Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Reference library/Online print archive

How to name this category?

Before I create it, I wanted to ask for best practices in naming. I am talking about a video game category for the video games listed in Category:Fan translation (there are many more examples in Fan translation of video games, which is not comprehensive anyway). Category:Fan translated video games, with Fan translation of video games being its main article and relevant categories moved to the new category from that article? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:10, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

I was going to create it now, but I noticed it was deleted in 2007 for being "not defining", see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_December_19#Category:Fan_translated_video_games. Does anyone care to comment on this? I think there are other similar categories - for example, Category:Censored video games. Is censorship more "defining" that fan translation? Or Category:Video games involved in legal disputes. I think other such categories could be found (Category:Video games by programming language, to me, would also be non-defining - I've almost never seen that mentioned in lead or infoobox).

Additionally, there are notable fan translations (Mother 3 fan translation). The category Fan translation is added to some games, and reasonably so, since if it exist it shoudl be used to organize related entities. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:29, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

It could be "fan translated" is too broad since it doesn't take much for a game to be considered fan translated, especially in the LLM age. Fan translations are not typically essential, defining characteristics of their respective games. I'm not a category person though, so this is just a casual observation. Kodning 🌸 (talk) 03:04, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

I'd draw a line on whether a translation has be proven by RS, of course. Generally if something makes sense to be listed (see the small but growing list in the Fan translation of video games article), I think it makes sense to be categorized... but yes, I'd like to hear from more folks. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:55, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

PCGamingWiki template

Hi everyone,

Thoughts on {{PCGamingWiki}}? I xfd'ed it nearly two years ago. For those not familiar, PCGamingWiki is a wiki for PC gaming. Shock, huh? It helps PC players fix issues, that kind of stuff. I feel this was (and still is) an ELNO regardless, so the template is not needed. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 17:24, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Anybody? No? Dust. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 06:41, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

I personally believe most wikis/wikias should not be linked in EL at all, even large established Fandoms. The few times I have personally ended up at PCGamingWiki, I've found it's presentation difficult to navigate and information outdated or jumbled. However, I'm pretty sure another TFD will have the same result because the community at large still accepts the presence of any long running wiki. -- ferret (talk) 12:57, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

I actually am fine with linking to such wikis. Major fansites are valid ELs in my book. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:32, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Goals (again!)

Hey all, with the passing today of the GTs for the Horizon and Tomodachi Life series, we've now reached our goal, set back in November 2020, of 50 Good and Featured Topics! We started with 30 good and 10 featured topics, and ended with 42 and 8. Congrats and thank you to the editors of those two topics as well as for the Metroid Prime: Trilogy, Crash Bandicoot, Pokémon fan games, Crash Bandicoot video games, Trauma Center, Five Nights at Freddy's main series, Pokémon Stadium, Generation II Pokémon, Re-Logic, Generation IX Pokémon, Panzer Dragoon series, The Last of Us season 1, Sacnoth, Characters of Final Fantasy VIII, Fabula Nova Crystallis Final Fantasy, Final Fantasy Type-0, and Paper Mario topics! We lost quite a few topics over the years, so we ended up needed 19 to get us over 50, representing over 100 articles of comprehensive groups of information.

With that goal met, it's time again to pick new goals! And the plural is on purpose, because we're only 23 GAs away from our "2600 GAs for 2026" goal (set in January when we needed 182), and we went up 39 GAs in the last 30 days, so it's very likely that we'll need to replace that goal within the month. So what goals should we pick? In our last couple of discussions we came up with the 2600 GAs and 200 1980s GAs goals, so now the options are wide open. See those discussions for previous ideas, or make up any of your own! Note that the point of goals is to motivate editors to accomplish a task, so it's probably best not to pick ones that will take a decade to complete (which we have done a few times; right now our oldest goal is "All Mid/High/Top-Importance articles C-Class or better", which is 5.5 years old and unlikely to be completed at this pace for another 6+ years so I don't know if its motivating anyone.) --PresN 14:55, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Hooray! This is wonderful news.

My proposal would be a goal aimed at attacking stubs. We have a lot of them, especially for older platforms. But with modern resources like VGHF search, IA scans, and our own reference library, it doesn't need to be this way. Most of these old games are notable and can have full articles, the time and effort just needs to go into making them so. So I'm not sure how to construct that into a goal that's motivating but maybe "less than x number of 1980-1990 stub video game articles" or something like that to keep things contained. I and a handful of other editors have been tackling some of this, but its slow work when there's so few of us.

