Gonna order the Steam Controller at release

Any requests for photographs or video? I am not great at object photography though Trade (talk) 06:29, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

A photo is always good. Try to get a neutral background and neutral lighting and see how nice you can make it look. I expect Evan Amos will be creating a high-fidelity picture lateron, so feel free to think about a way to photograph the controller such that it will be useable on its own, like how it looks while in use or in a specific setting. No specific requests, though. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 06:34, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

The old SC still doesn't have an Amos photo after 11 years so i wouldn't hold my breath--Trade (talk) 07:06, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Then your contribution will be even more valuable 🙂 ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:39, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

c:Category:Steam Controller (2026) Someone just uploaded the first photo before i got the chance! Yay! @Maplestrip:--Trade (talk) 23:06, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Using Archive.org, RetroCDN and similar fan archival sites

While previously discussed over five years ago here by @TarkusAB, @Dissident93 and @Soetermans. I'm not sure if its valid for linking to material such as game manuals or older magazines at sites like archive.org or RetroCDN. While some material is probably acceptable, others are in a more legal grey area as brought up by Tarkus initially with WP:ELNEVER and WP:COPYLINK, specifically the latter's statement of "if you know or reasonably suspect that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of copyright, do not link to that copy of the work without the permission of the copyright holder." While I believe they are exempt for website for legal reasons (I believe someone here has a better understanding of that than I do), linking to magazines within our cites for the sake of letting users check is probably a weak reason to violate the above guidelines and also can cause problems for our own research for various reasons. While Archive.org has worked with libraries to host digital copies of some of their books and other material, countless books/magazines/scans etc. are hosted by enthusiastic fans like ourselves. Just as we wouldn't link to a website that actives hosts emulation of games, (see MOS:VGEL which says "Links to sites that offer copyright-infringing downloads of video games, ROM or ISO images, or other works, per § Restrictions on linking (WP:ELNEVER) #1. This includes materials that may be considered abandonware – while the copyright of these works may be in question, policy forbids even questionable links.". I feel this should be applied for magazines and other manuals that were not hosted by some other connected site.

Material on archive.org has previously been pointed in more mainstream game press such as Vice here happily mentioning that all early issues of Nintendo Power had been uploaded in 2016. Shortly after the article was posted and shared around, Nintendo shut that down. . Linking to these hosting sites is useful for editors and readers to validate sources, but often when I click on a cite that goes to a Famitsu link on archive.org, its been removed. I fear bringing attention to these things also brings attention to people who may not want them shared.

I would alternatively suggest linking to sources (as I have done recently) to the Video Game History Foundation's (VGHF) digital library. Per their launch discussion, they seem to be more clear on hosting material within fair use, or even owning the material such as the catalog of Computer Entertainer for example and then releasing it to the public domain. They seem to have added all the earlier issues of Nintendo Power as seen here. As the VGHF seems to be actually aware of what is being uploaded to their site, I feel a lot more confident about linking to them as a library-style resource. But I would like some other thoughts on this as I see these links all the time, even in good and featured articles. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:32, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

I agree with using VGHF over internet archive whenever possible, they seem fairly stable and unlikely to put themselves in legal hot water. Archive.org links can and do expire and often do feel pretty legally dubious, but I think shear convenience has been the motivating force keeping anyone from really doing anything. In the case of Computer Entertainer, we absolutely should be using VGHF every time. It's CC, that's quite literally what the law prescribes (though I can't see any possible future where VGHF would sue Wikipedia over this).

My main uncertainty when it comes to VGHF is whether to link to the library entry for the volume in question (like this) or to link to the document viewer (like this). My assumption was that the document links expire and so you could only use the library entries, but of course that's less easily verifiable since you can't just link to a relevant page. Do we have an idea of what we should be using? Whipmywillows (talk) 19:59, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Link the library entry, the document viewer links expire after like an hour, they're unusable. It's not a burden on the reader to have to scroll to the page number given; it's nice that you can jump to a page at archive.org, but you don't get that with cites to physical magazines so it's not exactly a downgrade that VGHF won't let you. --PresN 20:19, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't think it's a good idea to link to the VG museum even for magazines. We can be thorough with how we define a magazines citation (ISSNs, JANs, etc), but I feel even the Museum works on a "this should be fine" basis that quickly fades if a copyright holder returns a la GameInformer, or how Nintendo has been bullish when it comes to Nintendo Power.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:26, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

I would agree here. Unless we know they have it under a usable license (some stuff they have this on the magazine's page), we shouldn't link to possible copyright issues. That doesn't mean you can't use the site to read any of their magazines, and you can build the magazine ref using the details, just not direct link to the site copy. Masem (t) 21:58, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Both the IA and VGHF broadly take a similar approach to providing access to collections under a fair use rationale. Both are ultimately not-for-profits operating digital libraries for research and education, are credibly used in that capacity, and are claiming uploading and access to their collections are justified on the fair use doctrine, in this case, out-of-print scans of gaming review magazines:

• The VGHF states its library relies on "fair use" of copyrighted material for "transformative, educational use" for out-of-print works with limited commercial impact. It requires its users to acknowledge research-oriented use. () We might say that the curatorial nature of the VGHF collection and lack of user input or upload makes their argument slightly more robust.
• The IA justifies that its collections are provided on the basis of fair use () and its terms of service also require user agreement to noncommercial or fair use purposes ().

