Wikipedia talk:Notability (computer and video games)

Need criteria for older games

I think it is good that this guideline is getting started. One concern I have with the criteria proposed so far is that it only seems to address notability of new games. Since the Spike TV Video Game Awards only started in 2003, it is hardly adequate for determining notability of games produced before 2003. Computer and video games have a much longer history than three years and this guideline needs to address the entire range of games. For the 1980s and early 1990s, Computer Gaming World was one of the premier authorities on game ranking and notability. I would suggest that any game that achieved a top 10 rating in at least two consecutive months would rate. Other games prior to 1980 have historical significance due to their place in the evolution of games. Also, there is no mention of sales records as a indication of notability. In short, I think this is a start, but needs much work. I may try to contribute later, but as this is related to an active RfA on me at this time, I think it would be a conflict of interest to do so until it closes. —Doug Bell ^talk 23:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't the majority, if not all, games that reached the top 10 rankings list in a magazine have multiple non-trivial write-ups? I think that this would relax the standards too much. Notability inclusion guidelines are not only good for determining what stays in Wikipedia, but for cleaning up notable articles by requiring citation. I think that notability guidelines need to have OBJECTIVE criteria (i.e. multiple non-trivial citations, sales figures above a certain point, etc..) I think the above proposals insert too many subjective criteria. i.e. "High" sales figures with no basis for comparison or "historical significance" without citations to prove such a status. --Kunzite 16:17, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Then the same could be said for new games, so why have any awards-based criteria? The whole concept that you have only awards won from a show is biased towards new games since computer games existed long before shows about computer games. You also haven't listed awards from the Software Publishers Association. Most of the computer games ever created aren't covered by the current awards criteria —Doug Bell ^talk 17:03, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that there should be criteria that affects older games and possibly newer ones. Right now, all of the criteria leaves me with the assumption that any game mentioned by the media deserves an article. This would mean games like like Garry's mod shouldn't be deleted, even though it had no major impact in the gaming community. Just my two cents. -- Selmo ^(talk) 23:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Object to two criteria and a question

Criterion 1- The game was developed by a company that passes Wikipedia's notability guidelines on companies, or was developed by a person that passes Wikipedia's notability guidelines on people. This is unreasonable. Many games are developed by companies which are completely unnotable. Criteria 5 is vague and it isn't clear to me why we should care about it anyways. If those two are taken out I'm fine with this. However, an inquiry: does anyone have any examples of games which pass 3 or 4 but don't pass 2? JoshuaZ 02:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Query

Is #4 (movie based on the game) actually possible without meeting #1 or #2? It sounds a bit redundant to me. Other than that, nice work! (Radiant) 12:40, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

You have a point, but I'm sure it's possible for a small (at the time non-notable) game to be made into a very popular or atleast fairly popular movie. Feel free to change this guideline any way you wish while it's being discussed. // I c e d K o l a ^(Contribs) 15:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I think this may be included because of Anime-related games such as Air (series). I also think that this has the potential to be mis-interpreted. i.e A fan game based off a famous movie. --Kunzite 16:17, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Extensive details on gameplay

Can we add to that "should not include" paragraph that game articles should not contain extensive detail on gameplay such as lists of characters, buildings, units, etc. Example: Pharaoh and Cleopatra. Or does that fall into one of these: "tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, and video game guides"? I dont think it does because it doesn't guide/teach you how to play, it just lists everything from the game. - Tutmosis 22:52, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I added the section the "should not include" section because it's frequently citied in deletions of game-guide style articles and lists and it's a Wikipedia policy related to this subject. I have no objections to including it. --Kunzite 05:02, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm confused, I'm not objecting to it... - Tutmosis 18:08, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Merge

I think this should be merged with Wikipedia:Notability (software), as obviously computer games are a kind of software, and I believe there is a significant overlap in criteria. (Radiant) 11:54, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm having a hard time seeing where there isn't overlap. Nifboy 02:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, it's completely redundant. We only would need independant notability criteria if there were specific cases of notability for games that couldn't pass notability as software. --tjstrf talk 20:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The possible exception is games that are notable primarily because of their connection to other entertainment properties. This isn't something that's normally a factor in other classes of software. —Doug Bell ^talk 20:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Expansion Packs for video games

Honestly I would rather see expansion packs merged with the original game and deleted. I see very little merit for them to exist since they almost always read like game guides and not much can be said about them. A section in the original game can easily summarize the expansion pack encyclopedically. Anyone else feels the same way? - Tutmosis 19:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Simply not feasible. See StarCraft: Brood War and World of Warcraft: The Burning Crusade. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 01:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