A lot of these stubs are really old too. We have a bunch of articles from circa 2007 or so that have essentially been abandoned. Maybe it would be more motivating framed as "let's clean up everything created before this date."Whipmywillows (talk) 16:02, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Hmm, our last stub goal was to take them from ~8800 stubs to 7500 stubs, which was April 2024 to November 2025; we're currently at 7400, the lowest since we started classifying articles in 2007. So yeah, maybe a targeted stub goal. --PresN 21:09, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

What about a target of "X number of Start-class or better video game articles created before 2010" (depending on how many there are). That's kind of a random year but that's old enough that I still regularly see GameFAQs stubs and the like. I don't know if it's easy to know how many there are, but the advantage is it's not like that subset can grow. Also another advantage is it somewhat self selects for pre-indie boom, pre-mobile boom, pre-Steam stuff meaning it would be mostly a case of improving articles, not churning through AfDs. Whipmywillows (talk) 06:18, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

@Whipmywillows, I started working on User:BOZ/vg stubs before I abandoned it... I could always start back up again if you think you could get some use out of it? BOZ (talk) 18:45, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

It could definetly be useful, and I could add a bunch of stuff from my own notes too. I see this is a three step process 1. Find sources 2. Add sources 3. Add content. I think things have really stalled around step 3. Which is fair, it is the part that takes the most effort. I feel like it would be pretty straightforward to get as many articles as possible to step 2. But then the question is, who's taking them all to step 3? Whipmywillows (talk) 21:26, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article statistics with charts now updated, btw. --PresN 18:17, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

A lot of these are probably not stubs anymore anyway (example PBA Tour Bowling 2). BOZ has been a great help in this regard. Timur9008 (talk) 05:45, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Along a similar proposal line to stubs, we have a ton of articles that have little or no sources. I'd love to see something like a citation drive for video game pages.

I'm not sure if there's anything that lists all the video game project pages with "citations needed" or "unreferenced" templates. But something in that direction would be nice 13akoors (talk) 16:41, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Backlog has the major cleanup categories; has a listing of more; looks like there's a few thousand articles with missing references. --PresN 21:09, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Oof. That's more pages than I expected. And I assume that the cleanup list only tracks if a page has the "citations needed" tag, not how many times it's used. I know several of the list articles use that template well over 200 times, so I'd guess that number is way higher than the 12,000 count 13akoors (talk) 03:26, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Some counts for ideas that have been proposed:

• 1980s stubs: 735
• 1990s stubs: 1265
• Articles with a {{citation needed}} tag: 4572
• Articles with an {{Unreferenced section}} or {{Refimprove}} tag: 5883

--PresN 19:21, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

735 stubs within a couple years sounds doable to me, though I suppose I live and breath this stuff. I've never seen a project goal from start to finish though so maybe I'm not the best judge. Whipmywillows (talk) 23:52, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

We could pick one of the ideas for a focused barnstar drive? Sariel Xilo (talk) 00:17, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Looking for Official UK PlayStation Magazine Issue 71 (or possibly 68)

Supposedly the February 2001 issue of Official UK PlayStation Magazine (the PS1 version of the magazine) has an interview about Final Fantasy VIII with developers Kitase, Nojima, Naora and Nomura. This was cited in an old ref as issue 71, but apparently the February 2001 issue was actually issue 68? Anyway, the reference linked to a reproduction of the interview on FFShrine.org which has been nuked off the internet and suppressed on Internet Archive. Does anyone have a copy of this issue? Axem Titanium (talk) 12:10, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Alternatively, if anyone has access to OldGameMags.com, can you confirm which issue this interview is in and if OldGameMags has a scan of it? Axem Titanium (talk) 12:23, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

I have access but neither of these issues have an FF8 interview. I'll keep looking. 2001 is very late to be talking about FF8. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 19:09, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Yeah that's what I thought too! But it's been in the article since 2006, and I assume good faith that when User:Kung Fu Man converted it in 2009 to the cite magazine template that he believed that was the correct info as presented by FFShrine. The European release was in October 1999 so presumably around then would be the true source. Thanks for digging through those archives.

As an aside, this is why accessdates are so important! It would have been way harder to do this digital archaeology without them. Axem Titanium (talk) 23:28, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

VGHF doesnt have it, Retrogames doesnt have it. The IA collection doesn't have that issue either. I very much doubt it's this. Whipmywillows (talk) 21:26, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

That one's Official UK PS2 Magazine, which is a different magazine lol. Thanks for looking! Axem Titanium (talk) 23:28, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't have access, but I suspect this actually comes from issue 51 from November 1999. Some (but not all) of the quotes from that website were also published in Official Australian PlayStation Magazine in November 1999, and it looks like the UK editor was present there too (they did a similar roundtable for US press the previous month). – Rhain ☔ ^he
_him 00:30, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

