Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 253: Line 253:
:I don't have issues with the category being re-made once again. I'll also add to what Tarkus said as well, by citing what happened with X for the Game Boy; an English fan translation appeared the very same day the unreleased official English localization (Lunar Chase) was leaked in 2020. [[User:KGRAMR|Roberth Martinez]] ([[User talk:KGRAMR|talk]]) 01:22, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
:I don't have issues with the category being re-made once again. I'll also add to what Tarkus said as well, by citing what happened with X for the Game Boy; an English fan translation appeared the very same day the unreleased official English localization (Lunar Chase) was leaked in 2020. [[User:KGRAMR|Roberth Martinez]] ([[User talk:KGRAMR|talk]]) 01:22, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
:A category like this will be fine, as long as -- as you suggest -- each entry has a RS that has reported on the translation. [[User:Phediuk|Phediuk]] ([[User talk:Phediuk|talk]]) 01:35, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
:A category like this will be fine, as long as -- as you suggest -- each entry has a RS that has reported on the translation. [[User:Phediuk|Phediuk]] ([[User talk:Phediuk|talk]]) 01:35, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
*What's the point, is there really anything improved by this category beyond all the interlinking already existing at [[Fan translation of video games]] and [[:Category:Fan translation]]. <span style="background:black;padding:1px 4px">[[User:Salvidrim!|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:white">Ben&nbsp;·&nbsp;Salvidrim!</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Salvidrim!|<span style="color:white">&#9993;</span>]]</span> 01:56, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Revision as of 01:56, 16 December 2023

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.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles
ProjectThis page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Magazine list

The Reference Library magazine list has been updated. There's more work that could be done but I was getting exhausted of adding magazines and most of the major publications are listed anyways. Feel free to add more magazines and links. TarkusABtalk/contrib 17:07, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work; this looks like a great resource for older sources. Phediuk (talk) 13:13, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good work. This should come in handy. Timur9008 (talk) 18:16, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@TarkusAB: Thanks for your herculean effort! I really mean it :) I'll help you filling the library by finding more vintage or retro gaming magazines i might come across :D Take a rest, you deserve it! Roberth Martinez (talk) 22:48, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion pieces are always reliable, regardless of source?