There's a similiar provision in WP:FICT. We could copy it and use it here.. i.e. "Articles on video game sequels and expansion packs should be presented in the same article, unless and encyclopedic treatment of the article causes the article to exceed size limits." I think that's a good idea for some games and I think it could be expanded to game franchises. There are many games that have paragraph-long articles that could be easily merged i.e. Battle Arena Toshinden and the split whenever the article has enough encyclopedic content is created. (Encyclopedic material mean no re-telling the plot in great detail and not the quasi game guides, etc...) --Kunzite 03:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Exclude console games

I think the notability guidelines really only need to apply to computer games. I think that every single video game that has been released to any major console (or handheld) is notable enough for inclusion. For instance, can it be argued that any game released for the Nintendo Gamecube doesn't deserve an article? Computer games on the other hand, can refer to a broad range of notability. After all, it is much easier to make a game for windows (even if it is just in Adobe Flash) than it is to release a game for the Playstation 2 (though Alien Hominid has managed to do both).--SeizureDog 21:54, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

You raise a good point, but I must argue that somebody could create a small game (or maybe even edit an existing one) which is playable on a major console and is just as notable as a small flash game on a website. // I c e d K o l a ^(Contribs) 23:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, don't support homebrews obviously. But anything that actually gets published for the system (i.e. anything that was sold in major retail stores). In Nintendo's case, it's easy to just say that any game with the Nintendo Seal of Quality is a valid article. Of course, certain notable 3rd party games from the NES era, such as Action 52, should also be kept. Do the other companies have a similar system to Nintendo's? I'm a Nintendo fanboy, so I don't notice much.--SeizureDog 01:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Other manufacturers do have a system by which companies must pay to have their game published officially, yes. I'm in two minds as to whether every game should have a Wikipedia article. I'd prefer such articles to go to GamerWiki. Tim 16:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course, certain notable 3rd party games from the NES era
Well that statement contradicts the argument exclude console games because it implies that non-notable 3rd party games exist. —Doug Bell ^talk 18:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

How does that contradict it? I said console games should be excluded for the notability requirements and non-Nintendo endorced 3rd party games are still console games. I only said that going by the seal of quality makes it easier. Basically, the only console games I feel don't need to be included are homebrews and games for consoles nobody gives a damn about. For example, Tiger Electronics games. I'm not sure if they have any system that can switch out games, but if they do the games themselves are non-notable.--SeizureDog 15:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree, outside homebrew, all licensed games for major consoles are inherently notable. — brighterorange (talk) 21:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Adaptation from other media

As it stands now, the proposal only talks about video games adapted into other media, as opposed to games based on an existing intellectual property. It should be amended so that games based on existing works are covered as well. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 01:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Criterion 1 - possible systemic bias

Criterion 1 needs some clarification, as it could either be very exclusive or very inclusive depending on how it's interpreted.

I can think of many, many examples of games which are extremely well-known to owners of a specific computer, but which are not likely to have multiple, non-trivial published works written about them. Let's suppose there were two monthly magazines which covered a particular computer (Acme User and Acme World), and that a particular game was reviewed in the June 1981 issues of both of them. That's two non-trivial published works, max. The game may have been mentioned multiple times in subsequent issues of the magazines, but these don't count (brief magazine mentions).

This criterion could actually lead to systemic bias in favour of modern games, as the older a game is, the harder it becomes to hunt down sources. Not many people own multiple back numbers of computer and gaming magazines, and libraries generally don't have them either. Newer games, on the other hand, are likely to have multiple articles and reviews written about them on notable websites and in various paper publications.

One way to avoid such bias would be to impose more rigid criteria for modern games than for older ones. For games commercially released more than 10 or 15 years ago, just some evidence that the game exists (and was commercially released!) ought to be sufficient. AdorableRuffian 14:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The criterion also has strong bias in favor of commercial games. In effect all mass market commercial games should meet the requirements while most non-commercial games are far more likely to be excluded, even somewhat popular games.

An exception similar to the WP:SOFTWARE criterion covering major Linux/BSD distributions would help but that also has problems. Many games are too large to be included in a distribution but are at times more notable than the smaller games included with such distributions, and it leaves out games on other platforms. Without a criterion addressing FOSS games the smaller Linux/BSD games will end up being squeezed in under the software criterion without meeting the games criterion and games on other platforms are excluded.