That said, fair use is a legal defense and no guarantee of resolving copyright issues; whilst VGHF have potentially more defensible arguments, neither source is completely 'safe' where rights aren't held or clearly licensed. The fair use argument for this model of distribution has only been partially tested in court, and where copyright is asserted, as with Nintendo, the IA has preferred to back down or take down the disputed material. This feels like it raises a broader issue: IA links currently underpin a significant amount of sourcing and verifiability across articles. That doesn't resolve any copyright concerns, but suggests it is a systemic question about how links are treated far beyond the realm of magazine scans. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 04:51, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

IA links for webpages falls under caching which is different from offering scans of printing magazines, particularly w/o access controls. Caching is not fully in the clear but most court cases indicate its reasonable so WP has no problem using them as the archive method for sources (That is being impacted by major publications blocking this over fears of AI training data pulled from the IA copy). On the other hand, you have to assume a magazine scan is like a book, and IA has been in trouble for book scans previously. This would apply to VGHF as well when they do not clearly have obtained a license to distribute. It's likely fair use but we shouldn't risk that. Masem (t) 05:24, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I agree the lack of distinction between IA and VGHF is only where we're talking about magazine scans given the nature of the material and the broadly similar method of unlicensed scanning and distribution. Any fair use will invite risk, and the difficult exercise is what level of risk should be tolerated, which feels one not confined to this project. Separate to what is right and appropriate on copyright, it is fair to say doing so will make verifiability of citations more difficult for many articles, and that should be a consideration for risk tolerance for the purposes of the material on the site to inform or educate. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 05:39, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

These are all good points so I'm glad we're bringing them into discussion. Perhaps we shouldn't be linking to either on terms of we can't really say everyone is reading here with the purpose of educational use (that being said, I think what this means is, we're not linking to them for people to make commercial profit from them.) I think VGHF has a bit more lee-way as they clearly know what they have where Archive.org has random users uploading material from everywhere along with some licenses from libraries.

I think linking to them for material they have purposely bought the rights to like Computer Entertainer should be fine as its been published by secondary sources that they indeed did get the rights have released into copyright free domain. This might be something we should ask people outside the project on this for more direct details on "is this legally okay" for us and our guidelines. As for @Whipmywillows: question, definitely the first one. The way VGHF works is that that second link is timed and will eventually expire (as yours has now). The first isn't a direct link to the source, but I feel that it gets the point across that if someone can figure out wikipedia, they can figure out how to view the content. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:27, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

My thoughts on this have changed since my post years ago. Both IA and VGHF are in a legal gray area with this content, and we shouldn't play along. It's fine until it isn't. Computer Entertainer is OK because of the license. Another one that is probably OK is Game Informer from VGHF only (). TarkusAB^talk/contrib 18:45, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

I'd say linking to VGHF and IA for old magazines is fine as long as it's material they're confirmed to have the proper permission to host; if I'm recalling correctly VGHF has permission for a few old publications. Anything that's not confirmed should be avoided (and of course RetroCDN should be considered completely unacceptable). JOEBRO⁶⁴ 10:53, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm a regular in the VGHF Discord server. If it would help at all, I'd be happy to link their library director Phil Salvador to this discussion to see if he can offer any insight about the VGHF's archival policies and their relation to some of these concerns. (He'd mentioned recently how pleased he was to see the library being used increasingly frequently for citation purposes.) -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 21:12, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Michael Stevens (YouTuber)#Requested move 25 April 2026

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Michael Stevens (YouTuber)#Requested move 25 April 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 10:09, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Is Speedrun.com a valid WP:SELFSOURCE?

A couple weeks ago, me, Dabmasterars, and 1timeuse75 put together an article on Super Mario Bros. speedrunning and since then I've been working diligantly to bring it up to GA, which I think it's fairly close to. There's a lot of pressure when doing that work to get the dates and completion times of specific speedruns correct, something that "reliable" sources tend to be pretty bad at (especially if they're from before about 2016). The place speedrunners go to get this information is speedrun.com, which I've seen referenced in few places here.

Speedrun.com is not a single organization that individually collects and verifies speedruns, it's a leaderboard aggregation site. Users create leaderboards for specific video games, users moderate and create the rules for those leaderboards, user submit speedruns to those leaderboards, and then users verify those speedruns. There is very little oversight by any larger organization. That's not to say you can't trust the times posted on there. Leaderboards for significant games are almost always moderated by trusted members of those communities, and my experience going through WP:RS on this topic tells me they generally do trust these leaderboards and see them as authoritative (largely because the speedrunners themselves do).

