Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Your Wikiproject Video Games New Years Resolution

[edit]
This suit cost me three grand. Feel the satin and weep. Happy new year!

I'm aware that I recently did a "non-productive post" above (as my haters call them) but I thought this would be fun. After all, who doesn't love an icebreaker? I don't!

What's your Wikipedia-related resolution for 2025? What new projects, achievements, or goals do you want to get done in the new year? Then we can look back and see both the people who conquered their goals and the people we should leave behind for 2026.

Unofficially dead Nicalis game

[edit]

On the Nicalis page, we've had 90s Super GP listed for twelve years. There has been no official word from Nicalis since 2015, with only subtle changes, (like the title itself), made. It's still listed on the Nicalis website, but having been in the industry myself, I can attest that the creator is no longer involved and the last expo presence or even rumored stages of development were made in 2019. Do we even list this vaporware at this juncture? BOTTO (T•C) 00:13, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Only if a reliable source calls it vaporware (or cancelled.) I understand your concern in this instance, but if we let editors make this call personally, then we get these overzealous/pessimistic editors declaring games like Metroid Prime 4 or Shin Megami Tensei V as vaporware or cancelled games. Sergecross73 msg me 01:29, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sergecross73: It's good to see you again, Sergecross73. We have a bunch of articles like this one that pragmatically ask the question, "What the hell happened to '90s Super GP," but none that explicitly calling it "vaporware" or "cancelled". I'd compare it to Half-Life 2: Episode Three, except Valve recently acknowledged that it wasn't going to happen. BOTTO (T•C) 02:19, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This intrigued me, so I made the article at '90s Super GP.
From what I saw, it's indeed vaporware but not officially cancelled. Such games can resurrect at any point, and the game was even referenced in a subsequent game by that developer. Unless it sees a full cancellation it should be listed as such. BTW, the Nintendo Life article does say it is in "development hell", akin to vaporware. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:06, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Zxcvbnm: Wow, great work! It certainly is one of the most infamous cases of both predatory indie publisher practices and development hell. There's nothing saying it won't ever be released, so maybe we'll eventually see it pushed out eventually? BOTTO (T•C) 20:08, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
after all, we got Metroid Dread... Andre🚐 05:59, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Steam (service)

[edit]

Steam (service) has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. 💽 LunaEclipse 💽 🌹 ⚧ (CALL ME IF YOU GET LOST) 14:16, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone finish this draft about a Chinese video game franchise?

[edit]

Draft:Roco Kingdom (game). Abandoned by the student creator, since the course finished. We have three very bad, AfD-asking, articles on related media (animated films) that may be deleted without redirecting if there is no main article for this to be redirected to: Roco Kingdom: The Desire of Dragon, Roco Kingdom 3 and Roco Kingdom 4. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:03, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's going to probably need a Chinese speaker. Andre🚐 05:09, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Likely; I've also posted to WT:CHINA. Sadly, I don't speak Chinese, but the topic seems quite important - it seems like a rather big franchise, with many games, movies, etc. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:23, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, I'd say it's of low importance to the video games articles scope as a whole. In zh:洛克王国 it seems to have a moderately low number of incoming links. There's also an article in Korean that is pretty short. Though, that may just be the article on the first Roco Kingdom game. Tencent is a big company but a lot of this looks like mobile/web games which don't really interest the English-speaking world quite as much. And there are films at the Chinese box office, but I can't find anything about an international release. Andre🚐 05:47, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fair, but considering how big China is, even a China-only franchise, that is reasonably big there but has little international impact, is probably mid-importance for the world. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:32, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
China being so big means there are a lot of game franchises, some of which may have a bafflingly large interest inside China and little impact outside of China, which makes it hard to write about them because there aren't a lot of English sources that are reliable. Especially Chinese web/mobile games made by Chinese companies with few products or customers overseas. Also, keep in mind the video games project covers not only all the video and computer games ever but all of the people, companies, and in many cases fictional things inside the games. That's a pretty large scope. And since the nature of many web/mobile games in terms of the content and the quality of the material, especially ones made by large Chinese companies such as Tencent, is that they're probably of limited interest for the mainstream AAA game, indie game or retro game communities in the Anglosphere. For example, I checked out the Roco Fandom site and I noticed the following badly translated text, "Rock Kingdom is a web game. Come and complete the task, chat with friends, and upgrade for your pets." These virtual pet games are a dime a dozen. It might be of interest to the gacha game community. It doesn't even have a public subreddit, and it seems that the game itself might not even work outside of China. Yet the film Roco Kingdom 4 grossed 10 million yuan in presale making it the top domestic animation ever in pre-sale.[1] That's pretty crazy. Andre🚐 07:05, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is Tencent after all, indispensable to the lives of literally E-V-E-R-Y single one Chinese from the young to the elderly. It will be a surprise if the spin-offs become box office bombs. MilkyDefer 14:08, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot to mention the popularity of Tencent games among Chinese people especially those young (should I mention Honor of Kings?). It is not hard to imagine children, during their summer breaks, begging their parents to bring them to theatres for the film. MilkyDefer 14:16, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, your fellow Chinese speaker is always available. MilkyDefer 13:59, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New Articles (January 2 to January 12)

