Wikipedia talk:Notability (video games)/Archive 1

Compilations

Where did the statement that compilations are "never" considered notable come from? Is it original thought? It doesn't seem to accord with current practice: Category:Video game collections. –xeno^talk 20:55, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

It's come from numerous statements at WT:VG and some stuff at WP:SE where they consider them mostly as remakes/ports. I don't mind the change to rarely (as I just remembered an exception before you mentioned that one), but the current number of compliations goes against our guidelines and really against WP:AVOIDSPLIT. Most of those articles I would say should be merged into their respective articles.陣内_Jinnai 21:03, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

"Never" is far too strong. I see "rarely" in the present version and that's much better. We need to convey the sense that the compilation has to be notable on its own merits - entirely separately from the merits of the individual games that make it up. For example - a massive $1,000 collectors-edition compilation of every video game ever produced for the Nintendo 64 in one package would be notable for its very completeness and extremely unusual nature - irrespective of the notability of the games it contained. Similarly, if there were ever to be a spectacularly popular, award winning, critically acclaimed compilation of the worst games in history, packaged with a history of bad video games and bonus material from their authors...none of which individually warranted their own Wikipedia article - then we'd be well-justified in talking about this unusual phenomenon.

Hence, we shouldn't say "never" because that enables the terminally stupid Wikilawyers to delete important articles just because they can and it makes them feel important and self-righteous. Saying "rarely" fits the bill much better.

I strongly agree that we should exclude compilations in general in that most of them add essentially zero new information beyond the articles for the individual games. Our articles on each of the notable original games in the bundle can say "...was included in such-and-such compilation along with so-and-so and this-and-that other games and was released in 1999.".

SteveBaker (talk) 21:20, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Technical achievement.

We need to add another clause to the notability criteria for games that break new ground in some technical sense. For example, the first game to be delivered on a cell-phone (say) would certainly be a notable game - even if it didn't get widespread mention, didn't sell well and didn't represent a new genre. If it influenced others in the field of game development to adopt that technology - then it deserves an article because it has historical importance. For other examples, one could imagine the first ever Flash game or the first ever raytraced 3D game to be worthy of mention despite failing to meet the earlier criteria.

I suggest that we add:

4. The video game has been credited for having been ground-breaking in some significant technical sense. The first on a new platform, or being instrumental in the widespread adoption of some notable technology or the first to employ some notable new technique or game-mechanic.

...obviously that notability would need be be backed by reliable sources - but that goes without saying. SteveBaker (talk) 21:03, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure. I doubt many older games would qualify for that. Indeed, I'd wager, with exceptions like Pong (Pong wasn't even a first) being first didn't matter.陣内_Jinnai 21:06, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

If no games ever qualify under that clause alone then we've lost nothing by including it. But if even one article about a game that should be considered notable is removed due to the lack of this rule - then we screwed up. Note that this is also a rule for the future - just because we might not be able to think of a case in the past where technical innovation was the sole thing that made a game notable - that doesn't mean that there won't be times in the future when that may happen. Hence, unless you have a reason why this rule would open the floodgates to inappropriate articles - I don't see why it shouldn't be added. In the games world, an obscure game that includes some clever new 'thing' can have a profound influence on what follows it without meeting any of the other criteria. SteveBaker (talk) 21:29, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

This isn't trying to make everything under the tent have its article. The only reason there are additional criteria is because those have shown to have sourced commentary on them. Being instrumental in founding a genre will get coverag, probably even academic coverage in some cases; having an award by those members has been shown that most of those, including many indie games, to have commentary on them shortly thereafter. That's how it works at WP:BOOK and WP:FILM for there exceptions. Being the first, is first of all in some cases controversial, and second of all, not been reliably shown to be a guarantor of significant commentary or lasting impact.陣内_Jinnai 21:34, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Any video game that has made certain technological advances will almost certainly meet the criteria of #1 in receiving coverage by multiple independent sources, so I don't think this is necessary to add.AerobicFox (talk) 00:01, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

A problem

The remake or port has a non-stub development and non-stub reception section.