But isn't it all still WP:USERGENERATED though? Just about anyone can make a leaderboard for any game you can think of and anyone can submit a run. There are sophisticated moderation systems but the moderators are ultimately just users who sometimes come into that role fairly arbitrarily. It would certainly make my life a whole lot easier if I could just use the site as a WP:SELFSOURCE, but I'm not sure that's reasonable here. Whipmywillows (talk) 19:28, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Speedrun.com has become the primary aggregator for speedrun information, in lieu of any official organization like is common in the sports world. There used to be a centralizing organization, Twin Galaxies, but that turned out to be an extremely unreliable source. Speedrun.com is a hobbyist website maintained by hobbyist moderators that specialize in specific games. As such, it certainly wouldn't work as a reliable source of its own. The videos and posts themselves are certainly just WP:SELFSOURCE, which is fine. You can cite a date and an exact time with this. The aggregation itself... I am completely on the fence. I know it's impossible to get a full history of records with externally-published sources (I've tried this in the past). I think the thing that really breaks this either way, is that leaderboards in speedrunning evolve too fast for us to keep up anyway. I think making thorough use of the {as of} template is inevitable here, as it's a fool's errant to keep the numbers and titles updated. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 06:46, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

I think Super Mario Bros. is actually kinda the ideal here because records change hands fairly infrequently. It's also very well covered, I think for almost all video games tracking world record progression only through RS would be impossible but for SMB you kinda can, at least past about 2014. You can see that on the table in the article, there's sources for almost every run and it uses WP:PRIMARY as sparsely as it can. Though, I don't expect that would be true even for SM64, the next most obvious choice for a speedrunning article (and god help you if you wanted to write say Billy Hatcher speedrunning or something like that). As for the MOS:NOW concerns, I've been thinking about that a bit and large sections are probably gonna need a rewrite. I am kinda wary of having to be the person who's constantly keeping it updated, but I think ultimately things shouldn't ever change too fast for it to be a real problem. Whipmywillows (talk) 17:49, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

I tried this specifically for Super Mario Bros. once, and the holes in typical news sources was just unbearable. Even Super Mario Bros. doesn't move slow enough for the reliable sources to cover it like we'd want. Ideally we'd have a book covering the history here, like you would have a sports almanac. But then again, covering a list of records like our sports projects do is probably not really encyclopedic anyway. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 17:56, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Part of me does wish Gardikis would publish a memoir or something like that, there are a lot of holes between 2007 and 2014 that something like that would easily be able to clear up. I think I went in expecting all of the Kotaku articles and what not to get lots of facts wrong but that wasn't really my experience. The main thing that frustrated me was often just how little they had to say. Still enough to fill out an article mind you, there are quite a number of really detailed articles in there. But it is pretty annoying how often you'll find an article on a significant run and all the journalist has to say about it is "They got this time. Wow isn't that impressive. Here's what they said on stream when it happened." (or worse. check out this IGN monstrosity). I (somehow) have not looked at quite all the sources yet though, there's a few books that might have some more details I'm missing and I think Guinness Book of World Records 2006/2007 might have some info too. But I think the likelihood that someone in the near future is just going to publish a book of world record progressions is just about zero. Whipmywillows (talk) 18:30, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

No, looking it over, it looks to be the speedrunning website equivalent of Gamefaqs or VGChartz - widely viewed but not meeting the RS standards. Sergecross73 msg me 16:57, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

But it wouldn't be okay for simple "X runner got X time on X date" type statements? That's all I would really want it for anyway, and it would typically be used in conjunction with a reliable source. So I guess as an example, andrewg beat SMB in under 5 minutes circa January 2011, I can find plenty of RS that attest to that. But most of them get the date wrong because they just go with when the YouTube video was uploaded (January 27, 2011) as opposed to when the run was actually performed (December 24, 2010). Also no one was really that pressed about getting the milliseconds right so none of those sources get the exact time right either. I think in my ideal world you might use something like Speedrun.com to clear this stuff up so you don't have an endless stream of first time editors making their own decisions. Looking at it again, I think that usage should tick all the boxes in WP:SELFSOURCE and WP:ABOUTSELF. Whipmywillows (talk) 17:26, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

ABOUTSELF reads "The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim". Isn't the context here going to, generally speaking, going to extraordinary claims? I mean, like, we're not trying to confirm the date that "Johhny64 completed the 5,789th fastest of Super Mario 64 in 1999", right? It'd be used to confirm details about some sort of world record. That's extraordinary on its own, let alone using it to trump the details reported by a reliable source. Sergecross73 msg me 20:29, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Serge, I think you're replying in a general sense to a fairly narrow question. But most of them get the date wrong because they just go with when the YouTube video was uploaded (January 27, 2011) as opposed to when the run was actually performed (December 24, 2010). This is not an exceptional claim. The exceptional part is well reported in the example, the date the run was performed is non-self-serving and mundane information. ~ A412 ^talk! 20:48, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

I feel like the extraordinary claim is "Andrew Gardikis was the first person to beat the game is under 5 minutes". But that's a pretty well established fact. Here's the Boston Globe, Kill Screen, and NYMag and here the original Speed Demos Archive submission. Kill Screen says January 2011 but on careful reading you realize it's specifically taking about the YouTube page, Boston Globe says 2010, NYMag says 2011. Meanwhile SDA and SRC have both always used the date of December 24, 2010. That the run happened is an extraordinary claim, but the exact date isn't and outside of a few publications that got it wrong over 10 years ago, it's not very contentious. Whipmywillows (talk) 20:53, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

