This page is within the scope ofWikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofvideo games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game
The article will be discussed atWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Imouto Paradise! until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
Game company articles are tricky and most companies aren't notable so any input would be great. Human Code acquired Presage Software (Mario's Game Gallery developer) at some point so the info regarding Presage I would put under Human Code's former subsidiaries.Timur9008 (talk)15:03, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It would have been better just to post what you believe are the few strongest possible sources you have found. Some of these are indisputably trivial mentions and routine announcements, and do not count towards notabilityat all, so there is not much point showing them here even if they might be incorporated into an article.
At a glance, the Austin Chronicle article from Dec. 8, 1995 is a really good source, as it's a company profile and these are the absolute gold standard for notability. But I can't find any others of that caliber, so if you have any let me know. As it is, I'm going to assume it's not sufficiently notable.ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ)18:00, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I need some assistance. I attempted to submit the article regarding the best-sellingNintendo Switch 2 games, and it was rejected by the same people twice in a row. I need some extra eyes on the list since I believe that the article is sufficient enough with three games instead of just one game. And the article will 100% have more games within the next quarter. There is a TON of reports regarding not only the console's sales, but also the GAME'S sales.Yoshiman6464♫🥚05:21, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It was rejected by 4 people, so while one person rejected it twice, framing it like someone is abusing their power here is ridiculous. You already got plenty of eyes on it and they all thought it was not encyclopedic and too soon for an article. I agree, as given how tiny the console's library is, there is nothing to compare the sales of the games to, defeating the point of calling it "best" selling. (More like "only" selling).ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ)05:34, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much. I’m sorry I framed it like that. The first two reviewers saw the draft back when “Mario Kart World” was the only game to surpass a million sales. I can wait until the next quarter or two.Yoshiman6464♫🥚15:06, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how much weight my opinion carries, but I'll say it anyway.
As much as I love this console, I think it's way too soon for this. Even if you were to pad it out by putting the Switch 2 versions of Switch 1 games as well, there simply aren't enough games yet to make a list.
Thank you very much. There are indeed fewer games that made it past the million-game sales at this point of Switch 2’s release (3) than Switch 1’s release (5). I am confident that this draft will become an article within a quarter or two.Yoshiman6464♫🥚15:08, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A listing of all articles newly added to the Video Games Wikiproject (regardless of creation date). Generated by v3.20 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN18:04, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's troubling Kung Fu Man bypassed the consensus of a keep AfD with numerous participants and unilaterally deletedList of Clannad characters anyway. I'm pretty sure precedent is to have another AfD discussion in this instance, as "bold delete" arguments do not apply when there is already a consensus to keep.ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ)18:33, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
...for context, KFM redirected the list (not deleted) in December 2023, and the AfD in question was in May 2016. That redirection was undone in July 2024, and re-done this week (not by KFM). --PresN18:40, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That AFD is over a decade old and he didn't participate in it. Your account makes it sound like he unilaterally overturned an AFD that he just lost or something. You know the routine - BRD it if you oppose the decision.Sergecross73msg me18:40, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And I'm sorry, but let's be real here, an AfD of a list that cites zero secondary sources being closed as keep should hold zero weight. You may as well be pointing to a 2005-era AfD. In the AfD itself, the only sources suggested as viable are a podcast about Clannad that the person suggesting didn't even state definitely had anything usable, Fandom Post articles (non-reliable source), and a vague gesture towards "reviews of the game and anime" without citing anything in particular. The only sources that seem to carry weight are the ones by Dani Cavallaro, but that would only be one single source towards notability. Clannad characters might be a notable collective, but there's as much evidence now as there was then (which is to say, very little).Cukie Gherkin (talk)19:13, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"You know the routine - BRD it if you oppose the decision." It doesn't seem that people are following BRD, as that would imply that they leave the page up while discussion is ongoing. Rather, they are forcing the page to remain deleted outside of process by edit-warring.
"The only sources that seem to carry weight are the ones by Dani Cavallaro, but that would only be one single source towards notability." Anime News Network was also mentioned in the previous AfD. SeeWP:ANIMENEWSNETWORK.
