Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Add topic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia talk:VG)
Latest comment: 19 hours ago by Mitchellfchan in topic Pending COI edit request at Talk:Mitchell F. Chan

The WP:TOOSOON issue and pre-release coverage

[edit]
Latest comment: 14 days ago17 comments9 people in discussion

Announced but unreleased games make up a lot of AFC and AFD. In practice their depth of coverage is understandably softer than released games: the games don't exist, and the studio is naturally the only WP:PRIMARY source of information in most cases, given all outlets can do is report on announcements. We sometimes call this WP:ROUTINE coverage. Much as it isn't a policy, editors also sometimes use the essay WP:TOOSOON as shorthand to describe when this pre-release coverage lacks depth, although there is ample disagreement about what sort of depth is expected. WP:CRYSTAL also applies, and most editors would understandably forgivingly let a pre-release game article with some coverage percolate to see if better coverage will manifest upon its release.

Once a game is released, standards don't change, but reviews provide an easier source of WP:SIGCOV to point to. There isn't really a similar benchmark or source for pre-release coverage. This can practically create an issue I see where articles get through AFC on light pre-release coverage that, if the same sourcing showed up post-release with reviews absent, would be a flag to send to AFD.

Two questions I'd like to put:

  • Are there policies or guidelines that may help clarify what kind and level of WP:SIGCOV that ought to be present for a pre-release game to meet WP:GNG? If not, should there be?
  • Where a game article created before release has been out long enough for a normal review cycle and now lacks reliable in-depth reviews, is that a fair basis to revisit the usefulness of pre-release sourcing? That is: is post-release silence on a game retrospective evidence of its non-notability?

Personally, I think WP:TOOSOON is useful but there seems to be very divided views on its value in AFC or AFD. I think clearer guidance on where editors should look is needed: if I had to offer what, I'd say being much clearer that secondary description and commentary on the game beyond restating press releases would be ideal. This is a rare case where WP:PRIMARY developer interviews from RS would actually be pretty defensible. VRXCES (talk) 07:19, 7 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