I get understand what you're both saying, I just mean, generally speaking, in my experience, the year that a record is broken is an important detail to world records. What I'm not understanding, is why we need to get speedingruning.com involved here. If its, hypothetically, not a violation of ABOUTSELF, why aren't we just citing the YouTube video itself? Or if we believe citing Youtube in these instances is a violation of WP:RSPYT, why would it be okay to use SR.com? Sergecross73 msg me 21:49, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Speedrun.com has a date field presumably filled in by the uploading user, which is not included in the Youtube video. I think in any specific case where the date is in question, this can be included as (further) evidence. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 06:25, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Depends on usage. Was a speedrunning accomplishment covered in reliable secondary sources such that information about it is WP:DUE? Then uncontroversial facts about the accomplishment (say, the times, description, and user information) from speedrun.com are textbook WP:ABOUTSELF. Is it being used for a basis for inclusion or as the main source for a claim? Then no, it's WP:PRIMARY and WP:USERG. ~ A412 ^talk! 17:14, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Agree. It is OK so long as the feat is covered in an RS as a pre-requisite. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 18:04, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

And if the details are in the RS, just use the RS and leave questionable sources out. -- ferret (talk) 19:54, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Requested merge at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mega Man 2: The Power Fighters

There is a merge proposal discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mega Man 2: The Power Fighters that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Cyberlink420 (talk) 23:07, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

"[Console]-only games" categories

I've noticed that while we have categories for games only released for a specific console, such as Category:Game Boy-only games or Category:Wii U-only games, they're being applied to articles somewhat inconsistently. For example, Rockman Battle & Fighters is currently categorized in Category:Neo Geo Pocket Color-only games, despite being re-released standalone for Nintendo Switch and as part of a Neo Geo Pocket Color Selection for Windows. Conversely, Category:PlayStation (console)-only games was removed from Rugrats: Search for Reptar due to its inclusion in Rugrats: Retro Rewind Collection for Switch and PlayStation 5. Given this discrepancy, I'd like to get an answer to the following questions that we can write into policy:

• Does a game being re-released through a compilation on another system mean it no longer belongs in a "[console]-only games" category?
• By a similar token, does being re-released through a service such as Virtual Console or Nintendo Classics also preclude it from inclusion in these categories?

Input from other editors on this would be much appreciated. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 18:49, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Emulation should not count for considering exclusivity. Eg games that were exclusive to one console butbreleased on Nintendo classics on Switch are not considered Switch games, and the original platforms exclusivity should apply.

Im not immediatelynsure how to handle remasters and collections. I feel if the remaster or collection has its oen page the the page on the original game should be classified as exclusive for that console, while uf that remaster oage diesnt ecust but discussed in depth, then the exvlusive cat doesnt apply, byt sonething seems off on that. Masem (t) 19:13, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

New Articles (April 27 to May 3)

 A listing of all articles newly added to the Video Games Wikiproject (regardless of creation date). Generated by v3.21 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 18:59, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

• Articles deleted/removed: Comparison of dance pad video games, Beyond Sandbox, List of VR games, Loan Shark (video game), New Xbox, Ooe (video game), Play65, Thalamus Ltd, Steve Malpass
• Drafts deleted/removed: Draft:Luminaries (Dragon Quest), Draft:Yangus, Draft:Daqinix, Draft:Kill streak swords v4, Draft:Slug Library, Draft:Knights of the Sky (2012 game), Draft:List of mobile games considered the best, Draft:Phoenix SC (YouTuber), Draft:Robloxlover69, Draft:Bean Juice Studios, Draft:Checker Knights, Draft:Darkenstein 3D, Draft:Manchord, Draft:Minecraft Wiki, Draft:The Spectre (Forsaken), Draft:Verdict! Educational Game, Draft:Aworg: Hero in the Sky, Draft:Data Design Interactive, Draft:Die of death, Draft:Flame (game engine), Draft:Hero (Dragon Quest VII), Draft:Joey Drew Studios, Draft:Robypolarbear, Draft:Sparkles Magical Market, Draft:Star Jacker, Draft:Stella Sora, Draft:The Bazaar (video game), Draft:Architect: Land of Exiles, Draft:IlluviumserieDraft, Draft:GamePlaza Video Game Museum in Zurich, Draft:Joseph Frasca
• Articles redirected: Akito Nakatsuka, Citizen X (video game), Minecraft: Pi Edition, Power Soccer (video game), Development of Mother 3, Irisviel von Einzbern, OMSI: 2 (video game), List of Buffy the Vampire Slayer video games, Verse (coding)
• Categories deleted/removed: Unassessed video game pages, Fate/stay night characters
• New categories: Video games designed by Will Wright — Jfpierce, Novels based on Mass Effect — (Oinkers42), Video game companies based in Gyeonggi Province — Gray eyes, Video game companies based in Seoul — Gray eyes, Works based on Mass Effect — (Oinkers42), Hotta Studio games — DarkWorld305, Works by Stephen Barton — DoubleCross
• New templates: {{Kuro Games}} — 匿名パルチザン (newly tagged - originally created 3 months ago), {{Microsoft Gaming}} — Th1rt3en (newly tagged - originally created 19 years ago)

PresN 18:59, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Ahh I think the Fist of the North Star: 10 Big Brawls for the King of the Universe title got lost in the shuffle, probably because I created the article, realized I missed a word in its long title, and had to move the article. It probably could have just been "Fist of the North Star (1989 video game)" or "Fist of the North Star (Game Boy video game)" but meh. Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:40, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a long-standing bug in my script that I've never gotten around to fixing- if you create a page and then move it on the same day, the 1.0 bot reports it as just a creation (at the new title), but because the bot messes up with normal page moves all the time, my script checks the article history for a move, sees it, and drops the article. One day I'll fix it to look deeper. Maybe today if these meetings are dull enough. --PresN 13:50, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

