Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Essential articles

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive
Archives
 WikiProject Video games
This box: view • talk • edit
Main pages
Main project talk
  Talk page archive talk
Project category talk
Portal talk
Project cleanup talk
Traffic statistics talk
Manual of style
Article guidelines talk
  Naming convention talk
Templates talk
Sources talk
Departments
Assessment talk
  Archive talk
  Bot log talk
Cleanup talk
  Archive talk
Peer review talk
  Archive talk
Magazines talk
New! Newsletter talk
  Draft talk
  Current issue talk
Video Game Images talk
Articles
Articles for deletion talk
  Archive talk
New articles talk
Requests talk
Essential articles talk
Featured articles talk
Good articles talk
Task forces
Atari talk
Command & Conquer talk
Devil May Cry talk
New! Gears of War talk
Grand Theft Auto talk
Silent Hill talk
Suikoden talk
StarCraft talk
New! Valve talk
Visual novels talk
Warcraft talk

Contents

[edit] "Importance for inclusion in print version" items

Probably due to the low number of participans in this project the items in the "importance for inclusion in print version" columns in most sections range from subjective to highly questionable. Good examples atm are in the game genres section, where some of the most historically and currently important genres are tagges as of "low" importance (fighting game, RTS) and the "top" needed article, game genres, is one much disputed and of dubious quality; further, in the persons section, f.i. Richard Garriot (author of Ultima, founder of Origin Systems, etc) is tagged as of "low" importance. It would be nice to put some efforts into cleaning some of this up, but frankly, there's too much to be done and I fear that any edits I make will risk being reverted due to the low participation and "my-turf" atmospherehere here. As it is now the "importance for inclusion" items feels too much like to work of too few individuals, with contents too subjective to be anywhere close to objective, or representative of either a community or consensus of editors. There aren't even any decent criteria (reached through discussion= for the labels, and the description of them reek of naive diplomacy ("yeah, it may be called "low" importance, but we recognise that it does fill in important details"...) Mikademus 16:02, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

What you (and several other users) don't seem to realize is that the system was recently moved down a notch, because there used to be no "Low" entriess. "Low" is the old "Mid". "Mid" is the old "High". "High" is the old "Top". And "Top" is a brand-new designation for the very small number of truly vital articles. So treat "Low" as though it were "Mid", "Mid" as though it were "High", "High" as though it were "Top", and "Top" as though it were "Super-Top". -Silence 17:17, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Articles listed by importance

I have created A list of all the articles currently marked as of top importance. As it currently stands, of the 31 "Top" articles, there are at least two more Mario games than I'd like (five, currently: DK, SMB, SMB3, SMW, and SM64). Naturally, the list will expand as certian categories get prioritized (Genres, current companies). Notably, the "High" list will expand much faster than the "top" list will. Nifboy 05:20, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

That's a good idea, though I don't know about the Mario games comments. I think if you were to remove two it'd be SMB3 and SMW, as the others were all pretty important in terms of the evolution of videogames/Nintendo. And well SMB3 was one of the top selling games of all time, so I don't think you can leave it out. Which leaves just SMW... which I think I could live without perhaps. I think what's really lacking in the top list, is some of the old arcade games, and just older games in general. Pong and space invaders definately need to be top, imo. Actually is pong even on the list... ah, under individual games, ok... I'm bumping those two up, unless people have objections.
I think we oughta merge this into the Eessential Articles page. I tried making a page like this (WP:CVG/Version 1.0 Articles), although it's since been deleted. That way we can clearly see what our most important articles are, and what our featured, good, A-Class, etc. articles are. -- gakon5 20:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Others' lists

Poking through Google reminded me of these two lists: a 1UP feature and a GameSpot feature. The 1UP list is mostly concerned with originators, while GameSpot's list is PC only, but I pulled a few games from both lists. Nifboy 06:06, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Game consoles

Should game consoles be rated? Gflores Talk 01:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Added in the new section. I probably missed some (Jaguar, anyone?) and intentionally left out the Revolution and PS3. Nifboy 02:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outline what qualities warrant a games inclusion in list

I think we need to outline what makes a game worthy of high or top priority, or even inclusion in the list, and state it on the project page. There have been a few accusations of bias so far, and this will probably continue. In my opinion it should be a mixture between popularity and influence. For example in the PC. games section I see both Sam and Max and Day of the Tentacle. Both of these are admittedly very good games, but do they warrant inclusion? Maniac Mansion is more important in my eyes, being the first game to demonstrate the Scumm engine.Qeee1 22:19, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

