if any of the games are notable unto themselves, feel free to write articles about them separately. If all five games are notable, then there should be enough content for five articles, though that is a big "if".
In general, those "video game by year" categories are only for individual game articles, not series pages. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:04, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Could you explain a bit more how notability is decided for this kind of thing? I'm not saying all five of these games are independently notable, but I'm also not sure that the first of the series is meaningfully more notable than the others. (on google, "Creeper World" + 2009, brings up 19k results, "Creeper World 2" has 11k, "Creeper World 3" has 118k, "Creeper World 4" has 68k, "Creeper World IXE" has 19k).
So I figured that making a series article is an effective way to put together useful information for each game; essentially adding the notabilities of all five together to justify a series article. I'd not be removing much if any of the text in the current Creeper World article, I would just make it restructure it.--Harmenator (talk) 10:06, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is a bit of a confusing topic. Check WP:GNG. It's sort of a dual exercise: first, in determining if there's enough reliable and independent coverage to substantiate the key facts that make up an article's subject matter; and second, in determining if the kind of coverage it's received is of a type that's reliable and wide enough to suggest an encyclopedic entry is merited. It doesn't really have to do with the player count or anything like that, more: what sources are out there? Are they reliable and independent? Do they go into the game in depth? The traditional approach for games has been to see if there's three reviews from reliable gaming publications to meet notability. But that's not a formal rule. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 04:01, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with ZXCVBNM. Video game coverage tends to have greater depth at the game level than series level, so often it can be much harder to substantiate notability for a series. In the case where the first game is the only real title with significant coverage at the moment, it's probably best for the status quo to prevail. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 03:01, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Why would making it into a series article require losing depth? I wouldn't want to remove any text, I just want to add. And it's unlikely to become an excessively long article with some paragraph restructuring, outside the IGN articles there aren't that many secondary sources.--Harmenator (talk) 10:10, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It's a policy quirk, but articles generally aren't meant to be dumping grounds to coalesce anything about subtopics of a non-notable topic (see WP:NOTDIRECTORY); to prevent, for instance, an article about a series where none of the games are individually notable and there is no significant series-wide coverage. In this case, the original game only has barely enough coverage as-is to meet WP:GNG, and any basis of the subject being notable is going to be through reference to the original game. Things that would change this are significant and reliable coverage on the games across the series, such as retrospective articles, developer interviews, series-wide reviews. That isn't really there. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 03:56, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help suggest interesting hooks for a DYK?

Concerns have been raised that the topic and hook is dull. See Template:Did you know nominations/The Witcher: The Adventure Card Game - it is a board game tie-in to the first The Witcher game, I think this is quite interesting in itself but YMMV. TIA. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:11, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

My first thought is to compare it to the more popular Gwent, like saying that the Witcher series did not have another physical card game until Gwent in 2025, or that before Gwent, the series had a physical card game as far back as 2007. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:37, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Zxcvbnm I haven't found sources that do this yet, although they may exist; note that there have been several physical games in between, all but the promotional ones are notable. I was working on the 2014 game (on pl wiki; will likely translate it to en soon overwriting the current meh article), and there are some sources that (in passing) call the 2014 game better (they are in fact mentioned in the nominated article, which links to the 2014 game). Not sure if this would make for a very interesting hook, however (well, I think the 2007 game is likely the weakest Witcher board game out of all of them, which might be interesting, but so far I don't have a RS for it, and basing it on BGG ratings would likely irk some folks...). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:51, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Does it seriously need a source to say something like that? It is just common sense. I don't think it would fall under "original research" to compare one date with another date. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:53, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Well, one of the complains about the hook is that dates are not interesting, if I understand it. IMHO saying that this was the first board game in that universe is interesting and I proposed it, but the reason I asked for other suggestions is that some folks there say it is not good enough. Shrug. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:13, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
My best idea for this is that reviewers found the cards and text too thin and small, but the cardboard Geralt grotesquely large. It's a fun contrast, and a "grotesquely large" Geralt is a fun visual. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:17, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"grotesquely large geralt" has a ring to it ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 04:02, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Video game character Infobox MOS discussion

So this has been in the works for a bit, per an earlier discussion at the video game character task force talk page. I went through and tried to refine things based off standards across multiple vg character articles here on wikipedia, worked on it with input from other editors, and would like to present it here for discussion in a broader sense before moving forward proposing it become part of the project's Manual of Style.

