Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of The Simpsons video games/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was not promoted by Giants2008 21:11, 2 May 2012 [1].

List of The Simpsons video games edit

Nominator(s): — Statυs (talk) 07:47, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating List of The Simpsons video games to become a featured list because I believe that after my work on it (from this to its current revision), it now meets the FL criteria. — Status {^talk_contribs 07:47, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Original style issues from Golbez (talk) 16:47, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, multiple issues:
- No qualification is given for the release dates; were these the North American release date? European? Japanese? Were the multi-platform games released all on the same day?
  - Above the table, it clearly states: "and it's first known release date." — Status {^talk_contribs 16:57, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I missed that. However, that same wording is reused in the later tables when it makes less sense (I mention this in a lower bullet point). However, you don't specify which console and region this first known release date was for. I might be asking for too much, I don't know, that's why other people will chime in as well. --Golbez (talk) 16:59, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- In the intro, it's confidently stated that the Simpsons Arcade game was the first game released, and Bart vs the Space Mutants was the second. However, in the table, the Arcade Game and Bowling are listed first and second, with just '1991' as the date, Bart vs the World is listed third with a date of 2/1/91, and Bart vs the Space Mutants is listed fourth at 4/25/91. So either the text is wrong or the table is wrong. I suggest, if we don't have solid dates on the arcade games, that you don't state which came first.
- Why is Genesis listed as 'Genesis' and Game Gear as 'Game Gear', but Master System is listed as 'Sega Master System'?
- Now, for entry-specific issues. First, The Simpsons Arcade Game
  - This might come across as being a total douche, but nothing in reference 5 supports the list of platforms. It never says it was in arcades. I suggest arcade-museum.com. In fact, and someone more versed in these matters should chime in, but I'm not sure how much Mobygames qualifies as a reliable source, seeing how it appears to be somewhat wikiesque.
- The Simpsons Bowling
  - Reference 6 does not contain a release date for Simpsons Bowling; according to [2], it should be 2000, not 1991.
  - Reference 7 is not about Simpsons Bowling, it was saying the arcade game is a fun game to play at a bowling alley arcade. So it is not a source to say Simpsons Bowling came out in 1991.
- Bart vs the World
  - You list multiple publishers, presumably that means different platforms were published by different companies? I think it should be specified who did what.
  - According to Mobygames, you're missing several publishers, Flying Edge and Erbe. This repeats in several other games, so I won't mention it further.
  - Your sources disagree on the release date; ref 8 says Dec 1991, ref 9 says February 1, 1991. My own personal experience was that Space Mutants came out first, so I'm inclined to think it's Feb 1 1991, but without solid sourcing it's impossible to say.
- Bart vs the Space Mutants
  - Nothing new to report
- Krusty's Fun House
  - Where was it 'aka Krusty's Super Fun House'? Is this an official name used on some platforms, or a colloquial one? If that was its name for some consoles, say which.
- Bartman Meets Radioactive Man
  - More date discrepancy - Moby says Dec 1992, IGN says June 1 1992. I won't mention date discrepancies from here on; where you're relying on two sources and they disagree on something like this, you need to reconcile it with another source.
- Moving on to the other tables
  - "The following table represents the video games released in The Simpsons series that were released exclusively on the Game Boy and its successor the Game Boy Color for its initial release." What do you mean by 'its initial release'? Either it's exclusive to Game Boy or it isn't; if its "initial release" was on Game Boy but it later went to other systems then doesn't that make it multiplatform? If that isn't the case for any of these then this sentence needs to be reworded.
  - "Included in the table is the game's title, it's developer, publisher and it's first known release date. All other information can be found in each of the game's corresponding articles." First of all, it's -> its. Second of all, I'm of the mind that a list should be comprehensive and have full release information on everything.
- Why list The Simpsons Arcade Game reissue separately? It's the same thing, it's a legitimate platform, I say include it with the rest of them.
- Finally, I'm not sure it needs to be split up into multiple tables. What's wrong with combining everything into one table, and just having the single console entry in the platform cell?
There's promise here but it needs a more work. Please compare it with existing featured lists of video games, in particular List of Metroid media and List of Final Fantasy media to see two good ways of handling a large amount of release platforms. --Golbez (talk) 16:47, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I have merged everything together into one table. I have come into difficulty finding exact release dates for a lot of the titles, so I've been using sources for the developers, publishers and platforms, and another for the release date. — Status {^talk_contribs 17:16, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good, no harm in sourcing every piece of info in a list like this. I'm guessing what's there now is a work in progress, if it's going to take more than a day or so this FLC should probably be withdrawn until this is done. Also, you're now missing "Arcade" as a platform for the arcade game. :) Finally, and someone else will have to chime in on this, but I don't know if it's valid to rely solely on flags to indicate what region it was released in, especially (may not be relevant for Simpsons games) multilingual European releases. --Golbez (talk) 18:19, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please note: The tables in this article are currently being reconstructed. Please do not comment on the FLC or close it during this time. I, the editor, should have this done within a few hours. I will post a new message here when completed. Thank you, — Status {^talk_contribs 18:37, 22 March 2012 (UTC) Done — Status {^talk_contribs 19:58, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so, commenting on the newer version:
- The list is ordered alphabetically... the other featured lists of games in franchises all list chronologically.
- I'm no expert but I'm not sure including the flyer will work within fair use rules. If it stays, then we need more, because it's squeezing the table with little payoff, but I have the feeling others will say remove it.
- The text in the right cell in Itchy & Scratchy in Miniature Golf Madness is large.
- I still think this could be more like, say... the list of One Piece games. But that's a lot of work, and as pointed out, we don't have great resources on release dates for some of these. I'll wait for others to comment. --Golbez (talk) 16:51, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean about by release date, but as we've already talked about, we don't know which came first, all we have is a year, so I think it would be much easier to just list them in ABC order. — Status {^talk_contribs 00:07, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Comparing this to other Video Game FLs, this is in poor standards. Like, for example, the games need to be in chronological order (EX: List of Final Fantasy video games). GamerPro64 00:54, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Point me towards the guideline that says as such. — Status {^talk_contribs 01:04, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think chronological order is better for video game lists. With alphabetical order, you're fine if you know the game and just want to navigate to it. But chronology gives you a bit of a narrative so you can follow the series progression. Obviously, it's not perfect due to re-releases and the like, but I think arranging it by date of first release would be superior. - hahnch e n 11:04, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I realize that chronological order is usually preferred in everything, but MOS:LIST states: "Although lists may be organized in different ways, they must always be organized. The most basic form of organization is alphabetical or numerical (such as List of Star Wars starfighters), though if items have specific dates a chronological format is sometimes preferable (List of Belarusian Prime Ministers)." This is exactly what applies here. We don't have exact dates for any, besides ones that have been released in the last couple of years. This isn't like a normal video game series, several developers and publishers have the rights to the series, and release games based off of it. There's no, "this is the second video game in the franchise; The Simpsons 1, The Simpsons 2"; it's all over the place. — Status {^talk_contribs 19:13, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that. I didn't mean narrative as in a continuing storyline through the games, but more like an evolution of the games - you can see the type of games they used to make, and the type of games they make now. I think this gives the reader a better sense of the games than an alphabetical list. List of X-Men video games is a good example. - hahnch e n 11:15, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 14:18, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

