Talk:List of machinima productions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Machinima, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to machinima on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the main project page and join or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale. [FAQ]
High This article has been rated as being of High importance within machinima on the importance scale.
This article has been rated for quality and/or importance, but no comments have yet been left.

Contents

[edit] Suggested guideline

NOTE: This is now out of date. For an updated, more comprehensive version, please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Machinima/Guidelines.--Drat (Talk) 12:14, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Last major update: 25 February 2006

I (Drat) have put together this suggested notability criteria guideline for creating an article on a machinima series. These are my opinions, and should not be considered official. But they are, in my opinion, good guidelines, and they do draw from official guidelines and policies. I've created this in response to people occasionally creating articles on severely non-notable machinima productions, often their own, often not yet released or barely started.

I hope that one day, a proper notability criteria guideline page may be created on this subject. That would be, in my opinion, really cool. By following these, you may well save yourself wasting time on articles that may get deleted.

Before adding a production here (or indeed, creating an article for the series) consider the following criteria:

  • Popularity: Is is popular? This one, of course can be somewhat subjective. See the addendum by TKD, below.
  • Commercial success: Obviously machinima that isn't sold is exempt from this particular consideration. This criteria may also become less important as more machinima gains commercial release, especially form professional groups.
  • Critical acclaim: Acclaim from real critics, not from your friend next door. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources.
  • Impact: Has it helped shape or further the machinima movement (or that of related artforms), or attract more attention to the artform? Can you provide sources to prove this? See the point above.

Red vs Blue is a prime example of all four. A series doesn't have to meet all four, but at least one is good.

If the production has only recently been released, or isn't even out yet, it can't really have achieved any of the above criteria, can it? As for arguing that it is going to be popular, see Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.

I've seen the argument that there are articles on movies, games and television shows that have not yet been released, so a production-in-progress should be kept. Those games, movies, and shows are made by well-known companies/directors or people and/or are based on well-known franchises, and/or are famous because they have been in production for so long. They have been written about by reliable, verifiable sources. In all probability, nobody else knows about or has written about your machinima production that you are releasing in six months.

If you are in any way involved in the creation of the show (or friends with/related to someone who is), you are the last person who should be creating an article on it. Doesn't mean you cannot correct facts on your own productions. Just don't create articles on them. If it becomes well-known enough, someone else will write about it.

Take a look at these too:

Wikipedia content is required to be verifiable and Original research is prohibited on Wikipedia

under Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day

--Drat (Talk) 10:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

As an addendum, popularity is subjective, but can be verifiable and quantifiable in certain cases. If a reputable news source or site publishes information that such-and-such production has X downloads, that is verifiable. Alexa rank is another piece of verifiable information. -- TKD 02:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Further addendum:
To expand on the concept of critical acclaim, reliable sources for this include: normal print sources (newspapers, etc.), well-known websites or blogs (not some random forum), and well-known machinima awards (the Mackies, Rockets on Prisoners).
A machinima production is also notable if it has been produced by a notable production group. For example, even though The Heretic has not yet been released, it is notable because it is part of the acclaimed Codex series. Similarly, if Rooster Teeth Productions were to release information on an upcoming project, that is notable because the group has already produced three award-winning series. Different people will have different standards on notability (mine are fairly low), but, if you plan to create an article on a machinima production, you should be prepared to explain why it is notable, preferably when you first create the article. At least provide links or other reliable sources. Again, a forum thread is not a reliable source. YouTube is also not a real indicator of popularity, since anyone can upload there. Several productions have already been deleted through WP:AFD. — TKD (Talk) 10:27, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion discussions

This has been moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject Machinima/Deletion/Archive.--Drat (Talk) 12:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What to do with this?

Not entirely sure what to do with this. I've listed one or two of the articles linked from this one on AFD. Wikipedia is not for self-premotion. Just because you made something, does not mean it should be listed.--Drat (Talk) 08:54, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, that would be good and all, except that I didn't make any of those series! I'm not self promoting anything. All of them were made by other people, without any involvement from me. I'm just putting them on the list.Dr. B 16:37, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes, but I am starting to see people adding articles on their own little series here and there, even if it's not out yet. Let something achieve notability, then make an article on it. If you have a look back a few weeks in the history of the main Machinima article, you'll see that there were loads of links to various "Me too!" machinima productions. Wikipedia isn't the place for such things. I'll need to have a talk with the guys at Machinima.com, see what can be done about this.--Drat (Talk) 16:51, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
Oh yeah, I deleted those two productions links (which you've now reverted) to discourage creation of the articles. Just because it exists, doesn't mean it belongs. On the other hand, This Spartan Life won an award at the recent Machinima Film Festival, which is something, I guess. I'm still not sure about what to do there.--Drat (Talk) 16:58, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
I can see your reasonings. With that, I guess you could delete the 'half way home' one, as I simply added it because I had heard of it. However, it is my understanding that not only has 'silver stars/purple hearts' been a featured show on Mechama, it's preview film was also shown at the Machinima Film Festival Opening Reception/Awards Presentation. I think that earns it a place on this list (not to mention that it's the first one I've heard of that combines two games to make one movie.Dr. B 17:31, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
Have you seen Falling into Darkness? IIRC, it combines two Star Wars games for the main scenes, and Homeworld (with Star Wars ship models) for the space battle. Nicely done. Came out in April.--Drat (Talk) 18:03, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] BloodSpell