"...for context, KFM redirected the list (not deleted) in December 2023" Well it's essentially a soft deletion, especially because it's being de facto forced to remain that way despite major pushback from editors.ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ)23:14, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The ANN source is the podcast about Clannad I mentioned, the podcast appears to be about the anime and, according to the editor, is not a show of notability for the cast, just that it talks about the cast (which, for all we know, could be routine). The transcript Cliff's notes don't even imply there's a section where they break down characters. With Cavallaro's apparent unreliability, the best-case scenario is that the AfD provided a single reliable source. Boldly redirecting a list from seven years prior that survived AfD in this state based on a single reliable sourcemaybe contributing to notability, a list that has yet to implement any of the claimed reliable sources, is not only appropriate, it's strongly recommended. Wikipedia editors can and should use their best judgment, and the opposition to an action shouldn't be based exclusively on procedural criticisms.Cukie Gherkin (talk)00:24, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I really struggle to call "someone un-redirected the list in July, and someone else redirected it again 3 months later, and no one has touched it in the week since" an edit war. When I read your message I thought people had started reverting back and forth since yesterday, but no, there's no edits, there's never been a discussion on the list's or Clannad's talk page to be "ongoing", there's no one violating anything, they just aren't considering a bad list bound forever by a 9-year-old AfD. --PresN01:19, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We're currently seeing a similar situation with the Resident Evil series, where users insist the main series has 11 games, even though the developers only officially list 9. I don't understand why we can't describe the nuances separately, instead of giving them equal weight with the official lore.Solaire the knight (talk)21:27, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If a game is lacking numerical sales data (most do), but we have sourced reports of what the CEO or the company's financials are saying about a game's financial performance like "It sold above expectations", that's reasonable to include as part of sales even if its not a hard sales number. We don't need to go as far into detail like the Forspoken quote uses.Masem (t)13:37, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While the RFC is ongoing can someone restore thelast clean version that doesn't have the disputed part? Or is this how it's done? Someone forcing something into the article and then a discussion is held on whether to remove it again?~2025-32700-90 (talk)17:38, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to ask something similar here. The part about the CEO is disputed and has no consensus, thus should be removed like the other parts that are under discussion. @UmbyUmbreon just wanted to ping you to that, as you answered the edit request. I think it would be both correct and fair if this gets removed as well until the RfC is solved, or not?Vestigia Leonis (talk)11:43, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Vestigia Leonis, The article is only semi protected so you can simply make that edit. And you should, there is no need to have a disupted version there while an RFC is ongoing~2025-33889-95 (talk)04:42, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it seems fair, as long as other parts are also kept out of the article until the discussions are resolved. It also follows Axiom Theory's own advice in their edit summary to discuss parts without consensus on talk first.Vestigia Leonis (talk)11:32, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've made a proof of concepthere. My belief is that splitting by letter is not really helpful to readers. Because it's split, it's impossible to sort by release date, as it'll obviously be missing earlier games in a later list. In my opinion, most people going to a DS games list are looking for information on DS games released in their region. There are exceptions, but they are few and far between. As an aside, "Applications" is definitely a huge OR problem. What, for example, makesPersonal Trainer: Walking an application, butPersonal Trainer: Math is a game?Cukie Gherkin (talk)00:40, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do not think this is helpful, as the overall size (combining the lists) is much larger than compared to alphabetical. Also means games from multiple regions would require multiple updates on separate tables than in just one list. Would also be very inconsistent with other game lists for other systems like Switch games.Masem (t)05:05, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, the NA list would only be about 20,000 bytes larger than the larger list. The size of the NA list is not nearly so large to warrant a split, perWP:SPLIT advising that list splits needn't be done as readily as an article split (and in fact warns against size splits when it comes to sortable tables). Secondly, the combined size of an NA, EU, and JP list wouldn't really be relevant, because size concern is only really to do with the size of an individual article. Adding up the split lists, the total comes out to about 575,000 bytes (give or take). If we assume comparable sizes for each regional list, that gives us around 600,000 bytes. Not a considerable difference. Secondly, another argument for splitting is that, with the way things are, we can only afford to fit the original release date in. So, for example:Apollo Justice: Ace Attorney released as a 2007 game in Japan, but a 2008 game in North America. In the current setup, we only have the original release date; if we sort by region, we can fit each release date comfortably. Thirdly, I'm entirely unsure what you mean about "multiple updates on separate tables". What updates are you referring to? Finally, I don't feel it is really important that the Nintendo Switch list is also done this way, as it's not done based on policy or guideline, and it wasn't done via consensus, so there's no expectation that it be used as a standard. -Cukie Gherkin (talk)06:31, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I really appreciate the initiative and effort here. These alphabetical lists generally quite bother me due to their arbitrary splitting points. In that sense, I like the idea. I find it very difficult to assess all the pros and cons to this change, but in general you have my support. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat)07:32, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that the high level of overlap of games across regions would wouldn't really help with some of the larger lists. For example, if we tried to do this with something huge like, the list of Switch games, I think we'd probably still end up having to split it by letters even if it was split regionally. It's just that huge, and worldwide releases are more common than ever.Sergecross73msg me17:54, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well it wouldn't necessarily have to be applied site-wide. For Switch, I could totally see that being a problem. Do you think DS would be an issue, though? As far as Switch goes, I think there's potentially an easier solution: splitting by digital-only (with the understanding that it's not every digital game listed on the eShop) vs. physical and digital. What are your thoughts on that?Cukie Gherkin (talk)19:03, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The approach to these lists needs to be consistent for all such lists, so asking to make the DS list different from the other platform lists makes no sense.Masem (t)19:14, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It makes sense to do what makes it easier for the reader. If ignoring a standard is decided to be better for the reader, then we ignore a standard. The DS list is terribly bogged down by entries that very few people would actually be searching for, and is the reason why the DS list is so incredibly long. By splitting by region, each list is more relevant to more people. Also, the DS clearly has significantly fewer region-exclusive games than the DS, so splitting by region makes less sense for the Switch.Cukie Gherkin (talk)19:41, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For reference, I'm making a proof of concept for a physical games list, trying to cover 0-A.User:Cukie Gherkin/Switch Physical & Digital Most of the list has not been checked to remove digital games, primarily the 0-9s, some As, and ACA and Arcade Archives have been removed. In doing just that, 0-A is down to 277,000 bytes, compared to the combined list size of 541,000 bytes. Once a separate list of digital games is created, we can, at the very least, more easily cover the main Switch list in fewer lists.Cukie Gherkin (talk)20:34, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Documenting physical/digital has been discussed at length at the Switch list over the years. Consensus has generally be against it though because it's generally hard to source. Like, its easy to find a source that saysMario Odyssey got a physical release, but infinitely harder to source it for 100s and 100s of these no-namePat Johnson's Cemetery Simulator 2019 games.Sergecross73msg me20:59, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For physical release, I feel like, if there isn't a source for it, it should just be listed as digital only, which is what I think would address thatCukie Gherkin (talk)21:03, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I totally get what you mean - its the very reason why I often have interest in maintaining these lists when a platform just comes out (Switch 2) but totally lose interest after a few years (Switch 1, Vita, etc). The list gets bloated and there's so many indie/shovelware games that it loses my interest. But at the same time - and I'm sure you've seen this before too - there arealways editors who compulsively go and do these edits on the ground of "Well I saw it once so I thought I'd go and do it everywhere". If you made these regional DS lists, there'd be a "JoeNewbieEditor" with 100 edits going about sloppily hacking up every other list in the same manner.
I know hypotheticals like this shouldn't lock us into inaction...but at the same time, I'm saying, publishing such an article is going to immediately lead to "When is it appropriate to do this" questions.Sergecross73msg me20:54, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello everyone! I currently have a peer review open for the articleKururin Squash!. I initially created this article and put out a peer review request for people to suggest some improvements I could make. Although I haven't received any substantial feedback, after working on it myself for a while, I believe it could potentially become a good article. At the very least, it should be more than a start-class article by now, so you can make any suggestions atWikipedia:Peer review/Kururin Squash!/archive1. Any and all feedback would be appreciated. I just need to make sure I am doing a serviceable job. Thank you! -Z-Gamer Guys (talk)08:34, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There a discussion on the talk page ofMansion of Hidden Souls to split the article into two articles (as currently, its confusingly combining information about two different games with similar names). If anyone can weigh in on this, it would be very helpful.Andrzejbanas (talk)05:26, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I made sure to design the list in such a way that erred on the side of caution, so anything that got, say, a limited edition release or physical release in one region but not another was included.Cukie Gherkin (talk)15:44, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I created this draft today, and after spending some hours, I feel that it is somewhat ready to publish. Check the draft and pass comments for any improvements.Kazama16 (talk)18:55, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have a couple questions.
