Wikigames (2)

People interested

1. Ruggtn

I use MTN SA so I would like us as South Africans to browse wiki games free

1. MRidhaAJ for the gaming!!!

Discussion

• Vote pour le Mario Wiki francophone. JoJoPlatinum75 (talk) 19:40, 29 April 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
• I see two conflicting ideas in this proposal. (1) "each item, character, world or game engine will have its own page, no matter its notoriety" – its own page... for what? Ostensibly this is to accrete in-universe, gameguide material. But in the article contents they (2) duplicate the purpose of Wikipedia articles (gameplay, development, criticism). The only way it would be different is in having more lax citation and inclusion criteria, and I believe I have yet to see a "gameguide" wiki done well (that is, a useful full game article, that doesn't go into mindnumbing detail unhelpful to the general reader)—closest, maybe, is the Fallout wiki, for a work that actually needed a companion encyclopedia. There are many game wikis well under way that we could fork, but why? Ostensibly the community that writes the in-universe stuff the best is the small community dedicated to that topic, not a general games community. I think the Wikia model makes the most sense and that the number of ghost wikis should be a sobering reminder when considering this proposal. czar 01:44, 16 May 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
• If I read this correctly, Wikigames would primarily be a sort of inclusive game-guide that uses primary sources in addition to secondary sources. Building a collection of information based on game manuals and old-timey game guide books sounds like a really cool idea, and know the Wikipedia WikiProject on video games, this could become rather popular. The scope might need to be specified a bit more. "each item, character, world or game engine will have its own page" sounds more like describing fiction from a fictional perspective than describing video games from a mechanic perspective - the latter may be more useful. Having similar content as Wikipedia would also be inefficient, so development and reception may not be relevant for Wikigames. ~Mable (chat) 07:50, 16 May 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
• Based on the support comments below, perhaps a "Wikifiction" could also be an option, as people love describing fiction from an in-universe point-of-view. I personally don't really like the idea, but if the purpose of Wikigames is to describe fiction rather than mechanics, you might as well call it what it is. ~Mable (chat) 07:53, 16 May 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
• I hate making three completely separate comments in a row, but the proposal currently basically suggests that any one's opinion is worth adding to a page on Wikigames by saying that Youtubers are reliable sources. This seems dangerous. Could I create a blog under a false name, talk trash about a game, and then add those criticisms to the Wikigames article on said game? Does anyone have the right to remove said criticisms? I really respect some content-creators out there, but saying "anything goes" won't give you any information. ~Mable (chat) 08:00, 16 May 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  • I think this is a important issue that is needed to be cleared up. I think it is important to ensure quality in the source material, and "Youtubers will be valid sources" is a too generic statement to a too specific group. Maybe I'm over thinking for the proposal, but for me would be important to establish which are the reliable sources with individual made material. --Luk3 (talk) 16:29, 16 May 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
    • I propose there will be a group of admins that will compile a list of reliable youtubers, and anyone will be able to request adding a new Youtuber sort of like anyone can request a new wikimedia project. The group of admins will review this suggestion, and decide weather to add the Youtuber to the list of reliable sources or not. Just an idea, and I’m not sure if I’m allowed to change the original idea since it’s the idea of @CreativeC:. RiverThames27 (talk) 11:46, 30 May 2020 (UTC) [reply ]
      • @RiverThames27: Feel free to edit it as you wish ! --CreativeC (talk) 16:55, 30 May 2020 (UTC) [reply ]
        • @CreativeC: Thank you very much! -RiverThames27 (talk) 10:11, 31 May 2020 (UTC) [reply ]
• Wikigames是一个维基媒体基金会项目。 --Assoc (talk) 03:08, 3 February 2018 (UTC) [reply ]
• Question Question: I fully support this idea, and I have left 2 comments that explain why, however I have a question about how this will be organised. Will it be sort of like Wikibooks where you have a book about say Pokemon blue, that will be divided to chapters and if you want to learn for example about digglet cave that will be Pokemon Blue/locations/digglet cave or will it be more like Wikipedia where digglet cave is an independent article that talks about digglet cave in different Pokemon games. I’m more leaning towards the first option, but I would love to hear your thoughts. RiverThames27 (talk) 11:31, 30 May 2020 (UTC) [reply ]
  • Now that I thought about this, I'm actually more leaning towards the second option. -RiverThames27 (talk) 08:35, 6 June 2020 (UTC) [reply ]
• @CreativeC: I have added the template for writing about mods in wikigames since I think mods are another important part of gaming that doesn’t get covered in Wikipedia (mods as a whole do but individual mods don’t). Can you please tell what you think about this and have I done it properly? Thanks in advance, -RiverThames27 (talk) 09:53, 6 June 2020 (UTC) [reply ]
  • @RiverThames27: It looks fine! --CreativeC (talk) 15:23, 6 June 2020 (UTC) [reply ]
    • @CreativeC: Thank you very much! -RiverThames27 (talk) 15:25, 6 June 2020 (UTC) [reply ]

