This is the talk page of a redirect that targets the page: • Wikipedia:Software notability Because this page is not frequently watched, present and future discussions, edit requests and requested moves should take place at: • Wikipedia talk:Software notability |
I think it is good that this guideline is getting started. One concern I have with the criteria proposed so far is that it only seems to address notability of new games. Since the Spike TV Video Game Awards only started in 2003, it is hardly adequate for determining notability of games produced before 2003. Computer and video games have a much longer history than three years and this guideline needs to address the entire range of games. For the 1980s and early 1990s, Computer Gaming World was one of the premier authorities on game ranking and notability. I would suggest that any game that achieved a top 10 rating in at least two consecutive months would rate. Other games prior to 1980 have historical significance due to their place in the evolution of games. Also, there is no mention of sales records as a indication of notability. In short, I think this is a start, but needs much work. I may try to contribute later, but as this is related to an active RfA on me at this time, I think it would be a conflict of interest to do so until it closes. —Doug Bell talk 23:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Criterion 1- The game was developed by a company that passes Wikipedia's notability guidelines on companies, or was developed by a person that passes Wikipedia's notability guidelines on people. This is unreasonable. Many games are developed by companies which are completely unnotable. Criteria 5 is vague and it isn't clear to me why we should care about it anyways. If those two are taken out I'm fine with this. However, an inquiry: does anyone have any examples of games which pass 3 or 4 but don't pass 2? JoshuaZ 02:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Is #4 (movie based on the game) actually possible without meeting #1 or #2? It sounds a bit redundant to me. Other than that, nice work! (Radiant) 12:40, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Can we add to that "should not include" paragraph that game articles should not contain extensive detail on gameplay such as lists of characters, buildings, units, etc. Example: Pharaoh and Cleopatra. Or does that fall into one of these: "tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, and video game guides"? I dont think it does because it doesn't guide/teach you how to play, it just lists everything from the game. - Tutmosis 22:52, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
I think this should be merged with Wikipedia:Notability (software), as obviously computer games are a kind of software, and I believe there is a significant overlap in criteria. (Radiant) 11:54, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Honestly I would rather see expansion packs merged with the original game and deleted. I see very little merit for them to exist since they almost always read like game guides and not much can be said about them. A section in the original game can easily summarize the expansion pack encyclopedically. Anyone else feels the same way? - Tutmosis 19:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I think the notability guidelines really only need to apply to computer games. I think that every single video game that has been released to any major console (or handheld) is notable enough for inclusion. For instance, can it be argued that any game released for the Nintendo Gamecube doesn't deserve an article? Computer games on the other hand, can refer to a broad range of notability. After all, it is much easier to make a game for windows (even if it is just in Adobe Flash) than it is to release a game for the Playstation 2 (though Alien Hominid has managed to do both).--SeizureDog 21:54, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
As it stands now, the proposal only talks about video games adapted into other media, as opposed to games based on an existing intellectual property. It should be amended so that games based on existing works are covered as well. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 01:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Criterion 1 needs some clarification, as it could either be very exclusive or very inclusive depending on how it's interpreted.
I can think of many, many examples of games which are extremely well-known to owners of a specific computer, but which are not likely to have multiple, non-trivial published works written about them. Let's suppose there were two monthly magazines which covered a particular computer (Acme User and Acme World), and that a particular game was reviewed in the June 1981 issues of both of them. That's two non-trivial published works, max. The game may have been mentioned multiple times in subsequent issues of the magazines, but these don't count (brief magazine mentions).
This criterion could actually lead to systemic bias in favour of modern games, as the older a game is, the harder it becomes to hunt down sources. Not many people own multiple back numbers of computer and gaming magazines, and libraries generally don't have them either. Newer games, on the other hand, are likely to have multiple articles and reviews written about them on notable websites and in various paper publications.
One way to avoid such bias would be to impose more rigid criteria for modern games than for older ones. For games commercially released more than 10 or 15 years ago, just some evidence that the game exists (and was commercially released!) ought to be sufficient. AdorableRuffian 14:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
The criterion also has strong bias in favor of commercial games. In effect all mass market commercial games should meet the requirements while most non-commercial games are far more likely to be excluded, even somewhat popular games.
An exception similar to the WP:SOFTWARE criterion covering major Linux/BSD distributions would help but that also has problems. Many games are too large to be included in a distribution but are at times more notable than the smaller games included with such distributions, and it leaves out games on other platforms. Without a criterion addressing FOSS games the smaller Linux/BSD games will end up being squeezed in under the software criterion without meeting the games criterion and games on other platforms are excluded.
One option is giving the media covering FOSS games more leeway on notability so that large, active, well established game communities could establish the notability of these games. This would be in addition to the article itself making an argument for the game's notability, per the WP:CVG guidelines. If a game can pass that and remain WP:V compliant it should be included. --MegaBurn 01:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
After a whole series of what I see as severely over zealous AFD nominations (see WP:CVG/D debates), I think the question needs to be answered: Will Wikipedia continue to allow games in development to have articles?
Many of these games are FOSS projects coming from established communities or, in a few cases, have managed to drum up their own community during development. In any case, most cannot meet notability guidelines prior to release. I think there are three possible solutions here:
All three options leave out indie projects in development but I'm not sure that can be helped without going very lax on requirements.
I also think the future game tag should include an allowance for leeway on WP:V requirements of game play and game content sections. It makes no sense to me that people can turn random scraps of info from the commercial media rumor mill into a commercial future game article, while at the same time FOSS projects cannot even cite finalized game design docs posted on their own website. At least the FOSS game design docs can be readily verified. --MegaBurn 01:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I removed the first reference stating "Wikipedia might not be a paper encyclopedia, but we do operate on servers which have limited space so we must only keep articles on notable subjects". This is simply not valid. The entire database (with edit histories) is not that large (yes, it is large compared to how much space a personal computer has, but these aren't PCs). First, it is the job of the wiki foundation to supply the hardware to support the encyclopedia, not the other way around. Second, the foundation has in no way implied that we are running out of space, so we cannot assume it to be true. I'm not saying everything should be included, just that claims of hardware limitations are just about the worst argument for limiting the number of articles on the site. Koweja 19:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm thinking about removing criterion #2, as it basically says what #1 states, with the difference being that criterion #2 allows less notable games to have an article. Criterion #2 states "of at least one non-trivial published work outside the industry", when #1 states "multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the creator of the game". Does anyone disagree? // I c e d K o l a 04:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
diff. Should at least make the page easier to understand and get to grips with. --DavidHOzAu 12:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
I've redirected this page to WP:SOFTWARE, as the guidelines here are completely subsumed by those at WP:SOFTWARE, and the discussion there is more fully-developed. (Plus, merging was proposed above and had significant approval, and no one has argued against it.) The only one that may not be wholly subsumed by the WP:SOFT guidelines is the one about being adapted into another medium.. but honestly, such games will pretty much meet the first criterion anyway. Mangojuicetalk 16:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)