I understand why we combine titles likePokemon Violet andPokemon Scarlet, but why did you combineSun/Moon/Sun Ultra/Moon Ulta? AreUltra full blown sequels, not variants?
Breath of the Wild is available on three platforms: Wii U, Switch, and Switch 2, so that's why I listed it as multi-platform, though I can do the same for other games with more than one platform.Pokémon Ultra Sun and Moon are enhanced versions so that's why I combined them in totals.Kazama16 (talk)15:46, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, they aren't generally combined. But for the list criteria, they are. For example, some sources tend to combine Pokémon Red and Blue versions sales with their enhanced version Pokémon Yellow.[1] So basically every form of upgrade is combined except for remakes.Kazama16 (talk)16:11, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was under the impression that the differences between R/B/Y are relatively minor, while the difference in content between standard Sun/Moon and Ultra Moon/Sun were larger. Regardless, if sources don't combine them, then I believe that will be seen as violatingoriginal research if you do it in this list.Sergecross73msg me17:56, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Although the differences may be larger but they are considered to be enhanced versions.[2] So they can be technically combined to provide cumulative sales figures in the same way as the IGN source I've given earlier.Kazama16 (talk)18:10, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, can you explain how it would affect the list and how to resolve? If Pokémon R/B/Y is combined in sales, then readers will question why other Pokémon titles are not treated the same way. I guess this applies toWii Fit as well.Kazama16 (talk)18:32, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this is one of those situations where we should just followWP:STICKTOSOURCE. Nintendo is one of the few companies that consistently gives out sales figures on their published games. Most third party sources are replicating the sales figures that track back to Nintendo themselves. So, there really shouldn't be much in the way of discourse - the figures should largely be the same. There shouldn't be any decision making here, we should just group (or not group) based on how sources generally group them. I don't believe it's been a point of contention at the respectiveList of best-selling Nintendo Switch games,List of best-selling Nintendo 3DS games, etc.Sergecross73msg me18:46, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the games that were not grouped sales-wise in the sources. I think that issue should be solved now. Let me know if you have any other concerns.Kazama16 (talk)19:28, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If it runs as a game bundle where you select games, then it's a game compilation. If it's a program where you select games to run individually, then it's a service. It's simple.Solaire the knight (talk)04:21, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A listing of all articles newly added to the Video Games Wikiproject (regardless of creation date). Generated by v3.20 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN15:48, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there folks. I figured you guys were a good starting point to discuss this. As you may have noticed the various articles relating to half life, particularly its ever-ethereal third installation, are getting some traction given current hype. However I think they could be consolidated. Currently, discussion of half-life 3 and its various offshoot projects and so on are split amongst
and so on, often with overlapping info. Perhaps its a good time now to consolidate some of this into one proper article, especially in anticipation of the game actually ever releasing any time in the next century, with updated sources and a consistent timeline of development and speculation. Good idea or nah, what are we thinking?Amshpee (talk)03:28, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly Half-Life 3 is something I'm shocked never got an article even when it was just the scrapped project made around the time of Source 2. It's pretty well documented as far as I'm aware and it's not like we don't have articles on scrapped games with probably even less to say about them than Half-Life 3
With that being said, rumors and leaks for Half-Life 3 have been running rampant lately to the point where I'd just maintain the status quo for now and wait to see if the game actually get announced. If it isn't announced, then an article on it from the perspective of the scrapped version could probably be made. But if it were made now and itdid get announced, then we're looking at a complete waste of effort making the first iteration.
Think how we had an article forMetroid Dread based on the scrapped DS game for a long time and was even GA until the Nintendo Switch game was announced and all of the previous writing had to be blown up. But instead of at least standing for a decade or so in that state, it'd be a month. Or a week. Or tomorrow.λNegativeMP103:44, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
HL2: Episode 3, the cancelled episode, is completely different from HL3. I think it ought to remain separate purely to describe the notable cancelled video game even if they announce a HL3 that incorporates Episode 3's planned story into it, which would still surely be quite different in scope. Therefore, the HL3 rumors don't change this in the slightest.