No pressure! Just didn't want anyone to miss it incase they scope out each of these for a second eye on it. 🙂 Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:18, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Well, it was boring enough that I worked out a fix! Not just your article had the issue- Steam Controller (2nd generation) was also skipped for being created and moved a few minutes later. --PresN 15:40, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Pathfinder Ryder#Requested move 21 April 2026

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Pathfinder Ryder#Requested move 21 April 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 04:58, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Wimbledon eChamps

So, last year I created the article on the Wimbledon eChamps, wich is an annual international tennis esports tournament. As I am not very familiar with esports coverage and sources, I used what I could find, but I know it is not the best it could be. So I thought it would be best to reach you here and ask if anyone is up to help me with that

Any assistance would be greatly appreciated Haddad Maia fan (talk) 23:17, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Category: Computer-related introductions in (year)

I've got an unresponsive IP adding this to articles, so I figured I'd come here to see if I could get input on how to proceed, because there's a few ways.

An IP keeps adding the category Computer-related introductions in (year) to video game console articles. So, for example, adding "Category:Computer-related introductions in 2004" to the Nintendo DS article.

I suppose there's 3 ways to look at this:

1. This is a valid category for a game console.
2. This is an invalid category for game consoles because it would fail WP:DEFINING - the DS was not a "computer related introduction".
3. This category itself is weirdly worded and potentially impossible to pass DEFINING for anything.

Personally, I'm at #2, but would not object to #3. I won't bother trying to figure out how to enforce #2 if #3 has consensus.

Thoughts? Sergecross73 msg me 16:39, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Looking at what's in the category, I'd honestly lean toward #3. This category seems to have everything from game consoles, to calculators, to Markdown, to PCI Express. So it's basically used as "technology created in [year]". I'd say it needs thoroughly redefined, or tossed 13akoors (talk) 17:01, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Prior to yesterday, game consoles hadn't been in there. But an IP (and now a new account) keep readding faster than I can remove it, which inspired me to stop and start the discussion. But yes, it does cast quite the wide net in things included, too wide for the current wording and DEFINING. Sergecross73 msg me 17:04, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I wonder if a temporary or partial block might be necessary for them to engage in communication with others and to stop obsessively adding these categories to more and more articles. Their edits are just creating more work for you, I, and other editors to clean up. As for the three ways to look at it, I'm inclined to agree with #2; I believe that video game consoles are not strictly defined as computers (save for maybe the PlayStation 3 and even that's a stretch). GSK (talk • edits) 17:12, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't mind cleaning it up, I just didn't want to get yelled for edit warring after it was clear they not interested in stopping or engaging in discussion on it. I won't object if anyone wants to take any action though, for sure. Sergecross73 msg me 17:42, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Eh, I would say the DS is a "computer-related introduction" by virtue of being a computer. But that points to the real problem with this cat-tree, which is that "computer-related" is impossibly vague and there can be disagreement on if things are computer-related, so the problem is WP:SUBJECTIVECAT. ~ A412 ^talk! 17:11, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

The category name is weird but it aligns with "products introduced in YYYY" categories. And i'd agree that game consoles do fall into computer products. Maybe the category should be "computing products introduced in YYYY", since at some point you can't just call something a microchip as a computer. Masem (t) 17:21, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, part of my opposition was the use of the word "computer" and not just "computing", but either way, if we're going that fast and loose with definitions, would just about every electronic device in existence start getting this category? Every phone, tablet, smart device, calculator, etc etc?

To me, it feels like the scope of the category should be things like computers, laptop, gaming graphics cards, things of that nature. The categories themselves that I have spotchecked have been around for a long time, it's really just recent spurt of (mis)application of the last 24 hours that seems problematic. Sergecross73 msg me 17:40, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

What about a "Video game hardware introduced in YEAR" category. Then that could be a subcat of this category, then everyone's happy! (If whatever train this person is on can be satisiated by category structure). Maybe with a better name though, "Computer related introductions" is so vague and awkward. Whipmywillows (talk) 17:52, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

we certainly can do that but I feel these would be sparsely populated (4 to 5 a year), and may be overkill. Masem (t) 17:56, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to such a category, but changing it to this would kind of turn everything on its head - kicking out majority of the entries in the category in favor of things that someone added in the last 24 hours. I think it should be a separate category should it exist. Sergecross73 msg me 18:57, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Maybe something like "computer hardware in [year]"? Definitely worded a bit too weird as-of now. I could see CPUs, etc, being in subcategories of that, but there probably aren't enough consoles introduced per year to justify a consoles-introduced-in category. ScalarFactor (talk) 17:51, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Looks like there's not necessarily consensus on what to do, but there seems to be some agreement that some sort of change is needed. I'll probably try sending it to WP:CFD and see what happens. (I'll have to figure out how to bundle them and how many yearly iterations there are to bundle too.) Sergecross73 msg me 14:38, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm very surprised we don't have a category along the lines of Category:Computers introduced in 2004. The DS being directly categorized under Category:Products introduced in 2004 is ridiculous to the point of pointlessness. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:24, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

