Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 60

video game list consistency
Why do lists of video games on a given game platform all include different data and adopt different formats? Wouldn't it be better if they all shared an agreed upon template of what data to include/not include? --Tehw1k1 (talk) 05:36, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * There really isn't any way to help it unless we make a universal quality guideline on lists - what lists should have and should not have. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 05:57, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think a template similar to Template:VGtitle for platform lists would be a good idea. That should make it easier to maintain consistency across all the lists and cut down on the edit warring caused by editors who want to include some of the more trivial details. I think we should be able to come up with some general guidelines that will work for most everyone. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:38, 12 December 2008 (UTC))

Plot lengths of "complex" games
At the FAR for Chrono Trigger as given here, a large concern was the size and detail of the plot. The version in question is 6 long paras long and a shorter 7th, my version of it in response to the plot issues condenses a lot of it down to hit the main details of the work. Now there is concern (including Zeality, who worked the article through FA last year) that this is too short. Now I'm not claiming my wordsmithing is anywhere close to perfect (anyone that's CE'd an article for me knows this), but I will insist that this length is completely appropriate per WP:NOT and WP:WAF, despite the fact that that previous plot might have been there during the time the article passed FA. A lot happens in CT and I realize that it is comparable to other Square RPGs (FF7 for example), but we in this project should strive to reduce our plots to a point that is clear to a non-gamer reader that will likely never play the game, and I'd argue that even the FF7 plot is too long (if retold in the chronological order instead of how the game reveals it, it could be reduced); a similar problem exists at most of the Metal Gear Solid games. While I understand completely the need to cover plots in more detail when they are complex, we have to be aware newer editors use these articles as examples and tend to have highly detailed plots for games that just don't need it (eg Gears of War).

Now, most other projects on fiction have a "x words per y minutes" type rule of thumb, something impossible for us to consider as there's no comparable time length. However, I think we can work to set some general guidance, aiming to keep a standard 3-paragraph synopsis in most cases, if not less. --M ASEM 07:34, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I've seen 300 to 500 words tossed around. Mysts is 350, BioShocks Story section is 878, FFIVs Story section is a nasty 1.8k (and also tagged), FFVIs Story section is a leaner-than-IV's 1.2k. Looking at the version which you lasted edited, at 523 words, I see nothing wrong with that. Making any hard and fast rule is just a bad idea, but it's unlikely that plots should go above 800, tops, I'd say. --Izno (talk) 08:14, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Your version is a huge improvement. The old version is a complete narrative, which is not the purpose of the plot section. I'd be wary of setting specific project guidelines on length - I was going to point at WP:PLOT (which I am amused to find I created in the first place), but I see at some point it's lost any reference to recommended length (and have thus redirected it to an essay which is more useful). In any case, so long as one remembers that the purpose of the plot section is to give an overview of the story and not narrate every scene, I think common sense will work. I certainly wouldn't think of expanding the current Chrono Trigger plot any. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:03, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Someone should probably take a look at the story section in Call of Duty 4 whilst we're on the subject. Its FA, but its nine paragraphs of a blow by blow account of the game's missions, with minute detail included. I imagine someone will take that to FAR based on that sooner or later. -- Sabre (talk) 11:24, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * This is an issue I've thought about before. It seems counterproductive to push 'all' types of plots into a word length, because a 2 hour movie will have a lot less plot than a 40 hour story-based RPG, no matter how much fighting there is (especially something like Xenogears). Obviously plot sections shouldn't overwhelm the rest, a little bit of common sense needs to be thought of here in how things should be balanced. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 12:36, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The difference between a suitable plot section and an unsuitable one is not usually word length in itself; it's that because full narratives require so little thought to write that they are continually expanded until they present exhaustive descriptions of every mundane action in the entire story. In contrast, brilliant prose requires that material is assigned due weight relative to its importance, that themes and motives are presented in terms of how they are developed and that the reader not be bored senseless with trivia. One way to encourage plodding detail to be converted into brilliant pose is to impose word count limits, which forces editors to think about how much weight is being assigned to various aspects of the story and to summarise rather than describing in endless detail. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:14, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