That issue only has a review. I've looked at probably two dozen issues and have found no Squaresoft interviews. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 01:25, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Alright, so digging with the URL, I found it on archive.is still, going to break the URL here so the editor doesn't have a fit: https://archive(dot)is/uNre

Doing some more digging I found a reddit thread with the magazine's cover, it's the Future publishing PlayStation magazine... and reverse image searching that cover led me to this on archive.org, a Spanish version of the magazine. Translating it through Google Lens shows its the same interview that FF8Shrine transcribed.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:05, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Wow great work everyone! These are all really useful sources. It appears that PSX (Español) is a licensed version of Official UK PlayStation Magazine. The specific issue that KFM linked is a Spanish version of Final Fantasy VIII The Official Story, which is a special edition that OUKPM put out. Is this issue in the archives somewhere? If you can get the publishing info about this issue and verify that it's the same text as FFShrine, then I'll use it, but barring that, I'm happy to cite the Spanish magazine. Axem Titanium (talk) 02:57, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Unfortunately that one is not available at OGM! TarkusAB^talk/contrib 04:50, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Bummer! Thanks for checking. Axem Titanium (talk) 01:34, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Probably not the typical kind of source that's requested there, but it may be worth asking at WP:RX. ScalarFactor (talk) 00:25, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Someone with a copy very kindly sent some photos! It appears to match FFShrine almost verbatim (except for an extra question not transcribed on the site). – Rhain ☔ ^he
_him 13:20, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

AMAZING!! Do you think they could take a quick look through the rest of the magazine to see if there's any other development-y type info? Thanks! Axem Titanium (talk) 17:59, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

There's a brief interview with Square's president, Tomoyuki Takechi, mostly about the company itself and its other games (also quoted in the Australian magazine, and you can translate the Spanish version to see if there's anything of interest), but otherwise everything else seems to be analysis of the game and a brief history of the series. – Rhain ☔ ^he
_him 22:22, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Appreciate it! Axem Titanium (talk) 08:12, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Looking for people to review my GA

Its been 4 days, but can someone review Ever Oasis yet? We are trying to get this to GA so the Video games wikiproject can hit its 2,600 GA-Class articles milestone goal. Monathephantom (talk) 12:41, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

This sort of thing can't be forced. Sometimes it can take weeks or even months before someone decides to pick up a review, and that's fine. All you can really do at this point is have patience. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 04:12, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

@Monathephantom I agree with Cat's Tuxedo here, this type of thing is on a volunteer basis. However, you can speed up the process by participating in a GA review circle, which is what I do. Gommeh ^{(talk! sign!)} 18:21, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

I tried going over the article, but it's not in great shape. The infobox, lead and gameplay section mention different genres. Unnecessary WP:GEOLINKs, superfluous details for the lead... soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 19:00, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Don’t worry @Soetermans, it’s already being reassessed since the last review went poorly by a inexperienced editor so it can be reviewed properly. Monathephantom (talk) 19:11, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

I went over it some more. While it does need a little work here and there, it's got a good base to go on. Good luck. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 20:05, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Mina the Hollower's secret ending

Good evening. Yacht Club Games, the creators of Mina the Hollower, just put up a blog post on their official website that tells people the conditions to achieve a secret ending for the game. I am wondering if anyone who has the game can add info about the ending based on either the blog post or a video doing said playthrough. Here is the link for the blog post: https://www.yachtclubgames.com/blog/mina-the-hollower-ending. This is something that was just discovered recently. Thank you. David Matoushek (talk) 02:56, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Ideally a source would comment on this newly revealed ending, so we can quote them. A single line saying that the ending exists and was revealed today would be fine if this is all the sources we got. I'm not going to look into this any deeper myself, per spoilers. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 11:19, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

I recall seeing a video that is in the blog showing how the secret ending works. If we adhere to spoiler territory, then that is fine. Either way, I just wanted to know. Thank you for trying though. David Matoushek (talk) 16:05, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

New Articles (June 15 to June 21)

 A listing of all articles newly added to the Video Games Wikiproject (regardless of creation date). Generated by v3.23 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 13:54, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