WP:PRIMARY is already extremely clear that something like a restated press release is not SIGCOV from a secondary source. A preview would need to be as long as your typical review. Even if the game went radio silent after release, it can still be notable from the amount of previews it got. After all, cancelled games can still have articles.
If an article "got through" on the expectation it would be notable later, that's WP:CRYSTAL and someone simply didn't bother to AfD it despite it being non-notable. Sometimes that happens because people can't be bothered to go through the song and dance on the possibility it will just be recreated later.
I don't think there needs to be an additional guideline on this matter. If a theme park has a roller coaster that says "you must be this tall to ride", shorter people will keep trying to ride regardless of how big you make the sign, and often because they want to stick it to the man. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:38, 7 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
I agree with all of this, but, to use your idiom, I wonder if the "tall to ride" sign needs to be made clearer. WP:ROUTINE and WP:NOTROUTINE do not cover this use case at all, the argument is inferred. Divining whether an announcement or preview source is WP:PRIMARY or not is not an exercise performed in the average WP:TOOSOON AFD, those with buy-in to the argument assert it, those that don't feel satisfied without need for analysis. I suppose what prompted this is - is trying to explain the basis of WP:TOOSOON going to require this disparate mix of policy reasoning, or is there something that can be pointed to or clarified to avoid me overusing policy language ad nauseam? VRXCES (talk) 11:47, 7 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
I decided to WP:BEBOLD and add a video games section to the WP:TOOSOON essay, that might assuage your concerns. People are welcome to mess with it if they believe something should be changed, but it might be more useful to point to than just the essay in general, which formerly didn't talk specifically about games. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:34, 7 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Thanks, I really appreciate it. I have a tendency to overanalyse but honestly that input and building a foundation for what we mean when WP:TOOSOON is invoked is really all I wanted to achieve with this discussion. VRXCES (talk) 02:24, 8 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
I think can't be bothered to go through the song and dance is unfair; there's a WP:NOTBURO angle here, as running articles through deletion processes takes time, and waiting can ultimately save editor time. Especially for games releasing in a 1-2 week timeframe, AFD can be be a trainwreck if you get "wait" !votes and if the notability of the topic changes on release. (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sister Other Paranoia comes to mind). ~ A412 talk! 19:15, 7 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
I agree and as I stated in that AFD cited I think the call really is on the nominator to exercise caution in listing it where that will be an inevitable objection. An AFD where there are eyes on coverage is not ideal but not a trainwreck for the article, just for the clarity of the nomination and process I suppose. VRXCES (talk) 02:23, 8 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
In regards to your second question relating to pre-release reviews vs post-release reviews, to me it doesn't make a difference. Pre-release reviews could be from beta, which could be used depending on the circumstances. Reception covering a game, character, place, etc. that is in-depth is reception on that topic, period, and notability should be judged accordingly. Release date doesn't matter to me; it doesn't have any impact on whether or not a subject is notable. (No opinion on anything else). In solidarity, Gommeh (talk 🎮 sign) 11:41, 7 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Thanks and agree, as below with @Sergecross73. VRXCES (talk) 02:26, 8 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
As I often remind people, reviews/receptions are a path to notability, but not the only one. Any dedicated, detailed third party coverage will do, including previews or development info from well before release. Sergecross73 msg me 13:46, 7 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
I used to be more of a deletionist years ago but as long as the article isn't just a stub with crappy sourcing and would be expanded upon when more information gets published over time, then I don't really see the harm in it. If we allow pages for every Overwatch character (mainly sourced to just reception on their release) and Dark Souls gameplay mechanics, then a game in a notable series shouldn't be an issue. — Dissident93 (talk) 19:02, 7 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
I think pre-release versus post-release coverage is the wrong way to frame it. There's pre-release coverage that can meet GNG. Play reports from demos and previews, analysis of released trailers and materials, in-depth development coverage, etc. IMO the better way to think about it is if the reporting is independent. Did the reporter gather their own data, or did they read the press release? Does the article tell you only factual information (description of the game, release date, platforms), or does it include analysis of the game? Obviously the most common and easiest analysis of games is critical reviews analyzing the gameplay, but it's fine if the analytical content analyzes the development or marketing of the game as well. ~ A412 talk! 19:08, 7 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Thanks. I think this is right on the money and the input on what pre-release coverage can help establish that is the kind of analysis that I think is highly valuable to point to. VRXCES (talk) 02:11, 8 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Perhaps WP:NFF could be used as a guide to updating WP:MOSVG? Sariel Xilo (talk) 02:43, 8 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Films have the benefit that their production is typically highly publicized, so that NFF's "standalone once production is confirmed to have started" works for them. Video games are far less publicized when they enter into a development cycle, possibly because there's far longer process that can take multiple years to get through, and secrecy is a major factor in reining in coverage, so we really can't use that. Masem (t) 03:49, 8 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
I don't think we necessarily need an equivalent production threshold for this to be a useful starting point. The guidance under "Future films coverage guide" on routine vs non-routine coverage gets at what A412 described above & could easily be adapted for video games. Also, just stating a video games version of this could be helpful: "The assumption should also not be made that because a film is likely to be a high-profile release it will be immune to setbacks—there is no "sure thing" production." Sariel Xilo (talk) 17:57, 8 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
I agree with Dissident93 that as long as an article is not lazily or hazily created, it should be fine, provided that it has some basic preview coverage from secondary RS. If the announcement itself already includes a lot of gameplay info, and that they are reported by secondary sources, that should be fine too. OceanHok (talk) 14:11, 8 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Several Game Companies

[edit]
Latest comment: 13 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Does anyone see more sources for these companies? I am not going nominate these for AFD (I don't do AFD) but maybe else can if they wish too. (if no more sources are found)

I found these via Category:United States video game company stubs. Timur9008 (talk) 09:12, 9 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Just looking at each company's page, I'd expect only Alchemist to be possibly notable enough to meet Notability requirements. I've at least heard of some of their games. The rest I suspect will indeed be AFD'd. 13akoors (talk) 16:59, 9 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Small request at Light & Wonder

[edit]
Latest comment: 12 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello! I'm an employee at SciPlay, the social gaming subsidiary of Light & Wonder (formerly Scientific Games). I have a request on the L&W article's Talk page to add a short mention of SciPlay within the Subsidiaries section of that article, and I'm looking for someone who'd be willing to give it an objective review. If anyone here has the time and inclination to help with this, here's the link to the request. Thank you! ASchneiderSciPlay (talk) 16:05, 10 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Should Game Boy Color games that are playable on original Game Boy systems include both consoles in its infobox?