"Computing products" over "Computers" makes more sense if one is cataloging by year, since that would also include things like phones, tablets, graphics cards, etc. and of course video games consoles. Anything but "computer-related" because that is far too broad. Masem (t) 12:20, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

"Even computing feels overly broad to me... Sergecross73 msg me 13:31, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Help with The King of Fighters: Battle de Paradise

There is the obscure video game called The King of Fighters: Battle de Paradise which was released in Western regions as part of NEOGEO Pocket Color Selection Vol. 2 in 2022 but I can't find specific articles that focus on how it was received by reviewers. Could somebody help me finding some? Cheers. Tintor2 (talk) 18:25, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

If you're looking for reviews from 2000, then it might be worth looking through Gaming Alexandria's magazines from that time frame, they might have something. You're probably gonna need to know a little Japanese though. The Programmable Search Engine is giving me some stuff but those are pretty short and contemporary. Might be enough to fill out a short reception section though. Whipmywillows (talk) 19:17, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. Added but I don't really undesrstand how to research those Japanese magazines. Tintor2 (talk) 20:48, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

I think I only found one in there anyway, gM [ジーエム] Vol. 7 (August 2000) on page 115. It's pretty dense Japanese too unfortunately. Here's the text:

＊あの「KOF」キャラがスゴロクでバトル！
＊DC版「KOF'99」とのリンクで楽しさ倍増
＊白熱必至の通信対戦モードを搭載！
とにかく、趣向を凝らしたバトルゲームが熱い！その種類も、「KOF」キャラの必殺技をアレンジしたものから、ダイコンを引き抜く……なんておちゃめなものまで多種多様。手に汗握る戦いはスゴロクになっても変わらないのだ。

My rough translation would be:

• "The King of Fighters characters are in a sugoroku battle!"
• "Link up with King of Fighters '99 for double the fun."
• "The linked versus mode will inevitably be loaded with white hot tension."

"This game about concocting elaborate schemes is intense! There's lots of variety too, KOF characters use versions of their special moves to pull daikon...there's a great variety more of these playful kinds of things. Even as sugoroku, the palm sweating intensity of battle is undiminished."

You can also try and translate it through other means, I wouldn't neccesarily trust my translation over anyone elses. But long story short they thought it was really intense and they liked the variety. Whipmywillows (talk) 22:08, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. I often use Japanese scans but finding the game can be hard so maybe at least leaving scans on the talkpage would make it easier for me to handle rather than have you guys do all the hardwork. Tintor2 (talk) 22:34, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Asari (Mass Effect)#Requested move 1 April 2026

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Asari (Mass Effect)#Requested move 1 April 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 00:02, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Prototype Arcade in MAT

on Midway Arcade Treasures theres an Arcade Game Called "Splat!" That when redirect it takes you to the Splat! (video game) from 1983, I have the MAT game and thats not the Splat its talking about

Its talking about a Prototype game with the same name

This one

https://www.arcade-museum.com/Videogame/splat

Which has the same name as the game but they're not the same GyroidGalaxian (talk) 23:04, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm sorry what is the issue? That one game has an article and the other doesn't? What's stopping you from writing an article for the arcade game? GamerPro64 00:49, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes this is quite common. Especially between American and British studios in the early 80s (no one realized or cared they were sharing names). It probably doesn't have an article because coverage is much worse. I just ran through my typical resources and found nothing. If you wanted to write a Splat! (1982 video game) article, I think people would be appreciative. You'd probably have to dig through coin-op trades though. Whipmywillows (talk) 01:17, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Sources for Space Invaders

Requesting input at Talk:Space Invaders#Removal of two low-quality sources. A consensus was reached on some parts, but Indrian and I have gone back and forth on the remaining points. He has provided more information that I requested (which I have not gone through yet), but the exchange was starting to get heated beforehand and outside perspectives would be appreciated to help reach a consensus. Thanks in advance. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:34, 12 May 2026 (UTC))

Resource request: Tamagotchi instruction manuals

I am looking to find any digitized / scanned copies of the instruction manuals for games in the Tamagotchi Connection: Corner Shop series. I'm currently working on a draft for this series, so I think having access to these manuals would be really helpful. Thank you. IngeniousPachyderm (talk) 02:01, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Technology section of video game articles

I am simply curious about just how in-depth should a technology section for a video game article be. For instance, the section in Indiana Jones and the Great Circle goes very deeply into very technical stuff, like mentioning the exact number of hair strands, and spending lots of time discussing platform parity. I know Digital Foundry runs a lot of articles on the technical states of video games (like mentioning how many p/fps/GB they can reach), but at the same time I also felt that they are a bit WP:GAMECRUFT-y, being only tangential to the actual development and being quite hard for general readers to follow. OceanHok (talk) 14:58, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

I think it could be reworked a little, to make sure we're speaking in "laymans terms" for the general audiences Wikipedia strives to write for, but overall, I think its good information to include when we actually have reliable sources verifing and covering it. (I often have to remove it more on the grounds of it being WP:OR or pulled from forums/social media type "sources".) Sergecross73 msg me 15:03, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