• Articles deleted/removed: Aerial Knight, Sport Vii, StrategyWiki, MapleStory Universe, Online gaming in India, Avesta of black and white, Forsaken (Roblox Game), Takane Ōkubo, Muck (video game)
• Drafts deleted/removed: Draft:FNAF: The Musical, Draft:Xslayder, Draft:Barbie Fashion Designer, Draft:Indigo Park (2), Draft:Donkey Kong Country Barrel Maze, Draft:Star Road, Draft:Stick War:Legacy, Draft:RougePOV Content, Draft:The Mimic (Roblox), Draft:Tomb Raider ( Life - Action ), Draft:Pelagic Games, Draft:PlaytestCloud, Draft:Reception and criticism of the EA Sports football games, Draft:Rusty Lake: Roots
• Articles redirected: Lord British, The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time (2026 video game), Mighty Cuphead Adventure, Paquito (Mobile Legends: Bang Bang)
• Categories deleted/removed: Star Wars: Rogue Squadron games, Esports at the 2023 Pan American Games, DreamWorks Pictures video games
• New categories: Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic characters — (Oinkers42), Backyard Baseball — (Oinkers42), Wikipedia featured topics Horizon (video game series) — NovemBot, Wikipedia featured topics Horizon (video game series) featured content — NovemBot, Wikipedia featured topics Horizon (video game series) good content — NovemBot, Honkai Impact 3rd character redirects to lists — Gommeh (newly tagged - originally created 3 months ago), Honkai Impact 3rd characters — Gommeh, Planet (franchise) — Unnamelessness, The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt — Дмитро Боришполець, Video games based on works by Jin Yong — Uriahheep228, Friendslop video games — Miminity, Fictional gamers — Gommeh, Free-to-play video games that got offline versions — Kulik5120

--PresN 13:54, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

I moved a draft from draftspace to userspace and it has been listed here. I don't know if I did something wrong or it's just a bug, but I had no intention of moving it to mainspace. Oreun ^💬Talk 14:25, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

My apologies, it was a bug in the script and I didn't catch it. --PresN 19:39, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Seems that one of my drafts were moved into mainspace by somebody else. AlphaBetaGamma (Talk/report any mistakes here) 13:08, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, the script credits the article to the person who created it (even in draft), not the person who moved it out. Serial un-drafters have previously indicated that they don't want to be tagged as 'creating' the article. --PresN 13:11, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

miHoYo task force

I've had a few thoughts about a miHoYo task force similar to the one on the Chinese Wikipedia, and wanted to gauge how many people would be interested in forming one here. We'll only form it if there are enough interested editors, but I wanted to get a rough number to know for sure if it would be a good idea or not after some off-wiki discussions about the topic. If anyone is interested, please feel free to say so below. Gommeh ^{(talk! sign!)} 18:22, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Request to edit studio page

Hi there! Our indie developer page, PikPok, has quite a few issues and the list of games is outdated. Would anyone please be willing to clean it up? Thank you. ~2026-36598-88 (talk) 20:11, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi! It appears that Gommeh has already responded to another person affiliated with your company at Talk:PikPok. Thank you for proactively disclosing your relationship with the company. As Gommeh said, an edit request following the directions at WP:MAKINGEREQ with specific before-and-after changes usually produces the best results. Axem Titanium (talk) 02:43, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Tidus

There is an ongoing discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tidus#Category:Fictional_patricides? about the relationship between Tidus and Jecht, two characters from Final Fantasy. It's a FA article so extra voices would be important. Tintor2 (talk) 20:14, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Eyes on some naming problems with Steam Controller and Steam Machine

we have had a couple editors jump the gun on moving the new iterations of these devices and are causes sone bad naming schemes to be in place while actual move discussions continue. Input onto suggested names for disambiguation for these pages would be helpful. Masem (t) 13:08, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Steam Machine § Rename Steam Machine(s) in context of 2026 Steam Machine release

An editor has requested that Steam Machine be moved to Steam Machines, which may be of interest to this WikiProject. You are invited to participate in the move discussion. Tracerneo (talk) 21:35, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Requesting more opinions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohamed Light (2nd nomination)

Requesting more opinions at afd before it resulted as no consensus again. Thank you. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 13:57, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Steam Controller (1st generation)

An editor has requested that Steam Controller (1st generation) be moved to Steam Controller (2015), which may be of interest to this WikiProject. You are invited to participate in the move discussion. Tracerneo (talk) 19:21, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Talk:Porting#Article split

Planning to split the Porting#Porting of video games section into a new article titled Video game porting. Feel free to participate in that discussion (just please comment on the Porting talk page, not here). Further info in the linked thread. Dabmasterars [RU/COM] (talk/contribs) 21:20, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Yellow paint debate#Requested move 12 June 2026

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Yellow paint debate#Requested move 12 June 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 08:15, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Viability on an article on controversies around sexualization of women in video games?

