Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject iconVideo games Project‑class
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
ProjectThis page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Metacritic reception summaries attributed to GameRankings[edit]

I have noticed that there are numerous articles for older games where their reception section says it "received mixed/favorable reviews, according to the review aggregation website Gamerankings". All the examples I've looked at show this consensus summary citing GameRankings were added by the user Angeldeb82 as part of good-faith attempts to expand and update the reception of older games. This specific phrasing is standard for articles when noting Metacritic's consensus, but then Metacritic explicitly gives this, while GameRankings does not, so no summary should be attributed to this site. Incidentally, I also found that the original URL to GameRankings' page in the citation instead links to (an unrelated page) on Metacritic and I've no idea why. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 13:39, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's because the GameRankings links have been dead and redirected since the end of 2019. Angeldeb82 (talk) 17:15, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That doesn't explain why you attributed a quote to Gamerankings that they never provided... -- ferret (talk) 17:24, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If GameRankings is going to be sourced, the most we can do is simply say what score it has and leave it there. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 20:47, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yep, we can't say that Game Rankings, if it had "received mixed/favorable reviews" assessments, would do so in the same way Metacritic does now. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 21:35, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It will take a while but I'll look to go through the articles with this phrasing and change them so it just mentions the score. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 14:29, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Adding numerical scores in prose seems meaningless and questionable. @Wikibenboy94 Perhaps use the number of reviews as that at least reveals popularity and is not somewhat redundant to Metacritic. IgelRM (talk) 05:32, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Among other things, I've become interested recently in the work of 38 Studios. I've already created and brought to GA an article on Project Copernicus, and I've recently done some further work on Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning which is currently in GAN. The history of 38 Studios is...a lot, as I'm finding out. I'm wondering how far my scope should stretch when it comes to the post-bankruptcy legal stuff that went on (two legal cases at least, one being federal and only resolved in 2019). I don't want the article to become bloated, but I feel it should be noted at least. I've done articles on video game developers before, but 38 Studios is a whole other kettle of fish. Opinions would be much valued. (Minor edit: I'm pulling together stuff for a 38 Studios article rewrite in my sandbox if anyone's interested in looking at what I've found.) ProtoDrake (talk) 20:15, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Honestly, my instinct would be to be maximalist and only pare back if reviewers object. I think all of the fallout from 38 Studios is fascinating as well and would like to read it. Axem Titanium (talk) 06:33, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This, 100%. IceWelder [] 07:05, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@IceWelder and Axem Titanium: Right, I've completed the major edit. Other eyes more than welcome to check over and trim/expand where appropriate. Looking through the legal and financial shenanigans was...a time. --ProtoDrake (talk) 23:33, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Great work! I didn't find it bloated and I liked the Reactions section. Nice little article here, telling a relatively complete story about a corner of the game industry. It's certainly a lot better told than what the article looked like before! Quick thing I noticed, the sentence starting with "Initially scheduled for a 2011 release" doesn't have a main verb, it's just two dependent clauses. There's also "close to approving $30 in funding", which seems low 😂. Axem Titanium (talk) 22:36, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Axem Titanium: Thanks for catching those (I wouldn't put it past 38 at that stage to be cadgeing small change). Getting all the legal stuff and settlements straight was a nightmare, so I had to summarise in places. --ProtoDrake (talk) 22:57, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unclear notability at WP:VG/R[edit]

Specifically, I was browsing through the list, and I am unsure whether the game developer Jes Negrón passes WP:NBIO or would fall under WP:1EVENT. Sources also mention the game she created, Good Bones, but it doesn't seem to be notable in itself, and they largely mention it under the context of her being the plaintiff in the Riot games lawsuit. It seems to me this may be a case where the lawsuit should have an article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ () 17:08, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The section at Riot_Games#Allegations_over_gender_discrimination_and_sexual_harassment seems to be fairly long already. She should certainly be mentioned there but perhaps it might need to be spun out as well? I'm not strongly advocating for a split at this time. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:21, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New Articles (January 29 to February 4)[edit]

 A listing of all articles newly added to the Video Games Wikiproject (regardless of creation date). Generated by v3.17 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 23:09, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

January 29

January 30

January 31

February 1

February 2

February 3

February 4

Cukie Gherkin's been making a killing on character articles lately. Good lord!--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:18, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note- the above made more sense when I still had February 5 added on (I'm 1 day late, so I had the data), where Cukie Gherkin had 5 character articles in 1 day. A preview of next week's post! --PresN 23:22, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you told me to even name 5 video game characters on the spot, I'd probably say Mario and Walter White and then be out of ideas. Panini! 🥪 23:47, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just found this, here we go:
  1. Link
  2. Yoshi
  3. Princess Peach
  4. Isabelle
  5. Kirby
QuicoleJR (talk) 01:47, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
None of those are video game characters, doofus. Panini! 🥪 02:23, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, you're right. Sorry about that. QuicoleJR (talk) 02:30, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What about Princess Beach? Axem Titanium (talk) 22:45, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Still working on Go Vacation. Any sources I'm missing?[edit]