Obviously, if they end up announcing a real HL3, there's almost no chance it won't just be immediately made into a full article due to the inevitable tremendous onrush of editors, regardless of whether or not it gets shadowdropped. But it should certainly be its own standalone page.ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ)03:59, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My point is I don't see a purpose in making a separate Half-Life 3 page right now when rumors and leaks are all over the place, and it is very possible that, for all we know, the game could just be announced tomorrow. And that would require the article written about a game that doesn't exist to a game that does in-fact exist. So an entire rewrite. I just view it as a waste of editorial effort.
Also, in-case you directed the first paragraph to me, I know that Episode 3 and Half-Life 3 are separate things. I'm not sure how my comment hinted towards that.λNegativeMP104:07, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the need to consolidate much here. The series articles doesn't have any prose aboutHalf-Life 2: Episode Three orHalf-Life 3 (maybe it should tho), and the list of unreleased games has a reasonable summary of both. Everything feels properly focused and clearly marked right now, to me. As for a potential future article onHalf-Life 3: if it gets officially announced, it's inevitable to come about, and it makes sense to me it would be a separate article. We'll do the merge/deletion discussion when we get to it. Until then, it fits just fine in the unreleased list and the Legacy section onEpisode Three. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat)10:55, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think that we should wait for the announcement to occur first. After that, we should build the article with information we have. According to data miners, the announcement will be made this year so I don't think that we need to rush.Vacant0(talk •contribs)15:34, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As the main author of the Episode Three and unreleased games articles... I think the current arrangement is correct right now.
We have an overview page for the unreleased games, for which sources exist but not enough for a dedicated page for each, and a dedicated page for Episode Three, since this is a particularly notable unreleased game with lots of coverage in sources.
There isn't enough coverage in sources for a dedicated Half-Life 3 page. There simply isn't enough to write about.
As others have said, as rumors indicate a new Half-Life game is soon to be announced, we may need to rearrange some of these pages anyway, so let's wait and see.Popcornfud (talk)15:39, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is an article for well-received video games:List of video games considered the best. How about we create an article like that about video game characters as well? Several sources exist for this.[3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12] All these sources just came from a simple search, so there might be even more when researched deeply. This would require a collaboration, as I don't think such an article can be created easily by an individual.Kazama16 (talk)08:40, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like this idea. A game's "greatness" is more objective in that it is supported by reviews, awards, sales and well-documented influence which are more irrefutable and encyclopedic. With characters, it's far more subjective. Essentially a popularity contest.TarkusABtalk/contrib09:09, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While I don't agree with Tarkus that it will be "subjective" if going by the sources, I do think it will cause lots of edit warring and battleground editing over people's favorite characters, so I also believe it is a poor idea for different reasons. Liking or hating a character can be far more personal to people than a game overall.ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ)09:23, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've had my fun with these types of articles, but they're not worth the effort in my experience. I was going to link to an old deletion discussion for "Video game music considered the best", but in trying to find it I foundList of video game soundtracks considered the best instead. Didn't know it was recreated! Can't find the original deletion discussion, sadly. Things may have changed since then. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat)09:55, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is fun to compile these kind of things and exciting in process to make a list, but they kind of fall apart when looked it as serious criticism/value. Its hard to even have an appropriate title thats all encompassing or suggest the material comes from some same source values. Like, in the best of games lists, different sources have different criteria on what can or cannot enter their own lists so the definition of "the best" or "great" is vague and suggests there is some consensus among critics when they have applied their own rules to different lists. (Also, the list would lack "l-block" fromTetris, so why bother. ;))Andrzejbanas (talk)15:19, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Even with the caveat that Wikipedians in general take an extremely permissive standard to meeting NLIST, the actual criteria for inclusion in such a list would be more angst than any utility it could provide.Der Wohltemperierte Fuchstalk18:06, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, generally speaking, there's nothing wrong with anything having an article if you can show that it meets theWP:GNG and doesn't violate anything likeWP:NOT orWP:MERGEREASON. That said...its generally very difficult for old prototype games to meet the GNG in the first place. They often get less coverage from the third party, reliable sources that are needed to meet the GNG. They generally get less attention from publications since they usually never receive and reviews or retrospective coverage that a released game would typically receive. It's not impossible, but it'd likely be quite difficult.Sergecross73msg me14:36, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, it’s just that i don’ t know how to make a page, and even when I do find out how to make it, i don’t want to mess up my sources and screw it over. I don’t know much good sources, the only sources I know that is arcade related is Killer List Of Video Games, Mobygames, and StrategyWikiGyroidGalaxian (talk)16:16, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
First, I'm glad you are trying to write up articles on esoteric topics and unreleased games! Its cool to read about their history and a big "what could've been"! The sources you listed are generally iffy. I've seen theKiller List of Video Games cited, but I'm not sure of its validity as a reliable source (seeWP:RS). If you want an overview of some sources we've discussed in the pastWP:VG/RS would be good to browse through. I know we don't really use Mobygames as all the information is user-submitted, which fails our guidelines on sources. We don't use other Wikis either for similar reasons. So its an uphill battle to try and create these articles, but I'd try to find other sources in the VG/RS list who may have discussed it and see where it could all stand! Feel free to reach out if you have questions. :)Andrzejbanas (talk)20:56, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to see if this was discussed in the past, and I felt like I've read it, but didn't see anything when trying to browse the archive on the topic.