[edit]
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 v3.20 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 18:02, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

January 2

January 3

January 4

January 5

January 6

January 7

January 8

January 9

January 10

January 11

January 12

I'm back! --PresN 18:02, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for continuing to maintain this! Sergecross73 msg me 18:44, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Undertale

[edit]

Hey there, I'm currently preparing the article above for FAC; its subject's 10th anniversary is coming up in September. The reviewers at the PR strongly recommended me to look for academic analysis, but I'm unsure if the papers I found (listed below) will be sufficient to write enough content for a hypothetical scholarly/academic analysis section. Any help is appreciated. Thank you.

  • Travers, Sean (April 2022). "Nihilism, Violence, and Popular Culture: The Postmodern Psychopath in Toby Fox's Undertale". The Journal of Popular Culture. 55 (2). Wiley: 411–431. doi:10.1111/jpcu.13120.
  • Veale, Kevin (1 April 2022). "'If anyone's going to ruin your night, it should be you': Responsibility and affective materiality in Undertale and Night in the Woods". Convergence. 28 (2). Sage: 451–467. doi:10.1177/13548565211014434. ISSN 1354-8565. Retrieved 9 January 2025.
  • Cayari, Christopher (2023). "The Music of Undertale: Participatory Culture, Video Game Music, and Creating Covers for YouTube". International Journal of Education & the Arts. 24 (22). doi:10.26209/ijea24n22.
  • Elvery, Gabriel (June 2023). "Undertale's Loveable Monsters: Investigating Parasocial Relationships with Non-Player Characters". Games and Culture. 18 (4). Sage: 475–497. doi:10.1177/15554120221105464. Retrieved 11 January 2025.

— 💽 🌙Eclipse 💽 🌹 ⚧ (CALL ME IF YOU GET LOST) 20:50, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's no real way to string these together into a coherent section. These articles are particularly disparate. I can't find mentions of Undertale in any recent video-game non-fiction books, nor any other criticism on JSTOR or Project Muse.
I gave the article a look over and the prose and sourcing look pretty good. You won't have any issues ironing any issues with this article out at FAC, IMO. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 22:33, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ImaginesTigers, #1 and #2 are related as they go over Undertale's management of responsibility. I can see why #3 and #4 wouldn't work, but the people at the PR said I would have issues with the FAC reviewers if I ever nominated it there without making a scholarly/academic analysis section. — 💽 🌙Eclipse 💽 🌹 ⚧ (CALL ME IF YOU GET LOST) 23:00, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, judging by the title of #3, it might be useful for the music and fandom sections. I do agree with ImagineTigers's assessment that a hypothetical section on the game's academic analysis might be impossible, but the sources found could potentially be incorporated in the rest of the article. Lazman321 (talk) 23:20, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree that you will have significant issues with at FAC. League of Legends doesn't have a dedicated "crisis analysis" section; nor do The Last of Us, Paper Mario: The Origami King, or Super Meat Boy. FAC reviewers cannot oppose a nomination because information that does not exist is missing. That said, I had a look on Google Scholar and did find some more that way, but many of the results there are conference articles or undergrad papers (neither are permissible). You'd be fine if you made a strong attempt to integrate often-cited sourcing elsewhere in the article. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 00:12, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Happy to see you back around @ImaginesTigers, by the way!) Panini! • 🥪 19:08, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Consider looking at google books. There are a lot of game designers and other media academics who write about these things. I think it's worth having an analysis section (or a subsection or paragraph), even if the sources all talk about different things. A game like Undertale is notable enough that I'm sure there are sources that have discussed it more from an analytical perspective, rather than the usual "good/bad" reception stuff. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:18, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Having a quick look at Google Books, I can't find anything substantial. Driving for an academic section when the game has no warranted significant coverage by academic is not a good use of an editor's time. High-quality sources should be integrated into the main article. A "scholarly criticism" section would, IMO, be embarrassing on this article. There is just nowhere near enough coverage to warrant a dedicated section. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 10:38, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just a hunch, but although this game is considered one of the greats, I feel the extreme fame of this game is more along the lines of a cult classic than a critical masterpiece. It's extremely prevalent in internet culture, sure, but as far deep analysis goes, you can only find it in amateur commentary within the internet circle itself. "Amateur" I use broadly; Game Theory, for example.
I think "scholarly analysis" is best saved for games that are individually notable or defining within the video game medium itself, or is commonly cited as a shining example of an artistic trope. That's why The Last of Us and League of Legends don't need one, big as they are. And The Origami King just wishes it was special. I think your Cultural impact section more than suffices! Panini! • 🥪 19:22, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Shooterwalker, Google Books gives me junk. — 💽 🌙Eclipse 💽 🌹 ⚧ (she/they) talk/edits 14:54, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a little surprised, but I believe you've done the work. A few scholarly articles would at least get us a short paragraph, which potentially can be its own subsection. I see a lot of hits on google scholar but it can take time to weed out the undergrad student papers and trivial mentions. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:46, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Making of LEGO Island: A Documentary

