Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games

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

Dave the Diver[edit]

There's been a running dispute at Dave the Diver over whether Mintrocket, a subsidiary of Nexon, is an indie developer. Reliable sources, who have acknowledged that Mintrocket is a subsidiary of Nexon, have nevertheless said they're an indie developer and this is an indie game. However, this issue seems to have become a big issue to some people on Reddit. Someone recently removed several reliable sources and said it's not an indie game, cited to an interview on a Korean website. Does anyone know if this source is reliable and thus the interview might be trustworthy? And would a machine-translated interview with the developer overrule what third-party reliable sources say? WP:VG/OFFICIAL seems to apply here, but one could also invoke WP:ABOUTSELF and say that this is correcting a mistaken belief by the press. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:46, 13 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looks like they only removed the videogames.si source in that edit, keeping all the other sources prominently describing it as an indie game in the title. If we can confirm that the interview is properly legitimate, I think it's reasonably to at least omit "indie" from the lede section. We can still write about it having indie aesthetics for sure, using indie as a sort of movement of game design. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:51, 13 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would tend to agree it is not an indie dev. First, there is the quote posted on the talk page. Through my own research, I found a separate quote directly from Nexon saying that Mintrocket is an in-house division. "Had 'P3' been developed normally inhouse, it would have been presented to users under the name Mint Rocket". It appears this could be a case of an editorial mistake by Sports Illustrated because of the game's indie-esque appearance.
Obviously this is problematic but per WP:IAR, Wikipedia is not required to state anything a source says if there's clear evidence it could be wrong. I would err on the side of removing the indie game mentions and referring to it as a Nexon subsidiary. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:58, 13 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think you misunderstand. I don't care whether individual Wikipedians think Mintrocket is an indie developer. There is no question that they are a subsidiary of Nexon; however, that is irrelevant to the question of whether they are an independent developer. On Wikipedia, the only relevant criteria is whether reliable sources identify them as such, and multiple reliable sources have said this is an indie game, and one explicitly identified them as an indie developer. Eurogamer themselves have said that it is an independent game made by a Nexon subsidiary; this is cited directly in the article. So, we don't need editors to come to their own personal conclusions. Eurogamer has already done it for us. What I am asking is not "do you think this is an indie developer?" I am asking if the Korean website is a reliable source. If it isn't, then the interview could be faked. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:46, 14 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ignoring the question of whether the talk page interview is an RS, because I am unsure, and looking purely for English sources that might be relevant, there is an alternate Eurogamer article in which Eurogamer says: "Do you find it as fascinating as I do how every now and then you get a whiff of VERY NOT INDIE BUDGET peering out from behind its indie facade? [...] It's published and perhaps made by Nexon, right, who are completely huge? I would love to know how this game came to be!" It's possible that when Eurogamer said "indie RPG" they meant "indie-style RPG" or that they simply contradicted themselves due to a misunderstanding. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:28, 14 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I add some games to the Monster-taming game category. TroyToonTrotStudios (talk) 17:26, 22 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Speaking of Korean sources, I am currently working on Blue Archive, another Korean game, in my home wiki. A quick glance of the kowiki shows that they list the following websites:
I have no knowledge of Korean, but I believe this could help. MilkyDefer 05:20, 18 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And it is a pity that the Korean source claiming that Mintrocket is not an indie, is not in that list. I think we cannot jump to the conclusion that the site is unreliable -- we might need to find someone familiar with Korean games. MilkyDefer 05:23, 18 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category inclusion should require an official release?[edit]

I noticed that Doom (1993 video game) is in the following categories:

I'm aware that the open source release of Doom enabled unofficial ports that could be played on high-end Amigas with additional expansion hardware, and I can see the logic that goes "if it runs (to any degree) on an Amiga (of any kind), then it's an Amiga game". But I find that logic too reductive, and the resulting categorisation to be misleading. Per WP:NONDEF, I don't think there are any sources that would refer to Doom as an Amiga game. Furthermore, even if you can run a recompiled version of the open source Doom engine code on an Amiga, you still need the proprietary assets from a copy of the game from one of the platforms it was originally released on. Those assets were never released as an Amiga game (regardless that their file format may be platform-agnostic). In my view, recompiling the engine source code and hacking it together with PC game assets is not enough to say that Doom is actually an Amiga game. The article mentions that Doom has been unofficially ported to oscilloscopes. I don't see the Amiga port as altogether different from this.