This essentially means that articles about ports and remakes are inherently non-notable if they are stub-class, as such articles would naturally feature brief-to-no coverage of development or reception. Making notability reliant upon article quality is a horrible, horrible idea. There's a reason the GNG doesn't do it. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:16, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

If you have a better way of describing needing substantial amount of both without describing article quality, feel free to rephase. However, the nessasarity of something more than the GNG requirement for a few sources commenting has been decided by general consensus as nessasary to stop people from arbitrarily spinning out every video game remake that comes along because that was (and still is to some extent, but its now easier to redirect/delete/merge them) what was happening (and probably would begin again if removed), even if there was no additional relevant content.陣内_Jinnai 21:27, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I (roughly) reworded the offending criterion. It could probably be tightened further, however. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:40, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Additional content

I have to disagree with a general guideline that states additional content packages should normally have their own article. In most cases, I think it should follow a guideline similar to that for remakes: that new articles should only be created if there is significant, independent coverage of the development or reception. Because the fact is that expansions and DLC often have far less development information and much less in-depth reviews (often because a DLC happens to be a couple of new levels, which are not given the same amount of attention by reviews). In fact, with the current business model of the industry, the expansion content is often made during the original production of the game, removed from the basic game, and then merely sold later as an add-on, meaning that there is no separate development process. All of that plus the fact that it is basically not possible to meaningfully discuss additional content without discussing the base game, which basically results in content forking or an incomplete context for the article. I think by default all additional content should be contained in the original article, and only for those exceptional cases should it be split off to its own article. Ham Pastrami (talk) 23:51, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

One more thing to note is that, in practice, typical expansion pack articles tend to end up as permanent stubs as a result of the limited coverage and content, and having a guideline that encourages splitting by default is only going to create more permanent stubs. A better choice IMO is to create a guideline that not only prevents this type of unproductive article sprawl, but allows us to clean up existing stubs by merging them into the main articles. Ham Pastrami (talk) 23:56, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

As for the former, an add-on that allows you to get a better weapon is inappropriate even if there is tons of commentary on it simply because its a DLC item. An article about the item may be appropriate under some situations, but not an article about the DLC content itself.

As for expansion articles, I was just making that how they are treated currently, ie as their own seperate game. If consensus is that they should be treated in the same vein as remakes, then the proposal can be updated to reflect that.陣内_Jinnai 03:31, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Isn't this instruction creep?

I'm not convinced that the general notability guideline isn't enough. All of the criteria listed basically go back to the GNG. And the proposed guideline is very very very long for what amounts to "be covered in third-party sources, have an award covered in third-party sources, or have impact covered in third party sources". Shooterwalker (talk) 15:30, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

It isn't. Without this in the curent guideline, there were numerous spinout articles that would often be edit-warred and numerous AFDs just to get across the point that the article should be merged. Banning tons of editors or clogging up unnecessarily AfD because the GNG was not sufficient with dealing with stuff like remakes, compilations, expansion packs, etc because they could all find 2 independent reliable sources commenting on them (even though nothing much changed in many cases from release to release) made this rule necessary. It's only being spun-out of VGGL because it doesn't really belong there since that well-established and much used guideline is undergoing updating to try and move it toward MOS style one.

Also moreso than many older topics, the GNG doesn't deal well with older video games because those topics were all but exclusively mentioned in print magazines, items which have become increasingly hard to come by.陣内_Jinnai 16:55, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm starting to understand where you're coming from. But you said it so succinctly right there. Why do we need 5 sections and 12kb for what could be summed up in a few sentences? That's part of the WP:CREEP IMO. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:38, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

The length may be creeping up there, but I do think we need a separate guide that says, even though GNG may be met, a better is obtained when the ports/remakes are included in the original article to start with, in the case where there's not a lot to say more about its development or other sections. --MASEM (t) 19:52, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I could probably combine ports, remakes expansions and fan discs into 1 section if people want me to deal with them in the same basic way. We hadn't but there seems to be at least someone who seems to think that's best and I have no real problem with it. Part of compilations could be merged in, but I think the descriptive part about why compilations rarely appropriate as stand-alone topics is necessary.