A good example of a plot section in a "complex" game, is the one in Final Fantasy X. It describes the most important parts of the plot without going into unnecessary detail. The article is currently at FAR, and before editors started improving the article, the plot section looked like this:. The Prince (talk) 14:37, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * While I'm flattered people throw out my articles as examples, Myst is a solitary game, so it's bound to have much less to say about plot. In general, it depends on the game, but I agree that the plot of RPG's can be cut down; Golden Sun, for example, has only four paragraphs of straight plot, with details shunted to character and setting sections to remove explanatory text in the main narrative to improve flow and reduce wordiness. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk  ) 15:35, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Common sense applied to balancing an article is the optimal solution, but some editors either just don't know to do that or don't see the point. I know I didn't when I started. I think adding some limits to our guidelines would help get this under control, and should be based on word count and number of paragraphs. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:51, 12 December 2008 (UTC))
 * Hopefully this will help the discussion. I took a look at the FAs with story sections promoted this year and threw together some numbers. I used this year's promotions because I figured it would reflect current trends better. Unfortunately, there were not that many RPG-type games promoted, so this may not be completely representative. Just to clarify, I did not look at the version that was promoted because 1) I'm a bit lazy, and 2) I figured the articles haven't change drastically since their promotions. Anyway, here's what I found out:
 * Just looking at the section about the game's story, articles had an average of 3.85 paragraphs and 483.05 words.
 * Number of paragraphs ranged from 1-11 with most articles using 3 paragraphs (mode = 3).
 * Word count ranged from 123-1283 with most articles using 300-500 words.
 * Articles that had additional sections related to plot like characters and settings had an average of 353.50 additional words to supplement the story.
 * Interestingly enough, with CoD4 and Radical Dreamer (the two with the largest numbers) removed the paragraph and word averages dropped to 3.36 and 437.24.
 * The numbers have decreased as the year went on.
 * From January through May, articles with story sections averaged 4.93 paragraphs with 601.57 words.
 * From June onward, the averages are 2.69 and 355.39 respectively.
 * Specific genres didn't show too much variance.
 * Action oriented games with platform and adventure elements had averages of 3.17 and 438.58.
 * Shooting games had averages of 4.83 and 641.17.
 * Graphical adventure type games had averages of 4.29 and 491.71.
 * Personally, I look at FAs as examples for other articles to follow because they are suppose to represent what the community deems excellent quality. Because of that, I think our guidelines should mirror the trends of the more recent FAs. That being said, these numbers tell me that most our articles should use 300-500 words within 3-4 paragraphs. Of course, some more complex games may require more than that is, but I don't see them requiring much more; something like 600 words in 5 paragraphs. Any thoughts? (Guyinblack25 talk 18:05, 12 December 2008 (UTC))

Based on Guy's analysis and of course the caution that video games are not the same as TV shows or movies, where words per minute of footage make sense, I suggest the following guideline:
 * Plot sections, which may include characters, setting, and a synopsis of the game, should aim to be between 300 and 600 words or about 3 paragraphs. However, this is not a hard number, and for more complex plots, it may take up to 900-1200 words and 1 or 2 more paragraphs to describe the work to an appropriate level of comprehension for the reader; conversely, games with little plot, such as Tetris or Guitar Hero, should be kept short or not used at all, summarized in the Gameplay section.  Plot sections longer than 1200 words or 6 paragraphs are be discouraged; editors should review options for reduce length of plot sections at Writing about Fiction.

I want this a rule of thumb, not a hammer. When plots run long, it can be a case of "I know its wrong when I see it", so each case should be considered individually. --M ASEM 22:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think size is really the issue. It's more of due weight. Word counts are good for a relative guide, but I think trying to force them is bad, thus I support that they have been moved from WP:PLOT to an essay. A good rule of thumb of how much detail for gameplay time listed on the back of boxes. Yes those are arbitrary and often inflated, but they give a good estimate of how detailed a narrative there will be, based upon the genre; RPGs will almost always have, for the same gameplay length more plot because that's what they mostly focus on (except dungeon crawlers). Sidecrollers will have substantially less because they focus far more on gameplay. じん ない  22:46, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

No one's going to argue about satisfying the Featured Article requirement for comprehensiveness? One can argue that the plot is the work, in addition to the gameplay and music. The plot section should give the reader a comprehensive understanding of the story, and this includes key or iconic events. The new plot summary is a weird blend of player and non-player perspective. There's basically nothing about the Masamune and Frog / the Mystic War, which dominates the story for a few chapters. Zeal, the most iconic setting and watershed point of the game, is reduced to its numerical era (12,000 B.C.). The new "setting" section looks like an aborted joke of a paragraph. I could go on, but the icing on the fucking cake here is this:

discovered by Queen Zeal of the Mystics in 12,000 B.C.

Queen Zeal's a Mystic? Really? And Zeal is the Mystic Kingdom? Just...what the fuck? Did the writer of this new summary play the game or at least have it fresh enough in his or her mind to make it accurate? Jesus Christ. Then we get something like this:

eventually having enough power to arise and raze the planet's surface in 1999 A.D.

This is original research; if anything, the events of the game argue that Lavos had the power to erupt and raze the planet at any time, but merely stayed submerged to collect DNA. This mutilated plot summary is grossly inadequate and fails FA requirement 1(b) with flying colors. Perhaps consensus on what's comprehensive changed such that the article's original summary is a bit too long, but the current summary is completely unacceptable.

As a final note, the fact that this was nominated for FAR in the first place is ridiculous. Chrono Trigger DS's release has made the subject very volatile for the time being, and I only recently finished my semester and have the time to work on the article again. Hiragana-name person there could have simply told me on my discussion page instead of nominating it for featured article review, which is a drastic, highly-visible move. ZeaLitY [  DREAM  -  REFLECT  ]  00:57, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The DS port was kind of like the staw that broke the camel's back. The plot was completely atrocious. Not one person even came to defend it until you. The sequels section was grossly uprepresented of what the related games were and there were, and still are, questions on one of the particular sources that was never addressed. Had it just been the DS release that wouldn't have been so much so, but the history log showed that no one had been addressing the other problems and instead focused on DS section and expanding the already bloated (at the time) plot. じん ない  04:37, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

fictional element stubs
I started a WP:Stub types for deletion a few weeks ago, and it appears to have stalled. If you examine the entry for November 26th, you'll see that I've nominated two stub types that are more or less unused. If folks could direct their comments over there, that would be appreciated. Randomran (talk) 20:38, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe because you didn't complete the nomination—I don't see anything about this on the stub templates or categories. I check these categories about every other day and this is the first I knew about this.  Pagra shtak  21:33, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I may have screwed up the process. I can't remember the last time I did anything to do with stubs. Randomran (talk) 01:51, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Archive topics
Would there be a problem with performing a histmerge of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive index and WikiProject Video games/Archive topics? The former superseded the latter, and there is no overlap. It seems that it was started on a separate page because it was an experiment, and it worked. Obviously there was a lot of work put into the topics, but there's little point in tagging it as historical with the index around. A history merge seems ideal.

