Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games

(Redirected from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/The Sims)
Latest comment: 4 hours ago by Soetermans in topic List of longest-running video game franchises
Learn more about this page

Goal: 7,500 or fewer Stub-Class articles

edit
Latest comment: 8 days ago28 comments6 people in discussion

I have been wondering if it would be beneficial to have something like a project subpage or taskforce page to assist with the goal of expanding stub articles to get them to start or better. I feel like it would help have such a centralized place to list the stub articles with the most potential in terms of how many sources have been found online but are not currently being used (or used much) in the article.

For example:

  • Sources are listed on the talk page or in the External links
  • Sources are noted on trusted external websites such as MobyGames or World of Spectrum
  • Sources are listed in a reviews table in the article but not anywhere else
  • Sources were found in a previous AFD or merge discussion

This would specifically list just the stubs where known sources have been identified and found online but not yet put to use, which would help any users with the time and interest in building up articles (especially if they don't find the sources themselves) and such a list would give users a direction to focus on.

I for one would be super extra happy to start forming such a list, checking to see which stub articles for games have sources that need to be implemented and thereby de-stub the articles. BOZ (talk) 14:41, 27 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

So to give an idea of what I am looking for, I started looking through the stub articles and found that the following articles about games have sources listed on the talk page or in the article itself, sufficient enough to easily expand the article beyond stub class or better:
I already stated that I wouldn't mind creating such a list, but the question is what would be the most helpful way to organize it? Alphabetically? By publication date? Platform? Something else? BOZ (talk) 08:10, 1 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
I actually made a for-funsies list of articles I was interested in improving as part of de-stubbification for whenever I'm in the mood for it: [1] - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 10:05, 1 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Oh nice, so a list like this could definitely be useful then. :) I'll construct it as I find the time, probably on a user page for now. BOZ (talk) 14:21, 1 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
I'm not sure why I was expecting anything other than lust on the cover for 7 Sins... I opened it... currently in a sanctuary...
By platform seems the most helpful because I find people target articles to work on based on that parameter, but cross-platform and PC releases make this impossible to track. I suggest by publication date, which should give a rough idea to the user what generation of consoles they're in for example.
I like taking on stubs sometimes only if it's possible to greatly expand, because that's the most fun part for me. Games like Good Job! and Animal Crossing Plaza are games I have never played but were intriguing enough for me to work on. If a list were to exist I would definitely browse it, and whether or not I pick up something is up to what's there. I understand you're an absolute machine when it comes to this stuff BOZ, and like the machine you are you don't mind the labor(!, this would drive me nuts), but if I can help with anything let me know. We ought to give you a hand for all the work you do for the project. Panini! • 🥪 14:28, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
OK sounds good, I will aim towards listing them by age because some people definitely have a preferred focus on that. :) It may take some time to put this together, but we'll see. Thank you for the kind words! Good luck with the Donkey Kong GA review! BOZ (talk) 15:24, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
I created User:BOZ/vg stubs to use as a sandbox page, listing the games in order by date of initial release, which would help draw people to the eras they are most comfortable working in. Anyone can feel free to make reasonable edits to this page. When I have finished it, whenever that is, I can make a page more like the one that Hahnchen listed below, and maybe we can link both from the main page or some other highly noticeable area? BOZ (talk) 06:18, 7 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
I went through the Nintendo Task Force stubs and added the articles with sources on their talk pages. Most of them don't, so from that point I'll probably go back around and add the source lists myself before adding the entries to your list. Panini! • 🥪 17:29, 7 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Awesome!  :) Thanks! BOZ (talk) 18:39, 7 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
I found tons of sources for Action Fighter, added them to the talk page. BOZ (talk) 13:01, 9 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
I've gone through the first 200 pages in the stub category, and added 72 of them to my sandbox page User:BOZ/vg stubs. Hopefully that gives an idea of what kinds of short articles can be more readily expanded versus those where hunting for more sources would be required. BOZ (talk) 22:27, 11 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
I was working my way through this, but lack of access to the Internet Archive has slowed my progress considerably. :( BOZ (talk) 20:15, 19 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Seems like the Internet Archive is working again? BOZ (talk) 05:06, 24 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Well, most links still work if you already had them, but the search function remains down. :( BOZ (talk) 13:00, 30 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Going to try to get moving on this again soon, now that IA appears to be fully functional again. :) BOZ (talk) 14:05, 15 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Just throwing this out there for anyone interested. Mid-Class stub articles would be a good place to make progress on the 7,500 stubs goal as well as the All Mid/High/Top-Importance articles C-Class goal. (Guyinblack25 talk 19:30, 21 November 2024 (UTC))Reply

High traffic stubs

edit

I published a list of the most popular video game stub articles over the last month at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/High traffic stubs.

I recently returned to Wikipedia (not committing to anything, just dabbling again) and was thinking of where contributions would have most impact. Stubs seemed to be low hanging fruit, and coupled with traffic statistics - we can see where our readers want our attention to be. A lot of articles on that list probably aren't even stubs any more, so there should be some easy wins for a bit of admin. There's a lot of WP:RECENTISM in that list, but I'm sure there are some perennially popular pages that could do with some attention. For someone without clear editing goals, I think the list could be useful.