Please see the discussion at Wikibooks:Wikibooks:Reading room/Proposals#Start allowing game strategies for a proposal for Wikibooks to host this content. Any comments on the proposal are most welcome! --Mrjulesd (talk) 14:26, 7 February 2021 (UTC) [reply ]

@CreativeC:, pinging the user who proposed this idea. It’s probably a bit lay to announce this now, the proposal to start allowing strategies in Wikibooks was approved. However, I think that it’s a shame to give up on this proposal - maybe you can try to suggest a Wiki for reviews? Because I personally really liked this proposal. -Gifnk dlm 2020 (talk) 17:12, 9 March 2021 (UTC) [reply ]

1. Support Support as creator. I'm fed up of those wikias. CreativeC38 (talk) 08:08, 25 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
2. Support Support L'idée d'aller un peu plus loin que Wikipédia en français me tente, reste à définir aussi bien le champ d'action que la manière d'y arriver. // A Wiki that can offer further informations that a classic Wiki could be a good idea. --Archimëa (talk) 18:15, 13 May 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
3. Strong support Strong support. Wikia在中文区不甚流行,许多编辑在维基百科贡献内容。但遗憾的是,许多内容是维基百科不收录的"过细内容",故开设姊妹计划是很好的主意。 // As Wikia is not so popular in Chinese-speaking regions, many a editor contributes their things at Wikipedia. Regretless, kinds of content has been defined as "over-detailed" at Wikipedia(s). Therefore, set up a sister project for further writing is a capital idea. --風中的刀劍 (talk) 16:04, 15 May 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
4. Support Support Wikigames可以帮助收录维基百科不接受的虚构内容,例如设定、角色和攻略等。 // I think Wikigames can focus on the "fiction" of games, such as universe, characters and rules, which are not aceeptable in Wikipedia. —Chiefwei (talk) 02:13, 16 May 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
   1. Absolutely! The fiction of the game and the game mechanics! Those things aren’t allowed on Wikipedia so there should be a separate wiki for that. RiverThames27 (talk) 10:03, 1 June 2020 (UTC) [reply ]
5. Strong support Strong support Wikipedia is far too restricting for most game articles. --HiddenKnowledge (talk) 10:10, 18 May 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
6. Support Support This is like a other Wikipedia of a world of games of ficction, yes. Nobita931 At your service! IRC 19:40, 18 May 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
7. Support Support It’s worth a try, this idea has potential. Pottero (talk) 20:28, 20 May 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
8. Strong support Strong support un projet intéressant, qui offrira plus de place aux jeux vidéo que Wikipedia. -- issimo 15 _!? 17:42, 10 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
9. Support SupportThis project can facilitate people to entertain themselves more easily. It's worth to invest in it. Wetitpig0 (talk) 10:37, 31 August 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
10. Support Support This is a very nifty idea. (削除) Also, more inviting than Wikipedia. It puts Wikia in shame. (削除ここまで) --George Ho (talk) 01:50, 19 December 2016 (UTC) [reply ]