The mods and fan translations really due need a separate section though.陣内_Jinnai 21:26, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

See what you can do to simplify the guideline. As of right now I'm not convinced we need it and it's far too wordy. You may even want to rewrite, starting from "what's absolutely necessary to add" instead of "what an I afford to remove / combine". (That's just my opinion of course) Shooterwalker (talk) 14:49, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I did some reworking. What's left is either:

1. Basic stuff like criteria and scope that should be on every SNG page
2. Special instructions for video-game specific issues (ie the derived articles) and mods.
3. The list of awards because they likely won't be known to the average editor, possibly even many video game editors and info that publisher awards are sufficient. The awards are similar to other SNGs and the sentance saying publisher awards should never be used by themselves to show notability is nessasary as history has shown people trying to assert such.
4. Info on future games which is also needed because there is a lot of problems with people not understanding the difference between something like Chrono Break (an unreleased game that's had a history and commentary on its lack of release) and a new game that was announced at E3.

I did manage to condense the derived articles section into 2 sections. Mods really cannot be talked about in the same video as other derived articles and they do need mention here because their fairly unique class of items that normally would go under WP:NOT, but the exceptions don't always follow directly the GNG, FE fan translations (which are a class of mods).

The future games section was also condensed to 1 paragraph and the 3rd para in the coverage notes was moved and expanded to a notation for the reasoning behind criteria #4.陣内_Jinnai 19:23, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Hey sorry I had this page watchlisted but it slipped my mind... I think it's really improved. There are a few things I still think you can do. I think the main thing you could do to help would be to create a "explanation of this proposal" section that you would remove a few weeks after the proposal becomes a guideline. The main things I would put there are the list of guidelines/policies recapped (it should go without saying, but it helps to explain that this proposal is based on those), and some of the other preamble ("Keeping in mind that etc etc"). I also think you could deal with mods in a single bulleted statement as well as another bulleted statement for crystal ballery. Those strike me as easy to deal with and not in need of making complicated.

As an aside... what do you think about broadening this guideline to offer guidance on content within video games? I say that because I keep running across stand-alone weapon lists that are almost always deleted but occasionally you have to deal with a tendentious editor or faction. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:35, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll see about the afore mentioned changes. I'll have to think on how to do it. As for weapon lists, that is covered by WP:SALAT and WP:NOT. I don't want to get into the thorny issue of list notability with this proposal.

You can also point him atm to the wikiproject's current guideline WP:GAMECRUFT #6.陣内_Jinnai 23:47, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I added an explanation note and while I did condense those sections further through the use of bulletpoints, I don't know how to easily incorperate them into other sections. In addition, the linking to copyrighted works see also is specific to mods so I don't want people to misunderstand and think it applies to other items here. If you have any other ideas, feel free to edit or let me know.陣内_Jinnai 16:35, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Hey thanks a lot for pointing me towards WP:VG/GL. I tried to help out in a few ways (you can see from my edit summaries). I thought the stuff like copyright was off topic for a notability guideline and typically not in need of much clarification at an AFD. But you would know better than I would. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:25, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Changes

U don't know if when consolidating it was your intent, but the phrasing changed the metric for deciding when a seperate video game was notable. I have since edited the changes bringing them back closer in line with what WP:VG consensus is, from which this SNG is based, while addressing the gameplay issue.陣内_Jinnai 18:34, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I definitely didn't want to trump whatever you guys at the Video games Wikiproject have figured out. Just trying to make the guideline easier to read and apply on a first-glance basis. "It's a full game? Read here. It's something else? Check this list of examples." Shooterwalker (talk) 18:47, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

No bypassing the GNG

I will oppose wholeheartedly any proposed guideline that allows articles that fail the GNG to continue existing. See WP:TWOPRONGS for further explanation. You've proposed two criteria here that are an end run around the GNG. Gigs (talk) 16:35, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Like with all the other SNGs, these criteria are meant to be a temporary assurance that a topic is notable while sources are found and discovered and included to bring the article to GNG standards. Take the case of a game winning a major award. With the significant rise of indie games which can win such awards, there may not be much coverage before the award but certainly afterwards, and thus it is a reasonable assurance of notability to allow an article to be developed. Case in point: the game "Inertia" won the Indie Game Development Challenge recently ([1]), which is considered a major award. However, we have no article presently yet on the title. This criteria would allow an article to be created while sources are found and collected. But were you to come across this article in a few years and saw no additional sources, you'd be perfectly justified to nominate it for deletion or the like. --MASEM (t) 16:47, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

