Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 59

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 55

←

Archive 57

→

Rewrite and copyedit of Sam & Max

I've just uploaded a full rewrite of Sam & Max. I'd greatly appreciate it if someone could copyedit it for me, as well as post any feedback they may have on the rewrite. Its not the typical video game series article, as its grounded in comics and has a TV series attached to it, so although I've had some feedback while I was writing it, I'd appreciate feedback on this end version. -- Sabre (talk) 15:33, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Just as a note (and in general for LucasArts games) there's a new book, "Rogue Leaders" that includes much of LucasArts games division ([1]). This might help for this article. --MASEM 18:47, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd nominate it for GA and let any further comments help bolster that push in the meantime, there's nothing there which should stop it sailing through. Someone another 00:21, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Aye, I'm just waiting for one of my two current GAN's to be reviewed, then I'll shove it up. I don't like clogging the system with more than two GAN's from me at a time. -- Sabre (talk) 00:39, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

A-Class priority

I think that the A-Class priority should be lower than GA. It's rarely used, and it's odd to have a split between B and A with GA. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:17, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

GA and A are intended to be independent of each other though. An article that's ranked A can still be a GA. In addition so many other projects make use of A like this one: reducing it's weight on the system would result in confusion with the templates for subjects that fall under multiple projects.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:24, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Yep, they are independent. A-class is project-specific. Gary King (talk) 01:41, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

The question is, though, will it be used any more if this is done? The existing sub-GA classes seem adequate enough to me. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 02:00, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

A-class seems less strict, and yet it's treated as meaning an article is better than GA class. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:02, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Is A-class even used for WP:VG? If not, then there is no point to this discussion. Gary King (talk) 02:07, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

It is, actually. Many projects use A-class, just not many go through the process of requesting an A-class assessment for an article over just making the leap to FA-class. It's actually more restrictive than GA too when you think about it: at least two editors are required for A, while only one is needed for GA.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:09, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

A-class serves its purpose of denoting an article that's complete in structure, referencing and content, bar minor issues or foreseeable stability problems before being sent to GA or FA. Its not a competitive rating to GA. They are given separately, through different processes and for different reasons. -- Sabre (talk) 02:11, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Only 21 articles out of 21458 in WP:VG are A-class, so I wouldn't really consider it a class that's "in use". Considering the fairly low number of A-class articles, I'm assuming that the class was not assigned through a formal VG process, like they do at WP:MILHIST. Gary King (talk) 02:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Its not properly formal like MILHIST, it just requires two assessors to agree. Not many people out there put things in for assessment any more, thats probably why its not more widespread. Its still active, some were assessed A-class recently. -- Sabre (talk) 02:23, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that few people adhere to A-class' policies - on Paper Mario TTYD, it was rated A-class without any discussion. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:07, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

The assessment guideline states that two editors have to agree on promoting an article to A-class for it to pass. Myself and SomeoneAnother both posted in favor of it on the Assessment Request page, which is the policy according to the page and used by other editors. I don't really know where this stuff about requiring a discussion is coming from, but to my understanding (and again, apparently others), it just takes two editors to give a thumbs up and approve the article's quality as such.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:28, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

There was never any indication though that this article would be up for A-class assessment. A-class should not be more laid-back of a class than GA class. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:31, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

What indication are you really expecting? The Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Assessment/Requests page clearly states "Note that while the formal process for attaining an A-rating is currently not active, it is recommended that at least two assessors agree on rating an article as A-class before declaring it as such."--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Assuming we're gonna keep it around, I agree it should be "lower" than GA / FA. ... even if something can be A and GA at the same time. Randomran (talk) 21:48, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Knock all(!) 21 of them down to GA-class and retire it. There's very little participation at assessments which is why it's so little-used, and considering Paper Mario is the second article that's had a question mark drawn over it since I supported A-class promotion I'm disinclined to rate any more articles as A. It's a hell of a lot more trouble than it's worth, and no further classes lower or equal to GA are needed, C-class was sorely needed and is now in regular use. If guidance is need on an FA-run then that can be sought via peer-review. Someone another 00:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

There are a few potential issues with just dumping it though. The first one being that FA and GA standards have changed significantly as time goes on, to the point many editors have openly questions the current slew of GA articles and the class as having lost significant meaning, especially when you consider in these cases it takes only one editor for a GA. So a buffer between FA and GA ends up a bit more necessary especially considering that even with discussion two editors at least still have to be involved. Secondly this looks more like a case of rather than disagreeing that the target articles are A quality it's disagreed that there was no discussion: a reboot for any undiscussed articles sounds like a better bet and then rework it from there with citable discussion for each one. The last issue is cross-project bits with the class: if one project rates an article A, what's that make the article for the VG project?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:44, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm inclined to agree. Even though three articles I worked on are affected by that, I tend to agree that C-class fills in the gap, and we don't have much activity at the assessment department anymore (if you discount GamerPro's regular requests for status promotion on articles I'm pretty sure he doesn't work on either before or after assessment) to properly rate things as A-class. -- Sabre (talk) 00:38, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The problems with A-class articles stem from the rating's lack of use and the lack of this project's interest in it, which is why this "here's a solution, let's find a problem" discussion began and why complaints are being raised about our (non) system for using the rating. Historically (it seems) this project has been about peer-review, we also have a hardcore few contributors who are the ones raising articles to GA+ standards by and large. Because the hardcore don't use A-class, in terms of requesting A-class assessments and participating in the assessment process, it's stuck in limbo. Instead of throwing good money after bad, or trying to twist it into something else based on what other groups of editors use it for, I think it's best to accept that A-class does not serve this project's way of working. Those who really want to get articles past acceptable GA standard can and do seek input from the editors they already know are interested in helping out in such cases, skipping A-class altogether. Other editors, the vast majority, struggle to get articles to B-class, which is no mean feat for anyone inexperienced, non-academic (me) or short on time. Other projects' ratings do not affect ours and shouldn't be allowed to, the chances of one project holding a more in-depth A-class review of an article in VG-space is minimal, and even if that was the case it doesn't hurt anyone to leave our rating at B or GA. Someone another 03:34, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, after reading through the thread, I'm a bit confused. What is the issue here? Is the current A-class assessment process excessively flawed? Do we want to get rid of the whole class for VG articles all together? Are the current A-class articles undeserving of their rating? There seem to have been some things brought up that never got answered/discussed to a conclusion before moving on. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC))

I'd support getting rid of it altogether, since its usage isn't clear, and seems kind of redundant. (I'm not sure there is a real use for it. But if there is, then we haven't been practicing it.) That said, if we keep it around, it should be below the two "honorary" statuses -- GA and FA. Putting it between them is kind of confusing and counter-intuitive. Randomran (talk) 16:44, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Start lengthy rant/discussion/thoughts/whatever- Did a bit of reading and found out some things that may clear a few things up. A-class ratings may be assigned by WikiProjects, but they appear to also be a Wikipedia-wide practice that is simply handled by projects. The Version 1.0 editorial team has written A-Class criteria that describes an A-Class article as an article that "approach the standards for a Featured article (FA), but will typically fall short because of minor style issues. The article may need minor copyedits, but it should be comprehensive, accurate, well-sourced, and reasonably well-written." (This is why I assume it's placed between FA and GA, and we should maintain this placement.)

That being said, I don't think we should abandon A-class for the VG project. As a WikiProject with an assessment department, we've agreed to assess articles using the Wikipedia-wide scale, which includes the A-class. However some tweaking to our process may be in order. Since we do not have a formal A-class review process, we should be following something similar to the Basic method on the A-Class criteria. The Assessment page can be the starting point for the process, but a section should be started on the article's talk page to determine if A-class is appropriate. The discussion should be conducted among two uninvolved editors (the assessors) with major contributors answering any questions or issues brought up by the two assessors. The whole section can be comprised of anything from a very short approval to a few days of back and forth discussion.

On aside note, it sounds like this issue stems from the major contributors at the Assessment department lacking participation from the rest of the Project. Do we have any volunteers willing to help lighten the load? Anything from a few assessments here and there to a regular assessor; every little bit helps. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:41, 8 December 2008 (UTC))

Flickr photo upload clarification

I just need some clarification on uploading a photo I found on Flickr. This is primarily to make sure I'm doing this right, as I've not had much experience with free images. I came across this photo, which is labelled as "some rights reserved". Its not the best image for the subject on Flickr—others had Michael Stemmle and Steve Purcell in, which would obviously have encyclopedic brownie points—but its the only one I've found meaning I may be able to avoid working out how Flickr works to contact copyright holders who reserved all rights. The image is licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0, which according to this is ok for use. So I should be able to upload it with {{Cc-by-sa-2.0}}, make a point of noting the author on the image page and its fine? -- Sabre (talk) 12:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, writing it out made it make sense for me, so I uploaded it to Commons here. If anyone can see any problems, please let me know. -- Sabre (talk) 12:51, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Everything seems to be fine. It's such a shame that there are so few images with those licenses. Oh well... The Prince (talk) 13:05, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

So some person over at Commons has decided to delete the image unilaterally, despite its free license and the fact it had already been reviewed and approved. His argument claimed that I can't upload it as it portrays a copyrighted character in some form, despite the fact we have entire categories full of similar images for both video games (Lara Croft and Master Chief) and in various other areas of Commons, all with similar licenses and sources. Is there any way I can appeal this? I'd really appreciate some help from regular Commons users here, this seems to be something of a double-standard considering all the other images available on Commons of a similar nature. -- Sabre (talk) 14:05, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you talk to image people such as User:Elcobbola and then bring it to commons help. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 14:41, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I've contacted both Elcobbola and Jacoplane, hopefully I can get to the bottom of this. -- Sabre (talk) 17:14, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Help needed with discussion about an FA

I could use another voice or two at Talk:The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker. Eisai Dekisugi is making some changes that in my opinion negatively impact the neutrality of the article. He refuses to follow WP:BRD, claiming that my reversion of his changes is the BOLD part of BRD and not his original changes to this article, even though no one else has supported him on the talk page so far and my version of the article passed FAC and FAR successfully. At this point, it's mostly me and him going back and forth and is not productive. Any additional voices in this discussion would be very welcome. Pagrashtak 14:30, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

MobyGames ranking

Should the MobyGames aggregate scores be included in articles? I think Game Rankings and Metacritic is plenty, and I don't see the need for MG. I'm having a dispute at Mario Kart Wii about this matter. Any thoughts? The Prince (talk) 02:12, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

They do tackle some sources that GR notably does not, namely many foreign magazines. On the other hand though, more than two aggregate scores is unnecessary easily over singular reviews of a subject.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

wikipedia is not owned by CBS Interactive, so we need not include game rankings, and I don't see the need for GR. Their selection of reviews is a bit pointless.--Kukule (talk) 04:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

The whole point of using Game Rankings and MetaCritic is to give a general idea to a reader of what critical reaction was; specific reviews are then used as specific examples of the reviewers and their opinions of the game. It's not like we're citing them for specific examples of the game like we do with other reviewers, just the overall view of critics. As far as I go, I follow the VG sources page. And that page tells me that those two sites are reliable for articles; I really don't think it matters too much who owns those sites. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 05:02, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

MobyGames has been a touchy subject on here before. Given that it is not owned by an company that practices some kind of oversight, I've always been inclined to avoid them unless they filled in some gap, like a hard to find source or external link that offers something the article is missing. Basically, if we already have Metacritic and Game Ranking, what do we need the MobyGames score for? Maybe if a specific Moby score included some different foreign scores as Kung Fu Man says, then it'd make sense to use it. But as far as general usage goes, I don't see the need to include it. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:18, 8 December 2008 (UTC))

MobyGames is more comprehensive than Metacritic and Game Rankings. Metacritic and Game Rankings do not have reviews of games for old or minor consoles, but MobyGames has. I don't see the need to include Metacritic and Game Rankings.--Kukule (talk) 18:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

You're right about older games, and a MobyGames aggregate might be a good fit for them. However, if given the choice, I wouldn't use them because Metacritic and Game Rankings satisfy WP:RS better. (Guyinblack25 ^talk)

I agree. In the case of an NES game, or another game system not covered by Game Rankings and/or Metacritic, MobyGames would be an acceptable substitute. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:21, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

No. Per its FAQs, MobyScores are compiled with the inclusion of user scores. This is no different than the user-submitted scores of GameSpot, IGN, and Amazon. Including them would be going against the principle of setting professional or expert reviews as the benchmark. MobyRanks could be considered, although I would still say MobyGames has only been referred by reliable sources as only reliable for its ludographies (never has it been used for aggregation scores). Jappalang (talk) 01:37, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

What? Game Rankings and Metacritic also have user scores. This is no different than the user-submitted scores of GameSpot, IGN, and Amazon. Including them would be going against the principle of setting professional or expert reviews as the benchmark. MobyRanks are professional average scores so they are used in wikipedia.--Kukule (talk) 09:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Please show that Game Rankings and Metacritic aggregate scores are taken from user-submitted scores. Jappalang (talk) 12:58, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Wait a minute. I thought the MobyRanks don't factor in user submitted scores. The user-based scores are the MobyScores. Right? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:58, 9 December 2008 (UTC))

