Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Nintendo 64 games/archive1

List of Nintendo 64 games
Self-nom and support I've checked it for completeness and everything looks to be in order. I would like for someone else to also do a game count though, I may have miscounted. Be careful not to count alternate names though. --SeizureDog 15:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment. Expand the lead?  Michaelas10   (Talk)   19:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Suggestions on what more needs mentioning in the lead? Information on the Nintendo 64 itself would likely just be redundent with the main article, so what should be said on the games themselves?--SeizureDog 21:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. Ideally there would be something about sales figures but finding reliable sources on that is tough. If the list is indeed complete I don't see much that could be done to improve it. For the lead, could perhaps mention what the best selling game was in each of the three markets you've listed. If you've got access to the NPD Group reports they should contain this. JACO  PLANE  &bull; 2007-01-4 02:12
 * Comments: Two small things.... The "cancelled" section needs a citation sorting out (contravening WP:WIAFL 1c). . You could potentially remove the section, as the material is listed at List of cancelled computer and video games. Also, the current table of contents doesn't include links to the last few sections (possibly contravening WP:WIAFL 2b). I suggest subst'ing the compactTOC2 template (rather than transcluding it), and then editing the result to include links to the currently unlinked sections. Sort out these, and I'll add my support. (I also removed "language = English" from cite web, as it's assumed - see template itself for details). Tompw (talk) 21:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Does the fact that games were cancelled really need to cited? Isn't it kind of common knowledge that games get cancelled as a system loses support? Anyways, I reworded the section to where it doesn't imply that it's a complete list (which it isn't meant to be). "Notable" is basically determined by if it has an article or not. The articles themselves should verify their cancelled-ness. Does that work?--SeizureDog 03:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with SeizureDog on this one. The fact that titles are cancelled as a system loses support doesn't need to be cited, falling under common sense if not common knowledge.DocDragon 03:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, but in which case remove the "citation needed" tag, and I'll add my support. Good job with the TOC. Tompw (talk) 12:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry. Whilst the fact that some games got cancelled might be obvious, actually naming the cancelled games requires verification. And, no, the articles can't be used to "verify their cancelled-ness" as that is using Wikipedia as a source, which isn't reliable. So you need to find a reliable source for those or else remove the section and replace with a See also to the other list.  Oppose  until this is done (good references are essential). Apart from this, the list is good. Colin°Talk 20:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Meh, what a hassle. Cited some, hid the rest. They can easily be cited later, but for now I'll just keep this nomination complaint free.--SeizureDog 00:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. Colin°Talk 10:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Support now the above had been sorted. Tompw (talk) 16:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 *  Oppose , per Colin's objections. He's actually picked up what I orginally was worried about (but got sidetracked thinkinh about the TOC). Tompw (talk) 22:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Support now the above had been sorted. (The cancelled games are not part of the list proper, and so not having them all has nothign to do with comprehensiveness. Also, I don't think one could ever be certain that *all* cancelled games have been included). Tompw (talk) 01:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Support: The only thing that could make this list better is if all the links in the list actually led to articles, but since most of those are obscure japanese exclusives, I'm not exactly holding my breath on that.DocDragon 03:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Timkovski I put a hell of a lot of effort into improving this article when it was just a normal list of games and I'm extremely pleased to see it get a push to FLC. As far as I can tell, the list is complete and accurate and so there is nothing else to be done. I fully support the nomination and believe that all lists of games by system should be modelled on this and List of Virtual Boy games. Timkovski 12:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Good to see you voting, but should one really vote on an article where one has had a big contribution? Tompw (talk) 22:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Don't see why not. If the nominator is counted as voting for the article, there's no particular reason why a major contributor can't vote as well, particularly if they disclose their role in writing the page. The important thing about the FL candidacy isn't really the number of votes, after all (beyond the required 4), but the process by which objections are raised and addressed. Waitak 01:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Support This is a spectacular list, and it surely meets all FL criteria laid out at WP:WIAFL. It contains every piece of information one needs to know about a game's release (who/when/where) and is laid out in the best possible manner. -- Kicking222 15:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Support If I were to make a list, I'd use this one as a guideline to what I'd want it to look like. It's smart, organised, and most importantly, it is complete. This list should definatly be featured, as it is very nearly as good as it could be. And anything that is very nearly as good as it can be should be featured. Cream147 00:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Conditional Support. Nto every data needs to be wikilinked, you can remove the excess ones. Shouldn't be a big deal seeing as how there's only a handful of years. I can at least lean towards support without it, though I'd like a little more info added in. -- Wizardman  01:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: the wikilink format was like that before I got there. Due to it not really hurting anything for everything to be wikilinked, I kept it as is. Too much of a hassle with no real benefit to unlink a bunch of stuff.--SeizureDog 01:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)