That's not the way it happens though. Go nominate an article on a professor that over a year old, fails the GNG, but has lots of citations to pass the SNG. It won't be deleted. People use the SNGs to permanently bypass the GNG, not temporarily. There's no time limit codified in any of them. Gigs (talk) 16:54, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

A year is probably too short a time, and exactly why that time is is not coded for that reason. But I will say that if you let an article sit on a SNG criteria without backing it up via GNG sources, and keep saying "they're coming" after repeated AFD and nothing happens, you're going to find it hard to keep these. It begs the question of the appropriate selection of SNG criteria in the case of that professor example. --MASEM (t) 17:03, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Basically, you could probably win the first AfD, unless it was say 5 years after the creation. However the 2nd AfD (assuming a reasonable time between AfDs) makes the 2nd one all the more difficult.陣内_Jinnai 17:17, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Gigs. But I'm also inclined to go with the flow to produce a consensus. Right now I don't know if more people think the GNG is a good standard here or if we need something more. It would help to get more input. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:47, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

The awards one might have some sway for non-indie games, but for indie games and older games the GNG should not be the end-all-be-all because it is flawed; it doesn't handle some academic stuff well. If a game is listed as critical to a genre's development by a reknowned expert in the field, but the other sources are hard to come by, then deference should be given, especially as for a game to qualify as such it would have to be pretty old and digging up those resources can be difficult. For indie games, well reviews rarely pop up for them unless they get awards and then usually someone will review them because they won an award.陣内_Jinnai 03:36, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Don't academic sources usually count? If not, wouldn't it be simpler just to say they do? It might help if I could see the kind of article that doesn't technically meet the GNG but is still important to a genre. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:32, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

It's more that it might be 1 academic source mentions a game 10-years old in a non-signifigant, but still notable manner, ie making it clear the game was important, but not going into significant detail as to how.陣内_Jinnai 17:41, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree that awards generally don't necessitate an article. The conclusion I came to after seeing a similar criteria proposed for webcomics was that, sometimes, an award nomination was literally all the reliable-source "buzz" that was generated. If it falls off the map that, it leaves us arguing years after the fact about whether it has sufficient sourcing, even though the only actual third-party-sourcable content is "X was nominated for Award Y" with no explanation or detail. Nifboy (talk) 12:47, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

That's why we have the table of what are considered notable awards. There are gazillions of non-notable awards given by blogs and single publishers that we have to avoid as a claim of being notable, but the awards listed are industry-wide, multi-body selected ones. Games winning such awards will generally either already have sources, or will gain sources after the fact. --MASEM (t) 13:23, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

In addition, especially for independant or more obscure commerical games, having an award from one of those listed will usually generate reviews after a while. This is a similar method used in SNGs like WP:BK, except that we define basically what kind of awards here can be used specifically. As mentioned, these aren't meant to be a stalwart defense against deletetion/merging, but more of a short-term method from someone coming along and decrying the lack of reception when an award was just issued a month ago.陣内_Jinnai 22:09, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

"top X lists"

This one is a bit odd. I agree that being on IGN's or 1UP's or the equivalent's Top X lists isn't a sign of notability (particularly if it's a "Top X games with a female protagonist" for example); it's a useful fact to add for a notable game. But then you have non-core VG sources like Time or Wired making these lists. I would argue that being on these lists are a much likely indicator of notability, in part because if this sources have included the game on the list now, they likely have talked about it before.