Correct. That is what I was clarifying in my post above (with the bandying of "Moby scores" around, it is better to clarify that MobyGames have two sets of scores). MobyRanks is a new feature by MobyGames after Metacritics and Game Rankings have made their mark in the industry. My objection to MobyRanks is based on its non-usage in the industry (show which reliable sources are using them). Jappalang (talk) 22:30, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

List of Cards in Pokémon Trading Card Game Set Base Set

Is stuff like this permissible? I'm leaning on it not being so (since I recall similar lists were deleted in the past per WP:NOT#INFO). — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 10:57, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Here's the related discussion by the article creator...though does the card game fall under the video game project?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 11:03, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I would say it's tangentially related. It was here or WP:ANIME and I thought here was a bit more relevant. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 11:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Definitely gameguide and fails policy. --MASEM 13:10, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Even more so with the color coded table which corresponds to element "Green = Grass". Why is this not been listed at AFD? Salavat (talk) 13:35, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention that the article's creator, according to the contribs, the list's edit history, and the block log, we got ourselves a winner — ownership, incivility, and all. MuZemike (talk) 14:51, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The list looks like something that would best be addressed with an external link in Pokémon Trading Card Game. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:57, 8 December 2008 (UTC))

Now even more so with the huge image violation from the uploading of the pokemon card logo's, ie the lightening bolt from the electric cards. Salavat (talk) 00:21, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

So AfD it instead of sitting around and actually discuss it with the guy on the pokemon project talk page why this is a bad idea.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:34, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

~~:::::::First to do it becomes a "pro deleter wiki user!" MuZemike (talk) 01:16, 9 December 2008 (UTC)~~

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Cards in Pokémon Trading Card Game Set Base Set is up. TTN (talk) 01:36, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

omg, TTN you are such a "pro deleter wiki user!". Shame on you:0 Salavat (talk) 13:03, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Salavat for the record instead of waiting for someone like TTN, you should have just done the dirty work yourself. All this event did here was to make you appear to be a "wiki troll", for lack of a better term.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:08, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

You totally missed the sarcasm there, I think. Look at what MuZemike said 10 hours earlier than Salavat. --Izno (talk) 01:32, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

For reference, I was referring to this edit. Sorry, I should have provided the diff earlier. MuZemike (talk) 01:47, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeh that was totally a follow up joke after MuZemike's comment, im hardly a wiki troll, maybe someone with a sense of humour. Salavat (talk) 01:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

On second thought, mocking someone was inappropriate and something I need to refrain from doing. Sorry, I'll try to be more serious from now on. MuZemike (talk) 02:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguate UMD

Hi. UMD is a disambiguation page with incoming links, and many of its incoming links intend Universal Media Disc. These links need to be changed from [[UMD]] to [[Universal Media Disc|UMD]]. I have changed about 10, and would appreciate your help changing the rest. Thanks! --Una Smith (talk) 17:02, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Done. I ran through the pages in Category:PlayStation Portable games using WP:AWB and made about thirty edits. -- クラウド６６８ 23:21, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Excellent! Now the list is down to about 40 articles. Some look like video games that should be in Category:PlayStation Portable games. See list. --Una Smith (talk) 23:31, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, didn't come to mind that I could use the the what links here page to make the list. I guess if no one will, I will run through it later. -- クラウド６６８ 16:09, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

FYI- Every article on that list looks like they use UMD as Universal Media Disc, but I'd double check some of the titles to make sure they aren't meant to go to a different UMD on the disambig page. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:37, 9 December 2008 (UTC))

Request for copyedits and pairs of good eyes on Super Columbine Massacre RPG!

I've been rapidly editing Super Columbine Massacre RPG!, but I think it's more or less complete in terms of sourcing. However given my rapid pace, I'm sure its flow, spelling, and grammar leave much to desire. I would open a peer review at sometime, but I think right now it just needs more general love and attention. If some people can help out, I'd be most appreciative; if you have concerns, leave them on the article's talk page. Thanks, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 02:38, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Kudos on the interesting article choice. I'll try to copy edit it this week. I think I have a few magazines with some articles that may be able to add a bit more as well. I'll have to dig for them though.

If you do peer review it, don't forget to announce it on WT:MILHIST as I think they'd give some good outside comments. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:43, 9 December 2008 (UTC))

Good point, thanks for any help :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Video game list size issues.

Looking at some lists, particularly PSP, Wii, PS3, and 360, are too large. However, with 360 and Wii, I've hit a wall when it comes to removing content, and I cannot imagine any other way besides splitting, which should be a last resort. Comments? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 06:53, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

They are not nessasarily too long for lists. List of Super Nintendo Entertainment System games is still longer.じんない 07:00, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

But that list is never going to have another new game added. The 360 and Wii will have games added consistently for at least a few more years, and it'll add up. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 07:02, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

But on SNES games, that list needs to be split. There's nothing that can be done anymore that would reduce it enough anymore. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 07:06, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

It does not need to be split. The length is a guideline and some articles cannot be split or condensed below that level. Lists are usually the most common suspects.じんない 07:39, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

What? I never said it had to be split - in fact, I specifically said it was a last resort. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 07:51, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Basically just try to condense it, if you can't condense it enough, don't split it and leave it as it as 1 list. That's what i'm saying.じんない 08:07, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, there's no content that I can remove that people won't have issue with - the only content left to remove would be the two release dates, and that's violently opposed to. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 08:14, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Then I would say unless you, or someone else, can figure out a way to restructure the article to use less space, ignore the length size until it reaches somewhere ~400k whereupon ~~almost any~~ some last-gen browsers has issues displaying pages that length. Make a note in the make page or talk page that this article is a list of all [insert console here] games and thus likely to exceed the maximum recommended article size.じんない 08:19, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Pain

Pain (video game) - can some people keep an eye on this page, and maybe some copyediting help? There is very little to say about this game, but it keeps being expanded with information on missions and NPCs that are little more than props. thanks. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 23:02, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Have edited infobox in line with VG guidelines and have reverted date vandalism that was on article. - X201 (talk) 14:41, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Halo Wii

Came across this page here: Talk:Halo Wii. Article has been deleted as a hoax, so im wondering if an Admin might delete this talk page which was obviously missed first time. Salavat (talk) 14:39, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Done, but use {{Db-g8}} in the future. Pagrashtak 14:50, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh alright didn't no that one, thanks. Salavat (talk) 14:15, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Need help with Mario Bros.

Mario Bros. just passed for GA, and I need some help giving it a little more push - if anyone could help me find interviews about any of the four Super Mario Advance titles that discuss Mario Bros.'s inclusion, or an e-Reader interview that may mention Mario Bros., that'd be great. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:44, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Dispute on Talk:Bulbasaur.

I am attempting to remove unsourced content, but have been reverted, with the person arguing that I can just put fact tags on the article. Will someone provide a third opinion please? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 01:19, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

List of Virtual Boy games at FLRC

Hello, List of Virtual Boy games is up at WP:Featured list removal candidates to improve the article to meet current Featured List standards. Reviewers' concerns are here. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 02:28, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

On your "here" link you link us to List of Sweden international footballers, maybe something different? Better link here. Salavat (talk) 02:57, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do. MuZemike (talk) 04:14, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion: Video Game Priority Scale

Considering the size and scope of video game project, it might be a good idea to do a better clarification of what should be given what type of rank for priority similar to what is done for quality.Jinnai (talk) 06:13, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this. Right now, there are many game articles that assign themselves High or Top, regardless of the game's importance to the video game topic. The table in Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Assessment serves as a good model for this project to think on. Jappalang (talk) 08:31, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Since February 2007 I've employed the following table as a rule of thumb:

Importance	When
Top	Never. All Top-importance articles exist already.
High	Main characters in important games (Link (Zelda), Pikachu). Companies that have produced multiple award winning games. (Blizzard Entertainment) Games that have influenced their genres a lot. (Super Mario Bros)
Mid	Award winning games (Age of Empires 3). Main characters in mid or high importances games (Donkey Kong). Companies that have released a single high-importance game or multiple mid-importance games.
Low	Any company that has released a mid-importance game. Any character in mid-importance games. Any game that has been professionally reviewed, and any company that has released multiple of these.
Template:No-importance	The rest.

At appears fandom has left many of my old examples with a higher importance than I would assign to it. User:Krator (t c) 08:38, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

In all honesty I'm really finding the importance factor to be pretty badly flawed, especially given the CD articles that came up and the number of very bad articles that were initially included due to importance ranking (i.e. Lara Croft) and the multitude of good or higher articles passed aside due to "low importance". I'm more inclined to think because of that importance as it's treated in that regard should relate more to the quality of the article, not the weight of the target subject.

Importance as it is now just ends up feeling more a subjective case of opinion on the weight of a subject: is a launch title important? What awards count towards importance? What about fighting games and similar where many characters are important but no lead characters are clear? Etc. Especially the last one given you have cases where I've noticed while doing research on subjects that sometimes lead characters end up getting almost no notability while others (for example those with...well to be direct, sex appeal) tend to get a significant amount of coverage and recognizability in comparison for notability.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 12:27, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I've never understood the importance thing either. While there are a few things one can say are obvious, it's in general so subjective I always wondered why the whole system is so prominent in WP. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 13:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

My take on importance is a way of sorting the articles such that someone who is completely unfamiliar with the field but needs to research it can start with the most important articles in order to gain the best overview of the field, and then if they need more they can read articles presented at the next level. Thus, the articles at the top and high importance should be less about the games themselves save for those that are established as genre-establishing titles, and more about general VG topics. An average game, even if awarding winning, will likely only get to Mid importance until time itself tells us that it is more important than that. --MASEM 13:17, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Aye, I tend to use Krator's method of determining importance, but I agree with Masem, the best indicator of importance is time itself. We have a clearer idea of how important games back at the turn of the millenium (influencial series like the LucasArts adventure games, Myst, Doom, etc) than we do now, when potentially groundbreaking games are released regularly these days. We are only just beginning to feel the influence of Half-Life 2 on the industry, for instance, and it will be a few years until we can establish what sort of importance Crysis is in the grand scheme of things - I'm not entirely sure at the moment that the "high" importance assigned to Crysis is entirely justified. -- Sabre (talk) 13:23, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

It seems everyone is in agreement as to how importance should be determined. The thing to do now is establish some standards so less experienced editors will know how to determine the importance as well. I think Jappalang's suggestion to model the table at Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Assessment is something that should be done. Creating a table at WP:VG/A that applies that general format to Krator's descriptions and examples will be a good step to take, and is something editors can be directed to during disagreements. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:21, 14 November 2008 (UTC))

I do think some kind of importance scale is valuable... and we especially need to recognize the importance of gaming terminology / genres. How many articles link to platform game? (Actually, the number of "link-to"s is a decent heuristic to measure importance, IMO.) It's just too bad that nobody really uses importance to guide their efforts. Hence some of our most important topics are actually our most underdeveloped articles. But hey, we can't twist anyone's arm. Randomran (talk) 17:41, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

We do what we can. You were able to get 4X to FA and have done some good work with fighting game. David has gotten some older games to FA. I made sure the last four articles I pushed to FA were all essential articles, and plan to keep pursuing that. Several others have contributed as well.

But unfortunately, the top rated articles are generally the hardest to write; especially the genre and terminology ones. Some good steps have been taken towards improving them. We just need to keep up the momentum. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:22, 14 November 2008 (UTC))

Table ideas

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Assessment may be a better place to discuss this, but since the discussion started here it makes sense to finish here. Feel free to move this to the assessment talk page though.

Let's try to get some table worked up to include under "Assessment instructions" on WP:VG/A. I think it would be a good compliment to the Quality scale we have there. Feel free to edit, tweak, change, whatever the table below to suit our needs. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:35, 14 November 2008 (UTC))

Type	Top	High	Mid	Low
Definition	This article is of the utmost importance as it forms the basis of all information.	This article is fairly important as it covers a general area of knowledge.	This article is relatively important as it fills in some more specific knowledge of certain areas.	This article is of little importance as it covers a highly specific area of knowledge or an obscure piece of trivia.
Series (Main article)	N/A.	Lasting impact at least 3-5 years after it was initially released e.g. Final Fantasy (series), Guitar Hero	Achieved wide commercial success or critically acclaimed outside of Japan e.g. Gran Turismo (series), Ratchet & Clank (series)	Other.
Video games (Main article)	Ground-breaking titles that are nearly ubiquitous with the term "video games". Likely no game younger than 10 years should be rated as such. e.g. Space Invaders or Pac-Man	Highly influential works, generally considered the best games of their time or a fundamental game of the genre. Generally requires at least 2-3 years of being on market to be assessed as such. e.g. Halo, The Legend of Zelda: The Ocarina of Time, Grand Theft Auto III	Successful games that have led to sequels, influence of other games, or franchises, at least 1-2 years since release for proper assessment. e.g. Katamari Damacy, Gears of War	All other video games.
Lists of video games, characters and other media	N/A.	N/A.	Lists related to topics rated at least "High", and written in an encyclopedic fashion, e.g. Characters of Final Fantasy VIII.	All other lists.
Characters	N/A.	Characters that have become cultural icons outside of the series e.g. Pikachu, Mario	Well known characters, typically appearing as the main character in a long-running game series. e.g. Fox McCloud, Solid Snake	All other characters.
Individuals	Individuals with an essential historical influence on the medium (e.g. Nolan Bushnell, Shigeru Miyamoto)	Individuals with a career of highly influential works, or historically significant accomplishments (e.g. Hideo Kojima, Tim Schafer, David Jones)	Individuals with a career of internationally successful or critically acclaimed works (e.g. Chris Metzen, Cliff Bleszinski)	Other notable individuals (e.g. )
Companies, organisations, websites	Highly influential companies, particularly the major Japanese, American, and European companies involved video game production, e.g. Blizzard Entertainment, Capcom, Nintendo	Top developers and publishers, e.g. Epic Games, Neversoft	Most other well-known companies in the industry, e.g. IGN, Gamestop, Naughty Dog	Other, including websites, e.g. GameFAQs
Other	Core topics including articles on core game genres and major consoles e.g. Action game, Platform game, Nintendo 64	Sub-articles of core topics, including cross genres, minor consoles e.g. 4X, Grand Theft Auto clone, Atari Jaguar	Game concepts e.g. boss fight, New Game Plus	All other (unless discussed here).