    Shouldn't have said that. I'll say that video game community is very huge in Wikipedia. --George Ho (talk) 05:19, 2 April 2017 (UTC) [reply ]

11. Support Support --Samuele2002 (Talk!) 21:13, 9 May 2017 (UTC) [reply ]
12. Support Support Wikipedia is not for guides --Asdfugil (talk) 11:34, 8 August 2017 (UTC) [reply ]
13. Strong support Strong support --Assoc (talk) 03:00, 3 February 2018 (UTC) [reply ]
14. Support Support --Zache (talk) 09:11, 3 January 2019 (UTC) [reply ]
15. Support Support It will be interesting. --Dingyday (talk) 06:56, 3 February 2019 (UTC) [reply ]
16. Support Support Creation of a Wikigames website would be really helpful... the websites that exist now (wikia) are corrupted and non-free. Advertisements are crawling everywhere, making the browser slower and the risk higher. Arep Ticous 17:30, 14 September 2019 (UTC) [reply ]
17. (削除) Strong support Strong support of course.--Shadi (talk) 18:23, 15 September 2019 (UTC) (削除ここまで)[reply ]
18. Strong support Strong support -- Dzaky17 (talk) 13:47, 23 October 2019 (UTC) [reply ]
19. Strong support Strong support Great idea! A wiki where all video games, game platforms, and of course game developers that have created enough games to be considered notable have their own articles. Some people argue that it’s to similar to Wikipedia, but I think that if we add non-encyclopaedic content that would be related to the game (possible strategies for example, if it’s about a Pokemon for example, it’s possible to write where it can be found and in what games. it’s possible even to write about in-game mission, for example "By The Book (GTA V mission)". It’s also possible to use Wikigames to publish articles about games that have reviews online, but would not be considered notable for a Wikipedia article. Dino Bronto Rex (talk) 17:50, 15 November 2019 (UTC) [reply ]
20. Support Support 这是个好想法,也许包含提议中的维基娱乐计划能丰富内容。 // It's a good idea. Maybe including the proposing Wikientertain Project could enlarge the content. --Leiem (talk) 08:45, 16 March 2020 (UTC) [reply ]
21. Strong support Strong support - We need a wiki about all notable video games. Arthurfan828 (talk) 23:58, 7 April 2020 (UTC) [reply ]
22. Strong support Strong support. Regretless, kinds of content has been defined as "over-detailed" at Wikipedia(s). --Kitabc12345 (talk) 04:25, 2 May 2020 (UTC) [reply ]
23. Support Support --Tmv (talk) 05:15, 6 May 2020 (UTC) [reply ]
24. Strong support Strong support In the Morden time, there are many indie games that are just not notable enough to get an article in Wikipedia, but are still part of the society we live in. I think this project will be great because it will have articles about games that are notable enough to be mentioned but not notable enough to be mentioned in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is also too restricted to have the kind of information that is interesting for most gamers. Such restrictions make sense for Wikipedia to have but don’t make sense for wikigames to have. Wikigames will have information about strategies, in-game items, in-game locations, and so on (information that Wikipedia would consider over-detailed). RiverThames27 (talk) 09:44, 29 May 2020 (UTC) [reply ]
    1. I would like to give an example of something that was removed from Wikipedia but would fit in perfectly in wikigames: Polybius for Atari 2600 in https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Polybius_(urban_legend)&oldid=921742125. This information is definitely worth mentioning and I think wikigames is the perfect place to do it. The main pro of wikigames, however, is that it will contain non encyclopaedic information that is more interesting for the gamers. Wikipedia has very tough notability standards and doesn’t tell much about the gameplay. Wikigames will be able to describe the gameplay in details and tell about all the different items, locations, cheats, etc. RiverThames27 (talk) 11:24, 30 May 2020 (UTC) [reply ]
25. Strong support Strong support It could be used by many users.--LILOBJTOFU123 (talk) 23:52, 8 August 2020 (UTC) [reply ]
26. Strong support Strong support It will grow very fast and will contain information about many notable video games that can’t be added to Wikipedia. -Tigers&BisonsEatPumpkins (talk) 12:01, 26 October 2020 (UTC) [reply ]
27. Strong support Strong support This is a good idea, especially for game fans (like me). The only flaw is that I think Wikipedia would also have pages about games. Other than that, it's a good idea. Message translated using Google Translate 177.87.75.62 22:31, 26 December 2020 (UTC) [reply ]
28. Support Support Jnovikov (talk) 21:12, 1 January 2021 (UTC) [reply ]
29. Strong support Strong support — 🍕 Yivan000 🍕 04:32, 6 January 2021 (UTC) [reply ]
30. Support Support I hate Wikia. Max20characters (talk) 16:52, 5 February 2021 (UTC) [reply ]
31. Support Support, come on, it's been five(!) years. Enjoyer of World (talk) 13:21, 9 February 2021 (UTC) [reply ]
32. Support Support as Chinese Wikibooks rejected inclusion of game guides. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 00:27, 10 August 2021 (UTC) [reply ]
33. Strong support Strong support--MRidhaAJ (talk) 22:51, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [reply ]