[edit]

Hello,

I've been advised to further this to the larger consensus. A recent documentary was made by Youtuber MattKC regarding the planning, development, and release of Lego Island. The issue, at the present moment, is that this source (while primary) would violate current Wikipedia:VG/RS source guidelines. Therefore, I would like further guidance/discussion on this topic, as documentaries (while primary sourced with interviews with developers) like these for niche games are hard to come by and would be further harder to get a bigger/aggregate source to even report on this.

There is some listed secondary sourcing, such as background clips used from development and Wes Jenkin's own autobiography, most of the work is primary/original interviews with developers on the game.

The current issue this source faces is needing backing/approval for use since this would be included in a current GA article, and would not want to do/harm anything that would lower that GA status. ChemicalBear (talk) 22:12, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly believe this should be fine for documentaries like if supporting non-controversial, non-biographical information. There are obvious problems associated with permitting YouTube citations, so there probably has to be additional caveats—e.g., a genuine benefit to the article for linking to it—but I am fine with it in this example in practice. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 22:25, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Another thing of note, as well FYI, is that the youtuber, MattKC, is one of the leading people in decompilation and preservation of LEGO Island software, allowing for continued use on hardware it was not built for it. Just some more perspective for the director/creator to help rebuff the usefulness/validity of the documentary. ChemicalBear (talk) 22:30, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think that is a fair assessment, but of course, I would like more input on the matter since it would be included in a GA article. I can understand hesitance with setting a precedence and such by allowing this inclusion. But as you said, this would add genuine substance/benefit to the article, which could mean the inclusion of more voices on the article than just director Wes Jenkins. ChemicalBear (talk) 22:32, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, as long as it's specifically citing what the developers are saying and not MattKC's own words (unless it's a paraphrasal or something) then it should fall under WP:PRIMARY and I would consider it usable. λ NegativeMP1 22:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Within what I would consider creative liberty with the documentary does MattKC speak, mostly giving setup, background, or paraphrased/repeated information from his interviews and research. But a majority of the ~50 min documentary is either people from the project interviews (Matt's prompting/face removed from them talking) talking and/or quoted or audio sections from Wes Jekins or other project people. ChemicalBear (talk) 22:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ChemicalBear, I understand the person behind this video is literally why you can play this game on a modern PC, but I personally believe you can just take the sources he used in the video and add them to the article if possible. Citing the documentary would be citing a tertiary-ish source that just combines the already available info out there into a video essay. — 💽 🌙Eclipse 💽 🌹 ⚧ (CALL ME IF YOU GET LOST) 22:51, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the issue with that is, while there are minor secondaries (like Wes Jekins own autobiography or archived old film used for filler spacing), the main idea (which was only going to be used as a See Also/External Link/etc. thing) was to include the entire thing as all of his interviews are primary sourcing ChemicalBear (talk) 22:56, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ChemicalBear, you can only use those interviews as long as they aren't verifying extraordinary claims. — 💽 🌙Eclipse 💽 🌹 ⚧ (she/they) talk/edits 14:56, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Mario & Luigi: Superstar Saga