On a separate note, is there a way to make the non-numbered archives navigable without using the prefix search? ~  JohnnyMrNinja  21:06, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * A history merge sounds reasonable, and I agree the other archives should be more accessible. They're currently linked at the Project cleanup page, but links from the other archives would be ideal. When they were moved, I thought about manually adding them to the archive index, but worried the bot might delete them or get confused. I'm not sure what would be a good solution if this is an issue. (Guyinblack25 talk 22:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC))


 * The history merge is complete, and I've left a comment on the bot maintainer's talk page to see if there is an easy and consistent way to index the other pages. ~  JohnnyMrNinja  02:28, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Since I'm no bot expert the answer confuses me a bit, but I added the Runescape archive parameters to the optin template above to test it out. If that does the trick, then I guess we add in the others too. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:44, 13 December 2008 (UTC))
 * It looks like it worked, so I added the rest. After they get indexed, I guess we can remove them from the optin template. (Guyinblack25 talk 05:01, 14 December 2008 (UTC))

Help Improve The Recently Created Free Radical WikiProject!
File:Free radical design logo.jpgFile:Frd.png — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trap The Drum Wonder (talk • contribs)


 * I admire your enthusiasm, but a project for a company with six games is not the wisest idea, nor are fair-use images allowed on non-mainspace pages (see WP:NFCC). Nifboy (talk) 18:42, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't it be a better idea to make this into a task force? -- Nomader (Talk) 19:54, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Was thinking the same thing, but I'd propose that instead of a "Free Radical TF" this would work better as a "Time Splitters TF". I don't remember what we decided on participation requirements for a new task force, but I suggest that Trap The Drum Wonder finds two co-nominators for the new task force, so that this is not just one person creating a task force by themselves. JACO  PLANE  &bull; 2008-12-13 20:09
 * I've been looking around and I haven't seen any set requirements for task force creation. Should we create a page so people can nominate new task forces? Or should they just be brought up on the talk page? -- Nomader (Talk) 21:38, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well it's still just one fellow for the task force even then. In the long run might not even be worth it, no?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:49, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Probably not, but I'm now curious about overall policy for the project regarding task forces. We should probably have set standards for their creations somewhere; we can't always have people just running around creating WikiProjects and having them merged into ours as task forces. -- Nomader (Talk) 23:33, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * For example the recent WikiProject Myst. I suggest just deleting these one member projects; it;s not worth merging to task forces, especially on such limited scopes. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk  ) 02:08, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed a project and task force imply there is more than one person. じん ない  02:42, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Taskforcify it, if it's got more than a few members and a few dozen articles. Otherwise, yeah, delete it. Gary King  ( talk ) 03:26, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Frankly though, I worry about the activity in some of our task forces. I don't really notice any collaboration inside of them; and some of them seem to be especially inactive. Is there any way we can make their presence more visible to the project? -- Nomader (Talk) 05:01, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * A call to action? じん ない  17:53, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Nemesis (Resident Evil)
I've opted to revive this article out of the related character lists. It has chunks of reception as a character, and further details can be fleshed out into the article to help it develop readily. Not to mention he was one of the two a lot of us seemed to agree could be carved out of the RE creatures list in the even that article was destroyed.

Anyway, giving more of a shout if anything.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:48, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

