|Status of the proposal|
|Details of the proposal|
|Project description||A detailed wiki on video games, consoles, publishers, reviewers. The wiki would also be a how-to guide.|
|Is it a multilingual wiki?||In all languages. At first only in a few languages.|
|Potential number of languages||Like Wikipedia, each language that wants a wiki must go through the incubator.|
|Proposed tagline||The gaming wiki|
|Proposed URL||wikigames.org (avaible)|
|New features to require||See License|
|Proposed interwiki prefix||g:|
|Development wiki||Test wiki|
Wikigames is a gaming wiki, its objectives would be :
- Being a complete guide for Video-games : each item, character, world or game engine will have its own page, no matter its notoriety.
- Be able to do a precise report of reviews and players, in order to let us have an neutral opinion. Reviews will be elaborated : for example, we will compare two similar games. And sources used will be up to date. In the same time, we will tell what which was the current update when sources have been written. Youtubers will be valid sources.
- Be a how-to guide : System requirements and potential game bugs (and maybe games soluce?) will be written.
Article templates 
It would be article templates like on Wikivoyage.
Editor is a video games editor created in Date based in City
- Locations and subsidiaries
- Main franchises
- See also
Universe of game is a Fantastic/Fictional/Uchronic… universe.
- See also
Character is a character of Game.
- Creation and evolution
Game is a game developped by Developer and published by Editor in Date.
- See the complete article + summary
- Required configuration
- See also
Map is a map in Game.
Reviewer is a Kind of media wich publish critics on Platform games.
- Critics of community and other reviewers
- See also
Developer is a video game developer created in Date based in City.
- Locations and subsidiaries
- Main franchises
- See also
Console is a console made by Company.
- Technical features
- See also
Collaboration of the month
Collaboration of the month would be an article promoted for a month on the main page. The wikigamers would focus on the article, which would be mostly dedicated to consoles, developers or publishers.
Flow & Content Translation
Flow and Content translation would be installed as Beta Feature and the Village pump would have Flow on it.
In a contribution, users should be able to choose between all licenses that MediaWiki offers and be able to specify where do texts come. (Explanations in the argument 2)
We would have a different page policy than Wikipedia. As Wikivoyage, we would say that a draft is better than nothing.
In the header, you can search for games by genre, release date, series, country, theme developer, publisher or distributor. So we will have to classify games conscientiously.
Portals and projects 
Projects and portals would work like on Wikipedia. Portal could look like this. Authorized portals would be about games, franchises, publishers, developers and consoles.
Wikigames also index games by geography, indicating in which city / country is located an editor / a critic ... And where was conceived a game / a console ...
Wikigames wants to be more modern, as shown in the home page of the test wiki, to attract a wider community. Most of the icons would be imported from The Noun Project and the main colors of the wiki would be the colors of the Wikimedia , and
- Video-games have lack of good community in most languages, and the main communities are managed by big companies that only want to make money (like Curse), or enthusiast amateurs who can't handle them properly and end by giving up.
- Most of video-games wikis uses MediaWiki and suggested CreativeCommons licences. Consequently, this is content that can be used freely.
- Wikigames will certainly have a huge community, thanks to every others wikis and communities mentioned before, they will gather around this serious and democratic wiki, moreover there will be video-games project members (projects that, in most Wikipedia languages, are among the most organized and active projects).
- Video-games are a way to learn, create and share. It's a collaborative activity where people of any age, any social class and location can meet. It's an art that deserves its own wiki.
- There is more than enough content to fill an entire wiki.
- No more eligibility issues with pages on Wikipedia : Criterias will be more relaxed.
- Community will be younger. This will attract young people on the Wikimedia.
- We can compare it to Wikivoyage: Highlight content that could be divided onto both Wikipedia and Wikibooks by organizing it in a different way.
- Metal Lanius (Fallout Wiki)
- JoJoPlatinum75 (aka MisterCoolSkin)
- Selyga officiel
- Omni Flames
- Hedelmätiski (fiwiki)
- Pottero (Dragon Age Polska Wiki)
- Issimo 15
- BRAEN B STAN
- Dokuz sekiz
- Macrike (talk) 11:06, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
- The Canadian Askew
- Dino Bronto Rex
- Arthurfan828 (talk) 23:53, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
- Vote pour le Mario Wiki francophone. JoJoPlatinum75 (talk) 19:40, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Wikigames是一个维基媒体基金会项目。 --Assoc (talk) 03:08, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support as creator. I'm fed up of those wikias. CreativeC38 (talk) 08:08, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Strong support Wikipedia is far too restricting for most game articles. --HiddenKnowledge (talk) 10:10, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
- 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)
- Support It’s worth a try, this idea has potential. Pottero (talk) 20:28, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
- Strong support un projet intéressant, qui offrira plus de place aux jeux vidéo que Wikipedia. -- issimo 15 !? 17:42, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- 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)
- Support This is a very nifty idea.
Also, more inviting than Wikipedia. It puts Wikia in shame.--George Ho (talk) 01:50, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Samuele2002 (Talk!) 21:13, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
- Support Wikipedia is not for guides --Asdfugil (talk) 11:34, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
- Strong support --Assoc (talk) 03:00, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Zache (talk) 09:11, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
- Support It will be interesting. --Dingyday (talk) 06:56, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
- 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)
- Strong support of course.--Shadi (talk) 18:23, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
- Strong support -- Dzaky17 (talk) 13:47, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- Strong support - We need a wiki about all notable video games. Arthurfan828 (talk) 23:58, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
- Strong support. Regretless, kinds of content has been defined as "over-detailed" at Wikipedia(s). --Kitabc12345 (talk) 04:25, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
- Support --Tmv (talk) 05:15, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- per all three above--ze un fo un (talk) 18:01, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Per extensive discussion in User:CreativeC38/Proposal#Discussion. Quiddity (talk) 22:12, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose per pretty much everyone above. 😂 (talk) 22:10, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose anything worth covering can already be covered on the local language Wikipedias. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:52, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose. There is Wikia for that reason. Nigos (talk) 07:53, 22 September 2019 (UTC)