[edit]

Mario & Luigi: Superstar Saga has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 23:54, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Virtual reality pioneers has been nominated for discussion

[edit]

Category:Virtual reality pioneers has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 10:56, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New Articles (January 13 to January 19)

[edit]
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 v3.20 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 01:53, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

January 13

January 14

January 15

January 16

January 17

January 18

January 19

Mario Teaches Typing question

[edit]

Hi all. I've brought this up to QuicoleJR but I've been expanding Mario Teaches Typing since June 2022 (when I removed the redirect). The article is currently B class but I'm not sure what's it going to take it get it to GA or FA.

Any advice would be great. Timur9008 (talk) 16:00, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You should definitely use every source in the Reception table. The Reception is a little light, so you should definitely use the whole buffalo there. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 16:18, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Seconded. The review table and reception prose don't match with reviewer content, and it's pretty brief, and at some points, not even written in paragraph form... Sergecross73 msg me 16:22, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you any of you help with that section? Timur9008 (talk) 16:58, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Neo Geo Pocket merge

[edit]

The merge talk at Talk:Neo Geo Pocket Color (from September) is still active. So far, at least 3 users support the merge and none have voiced opposition. If there are no objections, I will perform a merge (Neo Geo Pocket > Neo Geo Pocket Color) today per consensus. Sceeegt (talk) 16:41, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No objections from me. Timur9008 (talk) 16:49, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Atari restructuring proposal!

[edit]

I made a number of structural proposals for Atari a few months ago and have to reiterate to receive responses. To cut it short: the history of Atari is currently not presented in a good format and only leads to confusion. I have made many edits to improve the situation but I have these additional moves/splits that I strongly think are necessary, in order:

Atari SA is the holding company that owns properties. Its US based subsidiary Atari, Inc. (1993-present) is the game publisher that's still around making Atari/Infogrames titles today, but 1993 refers to its pre-Atari predecessor GT Interactive, and this year in the title is a major cause for confusion. Also, Atari Interactive is merely a legal entity and the existence of this article only serves to complicate things further, therefore the article should be called "Hasbro Interactive", active from 1995 to 2001, serving that period and the games it published which are all listed in the article currently.

Please give your responses regarding these three proposals. Sceeegt (talk) 16:49, 22 January 2025 (UTC) @Masem and Shooterwalker: re-tagging. --Sceeegt (talk) 16:52, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For the rename bits, you'll probably want to show that it meets WP:COMMONNAME to be persuasive. Sergecross73 msg me 17:38, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then you're not understanding the context. Atari Interactive and Hasbro Interactive are technically separate entities. GT Interactive is a defunct company that is separate and distinct from the later Atari Inc. There is no common name involved here at all. Neither is the '1993' or '2003' something that could be common name as it is simply a disambiguator created in a Wikipedia context. Sceeegt (talk) 17:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, then provide sources that prove that, or anything you're proposing to change. My point is that we write Wikipedia according to what source reliable sources can verify, so a personal monologue won't get you very far. Give people a reason to support (or deny) what you're proposing. If it were a simple, common knowledge situation, where people could answer you off the top of their head, it probably wouldn't be organized as it is in the first place. Sergecross73 msg me 18:00, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your mistake here is that you're viewing this as content, but these are not content but merely titles i.e. names of articles. I am not making any proposals here for changing content. And the reason this is organized like this in the first place is due to Atari's history being jumbled up in real life. Sceeegt (talk) 18:06, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, then I oppose because you can't provide any evidence that this is the correct way to go. Sergecross73 msg me 18:27, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but that's a shortsighted response. You're sticking with the sourcing argument but that doesn't apply in this case with these proposals. Sceeegt (talk) 18:38, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a strong opinion, but for what it's worth, it seems to me that there's two different proposals about two different articles being floated here, one being a rename and one being a split, and discussing them together like this leads to these confused discussions. Sceeegt's right that whether to cover Atari Inc / GT Interactive in one article or two is fundamentally an editorial decision (WP:SPLIT/WP:MERGEREASON) (the sources discussing GT Interactive by that name are the ones in the article), but Serge is also right that whether to title the Atari Interactive article its current title or Hasbro Interactive should be based on WP:COMMONNAME considerations. ~ A412 talk! 18:57, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I have therefore just opened a merge (and subsequent renaming) proposal on Talk:Atari, Inc. (1993–present). It will deal separately from the Atari/Hasbro Interactive proposal. Sceeegt (talk) 19:07, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so Atari is a big mess. I wrote a bunch of stuff about the original '70s Atari, so I'm familiar with the subject, at least. Lets walk through the history of Atari:

  • "Atari, Inc." covers 1972-1984 (plus two odd paragraphs for then till 2009)
  • "Atari Games" covers 1985-1999, when its owner Midway Games stopped using the name and renamed it Midway Games West. It lingers out to 2003 when Midway Games West shut down.
  • "Atari Corporation" covers 1984-1996, when it effectively stopped existing. I think we're all good for these three.
  • In 1998, the remnants of Atari Corporation were sold to Hasbro Interactive, which had been founded in 1995. They stayed there as a brand name (Atari Interactive) for publishing retro titles until Hasbro sold off Hasbro Interactive to Infogrames Interactive in 2001. Infogrames Interactive, which was named GT Interactive before 2000, confusingly, essentially renamed itself to Atari, Inc. in 2003 (this isn't literally what happened in government filings, but the technical details are confusing and dumb), thereby resurrecting Atari from a retro brand to an actual company.
  • Now, this is where the problem lies. The Atari Interactive article, despite being a brand name that Hasbro/Infogrames used from 1998-2005, actually includes everything Hasbro Interactive did, starting in 1995, including a large number of titles they published under the Hasbro name- only 8 of ~160 titles were "Atari" branded. This is confusing and wrong. It also has a few paragraphs for post-2005 when "Atari Interactive" was no longer a thing, which is also confusing. I agree with Sceeegt- the article should be renamed to Hasbro Interactive and the text should take care to distinguish that it had Atari Interactive as a brand name for some retro titles, but the company itself was not named that.
  • Then we have "Atari, Inc. (1993-present)". This is a mess of an article, but I don't think it needs to be split or renamed. GT Interactive was founded in 1993, was bought by Infogrames in two phases in 1999-2000 and renamed to Infogrames Interactive, and was renamed to Atari, Inc. in 2003. There's a lot of Infogrames (global) merging other things in there, but in essence it's been one company from 1993-today, and its name for the last 22 years has been Atari. I wouldn't split it up unless the article was long enough to justify separate articles on the pre/post Infogrames buyout.
  • Atari SA... is actually just fine. It's clear that it's about Infogrames proper, which owns a bunch of subsidiary stuff and was renamed to Atari SA in 2009, and not about the US-based publisher Atari, Inc.
  • The games lists are a little messy, but I think it's mostly because the ledes don't consistently define what they're talking about.
  • Tl;dr: Support renaming Atari Interactive to Hasbro Interactive, as that's the topic and the name of the company for the time period. Oppose splitting up or renaming Atari, Inc. (1993-present), though it needs a rewrite for clarity. --PresN 20:26, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your summation of the pre-1985 period of Atari is not correct, largely because Warner Communications and its successor, Time Warner, never sold Atari to anybody. It sold off pieces of the company over a period of about a year until only a holding company remained. I don't think it matters for this proposal, which is focused on later periods of the Atari brand, but just in case someone is relying on this further down in the conversation, the actual sequence is as follows:
1972: Atari, Inc. is incorporated in California. The new corporation absorbs the assets of the existing Syzygy Company, a partnership between Nolan Bushnell and Ted Dabney.
1976: Warner Communications incorporates WCI Games, Inc. in Delaware for the sole purpose of acquiring all of the stock of the California corporation Atari, Inc. Atari, Inc. is subsequently merged into WCI Games, Inc., which is renamed Atari, Inc.
1984: Warner Communications sells certain assets of Atari, Inc. related to it's consumer electronics and home computer businesses to Tramel Technologies, Ltd. Tramel Technologies renames itself to Atari Corporation. Atari, Inc. renames itself to Atari Games, Inc.
1985: AT Games, Inc. is incorporated jointly by Namco and Warner Communications. Ownership is split 60-40 between Namco and Warner Communications. AT Games subsequently purchases the coin-operated games division of Atari Games, Inc. and is renamed Atari Games Corporation. Atari Games, Inc. is renamed Atari Holdings, Inc.
1992: Atari Holdings, Inc. is merged into its parent company, Time Warner, bringing a final end to the Delaware corporation originally established as WCI Games in 1976. Indrian (talk) 03:56, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I know we've had some disagreement over the need to adhere to legal details too rigorously, but the above post you're responding to is so full of fundamental errors as to be useless. Folks unable to read what's already properly describes (and, most important, sourced!) in the articles need to stay away from commenting on what the articles should contain. oknazevad (talk) 17:21, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
...number one, rude, and pointlessly so. Number two, I wrote a single line about the pre-1985 Atari for context, a subject we're not even talking about. The distinction between "Warner sold Atari in 1984" and "Warner sold off all of the relevant parts of Atari over the course of a year but legally the shell of the company existed, doing nothing, until 1992" is meaningless as far as a discussion of "what to do with a pair of articles about Atari starting in 1998". --PresN 18:05, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support I have stumbled around in this topic area, and I believe Sceeegt has discovered many of the same issues. I am not confident that this is the solution. But I'm willing to believe this would be a step in the right direction. I am starting to believe that the history of the Atari brand (Trademark/wordmark/name) may actually be a notable separate article. And it may be a good article to clarify the history of who controlled the name, while keeping the actual articles about those different companies separate. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:04, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: @PresN This is anecdotal but should count as an example of confusion: the first time I came across Atari, Inc. (1993-present), it took a while for me to figure out what it is and how it relates to the also existing Atari Corporation and the Atari Games from that same era of time. This is why I think keeping 1993 in the title is a bad choice. The company was (GT Int.) was not named or affiliated to anything Atari in '93.
@Shooterwalker The Atari brand/name already has an article which is at Atari, or do you mean something different than that? Sceeegt (talk) 02:49, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do think if we made a small timeline inset for the various Atari articles to help with identifying ownership and branding, it might alleviate the confusion to readers. Masem (t) 03:12, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Some sort of template could help. I just think it probably needs a main article. There are enough reliable sources about who owns / has owned the Atari Trademark that it would definitely have WP:SIGCOV. If someone is willing to help, I could probably help put it together. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:43, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We have Atari which covers all of this Masem (t) 16:52, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn’t really though. Instead, it just tries to give miniature histories of each Atari that are pretty redundant with the company-specific articles (and a quick glance shows a lot of errors too because it has not been rigorously edited like the company articles). This is the article space to cover the Atari brand for sure, but it needs a complete rewrite. Indrian (talk) 17:02, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I don't think the article is perfect as it currently is, but we have an article about the Atari brand that should cover how all the different companies that had theirs hands on the brand over time. For one, we still could absolutely use a timeline or flow sheet for this. Masem (t) 18:08, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Balatro (video game)#Requested move 23 January 2025