Hello! I've been editing this article for a very long time now, and haven't been able to find any additional sources to get it to Featured Article status. Does anyone have any ideas for where I could look? TheAwesomeHwyh 00:45, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And by "a long time", I mean I've been working on this article for six years. Woah. TheAwesomeHwyh 00:50, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Could give this a spin. [1] - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 00:52, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not sure to what extent you've searched for sources but regardless, check out WP:VG/SE if you haven't already! Panini! 🥪 01:01, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Draft page that I am working on[edit]

I am currently working on Draft:Tom Clancy's The Division (series) But I am struggling to find sources could someone help me find some? Someone0317 (talk) 06:57, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm sure the articles for each game would have useful refs. -- ZooBlazer 07:07, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
With only two games released so far, it seems WP:TOOSOON for a series article. Maybe when the third game releases and the other spinoffs do as well, there will be an argument for a series page. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ () 14:56, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yup, exactly this. Series articles with only 2 game entries are generally deleted, because all of the information can generally just squarely be placed in the article for the first or second game. I'd put that project on hold until games three and four are out. That could help the whole sourcing problem too. Sergecross73 msg me 15:19, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are exceptions, of course; for example, if you could find a lot of other non-video game works for The Division. Looking at a Reddit post, there are roughly half a dozen books. So, if there was enough coverage of them, that might help. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 22:50, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
They are working on a spin-off and a third game Someone0317 (talk) 23:03, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fortnite revenue[edit]

Hi all. Fortnite's revenue was mentioned here [2]. I'm not sure whether it can be added to the main Fortnite article though or should we wait for a better source. Timur9008 (talk) 05:49, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WPVG, PIQA, and A-class articles[edit]

