Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games

Looking for editors who are willing to create Wikiproject Outfit7

The title is correct. I am looking for editors who are willing to split and form a Wikiproject dedicated to covering media of Outfit7 and its games, developers, etc. If you are interested, feel free to reply or leave a message on my talk page!

Thanks in advance :) (im new to this sooo) Wikiman (talk) 02:31, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That is way too small in scope for a Wikiproject, they are only formed at the absolute broadest level. It's even too small for a Task Force. Hardly any of their games seem notable, so you're best off just asking for assistance in an informal sense. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:19, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's extremely difficult to maintain broad Wikiproject subjects like "video games" or "music". It would likely be very difficult to maintain one of such a narrow scope. Sergecross73 msg me 03:21, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
oh Wikiman (talk) 03:53, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Don't feel bad. There's no way to know if you're new. And for the record, you're free to push forward without our approval. It'll just likely be hard to develop and grow because it's not likely to garner a large number of active editors. Few subjects do. The video game one is one of the few rare ones. Sergecross73 msg me 04:02, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I was unfamiliar with Outfit7. Best of luck finding other Wikipedia editors interested in working on articles for them. It can feel really good to find collaboration like that, but I wouldn't know if there's any existing active editor interested in the studio. You might need to carry these articles on your own, but feel free to ask for advice :) ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:00, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Input on merge discussions

Gentle reminder that there are several merge discussions that are open (yes, one is shamelessly mine). While it's understood that no opposition is still grounds to move forward, active consensus is always best.

If other editors can chime in, it would be appreciated. Thanks. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:50, 21 February 2026 (UTC))[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Featured articles#High quality sources list? about potential high-quality film sources

According to 1c of the Featured article criteria, the literature required to be sourced are not only those that meet WP:RSP, but "high-quality" sources. That means that there is a higher standard that sources for featured articles must meet in order to have a chance at being featured articles. If there are any video game publications that you either think meet or don't meet that standard, feel free to bring those up. I am running a discourse to figure out a consistent list of them, so your input would be really appreciated. HUMANXANTHRO (What you say about his company is what you say about society) 20:53, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Inquiry regarding lists of songs in rhythm games

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am thinking we need to stick to only those songs released on disc, because the song selection of what is shipped with the game gets incorporated into the reception of the game (in this case, this is why Fortnite Festival would not get a song list because it its all DLC, though we can identify the headliners). DLC is wholly different, though obviously in a case like Rock Band, we should describe the scope and nature of DLC that was released, just not listing everything. Masem (t) 01:24, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Also, we should only include these lists if secondary sources include them. I know the early rhythm games would have those, but later games less so. Masem (t) 01:34, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I will have to say list of songs in Guitar Hero is as WP:GAMECRUFT as list of guns in Battlefield 6, list of dinosaurs in Jurassic World Evolution 3 or list of cars in Forza Horizon 5. All of them gets coverage by our RS but we really shouldn't be documenting them. OceanHok (talk) 15:56, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Want to add Category:Dance Dance Revolution soundtracks here. I guess there are other Bemani games left out, Sega too. The inconsistency of arcade rhythm game articles is insane. MilkyDefer 17:35, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
To try and reply to all of the above:
@HumanxAnthro and Masem:, I think the downloadable content lists for Rock Band are kind-of an interesting case because the downloadable content sort-of characterizes the latter games, to the point where the on-disc songs stopped mattering as much (e.g. the RB4 base song list is often overlooked). I can think of a couple of solutions towards the RB4 in particular that wouldn't hinder the content itself.
@OceanHok:, yeah, that's the kind of sentiment that led me to write this post in the first place. I see why these would be considered GAMECRUFT, and we have a precedent right there with the Fortnite Festival songs list that these articles could be deleted under that.
@MilkyDefer:, I'm scared to touch arcade rhythm game articles with a ten-foot pole. λ NegativeMP1 05:15, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with the DLC lists for RB is that after the novelty of the game's release wore off after a couple years, while DLC kept going, it wasn't being covered by any RSes. Its fair somewhere to describe the shape and score of DLC for RB (like full albums, over 2000 tracks, etc.) from how RSes described it, but I dont think we can support the full list any more. Masem (t) 12:30, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

New Articles (February 16 to February 22)

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 03:12, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