That said, I understand the difficulties with favoritism in enforcing something that's wishy-washy and that most likely games on the off-source lists are likely already notable, so its not necessary to make that exemption. I'm just curious if we can clarify that better. --MASEM (t) 22:38, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Unlike awards in general, hasn't panned out as well as having an award (from those listed on the page) = meeting the GNG eventually (if not already). That and VG Project has just been against having games listed on top lists showing notability as they tend to be just favortism picks by that publisher group of editors with is usually too small of a group to truly show a true "best" listing for the purposes of notability; at best Famitsu and E3's listing of most anticipated might qualify, but both have issues. For the former its based on polling data which doesn't list how it was done and doesn't seem like a scientific polling data); for the latter, many of those items that recieve praise at E3 become vaporware or just get a burst of new coverage before going back to obscurity because of their release date being far off so using E3's popularity contest would directly conflict with what WP:CRYSTAL was created specifically for.陣内_Jinnai 00:46, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Explanation section

This section seems out of place. Arguments for the validity of a guideline belong on the talk page, not on the page itself. When a new editor is linked to this page, they should see the most important thing first: the criteria. An exposition of the wiki-philosophy behind the guideline and a huge list of links is information overload. If consensus determines that an explanation section would be a good thing, it should be put at the end of the guideline. I know it's not the way one would logically set out an argument or an essay, but guideline pages aren't arguments, they're tools, especially the SNGs. --Danger (talk) 22:45, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Read above. This is meant to be temporary and will be removed a few weeks after. It was thought to be needed by User:Shooterwalker.陣内_Jinnai 22:49, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I think it would be better placed on the talk page here - perhaps as a third level subheading under #Proposal. –xeno^talk 22:50, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Also much of that listing was taken from WP:BK and WP:NF which has such a listing of links, except they were in the lead.陣内_Jinnai 22:59, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. I can understand the desire to model this on existing pages, but I don't think non-optimal practices on other pages need to be replicated. Danger (talk) 23:03, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I removed some of it. I left 2 of the paragraphs; the first I combined with the scope as it deal with items this guideline doesn't deal with that would likely come up. The second, is a disclamitory statement that notability =/= worth.陣内_Jinnai 23:16, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

The structure of the guideline looks much better. Are there good internal links that could be used to explain what "elements of a video game" and "video game concepts" are to ignorant people like me? To me, elements sounds like it would include characters and that sort of thing. Am I right in that? Just want to get this as clear as possible. --Danger (talk) 00:10, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

You're right. As for an internal link, not really. Like any broad category, "concepts" and "elements" are spread out, possibly moreso than other medium because these terms are fairly new and often are used in very specific situations.陣内_Jinnai 00:35, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm okay with removing it. I just saw it there and figure it was there for an explanation to justify the need for a guideline, that wouldn't be needed once the proposal became a guideline. But it may not be necessary in the first place. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:56, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Awards from individual publisher can not establish notability?

I'm having difficulty swallowing this guideline:

While they can be mentioned within the article, awards given by individual publishers, such as IGN or Gamespot should never be used to show the notability of an article.

The awards typically come with commentary about the winner of the award, so we can be assured that the notability has come from some form or another because of assertion of merit coming from the nomination for an award of a publisher in and of itself. But as we know, some awards from these sites do not come with commentary. That said, the awards that come without commentary should not be the "backbone" of the article's reception, so to speak, and must show real world reception with commentary of the article from other sources. The change I recommend would be:

While they can be mentioned within the article, awards given by individual publishers, such as IGN or Gamespot should never be the crux to show the notability of an article, unless critical real-world commentary from the publisher has come from receiving the award .

Comments? Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 23:27, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

If they have commentary, its fine to use them, but its similar in nature to how awards are used for other notability guidelines. A book website giving its own personal award cannot be used to show notability of the book. Only major awards.陣内_Jinnai 03:27, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Then I think it should be specified to tell if awards have commentary, then they can be used to prove notability. But never those without commentary. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 23:58, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I think the problem is, it would need multiple ones, which means basically going back to the GNG and for video games especially there are tons of awards which bare no real signifigance, like "Biggest gun in a non-FPS game" or "Game with the biggest boobs", etc.陣内_Jinnai 03:58, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