I trust by "list of characters" you mean actual lists of characters, not the collective character articles, such as Characters of Halo, Characters of StarCraft, etc, which are articles rather than lists. And why are all video game importances listed as "N/A?"-- Sabre (talk) 18:42, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd say video games that have had important impact on the genre that have lasted decades like Final Fantasy, Dragon Quest, Super Mario Bros, etc should be listed as High, including both the series and particular games. At the least they should be ranked mid to set them apart from titles with lesser impact.Jinnai (talk) 18:49, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I've boldly added how I think VGs in general should be considered. Basically, the older and more influential the game is, the most important it becomes. --MASEM 18:57, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Sabre- The N/A's were there because I basically copied it from WP:ANIME. And as far as the list vs. article question. I have no idea. That's something we've never really sorted out. :-|

Masem- I like the time frames and think they are reasonable.

For the mid importance individual, would Tetsuya Nomura be a good example? He's currently rated low importance, but his work the past decade seems to fit the description. Any thoughts? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:48, 14 November 2008 (UTC))

I personally don't agree with setting hard, or even general, age limits to determine the importance of a game. There are relatively recent games, such as Halo and World of Warcraft, that I think could easily qualify as either High or Top importance, since they are extremely well known, highly influential on the industry as a whole, and are or may become synonymous with a particular aspect of the video game industry as a whole. I doubt anything will, in the next decade or so, trump Pac-Man or Space Invaders in terms of overall impact, but the game industry has diversified to such an extent since then that there are more categories under which a game might become a Top Importance game. Also, consider the possibility that, great as they were, games like Pac-Man may become less important in the grand scheme of things as time goes on, except from a purely historical perspective. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:51, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that a time measure is important, and I wouldn't want to lose it. In general, something has to be around for a while for it to assert its importance. But I agree there are exceptions. Perhaps we can come up with a more gentle phrasing? Randomran (talk) 21:15, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

The time "limits" are meant to be rough numbers. A game that zooms to popularity after 6 months and clearly needs to be marked more important that "mid" can be marked higher. The idea is to provide a rough guideline there. I will also say that I don't think any game or article loses importance over time. Thirty years from now, Pac-Man may be "huh, what's that?" but in the overall historic context, it is still one of the key defining games. Articles can only move up this scale over time, not down (that's why the time period is important, as one may mis-assess a game as higher than it really is shortly after its release when, a year later, it's not even played anymore). --MASEM 21:56, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Wow, personally, I think that table practically nailed it. I pretty much found myself nodding with each criteria and example. It'll always be subjective, but the above seems to have very good generality... ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 20:09, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with series and characters having no articles of top importance. I think that Final Fantasy, The Legend of Zelda, Mario, Pokémon, etc. are all of top importance, and Mario, Link, Pikachu, etc. are of top importance. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:08, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think any article dedicated to a series or a character is a "top" article, if only because, to the general researcher, the details of the series aren't important, just that the series was influential, and in most cases, this is a point covered by the other article types. It's a matter of taking off the "gamer" hat and thinking of what we have in a different light - the "top" articles should delve less into details of specific games and more into the overall field, only using games that, as I listed, ubiquitous with the term "video game". All the examplesyou give are of course High importance, which we can replace our "gamer" hat and go from what we know there. --MASEM 21:56, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

rather than continue to edit the above table, i'm posting my proposed changes below so they can be seen in comparison:

Type	Top	High	Mid	Low
Video games (Main article)	Ground-breaking titles which defined core concepts later used by all games of a genre. e.g. (in most cases these will be more than 10 years old) Pac-Man, Bard's Tale or Super Mario Bros.	Highly influential works, generally considered the best games of their time or titles that radically influenced or revitalized a genre. Generally requires at least 2-3 years of being on market to be assessed as such. e.g. Halo, The Legend of Zelda: The Ocarina of Time, Grand Theft Auto III, Final Fantasy VII	Successful or critically acclaimed games, most likely having sequels, that had some level of influence other non-sequal games, or franchises, at least 1-2 years since release for proper assessment. e.g. Katamari Damacy, Gears of War	All other video games.

The purpose is to more clearly define the top and high priority for games that had influence on core elements of almost every other game rather than just a well known in popular culture, though sometimes this is the same.Jinnai (talk) 21:15, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if Bard's Tale is Top. It's not a game that non-games will instantly recognize when you talk to them about it. It's "High" for sure since it is an early RPG example. --MASEM 21:58, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

That's why i say popularity is not best fitting.

Bard's Tale iconified [almost] everything most RPG players take for granted when playing video game RPGs. They were notable, along with Ultima, in developement of Dragon Quest and it is WP:V that the creators were heavily influenced by those games and Wizardry. Bard's Tale was the first notable game to use MP in the way most games use it, or something akin to it, now. It was the first game to replace large amounts of item drops with gold drops from every monster, it simplified the stat system similar to what most non-D&D-based video game rpgs use today, it simplified the equipment system to basic weapon, body armor, shield, boots and accessory used for almost major RPG in some fashion until FFVII. I can go on, but I hope you get the point. Popularity =/= importance.Jinnai (talk) 22:17, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

The "top" games are not there for popularity, they are there because they have entered the general popular culture and are well known outside of video games. Again, I'm not saying Bard's Tale isn't "high", as it is a genre-defining game, but if you ask non-gamers about that, you'll likely get blank stares. Our top articles should be the ones of most interest from an academic standpoint, not from a gamer's standpoint, since these are the first ones that are included when WP makes DVDs for educational purposes. --MASEM 22:27, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

And I'm saying that's not how it should be. Those should be high and those that defined a genre should be top. We're not disagreeing their importance, just the level of importance. As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, historical importance of genre setting should take priority.Jinnai (talk) 22:31, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

The key result of assessment is what articles are first targeted to go into printed or published versions of WP when they do that (we just had/are doing the 0.7v DVD). These will go to schools and will be used to research a large swatch of topics, video games being one of them. We want our "top" articles to reflect the field, in general, and not drill down into any particular video game field or aspect that is not critical to understanding the field at large. Ideally, due to this, the number of "top" article on specific video games should be as close to zero as possible, the field being represented better by the general archetypes of video games (core genres) and the core companies, people, and hardware in the field. Only those games which, relative to other human events, are rather important as to gain significant non-gaming news coverage (eg Pac-man and Space Invaders), should be rated "Top". Games like Bard's Tale and Halo and Doom are very influential games and thus all should be High assessment, but they are not core to understanding the overall field of video games. Remember, as long as we are covering the core genres, the games that define those genres will be mentioned, so it is not like we are snubbing them from any mention in those articles in the "Top" assessment level. --MASEM 23:38, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

The idea of what defines "video game" is very subjective. If you ask 10 different people what game defines a video game, you are likely to get ten different answers. Thus saying Pac-Man is more important to that field than Zelda is making a judgment call purely on subjective reasoning which can vary even within different English-speaking cultures.Jinnai (talk) 23:46, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to propose some actual wording, but I must say that I agree with most of the table, except for two parts. First, I think we can do some kind of blanket thing with game-derivatives like characters and fiction within a game: one step lower than the game itself, unless there's significance outside that game (Mario, Pikachu, who should be Top). Second, I think we should be much more lenient with classifying games as 'High' or 'Mid'. Mid importance, for me, is achieved by getting something like an IGN Editor's Choice award. Not extremely important, but quite so. That's why it's 'Mid'. Games like Gears of War that actually have received unanimous praise and present some advancements in the genre, generally games that will be remembered for the next ten years, should be high. A typical game that's rated 'high' would appear in some of the "Top 100 games that .. " lists that go around a lot. A game that's rated Top would appear in most if not all of such lists, typically.

Other importance ratings can then simply be derived from the games, if we have those explained in detail - with an exception for Top-rated things, both characters and the game itself can be 'top'. As a final note, use actual objective criteria, not vague terms like influence. These criteria don't need to be 'hard', but they do need to be some kind of objective. 'Ground breaking title' is different for everyone, but my 'Appears in some Top 100 lists' above isn't, though both of these cover about the same games. User:Krator (t c) 00:33, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Characters shouldn't be top unless they are key to understanding a culture. I don't think any character qualifies as that, Mario would be the closests and I'd still give him only "High" status. Other than that, I'd say the suggestion on characters sounds fine, as a general rule.

I do not agree that we should lower standards on the game importance, especially high. Top and High should be reserved only for game titles that are truly deserving of it; games that massively altered culture, politics, genre or were key to being the foundations of a genre. Minor improvements and critical acclaim might make it to mid depending on other factors, but Wikipedia isn't about popularity, it's about importance. Sometimes those go hand-in-hand, but a game like the afore mentioned Bard's Tale never really made it on any "TOP 100 List" [for popularity, and I don't know given the quality of the research of those TOP 100, if it would have made it on TOP 100 influential] and yet is more important a game than almost any other out there in terms of what the impact in had [on video/computer RPGs and everything it spawned (like MMORPGs)].

You are right, about these criteria not being hard-fast rules. Wikipedia doesn't have that for the general one, WP:AM doesn't have it as a hard-and-fast rule for theirs. There will always be exceptions that need to be dealt with outside the rule, but they need to have a good reason.Jinnai (talk) 03:22, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I took a look at WP:ANIME, WP:TV, and WP:ALBUM to get some points of comparison. Of those:

Anime has a very limited (14 out of 7000 some) top-level, no specific examples of the field.
TV has 40-some top, including key series (I Love Lucy, Dallas, etc.) out of 10000
Album has 80-some top, all key albums, out of 70000

So from our side, I would restate the scale as follows:

Type	Top	High	Mid	Low
Series (Main article)	A series of games that has defined a genre or became an international phenomena (moreso than any one game in the series) e.g. Final Fantasy (series) I really think this is the only true example here as a Top series	Lasting impact at least 3-5 years after it was initially released e.g. Devil May Cry (series), Guitar Hero	Achieved wide commercial success or critically acclaimed outside of Japan e.g. Gran Turismo (series), Ratchet & Clank (series)	Other.
Video games (Main article)	Games either that are ubiquitous with the term "video games" in the common vernacular or are the core game for a genre. Likely no game younger than 3-5 years should be rated as such. e.g. Space Invaders or Pac-Man, Halo, The Legend of Zelda: The Ocarina of Time, Grand Theft Auto III	Highly influential works, generally considered the best games of their time. Generally requires at least 2-3 years of being on market to be assessed as such. e.g. Ico, Super Mario 64]], Sonic the Hedgehog	Successful games that have led to sequels, influence of other games, or franchises, at least 1-2 years since release for proper assessment. e.g. Katamari Damacy, Gears of War	All other video games.