I probably won't maintain it, but if it's helpful, I hope someone can just refresh the numbers every month. Why not add it to the mostly empty left hand side of Template:WPVG announcements? - hahnchen 21:52, 1 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

That's a good idea too. :) BOZ (talk) 02:50, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
High traffic stubs updated with October figures. I couldn't find a good way of comparing September to October data other than just skimming through them on multiple browser tabs. There is definitely commonality between months, these will be the articles where edits will make most impact. - hahnchen 15:02, 1 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Longest stubs

edit

Another page worth publishing periodically would be the largest pages in Category:Stub-Class video game articles. This would require Wikipedia:Database queries which I am not familiar with. - hahnchen 17:10, 3 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

That's something to consider. BOZ (talk) 16:44, 4 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Hahnchen: Here's the query and resulting data: https://quarry.wmcloud.org/query/87337
The query pulls the top 100 pages in the "Stub-Class video game articles" category sorted by the "page_len" attribute, which is the uncompressed length in bytes of the page's source text.[2] Not as accurate as character count, but its a close approximation. Hope it helps. (Guyinblack25 talk 21:22, 4 November 2024 (UTC))Reply
@Guyinblack25: This query sorts it by talk page length. - hahnchen 10:32, 5 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Ah. Sorry about that. I forgot that Categories are populated by Talk pages. I updated the query to pull the info on pages only in the Main namespace. https://quarry.wmcloud.org/query/87337 The caveat about the length of the source text still holds true.
PS- I did the query in a kinda roundabout way, so someone with more knowledge of Wikipedia tables/queries might want to update it to be more efficient. Regardless, hope it helps. (Guyinblack25 talk 21:43, 5 November 2024 (UTC))Reply

@Hahnchen: I removed the special naming of the page length attribute, which looked like it was messing up the sorting before it grabbed the top 100. Should be more accurate now. After a brief inspection, it seems many of these are no longer stubs. For anyone inclined, reassessing them to their proper quality rating (Start, C, or B) could help make good headway towards the goal. (Guyinblack25 talk 22:00, 8 November 2024 (UTC))Reply

@Guyinblack25: I saw the initial error a few days ago and published a query using the same logic at Quarry:query/86269, thanks. - hahnchen 12:45, 10 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I published a list of the 250 longest stubs at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Longest stubs. Many of these articles are clearly not stubs. These are prime candidates for re-assessing, and doing so will make clear inroads towards the project goal. - hahnchen 12:45, 10 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Several of those largest pages are people with lists of works and about a paragraph about the person themselves. Probably just reassess as start for the lot and move on? Izno (talk) 22:39, 11 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

What's the policy on photographs of copyrighted works?

edit
Latest comment: 10 days ago7 comments3 people in discussion

User:Quidama recently uploaded File:Dawntrail Promotional Mural.png for use at Dawntrail under a non-free license. This is a photograph that they took of IP-protected characters owned by Square Enix. In this case, the mural is an advertisement commissioned by Square Enix itself (not sure if this matters). I have a few related questions here.

  1. Is this the correct license? Why should this be tagged as non-free instead of a free license?
  2. What's the difference between this case and, say, File:Cosplay of Tifa Lockhart by Miduki Hoshina at Tokyo Game Show 20140918.jpg, which is a cosplay photo? It's an image of an IP-protected character so why is it not subject to the same/similar non-free license considerations? This one happens to be from an official promotional event (again, not sure if this matters), but I also see fan cosplay photos under free licenses.
  3. What are other situations/considerations for photographs of copyrighted things where it's ok to upload them under a free license?
  4. And as a side issue, if the Dawntrail promo mural image is correctly tagged as non-free, does the Dawntrail article pass WP:NFCC#3a given that there are already 2 other non-free images in the article (box art and characters art). If it's determined that it can be uploaded under a free license, then this question is moot.

Axem Titanium (talk) 00:41, 15 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

US has a freedom of panorama that only covers buildings and architects (that those can be treated as free if taken from a public space). 3D and 2D art do not qualify, so that means is the 2D art copyrightable, which it absolutely is, and it is not treated as de minimus (the artwork is the focus of the photograph), so it has to be treated as non-free.
Cosplay is treated differently and is far more complex, per c:COM:COSTUME. --Masem (t) 01:04, 15 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
This may be of use, but this image got past the issue by being zoomed out and slightly blurring the copyrighted part. You can still make out it's Kasumi on the side of the building for the article's thumbnail, but the image remains free use as a result with the provision that cropped versions may require special considerations.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:12, 15 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Wait, that seems to conflict with c:COM:De minimis#Guidelines when it's being used to illustrate the copyrighted concept as the primary focus (e.g. example #5). The image itself is fine if it was being used to illustrate the Sofmap building since the copyrighted image is incidental to that use. But on the Kasumi article, I think it may stop being de minimis??? This is far from my expertise. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:37, 15 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yes, de minimis can be vague like that, and I would agree that using that on Kasumi, even with the blurring, may be questionable (as well as how much help does that really give for the article?) Masem (t) 19:18, 15 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Frankly I'm not sure myself, it's a holdover from Niemti's work on the thing, but it seemed the closest thing to what Axem was after that hasn't been nuked off commons.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:26, 18 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for removing it. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:42, 19 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Everybody's Golf

edit
Latest comment: 11 days ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Is there really a strict adherance to the DMY date format for Japanese games? Most games developed in the region fend to use the MDY date format, but the Everybody's Golf series' articles seem to rigidly follow the DMY formula. I don't think there is a specific guideline that demands it, and I don't see any problems from changing it as it definitely was not be controversial other than that it had been used for a while.@X201 MimirIsSmart (talk) 15:40, 15 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