Last year, consensus was reached to establish a project-independent quality assessment scale (WP:PIQA), which has recently begun wide implementation. Within the hundreds of bot edits in your watchlists, you may have noticed that the |class= parameter is removed from most WikiProject banners, but not {{WikiProject Video games}}. This is because, in February 2015 (9 years ago), A-class articles were locally deprecated in our project and our quality scale is considered custom. In the 2015 dicussion, it appears that the principal concern was a lack of A-class reviewers, although opinions differed on whether this justified the removal of the class. With PIQA now being enforced, would it be wise for us to restore A-class assessments and re-establish uniformity with other projects in this regard? (Pinging previous contributors: @GamerPro64, PresN, JimmyBlackwing, Tezero, Czar, Masem, Dank, and JDC808). IceWelder [] 10:09, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What does it look like when an article has received an A-class assessment for one project, but the video game project template on the same talkpage doesn't feature that same letter? Is it typically B-class or such? I think in those rare cases, it would be fine to just join it all together into one single A-class. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 10:17, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Video game articles tagged as A-class are rendered and categorized like unassessed articles with no automatic replacement. It would require manual intervention to set to B-class. IceWelder [] 10:53, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm asking what our typical standard is/was when, for example, Milhist assessed an article to A-class, and we followed the same article with our template as well. I understand that we didn't support A-class technically, so what did we usually do in that scenario? I don't know of any examples of this occurring. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 11:03, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Typically, if one project set it to A-class, it had passed GA, so we set it to GA-class. If it had not passed GA, we would set it to B-class. --PresN 12:41, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Here I thought A-class was a level below GA... If we were to merge with all other projects, one class would have to overwrite the other. Could some of our GAs suddenly be turned into A-class? Or would some A-class articles be turned into GAs? ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 12:51, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A-class is the step between GA and FA (at least in theory). I don't think creating A-Level checks is the way forward. It's only really used on a handful of projects (such as WP:MILHIST). Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 13:27, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So there probably won't even be a conflict if we do go along with this? And if there ever is, it'll be fine if our GAs get relabeled as A-class? ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 13:29, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, we wouldn't relabel our GAs to be A class. Things that are A class might be relabelled as GA class if no one wanted to retain that system, or if WP:VG wanted to use A-class, then we could create the grading process that is required. Personally, I think dedicating a review system for A-class is a bit of a waste of time. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 14:01, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Enabling A-class wouldn't mean that we need to establish a separate review process; the "basic" one (per WP:A?) should suffice and is only required if someone actually opens such a review request instead of GA or FA. Simply allowing A-class articles to exist is seemingly the mainstream option. IceWelder [] 14:40, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why are we adding back bureaucracy just because the new PIQA process supports A Class? No one at this project has had interest in an A-class process for a decade+. -- ferret (talk) 15:06, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think it's because fundamentally, an A-class with no review process, sandwiched between a GA-class with a review process and an FA-class with a review process, is kind of pointless. It doesn't really hurt anything, I guess, to have it, but it doesn't add anything either. Especially since it turns out that the PIQA changes to the bannershell template still work for us (e.g. even though the bots have been leaving our assessments in place, if they're removed we just use the bannershell ones like everyone else with the exception of A-class). So... why add A-class unless you're going to do something with it? But I agree with you- we're not going to do anything with it, so what's the point. --PresN 15:49, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's the thing. We can't just add it back, unless we're going to do it. It requires the review process. That might just be a talk page discussion but it *must* happen. -- ferret (talk) 15:53, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I can only think of one video game with the A status And Yet it Moves, but it doesn't look to be an official one. But looking into the process I think it's actually pretty fascinating and has some potential. It looks to be like a peer review process, but for individual Wikiprojects.
Peer reviews barely get any traction. So, imagine a world where a new video game editor submits their article for A-class review ahead of a GA review. A bunch of us WPVG users can drop in and point out any obvious issues or some minor drive-by comments. It can really cut out the middle man that is PR, and help get more eyes on an article ahead of formal reviews so they don't have to go hunting for help and forcing people's hands.
But, that's hypothetical. There's seems to be no interest in bringing this back, and this will likely not happen if nobody is interested in the first place. Before thinking about this, neither was I. Panini! 🥪 17:02, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A-class is meant to be pre-FA, not pre-GA. We have GAs and PRs that sit as is, let alone a new level between them and FA. -- ferret (talk) 17:04, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
While I do feel there's a gulf between GA and FA in terms of what wikipedia is looking for, Ferret's right in that adding another review process when we're already struggling to get reviews done is a significant factor. For it to work best too you'd really need external views from outside the vg project to ensure the article is clear to people unfamiliar with these subjects, and I don't see that readily happening.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:11, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm in agreement. I think our limited time and effort is better spent on the semi-periodic GA/FA/PR review swap threads that pop up here than in implementing another hurdle to FA level of assessment. As my wiki time has decreased, I wouldn't mind spending more time doing reviews of others' work. Could we perhaps make said review swap threads a more regular occurrence? In the past, it feels like it only happens when one editor gets fed up with waiting for a GAN/FAC review. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:29, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I like the sound of that Axem Titanium. Many users here have made review threads in the past (I see GamerPro64, ProtoDrake, PresN from the first page of archives), so perhaps we could automate these threads in a way with a built-in "begging" subheader? (It certainly shouldn't be weekly because that would be outrageous). Panini! 🥪 19:18, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@IceWelder I used to like the idea of the A-class, and I actually had a couple of articles reviewed and passed as A's when the project previously supported it, but I am indifferent to whether or not we want to reinstate it. It's a nice extra check in the box for an article, but at the same time, is it worth going through all the hassle of having it reinstated as well as going through the process of actually reviewing articles for A? Granted, it would help to cut down the FAC review process as it can help to resolve issues that would likely come up in an FAC review, so there is that benefit to it. JDC808 04:05, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Is it feasible to "enable" A-Class and just... not use it on the project? Just to bring us into conformity with PIQA without actually changing our practice. Ben · Salvidrim!  02:28, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    This seems like the simplest solution to me. IceWelder [] 15:26, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Same czar 03:06, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't know the etiquette about nominating a subject for FT that I didn't work on, but it seems like the Metroid Prime Trilogy would qualify, being a GA itself, and the three games included being FAs? - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 23:27, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The larger series was a good topic until it was demoted in 2016 due to the non-GA Federation Force; when that article and Metroid Dread are brought up to GA, it'll be eligible again. Rhain (he/him) 23:54, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not talking about Metroid as a whole though, I'm talking about a Metroid Prime Trilogy Featured Topic. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 01:28, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I know, but my point was that a trilogy FT seems pointless when the larger series is already so close to GT. Rhain (he/him) 02:25, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, sure, but an FT is a bigger accomplishment than a GT. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 02:30, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd argue a GT with three FAs, an FL, and twelve GAs would be a bigger accomplishment than an FT with three FAs and one GA—but they're both impressive regardless. Rhain (he/him) 02:16, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi! In case this is of interest to anyone here: Draft:Mike Booth is currently under review in the AfC queue. Booth is the creator of Left 4 Dead and founder of Turtle Rock Studios. I have a COI here – Bad Robot Games, Booth's current employer, is a client of mine. Happy to answer any questions, and appreciate any time and feedback. Thank you! Mary Gaulke (talk) 04:07, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good articles on early access games[edit]

As of recently, I've been looking into the prospect of a Palworld GA, since well, it's one of the most popular games right now and an extremely interesting subject all things considered. It also undoubtedly has enough high-quality sourcing. However, I am hesitant on if I should be patient before working on it, or if I should go ahead and begin the cleanup process even if GAN doesn't come for a while. Have any GAs on games still in early-access ever been made? Or is it generally a good idea to wait? λ NegativeMP1 18:15, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It would be tough but not impossible to satisfy the stability criterion of WP:GA? because of ongoing controversies. That's not to dissuade you from getting it "GA-ready" or maintaining clean-up. It's easier to expand in response to new happenings (e.g. full release, lawsuit, etc.) if the base article is already in good shape. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:23, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I really don't think we can consider an early access game to be sufficient complete for a GA. A B-class and getting all the copyedits for a GA once the game is fully out and a proper reception section can be made, sure. Masem (t) 18:31, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The stability bit completely slipped my mind. Knowing that, it's probably best to wait, though I'll probably still be cleaning it up. Thank you both for the responses! λ NegativeMP1 18:44, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The "stable" criteria of GA comes to mind. I know people think of instability as coming from edit warring. But instability may be that reliable sources are still reacting to the content in real time, and not a failure of any of our editors. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:50, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There could be arguments made for a game that has been in early access for years, enough to have garnered sufficient and quality reception from RSes, to say that even if the game left early access, it likely will not significantly change the article. But key is "years", not something like Palworld which only had just come out. I'm thinking more like, Star Citizen, which still lacks a true release window yet now been out to test for over a decade. Masem (t) 02:11, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello to y'all! I hope everybody is doing well. Last month, i compiled a wealth of sources regarding the unreleased Konix Multisystem console at the article's talk page under the sources section. I think it will be of great use to anybody interested working on that particular subject. Take care everybody :D Roberth Martinez (talk) 00:44, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Spreadsheet of British SNES game reviews[edit]