User:Kung Fu Man has reverted the removal of a Comic Book Resources source from Larry (Pokémon) stating that "this is an opinion piece". Consensus says that post 2016, the site is unreliable. I had assumed that unreliable source meant it was not usable in any case, but am I incorrect in thinking this? And would this even qualify as an opinion article? The title certainly does not allude to it being an opinion. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:52, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't what I was saying Zx, and I already brought up a discussion on WP:VG/S that I feel that judgement was made in haste and furthermore makes no sense compared to the others. I would suggest continuing the discussion there so it's not spread out.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:56, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure where the "made in haste" part was? CBR has been caught using AI to write articles and fired most if not all of their editors. An array of users all agreed that it was unreliable and there isn't much wiggle room in this determination. The fact is that there is no way to prove a CBR article was or wasn't made with AI. The Larry article certainly exhibits some hallmarks of it, like overly exaggerating writing that claims he is an "exquisite commentary" without saying much about how it is so exquisite. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:01, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If I may ask, why is the range from 2016-present? I understand the Valnet purchase made CBR's content lower quality, hence the situational-ness, but the AI thing seems to be a fairly recent change? I don't see why the announcement of AI made articles in August of this year would affect the past seven years, especially since AI making articles in and of itself is a fairly recent thing. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 06:54, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"The fact is that there is no way to prove a CBR article was or wasn't made with AI. The Larry article certainly exhibits some hallmarks of it,"
The AI usage accusation came out mid this year, that article was written in December 2022. I will add too, apparently they did comment on the AI-usage accusation and stated they had no potential plans to. No offense man I get not wanting to possibly use AI articles, but claiming that one is such a reach so hard I fear you may have destroyed your shoulder.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 07:50, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ironically, the same article says that employees are expected to write more than 10 articles a day. While they might not be overtly using it, it's still very much a possibility that employees are covertly using it to let them meet the quota. More than 10 articles a day is just impossible unless they do almost no research and heavily compromise on quality and provides a very strong incentive to stick them into GPT-4 given they are freelance workers. It may not be true but I also don't think it's an extreme reach like you say. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:55, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Zx, I'll give you the content mill aspect is terrible. And as I stated, them firing 3/4 of their workforce is enough to say they shouldn't be counted as unreliable from that point. But when you have a source from the horse's mouth saying "it's not happening" and you assume it is, nevermind the fact it's from a point before the whole "AI article" BS even went into full swing, you're basically doing original research.
At worst in this case I feel the Larry article should flesh out that source. But I don't see that article as any worse than those from the other sites, let alone stuff like GamesRadar, IGN or GameInformer have cranked out.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:15, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree with Zx here. CBR uses AI now, they can't be trusted. QuicoleJR (talk) 02:15, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And I agree, but that's a change that went down *this year*, as did the mass firings. There's still the issue of 2016 to that point.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 07:42, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously, a change that happened after a piece was published does not affect its reliability (re: AI). Also, VG is not the only project to assess sources. Quote from WP:A&M/RS: "Comic Book Resources: From 2016 to mid-2023, Comic Book Resources is generally considered to be fine for attributed opinions and columns ...". Charcoal feather (talk) 18:53, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine ValNet's purchase of Comic Book Resources and the content-mill it is today is what excludes it from being a reliable source, not specifically the AI-written articles. If anything, using AI generation is a symptom of an unreliable source; it would've already had poor editorial standards beforehand. I don't know the evolution of its editorial policy and staff well enough to say a specific date when the publication became unusable... ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 18:21, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On a related note, given the glut of AfDs for Pokemon character and monster articles on the basis of notability, is the sourcing in a good state? I'm not looking to endanger the article at all, but I've been a little confused about where the line for character articles should be drawn given how many AfDs for far larger Pokemon articles there have been. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 09:58, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that, because of the status of Comic Book Resources, Kotaku, and Screen Rant, this would be best off merged back into the List of Pokémon characters. Three or four citations when there's an overarching list to cover the subject, typically means the subject can be described in enough detail in said list. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 13:45, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Vrxces: The main problem is there's SIGCOV but not a lot to say about the character itself in the body of the work yet. It's a reverse of some Pokemon articles . (i.e. Snorlax, who survived a recent AfD because he was "too iconic" but honestly is light on actual reception).--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:17, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's an interesting contrast to the usual situation. I've really noticed a purge of character articles recently, which seem to have a more subjective, amorphous approach to notability, so it's been a little confusing to watch. Fortunately, accepting that I'm a bit confused about it has definitely nipped my deletionist streak in the bud! ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 01:19, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Larry is fine as an article in terms of sourcing right now. I'm not exactly hailing those sources as always being reliable (They're situational for a reason) but the three you've listed all contain significant commentary on Larry, which means they are all viable sources in this instance. Ruling out sources solely because they're situational isn't exactly a great way to class a character's coverage, especially since the coverage, all put together, is more than enough for a separate article, in my view. Several sources all discussing the character in depth with no real "filler" sources is better than a lot of articles that have been merged in the past, such as Pichu. (Who really didn't have much significant discussion to Larry's extent by comparison) The only reason it's such a small article right now is really because Larry is such a recent character, and thus has only made the one appearance as of now. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 03:37, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hill Agency: PURITYdecay