No, there isn't. The guideline is MOS:ENGVAR. Unless the topic has a strong national tie (it doesn't) to a specific format or an exceptional rationale, it should retain the existing format. czar 16:34, 15 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
And keep in mind WP:DATERET - don't go switching the established date without consensus. Masem (t) 19:19, 15 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
As Masem said above WP:DATERET, don't change date formats without consensus. Now to turn your question around: Were you right to make blanket date changes to the vast number of Japanese articles you have edited, to adhere to MDY without discussion? No, you weren't. Also whatever script you are using, can you please get it to function correctly and add a line break after the date template and not leave the first line of the infobox hanging off the end of another line. e.g.{{Use mdy dates|date=November 2024}}{{Infobox video game - X201 (talk) 08:43, 18 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thanks, I'll take that into note. Also I don't use scripts. MimirIsSmart (talk) 08:49, 18 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Requested move at Talk:Deadlock (video game)#Requested move 31 October 2024

edit
Latest comment: 14 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Deadlock (video game)#Requested move 31 October 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Raladic (talk) 22:36, 15 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Mark Kern

edit
Latest comment: 11 days ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Can anyone keep an eye out for an article about Mark Kern? It seems that it has become too interesting to anonymous users who either vandaliz it or add random/fresh tweets from Mark with their own ratings as the last anonymous user. Solaire the knight (talk) 09:50, 18 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Why don't you request page protection?Darkwarriorblake (talk) 10:20, 18 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
I don't know if this is enough, because in similar cases last time I was told that it was not enough. Solaire the knight (talk) 13:17, 18 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

New Articles (November 11 to November 17)

edit
Latest comment: 11 days ago3 comments2 people in discussion
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 17:05, 18 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

November 11

November 12

November 13

November 14

November 15

November 16

November 17

missing Jonny Quest: Curse of the Mayan Warriors. Timur9008 (talk) 19:14, 18 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Added; sometimes it gets confused if you create a page and then move it immediately after. --PresN 17:28, 18 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Additional resources for sources

edit
Latest comment: 11 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

So this is something I've thought i'd share per my user page User:Timur9008#Websites_checked_for_information(Press_Releases,_links_to_reviews,_etc)

I've been working on this for more than 2 years now checking every URL (I try) for these websites. I don't use everything just the relevent bits but maybe other users will find use to incorporate other bits of game info into articles.

Almost all of these sites can be accessed via the Wayback Machine. Timur9008 (talk) 18:00, 18 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

GB Studio and classification of game platforms

edit
Latest comment: 8 days ago9 comments5 people in discussion

TL;DR Should browser games made using GB Studio be characterised as Game Boy games even if the release method and player base don't involve hardware at all?

Hey, I'd like some guidance on a minor issue I've seen in writing articles for games like Grimace's Birthday and He Fucked the Girl Out of Me. Many indie games are made using GB Studio, an engine that can be used to create Game Boy ROMs. However, the games are published and usually played as web games.

I've seen frequent edits where others would prefer to have the games characterised as a Game Boy game in the infobox, headline and content. I'm unsure about this as whilst I accept the software to create the game is consistent with and playable on a Game Boy, unless the game is released as a GB cartridge, the release platform is going to be the primary way that the game is released and playable by its audience.

Labelling these games as Game Boy games is maybe technically correct but misleading, in the sense that no GB Studio game is going to be an official or licensed Game Boy game. It can lead to confusion too: as with Grimace's Birthday, there was misreporting that the developer had released a game for the Game Boy Color, as if it were a new release for the handheld.