[edit]
Latest comment: 8 days ago5 comments5 people in discussion

Many Game Boy Color games prominently advertise themselves as such, but on the back of the box showcase compatibility with the original Game Boy instead. These games come in black Game Boy cartridges instead of clear Game Boy Color cartridges. Some examples include Mega Man Xtreme, Tetris DX, and Pokemon Gold and Silver. (though not Crystal, that is GBC exclusive.)

These cartridges function more like original Game Boy cartridges that happen to get color and sometimes performance improvements on GBC, but are usually just labelled as Game Boy Color and nothing more. Should they instead just be labelled as Game Boy? Should they have both listed if it has monochrome support? Sneak King is in a similar situation as these games, as the disc worked on both OG Xbox and 360 and had different versions for each, and is thus labelled as supporting both systems in the infobox.

I personally believe these games should show both systems, like Sneak King, but since only showing GBC is rather universal on the site, I would like some consensus before adding them to all the impacted games. VeeJayZee (talk) 19:35, 10 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

I'd say they both should be listed. One of the issues with the Game Boy Color is that there's debate in sources as to whether it was a full successor (as some treat it) or an updated original Game Boy model akin to the DSi (as others, including Nintendo, treat it), so I'd say listing them both is a fine solution for now unless we come to a stronger consensus on how to address it. I know some carts that worked in both also contained different builds for the different models (e.g. Conker's Pocket Tales). JOEBRO64 19:55, 10 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Neutral on the proposal but some thoughts: MOS:VGPLATFORMS doesn't address this and only excludes emulation or backwards compatibility. It doesn't address where a game plays natively across systems and creates a gap worth fixing. Regardless of whether GB/GBC are separate systems, Dual Mode games do natively play as GB games. However, they were packaged, released and marketed as for GBC. To avoid confusion, if adopted the primary platform should be listed first in all cases and the prose should clarify the distinction.
Native play alone isn't a workable rule without clarification this only goes one way. For instance, GBC games run on GBA natively, but the compatibility comes from the console and not the intended design. That said, some GBC games like Shantae were made to take use of native GBA capabilities: where do they fit into all of this?
This is quite a moderate change and would prompt a change to WP:MOS/VG so it would be good to figure out consensus and test any issues. VRXCES (talk) 00:08, 12 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
A good question, and I don't know. I don't think, for instance, that Pokémon Gold and Silver should qualify as a Game Boy game, even though it is playable. The reason I say this is because I don't know that I ever see anyone talk about this fact. I think a better option would be a footnote attached to Game Boy Color that says "this game can be played on the Game Boy". To me, it's so comparatively niche that it would be like listing Pokémon Red and Blue as SNES games or Pokémon Ruby and Sapphire as GameCube games. It's not the same, but I'd say all three are known to be playable on these platforms comparatively. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 13:08, 12 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
I'm a bit torn on this. In theory it doesn't sound bad, but doesn't the Nintendo DS and the Game Boy Advance also play Game Boy Color and Game Boy games? I'm not sure how useful it would be to sayyyy Mercenary Force was also released for the Game Boy Color, and Advance, and DS.
It might be better just to state in a release section of these games if Game Boy and Game Boy Color games are compatable or not, or if they add or lose features or something that way. Not sure. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:09, 14 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Usage of non-breaking spaces in console names

[edit]
Latest comment: 9 days ago9 comments5 people in discussion

Hello, per MOS:NBSP, non-breaking spaces should be added "where breaking across lines might be confusing or awkward", specifically:

Boeing{{nbsp}}747

To me, this clearly means that consoles such as "PlayStation 2", "Nintendo Switch 2", and "Xbox 360" should also have non-breaking spaces to keep the name and number together.

My posting here was suggested by @Sergecross73.