I think we should try to aim for similar numbers, however, somewhere between 0.05 and 0.2% of all our articles as Top (we actually have a lot - 110-some of 21300, or around 0.5%) --MASEM 04:29, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

In response to the series comment, what suggests that Final Fantasy is the only "true example" of a Top series? Mario is the most successful video game franchise ever made, Pokémon the second (and one of the most successful animes, mangas, and trading card games), Grand Theft Auto is a veritable hot box of controversy and the leading series in its respective genre (sandbox), The Legend of Zelda is one of the most well-recognized video game series out there - I don't really see anything that would make FF the one and only series of top importance. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:38, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Again, in the interest of trying to keep as few "top" articles as possible: no one single FF game is really so much better than the others, it is simply that the series overall has the impact. On the other hand, for Mario, it's a handful of games (SMB1, SMB3, SB64) that really stand out, Pokemon is Red/Blue, and Zelda is likely OOT; however, the series in each itself has had a number of duds, and while the series is very important to video gaming, I would not say they are top-level importance compared to the specific examples from each. --MASEM 06:08, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

SMB is the best-selling game, SML is the best-selling standalone Game Boy game, SMB3 is the best-selling non-bundled game, SMW is the best-selling SNES game, SM64 is the best-selling N64 game, etc. There's more than just SMB1, 3, and 64 to speak of as famous games. The Mario franchise has a large expanse - '93 showed its starring character to be the most well-recognized character to children by a national survey, and he was one of the three first video game characters featured on the walk of fame. On top of all this, he is the first video game character to be featured in the Hollywood Wax Museum, and the series has won seven world records. Onto Pokémon, it has a 500 episode-long anime (and counting), many various series of mangas, is a billion dollar product, has toys coming out the wazoo, has arguably the most popular trading card series of its kind (that is, excluding stuff like sports cards), and has won several world records. And all four main titles in the series are very prolific - G/S is the best-selling game of the past three generations, RuSa being best-selling of last-gen is unknown, it's between GTAVC and it, I believe, and D/P is the best-selling RPG on the DS (which is notable, since it was included in the Guinness Book of World Records). I really don't see why FF, which has little outside of gaming, is more important than Pokémon, which is arguably more significant with its anime, manga, TCG, and real-world affect. FFXII wasn't significant, nor was FFIX, FFIX and VIII weren't terribly significant, and FFV and III weren't either. I mean, if you're attempting to be strict, I'm lost as to why you're looking at Pokémon, of all things, as a series not of top importance. I'm all for trimming the fat, so long as you trim it evenly. - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:27, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I would like to present an abstract for discussion. Personally, Top importance articles should be reserved for subjects that deal closely with "what is a video game". If there are no such articles (subject), then video games as we know would not exist. Hence, the items that spawned video games and the ideas and objects that defined what would become such games should be Top. Off-hand, I would propose joystick (or game controller), arcade game, personal computer, video game console, DirectX, OpenGL, and Pong as obvious candidates under this scheme. High importance articles should deal with the revolutionary subjects that created distinct "generations" of the Top importance subjects. If they are missing, one would be left with the sense that "there is something missing here" when one thinks about video games after going through the Top articles. Long history characters and games (10–20 years of constant popular rememberance) befit the bill as well as major technological developments (consoles). Mid class articles would contain less remarkable innovations, objects, and ideas that while not crucial to the video games concept, can provide insightful or interesting points about the industry. Low importance objects simply applies to subjects that when deleted or missing, would not be missed except by hardcore fans. Jappalang (talk) 11:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

That makes sense to me if I'm understanding correctly. Basically a tree setup: you start with the fundamentals, then trickle down. Series-starting games like the original Zelda should effectively take a higher precedence in such a hierarchy than the later titles, and from there spinoffs being of less importance, possibly taking up the Low rank in the end. Non-series games can then be argued individually as needed, with launch titles and award winning games getting precedence over random titles. It would be nice if we could make a page of some sort to keep track of this too: it's kinda difficult to keep a system like this intact when many new editors might not be on the same page and feel so-and-so game should be of high priority.

I think using this system too we could set up a means for "child of" parameters in the template. What I mean is for cases like Final Fantasy VII, where it was noted to be included on the CD, but the related character articles, while of GA or higher, were not due to various reasons (site hits, etc). Such material however is necessary to get a better grasp on a subject. A system like this could effectively make having to suggest the addition of such articles an automatic step for the .8 version of the DVD, no? Just some thoughts.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 11:29, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Top level for video games should not be "what is a video game" but "what has led to the core elements of what we take for granted in video game". The former is subjective, varies from English-speaking culture to English-speaking culture and isn't as important for researchers than "what is a video game" because that can be defined by reading about the articles like Dragon Quest 1, Final Fantasy 1, Ultima 1, Pokemon Red/Blue, etc. That criteria is not something that is subjective as it can be verified by what the creators themselves have said in interviews inspired them. Nor is it likely to change over time.

As for series, well, again I'd have to say Final Fantasy 1 and Final Fantasy 7 stand out as major cornerstone titles: 1 being one of the core RPGs that defined standards which would be applied to RPGs for decades to come and FF7 for revitalizing and expanding the RPG market into more mainstream market and the implications that had on other RPGs.

The key for what should be TOP should be "signifigant impact on all other aspects of a political, cultural or economic status and/or signifigant impact on a genre or video games in general, either of which must have lasted at least a decade.Jinnai (talk) 14:42, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

A point to come back to - If we assume that a WP DVD would only have the "Top" rated VG rated articles, thus to establish what the core of video games are, then I would think that the genre articles should have mention, if not deeper coverage, of the core games that established that genre, diminishing the need to have actual video game articles in there as well. I think these genre articles are much more important than the actual games themselves as long as the influence of certain titles on the field are spelled out. --MASEM 15:24, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

That could be a possibility, however those titles listed in the genre would should still then be given High priority above most other titles since those will be the next logical step anyone researching a genre would look.Jinnai (talk) 16:18, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Of course, those games and series can be placed High - again, comparing that to the DVD approach, the High levels should only be read after an appreciation of the Top level ones are obtained. --MASEM 16:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I think I've done enough to establish that the Mario and Pokémon series are more than popular enough. I mean, your logic of FF having "no titles standing out" is terribly flawed - FFI is more famous than II and III, VI is more famous than V and IV, VII is more famous than VIII and IX, and X is more famous than XI and XII. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:00, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that Final Fantasy should not be the only top rated series, but I don't think Pokemon should be. It is one of the most popular franchises ever, but I don't think it really furthers a layman's knowledge of video games. That being said, I don't see it's contributions to video games in general as important as Final Fantasy or Mario. No other series as a whole comes to mind that has contributed in such a significant manner.

To get back on point. I think limiting the number of top articles is the right idea. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:54, 17 November 2008 (UTC))

Pokémon is definitely more important than Final Fantasy. It's one of the first monster-raising games, it is thought to have extended the life of the GB by many, many years, and the series spans more than video gaming, which FF and Mario can't really say. Not only is it very famous in more than just video games, but throughout its life, there's been a lot of history in its controversy from parents and religious figures, and is an excellent example of addiction second only to MMORPGs and the like. Pokémon has had a significant impact on the world and gaming, an impact that FF has never ever made. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:14, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not arguing that Pokemon has not had great cultural and industry impact. But I attribute that to the franchise as a whole, and not entirely to its video game components. And while, FF and Mario both do extend beyond video games, their main areas of impact have been in the video game industry. This is why I consider them to offer more to the layman's understanding of video gaming.

Regardless, these are based more on our personal interpretations of the bigger picture. It would probably be best to get a better grasp of what the bigger picture should be in the section below. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 23:16, 17 November 2008 (UTC))

Section break

Type	Top	High	Mid	Low
Definition	This article is of the utmost importance as it forms the basis of all information.	This article is fairly important as it covers a general area of knowledge.	This article is relatively important as it fills in some more specific knowledge of certain areas.	This article is of little importance as it covers a highly specific area of knowledge or an obscure piece of trivia.
Core topics	Articles on core topics, game genres, and major consoles that are essential to understanding video games. (e.g. Video game, Platform game, Nintendo 64)	Sub-articles of core topics, including cross genres, minor consoles. (e.g. 4X, Grand Theft Auto clone, Atari Jaguar)	Game concepts and terms. (e.g. Boss fight, New Game Plus)	All other (unless discussed here).
Series (Main article)	A series of games that has defined a genre or became an international phenomena—moreso than any separate game(s) in the series. (e.g. Final Fantasy, Mario (series))	Lasting impact at least 3-5 years after it was initially released. (e.g. Devil May Cry (series), Guitar Hero)	Achieved wide commercial success or critically acclaimed outside of Japan. (e.g. Gran Turismo (series), Ratchet & Clank (series))	Other.
Video games (Main article)	Ground-breaking titles that are ubiquitous with the term "video games" in the common vernacular or are the core game for a genre. Likely no game younger than 3-5 years should be rated as such. (e.g. )	Highly influential works, generally considered the best games of their time or titles that radically influenced or revitalized a genre Generally requires at least 2-3 years of being on market to be assessed as such. (e.g. )	Successful or critically acclaimed games, most likely having sequels, that had some level of influence other unrelated games or franchises, at least 1-2 years since release for proper assessment. (e.g. Katamari Damacy, Gears of War)	All other video games.
Lists of video games, characters and other related items	N/A.	N/A.	Lists related to topics rated at least "High", and written in an encyclopedic fashion. (e.g. Characters of Final Fantasy VIII)	All other lists.
Characters	N/A.	Characters that have become cultural icons outside of the series e.g. Pikachu, Mario	Well known characters, typically appearing as the main character in a long-running game series. (e.g. Fox McCloud, Solid Snake)	All other characters.
Individuals	Individuals with an essential historical influence on the medium (e.g. Nolan Bushnell, Shigeru Miyamoto)	Individuals with a career of highly influential works, or historically significant accomplishments (e.g. Hideo Kojima, Tim Schafer, David Jones)	Individuals with a career of internationally successful or critically acclaimed works (e.g. Chris Metzen, Cliff Bleszinski)	Other notable individuals (e.g. )
Companies, organisations, websites	Highly influential companies, particularly the major Japanese, American, and European companies involved in video game production. (e.g. Blizzard Entertainment, Capcom, Nintendo)	Top developers and publishers. (e.g. Epic Games, Neversoft)	Most other well-known companies in the industry. (e.g. IGN, Gamestop, Naughty Dog)	Others including websites. (e.g. GameFAQs)

Here's another full table with some of the suggestions integrated (hopefully successfully integrated)into the previous one. Also, the length of the discussion looks like it needs a section break too. I've also moved the core topics row to the top as those are really the topics which define video games. Any thoughts? Are we getting close to a final version? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:54, 17 November 2008 (UTC))

Arb Break - What do we want as representative articles?

I think we need to make a mini-consensus decision here so that we can better fill in the table and go forward. There seems to be two possible paths that we can take to consider our Top, "must read" articles

We can go the route the Anime project has done, with only technical articles about the field or those that introduce specific areas of the field, or the like. In other words for us, this would having our genre articles, key video game companies and people, but no video games, series, or elements thereof in the Top, with the assumption that the other articles that are in Top will hit on these. The most influential games would be High then.
We can go the route of the TV project where the most influential games are also in Top along with technical aspects of the field.

We should decide which is the route we want to go, and then I think the chips will fall from there. (There may be another option that I'm not aware of either). --MASEM 21:04, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Support #1 - mostly because I do not believe the idea of "games ubiqituitous with the idea of video game are more important or less subjective than video games that had core design concepts for a genre that are now taken for granted. That way there would be no dispute as to which was more important as they would both be High.

If not, I would request we hold off until a good way to decide what's best for top video games, perhaps seeking advice elsewhere and/or having a vote.Jinnai (talk) 21:19, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm leaning towards the first proposal, but am a bit hesitant to exclude all series and video games from the top category—specifically video games. I must admit though, if a game is so important, it stands to reason it and its impact would be adequately covered in the respective genre and company article. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 23:18, 17 November 2008 (UTC))

I disagree with any proposal that suggests that there cannot be a top-class article in one section (specifically Characters and Series). - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:44, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I support option #1. High is not too far from the tree as Top, and can be applied to articles that established a legacy quite easily (Tetris, Halo). Mid used for noteworthy video games second that have won awards or been launch titles that defined a console, and low for lesser everyday game articles that are still notable. It's a strong hierarchy, and exceptions can be discussed here as needed if the case arises, no?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:09, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I support no. 1 as well, but can I request that people lay off the reclassification of articles from top to high until after a consensus has been established here (A Link to the Past, I'm looking at you). Until consensus is reached, the mass change of articles from an importance levels should be avoided as the old way still applies. Anyway, I agree with Guyinblack's statement that the impact of a game of high importance to the genre and the industry should be adequately covered in the respective genre and company articles, even if it isn't at present. -- Sabre (talk)

It seems number one is the popular choice. Should we proceed with this in mind, or give people more time to voice their thoughts? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:48, 18 November 2008 )

I'd give is a little longer, say until Sunday? -- Sabre (talk) 21:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I Support no. 2. Without the games as the driving force behind the hardware and the industry then their would be no sales so thus it could be argued that the games are more important than the consoles they run on and the genres they defined and therefore should be in Top importance too. Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign!)} 00:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Minor quib but upon re-reading mid importance level, I'd change it to read:

Successful or critically acclaimed games, most likely having sequels, that had some level of influence other ~~non-sequal~~ unrelated games, or franchises, at least 1-2 years since release for proper assessment.