To me, obviously Sam and Max and Day of the Tentacle are both somewhere between "mid" and "low" on the importance scale; it's just that nobody has decided which end it goes on yet. No, I don't think defining what a "high" or "top" priority game is productive. Nifboy 23:22, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
If you ask me, if an article is between "mid" or "low" it shouldn't even be on this list. These are supposed to be essential articles; Sam and Max doesn't strike me as essential. It wouldn't be a bad idea for a brief, very vague statement about what essential articles are supposed to represent. Is there any objection to removing all articles marked as "low" from the list? After all, if the article is of low importance, it shouldn't be essential. Pagrashtak 23:49, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
A brief vague statement, that is not a rule, but merely a general guideline is what I was suggesting. The reason behind it is so that we can then concentrate more on the important articles. There has to be some sort of objectivity in the selection of articles, in my opinion. And I agree if something is low, it shouldn't really be on the list, otherwise we may as well just add more or less every videogame article out there. But I'm not too fussed about that really, just about restricting the top and high categories.Qeee1 19:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Personally, I'm looking for games that are both popular and exemplary, while avoiding mere sequels. Nifboy 20:56, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
I always wondered why you could fill in the Print/Reader columns as "Out." (ever notice no one uses those fields? In all cases an article should be included in it's entirety) The way I see it, and I may be wrong, but I think "High" is for things we need in 1.0, and "Mid" for is less important (and thus a lower priority), but may be more important for a CVG-oriented WikiReader. Then "Top" is for things we really need to be high quality for inclusion in 1.0. -- gakon5 21:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
The proposal below (Explaining importance) removes the need for this suggestion.Qeee1 18:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Explaining importance

I think it might be a good idea to add a field near the importance ("Need") column. It'd be for explaining why an article is Essential. Or, add a section/subpage/something here called like, "Disputed." And people who don't agree with something, and aren't content with just editing it, could take it there to get some opinion on how [un]important the article in question is. Just a thought. -- gakon5 21:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, then we'd have two sections for comments... But I see the point. I'll remove the reader and print sections to make room, if that's okay with everyone? Nifboy 23:55, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
(Edit - Done) Nifboy 00:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Funny, I was reading this page during work today, thinking about removing the print and reader columns, so naturally I support. I like the rationale column, it'll force us to justify our choices and pare the list down. I've started adding some rationales and removing a few entries. I'm hesitant to whittle away the PS2 list, since I don't own the console, but it's disproportionally large if someone else would like to have a go at it. (Three different TimeSplitters?) Pagrashtak 02:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, that solves my problem with restricting the list.Qeee1 18:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mega Man characters

I don't think characters from the Mega Man series are essential outside of the context of the games. They don't have much pervasiveness as characters outside of the game series itself, unlike Mario or (to a lesser extent) Sonic. I'm not suggesting we delete the articles or anything, but they're not worthy of inclusion on this list. Andre (talk) 17:24, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd dispute the inclusion of the Sonic characters along with the Mega Man ones, actually. Mario's a pretty huge deal, but really, there are plenty of other video game characters that Sonic and Mega Man aren't even half as noteworthy and pervasive as: how can we justify including Sonic the Hedgehog (character) and not including Pikachu, for example? Our current selection seems to reflect our editors' biases (and thus the encyclopedia's systemic biases) more than it reflects what electronic-game-related topics are genuinely most "essential". -Silence 20:10, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, that's a good point - but actually, I think we should include Pikachu. Andre (talk) 20:38, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree :o I just tend to make my points in roundabout ways. -Silence 21:13, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] need

need has been implemented in {{cvgproj}}. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 04:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I've changed it to a more proper {{{importance}}}. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 04:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Satellaview

Will an article on the Satellaview be included? If games are thrown in, Radical Dreamers is a "Good Article" to start with. --Zeality 02:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

As a Good Article, it has the grounds for inclusion, although I'd consider it's priorities in the CVG space fairly low. -- gakon5 02:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chocobo

While Chocobo isn't necessarily a specific character (depending on the game), it's the de jure mascot of the Final Fantasy series and the Square Co. company. Does the Chocobo deserve a low-priority place in the character's section? As much as I love Zero, the Chocobo is more notable and prominent. --Tristam 07:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

If the species is important in the series, then you may add it, But I personaly don't know much about Final Fantasy, so I don't know how important they are. --Bentendo24 15:56, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Galaga Woes

I was reading through some of the games on the list here, and I found something that doesn't add up. Galaga is listed as an A-class article, which doesn't correspond with the list at the top of the article, which says there are zero A-class articles. After looking into this furthur, I noticed that the A-class wasn't posted on the discussion page of Galaga, and it doesn't have a good article template either, (which it should have, since A-class is higher than good article) as well as not presenting any sources, footnotes, or citing a single fact within the article. Therefore, I propose we demote this article down to B-class at best (since it has plenty of facts), and perhaps put the rating on the discussion page of Galaga (we could also add onto the comments to add sources). I have no authority or experience with this project page, but I'm going to go ahead and change it anyway. I'd also be willing to add the rating to the discussion page also. --Clyde Miller 14:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Game Boy to Start Class?