[edit]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Balatro (video game)#Requested move 23 January 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 16:56, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Talk:List of Resident Evil characters about inclusion criteria

[edit]

Hi, I've opened a discussion here, hoping to figure out who should and should not be present in the list to hopefully make it more stable. I'd love it if y'all could weigh in! Cukie Gherkin (talk) 21:41, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Minor task

[edit]

This is not related to articles but a category that I'm requesting you to purge the category Category talk:Massively multiplayer online games because it currently has many pages that are already in some other subcategory such the MMORPGs category. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 23:53, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Skullgirls

[edit]

Talk:Skullgirls#OSx/Linux_release_data

Could i get some input here? Trade (talk) 04:06, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unknown 9: Awakening

[edit]

Game didn't have an article so I created one. Harizotoh9 (talk) 10:22, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Video Game History Foundation print archive to open next week

[edit]

Hopefully to augment what's available on Internet Archive. [2] — Masem (t) 14:14, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Input requested - reception section opening statement

[edit]

Hello, I'm looking for input on how to handle the opening sentence of the reception section of an article. Discussion is linked here. Any input is appreciated. Thank you! Sergecross73 msg me 16:35, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon Age: The Veilguard has an RfC

[edit]

Dragon Age: The Veilguard has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Sariel Xilo (talk) 07:23, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Potential Chrono Trigger FAR

[edit]

I have posted a note on the talk page for Chrono Trigger regarding its compliance with WP:FACR. Issues I have raised involve consistency in references, compliance with MOS:LAYOUT and MOS:PLOT, sourcing of gameplay section, and comprehensiveness of legacy section. I welcome any further discussion before I nominate this article for WP:FAR. Lazman321 (talk) 15:31, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games&oldid=1271783546"