Appreciate any views. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 04:33, 20 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Well look at it from a different perspective. A game on a Switch or Playstation is for that system regardless of if it's digital or physical. The distribution method doesn't matter. And of course you can play a myriad of systems on an emulator, including a browser (there's plenty of places out there in the past and present to do this) -- which despite perhaps being a 'browser game' is what is being used. If a game is a GB ROM being run in an emulator, I fail to see how it's not a GB game regardless of whatever the primary distribution method is. It shouldn't matter if 'most' people won't, nor should the fact the distribution method one being digital matter either. The fact that the software itself is only playable on a Gameboy (which even with an emulator, is essentially what is happening) is what matters the most.♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 06:14, 20 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for the second opinion. The games are typically exported as HTML games or Windows executables and not played in emulators, although obviously they can be. Get your point though and no issue reframing things if I'm wrong. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 06:23, 20 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Having tried to build something in GB Studio myself, I would want to say that the Gameboy label is appropriate. The hardware limitations are very inherent to the type of game it is. I'm still on the fence, though, as they are indeed not really released like that...? Though GB Studio does really present itself as creating games for actual Gameboys. There's stuff for the linkcables and Gameboy camera in the engine as well, for example. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:29, 20 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
He Fucked the Girl Out of Me was released on itch.io as a .gb ROM image (besides the fact that it can be played directly as a browser game through emulation) so it is by all intents and purposes a Game Boy game. If it's something like a Unity game made with the aesthetics if not the limitations of the platform it is imitating, but is later backported to the platforms in question, it should be indicated as such. Blake Gripling (talk) 14:12, 20 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
IMO, a "Gameboy game" has to be technically playable on Gameboy to qualify. Otherwise it's a browser or PC game. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 01:43, 21 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Sounds like a reasonable and clear way forward. Just to clarify, GBStudio ROM files would play on a Game Boy if someone put them on a cartridge or loaded them into a home-brewed device. Even if a game didn't have a cartridge release, would you be comfortable saying they're Game Boy games? If so, seems pretty clear consensus to me. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 05:15, 21 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
As long as the ROM image could be sideloaded to a flash cartridge and run on real hardware, the classification stands. Heck, even just running it on an emulator still counts as they're re-implementing the original hardware in software. Blake Gripling (talk) 05:18, 21 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Cool, just making sure. Sounds like a non-issue then and can rewrite accordingly. Thanks for the input. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 05:47, 21 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Neo Geo Pocket

edit
Latest comment: 9 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The merge proposal is still open and needs more replies: Talk:Neo Geo Pocket Color. Sceeegt (talk) 00:04, 21 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 8 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I'm not sure what the stance on this is but I was wondering is it possible remove all GameFAQs links from external links and its usage as source for release dates? GameFAQs is user edited and users probably got their info from sources at the time. (such as Interviews, company sites, etc)

I'm curious what others think. If there are no objections I will start removing them and replace them with diffrent sources. Timur9008 (talk) 12:18, 21 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Go ahead and remove it. It's not reliable. See also this nearly 10 year old template deletion discussion. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 12:50, 21 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Good article reassessment for Battle of Britain (1985 video game)

edit
Latest comment: 8 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Battle of Britain (1985 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) 22:43, 21 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Date correction on 'Fourth generation of video game consoles'?

edit
Latest comment: 7 days ago8 comments5 people in discussion

The Fourth generation of video game consoles is listed as '1987-2004' and the intro ends with: "This generation ended with the discontinuation of the Neo Geo in 2004." However, discontinuation refers to hardware, not software, and the Neo Geo (as per its article) was discontinued in 1997. That makes the '2004' date incorrect I believe? Sceeegt (talk) 02:59, 22 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

It really comes down to what sources say. What are the sources for all of this? Sergecross73 msg me 03:37, 22 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Three reliable sources just found Time mag and Time Extention and Wired if necessary. Sceeegt (talk) 03:52, 22 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yeah, just checked, and we have the 3rd gen ending when the NES stopped production (2003), though the last game came out that same year, and the fifth ending with the discontinuation of the PlayStation (2006), not when the last PS game came out (2005) (also the 3rd gen short description has 2005). 4th should end when the console stopped, not when games for the Neo Geo stopped. --PresN 12:43, 22 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
I have no objections if we're following the sources. I just know the the generation articles are just a constant magnet of POV-pushing and (unsourced) needless tinkering, so it can be hard to keep track of what the correct version should be sometimes. Sergecross73 msg me 18:37, 22 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
If sources allow, it would be nice to have these pages read more like "History of video game consoles (1987–1994)". ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:17, 22 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
I think there does need to be an article on the history of consoles less geared from the generation side and more on broad innovations and changes in history. But to try to treat the generations as year ranges is a major problem because of various overlaps, and in particular the Switch. Masem (t) 20:06, 22 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yeah, unfortunately the current format is probably the least controversial way to handle it. We've had years to think of something better and haven't. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:23, 22 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Requested move at Talk:Teardown (video game)#Requested move 22 November 2024

edit
Latest comment: 7 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Teardown (video game)#Requested move 22 November 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. JuniperChill (talk) 21:03, 22 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Re-evaluating Andrew Gower (programmer) as a redirect

edit
Latest comment: 2 days ago14 comments7 people in discussion

Recently, on 6 November, Andrew Gower (programmer) released an early access of a new game titled "Andrew Gower's Brighter Shores". Previously, Andrew Gower was only publicly known for his role in cofounding Jagex and creating RuneScape, a project he was involved with until 14 years ago in 2010, after which he left Jagex's board of directors and has had no involvement since.

In 2021, it was decided that the page Andrew Gower should be made into a redirect pointing at Jagex with this AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Gower (5th nomination). This was described as a "relatively controversial" decision, but done "mainly over the depth of coverage actually about the article's subject" and because "Content can be merged [into Jagex] from history".

It would be fair to say that Jagex as a company might view a dedicated section to Andrew Gower on their Wikipedia page as over-representative and an unfair focus compared to their achievements since his departure in 2010 (the valuation of the company ballooning several hundreds of millions of dollars in acquisitions since) as well as diminishing the contributions of the hundreds of other programmers that have worked on Jagex properties. Perhaps for this reason, no biographical information about Andrew Gower has actually been (inappropriately) merged onto the Jagex page since the 2021 AFD decision.