VG Chartz
I think most people here would agree that this site is not at all reliable. So could we move them from "Questionable source" and declare them an unreliable source? This would help in the rare occasion when somebody tries to use their BS numbers.  TJ   Spyke   20:43, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I support this notion. It's been readily pointed out time and again the site is indeed not a reliable source for information despite their aggressive PR campaign.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:21, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I suggest keeping it on the page but moved to another section; we get enough comments and queries about it. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk  ) 22:03, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * As an aside, where is a good place to get sales information if this place is considered unreliable. I can never find it at the best of times. -- Sabre (talk) 22:05, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * There really isn't any readily available sales figures. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 22:13, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, there isn't one specific site. Sales numbers in general are hard to find (real numbers, anybody can provide BS numbers).  TJ   Spyke   22:19, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The best you can find is reports on various gaming sites from the NPD Group. They seem to be the authority if you can find them. -- Nomader (Talk) 22:59, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Press releases from the developer and/or publisher sometimes include them as well. Though sometimes they list the number "shipped" rather than the number "sold". Still better than nothing.
 * On a side note, perhaps we should list MobyGames on there somewhere and list acceptable/unacceptable uses to keep confusion down. (Guyinblack25 talk 23:20, 14 December 2008 (UTC))
 * That would be useful, I really don't know when/if its safe to cite that place. Allgame doesn't always have the full info for things like credits, while Moby tends to. -- Sabre (talk) 23:29, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. Better qualifications of what should(n't) be cited from each site will clear up confusion. じん ない  00:18, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think MobyGames should be avoided in most cases; it seems to me that the main summaries can be edited by anyone (see as an example of MobyGames). Allgame can't (see  as an example of Allgame). Just my personal rule of thumb. -- Nomader (Talk) 01:38, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * At the moment, the only thing MobyGames could be cited for is its ludographies (credits), which are what books on video games are only citing it for. Jappalang (talk) 01:49, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I added MobyGames to WikiProject Video games/Sources. Feel free to tweak as needed. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:13, 15 December 2008 (UTC))
 * You can find an archive of monthly "Famitsu Japanese Sales Charts" for console games at ELSPA's website, which includes rankings and sales figures. While Academy of Interactive Arts & Sciences' website has an archive of NPD Group's monthly console game rankings in the United States. --Silver Edge (talk) 11:36, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately nothing before 2005 for Famitsu. :( But that's how the net works. じん ない  16:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * What sucks is that I have a variety of figures for last and current gen games on and off the regular top 10 for NPD, but have no way to source them, and they aren't available anywhere else. D: - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:16, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:VG's to-do-list
This has bothered me for awhile, why does the Featured candidates link to Featured article candidates? Yet, FLC's and FTC's are included in that category and they aren't separately linked. I think it shouldn't be linked at all, or sub categories should be made because IMO it looks unprofessional.--SRX 21:09, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well I did a quick change on it to "Featured content candidates" pointing at Portal:Featured content, which is all inclusive. How's that?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:28, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That's better, but wouldn't the article need (FAC) next to them?--SRX 21:29, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It shouldn't be too hard for people to assume articles are nominated by default, given the track record.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:30, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay.--SRX 21:46, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Why don't we just point it at WikiProject Video games/Featured articles, which lists all article/topic/list pages currently nominated? JACO  PLANE  &bull; 2008-12-15 10:51
 * That sounds like a good catch all. It also has links to the relevant featured content links. (Guyinblack25 talk 17:04, 15 December 2008 (UTC))
 * Done.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:15, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That works well as well. --SRX 01:19, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Poké Ball
Can I get some comments on having Poké Ball merged into Gameplay of Pokémon here? TTN (talk) 22:47, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion: Video Game Priority Scale
Considering the size and scope of video game project, it might be a good idea to do a better clarification of what should be given what type of rank for priority similar to what is done for quality.Jinnai (talk) 06:13, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with this. Right now, there are many game articles that assign themselves High or Top, regardless of the game's importance to the video game topic.  The table in WikiProject Anime and manga/Assessment serves as a good model for this project to think on.  Jappalang (talk) 08:31, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Since February 2007 I've employed the following table as a rule of thumb:

At appears fandom has left many of my old examples with a higher importance than I would assign to it. User:Krator (t c) 08:38, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * In all honesty I'm really finding the importance factor to be pretty badly flawed, especially given the CD articles that came up and the number of very bad articles that were initially included due to importance ranking (i.e. Lara Croft) and the multitude of good or higher articles passed aside due to "low importance". I'm more inclined to think because of that importance as it's treated in that regard should relate more to the quality of the article, not the weight of the target subject.
 * Importance as it is now just ends up feeling more a subjective case of opinion on the weight of a subject: is a launch title important? What awards count towards importance? What about fighting games and similar where many characters are important but no lead characters are clear? Etc. Especially the last one given you have cases where I've noticed while doing research on subjects that sometimes lead characters end up getting almost no notability while others (for example those with...well to be direct, sex appeal) tend to get a significant amount of coverage and recognizability in comparison for notability.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 12:27, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I've never understood the importance thing either. While there are a few things one can say are obvious, it's in general so subjective I always wondered why the whole system is so prominent in WP. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 13:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * My take on importance is a way of sorting the articles such that someone who is completely unfamiliar with the field but needs to research it can start with the most important articles in order to gain the best overview of the field, and then if they need more they can read articles presented at the next level. Thus, the articles at the top and high importance should be less about the games themselves save for those that are established as genre-establishing titles, and more about general VG topics.   An average game, even if awarding winning, will likely only get to Mid importance until time itself tells us that it is more important than that. --M ASEM  13:17, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Aye, I tend to use Krator's method of determining importance, but I agree with Masem, the best indicator of importance is time itself. We have a clearer idea of how important games back at the turn of the millenium (influencial series like the LucasArts adventure games, Myst, Doom, etc) than we do now, when potentially groundbreaking games are released regularly these days. We are only just beginning to feel the influence of Half-Life 2 on the industry, for instance, and it will be a few years until we can establish what sort of importance Crysis is in the grand scheme of things - I'm not entirely sure at the moment that the "high" importance assigned to Crysis is entirely justified. -- Sabre (talk) 13:23, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems everyone is in agreement as to how importance should be determined. The thing to do now is establish some standards so less experienced editors will know how to determine the importance as well. I think Jappalang's suggestion to model the table at WikiProject Anime and manga/Assessment is something that should be done. Creating a table at WP:VG/A that applies that general format to Krator's descriptions and examples will be a good step to take, and is something editors can be directed to during disagreements. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:21, 14 November 2008 (UTC))