This categorisation is particularly problematic because the specific issue of the Amiga not having Doom is often cited as a notable factor in its downfall. Here, for example: Can you run Doom on the Amiga? No, not really, and arguably that was one of the causes for the computer’s demise in the mid-90s as it failed to catch up on the FPS craze of the PC world.

Personally, I think these categories should be removed just on the basis of not meeting the WP:NONDEF guideline, but I wonder if there is consensus for going further, to state that any system's games category should only include games that were officially released for that system. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 12:00, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unofficial ports should not be considered as part of a game's release in the infobox or in categories. If they have been noted by third-party sources, they can be discussed in the prose of the article but we should not pretend they were given the green light by the developers or publishers. Masem (t) 12:02, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This should be obvious. Unofficial ports don't count for categories. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:37, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It seems to be quite a common issue with FPS games of that era. I am going to remove all such categories. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 16:01, 21 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would note that a particularly notable "unofficial" port could work for a category, but that would be highly specific to the circumstances. "We can technically make it run on this" is obviously not appropriate for a category, even if it's mentioned in the prose. We're not adding Doom to category:Smart thermostat games ;p ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 07:35, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Working towards FA on Splatoon 3[edit]

As I'm sure some of you may have noticed in the Wikipedia Discord, I'm planning on working on making Splatoon 3 an FA. However I have absolutely no clue what I need to do to get it to FA status. I'm fairly sure that even though it's a GA right now, it's definitely not ready to be an FA. So is there some sort of way I can request feedback on what to do to work on getting it to FA status without actually requesting an FA review? ― Blaze WolfTalkblaze__wolf 20:18, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia:Peer review is a good place for that. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:44, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's what I thought, and yet I recall being told in the Discord server that it isn't good idea. Or maybe they didn't. I have terrible memory. ― Blaze WolfTalkblaze__wolf 01:34, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How's it going? QuicoleJR (talk) 01:30, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Doubts about the Super Smash Bros. Melee article[edit]

Hello. I added several {{citation needed}} to the Melee page and also reported a doubt about a source in Talk:Super Smash Bros. Melee. These days I will try to improve the page, but it would be great if someone already knows where to find the sources Redjedi23 (talk) 22:46, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Redjedi23 Try the custom google search at WP:VG/S. -- ferret (talk) 22:58, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Redjedi23 Just a note but the first 3 that are marked as citation needed are covered by the preceding references CrimsonFox talk 08:30, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you, I moved the references. Redjedi23 (talk) 09:43, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I also report that in Super Smash Bros. Brawl, another FA, there isn't any references in the "Playable character" section. Redjedi23 (talk) 15:32, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hey, its good you're here and asking questions, but if you keep asking the same sort of questions/doubts, you'll probably keep getting the same suggestions. There's three main ways of handling things.
  1. If you think the information should be retained, find a source and add it to the article.
  2. If you think the information should be retained, but can't find a source, add a "citation needed tag" for now.
  3. If you can't find a source, and/or you don't think its valid info, remove it. People generally won't fault you for this unless people feel you're not trying hard enough to find sourcing for valid information.
You're free to keep asking here, I just don't want you to be bogged down by waiting for responses. Sergecross73 msg me 17:31, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for the advice! Redjedi23 (talk) 19:39, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, I added some references in the articles and removed statement where no reliable source could be find. Redjedi23 (talk) 10:19, 21 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Giant Bomb source you used is unreliable because it links to their wiki that anyone can edit. We can't source to user-generated content. TarkusABtalk/contrib 16:33, 21 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh ok, I will try to find other references Redjedi23 (talk) 17:18, 21 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Redjedi23, for video game source hunting, these two links will be very helpful:
  • WP:VG/S: an article of video game resource classification; what ones are reliable, what isn't, etc.
  • WP:VG/SE: A custom search engine that only shows these reliable sources
Panini! • 🥪 17:24, 21 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
After hours of game source hunting, I just found a spanish source about the scrapped characters (Pichu, Roy, Mewtwo, and Young Link): https://uvejuegos.com/analisis/Super-Smash-Bros-Brawl/Aqui-combatimos-todos/3964/15407/7
Unfortunately, I don't know if it is a reliable source but I don't think so since it was used very few times in es.wiki Redjedi23 (talk) 11:15, 22 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New Articles (October 16 to October 22)[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 v3.16 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 12:49, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