Hello to y'all once again and sorry if i'm bothering once again XD I don't know how many of you hang out at the AtariAge forums but i came across with this speadsheet of British SNES game reviews (1) by user S_R_G (2), which i think it will be a godsend for everybody here. I decided to post it here for anybody interested. Have a nice day :) Roberth Martinez (talk) 20:27, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New Articles (February 5 to February 11)[edit]

 A listing of all articles newly added to the Video Games Wikiproject (regardless of creation date). Generated by v3.17 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 21:11, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

February 5

February 6

February 7

February 8

February 9

February 10

February 11

I was just going to call out Cukie Gherkin's 9 new B-class character articles in a single week (wow!), but now I'm also going to go the other direction and call out "Our princess is in another castle!" because... really? --PresN 21:11, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That really doesn't seem to be a necessary article. I'm all for writing articles on random stuff that people normally wouldn't expect an article for, but this seems to really be pushing that. Definitely not as well covered of a quote as something like It's dangerous to go alone! or All your base are belong to us. λ NegativeMP1 21:58, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd think "princess in another castle" is at least as well known as "all your base", if not moreso. It was a line of dialog in the Mario movie, indicating they expect a decent chunk of people to be in on the joke. Normally I'd not think a gaming quote was article worthy either, but if there's one quote that merits an article, I think it would likely be this one. I literally can't think of a more iconic quote known by more non-gamers. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ () 00:52, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Iconic doesn't equal notable. We want to see significant coverage, and what I'm seeing are equivalent to one short brief article, a brief mention in a locationalization article, and then one-off calls to other works (keep in mind that we do want to discourage popular culture sections without good sourcing) "It's Dangerous...." has the same problem. On the other hand "All your base" describes how it became a meme, as well as the fact it had appeared outside video game media, but just barely passes this bar. Those other phrases can easily be described in the games they originated from with just a few paragraphs — Masem (t) 01:18, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@PresN: Hey, sorry to bother you. I must of made of a mistake when creating the draft for it (probably because I haven't made one in years), but it seems that the Geno article I created wasn't caught by the bot. My bad, CaptainGalaxy 23:38, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good work, by the way. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 00:02, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you very much, I spent a lot of time checking both the English and Japanese Google News sections searching for articles. I'm proud with what I created here, although I am surprised I actually managed to make it. CaptainGalaxy 00:10, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, for some reason the 1.0 bot listed it as first "draft created" and then "draft changed to redirect", and since my script doesn't check new drafts it never double checked if that redirect went to a valid article. This one's a new bug, but it's the latest in a series of issues that means I need to rewrite the whole script to not trust anything the 1.0 bot says happened but instead use it as a list of articles to directly investigate the history of. That rewrite has been pending for a year, so don't hold your breath, y'all. In any case, added your article to the list above. --PresN 03:20, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Crowd control[edit]

Does crowd control need its own article, or should it be redirect to the glossary? I'm leaning toward redirecting it because it seems unlikely that the article could avoid the current mess of being a game guide. That said, it's a pretty broad topic, so maybe I'm being a bit too pessimistic. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:12, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If the original research and unreliable sources were removed, there would be almost nothing left of the article (perhaps nothing at all?). This is a WP:TNT situation regardless of whether it's notable, so I support a redirect. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ () 07:07, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The best source currently in use there, is literally a glossary of video game terminology. I think a merge is well-warranted. That source does indeed look pretty decent btw. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:49, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Wikiproject Video games 20th anniversay(!)[edit]

I would like to point out that 20 years and 10 days ago today was when Greyengine5 founded the Wikiproject! That's incredible! Happy 20th anniversary to all members of the project!

For the fun of it, why not share when you joined the project and why? Special thank you to anyone in particular are also encouraged.