February 16

February 17

February 18

February 19

February 20

February 21

February 22

--PresN 03:12, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I can't really figure out why Bubsy 4D showed up on this report now, when I created it last August, but I'm thankful regardless, as it looks like I forgot to add it to my personal list of articles created. Sergecross73 msg me 11:54, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see- Draft:Bubsy 4D also existed, and got redirected to the article this week, and the 1.0 bot reports that the same way it would report it being moved to the article namespace. --PresN 12:34, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, hadn't even realized that a draft had existed for it. Doesn't look like they got much farther than a few sentences on release info. Not sure why they salvaged it from deletion, but whatever. Thanks for the explanation, its interesting to know it works that way. Sergecross73 msg me 14:03, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Most consoles sold claim and CALC

Hello everyone. I'd like to get more input at this discussion - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_best-selling_game_consoles#Potentially_incorrect_total_Nintendo_console_sales

There's a bit to wade through there, so the short version is:

  • An editor is trying to add the claim that 1) Nintendo has sold the most consoles of any manufacturer of all time and 2) what that sales number is.
  • One side of the debate says that this is fine per WP:CALC because they're just adding up sourced sales figures on the page.
  • One side believes this is a problem because its an extraordinary claim that no reliable source is reporting on, and that there are WP:SYNTH/WP:OR issues in deciding a methodology of "what counts" when adding up such a figure.

Please leave your input there. Thank you! Sergecross73 msg me 15:52, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, it seems WP:CALC would overrule, as the shortcut links to a section to the WP:OR page that makes an exception. WP:SYNTH just doesn't apply here at all. HUMANXANTHRO (What you say about his company is what you say about society) 16:24, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
SYNTH is in reference to the fact that no single source reports on the cumulative number. OR is in reference to the methodology being used in picking which figures "count" towards the calculation. 3 separate editors have come to 3 separate numbers because they keep doing different calculations. One figure used for a time was pointed out to be around 100 million off due to their math error. Sergecross73 msg me 16:32, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I gotcha. So they are choosing which specific numbers to use and leaving others out. That makes sense. Well, then WP:SYNTH concerns are valid. HUMANXANTHRO (What you say about his company is what you say about society) 16:44, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If three editors cannot come up with the same number, then this is a clear indication that this not a routine/unambiguous/consensus CALC case - it is in fact a failure to WP:V the claim. Without looking more into it, your description sounds like typical source SYNTH to conclude something that no source actually says. —  HELLKNOWZ ∣ TALK 20:48, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect example of synth here. Yes, we could theoretically add them up, but this is an extraordinary claim that requires a good citation, we can't just CALC this into being a thing.Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:53, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Getter Love& § 33;!: Chō Renai Party Game Tanjō

An editor has requested that Getter Love!!: Chō Renai Party Game Tanjō be moved to Getter Love!!, which may be of interest to this WikiProject. You are invited to participate in the move discussion. Cyberlink420 (talk) 18:12, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Breakout clone vs Block breaker vs Brick breaker: what's the actual genre's name?

This got brought up by another user regarding games like Arkanoid and on a cursory search, it is apparent all three terms are used to some extent, though "Block breaker" may be more taking liberties on the Japanese term for the genre (block kuzushi). So what do we standardize these to for the purposes of infoboxes and the article itself? Kung Fu Man (talk) 08:43, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I would love to have a separate Wikipedia article on this genre (I love the genre), but creating such a thing would be a difficult piece of research for sure. I don't know what the most common name for the genre is, but all three are used. I think it's fine if every article on a Breakout-clone has a different label in their infobox/lead, depending on the language of the sources used in the article. I advice against picking a favorite until we're very certain it's the correct one, because I'm worried we are liable to affect the balance of name popularity here. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 11:08, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like we could probably make it a subgenre of Puzzle video game, which would give it somewhere better to anchor than everything pointed at Breakout (video game). As it is, it counts as a physics game under that definition.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 11:31, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the older games we have articles on are labeled as action game, which is extremely accurate but not a very practical/common term today. I'm not huge on moving the section to puzzle game. I happened to have a conversation last weekend about how nearly all video games can be labeled as "puzzle game" if you keep the definition loose. Breakout is less of a puzzle game than Super Mario Bros. 2. If there's sources that categorize the genre as such, I would of course withdraw, but for now I would at least prefer the Breakout section. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 12:47, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I mean by definition, it is a physics puzzle sub-genre: you use a paddle to hit a ball that travels in different angles depending on how the paddle collides with it so you can clear the level of all bricks and move onto the next.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 12:50, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm personally not convinced it's any more of a puzzle game than, say, a platformer is. It is foremost a twitchy action game where you need to aim your shots at the targets. The direction of your shot depends on where on the paddle the ball hits, but this aspect is not even a realistic behavior. The ball otherwise bounces like it is at zero gravity and without friction, which results in some vaguely puzzlegame-like behaviors (maybe reminiscent of the mirrors and laser puzzles), but that's only a part of the game experience. Anyway, we can wax poetic about it, but all we really need are some sources on the genre. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 14:48, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The more I look at the puzzle game genre, the more convinced I am it's just a dumping ground for any game with an abstract theme. I'm not sure what else connects Qix, Tetris, and Baba is You, they're not very similar games. But I guess if that's what the sources say then that's what the sources say. Whipmywillows (talk) 20:15, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there is any good standardized nane here, so it's likely best to choose one that might have more prominence as the title but obviously redirect the others to that. It's like with roguelite vs roguelike, there's not a hard definition between the two so we just use roguelike but explain the nuances on that genre page Masem (t) 15:21, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at archive.org search results for all three phrases (1 2 3), it looks like "Breakout clone" is a lot more common in English than the other two when describing the genre, and has been in use in the gaming press at least since the mid-1980s. Most of the matches for "Block Breaker" and "Brick Breaker" are talking about specific games with those names rather than the genre, although the latter has been used for the genre in EGM a few times. Adam Sampson (talk) 17:16, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's not like there's yearly conferences to hash out game genre definitions, especially for niche or forgotten games. I would just say go with whatever the sources say, as it may vary depending on the writer. Harizotoh9 (talk) 16:48, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That's mostly why I'm asking for some project-wide consensus. Otherwise we're just basically going to lead to editing as people decide "not it's this" or "it's actually this".--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:49, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Enthusiast Gaming American or Canadian?