Now in November 2024, Andrew Gower's Brighter Shores is enjoying quite a bit of early success, though it would be fair to say that it remains to be seen how popular it will be in 2025 onward. The problem this presents is that at the moment Andrew Gower (programmer) is a redirect pointing at Jagex, which is not a company he has any official affiliation with any more (since 2010), and Brighter Shores is not a Jagex affiliated game, contrary to what the redirect might imply.

Whether or not Andrew Gower (programmer) meets the requirements of Wikipedia:Notability, the redirect should not persist with a target of Jagex now that he is actively and publicly involved in a new project unaffiliated with Jagex, putting his own name in the game's title, in the same style as Sid Meier's Civilization.

I first raised this issue at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 25#Andrew Gower (programmer), but it was not obvious if this was actually the correct place to begin discussion of the redirect, given its prior AFD history.

Quoting myself, these are the specific official recommendations for redirects on Wikipedia that I feel Andrew Gower (programmer) as a redirect is currently most in opposition of:

Per WP:RFD#DELETE, my opinion is that this redirect violates conditions 2 and 10.

  • It has potential to cause confusion that Andrew Gower is still affiliated with Jagex, and that Brighter Shores is a Jagex game.
  • The current target article Jagex "contains virtually no information on the subject", and as evidenced by the redirect's long edit history, "could plausibly be expanded into an article".

Per WP:RFD#KEEP, the redirect should also not be out-right deleted, since it includes a "potentially useful page history" for an article about a person who has made "unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment."

Andrew Gower has been a continued subject of public interest for decades. Despite being apparently inactive for 14 years, the "Andrew Gower" brand was enough to launch Brighter Shores to significant reception both in player count and in media coverage. I would personally like to see a consensus reached that Andrew Gower (programmer) is able to be an article, but if no consensus can be reached that this is possible or is likely to ever become possible, the redirect towards Jagex must still be rectified as it is misleading and problematic given his current public activity.