  • I joined the project in ~October 2020 after being invited and familiarized to it by (Oinkers42) and Captain Galaxy. The friendliness of everyone here, and especially how collaborative everyone is towards each other's works, is why I stuck around. Panini! 🥪 19:10, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Wow, that is impressive, especially considering how many Wikiprojects fizzle out, or are so inactive that they hardly function. I joined Wikipedia on 2008, but I don't think I started commenting at WT:VG until closer to 2010, with conflicts repeatedly arising over newly announced platforms like the Nintendo 3DS and PlayStation Vita. Funny enough, I didn't technically "join" WP:VG until well after I started because I misunderstood how Wikiprojects worked and were perceived. I was afraid I'd be assigned work I didnt want to do, or that I'd be perceived as having a bias at AFD if I joined. ("That video game isn't notable, Serge only wants to keep it because he's a WP:VG member!" type stuff, which I eventually learned that's not how it works.) Sergecross73 msg me 19:41, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Wasn't there a member list of some kind? I remember adding my name to it. My first edit on a WP:VG-tagged article is on a talk page. And frankly, over 17 years later, I stand by it. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 20:14, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I first entered this place (not sure I "joined" persay) all the way back in 2012, when I was taking my first tentative steps towards Final Fantasy articles and had a question to raise about Fabula Nova Crystallis Final Fantasy. I've found a group that's generally supportive and engaging, and have been pleased to contribute to article discussions, matters of conduct, or thornier issues surrounding edit disputes or recent discussions surrounding notability and source validity. I've experienced great patience through my stumblings, and support/guidance when asked most of the time. It's kept me invested in the video game article space. --ProtoDrake (talk) 20:31, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I've been around since...good god, 2006? I joined to edit the M.U.G.E.N article back in the day while going to college, and man that was a huge embarrassment. I was so young and naive back then. But I got a feel for things over the years, and do hope I least contribute something useful to the project in the long run.
  • Not sure when I joined the project, but my first Wikipedia edit was all the way back in December 2004 in the video games space. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 21:52, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Joined the project in mid-2006, about a month after I started editing. I thought joining projects for the stuff I was working on was the way to go, and ended up never leaving. --PresN 22:39, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I joined Wikipedia (and by proxy the WP:VG) in 2017. At the time my main interest was everything Atari Jaguar-related (and still is to this day). Over the course of seven years, i've learned a lot here thanks to the users here at WP:VG, some of which have helped me a lot with the article i've worked on so far and i thank them very very much for lending me a hand. I do try to repay their help by finding useful sources for various articles as a way to say thanks to those who have helped me over the years here. I'll stay around here as a side-hobby along with my job and help as much as i can with articles, list, etc. Roberth Martinez (talk) 00:28, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I must've joined in 2014, which, oh wow, I've been here for half the life of WP:VG now? Started out with some video game mechanics, later moved to esports, but I guess I'm now more active on talkpages than in mainspace, oop. I've thoroughly enjoyed my time in this project and may WP:VG thrive for the years to come! ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:07, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I don't remember joining this project. I was making IP edits to game articles around 2007-2008, and the project slowly clasped its tentacles around me. 10 years from now, we will merge into our final form. Shooterwalker (talk) 13:52, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • On my first ever day (my 3rd ever edit to be precise), I made an edit on the Pokémon Yellow article (now Pokémon Red, Blue, and Yellow) on April 17, 2020. I then made the discovery of this WikiProject about a month late on the 14th and decided to join. 2 days after, I got my first video game article draft approved, that being Dr Kawashima's Brain Training for Nintendo Switch. By February 12th the following year, I got my first GA article on Chibi-Robo! Zip Lash. Wow, it's mad to think I am such a small part of such a big collaborative project that spanned for 2 decades. Also appreciation to Panini! for mentioning me in their post above, glad I was able to help on you your path here, your work here is incredible (I will get around to getting the Super Mario Bros. 35th Anniversary to GA eventually, mark my words). In fact, all of your guys' work is amazing. But yeah, I have a couple of articles I want to work on, it will just be finding the right time to get them done, I'm just happy I got the Geno article I wrote looking so good. Here's to many more years working on this project. Thanks to you all, CaptainGalaxy 15:45, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • My major early contributions were to Wikiproject Square Enix (née Wikiproject Final Fantasy) but it looks like my first edit was to a Wind Waker article in 2006 so that counts? Boggling to think about how long I've been on this website. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:35, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I'm only a recent joinee, coming in like... a few months ago, if I remember correctly, but I joined mostly because it happened to align with what I primarily tended to be involved in on Wikipedia. Though I haven't done as much as a lot of yall yet, I'm glad I'm able to help out with this, since this is just such a fun thing to do. Special thanks to the guys at WP: VGCHAR as well for helping me really get into this. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 05:20, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Congratulations from a member of the Chinese version of WPVG! Although I am not an active contributor here, your WikiProject has greatly influenced me. From the guidelines to the model articles, your sources taught me a lot. And followed your success, our WPVG has also become the largest WikiProject on my homewiki. Thank you, the Video games WikiProject on the English Wikipedia! --For Each element In group Next (talk) 11:13, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I first joined Wikipedia in late December 2006 as a member of the the Square Enix WikiProject (then known as WikiProject Final Fantasy), before joining this project shortly thereafter. Since then, I've been improving several video game articles to GA and FA status, including the Final Fantasy series. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:34, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's only been a few months since I joined the project, and I only came to know of it when my name got credited for 'New articles' for creating Lego Ninjago: Nindroids at the start of December. Sure, I had made Lego Ninjago: Shadow of Ronin but never got credited for it (no offense PresN), but anyways, since then, I have been working my butt off making new articles for the people of Wikipedia! I would also like to credit Vrxces and Salavat for helping me throughout. Never would've made it here without them. And I wish to thank everyone on the project for also working their butts off helping other people and making Wikipedia a better place in the video games category. MKsLifeInANutshell (talk) 14:42, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You are very welcome! VRXCES (talk) 08:04, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Audio and YouTube Interviews[edit]

Currently gathering sources for an article on the fanmade Sonic Triple Trouble remake. There are a few text interviews published by (mostly) reliable sources, but I've also found quite a few audio and YouTube interviews. Wikipedia:VGINT touches on this, stating that "Interviews from any source are typically allowed as a 'self-published source about self'".