1. Oppose Oppose – as currently described, Wikigames would be similar to Wikipedia, except without any rules on fiction, without any kind of notability guidelines, and without depending on reliable sources. I don't believe that this is something Wikimedia should invest in. I personally love the idea of having a kind of Wikimedia strategywiki, using manuals and published strategy guides as sources. I could also approve of the idea of a "fiction wiki" that deliberately focuses on media from an in-universe perspective. I have difficulty understanding what the purpose of Wikigames would be, other than simply being another fanwiki. ~Mable (chat) 06:34, 18 May 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
2. Oppose Oppose This looks like StrategyWiki x Wikia (in all their various forms) x a handful of other wikis. Wikimedia has no business in fiction without real-world context since our goal is to educate, and if these materials are too detailed, they may end up being non-free, if not a copyright violation. As an aside, I believe Wikiversity may already take walkthroughs, though you'd have to check with them. --Izno (talk) 12:47, 19 May 2016 (UTC) [reply ]

   (削除) @Izno: yes that's true, but the videos games are very popular and also this wiki will be, yes it's goal to educate but games are also a kind of education, they are educational games, and many games teach something, the games became a part of the live of many people, for all this reasons I don't agree.--شادي (talk) 08:11, 4 September 2020 (UTC) (削除ここまで)[reply ]

3. Oppose Oppose It is nearly impossible to provide the level of detail that this project proposes without reliance on non-free screenshots and/or video, and that runs against the WMF core mission. It also feels far too much of a slippery slope to allow fiction wikis that start to border on copyright problems that I think the WMF has done best to avoid. --Masem (talk) 14:18, 19 May 2016 (UTC) [reply ]

   Who has ever mentioned about copyrighted images? Wetitpig0 (talk) 11:16, 31 August 2016 (UTC) [reply ]

4. per all three above--ze un fo un (talk) 18:01, 7 December 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
5. Oppose Oppose Per extensive discussion in User:CreativeC38/Proposal#Discussion. Quiddity (talk) 22:12, 9 May 2017 (UTC) [reply ]

   @Quiddity: Per a 404 page not found link? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 21:56, 6 August 2020 (UTC) [reply ]

   @Liuxinyu970226: If you click through to that page (final location was User:CreativeC/Proposal), it shows the deletion log. It's not my fault if a page was deleted ~2 years after I linked to it! I don't remember what was written there, but perhaps user:Xaosflux could check the deleted history, to see if anyone else participated on that page, which IIUC would make it ineligible for G6 deletion? Thanks! Quiddity (talk) 00:34, 10 August 2020 (UTC) [reply ]