 * I do think some kind of importance scale is valuable... and we especially need to recognize the importance of gaming terminology / genres. How many articles link to platform game? (Actually, the number of "link-to"s is a decent heuristic to measure importance, IMO.) It's just too bad that nobody really uses importance to guide their efforts. Hence some of our most important topics are actually our most underdeveloped articles. But hey, we can't twist anyone's arm. Randomran (talk) 17:41, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * We do what we can. You were able to get 4X to FA and have done some good work with fighting game. David has gotten some older games to FA. I made sure the last four articles I pushed to FA were all essential articles, and plan to keep pursuing that. Several others have contributed as well.
 * But unfortunately, the top rated articles are generally the hardest to write; especially the genre and terminology ones. Some good steps have been taken towards improving them. We just need to keep up the momentum. (Guyinblack25 talk 18:22, 14 November 2008 (UTC))

Table ideas
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Assessment may be a better place to discuss this, but since the discussion started here it makes sense to finish here. Feel free to move this to the assessment talk page though.

Let's try to get some table worked up to include under "Assessment instructions" on WP:VG/A. I think it would be a good compliment to the Quality scale we have there. Feel free to edit, tweak, change, whatever the table below to suit our needs. (Guyinblack25 talk 18:35, 14 November 2008 (UTC))


 * I trust by "list of characters" you mean actual lists of characters, not the collective character articles, such as Characters of Halo, Characters of StarCraft, etc, which are articles rather than lists. And why are all video game importances listed as "N/A?"-- Sabre (talk) 18:42, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd say video games that have had important impact on the genre that have lasted decades like Final Fantasy, Dragon Quest, Super Mario Bros, etc should be listed as High, including both the series and particular games. At the least they should be ranked mid to set them apart from titles with lesser impact.Jinnai (talk) 18:49, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I've boldly added how I think VGs in general should be considered. Basically, the older and more influential the game is, the most important it becomes. --M ASEM  18:57, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sabre- The N/A's were there because I basically copied it from WP:ANIME. And as far as the list vs. article question. I have no idea. That's something we've never really sorted out. :-|
 * Masem- I like the time frames and think they are reasonable.
 * For the mid importance individual, would Tetsuya Nomura be a good example? He's currently rated low importance, but his work the past decade seems to fit the description. Any thoughts? (Guyinblack25 talk 19:48, 14 November 2008 (UTC))
 * I personally don't agree with setting hard, or even general, age limits to determine the importance of a game. There are relatively recent games, such as Halo and World of Warcraft, that I think could easily qualify as either High or Top importance, since they are extremely well known, highly influential on the industry as a whole, and are or may become synonymous with a particular aspect of the video game industry as a whole.  I doubt anything will, in the next decade or so, trump Pac-Man or Space Invaders in terms of overall impact, but the game industry has diversified to such an extent since then that there are more categories under which a game might become a Top Importance game.  Also, consider the possibility that, great as they were, games like Pac-Man may become less important in the grand scheme of things as time goes on, except from a purely historical perspective. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 20:51, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that a time measure is important, and I wouldn't want to lose it. In general, something has to be around for a while for it to assert its importance. But I agree there are exceptions. Perhaps we can come up with a more gentle phrasing? Randomran (talk) 21:15, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The time "limits" are meant to be rough numbers. A game that zooms to popularity after 6 months and clearly needs to be marked more important that "mid" can be marked higher.  The idea is to provide a rough guideline there.  I will also say that I don't think any game or article loses importance over time.  Thirty years from now, Pac-Man may be "huh, what's that?" but in the overall historic context, it is still one of the key defining games.  Articles can only move up this scale over time, not down (that's why the time period is important, as one may mis-assess a game as higher than it really is shortly after its release when, a year later, it's not even played anymore). --M ASEM  21:56, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow, personally, I think that table practically nailed it. I pretty much found myself nodding with each criteria and example. It'll always be subjective, but the above seems to have very good generality... ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 20:09, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree with series and characters having no articles of top importance. I think that Final Fantasy, The Legend of Zelda, Mario, Pokémon, etc. are all of top importance, and Mario, Link, Pikachu, etc. are of top importance. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:08, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think any article dedicated to a series or a character is a "top" article, if only because, to the general researcher, the details of the series aren't important, just that the series was influential, and in most cases, this is a point covered by the other article types. It's a matter of taking off the "gamer" hat and thinking of what we have in a different light - the "top" articles should delve less into details of specific games and more into the overall field, only using games that, as I listed, ubiquitous with the term "video game".  All the examplesyou give are of course High importance, which we can replace our "gamer" hat and go from what we know there. --M ASEM  21:56, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * rather than continue to edit the above table, i'm posting my proposed changes below so they can be seen in comparison:


 * The purpose is to more clearly define the top and high priority for games that had influence on core elements of almost every other game rather than just a well known in popular culture, though sometimes this is the same.Jinnai (talk) 21:15, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if Bard's Tale is Top. It's not a game that non-games will instantly recognize when you talk to them about it.  It's "High" for sure since it is an early RPG example. --M ASEM  21:58, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That's why i say popularity is not best fitting.
 * Bard's Tale iconified [almost] everything most RPG players take for granted when playing video game RPGs. They were notable, along with Ultima, in developement of Dragon Quest and it is WP:V that the creators were heavily influenced by those games and Wizardry. Bard's Tale was the first notable game to use MP in the way most games use it, or something akin to it, now. It was the first game to replace large amounts of item drops with gold drops from every monster, it simplified the stat system similar to what most non-D&D-based video game rpgs use today, it simplified the equipment system to basic weapon, body armor, shield, boots and accessory used for almost major RPG in some fashion until FFVII. I can go on, but I hope you get the point. Popularity =/= importance.Jinnai (talk) 22:17, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The "top" games are not there for popularity, they are there because they have entered the general popular culture and are well known outside of video games. Again, I'm not saying Bard's Tale isn't "high", as it is a genre-defining game, but if you ask non-gamers about that, you'll likely get blank stares.  Our top articles should be the ones of most interest from an academic standpoint, not from a gamer's standpoint, since these are the first ones that are included when WP makes DVDs for educational purposes.  --M ASEM  22:27, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * And I'm saying that's not how it should be. Those should be high and those that defined a genre should be top. We're not disagreeing their importance, just the level of importance. As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, historical importance of genre setting should take priority.Jinnai (talk) 22:31, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The key result of assessment is what articles are first targeted to go into printed or published versions of WP when they do that (we just had/are doing the 0.7v DVD). These will go to schools and will be used to research a large swatch of topics, video games being one of them.  We want our "top" articles to reflect the field, in general, and not drill down into any particular video game field or aspect that is not critical to understanding the field at large.  Ideally, due to this, the number of "top" article on specific video games should be as close to zero as possible, the field being represented better by the general archetypes of video games (core genres) and the core companies, people, and hardware in the field.  Only those games which, relative to other human events, are rather important as to gain significant non-gaming news coverage (eg Pac-man and Space Invaders), should be rated "Top".  Games like Bard's Tale and Halo and Doom are very influential games and thus all should be High assessment, but they are not core to understanding the overall field of video games.  Remember, as long as we are covering the core genres, the games that define those genres will be mentioned, so it is not like we are snubbing them from any mention in those articles in the "Top" assessment level.  --M ASEM  23:38, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The idea of what defines "video game" is very subjective. If you ask 10 different people what game defines a video game, you are likely to get ten different answers. Thus saying Pac-Man is more important to that field than Zelda is making a judgment call purely on subjective reasoning which can vary even within different English-speaking cultures.Jinnai (talk) 23:46, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to propose some actual wording, but I must say that I agree with most of the table, except for two parts. First, I think we can do some kind of blanket thing with game-derivatives like characters and fiction within a game: one step lower than the game itself, unless there's significance outside that game (Mario, Pikachu, who should be Top). Second, I think we should be much more lenient with classifying games as 'High' or 'Mid'. Mid importance, for me, is achieved by getting something like an IGN Editor's Choice award. Not extremely important, but quite so. That's why it's 'Mid'. Games like Gears of War that actually have received unanimous praise and present some advancements in the genre, generally games that will be remembered for the next ten years, should be high. A typical game that's rated 'high' would appear in some of the "Top 100 games that .. " lists that go around a lot. A game that's rated Top would appear in most if not all of such lists, typically.

Other importance ratings can then simply be derived from the games, if we have those explained in detail - with an exception for Top-rated things, both characters and the game itself can be 'top'. As a final note, use actual objective criteria, not vague terms like influence. These criteria don't need to be 'hard', but they do need to be some kind of objective. 'Ground breaking title' is different for everyone, but my 'Appears in some Top 100 lists' above isn't, though both of these cover about the same games. User:Krator (t c) 00:33, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Characters shouldn't be top unless they are key to understanding a culture. I don't think any character qualifies as that, Mario would be the closests and I'd still give him only "High" status. Other than that, I'd say the suggestion on characters sounds fine, as a general rule.
 * I do not agree that we should lower standards on the game importance, especially high. Top and High should be reserved only for game titles that are truly deserving of it; games that massively altered culture, politics, genre or were key to being the foundations of a genre. Minor improvements and critical acclaim might make it to mid depending on other factors, but Wikipedia isn't about popularity, it's about importance. Sometimes those go hand-in-hand, but a game like the afore mentioned Bard's Tale never really made it on any "TOP 100 List" [for popularity, and I don't know given the quality of the research of those TOP 100, if it would have made it on TOP 100 influential] and yet is more important a game than almost any other out there in terms of what the impact in had [on video/computer RPGs and everything it spawned (like MMORPGs)].
 * You are right, about these criteria not being hard-fast rules. Wikipedia doesn't have that for the general one, WP:AM doesn't have it as a hard-and-fast rule for theirs. There will always be exceptions that need to be dealt with outside the rule, but they need to have a good reason.Jinnai (talk) 03:22, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I took a look at WP:ANIME, WP:TV, and WP:ALBUM to get some points of comparison. Of those: So from our side, I would restate the scale as follows:
 * Anime has a very limited (14 out of 7000 some) top-level, no specific examples of the field.
 * TV has 40-some top, including key series (I Love Lucy, Dallas, etc.) out of 10000
 * Album has 80-some top, all key albums, out of 70000