From 1988 to 2007,Nintendo Power is published byNintendo of America. I think its passable, if not preferred to cite the magazine for some details like release info, gameplay, and other more technical details, but I'm curious if we should be using them for reviews from this period. The magazine is published directly by Nintendo and strictly reviews games for Nintendo's consoles in that era.
Should we be using reviews from the magazine during the era its published by Nintendo themselves? I'm not sure how much of a conflict of interest it is, but it might be worth considering in terms ofWP:COISOURCE.
I'm sure there are other similar video game magazines that may have questionable publishers for similar content, but I figured I'd weigh in here onNP first to see what others think, because I'm slightly leaning towards that perhaps Nintendo reviewing their own games or games for their consoles (or their own games they develop or publish) shouldn't be factored in as a neutral source in a reception section.
I'm aware that this could be contentious as most games in gaming publications have some connection with advertisers/publishers/etc., but I'm more curious about opinions onNintendo Power during their "published by Nintendo of America" timeframe.Andrzejbanas (talk)20:51, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The same question has come up in at least a couple of AfD discussions. I'd consider them at bestextremely weak in terms of indicating notability, and the impression I've got when comparing their reviews with others is that they're very reluctant to say anything negative at all. But they can be useful in the Reception section for pointing out aspects of games that are novel or particularly well-done for the platform, so I don't think I'd want to rule them out entirely, but treat them critically when they are used.Adam Sampson (talk)20:31, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I hear that, but my question is less about whether we perceive a bias in their reviews or whether or not that we see a bias, my question is more so that as it a magazine directly published by Nintendo, is it independent from its subject enough that we should take its reviews as a third-partyWP:COISOURCE. I think it's ok for other more technical stuff (overviews, release info, etc.)Andrzejbanas (talk)03:57, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did a quick check to see scores of random Nintendo-published games.
I think with more examples it's possible you could make the argument that they may scorea little higher than average but I don't think it's egregious enough to warrant any action. Some independent mags (I'm looking at youGameFan) raved about a lot of trash games too, so...TarkusABtalk/contrib04:43, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not so much about hunting for a correlation, it's more about if its acceptable to use because it's a magazine published by Nintendo. Like, it's not whether I agree with them or think there is a bias, it's that being published by Nintendo directly implies they aren't independent enough to take a critical perpsoective in general.Andrzejbanas (talk)07:12, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Final Fantasy III has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to thereassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.Z1720 (talk)17:45, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
First-person shooter has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to thereassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.Z1720 (talk)17:47, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A listing of all articles newly added to the Video Games Wikiproject (regardless of creation date). Generated by v3.20 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN12:54, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yun and Yang (edit talk links history) —Kung Fu Man(was previously a redirect)
Brett Madden (edit talk links history) —AkaneNel
Project Motor Racing (edit talk links history) —Berlinetta-550
Eurydice (Hades) (edit talk links history) —Cukie Gherkin(previously a userpage: undrafted by original creator)
24th Game Developers Choice Awards (edit talk links history) —Itdoesntmatteranymore(previously a draft)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Video game characters/Index/Former articles (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs) —Cukie Gherkin
You are invited to join the discussion atTalk:The Legend of Zelda (film) § American and Japanese film, and not only American, which is within the scope of this WikiProject.sjones23 (talk -contributions)07:17, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Mansion of Hidden Souls (edit talk links history) —Andrzejbanas
