The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 16 January 2023 (UTC) [1].[reply]

---

List of Volition games[edit]

List of Volition games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured list candidates/List of Volition games/archive1

Toolbox
Analysis Citation bot External links

Nominator(s): PresN 00:09, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One last list in my brief return to my series of games by 90s/early 2000s developers (3D Realms/id/Raven/Epic/Firaxis/Blizzard/Relic/Bullfrog/Lionhead), here we have the gameography of Volition. Founded in 1993 as Parallax Software, they hit it out of the park on their first try with Descent, and went on to make a number of good shooter and RPG games – as well as the greatest space combat game ever made, 1999's FreeSpace 2. That's an objective, unbiased fact there. In any case, Volition went on to release the wacky GTA-like Saint's Row in 2006, which did well enough that with a few deviations that's been their main series ever since.

In the background they split the company in half in 1996, with this half renamed Volition and the other being Outrage Entertainment; got bought by THQ in 2000; got picked up out of THQ's bankruptcy by Koch Media in 2012 without half of its IP and merged with publisher Deep Silver (so it's technically the company "Deep Silver Volition", real creative there); and then Embracer Group bought every company and IP I mentioned here, welcome to 2020s capitalism. Despite all these corporate goings-on, Volition itself has for 30 years been sitting in an office building in bustling downtown Champaign, Illinois (population: 88,000), doing their own thing. This list follows the pattern of all the prior lists I've done on games-by-developers, so I hope you enjoy it, and thanks for reviewing. --PresN 00:09, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: would the fact that SR22 is a reboot of SR06 need an immediate cite? You could just reuse ref #73 here. What about mentioning Del Toro's involvement with Insane? — CR4ZE (T • C) 08:23, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @CR4ZE: Done and done. Thanks! --PresN 02:50, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Great, thanks for doing that. I don't plan to conduct a full review at this stage but please reach out to me further down the line if this nom is stalling. — CR4ZE (T • C) 04:18, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• There's only one citation in the whole lead, which pops up at random places in two paragraphs. Does this one ref cite the entire lead? If so, would it make more sense to place it at the end of each paragraph?

• Whoops, that's an embarrassing omission - I had sources for the other sentences and they weren't actually added. Fixed!

• "Source code released in 1998, leading to unofficial mods and ports." - don't think that full stop is needed (other, similar notes don't have them)

• Done

• "numerous smaller DLC content" - this reads ever so slightly oddly, as "numerous" implies a plural noun but "content" is singular. Is there a way to reword at all?

• It's worse, because the "C" stands for content- replaced "content" with "pieces"

• "Much of the concept material was used in Red Faction[74][1]" - refs in wrong order

• Done

• Think that's all I got - great work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:28, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @ChrisTheDude: Thanks so much, all now addressed! --PresN 16:04, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:31, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dank[edit]

• Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
• From experiments run at TFA, I've come to the conclusion that readers are happier when there's at least one image, and an image can usually be found if you keep looking. For this list, File:Deep Silver Logo.svg would work for me (unless there's another one you prefer).

• Yeah, but while I'd be okay with a Volition or Parallax logo (DSV continues to use the Volition logo), they're non-free, and the Deep Silver one is for a company that was never Volition itself so I think it's misleading.

• "the humor aspects of the game would offset the subject matter": I think I get what you mean, but more careful wording, or even illustrating with an example, would probably be helpful.

• Reworded slightly
  • That works. - Dank (push to talk)

• "... which in turn bought Koch Media in 2018. Since joining Deep Silver, which now serves as its publisher, Volition has grown to over 200 employees and has focused on the Saints Row franchise, producing Saints Row IV (2013)": Read this again and see if something feels off to you about the verb tenses and dates ... if not, then fine, but maybe a tweak or two would help.

• Tweaked, I think it's the jump from past-tense-about-2018 to past-perfect-about-2012 in the next sentence, so I've made the perspective change clearer.
  • That works. - Dank (push to talk) 20:24, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Checking the FLC criteria:
• 1. I've done a little copyediting; feel free to revert or discuss. There are no sortable columns. I sampled the links in the table.
• 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
• 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
• 3b. The UPSD tool is marking the YouTube link in red.
• 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find), and it wouldn't fit easily inside another article.
• 4. It is navigable.
• 5. It meets style requirements, except see above for a request for an image of some kind.
• 6. It is stable.
• Close enough for a support. I'm not entirely sure how the source reviewer will react to the red link link that UPSD is marking in red, so I'll take another look at that time. - Dank (push to talk) 18:08, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dank: Thanks, responded inline. --PresN 19:49, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Red for UPSD just means "watch out for this link", as it can't tell context and Youtube is usually an issue. In this case it's a video by Volition, used only to source an uncontroversial fact (how many employees, roughly, did they have at the time), and so should be fine. --PresN 14:51, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a problem with the link. - Dank (push to talk) 15:42, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by RunningTiger123[edit]

• "producing Saints Row IV (2013) and its stand-alone expansion Saints Row: Gat out of Hell (2015) and the franchise reboot Saints Row (2022)" – seems to be one too many uses of "and" here
• Should Windows and Xbox 360 be linked at their first occurrences?
• Cancellation date for Underground should be cited like the rest
• Really nitpicky: For some reason, the first title in each table is formatted as a table header cell (i.e., gray background and left-aligned text). I think this is related to the sticky header gadget. If you have time, maybe look into why it's doing that, but don't worry too much – it may be something on my browser.

— RunningTiger123 (talk) 19:37, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@RunningTiger123: First 3 done, thanks. The last is definitely the sticky header gadget- turning it on/off makes that happen, but I have no idea what that gadget is trying to do here as it's a normal html table. --PresN 22:18, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support – RunningTiger123 (talk) 19:49, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Source and image reviews – The article doesn't have any images, so that part is easy as far as reviewing goes. All of the sources seem reliable enough and the link-checker tool indicates that they are in working order. One small formatting issue should be brought up: there is an inconsistency as to whether Deep Silver Volition is italicized. Ref 22 isn't while the rest from that site are. They should be consistent throughout; I'd suggest changing this one for convenience, instead of searching out the others. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:19, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• @Giants2008: Fixed, though fixed in the sense that it shouldn't have been DSV but Interplay Productions, but it's still not italicized because it's citing the box cover (via cite book), not a website, so Interplay is the publisher, not the website. --PresN 04:28, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Looks good. The source and image reviews have been passed. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:13, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the ((featured list candidates)) template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:06, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.