Even though the addition was reverted, there is a precedent for allowing articles on future films if they are somehow notable/verifiable enough. I think that BloodSpell fits both of those criteria, since Google gives 27,000+ results for "+BloodSpell +machinima", and it's produced by Strange Company, a notable crew. The production has been featured in The Guardian and the UK National Museum of Photography, Film, & Television website. In my opinion at least, it's worth at least a stub if someone has the time to write it. — TKD::Talk 13:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I've put it back in.--Drat (Talk) 01:43, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
These are not stand alone movies, but series that are or were updated on a regular basis. 206.8.10.196 15:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
That refers to machinima films released in a single video (or a few larger videos). BloodSpell is a normal-length film being released in 15 parts. It's therefore considered a serial. — TKD::Talk 12:26, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

What about shows like "The Heart is a lonely hunter" and Bouncers"? They aren't popular but they are certainly worth mentioning

It depends on if you can find independant sources on them, to help establish notability. See my guideline up top.--Drat (Talk) 03:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal: Rename this to List of machinima productions

Thinking about my above response to the anonymous user, it occurred to me that it might be better to list all machinima productions here and not only include "series". This way, the list would be more complete and less biased toward the more recent trend of serial machinima. — TKD::Talk 04:46, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea.--Drat (Talk) 08:50, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Done. Note that I've converted the list into a table so that extra metadata can be included neatly for each series. — TKD::Talk 10:04, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request to have Tales of the Past III added to this list.

I was just going through searching, and i noticed that Tales of the Past III wasn't included on this list when i believe it is clearly notable, since its release in December it has been downloaded over 750,000 times from Warcraftmovies.com alone which makes it the most downloaded movie on there website, so i believe there it fits in with that it is very popular. I also believe that this is a type of movie which can, and has raised the standard for quality Machinima, which it being a trilogy for one, and 2nd no movie has ever been 90 mins long, and done on such a large scale as this movie has either. It was Also posted on the community spot-lite section of blizzards WoWeurope homepage, it has since gone and passed but, all of these i believe are notable examples of it being added to the list. Kage4hm (talk)

Has it been written about non-trivially in multiple, reliable sources? Merely having lots of downloads or a site (no matter how prominent) posting a few sentences and a link is not sufficient.--Drat (Talk) 09:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DigitalPh33r Productions

While this is a semi-reliable list I'd like to point out that it is discriminative. Many of these you claim "notable" though they are not. Just because they are acclaimed by your "experts" does not mean they are popular amongst the community of gamers and machinima. On this note I speak on behalf of those in the underground machinima community who had attempted to have DigitalPh33r machinima's, which are among the most popular in the underground community, to the list. To this note I will soon be adding two of DigitalPh33r's most popular machinimas to the list. If you wish to delete them I first ask that you either watch them or discuss their popularity amongst the gaming community. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ergna (talk • contribs) 17:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the impressions we gain by watching the videos, or from reading forum posts, etc. are immaterial. You need to show that the shows are notable according to the web content notability criteria, and source that to independent, reliable sources. In other words, you need to back up that claim of popularity with sources that have made that determination, that are verifiable by others, and are independent of the people behind the shows. The more sources the better. Pointing to forum posts, random blogs, etc. is not sufficient, as those are self-published sources and are rarely considered reliable (with certain exceptions). If you can show that at least two such sources have written about the shows in a non-trivial way, then by all means create an article on the show. But remember that you have to observe the policies on maintaining a neutral point of view and avoiding original research.--Drat (Talk) 18:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
If my concerns are not addressed within two weeks, I will again remove the productions. Please note that Wikipedia is not a stepping stone to gain further notice for the show.--Drat (Talk) 10:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
The Los Angeles Times internet culture blogger David Sarno wrote about Arby 'n' the Chief citing the large amount of views of it and stating how it is an example of "gaming subculture might be graduating from 'sub'-hood." If this qualifies, do we just need one more relaible source? L.A. Times blog post Hello32020 (talk) 15:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)