— Hubcapp (talk) 01:49, 26 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

The most critical issue is: What has changed, if anything, about Andrew Gower's notability? Although a redirect was the outcome of the deletion discussion, the core consensus is still "Not notable enough for an independent article". While there is a lot of valid procedural argument about about whether the redirect's current state is valid, there is no argument being made towards whether Gower is notable, and if so, presenting any sources to show that.
Andrew Gower doesn't get an article just because a suitable redirect target is difficult to determine. Andrew Gower must pass WP:N. -- ferret (talk) 01:54, 26 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
This is correct, and perhaps a third solution exists besides either deletion of the page (and its history) or the creation of an Andrew Gower article (such as changing the redirect to something currently more suitable). I have reached out to the editor who created the Brighter Shores page for comment, since they express on their user page they would like to create an Andrew Gower article. I'm personally not prepared to present an argument that Andrew Gower is or isn't able to pass Wikipedia:Notability, most concerned with the current issues of the page as a redirect pointing at Jagex. — Hubcapp (talk) 02:09, 26 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Is redirecting to Brighter Shores an acceptable interim solution? Gower is heavily mentioned there and the article (and the sources) heavily trade on his role in developing RuneScape. Axem Titanium (talk) 06:04, 26 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
I would say it is preferable to the current situation, but only as an interim solution. Changing the redirect from Andrew Gower (programmer) to target Brighter Shores resolves the concern that there is "potential to cause confusion that Andrew Gower is still affiliated with Jagex, and that Brighter Shores is a Jagex game."
However, it shouldn't be allowed to persist as a permanent solution for two reasons:
  • It is possible that this redirect target could be seen as placing advertisement for Brighter Shores on the Jagex and RuneScape articles. I'm not sure if the Brighter Shores redirect target is really acceptable as an interim solution for this reason, though I am not personally opposed to it.
  • It is likely still the case that Andrew Gower is most well known for his involvement in co-founding Jagex and creating RuneScape, at least as of now in November 2024 when "Andrew Gower's Brighter Shores" has been in early access for less than a month.
Perhaps a better interim redirect target could be Andrew Gower (disambiguation) and his description there changed to something of the effect
  • Andrew Gower (programmer) (born 1978): Co-founder of Jagex (1999), original creator of RuneScape (2001). Co-founder of Fen Research (2010). Since 2014, developing Brighter Shores, released in early access 2024.
Not sure if that's too many years or too much detail for a disambiguation page description, but as long as the redirect target points to articles on both of the endeavors for which he is publicly well-known, it can function as an uncontroversial redirect until such time that a consensus can be reached that Andrew Gower (or The Gower Brothers as a trio) can pass Wikipedia:Notability, regarding the availability of independent more-biographical sources. Perhaps RuneScape: The First 20 Years does qualify as one independent source that did not exist at the time of the 2021 AFD. — Hubcapp (talk) 06:57, 26 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Broadly speaking, redirects are not endorsements. Redirects are not advertisements. In fact, nothing on Wikipedia is an advertisement. And practically speaking, the average reader does not know why or even notice when they get redirected to another page. Our goal as editors is to make the redirect process as invisible and and unastonishing as possible. They should find the information they are reasonably looking for at the target page. If that means redirecting to Jagex (or Brighter Shores, or wherever), then so be it. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:38, 26 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for clarifying this. I think redirecting to Andrew Gower (disambiguation) as described above would be the least astonishing redirect, given that readers may click that link from either RuneScape / Jagex or from Brighter Shores / Fen Research. If a redirect to a disambiguation page is acceptable, I would definitely recommend that. — Hubcapp (talk) 15:43, 27 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
I think redirecting to Andrew Gower (disambiguation) is a fine interim solution. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:03, 27 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
I stumbled across this after seeing the redirect page and tried to catch up with the conversation as best I could. From my perspective, I think the temporary solution of changing the redirect from his name to Brighter Shores from Jagex is the best way (currently) to avoid barriers in getting readers current and accurate information.
Whether or not he is warranted an individual page could still be discussed, but I think the more likely next step would be to link to a Fen Research page instead, if/when that company has released something other than Brighter Shores. The one caveat I have in mind is if Brighter Shores manages to explode in popularity and become comparable to Runescape level growth, then revisiting a page for him as an individual who has created two massively successful MMORPGs through separate, self-started companies would make the most sense.
I am far from experienced regarding any of these wiki policies, but just felt the urge to weigh in on the conversation as an outsider who cares about this particular topic and preserving an accurate history. JOOOOOOOOOSH (talk) 10:05, 27 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Is there a possibility to create an article on Andrew and Paul Gower? A glance at Google Scholar suggests there may be more sources there, and while most are leading to Runescape and Jagax's founding, there's possibly more with that. --Masem (t) 02:52, 26 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yes, this seems possible and acceptable. There is some biographical information about the Gower brothers' early life, before their work on RuneScape, published by Dark Horse Comics in the October 2021 book RuneScape: The First 20 Years, on pages 12 and 13. I'm not sure what scholarly sources you were able to find that might additionally supplement that. I would suggest that Ian Gower could be included in a "Gower Brothers" article, since he collaborated with Andrew and Paul on both RuneScape and Brighter Shores. — Hubcapp (talk) 03:29, 26 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
A disambiguation page can be reasonable, but what isn't is recreating the guy's bio when there's nothing in it that demonstrates additional notability versus the AfD, according to the version that was recreated. All that's new is the mentions of Brighter Shores; there's no additional SIGCOV, barrel-scraping of using credit lists and the like to try and verify facts, and still using unreliable sources from the AfD. Write a draft of what you think would pass AfD again, Hubcapp, first, before trying to recreate the page. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 16:00, 26 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
I agree that the redirect doesn't seem particularly appropriate given that Gower hasn't been part of Jagex for ~14 years. I had a thought to write an article about Andrew Gower anyway before this discussion, though I wasn't aware of the previous AfD and hadn't begun to look into whether he is independently notable enough to warrant one.
Having had a look, I think Andrew Gower does now meet WP:GNG and is notable enough for an article in his own right. There are many sources (from publications listed on WP:RSP and WP:GAMESOURCES) which focus on Gower's involvement in Brighter Shores and which were not available at the time of the 2021 AfD discussion. Indeed, the whole reason Brighter Shores is being written about in the first place is because of Andrew Gower's notability (in the colloquial sense).
This is the only article I could find specifically focusing on Andrew and Paul Gower's role in founding Runescape:
An Evening Standard article from 2011 discussed Andrew specifically as the beneficiary of RuneScape's income:
  • CALLING all parents forking out [...]. Evening Standard, 14725223, 1/25/2011
I don't think the following award is well-known enough to qualify for WP:ANYBIO point 1, but the Develop awards in general are well respected in the UK games industry, and receiving the "Industry Legend" award goes some way to demonstrating that the Gower brothers are significant figures in the industry.
If we don't think he passes WP:NOTABILITY yet, I think the disambiguation page suggestion is the most appropriate, fitting people who are searching for his role in both RuneScape/Jagex and Brighter Shores. Quuxbazbarfoo (talk) 21:58, 26 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
https://www.nme.com/news/gaming-news/runescape-creator-andrew-gower-drops-trailer-for-new-game-brighter-shores-3600703
  • "Routine coverage", doesn't really say anything about Andrew Gower as a person, except that he has released a trailer for Brighter Shores in March 2024.
https://www.eurogamer.net/original-runescape-designer-unveils-cosy-free-to-play-mmorpg-brighter-shores
  • Quotes "Andrew Garfield"'s [sic] (really...?) announcement and says nothing else
https://www.pcgamer.com/games/mmo/runescape-creators-new-mmo-has-an-unorthodox-solution-for-the-inevitable-waves-of-bots-giving-you-a-legitimate-way-to-bot-the-game-yourself/
  • This is a good article about Andrew Gower's design aspirations for Brighter Shores, but not biographical
https://www.gamesradar.com/runescape-creator-says-his-new-game-is-not-a-traditional-mmo-where-you-play-get-to-the-endgame-and-thats-where-the-game-actually-starts/
  • This is maybe the best article, it includes an actual interview by the reporter (Austin Wood) with Andrew Gower. In the interview, Andrew recounts that LucasArts graphical point-and-click adventures were an early influence on him, and he also says he is "glad there are no publishers or investors breathing down my neck", (not stated here, but this is in contrast to the pressures that lead him to step down from his role at Jagex). This source is biographical in that sense.
https://www.polygon.com/24099403/runescape-andrew-gower-brighter-shores-new-mmo
  • This article is short and handwavey, doesn't say anything. The journalist characterizes the departure of the Gowers from Jagex incorrectly, and generally seems unfamiliar with the story. This is "Routine Coverage" of Brighter Shores.
https://www.pcgamesn.com/brighter-shores/new-mmorpg
  • Routine coverage of Brighter Shores, doesn't say really anything about Andrew Gower.
The Gamesradar interview is good (though the interesting biographical bits about Andrew are brief). All together, these citations show that without Andrew Gower (or Fen Research) contacting most of these publications (or else Eurogamer would have at least got his name correct...!), Brighter Shores was able to attract a lot of media coverage and general public attention, despite being an indie game with no publisher.
https://web.archive.org/web/20100704175930/http://www.develop-online.net/news/34613/Jagex-duo-ascend-UK-rich-list-with-138m-fortune
  • This "Rich list" type article was specifically criticised by DDG in his 2021 AFD, and I think is why DDG incorrectly categorised Andrew Gower as a businessman[1] "The new rich list places the Gower family as the 483rd richest in the UK" (quote from the article), but doesn't talk about the Gowers biographically. The citation is quite stale, from 2010, not even reflecting the Gowers' current wealth, though I'd speculate they must be doing alright to have been able to develop Brighter Shores with no external funding for over a decade.
https://mcvuk.com/development-news/develop-awards-gowers-crowned-industry-legends/
  • I'm not sure of the notability of this award either, though it can definitely be mentioned if your opinion that the award is "well respected in the UK games industry" is "correct". In my opinion, Andrew Gower would deserve some kind of award, and wouldn't have to have one made up for him. His early use of Java Applets in the web browser as a mechanism for game distribution (no download required), as well as the Free-to-play model he chose, were genuinely very innovative and inspirational for the games industry. Perhaps if someone notable stated as much, that could be used as a source.
I would personally like to see your draft of an Andrew Gower article, and could help contribute towards it after you do a first draft, but actually if you can include Paul Gower (per Masem's suggestion) and Ian Gower (my suggestion) for a more broad "The Gower Brothers" article, I think that does have a chance to be less controversially WP:N.
The biggest problem with "The Story of Andrew Gower", and why so much of the coverage is wrapped up in RuneScape, is because his general life timeline looks like this:
  • 0 to 7: Child in England
  • 7 years old: began programming at an early age
  • College
  • Immediately out of college, and actually a bit before he left college, he was working on RuneScape. His graduating thesis (May 2000) described the mechanism of RuneScape's game engine (though it was not called RuneScape yet, the code would be used as its foundation). I state this to say: There were no adult years of Andrew Gower's life that weren't involved with RuneScape until 2010.
  • 2001 to 2010: Very involved with RuneScape.
  • 2010 to 2024: Developing tooling and game technology at Fen Research. Gower wrote the game engine for RuneScape from scratch, and although it can be said there were later many valid choices for pre-built Game Engines (both in 2010 and now), Andrew still preferred to build his own. The studio released two smaller games that were not Brighter Shores during these years, and stated they would like to offer to license the in-development Fenforge engine, though it wasn't ready yet.
  • 2024: The "Top secret game" (as teased on Fen Research's website) was finally announced as "Andrew Gower's Brighter Shores". It was released on Steam in early access this month.
Some biographical sources do cover Andrew Gower as a child (such as the previously mentioned October 2021 book RuneScape: The First 20 Years) but after that, his story is the story of RuneScape's first decade. After 2010, he seemingly enjoyed privacy and doing his own thing, only recently interacting with the public again through involvement in Brighter Shores. I'm not currently aware of any sources that can state what Andrew has been doing since 2010 in a biographical sense, except that he has been "developing Brighter Shores for over 10 years". It is still very early, and we may need to wait a while for a new book titled "Brighter Shores: the first 20 years" if there aren't more biographical sources available.
— Hubcapp (talk) 15:14, 27 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