I'm a little confused. I don't know to what extent I should use these audio/YT interviews. Can I use all of them or should their inclusion be smaller in proportion to the text interviews (ie 4 text interviews and 1-2 audio ones)? Which ones should I use? I haven't listened to any of these audio interviews yet, but if they contain info that the text ones lack, I might throw them into the article for thoroughness. Even then, podcast/YT interviews are harder to archive than text ones, and I wouldn't know how to handle that. If those interviews eventually went offline unarchived, I'd have to write them out anyway.

I wanna write this article to B or GA quality (possibly FA?), so I don't wanna include info cited from these sources and have to write it all out later. Advice on this would be appreciated. LBWP (talk) 09:15, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You can use any interview to any extent that you wish, as long as you're reasonably confident that they're actually real interviews with the actual developers. As primary sources, they don't establish notability, but they're perfectly usable for design/creation/development info. There's no particular balance you need to achieve between text and audio interviews so it's just your choice for how much you want to incorporate. It would be helpful to include timestamps in the citation for audio/video though. If you're worried about archiving, you can always include the relevant quotation inside the citation template using the quote= parameter. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:50, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As a follow-on from this question, @Axem Titanium and @TarkusAB, does a YT video interview being the dominant or only source of development information on a game create issues, particularly for a GAN? This is something I am currently encountering. VRXCES (talk) 08:06, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's fine. Just make sure to consider their POV. Like if a developer says: "Our first game, Mario 1 had some of the best parallax scrolling in the industry, and we wanted to improved on that with Mario 2. When we presented at E3, we think people were really blown away by the technical aspects." You should treat that differently than if it was coming from an independent RS. TarkusABtalk/contrib 19:00, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Axem is correct. Go all out. If you're worried about the interviews going offline, you could download the files and keep locally, then reupload to if they ever disappear. TarkusABtalk/contrib 22:05, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For what it's worth, since LBWP mentioned possibly bringing the article to FA, I've gotten told off at FAC for using YouTube interviews in the past—I had to remove two or three from Donkey Kong Country to get it through the process. JOEBRO64 19:52, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's annoying and I disagree with it. WP:ABOUTSELF rules and caveats should be the primary consideration, not the mere fact that it's published on YT. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:50, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Unfortunately it's one of the brick walls with the whole FAC process. Twitter posts are even frowned upon, which can be annoying because there are some cases where a developer will *only* state something about a subject's creation on twitter, and secondary sources will never comment on it.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:12, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just an FYI more than anything - I had previously toyed with the idea of creating an article for the 16 but fan remake, but I held off. I feared I couldn't scrounge up enough content to support a separate article, or to be able to ward off hypothetical detractors who'd potentially push for a WP:MERGE. But I was mostly looking at third party sourcing, not the interview stuff, so maybe you can come up with more. I'm not saying you shouldn't create the article, just saying it's something to keep in mind, as even the original articles is all that long. Sergecross73 msg me 20:16, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The above advice is out of step with the rest of the encyclopedia. We're conflating reliability with whether to include information. The developer writing/talking about themselves is contextually fine with respect to admissability as long as they're not making extraordinary claims, but that doesn't mean the information is worth including. The verifiability policy says to:

    Base articles on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy


    Exercise caution when using [self-published] sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources.

    A section relying entirely on a YouTube/podcast (or any other self-published interview) source indicates that that material was not noteworthy enough to be picked up by the incessant video game press. It would indicate that the material is to be paraphrased broadly to fill in necessary details that reliable sources do not, but it shouldn't be considered as license to write a multi-paragraph Development section when there isn't enough reliably sourced material to justify it. That's undue weight.
For the OP's example, whether self-published text or an audio interview, treat it with the same caution, and only use enough of it to fill in necessary detail. In this case, there should be nearly no need for primary sources as reliable sources already say anything a general reader needs to know about the fact that an unofficial fan remake was released. They don't need to know about the fangame's developer unless reliable sources found it to be noteworthy. Splitting out an article when the only expansion is from primary sources is an example of a coatrack. czar 22:58, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I’ve got to agree with czar on this one. The main issue here is WP:PRIMARY - the noteworthy parts are those covered in secondary sources, and carefully handled primary sources can help to flesh out the details, but it shouldn’t support a section, let alone an article. Red Phoenix talk 02:32, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New Articles (February 12 to February 18)[edit]

 A listing of all articles newly added to the Video Games Wikiproject (regardless of creation date). Generated by v3.17 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 13:36, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

February 12

February 13

February 14

February 15

February 16

February 17

February 18

I have significant concerns with the suitability of Opera House (Final Fantasy VI)], World of Ruin, Active Time Battle, and Triple Triad. I don't feel that spinning off these quote-heavy four-paragraph articles on specific parts of games is useful to readers. --PresN 13:36, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