I agree that it's nice to have good information from an editor who clearly appears knowledgeable, especially if it's from reliable sources (and not, say Wccftech), but it should definitely be trimmed and rephrased for the layperson. I fully support your initiative to start a talk discussion to discuss the section in more detail; now it's just up to other editor/s to engage productively. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 21:30, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

If there is a lot of information, a rule-of-thumb you can sometimes use to ascertain what is most relevant, is to look at the human angle. Ideally, we would at least cover what decisions humans made and why, or what opinions humans hold of it. If you can say "the developer made this technological choice because...", that's useful. If you can say "reception was negative on this technological choice," that is also useful. That being said, I like seeing a lot of detail, and if it's sourced to secondary sources then humans obviously care about the information, so I like keeping stuff like that in. It may just need to be contextualized. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 06:55, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Like others say, the main issue is probably one of accessibility, but also due weight. If the only sources for nitty-gritty details like that are developer docs or GDC presentations, it probably should be glossed further, and while Digital Foundry can be a great secondary source they're also discussing things at a level probably not appropriate for a general audience reference work. Frankly I think the GA review should have caught that the tech section is nearly incomprehensible if you aren't a hardcore gaming fan, and still hard to read even if you are ( Indiana Jones and the Great Circle makes use of Shader Execution Reordering and Opacity Micro Maps... what are Shader Execution Reordering and Opacity Micro Maps? Why should I care?) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 08:35, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

This section was created after the GA review was passed. I agree that it is undue as well. I think it is fine to have 2-3 paragraphs discussing the technical state of broken games like Cyberpunk 2077 or Battlefield 4 at launch, but two whole paragraphs here is way too much. Given Digital Foundry is a tech review (an observation of the game's technical state), they don't actually discuss the game's development. Right now, I think this information don't really fit anywhere in our typical article framework (gameplay/plot/development/reception). OceanHok (talk) 11:38, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

@Blackstardust16: is the editor involved in creating this section. Please have a look at the general recommendations here. Please stop wholesale reverting other editors who are trying to improve on what you have written. You are showing a very strong WP:OWN tendency. OceanHok (talk) 16:00, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

You can't ignore technology because video games as a medium is where technology and art meet. Whether it is the first games with 3D computer graphics, Doom 3's advances in shadow rendering, or the technical demands of Crysis, it is notable for how video games have evolved as a medium and what new technology they introduced. Just because personally don't understand or care about it doesn't mean it isn't notable. Articles on things like physics, biology and medicine are significantly more complex in their writing because it is unavoidable as the subject itself is complex. Please don't insult the intelligence of readers by dumbing down information to a childlike level. Blackstardust16 (talk) 19:12, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

No one here is debating deleting the section, simply making it more accessable. I agree that it is too technical. For example, "The path tracing implementation does not use ReSTIR Direct Lighting so some lighting is still using a rasterisation-based pipeline. Path tracing fully replaces static cube maps used on glass reflections." I have a fairly high degree of technical knowledge, I took a computer graphics course in university and have messed around quite a bit with this stuff in the past. I can barely read this. I don't know what "ReSTIR Direct Lighting", "rasterisation-based pipelines", or "static cube maps" are and I'm not sure what effect they would have on the technical performance of the game. We are supposed to be writing for a general WP:AUDIENCE. The idea is, if someone's grandma hit "Random article" and ended up on this article would they understand what was going on.

In this case too, we're going into incredible technical detail over what the game isn't. Is it worth breaking out the technical jargon to let a general audience know that the game doesn't contain static cube maps. There is a middle ground here. A lot of this content can be kept but you have to be able to meet people halfway. This is Wikipedia, collaboration is the whole point. Whipmywillows (talk) 19:34, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

There's this thing called links that you can click on. They take you to other pages like ReSTIR so you can read more about it for yourself if you don't know about it. I trust you can figure it out. Blackstardust16 (talk) 20:13, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

But why do I need to know more when the game doesn't even use it in the first place? And why is that a vital piece of the article that needs to protected under wholesale revision at all costs. Wikipedia is free for anyone to edit, that's one of the five pillars, "any contributions can and may be mercilessly edited and redistributed". You do not WP:OWN that section of the article and you need to be willing to come to a comprimise with other editors who have a different opinion than you do. Whipmywillows (talk) 20:31, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

You are not wrong. Technology is important for video games, so no one is arguing for its removal. It is great to have a detailed technology section for video games. It is a big pity that no one can actually understand the content or why it is important to this particular game. Always discuss the game for what it is, not what it isn't. I know you will not agree with this, but dumbing down information to a childlike level, is the best way of writing an article for a general encyclopedia where we expect readers to come in with zero knowledge about anything. OceanHok (talk) 05:33, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

FWIW, Blackstardust16 (talk · contribs) has been blocked for 24 hours for edit warring and personal attacks. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 20:39, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Electro-mechanical games

I was looking at Electro-mechanical games and it seems that this subject is underdeveloped on Wikipedia. A lot of these games don't have their own articles; Electro-mechanical game#Racing games makes it look like Indy 500 (1968) is a major omission if anyone wanted to work on that. I also wonder if it's possible to create a List of electro-mechanical games or if it's too broad of a subject. I don't know enough about early video game history to say where the line is drawn, and the article isn't totally clear on the scope—it jumps between branded games by companies like Sega and generic games like air hockey, and it cuts off entirely after 1991. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:23, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