One option is giving the media covering FOSS games more leeway on notability so that large, active, well established game communities could establish the notability of these games. This would be in addition to the article itself making an argument for the game's notability, per the WP:CVG guidelines. If a game can pass that and remain WP:V compliant it should be included. --MegaBurn 01:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Future Games?

After a whole series of what I see as severely over zealous AFD nominations (see WP:CVG/D debates), I think the question needs to be answered: Will Wikipedia continue to allow games in development to have articles?

Many of these games are FOSS projects coming from established communities or, in a few cases, have managed to drum up their own community during development. In any case, most cannot meet notability guidelines prior to release. I think there are three possible solutions here:

• The simplest option is just ensuring the project is active and give the article leeway on notability.
• A better option is give them the same treatment I described (above) for FOSS projects, if it has a couple large communities behind it then include it.
• The alternative, only fair alternative as I see it, is to reject all games in development and delete the future game template. I don't like this route but I can make a strong argument for it if future game articles continue to be restricted big budget commercial projects.

All three options leave out indie projects in development but I'm not sure that can be helped without going very lax on requirements.

I also think the future game tag should include an allowance for leeway on WP:V requirements of game play and game content sections. It makes no sense to me that people can turn random scraps of info from the commercial media rumor mill into a commercial future game article, while at the same time FOSS projects cannot even cite finalized game design docs posted on their own website. At least the FOSS game design docs can be readily verified. --MegaBurn 01:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Minor change - removed note

I removed the first reference stating "Wikipedia might not be a paper encyclopedia, but we do operate on servers which have limited space so we must only keep articles on notable subjects". This is simply not valid. The entire database (with edit histories) is not that large (yes, it is large compared to how much space a personal computer has, but these aren't PCs). First, it is the job of the wiki foundation to supply the hardware to support the encyclopedia, not the other way around. Second, the foundation has in no way implied that we are running out of space, so we cannot assume it to be true. I'm not saying everything should be included, just that claims of hardware limitations are just about the worst argument for limiting the number of articles on the site. Koweja 19:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Criterion 1 + 2

I'm thinking about removing criterion #2, as it basically says what #1 states, with the difference being that criterion #2 allows less notable games to have an article. Criterion #2 states "of at least one non-trivial published work outside the industry", when #1 states "multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the creator of the game". Does anyone disagree? // I c e d K o l a 04:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Well you could probably could remove both of them with impunity since they are just a restatement of WP:ATT WP:CITE WP:V etc., except that it is asking for citations from very specific sources. Apart from raising undue weight alarm bells in my head, it might be best to keep instruction creep to a minimum. Sure, go ahead.

Hmmm... actually, I'd consider removing 3 rather than 2 or 1, as it seems to exclude otherwise notable articles from being included, such as notable games currently under development. How can a notable game (significant to the industry or its niche) get an award when it hasn't been released yet? Odd. (For example, fl0w would fail this notability guideline at the moment, even though I remember it was covered earlier this month on Slashdot, a non-gaming website.) Might need to codify the loophole here that most upcoming games drive through.

Ah, shoot. I just noticed that it said "any of the following criteria". I feel so stupid. :( --DavidHOzAu 12:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

At any rate, I'm not at all sure that this page strikes the right balance at the moment. Needs more work, more editors, and more refinement. It's probably a bit overkill since games also need to satisfy software too, but hey, this is wikipedia. :)

--DavidHOzAu 12:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Minor reshuffle

diff. Should at least make the page easier to understand and get to grips with. --DavidHOzAu 12:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Redirected to WP:SOFTWARE

I've redirected this page to WP:SOFTWARE, as the guidelines here are completely subsumed by those at WP:SOFTWARE, and the discussion there is more fully-developed. (Plus, merging was proposed above and had significant approval, and no one has argued against it.) The only one that may not be wholly subsumed by the WP:SOFT guidelines is the one about being adapted into another medium.. but honestly, such games will pretty much meet the first criterion anyway. Mangojuice^talk 16:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• Well done, thanks. >Radiant< 16:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• The notability criteria were mostly the same. I think there are a few references to CVG specifics and to other notability guidelines would be very helpful in the proposed WP:SOFT guidelines. Some of the main differences between the two is that CVGs often have a components related to fiction and have a tendency to be written as game guides. I'll add them later if no one objects. --Kunzite 16:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)