This article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enthusiast_Gaming mentions its Canadian but says its headquarters is in Los Angeles California not sure what is right I believe its Canadian based on the fact its traded on a Canadian stock exchange but not sure where its actually located Isla🏳️‍⚧ 22:34, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Isla I have had a bit of experience with Enthusiast and would consider them a Canadian company. Not only are they TSX-listed, but they file documents with SEDAR (the Canadian EDGAR), their financial statements are in Canadian dollars, and so on. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 01:38, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Sonic the Hedgehog in film and television#Requested move 17 February 2026

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Sonic the Hedgehog in film and television#Requested move 17 February 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vestrian24Bio 08:05, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Gran Turismo (1997 video game)

  • Released: December 23, 1997

The 30th anniversary is in 2027, so if anyone wants to bring it to GA and FA status, now would be the time to start on it. I've added a bit of detail and some CN tags. The reception and sales section is quite well written, but the gameplay segment is lacking. I actually have an old print Guidebook and could use that to fill in gameplay details. Harizotoh9 (talk) 16:46, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Overwatch 2#Requested move 19 February 2026

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Overwatch 2#Requested move 19 February 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPathtalk 08:37, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nintendo Switch cloud versions in the game's list of platforms

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

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

I think there should be some sort of note, for context, to note the specific situation, but generally speaking, any game playable on a console through official means is generally fair game. The Switch label (with context) should stay. Sergecross73 msg me 16:03, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
We want to be careful with that. If one of the major cloud services like NVidia Now works on a console, that should not suddenly make all games offered by the cloud service as being games for that console. The Nintendo Switch cloud situation is unique, because they are cloud games specifically tailored to be played on the Switch due to whatever storage or computational limits the Switch has, and we should mark those appropriately. They should be considered Switch games, but marked as Sergecross suggests. Masem (t) 16:13, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Unique in what sense? There is the massive PlayStation Classics collection also available via cloud streaming. We are inconsistent on whether we label those as PS5 games. We list PS5 as a platform for Deus Ex (video game) and Doom (1993 video game) but not God of War III, Resident Evil 3: Nemesis or Heavy Rain. I would be more compelled by this argument if we could find substantial sourcing to back these decisions up.
I am also not sure how you add a “note” on a category, which is what the original question asked, but this may be my lack of knowledge on categories. ~2026-13353-84 (talk) 18:10, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
For Deus Ex and Doom, that's because the remastered version is to be released on those platforms, so its appropriate to list - though the Infobox should clearly distinguish between original (and ports) vs remaster console targets, like it does for the release line. Games that are available to play on the PS5 through its backwards compatibility like for GoD 3 and Heavy Rain are not specifically released for those platforms, so not included. Masem (t) 18:14, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The note would be for the game's articles, and WP:INFOBOX, not the category. You can't really add a note to a category. You could create a new category, but really, the category of "Cloud-based Nintendo Switch games" already has that covered. Sergecross73 msg me 18:54, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A few self published Atari sources for consideration