I have an idea for two separate articles which due to both their coverage of contentious topics in one case and huge effect on other articles, I would like to get community consensus and feedback on before moving ahead  (and maybe see if anyone would be interested in working with me on it because it may be complex)

Proposal 1) (my main proposal) I was thinking of creating an article about controversies around sexualization of women in video games. It would likely be a list or summary style article that lists out a lot of female video game characters who have had controversy around their design in regards to sexualization. It could also provide commentary on evolution of these controversies/relation to each other if any such commentary exists and is supported by multiple independent sources.

Proposal 2) I was considering the merit of a centralized article on the sexualization of women in video games. While this topic is mentioned in various articles (Gender representation in video games, Sexual content in video games, Women and video games), I feel it deserves its own article due to the vast amount of commentary and controversy around the subject over the years. This could be combined or separate from the previous proposal depending on how they were both structured.

Arguments for these proposals:

There does not appear to be a centralized article on sexualization, at least to match the depth that the argument has evolved over the years (it's likely I just haven't looked hard enough), though it is mentioned in the following articles Gender representation in video games, Sexual content in video games, Women and video games

Arguments against these proposals:

While consolidation of information on sexualization of women in video games may be notable, controversies around individual character designs likely are not. Individual controversies are not particularly interesting and likely don't meet notability requirements outside the context of their own articles as most controversies are relatively brief and follow a similar format. An article on said controversies would either look like a list of brief 1 paragraphs for each controversy, or would attempt to provide some commentary on their relation. But these controversies are all unrelated, and assuming not enough credible media has done any research connection them (which is likely the case as they are separate and unrelated), any 'commentary' on their relation to each other would fall into original research and likely violate neutral POV as well. Such article could however be notable if only a few such controversies were provided as examples and the rest of the article broadly talked on the subject of female sexualization in video games. Also, If such article were to exist it would certainly be the subject of both intense vandalism and scrutiny due to it's highly partisan and controversial nature.

Wik206 (talk) 23:04, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

"Women and video games" is more about actual people than characters, so I wouldn't put it there nor work with that content. The gender representation article already has a section on sexualization of female characters, so that would be the place to expand out, and if necessary spin out separately. The Sexual content in video games is probably the least viable option in this case as sexualization does not always equal "sexual content" (eg giving a female character larger chest sizes for no good reason is sexualization but not sexual content). Masem (t) 23:13, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Also see WP:CSECTION. I'd try to avoid just simply listing every notable controversy like you are suggesting, but focus on the major ones. Eg I am sure Tomb Raider would have a significant aspect here. Masem (t) 23:19, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

The second proposal has potential, starting from Gender representation in video games#Sexualization. The first proposal is problematic for WP:NLIST and WP:CSECTION reasons, and I can't find a shortcut for it, but you should be careful about List of X things where X could be construed as a non-neutral descriptor, as such an article will be very contentious and have deep WP:NPOV concerns. ~ A412 ^talk! 00:23, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks everyone! a few questions I'd like to add based on the conversation so far. If I were to try the second proposal, would it be appropriate to use only a few major controversies as examples (and potentially have a small subsection for only the most notable of controversies). Also, if a article mentions a controversy, does it imply that that controversy is notable for use elsewhere on Wikipedia? Would it be notable to instead of making a list (as many of you have pointed out probably wouldn't work out), to instead make a category for pages that already list similar controversies (if enough of them have controversies to warrant a category). I'm leaning away from the first proposal based on current feedback but I wonder if a much smaller portion could be combined with the second proposal. Wik206 (talk) 00:34, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

My opinion is that the best way to go about this would be to split Gender representation in video games into Male representation in video games , Female representation in video games, and LGBTQ representation in video games. It is the least potentially boat-rocking way to go about this, and prevents an article like "Female sexualization in video games" from devolving into examplecruft of every moment of prudish rage from a fan that had no effect on a game's sales or reception. Splitting the article would allow for a longer discussion of sexualization within the female-focused article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:41, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

could you clarify what kindof page your talking about to avoid when you mention examplecraft and maybe link some examples? I'm unfamiliar with what you mean. This is an interesting idea though. For something like this I'd like to try to gage what the community thinks before splitting the page in 3, I'm not the most experienced editor is this were we would use an RFC? Wik206 (talk) 05:23, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't know of examples, but what I mean is just listing out events that happened. For example "In 2015 Sorceress was called oversexualized. In 2016 ______ was called oversexualized." etc. with no regard to how great an impact such controversies made on the gaming industry, if at all, or whether they were just clickbait.