References

  1. ^ Aside: he is really not a businessman, nearly shutting down RuneScape in November 2001, before Constant Tedder (an actual businessman) was hired as CEO and saved Jagex, helping to implement its subscription model & generally guiding the company. Andrew Gower is a programmer at his core, despite having to sometimes act as a businessman.

New Articles (November 18 to November 24)

edit
Latest comment: 3 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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 04:34, 26 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

November 18

November 19

November 20

November 21

November 22

November 23

November 24

  • None

Playstation console history site by Sony

edit
Latest comment: 3 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

[3] crea Ed for it's 30th anniversary. May be helpful to verify deals and sales figures — Masem (t) 20:39, 26 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Definitely use an archived version. Publishers love to take down one-off pages like this without warning. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:03, 26 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

PR request for The Legend of Dragoon

edit
Latest comment: 2 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I opened a PR for The Legend of Dragoon in anticipation of an FAC next year. The PR can be found here. Comments are welcome: I am particularily looking at if the sourcing is a high-enough quality for FA. Z1720 (talk) 13:33, 27 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

List of longest-running video game franchises

edit
Latest comment: 4 hours ago12 comments8 people in discussion

List of longest-running video game franchises. I'd like input. It's obviously a massive unsourced, WP:OR mess. But is it salvageable, or should it be sent to WP:AFD? Sergecross73 msg me 23:29, 27 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