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

  • Atari Archive maintained by Kevin Bunch. Of all of these, this is the source I'd fight for the most. Bunch is a well respected member of the video game history world, he has a published book on Atari games [1], he's been interviewed by VGHF and others, and has given quite a number of talks at various expos about video game history. Both his website and his youtube channel are as far as I'm aware self-published, but everything he puts out is immaculately well sourced and he often does his own interviews with former developers at Atari and elsewhere that would be really valuable to have on this site. The main thing this source provides is really good release dates. NA release dates from the 80s and earlier are a nightmare and having tried a certain amount of this work myself for the Atari 7800 and Atari 5200 lists, it fairly quickly starts falling into WP:OR territory. Bunch's lists are sourced and do all of the extrapolation work needed. It's unlikely we'd get better dates anywhere else unless these ones were official published.
  • Atari Protos maintained by Matt Reichert. This one contains a bunch of info about released and unreleased atari games. There's a lot of useful stuff on here but the biggest problem is practically none of it is sourced. Reichert, also known as Tempest, is a moderator over on the Atari Age forums and seems to be pretty well respected over there. I just have no idea where a lot of the info is coming from, especially all the development details a lot of these articles have.
  • Atari Museum created by Curt Vendel. Vendel was apparently a pretty well respected member of the Atari preservation community and a large collector of old Atari documents. He was even rehired by Infogrames's Atari to work on the Atari Flashback consoles. Vendel passed in 2020 and the site is now preserved by youtuber Ctrl-alt-rees who explains the whole situation here. The main thing this website has going for it is a whole bunch of official documentation including internal Atari memos and schematics. It also has a number of articles about historic details that I've struggled to find anywhere else. Again, nothing here is really sourced and it's 100% self published but I would be okay with keeping this one given Vendel's reputation.

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

Definitely agree that Atari Protos is unreliable. Not sure about Archive or Museum, both seem like fine fansites....but Wikipedia doesn't usually allow for fansites as sources... Sergecross73 msg me 21:28, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think my only concern with getting rid of atari protos is how useful it's been for specifically unreleased games. The 5200 is a good example for this because there are a lot of unreleased games for the system. So the system has about two thirds the amount of unreleased games as released games and lots of them are floating around the internet as prototypes. Fan listings aren't always great about distinguishing released games from prototypes so sometimes editors come by and add stuff they shouldn't. About five months ago someone tried to add RealSports Basketball, which was unreleased, to the 5200 list for example. Atari protos is a pretty good source for clearing that stuff up, but I suppose if it is a good source then that info has to be somewhere else right. Whipmywillows (talk) 02:09, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Atari Archive is okay in my opinion, because Kevin Bunch is a published (not self-published) author on the subject. Indrian (talk) 15:48, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Honest question - is Limited Run Games a good sign for being published? I just know they tend to help out more niche, small run stuff. Sergecross73 msg me 16:30, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind, I just saw that they're owned by Embracer Group? I don't think I knew that. They're a large corporation, so I guess that does give them more cred as a "big publisher". I had previously thought they were more of an "indie" project. Sergecross73 msg me 17:31, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

New Articles (February 23 to March 1)

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 13:52, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