Could someone from this WikiProject take a look at Hill Agency: PURITYdecay and assess per WP:NVIDEOGAME? it was just moved to the mainspace by it's creator from their userpage, which means it never got assessed for Wikipedia notability via WP:AFC. The creator is student editor in Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/Texas_Christian_University/Technological_Dystopias_(Fall2023); so, they might not be too familiar with notability guidelines related to video games. The article actually doesn't look too bad at first glance and may only be in need of some minor cleanup, but I too am not very familiar with the notability guidelines for videopgames and how they are typically applied. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:46, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The prose is decent for a newbie...but the sourcing is pretty rough, and it has zero professional reviews on Metacritic. Not saying it's not notable yet...but there are some bad signs. Sergecross73 msg me 02:50, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It might be a good idea then to let the WikiEd advisor(s) assigned to this student's course know about it then. If the current soucing is not sufficient to survive an AfD, then maybe it's better to WP:DRAFTIFY the article so that they student doesn't lose their work. At the same time, if the student is being graded on their work, others stepping in a further improving the article might also not be the best thing for the student. I'll add a {{Please see}} to the WikiEd advisor's user talk page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:06, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping @Marchjuly. My two-cents is to treat this as you would any other submission. If there's some hope for it and can be improved upon with reliable sources, then I think it's worth giving that chance with WP:DRAFTIFY or tagging with Template:Notability. I'll let the editors know about this convo and encourage them to work on it. Brianda (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:55, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would classify it as "in danger" of an AFD nom, but also potentially salvageable too. Some of the sources are iffy, but the awards it's received could help. My two cents - give it a "ref improve" tag and see if anyone can improve it. Sergecross73 msg me 19:15, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tagging it with a maintenance template (e.g. {{More citations needed}}) seems reasonable for the moment per Sergecross73's suggestion above. Some questions for Brianda (Wiki Ed) though. Does this Wiki ED course class instructor and their students understand WP:OWN? Do they realize that once one of their students moves something into the mainspace it's there for anyone and everyone to edit? Are they differentiating between the contributions of their students and contributions made by others when it comes to grading their students? -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:06, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've always wondered about that last question. Am I hurting their grades when I revert their their misguided work? Or unfairly helping them out if I rewrite/expand it? Just curious. Sergecross73 msg me 01:12, 6 December 2023 (UTC) [reply]
Good questions @Marchjuly, @Sergecross73 . We make it clear in our trainings and in our conversations with instructors that any content added to Wikipedia needs to follow WP:GP, and if it doesn't, then editors might comment on, edit, revert, etc, and that's ok and that's how Wikipedia works. Short answer, no, you are not hurting their grades or unfairly helping them. If anything, you are helping them see how the process of knowledge creation works on Wikipedia, how it's community based and how these guidelines are actually enforced. I think when students (first-time editors) experience this, it helps dispel the myth that anyone can do whatever they want on Wikipedia, and helps build trust towards the platform. If you are curious about the grading aspect, you can check out this link, that has other links, that go into depth about the different ways instructors can grade an assignment.
With that said, if you come across work that isn't following WP:GP, feel free to ping me! I can't be everywhere all at once, but I try my best to get into contact with the instructors and students asap, to address the concerns raised. Brianda (Wiki Ed) (talk) 23:11, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Brianda (Wiki Ed) for the explanation, I appreciate it. One other question...I assume you meant to link to something different than WP:GP? That appears to link to "Gadget Proposals". Sergecross73 msg me 23:37, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh no. I meant WP:PG. Sorry about that. Brianda (Wiki Ed) (talk) 23:42, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. Thanks again. Happy to get answers for things I wondered about but never took the time to figure out before. Sergecross73 msg me 23:49, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New Articles (November 27 to December 3)

Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements
 A listing of all articles newly added to the Video Games Wikiproject (regardless of creation date). Generated by v3.16 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 16:49, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

November 27

November 28

  • None

November 29

November 30

December 1

December 2

December 3

  • None

Pre-FAC peer review of Hotline Miami 2: Wrong Number

For the past while (basically since I have joined Wikipedia), I have been working on improving Hotline Miami 2: Wrong Number as much as possible, getting it through GAN back in October, and I plan to nominate it for FAC some time in January. This will be my first time nominating something for FAC and due to this, I have opened up a pre-FAC peer review for the article, which has gone nearly a month without any responses. If anyone could take a look at it that would be great, and I'm willing to exchange reviews as well. NegativeMP1 22:49, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The peer review is now closed. NegativeMP1 03:10, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hedgewars, again

Hedgewars is a free and open-source turn-based tactical artillery game and Worms clone. On this site, it was deleted in 2009 and 2014, after which it was WP:SALTed. However, to bypass the restriction, the article reappeared as "Hedgewars (video game)", and it was deleted again in 2022, though not salted. In each of these discussions, the rationale behind the result was failure to establish notablility, although the last discussion saw the hardest evidence in favor of it. This discussion presents an even stronger case for it, with some sources the same as those presented there, and with these sources, either Hedgewars meets the notability requirements by a small margin, or I am beginning to learn what exactly that line is.

To minimize the possibility of reviews being solicited, I left out those by websites such as Softpedia. I also only considered substantial reviews, rather than those like one by Linux For You, so I was left with six reviews. Two come from Gry-Online and PC Guru. Both are considered high-quality sources, one according to WP:VG/RS and the other probably so. Two further sources are Linux-oriented, LinuxEXPRES and EasyLinux (via LinuxCommunity). The last two sources are notably mainstream: iDNEZ.cz, a major Czech website, and Republica, a Spanish news website, although curiously, the latter's article is dated about a year and a half before the site was launched. I am not sure what is with that. It could be that it originated on a different publication before its contents were merged into this one.