October 16

October 17

  • None

October 18

October 19

October 20

October 21

  • None

October 22

Sorry to bother, but it appears Suika Game is missing from this week's report. CaptainGalaxy 17:21, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Added, sorry- when an article gets created and then moved the same day, the script doesn't always recognize it as a new article. --PresN 17:51, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's all good. Thank you for adding it. CaptainGalaxy 18:07, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hey, SNAAAAKE!! is back! Panini! • 🥪 03:38, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh just a new tag of an old article. Don't jumpscare me like that. 😅 Axem Titanium (talk) 21:06, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Suika Game, a game that became popular out of the blue around me two years ago and faded in popularity after, suddenly go viral again worldwide - all happening too fast for me to grab an understanding of the situation.
The corresponding article in zhwiki is still "合成大西瓜" (synthetic big watermelon) rather than "西瓜游戏/西瓜遊戲" (suika game). Yesterday I made a distinction between these two games in Wikidata, please double check my work in Wikidata. There are several media coverages on the original "synthetic big watermelon" that I have no idea how to incorporate into the current article. MilkyDefer 07:25, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Currently Synthetic Big Watermelon is mention in the English article as being an origin of the gameplay seen in Suika Game. Currently it has notes about the different fruit in that version as well as release date. CaptainGalaxy 15:26, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I meant more than that. For example, Chinese Academy of Sciences released an article detailing the internal mechanics that make "Synthetic Big Watermelon" addictive. There are also other reports focusing on the original "Synthetic"'s advertisement fraud. You may want to incorporate these sources about the original game into the current article but the problem is how. MilkyDefer 05:19, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I mean, the article more talks about the Japanese game. The mentions of "Synthetic" is due to sources delving into the origins of the concept, alongside just a brief mentions on what makes the two versions slightly different in visuals. I don't think more is needed about Synthetic, but if you can think of a good way to incorporate it then you are more than welcome to. CaptainGalaxy 00:15, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am trying that in my home wiki. I will consult my fellow editors for a resolution - keep the two intergrated into one article, or boldly split them up. MilkyDefer 04:24, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
UPDATE: My idea of merging the two games into one article has been met with unprecedented and universal ridicule. I am forced to split them up. MilkyDefer 03:52, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Star Wars: Dark Forces release date[edit]

I'm looking for additional input on the correctness of the release date for Star Wars: Dark Forces. Please see Talk:Star Wars: Dark Forces#Release date. Regards, IceWelder [✉] 16:07, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

CNET archives[edit]

Resolved

I would not be surprised at all if any of you are aware of this problem, and certainly this talk board is aware of CNET having deleted articles earlier this year, but I have just discovered that not all the content from the 2000s was archived, or so it looks. I discovered what appears to be the only evidence that a CNET review for M&M's Kart Racing, a Wii and DS piece of shovelware that has been called one of the worst games of all time, ever existed. Attempts to connect to the review page by reconstructing the link based on cues from the ABC mirror and the CNET website as archived in the Wayback Machine in 2008 and accessing it in the Machine have failed. Granted, I realized I was looking in the Wii section of a list of reviews when I should have been looking in the DS area since the review is for the DS version, but now my access to the Wayback Machine is throttled again, and I cannot continue browsing the archives to dig up the article. Is unsaved CNET content a real problem that anyone here can attest to, or is it just the Machine denying me access again? P.S. No amount of my research on the Internet can uncover answers as to why access to the Wayback Machine periodically goes offline. FreeMediaKid$ 01:05, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, I got access to the Wayback Machine again before getting it cut again. During that time, I was able to ascertain what the URL was. It is http://reviews.cnet.com/M_M_s_Kart_Racing_DS/4505-10068_7-32632053.html. Needless to say, it is a dead link, and apparently a permanent dead one, too. Maybe the review has survived with a later URL, but again, I will not be able to find out until I regain access or someone else finds it. In the meantime, feel free to confirm from your experience whether CNET reviews have been permanently lost. FreeMediaKid$ 01:53, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Found it. I had to look inside the ds-games path of the domain and look at a list of websites with that path archived in the Machine, and that is how I recovered it. I have tagged this discussion as resolved. FreeMediaKid$ 03:16, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@FreeMediaKid! If it's for CNET, it's also worth checking Gamespot. Here's a live version of the review from there. CrimsonFox talk 07:24, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would have proceeded to add the CNET review, but it came to my attention that it it identical to the one by GameSpot. I am only just learning this, but is it not true that, since the closure of Gamecenter, all CNET reviews for games are GameSpot reposts? FreeMediaKid$ 05:29, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Computer Entertainer[edit]