I've been doing some additions to Game Boy over the last few days-- mostly I've been looking at other handheld video game consoles' pages (e.g. PlayStation Portable / Game Gear), and trying to add similar sections to the Game Boy page. It's currently listed as a Stub. So far, I added some info about accessories, its release price, and a section on Pop Culture has been started (but if anyone can add any, please do!) I think the article is a little more substantial, so perhaps we could move this page up to Start class? I Jethrobot 16:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I think it's ready. I don't really do much with this project page (you can read above), but I do rate articles. I changed this to start status. By the way, there was nothing stopping you from changing it to start status yourself. Just an FYI. --Clyde Miller 17:03, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I've done some more work on Game Boy recently since the 18th-- I've added some more on technical attributes and a few other odds and ends-- but I'd feel better if other people were checking my work. Can some of you take a look at my changes and make sure everything is sound? This is sort of a personal project of mine, but I'd appreciate the comments and revisions of others. I Jethrobot 04:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not really an expert here, so you might consider putting it on Peer Review or Video and Computer peer review for some help (I'd suggest the latter). --Clyde Miller 20:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sims vs Metroid

I'm not sure I get this. The Sims was the best selling computer game ever, and yet you would turn around and say its less important than Metroid prime? While an interesting and popular game I don't think its reached the dizzying heights that The Sims or its sequal have.--Crossmr 18:16, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention the cultural impact The Sims 2 has had, showing up in Music videos, having many major artists re-record songs in simlish for the game, etc.--Crossmr 18:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Regarding all involved articles (MP, Sims, Sims 2), I can definitively say that none of them properly justify their articles' importance, and for some of us the article itself should be the best indicator of its topic's importance. The Sims' "cultural impact" you talk about is not discussed in the articles at all. Just says "best-selling computer game", and that doesn't really say anything. Prime at least has more out-of-universe information than both Sims articles combined. Nifboy 21:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What is missing?

IMHO there is missing one of ver known video game characters, Lara Croft. Maybe we can add her to the list? Hołek ҉ 10:50, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I added her to the list. Remember, don't be afraid to add anything. --Bentendo24 15:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Court cases

I couldn't find the appropriate section, but I think two court cases rank as high importance for inclusion:

  1. Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Nintendo Co., Ltd. Graded at GA-class and ranked as high importance (by me) because this defined Nintendo's existnce; Nintendo could have very well been crushed had Universal won.
  2. Lewis Galoob Toys, Inc. v. Nintendo of America, Inc. Graded at Start-class and ranked as high importance (by me) because this signaled the rise of third-party accessories.

Where should these go, and are they as important as I think they are? Hbdragon88 05:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

They are important, but where they go is a toughy. I suppose a general cat in the absence of a CVG legal. The Galoob article should not be B-class though, there are large facts missing from it. - X201 08:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I changed to "start" class then. Hbdragon88 17:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I know that I've got a full run down of it in a magazine. When I find it I'll amend the article. - X201 17:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I slotted the two into History, since that's what they are, essentially. Nifboy 22:58, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Epic Games as low importance?

Given that they are the creators of the Unreal Engine, one of the more widely used game engines, I don't understand why their article is of low importance. Maybe it's just me. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 20:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

In this case it's a matter of the creation outshining the creators. Whereas companies like EA and SquareEnix are built on a number of different franchises, Epic isn't so prolific. Nifboy 23:32, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Nifboy. Other games they created are some of my favorites, but they are not comparable to what SquareEnix have done for the RPG genre. Altair 13:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Sims 2 high importance?

I don't know, but The Sims 2 does not strike me as more important than SimCity, Command & Conquer, and even Civilization for goodness sake. "Sequal to The best selling computer game ever" (sic) does not strike me as being sufficent reason to rate it as high as Atari or Sega, cultural icons that almost everyone has heard of. Sims 2 has not reached that iconic level (is not very well known outside of the gaming community, unlike, say, Nintendo), and I doubt it will for quite some time, if ever. I have never heard anything of the "cultural impact through music" the editor speaks of, and I consider myself fairly savvy with CVG's in general. Can someone explain this to me? Is it just me, or is someone trying to push a personal agenda here? Green451 20:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

You'll find your answer about four sections up on this very page. Nifboy 21:23, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rating Articles I Have Edited