"Video games based off the series have reached multiple platforms since its debut in 1991." I thought the series debuted in 1989. Or is this referring to the games? A little unclear now. Also, the year link doesn't add anything to the article.
~~"The Simpsons first video game release". Apostrophe needed at end of Simpsons, and a comma is needed directly after "release".~~
"further expanded the franchise into new heights." Not sure we can say a game caused a series to reach "new heights" without some evidence of that other than some new systems.
~~There's no reason whatsoever to have a non-free logo from the show in a list of video games. That would be fine in the main Simpsons article, but I don't believe this meets non-free content criteria.~~
~~What makes ClassicTVHits.com (reference 3) a reliable source?~~
Ref 24 has some access date coding showing up in the article. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:28, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the grammar errors, removed the logo and video game year templates, ClassicTVHits.com source, and I'm not sure what you mean with Ref 24. — Status {^talk_contribs 09:46, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That ref (now 23) has "accessdate=2012-03-22" appearing, as opposed to "Retrieved on..." as you would expect. A pipe is probably missing somewhere in the citation. Giants2008 (Talk) 16:13, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, alright. I see what you mean. I've fixed it. I must have been looking at the wrong ref earlier. — Statυs (talk) 17:22, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I really like how the list looks. For my taste the table is flawless. The only thing that bothered me is this part of the second sentence - epitomized by its eponymous family, it reads awkward, maybe you can change it. The references are also fine. All in all good work. — Tomica (talk) 21:22, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Going to go out on a limb here, I feel that the table at the moment is not in the best state it could be. I'm not a fan of the release information column, I feel it would be better if you had the info that is in this column in individual columns. For instance Bart & the Beanstalk would have game boy in console column, february 1994 in release date column, and then publisher and developer columns. This would provide a much more user friendly and would allow the table to be sortable which would provide the reader with more functionality than is presently available. I know there is an issue with games being released on multiple consoles to get around this I would split the rows utilising the method in this list. At the moment with the table the way it is I have to regrettably oppose the nomination as the table can be improved. NapHit (talk) 22:38, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you do up a draft with the first one as an example to show me what you mean? I had them in separate columns and sortable before, but it didn't work out. — Statυs (talk) 23:18, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've done an example in my sandbox, it's only one row but still shows the premise. NapHit (talk) 18:30, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm gonna ask Golbez to see he thinks about this before doing anything. — Statυs (talk) 19:52, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: Nothing to review; no images used. Good raise 21:03, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This would be an Oppose if not for the fact that I had been gone so long. I'm just curious as to if you can still use Gamefaqs for Release Data, I know when I was working on lists it was acceptable, and they provide exact dates, usually confirmed by instruction booklets or the companies themselves, and if you can only get 'aroundabout' dates, that's okay (As seen in the Donkey Kong list). If I were to vote, it would be an oppose, FL's in my opinion, should feature the best that wikipedia has to offer, and should be staple across it's highest rated articles. This article departs not from guidelines (since there are none) but from the precedent that has already been set by previous lists. I mean there is a perfectly good template for video game lists, and yet you haven't used it despite it featuring in all the other lists, all the other lists are in chronological order (except in the case when listed by series within a series (such as Final Fantasy) and even then it does it's best to stay in order. These clean-ups to align with current practices shouldn't take more than a day to fix.