Months ago, I uploaded nearly all of the 100 issues of Computer Entertainer, identified by WP:VGRS as a reliable source, to the Internet Archive. The uploads were useful because, with the Archive adding searchable text to PDF scans, search engines index those uploads' web pages, making seaching the issues by text feasible. This notification serves three purposes: 1) to inform users about the Archive uploads, 2) to cause them to consider updating the Reference library to include mentions of Computer Entertainer, and 3) to encourage users to find the missing issues, namely Nos. 1 to 3 and 95 to 100. Given its copyright holder's failure to crack down on online scans (they can be read here and here, to name two websites), I calculated it unlikely that the submissions would ever get DMCA'ed, so I hope that, along with the two other purposes of this discussion, someone will upload the remaining issues to the Web. I will then submit them to the Archive and use my privilege to group them into the Computer Entertainer collection.

And now for my rambling
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

It may be imprudent to bring these years-old events back into light, but I feel that I must clarify some of my demeanor then, and I feel that I have failed to provide the community with adequate explanation during the time those events involving me were unfolding. These explanations are long overdue.

A user named Gamingforfun365—naïve, a little rude, relatively inexperienced, and undecided on how he wanted to edit until years later—decided to undertake the task of reviewing articles. For context, I was that user, but since I am personally better off not tying myself to my past, I shall refer to him in third person. One of these articles was Crispy Gamer, which he helped pass. Then, he sought to elevate it to feature article status. The fatal error he committed was being oblivious to the requirement that he be a major contributor. Accusations of stealing credit from the user who submitted it as a good article nominee were levied against him. The accusations were unfair, given his, Gamingforfun365's, inexperience, and he never forgave them for such libel. In the midst of a heated argument, Gamingforfun365 then posted what, in retrospect, turned out to be his biggest blunder in the history of his Internet use. He stated that "I am actually having fun from how lousy this discussion is going." He thought that his comment was clear in illustrating that the discussion had engaged in drivel and that all editors needed to move on, except that that comment was itself drivel, and so led to a long-shot ANB discussion after he neurotically talked incessantly about the article. When he confessed that he had not actially reviewed the articles appropriately, that may be true, but it is possible that he had also deliberately minimized his reviewing efforts in a gesture of self-berating.

Part two of that event pertains to how he tried to meet the requirement that he be a major contributor to the Crispy Gamer article. He realizes that, beyond minor edits, thr article could not be improved much further, which led him to the conclusion that whoever reads this rambling will find silly: that an editor for an article becomes a major one because they would have made the substantial improvements. That was why he believed he could renominate the article. He likely assumed that other users on this talk page would infer his reasoning. It never occurred to him that others would not, and so the bickering resumed, hence the ANB incident. He came to regret failing to explain himself. It is not the first time on the Internet that he has been falsely accused of eschewing norms when in fact his actions could simoly have been seen as misguided, and it would not be the last, either.

In a second event, in 2019, in a discussion about an article on Birdo, he posted his view on whether to keep the sources describing the Nintendo character as transgender. He then committed a blunder by expressing a political view about lifestyles like this. One may find the following reasoning ludicrous, but he posted that message for fear that right-wingers would bombard him with admonition and charges of immorality, just for making an edit suggestion about the article. That message was intended to placate those right-wing concerns, except, to his horror, that there would be no such right-wingers. There was admonition and charges of immortality, but it came from the wrong type of users. He did not forgive those, like last time, who claimed that he was trying to tout straight cisgender mores, and, as a realist, it made no sense to him anyway. If he had understood what response he would receive, why would he post it? What practical benefit would that have served him? He apologizes for the confusion, but laments the moralizing aspect that played out.

In both cases, he could have littered the talk pages of the users who cried foul, and given his current personality, he almost regrets not doing that. A man looks effeminate if he lets false claims about his state of mind run across. On top of that, he also legitimizes these claims if he does not refute all of them one by one. However, he would likely not deign to post harmful messages on one's talk page if one questioned his motives, instead refuting those charges. The point is that his, Gamingforfun365's, early experience has left him indignant over his treatment—which he feels to this day–and he hopes to alleviate that feeling by expressing this clarification. In case you thought this post was just me rambling, there is a reason I collapsed it.