February 23

February 24

February 25

February 26

February 27

February 28

March 1

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

Lists of cancelled games inclusion criteria too broad

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

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

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

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

Yes, the list should be limited to games that were notable for a standalone page or likely could have had one. That usually means more than just press releases about the games announcement and cancelation, and likely should detail why the game was cancelled. Masem (t) 20:25, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That's generally the goal, to have a source that directly states that it was cancelled. But so many games are announced and simply...never materialize. For example, they officially announced a version of Bubsy 3D for the Sega Saturn. They never announced a cancellation. It simply never came out. Why not list it as cancelled when its easy to prove it was a PS1 exclusive and its impossible to officially license a Sega Saturn game for release in 2026? Sergecross73 msg me 20:34, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with Serge. While it'd be great to have announcements of cancellations or explanations why, most of those simply don't exist, and excluding half of a list simply because they vanished one day feels counterproductive. We already exclude plenty of games that are known to exist thanks to prototypes but don't have any reliable coverage, so it's not like the existing lists are just indiscriminate information either. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 21:27, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
But how can we say that it didn't come out without a source saying so? Perhaps at least some of these dissappeared games did get released in some capacity. We don't include things on Wikipedia due to lack of sources. If we don't have a source saying they were canceled/unreleased we simply shouldn't be saying anything. It's plain WP:OR otherwise. Cronacrab (talk) 23:25, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've certainly removed entries from the lists on those grounds, when I couldn't confirm the ultimate fate of a game. But what about examples like the above? What exactly are you proposing? Maybe Bubsy 3D did come out for Saturn? That Nintendo is still working on an edition of Super Mario 64 for the 64DD? At a certain point you've got to apply some common sense. Sergecross73 msg me 23:45, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above, If we don't have a source saying they were canceled/unreleased we simply shouldn't be saying anything. Cronacrab (talk) 23:53, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The examples I'm giving do have sources saying they weren't released. I thought you were asking for definitive proof they were cancelled. Still, I believe there's room for common sense application through WP:IAR of obvious cases here of things that were announced and simply never released. Sergecross73 msg me 00:14, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This does feel like an IAR situation, yeah. I would argue that if we have a source confirming it was announced but no source indicating that it released, that makes it just as eligible for inclusion as a source explicitly saying it wasn't released. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 00:47, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, and I'm all for exercising caution when there's good faith reason for concern. Like games that can't be identified. For example, I've removed entries like "Untitled Sega platformer" because it's so vague it can be hard to see what it's even referring to, let alone if it released. And it's never applied to any active consoles where games are still being released for it. But we know that Super Mario 64 2 never came out for the N64 during its lifespan whether a source directly states it or not. Sergecross73 msg me 01:03, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
An issue is here on the announcement side. We have many WP:VG/S-meeting sources that will do routine announcements of new games (Gematsu notorious for this), which would establish that the game was announced, but the game never gets covered by any where else, including its cancellation. Those are cases we dont want to be documenting. But like, for example, Agent (video game) or Prey 2 are examples of where we absolutely can document the game and its cancellation. Masem (t) 01:42, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
...why not? -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 01:44, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Most articles from our VG describing the announcement of a game are pretty much regurgitations of a press release or similar marketing from the publisher or developer. Maybe the author of the piece will discuss what they see in the announcement video ("It looks it plays like a traditional tactical RPG...") which while "secondary" information isn't really helpful. We really want to see what the journalist say about a game after trying it out or talking in depth with the developers about it. Masem (t) 01:52, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That would be true if we were trying to establish notability for a standalone article, but for a list where the core inclusion criteria is "this existed and then it didn't", while development/cancellation details are welcomed and should be included if available, their absence shouldn't automatically preclude their presence on the list. (And trying to judge based on if they were "notable for a standalone page or likely could have had one" is foolish, because it's all based on hypotheticals. By that logic, every game on the list could potentially have had a standalone article if they came out because people would have had something to write about. We don't based inclusion criteria on "what could have been".) -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 02:02, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