Hedgewars also received news coverage. They include these two Czech websites, but I prefer articles with significant coverage, so I am limited to three articles. One comes from Komputer Świat, of moderate length. The other two are by Root.cz, which is a little longer, and LinuxCommunity, the most comprehensive article I could find on the Web. There are of course minor news articles, like this one concerning an iPhone port. There are also various articles in the format of "best x games" or "top n x games", the best of which seems to be "the 10 best free software games" by Linux Voice, although I am concerned that it may be undue since, coming from a Linux magazine, it is possibly intended to be a list of "the 10 best free software Linux games".

Of all the high-quality, substantial articles and reviews that attempted to demonstrate Hedgewars's notability, I could uncover a total of nine sources, all unique. That is a lot of sources for an FOSS title, one that has no hope of surpassing Worms in popularity, at least in the near future. The coverage has definitely improved since the 2009 deletion, and with it serving as the most comprehensive evidence for notability to date, this discussion should serve as the most well-informed debate and there as the final verdict on the game's notability, with the possibility of future significant coverage. I am on the fence on this subject, but assuming all the nine said sources can be used, I am inclined to believing that the secondary coverage pulls it into notable territory necessary for an article on Wikipedia. I remember reading nearly a decade ago about the developers chiding Wikipedia for deleting the article twice. They may chide us again should we not find for its notability, but I would not be personally offended. Any conflict-of-interest issues can be handled with in case we do. FreeMediaKid$ 21:46, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Impressive job finding sources, I think the article meets WP:GNG. You should nominate the page at Wikipedia:Deletion review. --Mika1h (talk) 23:51, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would also support putting it at Deletion review in order to potentially overturn the deletion with these sources. The fact that most of its coverage was in a different language probably tripped people up. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:36, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, maybe before hitting up DR, you could create a draft version with the new sources. Masem (t) 13:05, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Seconding this. People have a much better time envisioning the article when they can just see what it would look like and not have to envision. Axem Titanium (talk) 01:18, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New Articles (December 4 to December 10)

Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements
 A listing of all articles newly added to the Video Games Wikiproject (regardless of creation date). Generated by v3.16 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 01:53, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

December 4

December 5

December 6

December 7

December 9

December 10

  • I removed the VG project banner from List of K-On! characters. It's strictly about the anime characters, and any game relation seems to be due to the licensed works in the original article (video games aren't even mentioned in that list).--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:08, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Accolades table, Gayming Magazin

My understanding is that Gayming is considered a publication award with subject expertise. But this was disputed by @Sophiesyne: and @CandyGallows:, therefore I figure it would be worth bringing up here. (@Rhain: Also I found insisting on linking Gayming Awards on Stray (video game) rather surprising, but I realize LGBT is a hot issue) Regards IgelRM (talk) 13:27, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is this specifically a question about Stray (video game)? Because I wouldn't include a reader-polled/choice award in with wider industry awards or a publication-specific one. The latter are far more consequential than the former. (And on the same note, I find it really weird that PlayStation Blog gets a similar large amount of space to talk about its own awards, especially since it's not an independent entity.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 14:27, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, I believe it's mostly about this edit at Cult of the Lamb and this one at Signalis, both of which moved the Gayming Awards nominations from prose to the table. The mention of Stray seems solely in opposition to this edit which added a link to Gayming Awards. Not sure I see the point of a statement like "LGBT is a hot issue" since it's neither an "issue" nor relevant to the conversation. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 01:18, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, although you also reverted my edit at first for poor quality. It was more of a observation and since I'm mentioning Gayming anyway here. Apologies if it sounded like I was coming at you. IgelRM (talk) 12:57, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't dispute Gayming Magazine's expertise. I reverted your edit because you removed the Gayming Awards from the Signalis article's awards table. I support adding a paragraph to the section. However, our policy is for the table to remain intact despite any information the paragraph repeats (God of War is an excellent example). I assume others reverted your edits for similar reasons. Hopefully, this cleared up any confusion.
--Sophiesyne (talk) 17:58, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but this paragraph/table difference is precisely why I brought this up. Please see David Fuchs above, I don't think it is necessary to include in the table as well. IgelRM (talk) 12:58, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of role-playing video games: 2022 to 2023