When compared to the original list, it is a lot more informative then yours, I'd keep the total amount of games (but it's not necessary), and I'm assuming you couldn't find a source for the hit and run sequel, but that would be great to include had you found one, same with the comment about the limited edition Xboxes. Table wise, it's important to reference the developers and publishers, and the genre should be included as well.

As an editor of video game lists from the past I will say this, don't be discouraged as I was just because you haven't gotten many votes, video game lists are one of the least voted on that you'll find, but that in no way detracts from their notability. They are important. And your work is great, your lead in my opinion is fantastic, the issues for me lie in the list itself. This is a difficult list for numerous reasons including the fact that the games are western developed, meaning no section on the difference between releases for multiple countries or regions (not to say they couldn't be included) also the fact that it is the television series that spurred the games, and the fact that there is no real connection between many of the games. Also the fact that, as you noted, several of the games are almost pre-internet era and as such lacking in online documentation, and I'd imagine even print information. Don't give up. --Lightlowemon (talk) 16:19, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - This should be an A-class list if possible but not a FL. --J (t) 01:31, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Not a bad list, but not good enough to qualify for a FL yet. Zappa (talk) 23:54, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The previous two votes are meaningless since they are not explained. Still I am not 100% convinced with the current format of the table. There could be another column with the date of the first release, and another table with some statistics across all platforms. Nergaal (talk) 02:11, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.