Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of The Simpsons video games/archive1


 * 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 not promoted by Giants2008 21:11, 2 May 2012.

List of The Simpsons video games

 * Nominator(s): — Statυs (talk) 07:47, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating List of The Simpsons video games to become a featured list because I believe that after my work on it (from this to its current revision), it now meets the FL criteria. — Status  &#x7B;talk contribs 07:47, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I have merged everything together into one table. I have come into difficulty finding exact release dates for a lot of the titles, so I've been using sources for the developers, publishers and platforms, and another for the release date. — Status  &#x7B;talk contribs 17:16, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Good, no harm in sourcing every piece of info in a list like this. I'm guessing what's there now is a work in progress, if it's going to take more than a day or so this FLC should probably be withdrawn until this is done. Also, you're now missing "Arcade" as a platform for the arcade game. :) Finally, and someone else will have to chime in on this, but I don't know if it's valid to rely solely on flags to indicate what region it was released in, especially (may not be relevant for Simpsons games) multilingual European releases. --Golbez (talk) 18:19, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Please note: The tables in this article are currently being reconstructed. Please do not comment on the FLC or close it during this time. I, the editor, should have this done within a few hours. I will post a new message here when completed. Thank you, — Status  &#x7B;talk contribs 18:37, 22 March 2012 (UTC) Done —  Status  &#x7B;talk contribs 19:58, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, so, commenting on the newer version:
 * The list is ordered alphabetically... the other featured lists of games in franchises all list chronologically.
 * I'm no expert but I'm not sure including the flyer will work within fair use rules. If it stays, then we need more, because it's squeezing the table with little payoff, but I have the feeling others will say remove it.
 * The text in the right cell in Itchy & Scratchy in Miniature Golf Madness is large.
 * I still think this could be more like, say... the list of One Piece games. But that's a lot of work, and as pointed out, we don't have great resources on release dates for some of these. I'll wait for others to comment. --Golbez (talk) 16:51, 23 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I see what you mean about by release date, but as we've already talked about, we don't know which came first, all we have is a year, so I think it would be much easier to just list them in ABC order. — Status  &#x7B;<sup style="margin-left:0.37ex;">talk <sub style="margin-left:-3ex;">contribs 00:07, 24 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Comparing this to other Video Game FLs, this is in poor standards. Like, for example, the games need to be in chronological order (EX: List of Final Fantasy video games). GamerPro64  00:54, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Point me towards the guideline that says as such. <font face="Arial" size="2em">— Status  &#x7B;<sup style="margin-left:0.37ex;">talk <sub style="margin-left:-3ex;">contribs 01:04, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I think chronological order is better for video game lists. With alphabetical order, you're fine if you know the game and just want to navigate to it.  But chronology gives you a bit of a narrative so you can follow the series progression.  Obviously, it's not perfect due to re-releases and the like, but I think arranging it by date of first release would be superior. - hahnch e n 11:04, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I realize that chronological order is usually preferred in everything, but MOS:LIST states: "Although lists may be organized in different ways, they must always be organized. The most basic form of organization is alphabetical or numerical (such as List of Star Wars starfighters), though if items have specific dates a chronological format is sometimes preferable (List of Belarusian Prime Ministers)." This is exactly what applies here. We don't have exact dates for any, besides ones that have been released in the last couple of years. This isn't like a normal video game series, several developers and publishers have the rights to the series, and release games based off of it. There's no, "this is the second video game in the franchise; The Simpsons 1, The Simpsons 2"; it's all over the place. <font face="Arial" size="2em">— Status  &#x7B;<sup style="margin-left:0.37ex;">talk <sub style="margin-left:-3ex;">contribs 19:13, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand that. I didn't mean narrative as in a continuing storyline through the games, but more like an evolution of the games - you can see the type of games they used to make, and the type of games they make now.  I think this gives the reader a better sense of the games than an alphabetical list.  List of X-Men video games is a good example. - hahnch e n 11:15, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Support. I really like how the list looks. For my taste the table is flawless. The only thing that bothered me is this part of the second sentence - epitomized by its eponymous family, it reads awkward, maybe you can change it. The references are also fine. All in all good work. — Tomica   (talk)  21:22, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Going to go out on a limb here, I feel that the table at the moment is not in the best state it could be. I'm not a fan of the release information column, I feel it would be better if you had the info that is in this column in individual columns. For instance Bart & the Beanstalk would have game boy in console column, february 1994 in release date column, and then publisher and developer columns. This would provide a much more user friendly and would allow the table to be sortable which would provide the reader with more functionality than is presently available. I know there is an issue with games being released on multiple consoles to get around this I would split the rows utilising the method in this list. At the moment with the table the way it is I have to regrettably oppose the nomination as the table can be improved. NapHit (talk) 22:38, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Could you do up a draft with the first one as an example to show me what you mean? I had them in separate columns and sortable before, but it didn't work out. <font face="Arial" size="2em">— Statυs  (talk) 23:18, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I've done an example in my sandbox, it's only one row but still shows the premise. NapHit (talk) 18:30, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm gonna ask Golbez to see he thinks about this before doing anything. <font face="Arial" size="2em">— Statυs  (talk) 19:52, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Image review: Nothing to review; no images used. <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Good raise  21:03, 18 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: This would be an Oppose if not for the fact that I had been gone so long. I'm just curious as to if you can still use Gamefaqs for Release Data, I know when I was working on lists it was acceptable, and they provide exact dates, usually confirmed by instruction booklets or the companies themselves, and if you can only get 'aroundabout' dates, that's okay (As seen in the Donkey Kong list). If I were to vote, it would be an oppose, FL's in my opinion, should feature the best that wikipedia has to offer, and should be staple across it's highest rated articles. This article departs not from guidelines (since there are none) but from the precedent that has already been set by previous lists. I mean there is a perfectly good template for video game lists, and yet you haven't used it despite it featuring in all the other lists, all the other lists are in chronological order (except in the case when listed by series within a series (such as Final Fantasy) and even then it does it's best to stay in order. These clean-ups to align with current practices shouldn't take more than a day to fix.


 * When compared to the original list, it is a lot more informative then yours, I'd keep the total amount of games (but it's not necessary), and I'm assuming you couldn't find a source for the hit and run sequel, but that would be great to include had you found one, same with the comment about the limited edition Xboxes. Table wise, it's important to reference the developers and publishers, and the genre should be included as well.


 * As an editor of video game lists from the past I will say this, don't be discouraged as I was just because you haven't gotten many votes, video game lists are one of the least voted on that you'll find, but that in no way detracts from their notability. They are important. And your work is great, your lead in my opinion is fantastic, the issues for me lie in the list itself. This is a difficult list for numerous reasons including the fact that the games are western developed, meaning no section on the difference between releases for multiple countries or regions (not to say they couldn't be included) also the fact that it is the television series that spurred the games, and the fact that there is no real connection between many of the games. Also the fact that, as you noted, several of the games are almost pre-internet era and as such lacking in online documentation, and I'd imagine even print information. Don't give up. --Lightlowemon (talk) 16:19, 21 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose - This should be an A-class list if possible but not a FL. -- J <span style="color:green; border-bottom:1px dotted; cursor: help;" title="This is my talk page link. Click on it!">(t)  01:31, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Not a bad list, but not good enough to qualify for a FL yet. Zappa (talk) 23:54, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The previous two votes are meaningless since they are not explained. Still I am not 100% convinced with the current format of the table. There could be another column with the date of the first release, and another table with some statistics across all platforms. Nergaal (talk) 02:11, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.