A big emphasis on this was to try and streamline information for the reader at a glance, so they understand the basics of the character before reading the article itself. It was also to try and emphasize the infobox not dominating the article, as we often see in the Comics part of wikipedia, and tighten offhand cruft that may not be useful for the reader to grasp the character in question. Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:21, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If we're going to formally recommend custom parameters for live-action interpretations, might it just be better to add a new parameter for Live-action actor (|live_action=)? It doesn't seem immediately obvious that "Portrayed by" refers to live action, especially as many games no longer have separate voice acting and motion capture, and if this is a common enough occurrence to mention here, it may as well be formalised with a parameter. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 00:24, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I actually like that idea, portrayed by ends up feeling too vague to boot. I do think Portrayed by shouldn't be used as a combination of voice and motion capture, as it doesn't intuitively express "this is also motion capture", but it's also still a bit rare that the VA and motion actor are the same person, and can result in some problems if say a later person voices the character or an instance where multiple language VAs are involved. What do you think?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:48, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I can definitely see why some might avoid |portrayer= in those specific instances, and I'm sure it applies to most characters. For the rarer case of a character with a single English-speaking performance capture actor, though, I still think that parameter is better than naming the same person twice (in |voice= and |motion_actor=). – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 01:01, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Great work on a easily frustrating/complicated wiki-topic! I'm a bit torn on creator/designer as being slightly vague terms. I'm presuming creator is someone who put down the brass-tacks on the background and nature of the character, while designer is someone who sketched out or illustrated the character? As Kung Fu Man and others work far more on these kind of articles than I do, my question is how often is it clear who did what in these areas? I don't think either is bad, I just wonder how clear this would be for general readers. As for voice actors, what happens when its a character whose voice actor changes for a long standing-series or changes from game to game? Maybe for characters who voice actor doesn't originate in English-language media, something separate for "original voice actor" and "English voice actor" to sort of deflate the ideas of drive-by editing in the future of filling in information of every language voice actor? I'm not sure how the various franchise specific details (i.e: typing for Pokemon or element for Genshin) for characters are useful as they would imply knowledge of the content beforehand). I've never played Genshin, but i'm familiar enough with Pokemon. Outside of gameplay, I don't think it matters to too many people if they know if Pikachu is an "electric type" pokemon or not as it only really matters in terms of gameplay. I'm not sure if its within the standards of WP:NOTGUIDE. But if I'm wrong here, i'm wrong here. Good work! I think it's coming along nicely.Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:10, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
As for voice actors, what happens when its a character whose voice actor changes for a long standing-series or changes from game to game? In my experience, and looking at Kung Fu Man's proposal, all citable voice actors should be included (along with when they voiced the character), using collapsible lists if necessary. Rosaece ♡ talk ♡ contribs 15:01, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Alright addressing a lot at once:
  • Creator is the person defined as coming up with the idea for the character, with the designer handled their design. This is sometimes not the same individual, or may be the creator alongside other individuals. They tend to go in order to, so it's often self-explanatory, and additional smaller notes can be added in cases where multiple designers were involved or someone worked on a specific version (i.e. Raichu, Poison (Final Fight). This keeps it comprehensive but also lets the reader grasp why different designs they've encountered may be distinct.
  • As for VAs, what Rosaece suggested, which is usually the standard. While I do understand the point about an original VA not necessarily being English, that's more a sitewide thing than just a VG one, and I would rather not suggest deviating too far from that. Keep in mind too there are times when the original VA just contributes next to nothing in an appearance as with 80's to early 2000's video games.
  • Regarding typing, it's been discussed by editors here and off-site that Type or Element often correlates to perspective on characters by themselves or in relation to one another, such as Fairy-type Pokemon being seen as queer coded in a Kotaku article, or Wooloo having reception discussing its perception as a Normal-type. So there is a strong argument there to include it.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:49, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Is this useful for this WikiProject? (List of games reviewed by a Polish magazine)

I am making a list of non-video games reviewed in some Polish magazines for WikiProjects Board and RPG. I am now analyzing content of a Świat Gier Komputerowych, which mostly covered video games. I just used AI to clean up a semi-OCRed list of games they reviewed in 1998, I put it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Board and table games/ŚGKVG. There are likely some broken links due to AI mishandling some Polish titles of English games, and not disambiguating stuff correctly. Still, I think it may be useful for some folks here. Let me know if you'd like me to try to add other years of the magazine there (if I find the relavant lists). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:32, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is pretty useful! Thank you for tackling this. The list seems easily sorted out and it would be useful if this could be shared or pinned somewhere as a reference piece. I also feel richer for knowing a game called Pinball Brain Damage exists! :D Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:43, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I expect this can be moved to VG project space, since it's about VG, not board games, and linked from some relevant resource collection? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 00:21, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Re-writing Visual novel article