FreeMediaKid$ 05:29, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nice work here; these look like gold mines for articles on old games, especially the release schedules. Phediuk (talk) 12:41, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I added Computer Entertainer to the Reference Library TarkusABtalk/contrib 17:55, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New Articles (October 23 to October 29)[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 v3.16 of the RecentVGArticles script and posted by PresN. Bug reports and feature requests are appreciated. --PresN 13:06, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

October 23

October 24

October 25

October 26

October 27

October 28

October 29

About game categories by decade[edit]

Numerous categories subdividing games by decade were created last year by User:StarTrekker such as Category:2020s horror video games. As far as I know there was not consensus about this, and it makes them harder to alphabetically navigate. Is this just an example of WP:OVERCAT that should be reverted or was there a consensus to do so? ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:51, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why would one need a consensus to create a category? Its no different than the Category:2020s horror films or Category:2020s horror novels trees (that also exist for other genres). By far more people are going to be interested in seeing media listed by date and genre than alphabetical order.★Trekker (talk) 21:36, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No games are categorized that way, so one would assume that a massive change to the categorization scheme would merit discussion. From what I've seen, films tend to be talked about far more in terms of the time they were made. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:17, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Personally I don't understand why video games would be different than any other media really, I've for sure seen people discuss video games from when they came out.★Trekker (talk) 01:11, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Categories are meant to be defining about a game. A game can be well known for the year it was released, or the genre, but whereas films and television shows are often talked about by their decade, I just don't see that with games. Perhaps its because changes in games move much faster than other products or due to the new-ishness of games compared to other media.
If one does want all horror games in the 2020s, that's what cross-categorization tools or Wikidata are for. Masem (t) 01:38, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
99.999% of Wikipedia users don't use cross-categorization tools or even Wikidata. I'm not seeing any convincing argument for video games being different than every other media.★Trekker (talk) 17:22, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's not defining. One may describe the 2023 Resident Evil 4 remake as a "2020s game", or a "horror game", but not really a "2020s horror game". Games aren't usually defined by decade-genre like that. I've seen platform-genre more often, like "PS1 horror games" or "N64 platform games". It's difficult to say why this is. It could be because games are still a relatively new format, and have evolved so quickly that say, horror games in 1991 have little in comparison to those in 1999, for example. There may be exceptions but I don't think 2020s horror is one of them. TarkusABtalk/contrib 18:10, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've also seen things like "PS2-era platformers" which are not just those on the PS2 but in the same general generation as they often use the same gameplay elements. But that's harder to nail so even that I would not use. Masem (t) 04:10, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I mean, going on that sort of logic, a similar percentage of general, non-editor readers probably don't even know categories exist in the first place. Not that I'm opposing you on those grounds, just a note that every part of this effort and discussion is probably not worth the time. Sergecross73 msg me 18:28, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agreed with TarkusAB, the important aspect that distinguishing video games by other media is the platform. If we had created 2020s horror video games, we could create a bunch of intersections (like 2020s video games developed in the United States, horror video games developed in the United States...). And by the same logic, we would have 2023 horror video games, 2023 PlayStation 4 games, PlayStation 4 horror video games, etc. Unlike other media, a video game may have multiple platforms and multiple genres (and other characteristics), so the cartesian product result may be awful. For the certain readers, the intersections are somehow useful; but it's really hard to be maintained, and make the category bar mess. --Lopullinen 03:40, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An Atari Jaguar Chronology has popped up...[edit]

So, i was browsing Twitter/X when all of the sudden, an Atari Jaguar chronology has popped up (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/u/0/d/1IW3M4k-nDqN-HubfNkLdU8PYkKvgd0UpD80fbtTH_QA/edit?pli=1#gid=0) by user Pimpeaux (https://twitter.com/Pimpeaux/status/1719357455128236444). I took a look at the list and it seems pretty well researched (IMO). However, one thing that grabbed my attention was the constant use of the rec.games.video usenet Atari group, which i don't know how that is seen here on Wikipedia. I revamped the list of Jaguar games at the start of October (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Atari_Jaguar_games&oldid=1177995450) and it took me a while to find those sources with the release dates listed. I would use the spreadsheet more as a guide rather than the de facto source but i don't know. What do you guys think about this? Roberth Martinez (talk) 21:22, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A usenet group is WP:USERG I would think? -- ferret (talk) 22:17, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nobody can keep you from using anything as a personal resource - you're free to get "ideas" or "leads on information" from wherever. But as ferret notes, it'd fail USERG as an actual source. Sergecross73 msg me 22:35, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games&oldid=1183412500"