The redirect List of role-playing video games: 2022 to 2023 was previously deleted because of WP:TOOSOON. As that seems no longer applicable, I re-created the page as a stub list. It would help if the table could be further populated. Thank you. Praemonitus (talk) 17:27, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

VGHF will be providing an online digital gaming resource library soon

Preview of its features Masem (t) 01:12, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mario Kart Wii "Ultra Shortcut(s)"

I used the custom Google search engine for reliable sources for video games WP:VG/LRS and I typed in "Mario Kart Wii Ultra Shortcut" and wasn't sure if the coverage in the sources that come up make this topic notable to be included on the Mario Kart Wii page or somewhere else on Wikipedia like a section on the Speedrunning page. Can someone please help me understand? I am super surprised it wasn't mentioned on Talk: Mario Kart Wii until I mentioned it. NintendoTTTEfan2005 (talk) 06:11, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eurogamer, Polygon, Vice; It's true that Mario Kart Wii is becoming quite known as a game massively broken by speedrunners. Can definitely be worth a line or two in the Legacy section, though if you want to go further than that, I'd be interested in what you could compile and write on it :) ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 07:55, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, can definitely do that. Though the legacy section of MKW's page was removed a while ago. But perhaps in can be brought back. But I'd say that perhaps it should be called "Speedrunning presence", since that is the name for the section of the Mario Kart 64 page that talks about the speedrunning scene. NintendoTTTEfan2005 (talk) 08:00, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's probably a reasonable section header here. I wonder if there's sources talking about Mario Kart Wii speedrunning very broadly. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:41, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Idk. I will have to check NintendoTTTEfan2005 (talk) 08:46, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A section called 'speedrunning presence' doesn't seem the right choice to me and a 'legacy' section is often tricky. For legacy, try to see it as a lasting influence on other games. That a game can be buggy and be exploited in speedrunning isn't 'legacy'. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 09:40, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also of the mindset of thinking that a few sentences in the article would be fine, but a whole section or separate article would be a bit much... Sergecross73 msg me 14:24, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Glad to have opinions about this from others. But where should the information go in the article?NintendoTTTEfan2005 (talk) 14:27, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's a Mario Kart 8#Fan response as part of its reception section that contains random odds and ends like modding and the "Luigi Death Stare". Maybe something like that? Sergecross73 msg me 14:51, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like that might work. But I am wondering if I should mention and/or link the YouTube video by Summoning Salt titled "Mario Kart Wii: History of the Ultra Shortcut", since the video titled "The Quest to beat Abney317" is referenced and linked directly in the section of the Mario Kart 64 page. NintendoTTTEfan2005 (talk) 15:00, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, I think the Mario Kart 64 section on speedrunning should be reworked, or deleted. It wasn't written according to reliable sources. Something I noticed earlier on the year - while Mario Kart 8 was very well written by a lot of experienced editors, there's a number of older entries that aren't particularly well written. For example, at the beginning of the year, I noticed Mario Kart 7 was in surprisingly bad shape. I cleaned it up some, but it's still not amazing. So don't assume other article are necessarily the way to do things either. Sergecross73 msg me 15:11, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Viability of a Category:Fan translated video games

I noticed that such a category was deleted back in 2007, but only had small participation in the discussion. I for one think that a video game having a fan translation is defining, as there are many games that are only widely known in the West due to this, like Mother 3. When speaking about such games, the fan translation is front and center. I'd like people's opinions on whether it would be viable or not though. It would preferably only contain games whose translations were specifically mentioned in reliable sources. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:19, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You'd need to consider whether or not to include re-translations (games officially localized but fans don't like the translation so released their own), or incomplete translations. TarkusABtalk/contrib 01:10, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have issues with the category being re-made once again. I'll also add to what Tarkus said as well, by citing what happened with X for the Game Boy; an English fan translation appeared the very same day the unreleased official English localization (Lunar Chase) was leaked in 2020. Roberth Martinez (talk) 01:22, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A category like this will be fine, as long as -- as you suggest -- each entry has a RS that has reported on the translation. Phediuk (talk) 01:35, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games&oldid=1190120760"