We'll need to have most of those sourced to non-first party sources, which may be difficult without digging into print and old newspaper/magazine archives. That's going to be a barrier. Masem (t) 03:55, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't think "electro-mechanical" is the part that's not specific enough. I think it's "games". There's definitely a gradient between jukeboxes, fortune telling machines, claw games, air hockey, and pinball. I'd suggest List of coin-operated machines as an alternative but that would be way too broad. Museum of the Game (Killer List of Videogames) is always a good place to start with this stuff and our list seems to say it's reliable, definetly not enough to write an article on it's own though. Whipmywillows (talk) 05:59, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Early electro-mechanical games are a major gap in our coverage, yes- frankly, all early video games used to be before I rewrote/GA'd every pre-1972 'video game' article we have. But I never got deep on electro-mechanical games, and no one else has seemed to step up in that space - even what we do have is suspect, as a lot of the article itself was written by a sock of Jagged 85, now long blocked for making a lot of stuff up.

I do think a "List of electro-mechanical games" is possible but definitions are hard, yeah. It would be hard to tell what's electro-mechanical and what's electronic from the existing sources (the difference is the use of electronic components e.g. transistors vs. just lights and relays), and you'd want to exclude stuff from List of pinball machines, but that's fairly arbitrary. If you found a good book or source, though, could be doable. --PresN 11:46, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Reviews for Cabela's Big Game Hunter III

Does anyone see any reviews for Cabela's Big Game Hunter III? I feel like i have searched everywhere. Timur9008 (talk) 15:23, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

That's a no. It seems like it's just time to merge it to Cabela's Big Game Hunter. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:25, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

New Articles (May 4 to May 10)

 A listing of all articles newly added to the Video Games Wikiproject (regardless of creation date). Generated by v3.22 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 03:32, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

• Articles deleted/removed: ManagerZone, Power Soccer (2005 video game), Indie game development in Thailand, Wonderland (video game series), Clues By Sam, Simon Carless, Moon Child (video game)
• Drafts deleted/removed: Draft:Lands Away Wiki, Draft:Polaris (2025 video game), Draft:TJumper4, Draft:TriSoft, Draft:TriSoft Legacy, Draft:Jazz Gaming, Draft:Mo.Co, Draft:Parkan: Iron Strategy, Draft:Tiramisu (Homebrew), Draft:Welcome to Doll Town, Draft:Dummynation, Draft:Ice Scream (series), Draft:Independent Counter-Strike Tournaments, Draft:NipsApp Game Studios, Draft:Over the Hill, Draft:Parker Philbrick, Draft:Amanda the Adventurer 3, Draft:Grand Taking Ages, Draft:Tamas Illes, Draft:Trinor Entertainment, Draft:Anime Simulator, Draft:Ichibu Zaibatsu, Draft:Triband (company), Draft:Angry Birds POP Blast, Draft:Bloxd.io 2, Draft:Forsaken (2024 game), Draft:Give Up the Ghost (video game), Draft:Guts and blackpowder, Draft:NovaExplorer, Draft:Zooba: Zoo Battle Royale, Draft:Karen (Pokémon), Draft:Michael Kelbaugh, Draft:Terror Realm, Draft:Tim Pryor
• Articles redirected: Ditherpunk, Kerestell Smith, Asteroids (1998 video game), Final Fantasy VII Remake Part 3, Summer Radish Vacation!!, SMU Guildhall, Ariel Manzur, Juan Linietsky
• Templates deleted/removed: {{Kuro Games}}
• New categories:Cyberpunk 2077 — Kung Fu Man, Songs from James Bond video games — CANthony0125, Technology demonstration video games — Teterev53, Unity games — NoonIcarus, World Baseball Classic video games — KKhuc92, Defunct video game companies based in Greater Los Angeles — Cat's Tuxedo, Defunct video game companies based in San Diego — Cat's Tuxedo, Defunct video game companies based in the San Francisco Bay Area — Cat's Tuxedo, Among Us — Awesomeperson69, Video game spiritual successors — NoonIcarus, Fortnite competitions — Pbrks (newly tagged - originally created 2 years ago)
• New templates: {{Handheld electronic games}} — TPI81AF, {{Undertale}} — Woodensuperman (newly tagged - originally created 7 years ago)

Whoops, forgot to post on Monday. As mentioned last week, script updated to fix a longstanding bug where pages being created and then moved on the same day were being skipped as just a move. Let me know if it's still missing anything. --PresN 03:32, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

I can't believe Category:Songs from James Bond video games is a reasonable category. Whipmywillows (talk) 05:19, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Use of the new Xbox glass logo

Hi all. I and another editor have been discussing at Talk:Xbox whether to replace the free use Xbox logo with the (likely) non-free glass logo that was introduced last month. I originally thought this would be okay provided the new logo had the correct non-free use rationale applied, but now I'm not so sure. I don't think the glass logo would fall below the threshold of originality given the effects applied to it, and it doesn't make sense to me to replace a free logo with a non-free version.

I'm not really sure how to proceed here, so I thought I'd seek out help from the relevant project and go from there. Thank you all in advance. GSK 14:51, 16 May 2026 (UTC)