They seem like content forks to me. Why can't ATB and Triple Triad be in a section about common gameplay elements in FF franchise article? They are essentially spin-off articles of a spin-off article (recurring elements in the Final Fantasy series). The other two articles should be discussed in due weight in their respective parent articles as well. If being paradied in Undertale is a level's sole legacy, then it probably has little to no lasting significance. OceanHok (talk) 14:29, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
None of these need to be spun out. World of Ruin and the Opera House alone makes absolutely no sense without the context of FF6, and the sources discussing them are not indicating any real world impact on them alone that is so significant that they need to be examined on their own.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:09, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think most of these are somewhat reasonable. Active Time Battle is the center of the gameplay of Final Fantasy, and in lieu of a broader dedicated Gameplay of Final Fantasy article, this article makes sense to me. The Opera scene does have a decent set of sources specifically about it. World of Ruin has nothing, though. All those sources are just about Final Fantasy VI in general. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 15:25, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was having the same thoughts before I saw people discussing it down here - none of these spin outs feel necessary, and the ones I've spot checked really feel like the reception sections were padded and drawn out far more than necessary in efforts to make the split look necessary... Sergecross73 msg me 15:33, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think most of them have extremely strong sourcing and easily merit a standalone page, with the exception of World of Ruin, though I'd debate that it has "nothing" - it has multiple pieces of significant coverage specifically about the World of Ruin, with the Kotaku article and GameSpot article both being a serious examination of it. And yes, they are specifically about the World of Ruin and its effects on the characters, not the broader plot of FFVI. Still, I found so many sources about the others, and they are so well-known, that it's surprising to me that they never had an article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ () 15:48, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think my big concern is that one of the sources [3] doesn't really talk much about the World of Ruin much at all, mainly as a conduit to talk about characters like Kefka and Celes, the latter especially. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 16:30, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ultimately the subjects can't be understood in the context given without understanding the game they're from, and a lot of what you're citing as notability is borrowed from the game itself: they're viewed strictly as elements of that game Zx. Out of all of these, perhaps Triple Triad I could see as an article because there have been both physical and fan game recreations of it and it's understandable enough outside of the context of Final Fantasy. But the two levels definitely should just be redirects. Even the one real world reference in Undertale isn't enough, and would probably be better suited for an article about "Darkness and Starlight" if that ever came about.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:49, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is the best argument... Just because one aspect of a single game or single series may have sourcing to meet the GNG does not require it to be standalone article, particularly if context is necessary to understand the topic on its own. I have been seeing a lot of these unnecessary spinous just because an editor thinks the GNG is met, and typically that ends up with a reception section that is drawing from listicles or other flimsy sources. Masem (t) 16:25, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think this is a problem about sourcing though. We have sources focusing on the creation of the Sea in Sea of Thieves, the swing mechanics in Spider-Man, where's Xur everyday in Destiny, but we don't need an article on any of them unless they are important when discussed outside of the context of the game. It is undue to have a standalone article about a minor part of the game that does not leave a lasting impression or attract commentary from the press over a period of time. For instance, for an ATB article to exist, it must demonstrate how it inspired other video games (outside of FF) to adopt similar combat systems. OceanHok (talk) 17:16, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would agree - but these DID attract commentary over a long period. ATB was invented in the early 90s and got a massive article about it in 2020. The World of Ruin got an article in 2021. Triple Triad in 2023. So WP:SUSTAINED is clearly met. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ () 18:05, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with KFM and OceanHok here. Notability is not the main issue at hand, it's context. TT, WoR, and Opera scene all require a significant amount of context from their respective main articles to even begin to understand them. There's some good dev info and reception here that would be better situated in the context of the main article. Axem Titanium (talk) 22:03, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Chiming in here, I do want to say Triple Triad I feel *may* be able to stand on its own, but it feels like eventually you'll run out of tangible things to say. While it is a standalone game now (and back in FFXIV?) there's just...not a lot to really say about it?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 05:39, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Running a source examination of Opera House (Final Fantasy VI):
  • Source 1 is fair game, clearly in-depth coverage.
  • Source 2 can be considered a passing mention at best, only mentioning the opera house twice.
  • Source 3 isn't about the scene itself, but only the audio design behind it. It's more or less an interview that could be put in an audio design sub-section of an article, easily boiled down into one to two sentences.
  • Source 4 is brief, but seems to be acceptable.
  • Source 5 is more than brief. It's three sentences in a listicle with a ton of other scenes mentioned. It seems to be okay, but the substance of this should be questioned.
  • Source 6 falls into the same boat as 4.
  • Source 7 only is used to verify it inspiring a scene in Undertale. Obviously doesn't contribute towards SIGCOV.
While you could argue that this one in particular is technically notable, this appears to be stretching WP:THREE pretty hard. I don't have an opinion on whether or not it should be merged, I'm all for video game levels getting their own articles. I'm simply providing a source examination if any consensus or debate on whether or not to merge these articles happens. λ NegativeMP1 17:28, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I will quickly note that "the audio design behind the opera scene" is a pretty reasonable primary aspect of said scene. It's a pretty central aspect of it. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:38, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nightingale (video game) is probably going to be popular (see the page views). It's also one of the 10 most wishlisted games on Steam. I'm not expecting any problems, but there are currently a grand total of two people who have this article on their watchlist – and I constitute half of them. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:48, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'll warn the the two watchlisters on their talk page Panini! 🥪 19:14, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have not fully looked into it, but MLB The Show 24 does not look notable. (Oinkers42) (talk) 19:44, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would think this is a WP:NOTBURO case for a game that is releasing in a month and will almost certainly be notable then (see previous series entries). ~ A412 talk! 20:02, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Onimusha: Warlords origins and WP:OR question[edit]

Please see the first paragraph of Onimusha: Warlords#Development, which is entirely sourced to

Is it original research to say Onimusha started as a Nintendo 64 DD title? Part of me thinks it is, because its not stated outright, but part of me wonders if I'm being too much of a stickler and there's really no realistic interpretation otherwise. I've played very little Resident Evil or Onimusha in my life, so some background in the area may help in determining this too?