This makes it more clear distinction as to make certain spin-off titles wouldn't be used as justification since they are basically one-step removed from sequels. The removal of the comma also changes the the meaning to mean to help clear that as well by associating "unrelated" to both games and franchise. Leaving the comma in would muddy that.Jinnai (talk) 02:14, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

To get this motion moving (and amend from there on) instead of letting the current situation persist, I am in favor of no. 1 as it is the closest to my personal opinions stated above. Jappalang (talk) 09:25, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Just trying to get an idea where everyone is coming from. How many people are placing more importance on history and how many are placing more to impact? And are there any people trying to weigh them 50/50? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:07, 19 November 2008 (UTC))

It seems that no one proposal allows for top importance in both series articles and character articles. I definitely think Mario, Pikachu, and the like are of top importance. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:33, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

If #2 was supported, that Top articles are more than just the field's technical basis, then in addition to games, there would be a few series and characters Top articles. --MASEM 19:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Link to the Past: This are guidelines. That means, without good reason they should be followed. For something like Mario you can always propose pushing it to a top level article.Jinnai (talk) 21:01, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

What is a guideline? A miserable pile of secrets. But also, are you referring to the proposals as guidelines? If so, as long as it allows for characters and series to be of top importance, then I'm all for it. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:23, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

First, let's make one thing clear. As of this moment, the above is nothing more than a proposal. However when it is adopted (and at this point it appears in some fashion it will be), it will become a guideline. A guideline differs from policy in that policy does not allow much, if any, wiggle room. If policy says something, it needs to be done or contested to change policy. Guidelines are a step below. They are there to flesh out policy and to help writers design better articles. Guidelines can be ignored at times, but there must be a very good reason that is adopted by consensus.

Using your example, simply putting "Mario" and "Zelda" as top because you believe it should be would be a violation and get them removed ASAP to at most "High". If however, you think they should be, you must make a case as to why they are special and convince others. Even if you succeed though, at a later date it's still subject to revision as people might have other reasons, or more people might chime up who weren't active during the discussion. However, you do have precident on your side, so at that point, the onus would be more on them, but still with the intent of guidelines behind them.

Bottom line is, don't expect any article about a character, video game or video game series to be "TOP" in the near future without it being reverted.Jinnai (talk) 03:11, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I support #1. It avoids favoritism, and reflects the topics that are truly important. Randomran (talk) 06:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Arb. Break 2 - Moving forward

Given the above discussion it seems the preference is for option #1 - that our "Top" articles define the field of what video gaming is through core genre articles, companies, hardware, and people involved, without emphasis on any specific title, series, or character. We probably should review what is currently given as "Top" for our assessments and consider each.

To address a few points above for those that favored #2, this is not meant to prevent any game, series, or character from being "Top", but I would be hesitant to include a game, series, or character that is already mentioned in the other "Top" articles, avoiding as much duplication in topic coverage as possible assuming that these are our core articles. (This is why the genre articles should be "Top" since they hit on so many games and usually those that are standouts in the field). For example, there's no doubt that Nintendo should be a top article; that said, since coverage of Nintendo should obviously mention Mario, there's no need to specifically call out Mario the character or the series (which itself should also be called out via platform game as well). --MASEM 23:46, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

That's a good point, that top importance covers the most important aspects of gaming - genres, companies, systems, etc. But I think it should also encompass series articles. While the Mario series should be covered in Nintendo, it may not be covered sufficiently. The Nintendo article has a lot to cover, and Mario can cover a lot more than Nintendo could, making it not redundant. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why Series has to be top: an article on a series is more important than the concepts that make the games? Just seems a little odd to put that much weight on something when High can suffice. I mean to someone that isn't knowledgeable to Nintendo's work, how is the Mario series top priority to them to be informed of over the company itself? On a side note, not entirely sure Link's Awakening needs High priority over Mid...it's an important game, but without going into opinion it doesn't seem as influential to the series as the original LoZ.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I've always seen series articles as a higher-level, overview article—not as high as a genre article, but certainly a step above a normal video game article. Because of that I view them above most game articles in importance.

Having said that, I still have to agree that most game, series, and character articles don't really need to be Top importance.

Should we start finalizing the table now? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 02:01, 23 November 2008 (UTC))

In general, i'd say series should be equal to the highest level of one of its related games. There are exceptions, both ways. FE: Dot Hack video games might very well be low priority as invidisual video games. Taken as a whole though the series probably warrants a mid level importance. On the opposite side, Bard's Tale likely warrants a top rating, but a page about the series probably doesn't warrant that high of one because the series as a whole was not as influential as the first game, so a mid level would be more appropriate.Jinnai (talk) 17:22, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Pokémon is not actually covered in Nintendo. But the issue is that regardless of it being just a series, Pokémon is way too large to be covered in enough detail at Nintendo, because Pokémon encompasses many series - RPG series, spin-off series, and then it's got the anime, trading card game, manga, and merchandise, all of which have been extremely successful and received incredible coverage. It's stuff like this, where the series vastly transcends its role as a video game series, that should define it as a top importance article. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

It should be covered in Nintendo. It's one of their biggest franchises, extended the life of the Game Boy, earned them billions, and kept them financially afloat during their slump with the N64. If it isn't now, it should be covered in Nintendo and Game Boy when they get cleaned up.

I'm afraid I have to disagree with the rationale of Pokemon being top importance. I believe the top articles should further a layman's understanding of video games, not just show them the most popular and influential. And I don't see how knowing the details of Space Invaders or Halo 3 are "essential" to that understanding. Knowing the general information will certainly help though, just as it would to know general info about Pokemon. And all that info would likely be covered in the related top articles. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC))

Pokémon is more than just a popular game, it's a phenomenon - no game series has transcended gaming in the way that Pokémon has and had such a significant influence as well. Heck, Pokémon has its own separate company now - The Pokémon Company. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

And there's no reason why Nintendo would cover Pokémon adequately - Pokémon branches out too much for there to be enough possible coverage there. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Link- I can't help but feel like we're going in a circle with our statements. We're mainly reiterating the same points again and again. You belief their high level of influence warrants top-importance, and I belief their influence is important but not as important when compared to their higher related articles. I doubt we're going to convince each other to think the other way. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:46, 25 November 2008 (UTC))

I agree that "Top" is virtually synonymous with "essential". If someone were trying to understand video games as a whole, would they need to read it? You'd probably read some history articles, some technology articles, some articles about terminology and genres. I think series and games would rarely be of Top importance, let alone details like characters or lists. Also, I happen to think that some series articles are more important than game articles, and vice versa -- it depends on whether it's important to understand the whole series, important to understand one specific game in the series, or both. Randomran (talk) 20:28, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Sooooo....... Should we start finalizing the table now? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC))

Arb Break 3 - Table v2

Type	Top	High	Mid	Low
Definition	This article is of the utmost importance as it forms the basis of all information.	This article is fairly important as it covers a general area of knowledge.	This article or list is relatively important as it fills in some more specific knowledge of certain areas.	This article or list is of little importance as it covers a highly specific area of knowledge or an obscure piece of trivia.
Video games and Series (Main article)	Exceptional games and series, to be discussed at WT:VG	Series and games that have been shown to have a lasting impact on a genre or the industry itself; typically need a few years to assess this impact. e.g. Pokémon, Final Fantasy (series), Bard's Tale	Achieved wide commercial success or critically acclaimed outside of Japan e.g. Gran Turismo (series), Ratchet & Clank (series), Gears of War	All others
Characters	Exceptional characters, to be discussed at WT:VG	Characters that have become cultural icons outside of the series, including company mascots. e.g. Pikachu, Mario, Sonic the Hedgehog (character)	Well known characters or lists of characters, typically appearing as the main character in a long-running game series. e.g. Fox McCloud, Solid Snake	All others
Individuals	Individuals with an essential historical influence on the medium (e.g. Nolan Bushnell, Shigeru Miyamoto)	Individuals with a career of highly influential works, or historically significant accomplishments (e.g. Hideo Kojima, Tim Schafer, David Jones)	Individuals with a career of internationally successful or critically acclaimed works (e.g. Chris Metzen, Cliff Bleszinski)	All others
Companies, organisations, websites	Highly influential companies, particularly the major Japanese, American, and European companies involved video game production, e.g. Blizzard Entertainment, Capcom, Nintendo	Top developers and publishers, e.g. Epic Games, Neversoft	Most other well-known companies in the industry, e.g. IGN, Gamestop, Naughty Dog	All others
Game Genres and Concepts	Core genres and concepts e.g. Action game, Platform game	Sub- and cross-genres e.g. 4X, Grand Theft Auto clone	Game concepts e.g. boss fight, New Game Plus	Almost none. Any sub-genre/concept this specific likely pertains to only a few games or is covered better in a higher level or game/series specific article.
Hardware	History of video game platforms, e.g. Video game console, History of video game consoles (first generation) and others	Major video game platforms and hardware; should be recognized via the "top" hardware/history articles as best selling or significant e.g. Xbox 360, Nintendo 64	Minor video game platforms e.g. Atari Jaguar, N-gage	All others
Other topics or lists	None	Exceptional topics, to be discussed at WT:VG	Lesser topics.	All others and all lists

I've added a hardware category, but like with video games, the top level should be generic about hardware only mentioning specific systems via the History articles (akin to games via the genre articles). Note that where I've left "discuss on WT:VG" in certain areas as this goes with the suggestion that once in a while there will be something that fits to these importance levels from this area but we better decide that as a group. --MASEM 21:16, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that the three lists of video games should be included as top, and a list of video game consoles should too. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

The console list should be duplication (in tabular form) of the console history articles. As for the "three lists of video games", which three are those? I'm guessing the 360/PS3/Wii lists are the ones in question, but this is too narrow, if we put any such list at the top, then all lists of games for any console should be there, and that really doesn't make sense for the short-lived consoles. --MASEM 21:34, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

There are three lists that list all released games across all platforms. I think that they'd be pretty important, though they're incomplete. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:36, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I think we can afford to condense the list a bit. This is pretty brutal and complicated. Can we combine the guidelines on individuals and organizations? Can we combine the guidelines on series and games? Randomran (talk) 21:42, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't really use a character's in-title weight to determine importance. Truthfully you get many cases where there is no definitive main character, or cases where a main protagonist has significantly less coverage than another character (Siegfried (Soulcalibur) vs. Ivy (Soulcalibur). Additionally, generally character articles are now being treated as requiring a significant amount of notability to remain compared to video games, so by that standard the bar really shouldn't go below "mid", no? Or if so with combining the character list criteria with the character article criteria?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

This table is pretty good as is but Randomran's suggestion can be taken, as the criteria for series/games and individuals/organizations are pretty close in each pair. Kung Fu Man, I think the "main character" qualifier for Mid-importance characters are just as an example ("typically appearing as"). Jappalang (talk) 22:16, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Hm. Alright, other cases can be discussed. But character lists still seem something more for Low priority if character articles of already mid importance exist, though that can lead to overcomplicating things if not dealt with carefully.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:12, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Seems good, but for Video game series do not use any red-links (ie Pokemon). A red-link is not a good example. Also, for top video game titles, use an older series as an example, like Wizardy 1 or Bard's Tale 1 (org) so people can get an idea of a game that might not be well known, but historically important (and thus less likely to have edit wars on priority for more obscure titles. EDIT: Also on game concepts, i'd have to say probably "none" for low. The idea is that genre can be split into sub-genres infinatly. Thus I'd say if it's not important enough to be mid, it probably shouldn't be included. However saying "none" would make everyone put it in mid, so rather i think something like "Almost Nothing. Anything this [specific] is ~~likely to specific of a breakdown~~ likely pertaining to only a handful of games ~~and thus unlikely to meet WP:N~~ or is covered better in a higher level article." - the part about notability is implied.じんない 23:42, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Minor nitpick, but given the recognizability of the character outside of its series and usage in titles having nothing to do with Metal Gear (other appearances besides Brawl), wouldn't Solid Snake count as a High-priority article for the examples given here?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:42, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

"Cultural" would mean the character is ingrained with the image of the company or society. Mario is associated with Nintendo, who uses his image to readily tout the company's presence at fairs, launches, and other events. The same goes with Sonic for Sega. Pikachu is somewhat readily recognizable by most of the world as a mascot for Japanese animation. Solid Snake... is not at that level. Jappalang (talk) 00:56, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Point taken. Truthfully I missed the cultural aspect of that in there.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:05, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Modified concepts low category. To clarify why there shouldn't be hardly any (which is not the same as none). Also edited lists and others to have all lists being low priority to put in line with other projects.じんない 07:59, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Corrected a few article links in the table (Just Halo's, Sonic's and OoT's. Two were disambigs).--Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:35, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Is anyone really going to read 32 cells? Don't get me wrong. This is important. But it risks being pointless bureaucracy that we care more about writing than people care to read. For starters, I'd like to try to cut the number of cells in half. I have three basic ideas:

Drop the "Low" column, and just add a summary sentence: "All other notable articles and lists are considered a low priority by default."
Combine a few rows: video games + series, individuals + organizations... (there appears to be some support for doing this already.)
Drop the "High" column and just add a summary sentence: "High importance articles are exceptional, and should be discussed at WT:VG."

I think that's a good place to start. Conciseness is under appreciated. Randomran (talk) 19:55, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the descriptions, Video game series and video game articles could be combined since the former notes mostly on reknown and the latter does that, plus historical significance for high. All the rest are similar. We could then have 3 articles listed, one series, one video known for reknown, but not historical importance such as GTA3 and one not well known, but important for historical reasons such as Bard's Tale (since i've used it here). The age should be made to be 10 years for the historical importance, but the former shouldn't need an age as reknown can come quickly. The other levels are even closer to being similar.