   @Quiddity: in a quick peek, it looks like that page was mostly a copy-paste archive from elsewhere - you did make a couple of talk-type edits there, if you would like your comments restored I'll put them on your talk page (ping me). — xaosflux ^Talk 11:33, 10 August 2020 (UTC) [reply ]

   @Xaosflux: yes please. Thank you! (Did anyone else comment there, or in the material that was copy-pasted from elsewhere? (or in other words...) Essentially, I wonder if there was useful discussion/content there - i.e. pertinent for this page's discussion - and if so then perhaps it might be worth asking the CreativeC to reconsider the page's deletion entirely? Your opinion would be appreciated. :) Quiddity (talk) 20:59, 10 August 2020 (UTC) [reply ]

   @Quiddity: I pasted the contents to your talk page, if there is a project space to restore this page to, you can ask at RFH, I wouldn't want to require anyone to host it in their own userspace if they don't want to. — xaosflux ^Talk 21:59, 10 August 2020 (UTC) [reply ]

   To summarize and expand upon the previous comments I'd made in 2016:

   1. Concerns about screenshots - Most of those other sites are popular & useful partially because they seem to (? IANAL) ignore fair-use issues quite frequently, whereas we would have to hold to a stricter standard. I.e. Our articles couldn't contain galleries of high-resolution screenshots, which is a primary use-case for the existing sites.
   2. Concerns about overlap with existing collaboratively-produced video game reference sites, such as Mobygames, KLOV, Fandom, GameFAQs, 1up, etc. There would need to be constant checks that people aren't taking copyrighted material from those sites.
   3. Concerns about the lack of detail regarding how in-depth this new site would be, in comparison to the existing sites. (e.g. Mobygames includes links for everyone listed in the credits who worked on a game, such as Katamari Damacy. That seems to be using a structured-data backend to enable automatic calculation and cross-reference and page-compilation. Would Wikigames need new custom software built in order to replicate that?) -- (e.g. Fandom's GTA wiki includes details about every car, such as ETR1. Would this new wiki replicate all of that?) -- (e.g. game guides, cheat-code lists, ascii maps, etc etc. Would this new site try to replicate everything in every guide and walkthrough ever written?)
   4. Concerns about the name, and how the proposed site doesn't cover all "games", e.g. board games, card games, ball games, pen&paper games, pinball machines, etc.

   In theory (in a perfect world) I like the idea of taking all the hundreds of existing websites and making them better [-organized/-translated/-updated], but in practice I don't think it's at all feasible to do, and especially not as a Wikimedia project.

   HTH. Quiddity (talk) 20:10, 15 August 2020 (UTC) [reply ]

   @Quiddity: the wikias are just a secondary sources they the official site of the games, and they a lot of fans of the videogames, and a lot of good sources, this is a very popular subject.--شادي (talk) 08:11, 4 September 2020 (UTC) [reply ]

6. Oppose Oppose per pretty much everyone above. 😂 (talk) 22:10, 11 May 2017 (UTC) [reply ]
7. Oppose Oppose anything worth covering can already be covered on the local language Wikipedias. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:52, 9 July 2019 (UTC) [reply ]
   1. @TonyBallioni: Wikipedia allows you to write contents on games' guides? This is at least not allowed on Chinese Wikipedia. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 22:35, 11 July 2020 (UTC) [reply ]
      1. @Liuxinyu970226: I agree with you. And it’s not just guides, Wikipedia (at least wikipedia English) doesn’t even allow encyclopaedic articles about all games because of it’s tough notability standards. -ElfSnail123 (talk) 21:28, 17 November 2020 (UTC) [reply ]
8. Oppose Oppose. There is Wikia for that reason. Nigos (talk) 07:53, 22 September 2019 (UTC) [reply ]
   1. I disagree with your statement. Wikivoyage was founded even though Wikitravel already existed. Just because there is a wikia about this topic doesn’t mean there can’t be a wikimedia project about the same topic. Dino Bronto Rex (talk) 14:25, 25 December 2019 (UTC) [reply ]