In the same right where an article would need multiple reviews. What about, "significant awards from these publications that come with commentary"? Like "Best of E3", or "Best of the Year" kind of awards, you know, annual things. Those awards hold more weight as they are directive as to what the nomination is about and why a particular game won an award. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 22:38, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Given the general Wiki-wide consensus on publisher awards not being enough to establish notability, I don't think even that would fly. I think when they learned that those same publishers also do those gag awards they'd be even less inclined to favor them as signs of notability. That's why for the purposes of showing notability, I think its best to completely steer clear of them.陣内_Jinnai 02:05, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply. This guideline clearly represents solely your views because Mortal Kombat (2011 video game) has gotten by with the reception i've put on it that is made up of almost entirely awards. None of the 50+ watchers have contested it and it appears only you have the issue with using awards to prove Notability. I hate to make it sound like an ad hominem attack but your exclusion only seems to be warranted by a sole whim. I do not support this guideline unless this is amended. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 20:17, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Bring it up at WP:VP then because every SNG that does allow for awards does not allow publisher awards to confer notability and the several times people have wanted them added they have been shot down for the reasons I stated above, plus a few more I probably can't think of. My point is, the wikipedian-wide consensus, which is greater than video-game wikiproject one, says publisher awards =/= a temporary pass on notability and what's more even in WP:VG there is no clear consensus that it should, especially when you have to start defining "What is a gag award and what isn't". Those types of awards will only discredit in the eyes of others shwoing notability because some might see it as them not taking awards seriously.陣内_Jinnai 23:48, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I also need to chip-in on the awards things. While "Best Boobs in a Game" from some random website certainly does not qualify for notability, if IGN gives a game a "Best Game of the Year" awards, then it sure as hell is a notable game. If Mod DB gives a mod the "Mod of the Year", then that certainly counts something for notability. If the publisher is a respected one, so are the awards they confer. While Jim Bob's top 10 FPS from a youtube list certainly doesn't establish notability, Game Revolution's top 10 certainly would. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 06:06, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

See #No bypassing the GNG discussion. Having even that much to some is too much. Allowing publishers to do so, espeically when same publishers also publish "Best Boobs in a Game" and the like type awards (IGN does similar type gag awards) does not help the credibility and those awards aren't notable in an of themselves since they are just one publisher's favorites rather than those awards listed on the other page which have gone through some vetting process and voted on by member across the community.陣内_Jinnai 09:11, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Headbomb's reasoning is precisely why I question it. This really appears to go into creep because there has been no discussion at WT:VG that i'm aware of that has established this by consensus. You appear to be the only user with this POV, and although you say other SNGs do so, you do not cite them or their discussions. And gag awards shouldn't destroy the credibility of other awards if editors simply adhere to WP:DUCK. It really is not that difficult to discern between gag awards and awards such as Best of Year, Most Anticipated of Year etc. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 22:09, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

That is based on discussions here, here, here and here. I didn't even go back that far really since using really old discussions for coming up with this would not have been good. There's been no "central" discussion on it, but discussions here and there have reinforced the idea just having a publisher awards =/= notability. The basis coming up with that list was mostly from the first one and common SNG practices for what type of awards can be used to show notability.陣内_Jinnai 18:18, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, well you've convinced me. I'll support it then. In case anyone asks about that section, they'll just have to defer this discussion. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 16:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Closing as no consensus to list as formal guideline. SilkTork *^YES! 10:37, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

---

Creating this as a centralized place to discuss the promotion of the guideline.陣内_Jinnai 22:48, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Explanation

This proposal is based on the main notability guideline, but fills in some issues that are specific to video game articles that the general notability guideline and general inclusion criteria of Wikipedia cannot handle easily, especially spinout articles. Every article on Wikipedia must still must conform to core principles of verifiability,no original research and a neutral point-of-view. This guideline reflects core Wikipedia policies and guidelines, including:

• Wikipedia articles must not be vehicles for advertisement
• Verifiability
• Reliable sources
• No original research
• Wikipedia is not a soapbox
• Wikipedia is not a game strategy guide
• Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information
• Wikipedia is not a crystal ball