It would probably require a split discussion, which are still done on the article's talkpage despite merge discussions having been migrated to AfD. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:30, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Gotcha. Yeah I've come to realize this was the problem with my original proposal of a list of controversies. I think your probably right with the split idea and the page looks like it would benefit from being shortened anyways. I'm going to wait awhile and see if anyone proposes any other ideas but if we don't get any I'll try to start a split discussion. Slight concern: in my experience a lot of talk pages tend to be dead. Would one post a split to the talk page, wait a few days then if no one responded assume they're free to do it. Another thing: would any editor be interested in participating in these shenagians when and if they happen, or does anyone know where I could try to find fellow editors interested in them? Wik206 (talk) 05:39, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

You can post a notification here if you start a discussion; it tends to get people to respond. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:06, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Same thread or would I make a new one? Wik206 (talk) 06:08, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

It does not really matter, though a new one would probably ensure it was seen and didn't blend into the discussion. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:51, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

This sounds like an extremely large undertaking. A reorganization of this scale should be thoroughly drafted in draftspace, which would allow other editors to contribute and make suggestions on content, inclusion criteria, and structure. Axem Titanium (talk) 08:21, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Gridiron!

Does anyone see anymore sources for Gridiron!? (Aside from what is on the talk page and the article itself)

I've searched high and low but maybe I missed something. Timur9008 (talk) 08:29, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Wendi Sierra's book on Todd Howard might have some information. I remember she did an interview with VGHF where it came up but it was really only a passing mention. No idea how much is in the book. Whipmywillows (talk) 08:53, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Added to talk page. Thanks! :) Timur9008 (talk) 11:37, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

New Articles (June 22 to June 28)

 A listing of all articles newly added to the Video Games Wikiproject (regardless of creation date). Generated by v3.23 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 19:28, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

• Articles deleted/removed: Fridgy (Kirby), Magicore Anomala, Mohamed Light, Samsung SCH-B450, VG Cats, Eisei Meijin VI, Mystic Warriors-based hardware, Skymarshall Arts
• Drafts deleted/removed: Draft:Facteroids, Draft:Manitoba Computer & Gaming Museum, Draft:The Crash Bandicoot Movie, Draft:Video games developed in Ethiopia, Draft:CODE STUDIO GAMES, Draft:Esports Wales, Draft:Bilewater, Draft:Grand Theft Auto: Double Pack, Draft:The Strongest Battle Grounds - Roblox, Draft:Worldle (Kory McDonald), Draft:Characters of Clair Obscur: Expedition 33, Draft:DjMaRiiO, Draft:GameMill Entertainment, Draft:List of Om Nom Stories episodes, Draft:Nick Montag, Draft:Roklan Software, Draft:WHell!come Back
• Articles redirected: Five Nights at Freddy's: Secret of the Mimic, Indian Digital Gaming Society, Innersloth, Knuckles the Echidna (comics), Maschinen-Mensch, Sonic Universe, Among Us Story: On Guard, Hasbro Interactive, List of Mario Kart games, Mario Wynands, WP:WikiProject Video games/Noticeboard
• Articles moved to draft space: Blooket, Boris Hiestand, Crisis Action, Doors (game), Enderman, Glossary of Fortnite terms, Hermitcraft, Hero (Dragon Quest series), List of Pokémon video game villains, Marvel's Spider-Man 3, Merryweather Media, My Talking Tom 2, Pokémon 30th Anniversary, Poofesure, SCP-087 (video game), Silver the Hedgehog, Tenth generation of video game consoles
• Templates deleted/removed: {{Sonic the Hedgehog chronology}}
• New templates: {{Genshin Impact}} — Gommeh, {{Honkai: Star Rail}} — Gommeh
• New categories: Skygoblin games — Waxworker, Team Fortress — Orchastrattor (newly tagged - originally created 1 year ago), Team Fortress 2 characters — Howardcorn33, Foddian games — Bungle491, Wikipedia featured topics Tomodachi Life — NovemBot, Wikipedia featured topics Tomodachi Life featured content — NovemBot, Wikipedia featured topics Tomodachi Life good content — NovemBot, Women esports commentators — Yue (newly tagged - originally created 2 months ago)

--PresN 19:28, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Proposal: A formal page on VG character article notability OR a spin-off WikiProject Video game characters

I've been editing for a bit over a year now, some of that time has been spent working in and around the Video game topic area, either authoring articles or reviewing GANs. A recurring issue I, and other editors, have faced is the lack of guidance around video game character notability. Currently, a majority of editors cite WP:THREE, which is acceptable as a bar, but it has no formal backing in PAG. Others cite WP:GNG, which is a guideline, but then WP:SIGCOV enters the fray and we're back at square one trying to quantify which articles count as SIGCOV and which do not. WP:VALNETs existence makes the entire thing even more complicated. This is not a new issue. For the sake of this proposal, I will list some discussions where this has come up, as it dates back some time (as long as I've been editing at least):

• April 2026: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Metal Slime (One of the better AfDs I must admit. WP:OVERLAP and WP:NOPAGE were the main issues cited here.) Closed as merge.
• January 2026: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Feeding Time (video game) (Not about video game characters, but still arguing the general issue.) Closed as no consensus.
• October 2025: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neuvillette (Genshin Impact) (Both WP:NVGC and WP:NFCHAR are linked, but are both essays.) Closed as merge.