      @Dino Bronto Rex: Wikivoyage was formed for an entirely different reason. See voy:en:Wikivoyage:Wikivoyage and Wikitravel for more about this. SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 08:42, 2 November 2021 (UTC) [reply ]

9. Oppose Oppose Too much non-free content. Highly overlaps with wikipedia--Shizhao (talk) 07:42, 3 November 2020 (UTC) [reply ]

   @Shizhao: Per my responds to TonyBallioni, Wikipedia is entirely not suitable for game guides, also we will focus more carefully on how Wikigameses are following the global EDPs. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 01:16, 18 November 2020 (UTC) [reply ]

10. Oppose Oppose Some of this could be hosted on Wikibooks under current policy. Wikibooks does have a policy against video game strategy guides and walkthroughs because we were told long ago it wouldn't be consistent with the Foundation's non-profit status; though there has always been some lingering doubt in Wikibookians' minds whether this might be more about wanting to channel popular energy into Wikia. Either such things are allowed and they should be on Wikibooks, or they aren't and they shouldn't be anywhere. Telling Wikibooks they can't do that and then creating a new sister to do it would seem a rather pessimal strategy for the sisterhood as a whole. --Pi zero (talk) 18:08, 24 January 2021 (UTC) [reply ]
11. Oppose Oppose I'm echoing Pi Zero's thoughts here; this discussion is better placed on Wikibooks in fact, where we can consider lifting the restriction on strategy-based guides, hence negating the purpose of "Wikigames". Leaderboard (talk) 18:21, 24 January 2021 (UTC) [reply ]
12. Oppose Oppose It will have negative impacts on other wikis, distract WMF and devs. It is against the communities goals. Copyright incompatibilities as well because game media is copyrighted and hosting such contents is better suited to wikia/fandom- Vis M (talk) 19:59, 7 February 2021 (UTC) [reply ]
13. Eh, as much as I hate Wikia/Fandom/whatever they are called right now, I have to admit that they and other independent gaming wikis (like the members of the Nintendo Independent Wiki Alliance) do a better job at documenting their games than us. Instead of wasting our effort trying to beat Wikia, why don't we just support independent wikis that are dedicated to those topics? Pandakekok9 (talk) 14:11, 28 February 2021 (UTC) [reply ]

    @Vis M and Pandakekok9: Copyright incompatibilities are commonly seen on Wikidata, so you can nominate properties for deletion by just this way? Hah nah. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:06, 24 March 2021 (UTC) [reply ]

14. Oppose Oppose. See Wikibooks. --Hérisson grognon (talk) 12:55, 14 May 2021 (UTC) [reply ]

    @Hérisson grognon: Sorry, but unlike English Wikibooks, the Chinese Wikibooks community recently rejected allowing game guides inclusion, this is unfortunatelly a negative message for all opposers citing Wikibooks as their oppose rationales. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 22:28, 7 June 2021 (UTC) [reply ]

    @Liuxinyu970226: it might be. It’s unfortunate that they rejected it though. Just out of curiosity, did they reject it after seeing all the arguments presented in English Wikibooks or were they not translated? -Gifnk dlm 2020 (talk) 12:13, 11 June 2021 (UTC) [reply ]

    @Liuxinyu970226: Can you link me to the zh.wikibooks discussion rejecting video game strategy guides? Leaderboard (talk) 08:27, 1 July 2021 (UTC) [reply ]

15. Oppose Oppose No. a) that's what Wikibooks is for, and b) a wiki for video games, seriously? No offense, but this proposal is so out of scope. SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 08:39, 2 November 2021 (UTC) [reply ]

• Rejected new project proposals
• Proposed projects
• Proposed projects - multimedia