As for the others, indivisuals and organziations are too different and governed by 2 different criteria to group together. High status should not be dropped either. Other projects do not drop it from use like that. High is not the same as top.じんない 02:54, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Err, I meant to say we should drop "Top" status. These are very rare, and for the most part have been already flagged as such... and usually require discussion to get there. But at the very least, we should drop low status. It's really a default for all other articles and lists. I already combined the video games and series rows, though... trying to avoid verbosity. Randomran (talk) 06:15, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

We shouldn't drop it because it is still a basic guideline. Also, occasionally new things needing classification as top will be added. While hardware might be unlikely to change, companies and individuals certainly will. It also helps editors make certain an article should be there in case of an edit-war on the importance of an article.じんない 21:19, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. What about dropping the "low" column, widening the other columns, and adding "All other notable articles and lists are of a low importance." Randomran (talk) 22:17, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

This is a bit of a silly idea, but maybe we could do low-top importance articles by what kind of article they are? We could have one for video games, characters, lists, genres, etc. Personally, I'd like this, because it allows for more convenient searching - when I'm looking for character articles by priority, I get far too many video game articles and such. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:24, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I just don't think that's how a WikiProject deals with its content. It's the same scale for everything. Also, it wouldn't really fix anything: you'd still have characters minced in with games and companies. But maybe it couldn't hurt to have a task force devoted to characters? Also, I think there are third-party tools out there that let you do cross-categorization searches. Articles in "video game characters" that are also "high importance", for example. Randomran (talk) 22:41, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Well...i'd agree except for the concepts part. I particuarly want that to be noted because I don't want someone writing an article on Realistic 3-D physics martial arts fighters that use guns and think that it's specific enough to warrant an article, albeit on a low category.じんない 02:29, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Arbitray Break 4

Well, it looks like the table seems to be stable now. Should we go ahead and ratify it or are their any more major objections/changes that anyone wants?じんない 07:57, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

The only other suggestion I have is to expand characters to include all other fictional elements like Ivalice, Halo (megastructure), and Gravity gun. Since we combined video games and series together, I think it makes sense to combine all fictional elements together as well. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC))

Make a proposal for what you want. Probably post a new version in this section so we can compare it. I do want to make certain it's worded so people won't think "Hey, I can now make a list of every Final Fantasy VII item" because the guide says so.じんない 21:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Type	Top	High	Mid	Low
Fictional, in-game elements: characters, settings, and other fictional objects	Exceptional elements, to be discussed at WT:VG	Elements, mostly characters, that have become cultural icons outside of a series, including company mascots. e.g. Pikachu, Mario, Sonic the Hedgehog (character)	Well known characters (or lists of characters), settings, and items, typically appearing as the main character, main location, or staple item in a long-running game series. e.g. Fox McCloud, Solid Snake, Ivalice.	All others

Here's a crack at it. I didn't think much needed to be changed because if a topic as is doesn't satisfy WP:Notability and WP:Verifiability then it has no business being on Wikipedia regardless of how our project guidelines can be interpreted. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC))

I cleaned it up a bit, removing some of the wordiness from there and a few other sections.じんない 23:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposal for Video Game Priority scale

With the exception of maybe adding an example of a non-character/mascot as an example of high-class article for that type (or removing anything of that nature from it), this is the proposal. I have also shrank the "Low" section and enlarged the top/high/mid sections based on some criticism by Randomran that there was too much white space in that section since most of it was basically "everything else".じんない 23:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Low importance articles and all lists cover very specific or obscure knowledge. Any other notable article or list not described in the table below is of low importance. A low importance article is not the same as a bad or unnecessary article. But in some cases there is more value to merging it under the umbrella of a larger article, as this will enhance both topics.

Type	Top	High	Mid
Definition	This article forms the basis of all information.	This article covers a general area of knowledge.	This article fills in general knowledge of specialized topics.
Video games and Series (Main article)	Exceptional games and series, to be discussed at WT:VG	Series and games that have been shown to have a lasting impact on a genre, culture or the industry itself; typically need a few years to assess this impact. e.g. Pokémon, Final Fantasy (series), Bard's Tale	Achieved wide commercial success, critically acclaimed or had a wide sub-culture effect outside of their country of origin e.g. Gran Turismo (series), Ratchet & Clank (series), Gears of War
In-game elements: characters, settings, etc.	Exceptional elements, to be discussed at WT:VG	Elements, mostly characters, that have become cultural icons outside of a series, including company mascots. e.g. Pikachu, Mario, Sonic the Hedgehog (character)	Well known, individually or as list, characters, settings and items typically appearing as the primary protagonist/antagonist, main location, or staple item in a long-running game series. e.g. Fox McCloud, Solid Snake, Ivalice.
Individuals	Individuals with an essential historical influence on the medium (e.g. Nolan Bushnell, Shigeru Miyamoto)	Individuals with a career of highly influential works, or historically significant accomplishments (e.g. Hideo Kojima, Tim Schafer, David Jones)	Individuals with a career of internationally successful or critically acclaimed works (e.g. Chris Metzen, Cliff Bleszinski)
Companies, organisations, websites	Highly influential companies, particularly the major Japanese, American, and European companies involved in video game production, e.g. Blizzard Entertainment, Capcom, Nintendo	Top developers and publishers, e.g. Epic Games, Neversoft	Most other well-known companies in the industry, e.g. IGN, Gamestop, Naughty Dog
Game Genres and Concepts	Core genres and concepts e.g. Action game, Platform game	Broad sub- and cross-genres e.g. 4X, Grand Theft Auto clone	Game concepts e.g. boss fight, New Game Plus
Hardware	General hardware articles and important historical of video game eras (that did more than advance technology), e.g. Video game console, History of video game consoles (first generation) and others.	Other historical video game eras not covered in "top" (including current generation), major video game platforms and hardware recognized via the "top" hardware/history articles significant e.g. Xbox 360, Nintendo 64	Minor video game platforms e.g. Atari Jaguar, N-gage
History and events	Critical impact events or broad historical eras e.g. History of video games, North American video game crash of 1983	Major milestone, specific eras and landmark rulings e.g. Golden Age of Video Arcade Games, Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Nintendo Co., Ltd.	Policies or rulings that had an impact on a specific class of games e.g. Family Entertainment Protection Act
Other topics or lists	None	Exceptional topics, to be discussed at WT:VG	Notable gaming phenomenons and specialized topics.

–

We can iron out the specific "exceptions" later, but I think it looks pretty good. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 23:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC))

I added "culture" impact to high and mid priority video game series since I realized that we had no way of ranking games that weren't commercially successful nor were critically acclaimed, yet none-the-less were important because of their real-world impact. The number of games are few, but I can name a few that could fall into that category.じんない 05:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I made a couple of changes to reduce verbosity. I only really see two more outstanding issues:

I think there was a good point (which I removed) under the "genres and concepts" heading, which is that many low importance concepts can be covered in a more high importance article. But a topic like turtle (computer gaming) really can't be covered in a larger article. I think we can afford to make a generalized statement that "Low importance articles are not bad. But sometimes there is more value to merging it under the umbrella of a larger article, as this will enhance both articles." I think this represents a consensus of how we do things around here.
There's a big gap here for "history and events". By that, I mean Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Nintendo Co., Ltd., First video game, or even E3. This doesn't fit well under any heading, but there are enough of these articles that we need to figure out what to do with them.

I'm just thinking out loud. Randomran (talk) 17:44, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I think history and events can be adequately covered in "Other topics or lists", with some examples listed in the table. I agree the statement about low articles is a good idea. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC))

I tried to incorporate events and other topics into the table. I also added a quick statement about low importance articles. Randomran (talk) 19:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Let's see what others think. If there are no more issues, then we'll add it to WP:VG/A. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC))

I did not think history aspect was adequately covered when Guvinblack25 brought it up. I also moved the note about low articles to the top where it would get more prominence.

EDIT: In an attempt to make the policy fit better the low section was increase to 13%. nothing else was changed.じんない 01:17, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I made a few tweaks on the history part. But I also feel like it could be combined with something else. Randomran (talk) 04:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think E3 should be top. History of gaming conventions would be better. and E3 should be high.じんない 08:13, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm concerned adding in a history/event row further bloats an already large table, but it seems wrong to exclude them given their importance. I agree E3 is not an essential historical event and I replaced it with North American video game crash of 1983. History of video game companies is more a list of historic companies and their subsidiaries, so I removed it on the basis that it doesn't accurately portray a historical article. I also bolded the definition text to distinguish it from the rest of the table. Any other tweaks or ideas? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:51, 5 December 2008 (UTC))

I was just going with the actual ratings I was seeing. I was surprised to see that E3 is rated a top-importance article as well. ... otherwise, I agree that we could really afford to find ways to reduce bloat. Merging two rows, dropping a column, or even reducing the amount of content in each cell... something to make it a bit more readable. Otherwise, we've probably spent a whole lot of time making something that no one will read. Randomran (talk) 16:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but it is a fine table of information no one will ever read.

Did a minor tweak to one description. Dropping the low column sounds like a good idea, though I think it may look weird without it. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:11, 5 December 2008 (UTC))

You know I'm fond of dropping the low column, to reduce clutter. It can be summed up in one statement. "Any other notable article or list is of low importance." In fact, we could put this right ahead of the statement, "A low importance article is not the same as a bad article. But sometimes there is more value to merging it under the umbrella of a larger article, as this will enhance both articles." Randomran (talk) 18:30, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I removed the low column in a single edit to see what it looks like. Feel free to revert. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC))

It's looking a bit more clear now, and we haven't really lost anything IMO. Randomran (talk) 20:54, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

←I'm a bit nervous about saying "sometimes there is more value to merging it... etc." as the way it's worded gives the impression that low importance articles in most cases should be merged. I agree that in some cases it would be better, but we need to stress "some cases"; there are enough random video games out there that warrant their own articles. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 21:05, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Did some minor tweaking. How's that? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC))

That works much better, thanks. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 21:40, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Added appropriate font color to Low importance so it might catch anyone reading it better.

EDIT: I rewrote history section better since we have "events" listed under other to better clarify what "events" under history meant.じんない 04:32, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with your edit to the table. Just out of curiosity though, what do lists of game series (like List of Harvest Moon titles)? Right now, they're all currently listed as low importance: what should they fall under in the new assessment system? -- Nomader ^(Talk) 18:20, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

All lists are low by default. Unless there is a massively good reason, and by that, it means probably to the point that in most cases you'd not even try. Even for popular High or Top class articles.じんない 22:47, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

As an example, I'd say something like List of acquisitions by Electronic Arts would be an example of a list I think would have enough real-world and historical relevance to be rated higher than low. But that's just me. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 01:22, 8 December 2008 (UTC))

Well to put it in perspective, Properties licensed by Funimation is rated as low.じんない 02:42, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Earlier, it was suggested that lists that are closely related to Top importance articles would be at least medium importance themselves. I think that makes sense. Randomran (talk) 02:44, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Well based of the current TOP-ranked category, i doubt any of them would have list offshoot categories. For those we might later deem worthy of bumping to TOP, such as specific games, that should not be seen as a green light to bump up importance for every article.

Also should we maybe leave history of hardware to history section like everything else and maybe replace it with series brands like Playstation (brand), if anything?じんない 03:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

You're right that most lists should not be automatically assigned anything above low. Right now I'd say virtually of our current top, high, and mid lists are improperly rated, and will have to be reassessed with a good number of other articles after this table is done. We can discuss exemptions here or the assessment talk page.

I'd say anything related to hardware, history of it or otherwise, is still hardware and should be assessed as such. I think in most cases, there are very few branded systems that could have a single article. PlayStation, Atari, Game Boy, and Xbox are the only ones that come to mind. But they'd have to be something more than just a repeat of their single articles. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:51, 8 December 2008 (UTC))

←Seems kind of odd to have hardware articles be a special exemption from the history section where normally they'd be rated high, because their hardware they might get rated top.じんない 17:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'm understanding the issue. Are saying that articles on hardware like the PlayStation and NES should not be top-rated, or articles about the history of hardware should not be top-rated? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC))

Histories of specific eras of hardware should not be top-rated. History overall of hardware or historically important events that were critical in forming the relationship of the industry for decades to come should be. History of each generation should be high, not top. Also individual systems should be high, brands should be top, if they are well-known and had significant real-world impact, such as playstation brand. Those still might be high rating though being close to VG series in importance. Articles like video game consoles should remain top.じんない 18:04, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The history of each generation should be top because that gives the overview, just as the genre articles, of the hardware side of video gaming. It makes sense in the same way we treat video games not to put any specific consoles at top, but to include the key ones from each generate as high, and all others at Mid or lower. --MASEM 18:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the current wording in the table allows for most of the appropriate articles fall into their proper rating. The history of eras seem like they would hit on all the major milestones that shaped the industry and provide essential information a layman would need to understand the evolution of video game consoles. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:20, 8 December 2008 (UTC))

I'd still say that those are not so important in terms of research compared to a general overview of the history. If there is an important era in console design, it would be discussed there first. This basically makes it more able to classify what generations of consoles really were significant compared to other generations; they weren't all equal.じんない 18:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. It's hard to really say which generation is more important or signficant than others. Each one contributed in ways that future ones built upon.