Thanks for any and all input! -- Brad (talk) 02:52, 11 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Yes, my objection was that, in all the articles I maintain, we don't use "[[Nintendo Switch 2|Nintendo Switch {{nbsp}}2]]" and "Switch{{nbsp}}2" across entire articles. Same for any of the platform listed above. Sergecross73 msg me 03:03, 11 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
This feels like the type of thing that should be done as an article advances through the GA/FA process or when it is mostly complete, as that is an easy search/replace task (eg something AWB can do , or copy/paste to a text editor and back). I wouldn't push it at an early stage on an article unless the editor is devoted to doing that. Masem (t) 04:13, 11 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
To clarify, I added non-breaking spaces to an article and my edit was reverted. -- Brad (talk) 05:29, 11 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
I don't think people here disagree with it, it seems to be something to take up with the user who did it and inform them of why you did it. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:40, 12 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
I suggested a wider discussion here. I figured something was missing here. I don't see it used like this in any of the articles I write or maintain. For example, Super Mario 64. It's an WP:FA. "Nbsp" is used throughout the article, but not once is it used for names like "Nintendo 64" or "Super Mario 64". Sergecross73 msg me 13:49, 12 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
I don't really see the harm in letting people add it to pages, it's literally part of the Manual of Style, but it seems like something super obscure and there isn't even an option to add it in Visual Editor as far as I know. The fact that Visual Editor may even end up breaking instances that already exist could be something of a problem. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:48, 12 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
I've not seen much of {nbsp} in articles, but i have seen some use of {nowrap}, which serves the same purpose. So I can attest to it being added, but sparingly 13akoors (talk) 15:41, 12 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Sergecross73 was the user who reverted my comments. I linked to MOS:NBSP and they suggested I post here. -- Brad (talk) 18:44, 13 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

New Articles (September 7 to September 13)

[edit]
Latest comment: 8 days ago4 comments3 people in discussion
 A listing of all articles newly added to the Video Games Wikiproject (regardless of creation date). Generated by v3.23 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 15:09, 14 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

September 7

September 8

September 9

September 10

September 11

September 12

September 13

--PresN 15:09, 14 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

What's going on with Just Dance: Decades of Hits? It was draftified, undrafitifed, and somehow lost sources in the process. ~ A412 talk! 15:17, 14 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
No idea, though no iteration of it looks great... Sergecross73 msg me 15:21, 14 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Final Fantasy VII Famitsu review issue

[edit]
Latest comment: 7 days ago4 comments3 people in discussion

As part of the cleanup to stave off an FAR for Final Fantasy, I've been adding RS citations for the individual main games' Famitsu scores (trying to remove the Geimin.net website that was previously used). The only one I haven't found a reliable source for yet is Final Fantasy VII. I've been searching for either the original Famitsu review or a reliable source that reported on the score. Judging by the Japanese release date, I believe Famitsu was reviewed around issue 424 or 425 (give or take an issue). Any help would be appreciated. (Guyinblack25 talk 18:15, 15 September 2026 (UTC))Reply

Issue 425, score 38/40, page doesn't give individual scores: . International version, score 37/40, no individual scores or issue number (probably issue 460, 10 Oct 1997): . --Mika1h (talk) 18:54, 15 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
The 10 Oct 1997 issue is on archive.org. It has a preview article, and says that the full review will be the following week. Adam Sampson (talk) 20:57, 15 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
The old Famitsu page works for what is on the franchise page. Thank you! (Guyinblack25 talk 21:01, 15 September 2026 (UTC))Reply

Zellers sources

[edit]
Latest comment: 7 days ago2 comments1 person in discussion

The Canadian retail chain Zellers released a bunch of Atari 2600 games in the early 80s (mostly bootlegs and relabels of Taiwanese games released elsewhere). I'm having a lot of trouble finding reliable coverage on them, outside of a few landing pages. Does anyone know of any Canadian magazines or newspapers that might have coverage? Whipmywillows (talk) 19:05, 15 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

The titles I'm looking for, if it helps: Busy Police, Challenge, Circus, Dragon Treasure, Earth Attack, Farmer Dan, Freeway, Frontline, Inca Gold, Laser Volley, Ocean City Defender, Pinball, Radar, Scuba Diver, Sea Hawk, Space Adventure, Time Warp, Turmoil. As mentioned almost all of these were released by other companies, I'm only really looking for Zellers' involvement. Whipmywillows (talk) 19:18, 15 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Article Banner Removal

[edit]
Latest comment: 5 days ago9 comments3 people in discussion

Hello. Disclosure: I am a paid editor with a COI (client: RetroStyle Games), declared on my user page. I'm posting here rather than pinging anyone in particular.

Codename: Ocean Keeper is an existing article currently tagged {{promotional}} and {{orphan}}. I've filed a COI edit request on its talk page proposing a neutral rewrite that cites only sources listed as reliable at WP:VG/RS — Destructoid, PCGamesN and Game*Spark (generally reliable) plus GameCritics — and I removed the weaker sources an earlier reviewer objected to.

