Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Microsoft Vista game compatibility


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was a lack of consensus. --  Denelson83  07:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

List of Microsoft Vista game compatibility

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Per WP:NOT and a lot of precedence, Wikipedia doesn't do arbitrary, uncompletable lists of software. -/- Warren 03:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. While uncompletable, the lead clearly outlines how this is not an arbitrary list. Vista compatibility is a very notable topic. Please clarify pertinent section of WP:NOT, I just spent my night compiling this list, be specific or don't bother referring to a policy. - RoyBoy 800 03:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC) Forgot to mention I wrote the List. - RoyBoy 800 00:05, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The related sections of WP:NOT arte "not an indiscriminate list of information" and "not a directory". In the past, several other articles like lists of 64-bit Windows applications, list of applications compatible with Vista, and others have been deleted because they're basically unmaintainable and uncompletable.  I'd dig them up but Wikipedia makes it difficult to search the list of deleted articles.
 * After you get bored of copying information from a couple of gaming sites, who's going to take care of this list? The information is going to change pretty rapidly (indeed, you've got a source there that says Simcity 4 crashes after the starting movie, but the 200,000+ sims living in my copy of the game running on Vista would strongly disagree with that assertion!), or is going to be based on forum postings or other conditions that can't be authoritatively stated with a high degree of accuracy.  There are many factors involved: Vendor patches, appcompat patches from Microsoft, video driver updates, audio driver updates, otherwise unfound problems that are exposed by how Vista handles hardware, and the million-plus combinations thereof.
 * Listcruft notes that a list article should only be made if the subject of the list is worthy of an article. This guideline exists because it helps prevent us from going off and making a list about something that it isn't really clear that Wikipedia actually needs to cover.  Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; we should be focusing on the subject of Windows Vista game compatibility as a topic, with quotes from notable people on the subject and information on what, if anything, is being done about it.  It's perfectly fine to do this, then link to a notable gaming web site which devotes itself more thoroughly to the subject.
 * As to the long-term usefulness of such a list, assuming that compatibility improves, won't it become irrelevant with time? Can this list really pass the "ten-year test" suggested by Recentism?  Will anybody care?  We want to focus on information that has lasting value.  If we keep this list, Wikipedia might as well get into the business of publishing lists of road closures.
 * Finally, I recommend looking at Featured lists, which is the pinnacle of what a list article should achieve. If a list article on Wikipedia can never meet those requirements (and this one certainly won't), then we shouldn't put our time into it.  -/- Warren 04:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You've made a detailed case and somewhat thoughtful case. I'll answer as best I can in reverse order.


 * I used to do the Features and Admins beat for WP:SIGN and I helped a great deal on List of Star Trek: The Next Generation episodes (not featured, but it should be), so I'm familiar with featured content. Point taken with irrelevance with time, but that is an entirely irrelevant point at this time; don't get into a habit of using it.


 * An article on Vista game compatibility (and its history through the beta process, and on how DirectX 9.0L differs from DirectX 9.0C) is sorely needed, but I wanted to get summary information to people and provide a space where others can readily add their problems and experiences with games. An article is great, but most people would be interested in a listing of issues for the immediate future... hence I'd consider a list more immediately relevant than an article. An article can be grown organically from this list (which then can be deleted if not needed); nothing says it has to be the other way around.


 * Who's going to take care of this list??? Did I become an admin by putting crap onto Wikipedia? No. I will take care of this list and I intend, time permitting, to oversee the growth of a Game article and increased coverage in the Vista series of DirectX 9.0L and legacy support issues. As to Simcity 4, I recognized beforehand my first source was based on Vista Beta 2 and I had started to remove references I knew were wrong, so I missed Simcity 4 (partly because I had two S sections), I want to ignore the relevant newbie computer advice; the List has a disclaimer for godsake. I'm not new to this, and specific setup incompatibilities are to be expected and make this list more relevant, not less.