Comments on RfC

• Oppose The proposed guideline adds nothing useful to the general guideline. It is our policy not to create such creepy cant. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
  • It does add something useful since without this type of guideline there have been endless debates clogging up afd and WT:VG for merge/delete discussions. Since a similar guideline was introduced in WP:VG/GL that number has dropped because there is a guideline that can be pointed to that says just having 2 independant reliable reviews doesn't mean you can spinout another article. The main reason this is being created is because notability doesn't really go into a MOS-style guideline, which is what that guideline is being revamped for (similar to other project guidelines). There have also been some cases for obscure older games where they've been deleted without much time to check old and hard-to-find print sources even when a game was mentioned as key to the development of a genre because it lacked "significant" coverage
  • Basically, existing policy/guidelines just don't cut it when it comes to video games and without guidance, battelgrounds and edit wars have been par for the course (even now there are a few, but they are the exception).陣内_Jinnai 19:49, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
• I think the guideline would benefit from specific examples throughout, along the lines of saying that AAA is a notable game, but AAA 1.1a is not a notable mod or port or whatever. That would be particularly useful to non-gamer editors who want to apply the guideline in AfD discussions. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:21, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• Yeah, there has to be a good or featured article about a mod, an expansion pack, a remake/port, and so on. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:40, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
• Should that be in a separate (sub)section for Notability ofderivative game releases or below Awards?? Should I just give affirmative examples or negative examples (obviously the latter would not be quality articles).陣内_Jinnai 03:26, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• Not sure the best way to handle it. It could become list cruft and clutter. Maybe look for two or three points that could use an example, and cite a good or featured article that handles that type of material well. If you need more than that, maybe do it in the references using footnotes? Shooterwalker (talk) 03:28, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Well there's only 1 FA and that's for an unreleased game. However there are GAs i can use. So would I go something like:

• Ports or remakes: Ports should be covered in the article about the original game, unless it can meet the full game release criteria for a derivative game.
  • Example: Lunar: Silver Star (original) and Lunar: Silver Star Story Complete (remake)
• 陣内_Jinnai 04:21, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• My main concern with this is differentiating expansion packs (which according to this should get an article of its own) and downloadable content, or DLC (which, according to this, shouldn't have an article). The problem with this is that some DLC I think straddles this divide (e.g. Grand Theft Auto 4's DLC, Empire Total War's Warpath Campaign). There's also the question of what I'll call "expandalones", or stand-alone expansion packs (e.g. Napoleon Total War, Mount & Blade: Warband and the forthcoming Sins of a Solar Empire: Rebellion). I'm not entirely convinced that the guidelines are clear on these examples. Wikipedia has enough of a deletionist problem already. Delusibeta (talk) 15:08, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
  • If you read it that expansion packs should you read it wrong. If you can explain what made you think that by default they, like sequels, should, please let me know so I can remedy that. As for the second part, i'd still qualify them under the same umbrella; they are still considered expansion packs, just ones that don't need you to buy the original game.陣内_Jinnai 22:22, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose: Mostly good, but the section on awards is unnacceptable. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 04:02, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
  • EXplain. Blanket disallowing for them goes against other SNGs.陣内_Jinnai 04:48, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
    • See award section above. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 10:29, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
      • Okay, given that, do you still oppose it?陣内_Jinnai 20:44, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
• Copied from Wikipedia talk:WPVG per Jinnai's request
• Seems pretty solid, but the bit about translations and patches digresses from the topic at hand (video game notability) way too much:
  • Patches that fix bugs or balance issues are rarely notable; similarly translations are even more rarely notable. Mention them only to the degree that they help understand the game's reception and impact, or offer new content. If a game has been officially translated into English, use the English translation as the standard for the article.
• The bolded parts are completely unrelated to video game notability. Firstly, patches are not video games, and the guideline specifically states that it does not cover "elements of a video game". The rest of the bolded material pertains more to VG/GL than this guideline. I suggest that you keep it cut-and-dried:
  • "Video game translations are rarely notable enough to warrant their own articles. When a translation has been significantly covered by reliable third-party sources, information about it should instead be placed in the relevant parent article."
• Or something like that. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 06:31, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Changed it and added a bit of reasoning why they are rarely notable.陣内_Jinnai 20:52, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose as wordy instruction creep which might provide an end run around GNG. At most a few sentences in WP:N could crystallize what small part of this guideline does not just restate GNG. I also am concerned that a standalone guide provides a means for fans of something to put in some clause which provides notability for things which would typically fail in AFD due to lack of multiple reliable and independent sources with significant coverage. This is typically done by granting notability to winners of some ultraspecialized and little covered award, or by original research that something is the "first" in some way. Edison (talk) 18:20, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  • The explain what those sentances would look like. You and others have opposed this because the GNG is fine, and I have evidence to the contrary from multiple discussions in WP:VG and elsewhere. it's too much to drag each one out, but just search the archives. The exceptions will not stop an article from being deleted eventually as Masem pointed out, maybe once or twice, but if little to no improvement is made to find those sources it won't stick. The alternate criteria are there for a reason - to stop trigger happy people from putting something up for AfD and deleting something whose sources may not be easily accessable, but do exist.陣内_Jinnai 19:11, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Opposition