The first laid the ground work for companies to create a profitable industry and saw several important games released.
The second made cartridges popular and culminated in the crash of 83.
The third marked the shift to Japanese development and introduced many conventions that are still around today.
The fourth began pushing technology more and introduced popular handheld systems.
The fifth marked the shift to CD format and 3D graphics.
The sixth saw the beginnings of mainstream online gaming among consoles and the release of the best-selling system.
The current has pushed technology even further with photorealism, online gaming, realistic physics, etc.

Personally, I find it hard to say which one is the most important out of these milestones and think they all are needed to paint a proper picture. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC))

By that context 4th and 7th would not be worthy "Pushing the technology further" is considered just normal progress and not especially noteworthy, atleast in reguards to what would be a "top class article". The 6th as well might not make it since the shift had been in the works for several generations.

~~Removed 4th as i skipped over the handheld aspect.~~ Baiscally it's just the newer consoles that would not noteworth. Part of this may be lack of historical prespective and in the future they might, but if all that is applicable is pushing the technology forward and changing media (the leap from cartridge to CD has far more impact than CD to DVD and DVD to Blu-ray/HD discs) then it's not so notable.

Readded 4th. Handhelds are not considered consoles. They are listed as a seperate class, therefore that generation is not top-class material for consoles, but is for first-generation of handhelds.じんない 19:33, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Though handhelds are technically different from consoles, they've traditionally been included in the generations they've been released in. But I must admit, the technology advances are weak arguments. I think all the generations paint a bigger picture and should be rated top, but I wouldn't be opposed to the fourth being rated only high.

I still think the sixth is important because Xbox Live significantly effected how this current generation has focused on online gaming. It may have been around before, but it became mainstream in this generation. The sixth also saw the introduction of a non-Japanese company competing against Nintendo and Sony.

I agree the current generation should never be rated top as it is impossible to gauge its historical impact until after the fact. Let's see what others think. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:05, 8 December 2008 (UTC))

Xbox Live had an affect, yes, but not as much as you give it credit for. Games had already been moving toward online play. Earlier generation FPS games, RTS games and World of Warcraft were far more instrumental in the move to online play than Xbox Live.

As for fourth, well again I'd split consoles from handhelds because they are classified differently. I mean consoles could also be classified as computers, especially the newer ones, but we don't. As for painting a better picture, well that too isn't a good argument as almost every high-level article also paints a better picture. Hellenistic period helps paints a better picture for History of Europe, but the former is high, not top.

Anyway, hopefully we can get some more comments.じんない 04:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I think I didn't clarify that last statement well enough. I'm talking about things in terms of console generations; keeping computer gaming separate from consoles gaming. Yes, computers established online gaming well before consoles did and the Xbox was not the first console to support online gaming, but it was the first console to make it popular among console gamers and profitable to console developers. Microsoft's (a non-Japanese company) Xbox Live brought online gaming to the console mainstream which had been previously dominated by Japanese development. (This coming from a PS2 and Sony fanboy. I pray my friends never see this thread.) :-p (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:29, 9 December 2008 (UTC))

Cleaned up hardware top/high to reflect that. Basically it would, under that circumstance leave 4th and current, and maybe 6th (it's best to get more opinions on 6th) as high and rest as top. I tried to make it as clear as possible as concise as possible. It doesn't look like we're going to get much more input on it at this point.じんない 05:49, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Let's go ahead and categorize the sixth as high for now. That specific issue and many other exceptions brought up can be discussed later. I guess let's wait a couple days and see if there are any other general comments. If not, we'll move the table to WP:VG/A and start reassessing articles. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:34, 10 December 2008 (UTC))

Looks good. My only other criticism is tiny, but we might as well get it right. See the cell at the bottom-right? "Gaming events and other specialized topics." That's pretty vague. First of all, gaming events (like E3) are covered in the row above. Secondly, "other specialized topics" seems pretty vague. Can we give this some clarity? Randomran (talk) 17:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Caramelldansen might be an example considering the origin of it's popularity being based upon a video game + the song.じんない 17:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I did a tweak of that sentence. Don't know if it's an improvement though. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:59, 10 December 2008 (UTC))

I have one question, where would cancelled games fit into this? 98% of the time, most cancelled games don't have any lasting impact, but some do. The cancellation of Sam & Max: Freelance Police, for instance, is often cited as the culmination of the decline of the adventure genre; very few games can claim the death of a genre as a legacy. Vapourware also questionable, titles like Team Fortress 2, Duke Nukem Forever and StarCraft: Ghost in particular are considered amongst the highest rankers as far as that goes with video games, even though one of those is now released and another is seemingly on back on course with development. Currently those four are ranked as low, mid, mid and low, respectively. How would these fit into the importance criteria? Going by the current proposal for standard video games, DNF and Freelance Police both easily pass the description of "shown to have a lasting impact on a genre, culture or the industry itself; typically need a few years to assess this impact" for high importance. -- Sabre (talk) 17:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I see a cancelled game and vaporware as still video games. If they fit the description, then I see no reason to treat them differently. However, as you said, I don't think most would have any kind of impact and would more than likely be rated low.

In regard to the two titles you listed, if Sam & Max contributed to the decline of a genre, then I'd say it at least qualifies for mid, maybe high. But Duke Nukem doesn't seem to have had that big an impact outside of receiving a lot of press coverage and becoming a running gag. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:59, 10 December 2008 (UTC))

I agree that most would be classified as low. Chrono Break is rated as low. It has had very little impact except to demonstate the tensisons inside the team that created Chrono Trigger. Thus a low rating is good. Maybe mid, because it had Hironobu Sakaguchi has commented on it having the lack of the title impact his work on Blue Dragon.19:13, 10 December 2008 (UTC)じんない

Very well, based on this discussion, I'll shove Freelance Police into the "high" category if there's no objections, but I won't touch any of the others I mentioned, as their ratings are seen as accurate. If cancelled games should be rated on the same level as released games, then this is likely to be the only high-rated one on the whole project; its very rare that cancelled games fall into either the described mid or high importance criteria. -- Sabre (talk) 19:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Final call

It's been a month since the discussion started, and I think the table has made some real progress. Here's the current table (copied from above). If there aren't any more concerns/issues/comments/suggestions, then we'll copy this to WP:VG/A. If you don't have anything to add but would like to express your support of the table, that would be helpful in demonstrating consensus. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:28, 12 December 2008 (UTC))

Top importance articles reflect the basis of video gaming and not so much the hallmarks of the fields. Such hallmark games and other aspects are typically discussed in Top articles.

Low importance articles and all lists cover very specific or obscure knowledge. Any other notable article or list not described in the table below is of low importance. A low importance article is not the same as a bad or unnecessary article. But in some cases there is more value to merging it under the umbrella of a larger article, as this will enhance both topics.

Type	Top	High	Mid
Definition	This article forms the basis of all information.	This article covers a general area of knowledge.	This article fills in general knowledge of specialized topics.
Video games and Series (Main article)	Exceptional games and series, to be discussed at WT:VG	Series and games that have been shown to have a lasting impact on a genre, culture or the industry itself; typically need a few years to assess this impact. e.g. Pokémon, Final Fantasy (series), Bard's Tale	Achieved wide commercial success, critically acclaimed or had a wide sub-culture effect outside of their country of origin e.g. Gran Turismo (series), Ratchet & Clank (series), Gears of War
In-game elements: characters, settings, etc.	Exceptional elements, to be discussed at WT:VG	Elements, mostly characters, that have become cultural icons outside of a series, including company mascots. e.g. Pikachu, Mario, Sonic the Hedgehog (character)	Well known, individually or as list, characters, settings and items typically appearing as the primary protagonist/antagonist, main location, or staple item in a long-running game series. e.g. Fox McCloud, Solid Snake, Ivalice.
Individuals	Individuals with an essential historical influence on the medium (e.g. Nolan Bushnell, Shigeru Miyamoto)	Individuals with a career of highly influential works, or historically significant accomplishments (e.g. Hideo Kojima, Tim Schafer, David Jones)	Individuals with a career of internationally successful or critically acclaimed works (e.g. Chris Metzen, Cliff Bleszinski)
Companies, organisations, websites	Highly influential companies, particularly the major Japanese, American, and European companies involved in video game production, e.g. Blizzard Entertainment, Capcom, Nintendo	Top developers and publishers, e.g. Epic Games, Neversoft	Most other well-known companies in the industry, e.g. IGN, Gamestop, Naughty Dog
Game Genres and Concepts	Core genres and concepts e.g. Action game, Platform game	Broad sub- and cross-genres e.g. 4X, Grand Theft Auto clone	Game concepts e.g. boss fight, New Game Plus
Hardware	General hardware articles (definitions) and important historical video game consoles, e.g. Video game console, Atari 2600.	Major and significant video game platforms and hardware recognized via the "top" history articles e.g. Xbox 360, Nintendo 64	Minor video game platforms e.g. Atari Jaguar, N-gage
History and events	Critical impact events or broad historical eras e.g. History of video games, North American video game crash of 1983, History of video game consoles (first generation).	Major milestone, specific eras and landmark rulings e.g. Golden Age of Video Arcade Games, Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Nintendo Co., Ltd., History of video game consoles (fourth generation)	Policies or rulings that had an impact on a specific class of games e.g. Family Entertainment Protection Act
Other topics or lists	None	Exceptional topics, to be discussed at WT:VG	Notable gaming phenomenons and specialized topics.

The only thing I would add with the table is the rationale that has gone into this, mostly that our Top articles reflect the basis of video gaming and not so much the hallmarks of the fields, those certainly hallmark games and other aspects are typically discussed in Top articles, and of course link back to this convo once it is archived.) --MASEM 19:39, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Added a bit about that. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:32, 12 December 2008 (UTC))

I think it's a little odd that we have a history article under consoles. It kinds of confuses everything. Randomran (talk) 19:46, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- Do you think such articles should be under "History and events" and "Hardware" should only be definitions related physical video game hardware? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:32, 12 December 2008 (UTC))
  - Yeah, I think that would be more clear. Randomran (talk) 20:34, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
    - Jinnai brought up a similar issue before, and after thinking things through again, it would probably be best to keep the two separate. I've tweaked the section to better convey the difference. Any good? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:57, 12 December 2008 (UTC))
      - You might want to add an example to other low category. I was only able to think of 1 offhand though.じんない 02:33, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks basically good to me. I'm sure we can make small tweaks later if needed. But this is clear and about as concise as we're gonna get. Randomran (talk) 18:06, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. At this point the changes are more nit-picking, not enough to justify adding the table to assessment. We may have to look into dealing with wholesale reassessment of every article afterwards given just the few examples here of how a lot of articles are overrated and some are underrated compared to the chart.じんない 15:55, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

As there have been no objections within the past week.じんない 02:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Something that may be of use in the long run for this

Started this concept up. Basically lists each article by their relative category, and listed in a block by importance. Each section allows for notes regarding rationale on placement if needed, meaning why said article is at its current class. This seems a better idea to the current pure template setup, as that's a bit more difficult to readily track with a multitude of editors and even harder to readily justify an article's placement without something to fall back on in such cases. Guess all that's left to as is...thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kung Fu Man (talk • contribs) 02:18, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

It is a good idea at a glance, but considering that there are currently 21420 articles in the WikiProject, this would be a very large endeavour. Jappalang (talk) 04:07, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

If someone were to design a bot it wouldn't be so much, but at the same time the article might become unreadable because of length, becoming larger than even the 400k limit which still plauges some browsers.じんない 07:52, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Hm, a possible combination then might be a bot that handles the additions with the same time splitting the current page into separate ones based on the subsections? Main issue from there of course would be to sort everything by said category however: the template has never actually taken that into account save for lists, and even then it isn't absolute.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:32, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

It's not especially difficult to get WP:AWB to do intersections of e.g. Category:Video game characters and, say Category:High-priority video game articles. The hard part is maintaining it. Nifboy (talk) 04:07, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the VG project flag from music duo "Everything But The Girl" (EBTG)

My guess is that there is, was, or was to have been, a game of that name, perhaps based on the eponymous book (Which I enjoyed very much)... but this article is not about a game, but about a music duo (Whose music I enjoy very much). Thus, I killed the flag. If that was in error, please feel free to rev my deletion and explain why I am wrong, and I will thank you. :) sinneed (talk) 00:14, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

It was added by a bot in this diff[2] - X201 (talk) 09:20, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Additional: Here is the bot contribs for that run (23 October 2007) [3]. To my eyes there are some very weak ones in there (eg. artist's song was used for part of one game) and some where I can't see a valid VG link at all. - X201 (talk) 09:27, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

The reason the bot added the tag is because the article in question is in Category:Video game musicians. JACOPLANE • 2008-12-12 09:38

Proposal regarding reception sections

The proposal

Individual review scores should not be used. Specifically, tables of individual reviews should not be used. Aggregated scores from Game Rankings and Metacritic should be used instead.