Hello all! I've currently been in the process of re-writing the visual novel novel article for the past few months. I mostly want to copy-edit my own work, add information I have the genres use in education and give it a proper lead and appropriate images before calling it "done". You can see the current status of my re-write here. As I don't see much discussion in MOS:VG on how to write about genres, I've tried to base it structure around more recent featured articles and good articles I've seen about music genres and game genres.

I've asked and tagged editors about it on the talk page (Talk:Visual_novel#Re-write) and at WP:A&M (Anime & Manga) as well (Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga#Visual_Novel_article_re-write). I have not received any comments on to go forward, not go forward, or and back and forth on the topic. To bring more attention to something which is a relatively bigger sweep of an article, I'm posting it about it here as well to get anyone opinions on it currently as writing about something that is sort of "on-going" is difficult as well as the visual novel is a often misunderstood genre with different meaning in its origin in Japan as does in the Western world. Any comments/suggestions/criticism/anything would be helpful as I'm reaching the tail end of my re-write. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:09, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, after glancing through the reworked draft, I feel that the article lacks a clear definition of the genre. I don't think visual novels are something as hard to describe as 67. MilkyDefer 15:49, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
What would improve it @MilkyDefer:? Genre is subjective. On trying to re-write articles on my own like adventure film, action film, crime film, nearly all academic research finds that you there are no concrete definitions of genres that unanimously agreed upon. The best source I could find and have applied is this academic article "What is a Visual Novel?" (2021) in which they try to give any regular occurring elements "drawn from an analysis of 30 prior academic definitions." Based on that material which goes more into depth on it than any other source I've found, I'm not sure what is better. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:10, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The lack of a lede potentially make the article less clear. At least nobody is disputing the importance of text and narration of this genre. I agree that the terms visual novels, bishojo games/gal-games and eroge are quite interwined. I suggest renaming the "characteristics" section to "definitions", move the "status as games" to the top level. MilkyDefer 16:19, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I haven't written a lead yet as the article is incomplete (per my above statement) I will obviously expand that once I feel the research is more complete as the lead will reflect what's in a more completed article. I disagree with "definition" because per the above source, it's a fools errand to suggest there is "one truth" to defining a genre as is subjective among audiences, but we can suggest that are regular characteristics that have shown up in various attempts at trying to define what it means when people say "visual novel". As for moving the "status as games", do you have a reason why? I think its more important to clarify that audience in Japan (where the genre originates from) has a different implications of what a "visual novel" is than Westerners generally do. For example, the debate of them being "games" is really only in Western discussion of the genre as my sources suggest there is no debate in Japan whether these are games or not. I think we need to set up for readers first or not of what one means when they read the word "visual novel" in a global context before discussing the "are they games?" debate. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:29, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen some game genre articles have a short "definition" section sourced to reliable sources. In many cases, it doesn't lead to a fixed definition, but helps readers understand the fuzzy edges of a category. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:36, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, this still does, at least I think it does currently. I'm just applying a source that's done the research for us and shown its work. Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:29, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"First released" column in lists of games

This was something that was brought up on List of GameCube games, so I wanted to bring it here to get a discussion/consensus going. Basically, in addition to the standard North America/Japan/Europe release date columns some game list articles (N64, Dreamcast, Wii, to name a few) have a "first released" column that displays the first date a game was released in any region. Opinions are split as to whether this column should be included. Those against argue that its inclusion is redundant given the presence of the existing three regional columns. Those in favor believe it provides helpful context for the list due to regional exclusives and long gaps between regional releases (for example, viewing all of a system's launch window games when the launch lineup varies between markets). Personally, I don't have a horse in this race (for the record, I restored the column after it was removed from GameCube, but that was purely for technical reasons due to formatting issues and publisher data getting removed on accident), but I wanted to put it to the folks here to get everyone's thoughts and hopefully come to a standardizable decision we can apply across articles. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 17:33, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I was of the mindset that it was redundant. I don't see why we need a dedicated "first release" column when you can just look at the three existing columns (NA release, PAL release, JP release date columns) and simply discern on your own which date came first. Not a huge deal though, it was just a quick edit I made that I thought would be uncontroversial. Sergecross73 msg me 17:56, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
How many times has a game been first released in a region other than US, EU, or JP? I am sure there are a few but they are exceptional, and making a column that would only have a few extra entries doesn't make sense. Masem (t) 18:06, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Almost never. Most entries fall into one of the two examples below:

List of GameCube games
Title Developer(s) Publisher(s) First released Release date Ref.
1080° Avalanche Nintendo Software Technology Nintendo 2003-11-28PAL January 22, 2004 December 1, 2003 November 28, 2003
Alien Hominid The Behemoth O~3 Entertainment 2004-11-23NA Unreleased November 23, 2004 Unreleased

1080 Avalanche is when its "working", which means all it does is highlight whatever date came earliest. Alien Hominid is the format at its worst, where the column accomplishes literally nothing. Sergecross73 msg me 19:29, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

New Articles (January 5 to January 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 v3.21 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 20:34, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

January 5

January 6

January 7

January 8

January 9

January 10

January 11

Ok, made some changes as discussed last week, so please let me know if your article is missing! There were a few that would have been missed with the older version, so I'm hopeful the (that) issue is fixed. Changelog:

  • Handle a few cases where the 1.0 bot doesn't record a page creation correctly (an importance rating given but no quality rating, or a draft->mainspace move mis-listed as a page moved to itself)
  • Parse days only from the revision where the bot added the day, as the bot sometimes goes back and edits things on subsequent days (incorrectly) in the above scenarios

--PresN 20:34, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Does X360 really need to be a disambig? Did anyone ever refer to the Xbox 360 as that?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:41, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe it does, I boldly redirected it to X-One. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:19, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Questions on low visibility talk pages

Yesterday I posted three questions regarding naming of three minor video games. Maybe someone wants to answer :)

Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:41, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Because there's just so many pages under our project, most messages on individual talk pages (especially the obscure ones) will go unnoticed simply because nobody is there. If it's an uncontroversial question about why something is wrong, that leaves just you to be the sole editor around to be WP:BOLD and make the right change, so don't be afraid to make that call yourself.
Now if you're looking for second opinions like these, right here is the best place to ask the whole project and get eyes on something. For the small things/insignificant we all try not to spam the page too much and I recommend joining the WP:DISCORD for quick opinions.
And after those two things, User:BOZ has once manually gone through magazine after magazine and is the creator of over 4,200 articles (as of 2021!) about niche and lesser known computer and retro games. Looks like they've since graduated to tabletop games but they're incredibly friendly and know their way around a physical source, so if you ever want an expert opinion I think questions about name consistency are in their wheelhouse. Panini! • 🥪 15:59, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This is an ideal way to bring attention to tiny topics. A short list of three little things is very nice. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 16:27, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That's true, we could try out having a running section going for discussion on obscure stuff. It could work if we have enough participation. (Kind of like WT:VG/S - it works when people are there and commenting.) Sergecross73 msg me 16:42, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's an idea with a lot of merit. I know I've sometimes had trouble finding sources for more obscure subjects, especially minor details or Japan-exclusive content, so it would be nice to have a running thread or section where editors can ask for input or assistance on lesser known stuff. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 17:07, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, like something similar to what you do on your talk page, @Sergecross73? Like a pinned header at the top of this page for quick back and forth questions? I dig that idea.
I'd rather not vote on that, or have a deep discussion about how it would work or anything. I think we're all normal enough to just try stuff and workshop it without any flair. Let's just do it for like a month and if we like it than we keep it. Maybe automate it so it archives old messages after 7 days if it really works out. Panini! • 🥪 18:37, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's actually what I was thinking about when I wrote that. What I've been doing on my talk page for the last decade, for those who may not know. I handle that pretty informally too - I just archive it start a new section every time it starts looking kind of lengthy. Sergecross73 msg me 19:15, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Subpages inevitably will have less visibility than a post here, so unless we start being overwhelmed, I guess posting here is the right things to do. Thanks, folks Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 00:14, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
After a long break in that, I had started going back to building up Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Reference library/Commodore User. :) BOZ (talk) 16:48, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@BOZ Still so much to do :) https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q26213240 - ŚGK has a review too... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:05, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Obscurity assistance

Per a suggestion from this discussion, I've decided to be bold and start this section as a sort of test run. Simply put, this section will be a space where anyone can ask for help with work on obscure video game related articles that might be overlooked by editors or do not otherwise see significant traffic, such as soliciting second opinions on a change or asking for assistance with improving a lesser known article. The section can be archived and recreated as necessary based on length and number of active requests. Please start each new request with a bullet point so it is easier to distinguish where one request ends and the next one begins.