Looks like there's some resistance to this guideline. I'm still not confident that Wikipedia needs this guideline. But I see a couple people putting in hard work on the belief that the GNG isn't enough. So I'll try to offer some input because I've generally seen the VG wikiproject as a helpful and moderating force in their topic area.

The main resistance I see to this guideline is on the grounds of instruction creep. I'm inclined to agree with those who say there isn't much value-added beyond the GNG. And to what extent it modifies the GNG, people aren't sure those modifications are good. At worst, the exceptions aren't something people agree with. At best, it's just plain wordy and WP:CREEPy.

I know the first preference of the people who proposed this guideline is something in it's current form. But I think the public sentiment is that the guideline needs to be rethought. Here are a few suggestions.

1. Drop this guideline and work with other policies. WP:VG/GL looks good. Does WP:NOT need to get specific about patches and unreleased games? I don't know.
2. Add more value. I'm not convinced we need more than the GNG and WP:NOT for games. But fictional content could certainly use some clarification.
3. Or if the value added is small, shorten the guideline drastically. Make it very concise. Even shorter than WP:Notability (web).
   • Re-assert the GNG to make it clear this is still the core of the guideline, and explain in one sentence how it applies to video games. Don't go into detail.
   • For all the derivative release stuff, try to sum up it all up into one or two general principles. 9 examples is probably too WP:CREEPy.
   • If the exceptions are absolutely necessary (eg: awards), say they show that the game will soon attract the media that will help it reach the GNG or that the media is probably in paper form. Apply common sense in deciding if the article will potentially meet the GNG.

Those are three very different approaches. One of them might work. It's also possible this could work with the same basic approach as now with some copy-editing and clarification, but I believe that might just make it more WP:CREEPy, not less. Good luck... Shooterwalker (talk) 22:07, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Game Critics Awards

I would like to know could we put the Game Critic Awards with the listing? It is pretty well known and is supported by various publishers. It should be listed in there, but just putting it forward. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 22:33, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Added.陣内_Jinnai 03:26, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Other topics

Will this guideline also include some guide to company/developer/gameplay topic notability? For example, would a company be notable if it released several games with a lot of RS coverage, but had none itself? —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:03, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

the guideline does not need to explicitly state specifics for companies as we have a guidline for this already at Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies). Theres no issue with making a statement though refering to this guideline though. Ottawa4ever (talk) 09:01, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

There are still many developers, indie companies, and such that would fail GNG and WP:ORG, but are possibly notable. With the same example, GNG and NOTINHERITED would fail companies/individuals that have produced notable games but don't have RS on themselves. Say Indie Smith made SpaceShooter, PlanetRacer, and AsteroidSmasher each receiving many reviews, critical acclaim, and winning awards. But no one has written a piece on Smith himself. Is he notable? While I might argue yes, he isn't as far as GNG and NOTINHERITED is concerned. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 09:47, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

But yet he'd satisfy WP:CREATIVE providing reliable sources and reviews dealt with his work- Theres policies already created to deal with the above issues. Any new policy on this here would be instruction creep, conflict with existing guidelines and further hamper this guidleine from gaining consensus. Ottawa4ever (talk) 11:22, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I would take that up at the more relevant guideline. The video game industry isn't the only one to have a lot of indie companies.陣内_Jinnai 16:32, 17 May 2011 (UTC)