(@Gommeh asked for help expanding NVGC around this time too. But got no response.)

• October 2024: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kleavor (This was a particularly heated one where THREE, an essay, was the basis for the eventual close.) Closed as keep per THREE.

Those are all closed AfDs with different outcomes, and different pages cited. Kleavor was kept because it met THREE, a user essay. One could argue it's backed by SIGCOV, but then the discussion goes from how many to what counts. It's a mess frankly. It certainly isn't sustainable, and based on the AfDs I linked above, clearly hasn't been. This topic area shouldn't have to rely on a user essay, a couple of non-comprehensive essays and the generic notability guidelines.

WP:PROJGUIDE#Proposing a project states 'While there are no hard rules for what constitutes "sufficient" support, projects that are likely to succeed tend to start with at least 6 to 12 active Wikipedians.' I think this is met sufficiently. I'll ping a few of the main editors in this topic area who have varying opinions: @Kung Fu Man, @Cukie Gherkin and @Pokelego999. I've already pinged @Gommeh. If this post can spark a discussion or a few informal supports, then the next step would be the actual setup. Bolding this as I think it is important to focus on this proposal, and not previous failed attempts, else we just fall back into the same cycle of confusion and incongruousness. 11WB (talk) 15:38, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

We already have WP:NVGC as said, so if we are going to do anything it should involve making changes to that. However as I have stressed in the past, WP:THREE is only a user essay, and we may be relying on it a bit too much given it is just that, an essay in someone's userspace. Personally I'm of the opinion that two very good sources (at minimum, but preferably more) should be good enough to satisfy the "multiple sources" requirement of GNG if used correctly and to the fullest extent reasonably possible, but I think I'm in the minority there. Gommeh ^{(talk 🎮 sign)} 15:51, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm going to be honest, I"m at a bit of a loss as to how you're directing the discussion here. Different articles with different sourcing are going to result in different angles; there's not going to be one fixed silver bullet. You can have an article that has 3 instances of full articles to cite, but fails sustained, or fails nopage because there just isn't enough to say. You can have article not have a single full article for it but enough small references you can argue there's consistent discussion over an extended period of time. WP:THREE may be an essay, but it's point is "what are your three best sources", or sometimes "do you even have 3 good sources?", and can you argue the article should stand alone based on them, and there's a general consensus that you need at least 3 strong sources for your article. As time has gone on, we've shifted away from "grab everything not nailed down" to "illustrate with your best sources how this is discussed in enough depth to warrant an article". Different consensus' have evolved from there, such as a character being "top tier" in a particular game not contributing much to notability, or debate on whether non-WP:ROUTINE dev info counts such as with Koopa Troopa for example.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:57, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Fair point regarding discussion direction. I think a WikiProject for video game characters would be good anyway, along with potentially solving the notability confusion in the process. Basing a project on pre-existing essays such as NVGC has merit. This would take collaboration though. One or two editors wouldn't be able to do this alone. I deliberately picked the more contentious AfD discussions to demonstrate the core issues with the current guidance. Kleavor is an article that was kept because it has THREE sources that go into enough detail according to the subjective viewpoint of the editors that participated in that specific AfD. That isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it has set a precedent for this topic area whereby we can cite essays and that is enough to form a consensus on. This isn't the norm across Wikipedia. 11WB (talk) 16:26, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Kleavor also had enough angles of discussion to illustrate why it was important enough on its own (and really there between the papers, Henley's Gamer article and Inside, it has five at least); really the reason the AfD was contentious was Zx's argument for the AfD itself (which was a running thing at the time, more hashed out now). As for a project idea, I don't think it's needed; WP:VGCHAR already does plenty as a task force.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:42, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that taskforce even existed, or I forgot. I'm surprised that it isn't a standard WikiProject. It could certainly function as one. If anything, this makes it even easier. It would be a case of fleshing out NVGC, adding it as a tab to that taskforce (with a consensus), then submitting it to the Council. 11WB (talk) 17:14, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

The ingredients are all there, it's simply a case of putting it altogether. I'm astounded it hasn't already been done. I would much prefer NVGC as a guideline, backed by a taskforce/WikiProject, that can be cited in AfDs. Rather than the current, messier alternative. 11WB (talk) 17:18, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