The logic

Our selection of reviews is never comprehensive enough, and it's silly to try to be. Our goal is supposed to be to focus on the general opinion, not specific opinions. Review aggregators are more fair.
It is often unreasonable to include every reviewer's score, but it is bias to limit it to a select few of the most "notable" reviews.
- Example: Would you really turn to the The Cincinnati Enquirer before 1up.com for critical video gaming opinion? (According to the Half-Life 2 article, you should.)
It's too easy to make a game appear better by stuffing the review table with the highest scores. There's little to assure that a user is picking reviews to reflect the majority opinion.
Articles are highly inconsistent in which reviews they use.
- Example: Final Fantasy X and Final Fantasy X-2 use entirely different reviewers in their tables (except for GameSpot) for no clear reason.
Having tables leads to "review creep", where users feel "obligated" to tag on more and more reviews until the table gets too big and is trimmed, only to start over again.
- Example: Simple example, but I don't want to dig. The Bioshock article when featured had two less reviews and one less review aggregator than the article does today. If 8 reviews was enough for FA status then, why do we need 10 now?

Side items

MobyGames doesn't need to be used because two aggregator sites is enough, it's the least consistent of the three, and the least popular (for that purpose).
This does not mean that review scores should simply been turned into prose. The prose of a reception section should focus on comments about the game itself (i.e. praise and criticisms). Review scores should be avoided, unless it's notable (e.g. tough reviewers giving a perfect score).
Games too old to be aggregated can be exempted from the policy. Still, prose is generally better than tables.

--Remurmur (talk) 02:46, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

1up is known for giving passes to games that they know will be "best sellers" unless there are serious flaws, like with Fable 2.じんない 06:06, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I like this proposal. Keeping a few aggregate scores is convenient enough, and it saves room. We should only mention comments from reviewers. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 06:11, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

When a video game is covered in non-traditional sources like major national newspapers, that's a good source to use since it doesn't get into the technical details of the games and instead a more general approach. Such sources are good for soundbites, though not specific criticisms, and the whole review should not rest on it. --MASEM 06:25, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

As time passes by, I am becoming of the notion that we are giving a undue weightage to scores (numbers) rather than substance. Listing 8's, 1.4's, and 67s is too easy a way out to writing the great and bad aspects that people found about the game. Numbers do not truly reflect anything, but are an arbitrary gauge of how good a reviewer thinks a game is. Aggregation scores are an amalgam of those reviewers' opinions, making them a very conceptual view of critical opinion. I am still comfortable with the current scheme: text with a table on the side that lists a mix of a few notable reviews with GR and MC scores (thereby taking numbers out of the text), but I would find the notion of making MC and GR scores prominent in the article (by making them the solitary "numbers" group in either table or text) discomforting. If that be the case, I would rather that all "ratings" be foregone and reception should be totally phrased in prose (without a "8/10" in the text). It also seems that we often lose sight of who professional game reviewers are reviewing for ("more than casual" gamers), and who newspaper journalists are reviewing games for (casual and non-gamers, who make up the majority of buyers). Seeing how Wikipedia is meant for everyone, that would mean the viewpoints should not be slanted toward gamers only. Jappalang (talk) 07:14, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

"Seeing how Wikipedia is meant for everyone, that would mean the viewpoints should not be slanted toward gamers only."

Is there any way to make that easily discernible with tables of numbers to the average user? If not, they should be removed.じんない 08:19, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I would limit the number of reviews in the table to six and include one or two major newspaper (or such media) reviews. Gaming publications still outnumber the mass media in terms of game reviews. Jappalang (talk) 06:09, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I have to note the idea of completely omitting MobyRank can be a potentially bad idea. Case in point, Alleyway. GameRankings uses only ONE review, while Metacritic doesn't even list it. MobyGames on the other hand lists five.
Though to note GameRankings and MobyGames do not cite the same reviews, and in the process of both reviews with differing opinions such as Mean Machines or GameSpot are excluded despite being just as valid. My point? Such a measure can easily work fine for a game like Half Life 2 and BioShock, but when you start trying to make FAs out of more obscure titles the system doesn't pan out as well.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 11:08, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Just a quick note, I wouldn't shed a tear if the review table was killed at this point. But I do think removal of the option of mentioning the review scores in an article's prose can be potentially a bad idea. I for one read an article and look for such scores to get an idea what the reviewer gave the game beforehand, as it sets the tone for their thoughts behind the score.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 11:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) To be honest, I've never been a fan of the reviews table. Numbers don't really have an affect on me, the actual comments from the reviewers do. But the worst thing about the table is that it clutters up articles very badly, especially for games released for numerous consoles (see Donald Duck: Goin' Quackers). In FF10, I wanted to add an image showing what aspects of the game was praised, but was prevented, due to the reviews box being in the way. So I'm all for prose and no scores, except in certain circumstances, like the game receiving a perfect score from Famitsu or Edge. That's my opinion at any rate. The Prince (talk) 11:17, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I have always been rather sceptical towards the review score tables as well. They do provide an overview, but it's hard to see what that overview is worth when aggregate scores are present in the prose. I'd support any guideline that specifically speaks out against these tables, and agree with you on the review creep point. I do not think, however, that getting rid of all scores, even in the prose, is a good idea, or a proper answer to the concerns you put forward. Let's look at them one by one:

Comprehensiveness of the review selection. Of course we can never use all reviews. I disagree that our point is to present the 'general' opinion only, specifics are important. Simply writing "95%" isn't good enough. The most important in a reception section is to (1) see what the most important issues are. What was judged to be good or revolutionary, and what was found to be lacking? (2) Select typical and exemplary reviews for these opinions, and illustrate them with quotes. Because examples are used, this means the selection is never comprehensive (as in covering all notable reviews). I'm trying to argue here that this doesn't mean we cannot go into specifics. Also, getting rid of the tables is not an answer to this either, because just listing a score can hardly be called specific.
Neutrality of review selection. I don't really think getting rid of scores, whether presented in table or in prose style, will solve the age old problem of positive bias because articles are written by fans. Maybe the following proposal will help, now that we're on this subject? Proposal: the mean score given to an article by our review selection should be within five percentage points of the lowest review aggregate score. This would be a rule of thumb that's checked only when there is controversy about the neutrality of the reception section of an article, and should be true whether there's a table with scores or not.
The basis for review selection. Just as with any article (and featured article), the editor is free to use a selection of sources, typically the best sources (because availability isn't a real issue for WP:VG articles). It's up to the editor which sources to select, and as I wrote above, I think a 'good source' for the reception of a video game is one that explains a certain point of criticism, one that appears throughout all sources, really well.

User:Krator (t c) 12:05, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

My only comment is that I don't want to see reception sections get gutted because they have a lot of numerical scores and little else. Ultimately, yes, prose is the way to go (it almost always is) but scores can be a stepping stone towards that. Nifboy (talk) 12:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm still not seeing any reason for this guideline at all. Last I checked, tables of reviews wasn't causing our video game articles to suffer. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 13:49, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Personally I think the review tables should stay, but I can certainly acknowledge the flaws they create. The biggest flaw I've seen is the excess number of review scores, especially ones that are basically identical. A 9/10 from IGN, 4.5/5 from GameSpy, and 8.9/10 from Game Informer don't tell me much. Though I think a string of perfect scores would be an exception to that. But the "review creep" certainly is an issue. I've often wondered if it would be possible to limit the number of scores the template can display. I'm not sure if this can be done, but I think that would be one solution. My biggest concern is allowing review scores, aggregate and single reviews, into the prose. I've always felt this made the prose awkward and broke the flow of the paragraph. I preferred the tables because they kept all the scores in one, easy to see place and out of the prose.

I don't see the other issues brought up as major concerns.

I see nothing wrong with using a non-traditional gaming review, but agree it should not be the most prominent review of the section.
Editors giving a reception section a positive slant is something that will never go away. It's just something we have to educate them on over time.
I think consistently relying on the same review sources would create an unnecessary bias towards them. Mainly, I don't think having a few sources be the "official" video game reviewers for Wikipedia is a good idea.

My two cents. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:25, 11 December 2008 (UTC))

But we're always going to be relying on GameSpot, IGN, 1UP, GameSpy, and a handful of other sites; per Wikipedia's policies, that's an intentional bias. Yes, yes, there's the whole 'GameSlut' crap and concerns about padding of reviews, but there's really little we can do about that; we're the court recorders, not the people who judge who said what and if it was valid or not. As for review tables, I've always kept and believed that mainstream media should be kept out of it, mostly because A) they often don't have scores, and B) that leads to template bloat. If people are concerned about relying on gaming sites, then get out there and find print sources. But this isn't the review template's fault. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Let me clarify what I meant by the bias part. I don't think we should stipulate that only a few choice reviews are allowed in the tables. I think if we have the table, then anything that satisfies WP:RS should be allowed to be listed, whether they are major video game networks or smaller independents. Yes, we will always have an intentional bias created by policies, but we should not restrict that further than is needed. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:26, 11 December 2008 (UTC))

I think we should remember that quality prose and numerical listings are not mutually exclusive—if users use these as smokecreens for substance in "Reception" sections then that's their shortcoming. As for "bias", I'm not sure how exactly this works. The processes by which numerical values are selected are very similar, if not the same as, the processes by which a review is described or a reviewer is quoted. I think I speak for most of you when I say that, when writing an article, the first place I go to is the likes of IGN and GameSpot. Similarly, if these tables tend to be bloated, then the solution is to have a consensual moderation of such tables in the project, and not to abolish the thing altogether. Furthermore, I'm not in favour of centralising review scores towards the mean. Part of their purpose is to demonstrate the spectrum of opinions, from different regions, professions, etc—aggregate scores demonstrate the general opinion. Having numbers to support this value doesn't achieve anything. It's the first time I've came across the notion that articles have to be consistent with each other in regards to the reviews they use, too. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 17:42, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

It seems bloating is shared concern among editors. However, I'm sure most active editors within the project are not the cause of it; my guess it's the less experienced editors that don't know better. Is it even possible to limit the number of scores the template can display? Surely there's some wikitemplate guru that can answer this. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:14, 11 December 2008 (UTC))

The current scheme still works, though. The current problem starts when a fan of a certain site forcibly inserts that site's reviews into every article, or fanboys of a certain game want to boost their beloved game or condemn a "rival" game. However, I would support a limit to table size (even though it would not help to stop edit-warring over which reviews to put in a limited table), since it effectively cuts off arguments of "one more would not hurt!" (they cannot insert anothe review in when the table is full). Jappalang (talk) 06:09, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

A set limit to the size of the box could actually enforce the "be balanced" guideline. Taking it one step further, a compartmentalised box with space for 3 positive, 3 negative and 3 average reviews would also help keep size down and make people think about the reviews as a whole and not just the score at the end of them. - X201 (talk) 10:14, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Quick question- Do you mean a compartment just in the template or both the template and displayed tabled? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:42, 12 December 2008 (UTC))

Make it so that the vgreviews box only has room for 9 review scores (3 in each group - Positive, Negative, Average) with each section basically saying "Reviews in the following magazines/websites were mostly positive about the game and gave it this score". Don't let the fact that I've titled the sections Negative review and Positive review mislead either, what I mean by them (they're only titles) is not to segregate positive and negative reviews but to help show that a magazine has pointed out certain problems or faults with a game and even though they've been negative they still gave it a good score. I haven't explained it very well but I hope you can see what I'm getting at. - X201 (talk) 16:02, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

It sounds good on paper, but I think it would be too difficult to practice. For instance, we may disagree over which review is negative or average. Also, each review source ranks their numbers slightly differently; some consider 6-7 average, others 8 or some other number/range. I remember reading some reviews that focused a lot on the negative aspects of the game, but rated it a pretty high score. There are some games which may not even receive three negative reviews. Sure, reviewers found faults, but they were still overly positive. Basically, I think there are too many variances in the way reviewers rate games to implement this. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:20, 12 December 2008 (UTC))

I disagree with this approach. There is a misconception that NPOV means that we must balance good reviews with an equal number of bad reviews. That is not the case. The NPOV guideline is for editors to ensure that statements attributed to sources are to be written without bias (condemning or eulogizing the opinion of the source). In other words, do not use peacock words in conjunction with the sourced statement or change the tone of the statements. For example, if a reviewer says that a game was fun but with small flaws in the level design, one should not write that as "the reviewer cursed the designers for coming up with bad irritating levels.". NPOV does not mean that for a 95% MC- or GR-rated game, we must present 19 reviewers that criticize the game when there is only 1 such reviewer, so just as to "balance" the 19 positive reviewers. Hence, shoeboxing the review section to fixed amounts of "good", "bad", and "neutral" reviews is a bad idea and contrary to NPOV.

When I suggested to limit the number of reviews in the table, I was thinking that the types of reviews would reflect the weightage of scores aggregated (see Ashnard's thoughts). If 70% of the reviewers rated the game (70~80) and 20% (20~30), then the table would reflect that. Of course, the reviewers listed should be reliable sites (another thing commonly missed out is that aggregation sites have a different criteria for reliability than this project). Jappalang (talk) 21:37, 12 December 2008 (UTC)