Could an uninvolved editor review the edit request and, if appropriate, action it and reassess the tags? I'm not editing the article directly. Thanks. BasicStormtrooper (talk) 09:54, 16 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Even the revised version fails WP:GNG due to use of unreliable sources - see WP:VG/S.
This is the only reliable, significant coverage I could find. I'd basically tell your client that it's simply not possible to make such an article due to Wiki standards on notability, unless it got some major foreign language review I'm not aware of, and that Wikipedia is not for promotion without notability. I've nominated the article for deletion here to ensure the banners are something that can even be fixed. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:36, 16 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Hello. Can you please explain more about the deletion of the article? Its hard for me to understand some things about the rules (maybe a learning curve, since I am just making my first steps in the Wikipedia posting).
It was originally accepted (even though flagged as promotional). I've made changes, got feedback that many article are not suitable, and removed all the stuff, leaving only reliable sources.
I don't really understand why this article is nominated for deletion. I really appreciate your feedback and this message is meant to clarify things for me.
Furthermore, if the article is nominated for deletion, what are my next steps? Can I try and fix it before deletion? Or can I submit it later if it gets deleted?
Thank you! BasicStormtrooper (talk) 18:07, 16 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for the prompt reply, and for clarifying you did not use AI below. I'll try to answer your questions as best as I can.
if the article is nominated for deletion, what are my next steps? Your next steps should be to take a look at what people are saying in the deletion discussion (link: ) and respond accordingly. A list of video game sources considered reliable can be found here; search the sources linked there and see if you can find anything discussing your game in a lot of detail. Essentially, there needs to be critical analysis of the game (e.g. plot, art, design, music, etc.) from a reliable source. Concerns were raised at the deletion discussion that the sources used now were sponsored. Sponsored sources are not taken into account when assessing notability (whether or not something is worthy of an article on Wikipedia). If you're still confused about this, see Wikipedia:Notability for more information.
Can I try and fix it before deletion? Or can I submit it later if it gets deleted? The answer to both is yes, you can. You have a COI, so you still are discouraged from making edits to the article yourself. At any rate, by the looks of it you'll probably need to find at least one more gaming outlet listed on WP:VG/S who's done an independent, detailed piece on your game if you want to ensure the article gets kept. In solidarity, Gommeh (talk 🎮 sign) 18:20, 16 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for your reply! I will really look into all of the factors you have mentioned and will do my best to find new sources. I really appreciate your feedback and will do my best to save the article from deletion :)
Have a nice day! BasicStormtrooper (talk) 18:26, 16 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Did you use AI to generate that message, @BasicStormtrooper? We highly discourage using AI to communicate with users here on Wikipedia. We want to hear what you have to say, not what ChatGPT is telling you (guideline is at WP:LLMTALK). While it's possible that this is a false positive, GPTZero gave me a 100% indication that your above message is AI-generated. In solidarity, Gommeh (talk 🎮 sign) 17:49, 16 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Hello!
No, I didn't use AI, I just tried to make this message as brief and certain as possible. From my experience in using AI detectors, they often flag brief or somewhat "template" messages as AI. I am sorry that my message gave such an impression (even though I think that AI usage for a message would be a pretty stupid idea). Believe it or not, I have a lot of personal reasons to not use AI in my work, especially in communication.
About the article itself, I don't quite understand why it is nominated for deletion and is still marked as promotional. I've made enough changes that made it a regular and non-promotional article. Just gave information about the game itself. Honestly, its quite difficult for me to understand why any other article about a video game can exist, while this can't. BasicStormtrooper (talk) 18:03, 16 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
There are sites that editors have decided are unreliable and reliable, based on their past history of article quality and writer trustworthiness. It is quite easy for "unreliable" sources to have little journalistic credibility, or be content farms who have zero discernment in what they write about. WP:RSP is something of a master list for reliable sources, but individual subject areas also have more specific master lists like WP:VG/S. The deletion nomination is because a dearth of reliable sources has been found, though some new sources have been discovered that means it's possible it will be kept. They are totally different than the ones you mentioned though, and include one from GamePlay (magazine) among others. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:00, 16 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for your reply! I will definitely look more into articles you brought to my attention, as well as will try to find new ones. I really appreciate your feedback and effort to help me with the article! Thank you. BasicStormtrooper (talk) 08:06, 17 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Tokyo Game Show

[edit]
Latest comment: 1 day ago12 comments7 people in discussion

I will be at Tokyo Game Show in a few hours.