I think we should try to aim for similar numbers, however, somewhere between 0.05 and 0.2% of all our articles as Top (we actually have a lot - 110-some of 21300, or around 0.5%) --M ASEM 04:29, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * In response to the series comment, what suggests that Final Fantasy is the only "true example" of a Top series? Mario is the most successful video game franchise ever made, Pokémon the second (and one of the most successful animes, mangas, and trading card games), Grand Theft Auto is a veritable hot box of controversy and the leading series in its respective genre (sandbox), The Legend of Zelda is one of the most well-recognized video game series out there - I don't really see anything that would make FF the one and only series of top importance. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:38, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, in the interest of trying to keep as few "top" articles as possible: no one single FF game is really so much better than the others, it is simply that the series overall has the impact. On the other hand, for Mario, it's a handful of games (SMB1, SMB3, SB64) that really stand out, Pokemon is Red/Blue, and Zelda is likely OOT; however, the series in each itself has had a number of duds, and while the series is very important to video gaming, I would not say they are top-level importance compared to the specific examples from each.  --M ASEM  06:08, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * SMB is the best-selling game, SML is the best-selling standalone Game Boy game, SMB3 is the best-selling non-bundled game, SMW is the best-selling SNES game, SM64 is the best-selling N64 game, etc. There's more than just SMB1, 3, and 64 to speak of as famous games. The Mario franchise has a large expanse - '93 showed its starring character to be the most well-recognized character to children by a national survey, and he was one of the three first video game characters featured on the walk of fame. On top of all this, he is the first video game character to be featured in the Hollywood Wax Museum, and the series has won seven world records. Onto Pokémon, it has a 500 episode-long anime (and counting), many various series of mangas, is a billion dollar product, has toys coming out the wazoo, has arguably the most popular trading card series of its kind (that is, excluding stuff like sports cards), and has won several world records. And all four main titles in the series are very prolific - G/S is the best-selling game of the past three generations, RuSa being best-selling of last-gen is unknown, it's between GTAVC and it, I believe, and D/P is the best-selling RPG on the DS (which is notable, since it was included in the Guinness Book of World Records). I really don't see why FF, which has little outside of gaming, is more important than Pokémon, which is arguably more significant with its anime, manga, TCG, and real-world affect. FFXII wasn't significant, nor was FFIX, FFIX and VIII weren't terribly significant, and FFV and III weren't either. I mean, if you're attempting to be strict, I'm lost as to why you're looking at Pokémon, of all things, as a series not of top importance. I'm all for trimming the fat, so long as you trim it evenly. - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:27, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I would like to present an abstract for discussion. Personally, Top importance articles should be reserved for subjects that deal closely with "what is a video game".  If there are no such articles (subject), then video games as we know would not exist.  Hence, the items that spawned video games and the ideas and objects that defined what would become such games should be Top.  Off-hand, I would propose joystick (or game controller), arcade game, personal computer, video game console, DirectX, OpenGL, and Pong as obvious candidates under this scheme.  High importance articles should deal with the revolutionary subjects that created distinct "generations" of the Top importance subjects.  If they are missing, one would be left with the sense that "there is something missing here" when one thinks about video games after going through the Top articles.  Long history characters and games (10–20 years of constant popular rememberance) befit the bill as well as major technological developments (consoles).  Mid class articles would contain less remarkable innovations, objects, and ideas that while not crucial to the video games concept, can provide insightful or interesting points about the industry.  Low importance objects simply applies to subjects that when deleted or missing, would not be missed except by hardcore fans.  Jappalang (talk) 11:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That makes sense to me if I'm understanding correctly. Basically a tree setup: you start with the fundamentals, then trickle down. Series-starting games like the original Zelda should effectively take a higher precedence in such a hierarchy than the later titles, and from there spinoffs being of less importance, possibly taking up the Low rank in the end. Non-series games can then be argued individually as needed, with launch titles and award winning games getting precedence over random titles. It would be nice if we could make a page of some sort to keep track of this too: it's kinda difficult to keep a system like this intact when many new editors might not be on the same page and feel so-and-so game should be of high priority.
 * I think using this system too we could set up a means for "child of" parameters in the template. What I mean is for cases like Final Fantasy VII, where it was noted to be included on the CD, but the related character articles, while of GA or higher, were not due to various reasons (site hits, etc). Such material however is necessary to get a better grasp on a subject. A system like this could effectively make having to suggest the addition of such articles an automatic step for the .8 version of the DVD, no? Just some thoughts.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 11:29, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Top level for video games should not be "what is a video game" but "what has led to the core elements of what we take for granted in video game". The former is subjective, varies from English-speaking culture to English-speaking culture and isn't as important for researchers than "what is a video game" because that can be defined by reading about the articles like Dragon Quest 1, Final Fantasy 1, Ultima 1, Pokemon Red/Blue, etc. That criteria is not something that is subjective as it can be verified by what the creators themselves have said in interviews inspired them. Nor is it likely to change over time.
 * As for series, well, again I'd have to say Final Fantasy 1 and Final Fantasy 7 stand out as major cornerstone titles: 1 being one of the core RPGs that defined standards which would be applied to RPGs for decades to come and FF7 for revitalizing and expanding the RPG market into more mainstream market and the implications that had on other RPGs.
 * The key for what should be TOP should be "signifigant impact on all other aspects of a political, cultural or economic status and/or signifigant impact on a genre or video games in general, either of which must have lasted at least a decade.Jinnai (talk) 14:42, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * A point to come back to - If we assume that a WP DVD would only have the "Top" rated VG rated articles, thus to establish what the core of video games are, then I would think that the genre articles should have mention, if not deeper coverage, of the core games that established that genre, diminishing the need to have actual video game articles in there as well. I think these genre articles are much more important than the actual games themselves as long as the influence of certain titles on the field are spelled out.  --M ASEM  15:24, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That could be a possibility, however those titles listed in the genre would should still then be given High priority above most other titles since those will be the next logical step anyone researching a genre would look.Jinnai (talk) 16:18, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course, those games and series can be placed High - again, comparing that to the DVD approach, the High levels should only be read after an appreciation of the Top level ones are obtained. --M ASEM  16:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I think I've done enough to establish that the Mario and Pokémon series are more than popular enough. I mean, your logic of FF having "no titles standing out" is terribly flawed - FFI is more famous than II and III, VI is more famous than V and IV, VII is more famous than VIII and IX, and X is more famous than XI and XII. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:00, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that Final Fantasy should not be the only top rated series, but I don't think Pokemon should be. It is one of the most popular franchises ever, but I don't think it really furthers a layman's knowledge of video games. That being said, I don't see it's contributions to video games in general as important as Final Fantasy or Mario. No other series as a whole comes to mind that has contributed in such a significant manner.
 * To get back on point. I think limiting the number of top articles is the right idea. (Guyinblack25 talk 20:54, 17 November 2008 (UTC))
 * Pokémon is definitely more important than Final Fantasy. It's one of the first monster-raising games, it is thought to have extended the life of the GB by many, many years, and the series spans more than video gaming, which FF and Mario can't really say. Not only is it very famous in more than just video games, but throughout its life, there's been a lot of history in its controversy from parents and religious figures, and is an excellent example of addiction second only to MMORPGs and the like. Pokémon has had a significant impact on the world and gaming, an impact that FF has never ever made. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:14, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not arguing that Pokemon has not had great cultural and industry impact. But I attribute that to the franchise as a whole, and not entirely to its video game components. And while, FF and Mario both do extend beyond video games, their main areas of impact have been in the video game industry. This is why I consider them to offer more to the layman's understanding of video gaming.
 * Regardless, these are based more on our personal interpretations of the bigger picture. It would probably be best to get a better grasp of what the bigger picture should be in the section below. (Guyinblack25 talk 23:16, 17 November 2008 (UTC))