I did some searching, but I couldn't find anything either. Sergecross73 msg me 01:28, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, I figured that might happen. Appreciate you checking all the same. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 06:40, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
de:Video Games 3/5 review: [1]. --Mika1h (talk) 00:02, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, this and the other source suggested on the talk page feel like enough that I can build a proper reception section now, if a little on the small side. I'd love if we could find the Famitsu score too, but I wouldn't know where to start looking. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 06:40, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Most sources + boxart use WWII rather than World War II. Change lead to WWII, mention World War II as an alt title since some sources use that. --Mika1h (talk) 14:35, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed on all counts. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 22:43, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Youtube reviewers?

I asked at the reliable sources notice board but I figured I'd ask here to. How does Wikipedia handle Youtube reviews of video games. Are they considered reliable sources if it's a legitimate review rather than play test? Thewhothat (talk) 03:00, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No, they are not considered reliable sources in most cases, in accordance with WP:SELFPUB and WP:UGC (see also: WP:RSPYT. However they may be usable if the YouTube channel is owned by a reliable source (e.g. IGN's YouTube channel) or if you can establish that the reviewer is a subject-matter expert (e.g. the reviewer has worked for other publications that are reliable in the past). But great care should be taken with the latter. λ NegativeMP1 03:06, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, WP:RSPYT would be the general guidance here. Additionally, WP:VG/S has a ton of guidance on sources we generally deem usable or unusable. The same guidance would apply to their official YouTube accounts. Sergecross73 msg me 03:11, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

EGMNOW

I'm citing an article from EGMNow (this is the article in question). I believe it to be reliable per the sites About page as its operated by Electronic Gaming Monthly's founder Steve Harris (if this isn't acceptable, please free to give me a proper slap on the wrist). My question is, should this be referred to as "EGMNow", "EGMNOW" or "Electronic Gaming Monthly Now"? I'm leaning towards "EGMNOW" as their "Terms and Conditions" page refers to themselves as that. (here). While their about page does make mention of its past as Electronic Gaming Monthly, I'm thinking that the reason they call themselves "EGMNOW" is possibly because of some legal status of the previously mentioned magazines name. Thoughts? (Also, if anyone uses this site, I'd suggest backing up their links at archive.org if they haven't, as this site hasn't been updated since 2024 so I fear it could vanish at any moment.) Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:53, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Venetica

Venetica has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 03:32, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for PlayStation

PlayStation has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 03:35, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I could also bring this up at WP:POKE, but their talk page has been rather inactive lately and doesn't seem to get much participation, so I'm bringing it up here as well. I brought this up at WT:DYK as well, but basically: would it be feasible to have at least one or a few Pokémon-related hooks on February 27? Especially since it's the 30th anniversary this year. I originally suggested a full set, but there wasn't much support or interest for it, so instead maybe there could be one or two hooks. Would it be possible by the deadline? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:32, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I got one with Hex Maniac I could cook up, and I'm working on a Professor Oak article Cukie Gherkin (talk) 09:38, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Cukie Gherkin: In this case, articles are only eligible for DYK if they were created/expanded five-times/promoted to GA status within seven days. Hex Maniac was created last year, so sadly it isn't eligible at this point. If you can create the Professor Oak article soon and it meets the guidelines, maybe something could be done about it. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:49, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hex Maniac was created as a redirect last year, but the actual article content was created only days ago Cukie Gherkin (talk) 10:50, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Cukie Gherkin: Oh. In which case, maybe you can try nominating it for DYK then? I took a quick look at the article and there does seem to be useful stuff there. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:55, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Took the liberty of nominating it with four hook ideas. Also looking into possibly improving Dennō Senshi Porygon to GA, figured that would be among the most important articles that could be DYK eligible. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 12:04, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I just approved Hex Maniac earlier today so I could get my DYK up for Genshin Impact. I'd be down for a Pokemon DYK run as well, and additionally I feel like we could also have some more articles in the days before or after February 27. This I feel would be beneficial as it gets more VG articles at DYK, and it also gives us a backup in case we aren't able to get any articles in for February 27. I know some people at DYK don't like to have more than one article in the same category appear at the same time. Gommeh 📖   🎮 17:38, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:CVG