Am I correct in assuming that I cannot rate articles I have edited extensively? -- VGF11 01:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm wondering how to rate period. :P Knuckles sonic8 01:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Have a read of the grading scheme and look at the examples in the right-most column.
When it comes to the actual mechanics of adding the rating to the discussion page - add or edit the {{cvgproj|class=B|importance=Mid}} section at the very top of the discussion page. - X201 15:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
That helps me understatnd the meanings of the ratings, but can I rate articles that I have edited a lot? -- VGF11 01:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
I think the accepted practice is that it's OK to self rate Stub and Start class but B-class and above should encourage wider input. - X201 14:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Okay. Thanks. -- VGF11 21:36, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PC's

Continuing the discussion about a possible console bias, it does seem to me that this list seems to focus too much on what's "in" now, rather that what was popular 15 or 20 years ago. I was not even alive then, but there are many people who fondly remember their Amiga or Commodore 64 systems fondly, I'm sure, as well as their Adventure games, etc. How many people here were into computer and video games in 1985? If someone was, then speak up and tell me if I'm getting it all wrong. Here are a few things:

  • How about renaming the section of this list titled "Consoles" to "Systems", to reflect that not all gaming systems are used solely for gaming.
  • The PlayStation is the first popular console with a CD drive? The first console, sure, but what about IBM PC's, which had CD drives years before and had already had smash-hit games on the media, such as The 7th Guest or Myst?
  • The genres section is nicely balanced in my opinion.
  • Almost all of the games in the "computer games" section were made within the last ten years or so. We definately need some more notable games from the 1980's.
  • I still don't think that The Sims 2 is *that* important. There's definately no way that it's more important than Civilization. The fact that a few famous people recorded some songs for it does not qualify it for mid importance.
  • Half-Life: The first game to introduce scripted events into gameplay? Ummm...The Last Express, made the year before, also featured real-time scripted events that used the game's engine. lots of games have used scripted events in gameplay before this one...some clarification would be nice.

I could go in and make all these changes, per WP:BOLD, but I think the changes I am proposing would probably be considered *too* bold (without adaquate discussion first.) These are just a few random comments from someone who does not, and never has owned a console, and does not tend to play that many shooter games. Green451 01:36, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Addendum: Don't get the wrong idea. I think this list is a great idea, and that we can only get better with time. I'm simply asking the "hard" questions, if you will. Green451 02:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree, it is all a bit console heavy. And a lot of the PC stuff is a bit weird too. I know it's just a purple box and the article has already been FA'd, but Half Life gets a High importance while Doom gets Mid?! Wait just a minute now. That's like putting Devil May Cry above Super Mario Brothers or something. MuJoCh 10:01, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
You're right, that's horrible. Andre (talk) 01:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Sims only "Mid" priority?

I think this The Sims should be upgraded to high priority. Not only is it still the best selling game of all time, it's one of the titles attributed to making gaming more appealing to females. Of course, I don't have the references to hand, but you do read it on several occasions. Mouse Nightshirt 16:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Working on core articles

Please see this discussion: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computer and video games#Working on core articles. JACOPLANE • 2007-01-3 00:19

[edit] Areas we need some expansion in

Here's a tentative list of areas that seem lacking to me, maybe someone could help flesh them out:

I'm going to try to overhaul this list soon, but feel free to beat me to it if you have the time. Andre (talk)

[edit] Page redesign

So I redesigned the page. Well I mostly stole the code from the Wikipedia 0.5 release. I need to add "edit" links in the different sections, because at the moment every time you want to edit a little thing you have to scroll to the whole article, which is clearly not ideal for editing. Still I thought I'd throw it out there because I wanted to see what people think. JACOPLANE • 2007-01-5 04:35

Edit links done. They should appear when you click "show". JACOPLANE • 2007-01-5 04:55
Nice job. I like it. This way, I don't have to see the stuff I don't really care much about, like consoles (har har)...Green451 17:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Low/no importance

Since this is supposed to be only for essential articles, shouldn't we just remove every single low/no importance article from here? JACOPLANE • 2007-01-6 02:57

I agree one hundred percent. If no one disagrees, this should be done soon, as the list is getting quite bloated...Green451 17:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A MIcrosoft Easter Egg Lost in Time???

Hover! was included in Windows 95, You could see the programers in the startup map by hacking the position of the Hover craft in the startup map and you can clearly see the names in notepad, but the way to actualy move the vehicle in the map is lost. Can any one help??? The game can be downloaded from a link to the microsoft website in the Hover! article. One final thing It runs on any version of windows from 95 on even vista!

I think this is a top priority. What do you think? — Hamster2.0 04:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Video game genres

Just want to point out that the video game genre articles are central to this wikiproject. Many games refer to them and depend on them being well written. These articles could use some serious help, particularly with reliable research. Randomran (talk) 00:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)