There's no dispute or argument with another editor here, I was just curious what others may have to say on it. Sergecross73 msg me 17:28, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

He pivoted to talking about cartridges before talking about the idea, so it could have been for carts as well. I don't think they ever did any development on either platform though. I think all you can say here is that: In 1997, Yoshiki Okamoto told Dengeki Nintendo 64 about an idea he had for a "ninja version of Resident Evil" that could potentially make its way to the Nintendo 64 or 64DD. TarkusABtalk/contrib 17:58, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, this is more or less my gut reaction. You could say "they were thinking about Onimusha type games as early as 1997 during the N64 era, but I don't think you can say it was actually in development for the 64 or 64DD from that, or that it was a "cancelled N64 game". Sergecross73 msg me 18:19, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looking at this further, this interview which is also linked in the article, provides a slightly different interpretation of events. Keiji Inafune seems to take credit here for the "Sengoku Biohazard" idea, making no mention of Okamoto. He also mentions that it was first worked on using Resident Evil 1.5 as a base (which was a PS1 game). It's possible, that this ninja-RE idea was being floated around the office for some time. TarkusABtalk/contrib 18:11, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Sergecross73: I think there is also an interview by EuroGamer regarding Onimusha on the Nintendo 64 as well with Keiji Inafune out there online. Roberth Martinez (talk) 23:25, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Interesting, if true, that would change things. I'll have to look for that. Let me know if you happen upon it. Sergecross73 msg me 18:19, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@TarkusAB and Sergecross73:Sorry if i haven't reply to you guys. I'm currently without internet on My Home (as of writing, i'm connected on the Home of My grandparents). This is the EuroGamer interview i was talking about with Keiji Inafune regarding Onimusha 64: Roberth Martinez (talk) 22:59, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No worries. But wow, yeah, that source verifies it. Guess I'll add that source rather than remove the claim. Thank you! Sergecross73 msg me 01:03, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It kinda contradicts Inafune's own words in the video interview with GameCenter CX, that RE1.5 (which is to my knowledge, only a PS1 game) was used as the basis. I guess they took RE1.5 and tried rebuilding on N64, or there were N64 builds before using RE1.5 TarkusABtalk/contrib 01:28, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi everyone, I am considering reviewing the well-written GAN for Dragon's Lair (Game Boy Color video game) by @Cukie Gherkin. I am very supportive of niche GBC articles and have written a lot myself ! That said, it would be good to receive a second opinion on the standalone notability of this article as a port of Dragon's Lair given WP:NVG and the sheer amount of identical ports for the game. I am not advocating for a merge but just want some guidance on where a port has merit in being dealt with as a standalone article. Otherwise I am happy to process the GAN for this game. VRXCES (talk) 03:19, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I found these sources [4], [5], [6]
Not sure if useful Timur9008 (talk) 03:45, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As there is a development section unique to the GBA port, in addition to reviews specific to the port, it looks like it passes the GNG without issue. Masem (t) 03:46, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Comic Book Resources#Requested move 14 February 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Sariel Xilo (talk) 19:50, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Trauma Center series GT possibility?[edit]

Hi. I was thinking of creating a Good Topic around the Trauma Center game series released by Atlus on Nintendo platforms between 2005 and 2010. All five titles ( Under the Knife, Second Opinion, New Blood, Under the Knife 2, and Trauma Team) are GA status. As to the previous series article, I decided to a bold redirect to the first game's article as I could find no independent reliable commentary on the series as a whole, so any series article was basically cribbing from the other titles. This series feels a little difficult to create a GT around because of how localized/niche it was, without much independent commentary. Opinions? ProtoDrake (talk) 20:47, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Would perhaps a List of Trauma Center games list work instead? Panini! 🥪 21:53, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Five items is a bit short for a list; if there were a bunch of non-game media to lengthen it to 10+ items then maybe, but it doesn't appear that there are. You might be able to get away with just having Under the Knife as the lead title and then the four sequels under it? --PresN 22:16, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, that's how I do it. I either use a series as the main article, a list, or the first game. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 01:50, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It'll have to be the first game if it happens at all. I already explained the main series problem, and the series got almost literally no additional media to cover. --ProtoDrake (talk) 09:48, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I personally think it should be fine to not have a series article for the GT. I think it's an impressive collection of articles! I think it's better not to make a series article if that broad topic doesn't have anything new to add. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:55, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Right, I decided to be bold and nominate it. --ProtoDrake (talk) 10:34, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]