With the ability to self publish now, there is no way that we can document all possible games announced or even released. And if all that is known about a game was it's announcement and cancelation with minimal commentary, that's not stuff that WP should be writing about. Masem (t) 16:40, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Kind of like Cyberlink was saying, I'd completely agree if the subject was determining whether or not a standalone article for a specific cancelled video game is warranted. But I'm also not following why its an issue for individual list entry. It's much like the whole WP:PSTS breakdown. Primary sources aren't preferred, but they're also not banned, and are completely fine for rounding out non-controversial details of an article. Same concept here. It's infinitely more interesting to write a substantial, meaty entry about Sonic Xtreme, but there's nothing wrong with also documenting that Gematsu reported that some small company announced and then cancelled yet another Mario clone with little fanfare too. Sergecross73 msg me 17:00, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
We already have the problem that the lists for "games released in year" are too long. We have to admit we cannot ever cover any game published, and the same logic should apply to a list of all cancelled games. I'd at least be okay when at minimum both the announcement and cancelation are covered by third party sources ( including Gematsu) as to show more than promotional coverage. Masem (t) 19:05, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. Most cancelled game lists are already shorter than the year lists due to the pruning and refining that's been done over the last few years.. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 19:12, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's reasonable for us to be approaching different periods of time differently. There are too many games released in the modern day to cover all of them, I agree. But 40 or 50 years ago, the volume of games was much more manageable. A cancelled games list for the Sega Master System perhaps is not going to meaningfully affect it's length or push it into WP:TOOBIG territory. Whipmywillows (talk) 19:15, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
We haven't had to split a single one of the cancelled game lists yet. A couple are approaching "a bit long" territory, but none are remotely close to the technical limits like the regular ones are. Sergecross73 msg me 19:21, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just saying that any of inclusion or exclusion criteria we are using for other game lists should also apply to the list of cancelled games (with of course the added requirement that it's cancelation is sourced). Masem (t) 19:32, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It already does. We've been pretty stringent on what gets onto the list, to the point where at least one user complained that our inclusion criteria was too strict. (Not eager to revisit that whole saga.) As for sourced cancellation, I once again argue it's the opposite: the verification should be focused on finding release confirmation for the games. If we can't verify it released, that should make it eligible for inclusion. Hell, we literally employed this a few months ago when we removed some games from the cancelled Sega Genesis list after a reliable source verified they were released. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 19:41, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Which inclusion criteria are we using elsewhere? I'm not really aware of any outside of more or less following "add a source to verify the game is coming to the platform" (WP:V), which was more or less what I was thinking of when I created the inclusion criteria for the cancelled ones. (The actual inclusion criteria for the cancelled game lists can be seen here, for the record.) Sergecross73 msg me 19:45, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
As someone who's written much of this content, this has not generally been my experience. It's generally been much easier to get cancellation confirmation in the modern age - devs/publishers are far more likely to announce cancellations through social media, and WP:VG/RS websites cover it a lot. The stuff that's been hard to source directly is more like "Hudson Soft announced at CES 1990 that they're developing a video game adaptation of The Berenstein Bears for the NES", covered in a tiny blurb of an issue of EGM, has been the harder thing to source, because it's 1) locked away in print mags and 2) not really all that popular to your average video game fan. Sergecross73 msg me| Sergecross73 msg me 01:58, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