AFD. Its not a notable way how video game series are tracked, and definitely brings OR to mind. All you need is an old game, and one modern remake, and suddenly you have a franchise at the top of the list? Nope. Most games, perhaps, best-selling, definitely (though that has a lot of OR in terms of what contributes to a franchise), but longest-running by absolute time is not. Masem (t) 23:50, 27 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
I agree. There's not much here and what does exist is OR or something that fails Wikipedia:INDISCRIMINATE. It's entirely non-notable. There's a lot of listicles for this stuff, but those are top ten rankings that fluctuate depending on the author. There's no clear consensus, and what can be gleaned is something that doesn't need to be an article. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 03:15, 28 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
This is where I was leaning too, but wanted to make sure. I'll probably be the "big bad mean admin" for this one, as I'm pretty sure newbie editor is using the article as an OSE excuse as to why "sources aren't needed" on Wikipedia. Sergecross73 msg me 15:51, 28 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
I would also endorse deletion - any franchise that hasn't been obviously cancelled is arguably still "running" regardless of game release, so this is no better than misinformation. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:20, 29 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Agreed. There's a lot of misleading stuff like that in there when you look close and think about it. Is it a "30 year franchise" when they release 2 games 30 years apart with decades of inactivity in between? And if it is, what's the importance of that? What's the worth of comparing it against a franchise with 30 games in 30 years and, without context, they look like equals on this chart? Sergecross73 msg me 00:44, 29 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
I thought they didn't allow for large gaps in releases? Did they change this? - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 05:27, 29 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
The page does specify that it needs to have "regular releases, with no more than 10 year-long gaps in-between, for at least 25 years" to qualify, which might help with excluding certain entries but does seem to be created out of whole cloth to make the page viable. Harryhenry1 (talk) 06:46, 29 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Looks like the lead does mention that. But still, sub out 30 for 10 and my point still largely stands. Sergecross73 msg me 18:01, 29 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
I agree with other editors that this is mostly WP:OR. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:54, 29 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
I'm stuck on mobile for the next few days. If anyone wants to nom it, go for it. Otherwise I'll take care of it next week or something. Sergecross73 msg me 18:02, 29 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of longest-running video game franchises. Have a good weekend everyone. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 20:53, 29 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Adding Characters to Articles

edit
Latest comment: 7 hours ago12 comments8 people in discussion

Me and Soetermans currently have a dispute regarding the inclusion of characters in Wuthering Waves. I believe characters should be added, they do not. The reason why I added the characters is because both Honkai: Star Rail and Genshin Impact have characters listed, with Genshin having entire articles dedicated to the characters themselves (Zhongli, Yun Jin, Furina, etc.).

Just wondering what the proper way to go would be. Thank you! Jeffrey34555 (talk) 19:55, 28 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Oof. Quite frankly, your version included far too much information with an unnecessary table, unnecessary flag icons, obnoxious colors that probably don't meet WP:ACCESSIBILITY, with a single routine coverage source (WP:RSPBTVA). I wouldn't be opposed to including some characters, provided that they're widely covered in reliable, secondary sources (and not listicles), maybe in a basic list. For the record, I also think those Honkai: Star Rail and Genshin Impact articles look awful, they likely violate our guidelines, and I wouldn't shed a tear if they went away. Woodroar (talk) 20:58, 28 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Agreed. The character stuff is extremely excessive for Wikipedia. Sergecross73 msg me 21:21, 28 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
I don't know how I feel about the fact that these comments are directed towards a group of articles that I heavily contributed to (I wrote Furina and Paimon, and got both to GA). Yes, some of them are bad (Yun Jin, for example), but I don't think they are straight up atrocious or "violate our guidelines". I also think that Raiden Shogun and Hu Tao are good as well. λ NegativeMP1 21:36, 28 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
I feel they mean more the lists in this case in general, such as the one in Honkai: Star Rail#Characters--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:42, 28 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yes, that and List of Genshin Impact characters (linked as "Genshin Impact" in the original post). Woodroar (talk) 22:04, 28 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Nuked all the flags in the Genshin article at least.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:21, 28 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
I was only commenting on Woodroar's dif, not anything else. Sergecross73 msg me 22:28, 28 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
By the way, is there a reason why these character lists are presented in tables, and not in paragraphs like List of Fate/Grand Order characters?
Also, a suggestion: For List of Genshin Impact characters, the "Design" and "Reception" sections are quite short, and could definitely benefit from a translation of their Chinese versions. SuperGrey (talk) 12:20, 29 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
As an added comment , the use of flags on those characters articles violates the allowed use of flags. The VAs are not representing their countries. --Masem (t) 21:27, 28 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for the input everybody. Jeffrey34555, if you like to improve the article on Wuthering Waves, the gameplay section can definitely be improved. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 11:05, 29 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for all your inputs! Jeffrey34555 (talk) 17:56, 29 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Pygame tutorials

edit
Latest comment: 9 hours ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi.

i wonder if we should move Pygame tutorials from references into external links, maybe via subsection? What do you guys think?

Best wishes --Kaworu1992 (talk) 15:48, 29 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games&oldid=1260268397"