Anything you want me to take pictures of? Syced (talk) 12:07, 18 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

I have zero idea if there are any requirements, but IMO I would try to get a picture of the General Exhibition Area if there is one, and take pictures of major video game exhibits/marketing material, as they will be helpful for adding images to the "Marketing" sections of those articles The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1(The Garage) 14:19, 18 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Just watch out, Japan does not have Freedom of Panorama except for buildings. Photos of copyrighted content will be deleted if uploaded to Commons unless clearly not the main subject of the image. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:47, 18 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Definitely any developers. There's a good amount without an image on their page. GamerPro64 19:18, 18 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Any pictures you can get that you intent to provide to commons, try to avoid having copyrighted elements front and center or in clear view. A poster in the background of a far shot will be okay per commons' de minimus approach, but if the art is clearly visible and seems to be the focus of the photo, we'd not be able to treat it as free. Masem (t) 19:20, 18 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Any developers, particularly non-Japanese ones or anyone that's having a big panel there (assuming they allow pictures at those). In solidarity, Gommeh (talk 🎮 sign) 19:22, 18 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
I'm a miHoYo fan, so on the off-chance they've decided to show up again, anything regarding them or their games. Having said that, they haven't been to TGS since I believe 2023. In solidarity, Gommeh (talk 🎮 sign) 20:57, 18 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
I'm a Dead or Alive fan so any merch of DOAX Venus Vacation at the Koei Tecmo booth would be cool. Also, I believe Melty Blood: Twi-Lumina will have a big presence at the Aniplex booth. Any photos of either would be most welcome! Jotamide (talk) 20:31, 18 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

I uploaded a few dozen pictures at Category:Tokyo Game Show 2026. Problem: I have 1000 more (mostly indie game booths) and will never have the time to upload them all (blurring copyrighted parts takes me a long time). Plus I actually have very limited gaming knowledge. Any volunteer to upload them? I believe you can contact me via email, I can share a Google Drive folder with you. Thanks in advance! Syced (talk) 08:14, 20 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

How about uploading them all to a Flickr album with a license that allows volunteers use Flickr2Commons and pick what's safe to use? Jotamide (talk) 23:45, 20 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Done: https://www.flickr.com/photos/204995936@N06 Flickr only allows 1000 pictures for free accounts, so I uploaded the first 1000, but there are 2000 more waiting. Can you let me know once everything usable is uploaded, so that I can upload the next batch? My Google Drive offer also stands. By the way, the Flickr account I was previously using for this purpose had been deleted (presumably due to low activity) so I had to create another account, I don't expect this new one to last longer. Syced (talk) 04:12, 21 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Reminder

[edit]
Latest comment: 1 day ago3 comments2 people in discussion

We currently have three FACs open atm, therefore all of the nominators would appreciate if others could leave comments:

Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 11:10, 21 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

We also have several PRs open, e.g. mine Wikipedia:Peer review/Traveler (Genshin Impact)/archive1, if someone could give their thoughts on it. I'd like more than 2 people to give their input. In solidarity, Gommeh (talk 🎮 sign) 11:34, 21 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Also Wikipedia:Peer review/Aperture Tag/archive1. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 11:49, 21 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

New Articles (September 14 to September 20)

[edit]
Latest comment: 1 day ago2 comments1 person in discussion
 A listing of all articles newly added to the Video Games Wikiproject (regardless of creation date). Generated by v3.23 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 13:50, 21 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

September 14

September 15

September 16

September 17

September 18

September 19

September 20

--PresN 13:51, 21 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Pending COI edit request at Talk:Mitchell F. Chan

[edit]
Latest comment: 19 hours ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi all. I'm the subject of Mitchell F. Chan (disclosed, verified account). On 19 July I posted sourcing fixes as an {{edit COI}} request at Talk:Mitchell F. Chan#Edit requests from the article subject (sourcing fixes). Each one addresses a "failed verification" or "citation needed" tag and comes with an independent source. The request is still open, so if an uninvolved editor has time to review it, I'd be grateful. I won't edit the article myself. Thanks! Mitchellfchan (talk) 02:05, 22 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games&oldid=1376192633"