You're looking at it the wrong way. The announcements verify that the game was in development. Other sources, such as release date announcements, reviews, etc. verify it actually came out. You've argued that "Perhaps at least some of these dissappeared games did get released in some capacity", but THAT is what needs to be verified, not that it didn't. You can't cite an absence of information. And if you can't verify that it released, (or more preferably, a source exists saying it was never released), then that should make it eligible for inclusion on the list. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 16:07, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That is neither an accurate description of the situation, nor is it what anyone suggested be done. This reminds me of the sort of ill-conceived arguments that come up like "any article for a video game that isn't released yet is a WP:CRYSTAL violation - therefore don't create articles until release date". It's a one dimensional, robotic interpretation of policy that lacks all common sense. Sergecross73 msg me 16:28, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If there's no sources for something not coming out or being canceled, why are we including it at all? That a game or port vanished from the earth and nobody cared is pretty good evidence it shouldn't be in a list here. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 17:46, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I find that the reason these games should be included in these lists is because it provides answers for the people who do go digging through the sources. Someone starts to go through old magazines, finds a game they've never heard of, they wonder what happened to it or if there's more info somewhere. Especially if it's a port of another game, providing a link to that game filed under Unreleased or Cancelled is fairly cheap and helps provide all the necessary answers quickly. Whipmywillows (talk) 18:54, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That's an argument for WP:ITSUSEFUL, not really an argument based in our policies and guidelines. If you can't verify it outside of "well I searched for it and found nothing", it's not something that should be on Wikipedia in the first place. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:56, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Since when was it unencyclopedic? We have reliable secondary sources verifying these games existed at one point. That is literalaly as in-line with Wikipedia policy as it gets. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 19:07, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
We're specifically talking about inclusion criteria for a list where the defining trait is that they were cancelled or unreleased. We look to secondary sources all the time for what we should be including. If no reliable source ever cared enough about a game to follow up on a press release, how is it important enough to mention? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 20:47, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think it depends on how you look at it. For example, with the N64. To be clear, many entries have sources outright denoting cancellation. But at the bare minimum, they have a source about them being announced/in development for N64. The WP:FA List of Nintendo 64 games has master lists of all N64 games ever released. Between the two, its pretty easy to verify which games were cancelled. I always prefer direct confirmation, but methods generally remove good-faith doubt on the matter. The truth is, this industry is weird about stuff like this.
Its for situations like that that I'm hesitant to establish these blanket rules for inclusion. I've preferred simply removing ones I have specific good faith doubts about, or adding "better source needed" tags. Sergecross73 msg me 21:22, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't some brand new issue. The OR these lists contain has been discussed previously. To quote Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cancelled Sega Genesis games (which was kept) from December 2020, in his !delete vote, one user complained Because every ref I check here does not verify the basis for the article, that the game was canceled. This list is a collection of times a source has mentioned a game for a platform, not giving any indication of cancellation. To which another user reassured him, The unreliable sources and original research can be removed as well as the non-notable titles to improve the quality of the content.
It was also brought up by Masem in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cancelled games for Microsoft consoles, where he seems to have been assured that it could be fixed.
Even more recently, in Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of cancelled Nintendo 64 games/archive1, a user expressed this same concern when he said, Now, I hate to do this, but I feel like I must oppose this nomination. In my spotcheck, I went through 0-9 and A, and I found that nine out of 17 had minor to major citation issues, not even accounting for ambiguity re: whether something was cancelled. This leads me to believe that there are likely dozens of potential issues of OR.
Cronacrab (talk) 16:17, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm well aware - one of the reasons I started rewriting these articles was because people kept complaining about them. They've come a long ways, but they're also still very much so a work in progress. Most of them looked more like the cancelled Atari Jaguar page you're gutting originally. That was one on my list to eventually rework too, but they take a tremendous amount of time and research to write, including wading through large swaths of unreliable sources on the internet to find the verifiable information. It's a long, laborious process, but it is improving. Sergecross73 msg me 17:30, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
But those rewrites don't address the OR concerns. List of cancelled Nintendo 64 games was submitted to be a featured list, yet multiple entries don't have sources supporting their cancellation. For example, 3Sixty is sourced to 3Sixty: Fun On Water With the French, which is only an announcement for the game and doesn't say anything about cancellation. Just going through to the end of "A", the sources for 64 Wars, 7th Legion, Actua Golf 4, Airport Inc., Animaniacs: Ten Pin Alley, Aquaria, Assault, Attack!, and Automobili Lamborghini Add-On also don't say anything about these games being cancelled/unreleased. Cronacrab (talk) 18:07, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
As I already said, we have master lists of every single N64 game ever officially commercially released. Every single one of those games received have reliable sources mentioning their announcement and/or being in development. None of them appear on the official released lists. There's no room for confusion here. I mean, I get it, its nice to have a sources that says "The answer equals 2", but sometimes you can still make a source-based decision based on having sources that says "The answer is a whole number less than 3 and more than 1" without it being OR. Sergecross73 msg me 19:00, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Also, please take a closer look and read the entirety of that IGN source you linked to for 3Sixty. Scroll down farther. There's a part that literally says "release cancelled" with the N64 symbol next to it. Sergecross73 msg me 19:04, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your line of thinking when it comes to open platforms like Windows and MacOS that don't require publishing licenses. However, for closed platforms like N64 that ended their commercial lifespan, I don't see the OR concern. There is no reality where a N64 game was released and nobody knew about it. TarkusABtalk/contrib 19:12, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! This is what I've been trying to convey! Sergecross73 msg me 19:15, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Breath of the Wild - 10th Anniversary FA