You've correctly identified that character notability is contentious, but video game characters is not the right consensus level to argue if WP:GNG requires two sources or three. If you do decide to move forward, I'd encourage you to focus on the other aspects here. ~ A412 ^talk! 15:59, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I don't like the WP:THREE shortcut, I tried to delete the shortcut before, but absent project-level consensus people who think THREE is the standard will link the userspace essay whether you like it or not, and you can see the topic is contentious. ~ A412 ^talk! 16:04, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes, THREE is very bad advice but too many rely on it at AFD. Arguably one GNG-meeting source could be sufficient, but really its about what the significant coverage is in the collected sources, not just source counting (There's an ongoing discussion at WT:N on this point) Masem (t) 16:08, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

@A412, I chose characters specifically as it usually affects them more. WP:VG specifically states GNG is what they follow, this applies to video games, but not characters. Two or three game reviews is fairly easy for most video games to reach. For video game characters however, that is a much higher bar, and for good reason. 11WB (talk) 16:33, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

VG Character articles should be judged on the ability to write more than a stubby article on either at least concept/creation/development, and reception, but ideally both. If the article is based on concept/creation/development, this should be a reasonably deep enough dive, like, two good paragraphs or more of details. If it is based on reception, then the sources need to clear avoid the so-called "listacles", avoid using one-sentence mentions (eg "Marvel Rivals is great, but Jeff the Shark is annoying.") and should be fully dedicated articles to that character. Other factors like gameplay and the like are expected but alone cannot support notability for them. Masem (t) 16:05, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

This is more or less my stance as well. Between WP:MERGEREASON and WP:VGCHAR already existing, I don't see anything needing to be done. Sergecross73 msg me 16:19, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

@Masem, what is the current baseline for stubs? I've seen stubs in this topic area usually face redirection at AfD due to not having enough coverage to warrant a full article in mainspace. (There are definitely examples of this happening, but I would have to search for them.) 11WB (talk) 16:30, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

I can reasonably see stubs existing as an alternative to deletion if there are a few sources of SIGCOV for a character, but perhaps not enough for a full article. That way, it makes it a little easier for people to add new information to the stub and potentially expand it should more sources be produced later on. Similarly, if a character has had two in-depth reviews but not three, that's a high bar to reach for them and they should at least be considered for notability. But this is probably not the right place to make this argument. Gommeh ^{(talk 🎮 sign)} 16:46, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Gommeh, I feel there's a strong consensus (albeit mentioned on the wikipedia discord when you've brought up the "two is enough" argument) that if an article doesn't have at least three strong sources, it doesn't fly. WP:THREE was always meant to be the absolute baseline, not a bar to go "okay I'm good to go" and then find where we can go lower. It's basically a counter argument to AfD-ing because less than three feels too few, while throwing more than three at someone can feel overwhelming, per the essay.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:51, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Stubs aren't automatically deleted, but there has to be sufficient sourcing in the article or identified in the talk page or associated AFDs to avoid being challenged for deletion. Like, if I hit on a trove of articles that I know are good for significant coverage for a character but don't have time to expand, and there's no good target for that character otherwise (on the game or existing list of characters) a stub to serve as a dumping ground for those sources is reasonable (though here, draft or user-space is far better for a work in progress). Masem (t) 19:19, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Draft Needs an independent review (stuck due to past COI)

Hi everyone, I'm reaching out here because I'm completely stuck and need an independent set of eyes. I am the subject of Draft:Quinten Delaere. To be completely upfront: I messed up earlier this year. I didn't fully grasp the COI/socking rules, tried to push the draft myself, and got my account blocked. I own that mistake. (Note that the article was accepted but because of the COI it was “problem” even though it was said it should pass since WP:GNG) Recently, I tried updating the draft as an IP with a completely overhauled version. The old draft was declined for WP:BLP1E, so I rewrote it to include 14 high-quality, independent sources (Kotaku, PCGamesN, RTBF, etc.) that cover the Guinness World Record fraud investigation, as well as my other work with reliable sources. Because of my past block, my IP edits are manually reverted under WP:EVADE. I get it, the patrollers are enforcing the rules against me. But it means the actual updated content and sources I added are getting nuked without being read. I'm hoping an experienced editor here could take a few minutes to look at my updated revision: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Quinten_Delaere&oldid=1362079667 If you think this version objectively meets WP:GNG, could you please restore this revision and either submit it to AfC or move it? Thanks for your time. ~2026-37886-16 (talk) 20:00, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Split Nier

I considered splitting Nier into its remastered version as seen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nier#Split? here. Feel free to comment to see if it's possible. I still have my doubts about its potential considering the title. Tintor2 (talk) 20:52, 2 July 2026 (UTC)