 * As to WP:NOT, you are mistaken as to its applicability. - RoyBoy 800 14:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * "I wanted to get summary information to people and provide a space where others can readily add their problems and experiences with games." If you're an administrator and you don't understand that what you are proposing here is for people to contribute original research to the encyclopedia, then someone needs to take your mop away.  Wikipedia is absolutely not a place for people to comment on, discuss, or write articles about their personal issues or experiences with software.  I should not have to remind you of this.  There is also a fundamental difference between this list and a list of ST:TNG episodes: The latter is a well-defined, unchanging, finite list that is certainly attributable to good sources, whereas the former is highly subjective, requires ongoing editor judgement as to what belongs, and honestly sounds more like a pet project than an attempt to create an article that brings lasting value to the project. -/- Warren 17:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I didn't mean to imply the article space, rather the talk space. But hey, I guess I'm a schizophrenic moron with a mop and you're a mind reader. *eye roll* RoyBoy 800 01:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Talk space is absolutely not a place for discussion about personal experiences related to an article's topic. You don't have to look any further than the second sentence of WP:TALK for a clear statement on this.  If you're looking to create a discussion forum or web site where people can share information about Vista game compatibility, by all means, contact Wikia and get the project started. That's what it's there for. -/- Warren 11:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Nor did I mean to imply "discussion about personal experiences" would be encouraged. Rather a listing of issues from people can/would happen and that would help flesh out the article as reliable sources are found for said issues. If someone says on the talk page, "I have a problem with Pac-Man 2000, anyone know the solution", they can be redirected to the solution or a forum to carry that issue forward. However, their mentioning the problem in the first place on the talk page assists the editors of the list in their research for the list. Making such comments on Talk pages acceptable; carrying forward discussion on the issue on the talk page would be discouraged. - RoyBoy 800 17:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep: I dunno, it's heavily sourced, it has information beyond mere lists of games.  What exactly is "arbitrary" about this list, and what makes it uncompletable?    RGTraynor  04:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - I don't know, but this looks uncompletable, even in principle. It aims to outline the compatibility of every game on Windows vista, and known issues for each - apparently with a fix, for some.  This is an impossible, and massive list that cannot possibly be completed - even if it currently well-sourced.--Haemo
 * Weak keep as compatability issues are of interest. However if I had my way I'd retool this article to be more a list of software that is not compatable with Vista. Granted it would make for a longer list, so some sort of criteria would be necessary. 23skidoo 06:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I thought that would be a good idea as well, especially since I think it would make the shorter for the immediate future. The problem is you get the inevitable situation of people wanting to know if X or Y game is compatible. - RoyBoy 800 14:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not IGN. --Cloveious 15:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Haemo.  Gan fon  15:54, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * But I argued for deletion? --Haemo 20:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep and please dont cite essayes like "Listcruft" as a reason for deletion, that not policy. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 17:00, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Please don't tell me how I should make my points. If you're going to participate, do so by contributing something useful to the discussion -- ie. a reason for your position -- which you've not done here.  -/- Warren 16:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep very well sourced and just needs some work.--Joebengo 18:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what this means - "needs some work". In what sense?  Does he need to add more articles?  Does he need to source it more?  It's already decently sourced, but it's still an uncompletable list!  -Haemo 20:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * After further thought on 23skidoo suggestion and looking at this link; the list could indeed be made manageable by moving it to List of Microsoft Vista game issues and listing only games with known issues/fixes. As Vista compatibility becomes the standard for games, the number of inclusions would drop off, yet we can keep the list to point people to fixes for older games. - RoyBoy 800 23:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete, WP is not a free web host for what-have-you. Gazpacho 20:10, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and work on it. BuickCenturydriver   (Honk, contribs)  22:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, there are thousands (probably more like millions, depending on criteria) of games for MS-DOS and Windows (ie: what would be expected to run on Windows Vista), creating a list of every single one of them and if they work with Windows Vista would be pretty much impossible to complete. I don't really like the idea of a cut down list just about games with issues either, at what point do you start including a game (one of the entries on the current list says it may be down to NVidia's drivers rather than Windows itself, and another couple are ones that just want to run as an administrator), plus I'd guess the shorter list would be impossible to be verifiably complete unless you knew the longer list was complete and accurate as well. FredOrAlive 18:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * There would be one list not two, and/or an article. - RoyBoy 800 20:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, the scope of the article clearly defines the focus/scope of the list for DirectX 9 games; not MS-DOS games. - RoyBoy 800 22:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - unmaintainable and impossible to complete list, even when using the arbitrary criteria in the lead paragraph - e.g. "also games designed under the Games for Windows program should not be listed here" - fchd 16:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Clearly temporary issue. Everyone will scramble to be compatible. Mukadderat 16:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * How well that is accomplished, especially for older games, is measured by the list. I fail to see the rationale in assuming everything will work fine; as it clearly is not. - RoyBoy 800 17:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete an article about what something is not or can not do is silly. How about "fuels that can not be used in a jeep"?  Impossible to maintain and provides no encyclopedic value.  If the lack of support for a particular game becomes notable by press coverage (I just can't imagine that hapenning), then the article can be revisited at that time, but until then, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.  Jerry 22:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Not a useful analogy insofar as games are expected to run on a Windows platform and may not; whereas alternative fuels working depend on the engine of a vehicle. This list does not mean to predict anything... as game compatibility is an issue here and now. - RoyBoy 800 00:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep This article gives some further informations (backed by facts) about Vista incompatibility issues (comprising the types of these issues), which is a useful add-on to the Software compatibility paragraph on the Criticism of Windows Vista article. Hervegirod 14:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.