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

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

Requested move at Talk:Sonic the Hedgehog 4 (film)#Requested move 4 March 2026

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

COI edit request relevant to this project: Julian Togelius

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

Is there a preferred way to source things when a game contradicts reliable sources?

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

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

Are the speedrunners breaking the game to accomplish this? Because we would only write about the game as it's meant to work. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:04, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
As someone who loves playing that game (and that was recently promoted to GA), I remember doing it with just 7 feathers the first time, and also states that new players should consider getting more. But anyway, the answer is verifiability, not truth. Even if that page never existed, its always safe to assume its going to be a novice/average gamer reading the article. And reliable sources haven't really talked about speedrunning the game, so inclusion of it (including that it can be beaten with <7 feathers) is considered WP:UNDUE weight. JuniperChill (talk) 19:24, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think you can look at FA and infamously broken game Super Mario 64 for reference. The gameplay section describes the gameplay as designed: The final level of the game is blocked by "endless stairs" similar to the Penrose stairs concept, but Mario can bypass them by collecting seventy Power Stars. Speedruns and glitches that allow players to bypass this, while mentioned later in the article, are not referenced in the gameplay section. ~ A412 talk! 19:24, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
To add to this:
1) This is entirely possible without breaking the game (see this run and note that the level of precision required drops massively if you have 5 feathers not 2). I wanted to use a speedrun because it is the easiest way to find a video of someone who does not want to collect golden feathers and the existence of moderators means there is at least some proof that the thing was not faked.
2) I would call this an alternate route not a speed-running thing. it is slightly harder but not massively so and the bouncy flowers are an intended mechanic.
3) I think the fact that I can show a video of someone doing the thing combined with the fact that the other sources do not focus too much on it means WP:TRUTH does not apply.
4)I think points 1 and 2 are enough to beat WP:UNDUE given that I am adding 5 words.
5) I do not think the Super Mario 64 example is directly relevant because of points 1 and 2.
@A412 @Darkwarriorblake @JuniperChill You all replied very close together putting this in one comment means I am not in 3 slightly different debates at the same time. Flapjack06 (talk) 19:53, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, youtube is normally not a reliable source per WP:RSPYT. And citing that speedrun is effectively the same as citing yt because it came from the yt video, not the speedrun.com site. So anything to do with speedruns, or that it can be beaten with <7 feathers should not be mentioned, especially since A Short Hike is a good article and inclusion of that would fail WP:GACR 4. JuniperChill (talk) 20:19, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I would of thought that by putting the video on their website speedrun.com would have said that they agree with the content of it. Obviously this is a dubious case at the best of times but if the website that had the video on it was generally held to be reliable source material is there a policy that says that the website giving it their aprova does not make it a good source?
To be clear I have at this point lost the argument and think we should either follow WhipMyWillow suggestion of saying 'encouraged to' or leve it be. I'm just curious. Flapjack06 (talk) 23:12, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Speedrun.com is WP:USERGENERATED. The leaderboards are moderated but they're moderated by each game's community. There is practically no oversight by the website administative staff or any other central editorial body. None of that is really a bad thing, in fact it's pretty similar to how Wikipedia operates. But you also can't cite Wikipedia on Wikipedia for the same reasons. Whipmywillows (talk) 10:59, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Generally, for plot aspects of articles (video games, books, etc), the media piece itself is considered the source. But as soon as you cross into analysis of the media, you need to provide reliable secondary sources to avoid OR. Per MOS:VGGAMEPLAY, "while secondary sources like reviews are preferred, primary sources like game manuals and game guides are acceptable, though articles should not incorporate too many gameplay-related details". Basically, if you're analyzing the gameplay (ie. "here is this non-standard path"), you need a source that isn't the game itself. And I'd argue you need a secondary source highlighting why the speedrun aspect is important/notable (see WP:NOTGUIDE #3). Sariel Xilo (talk) 20:28, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Going off of others, the Gameplay section should detail how the game is intended to function, and sidenotes about how you can glitch out the game is out of scope for the article unless notability is demonstrated; for example Big Rigs: Over the Road Racing is so buggy that it impacts the Gameplay, so it's mentioned there. Both Super Mario World and Ocarina of Time can technically be beaten with an "alternate route" (i.e. arbitrary code execution) but we're not going to update the article to say, "The player wins the game by rescuing the princess or by glitching the game to wrap to the credits." ThomasO1989 (talk) 20:31, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed; it should be how the game is supposed to work, if you can technically sequence break the game, it shouldn't be mentioned unless that exploit is in itself notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:33, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if the wording similar to what A412 mentioned wouldn't be fine here. "The final level of the game is blocked by "endless stairs"...but Mario can bypass them by collecting seventy Power Stars." It doesn't say Mario needs 70 stars to bypass the stairs or that there might not be another way to bypass them. It just says that 70 stars will bypass them, which is true. Perhaps something like, "Players can collect 7 feathers to bypass certain barriers blocking the player from reaching the top of the mountain, out of 20 total." or something like that. I haven't played the game so the proper details would need to be added here but that would sidestep WP:UNDUE concerns while also being true.
To note, I'm pretty sympathetic to your plight here. One of my personal bug bears is this PC Gamer article which is verifiable under the rules of Wikipedia yet is full of factual inaccuracies. Even that tagline, "The zip glitch that makes this possible is removed by the v1.03 patch." is just straight up false and could have been fact checked within seconds by asking anyone within the speedrunning community. I think it's a pretty constant struggle in this WikiProject to have to deal with sources that don't have as thorough an editorial process as we might want. But unfortunately this is how Wikipedia works. We're not supposed to be the source of information only the collectors of it, and we have to agree on what information to collect and what not somehow. Whipmywillows (talk) 22:34, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Also to note the sources here don't really say "You must get seven feathers to complete the game". Washington Post here says, "it’s stated that people trekking up Hawk Peak should have at least seven feathers in their possession". The GDC talk says, "You wouldn't be able to get to the top of the mountain unless you had collected at least seven golden feathers...[but] I knew there were a lot of shortcuts you could take. Like, I had this main plan but there are lots of ways you could get around it"". Personally I think "Players are encouraged to find seven golden feathers" does actaully WP:STICKTOTHESOURCE here. Whipmywillows (talk) 23:00, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. this is probably the best route forward Flapjack06 (talk) 23:02, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Not perhaps quite the same but a bugbear I've had for years (and probably no one else on WP cares but me) is that the game Cities XXL is split out into its own page when it's literally the same game as Cities XL with less changes between them than between some versions of the latter game. but because of the very slightly new name RSes made it out to be a 'sequel'. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 06:45, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You could say, consistent with sources, "The player must find a number of feathers to be able to progress to the mountain." avoiding the actual number while still being in spirit of what sources say. Masem (t) 22:48, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I second Masem's proposal. Unless there's another significance to the number 7 (for example, if they picked that number for a specific reason), there's not really much reason to include it anyway. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 07:54, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Confusion with how non-English sources are categorized at WP:VG/RS

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

allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:VG