Talk:SkyDrift

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move and probably fails WP:GNG. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:00, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Saman in the machine/Skydrift → Skydrift (video game) – I've just finished collecting the available information about this game and cannot move to an actual Wikipedia article because I'm new. Expanding this article is possible after the game release. Saman in the machine (talk) 16:05, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Continuing discussion regarding move

Moved from User talk:Saman in the machine by agreement

From my talk page:

Saman in the machine: Hi! Sorry, this is greek for me. What should I do / change to get approval and move for my article? What should I do with that "extra ~"? I don't really understand. Should I talk to you, or talk to Vegaswikian regarding this topic? Is my user page talk watched by you, or Vegaswikian, so should i move my questions there, or not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saman in the machine (talk • contribs) 11:52, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, perhaps we should continue discussion here.

Talk to me or to Vegaswikian, or anyone else who offers to help. There are a couple of ways to get help, all listed above in the "welcome" above.

The extra ~ refers to a mistake made by Vegaswikian, who like the rest of us is human, and which I noticed and told them about and they then fixed, so don't worry too much about it. In the "welcome" above you'll notice that you're asked to sign talk page contributions with four ~s, and they'd only used three, which gives a timestamp but no signature.

Have a read of WP:GNG. First question: Is this article really justified? Vegaswikian feels there's doubt, and nobody has supported your request for going "live". Can you make a case for this article being accepted, in terms of WP:GNG? Feel free to make it here (I'm watching) or on my talk page, and sign with four ~s in either case! Andrewa (talk) 12:48, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Saman in the machine

Justified: This article is about a video game, that was released on 7th of September. I already own this game, anyone can buy for about $15. I found that Wikipedia contains great and informative pages about video games, and I just took as basis an already existing page (WipeOut) to get the infobox, content order, style etc. At the time of writing the page the game was not released yet so lots of info was not available about it, that's why the page is incomplete. Now one can read reviews about the game, for example here: http://xboxlive.ign.com/articles/119/1193510p1.html So I thought that the page is "justified" and I wanted to be the first who creates the game's page. :) The sources of information are available for everyone, especially now after the release, and I tried to not sound as a fanboy with full of yeeah's and lookatitbro's :) however I'm a big air racing fan. This article is not an "original research" tho I was the person who collected the info, but I doubt that this counts as research. Saman in the machine (talk) 15:48, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, that's a good start. But not all games have articles. We need to answer the question: Is this particular game significant enough to have its own article in a general encyclopedia?

In trying to answer that question, others will look to the General Notability Guideline (links to it given previously) and to more specific guidelines if relevant ones exist. They'll also look for evidence that you or anyone else supporting the proposed new article has consulted these guidelines.

All is not lost if the answers are negative, but let's cross that bridge when we come to it. Step one is to find any relevant more specific guideline, step two is to assess the notability of the game against the guideline(s). Andrewa (talk) 20:27, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Significant enough: I'm not a journalist, so cannot judge a game in an absolute scale, therefore I have only two measure "tools" to say it is significant: first, I really enjoy the game playing on PS3, it is great fun, second, it has generally good media reception: I've read about ~20 reviews so far and the game scored the average of 84%. The worst rating is 70% [1], the general rating is about 80% [2], the best is 90% [3], 91% [4]. The genre of the game is not crowded on the consoles (there are 3-4 similar racing games, and this is the only one that uses airplanes and 3D navigation) Saman in the machine (talk) 10:33, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Please sign your posts, even on your own talk page.

Thank you. Andrewa (talk) 14:59, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Unless you relate this claim of notability to the guidelines, I really can't help. Andrewa (talk) 10:15, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I've had a look and can't see a more specific guideline, but I've also posted a heads up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive_123#Help with notability to seek some more expert help on the matter. Andrewa (talk) 15:58, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

(came here from that link), the GameSpot and IGN reviews are certainly reliable sources which could be used to establish notability. Maybe one or two more would be good. –Drilnoth (T/C) 16:00, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks... I've followed those links and can't see anything there that would help IMO. What should I be looking for? Andrewa (talk) 17:03, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Here are additional sources that can establish notability: GameSpot, IGN, and Game Informer

After my brief search, there may not be enough sources out there for a Good Article or Featured Article, but there's certainly enough to meet the general notability guideline. When looking at further sources, I would avoid any not listed at WP:VG/RS. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:28, 14 September 2011 (UTC))

I'd agree with Guyinblack25, especially with those additional sources he found. There's probably enough sources for an article, although it may not get past B-Class if there isn't much information out there on, say, the game's development and promotion (but that's okay). As is, an article could probably consist of gameplay, a plot summary (if applicable), and a reception section. –Drilnoth (T/C) 18:39, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Excellent stuff, particularly Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources#Video games (which should be officially recognised as a guideline IMO, at present its status seems uncertain... I'll pursue this elsewhere).

But under Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources#Review sites I see Metacritic and Game Rankings particularly recomended. Metacritic seems to currently rank the game as good (78) but barely (76 or higher is good). Gamerankings [5] gives it a slightly higher score but it's not clear to me what this score represents.

Progress, anyway.

Perhaps I should also say that IMO if we reach a consensus here that notability is established (which seems close at least) and that the article is ready to go "live", we don't need to go back to RM (unless someone wants to). Andrewa (talk) 21:00, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd say that with all the given sources, the game meets the general notability guideline. –Drilnoth (T/C) 21:39, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll defer to your judgement on that. Thank you! Andrewa (talk) 03:02, 15 September 2011 (UTC)