Section break
Here's another full table with some of the suggestions integrated (hopefully successfully integrated)into the previous one. Also, the length of the discussion looks like it needs a section break too. I've also moved the core topics row to the top as those are really the topics which define video games. Any thoughts? Are we getting close to a final version? (Guyinblack25 talk 20:54, 17 November 2008 (UTC))

Arb Break - What do we want as representative articles?
I think we need to make a mini-consensus decision here so that we can better fill in the table and go forward. There seems to be two possible paths that we can take to consider our Top, "must read" articles We should decide which is the route we want to go, and then I think the chips will fall from there. (There may be another option that I'm not aware of either). --M ASEM 21:04, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) We can go the route the Anime project has done, with only technical articles about the field or those that introduce specific areas of the field, or the like.  In other words for us, this would having our genre articles, key video game companies and people, but no video games, series, or elements thereof in the Top, with the assumption that the other articles that are in Top will hit on these.   The most influential games would be High then.
 * 2) We can go the route of the TV project where the most influential games are also in Top along with technical aspects of the field.
 * Support #1 - mostly because I do not believe the idea of "games ubiqituitous with the idea of video game are more important or less subjective than video games that had core design concepts for a genre that are now taken for granted. That way there would be no dispute as to which was more important as they would both be High.
 * If not, I would request we hold off until a good way to decide what's best for top video games, perhaps seeking advice elsewhere and/or having a vote.Jinnai (talk) 21:19, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm leaning towards the first proposal, but am a bit hesitant to exclude all series and video games from the top category—specifically video games. I must admit though, if a game is so important, it stands to reason it and its impact would be adequately covered in the respective genre and company article. (Guyinblack25 talk 23:18, 17 November 2008 (UTC))
 * I disagree with any proposal that suggests that there cannot be a top-class article in one section (specifically Characters and Series). - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:44, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I support option #1. High is not too far from the tree as Top, and can be applied to articles that established a legacy quite easily (Tetris, Halo). Mid used for noteworthy video games second that have won awards or been launch titles that defined a console, and low for lesser everyday game articles that are still notable. It's a strong hierarchy, and exceptions can be discussed here as needed if the case arises, no?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:09, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I support no. 1 as well, but can I request that people lay off the reclassification of articles from top to high until after a consensus has been established here (A Link to the Past, I'm looking at you). Until consensus is reached, the mass change of articles from an importance levels should be avoided as the old way still applies. Anyway, I agree with Guyinblack's statement that the impact of a game of high importance to the genre and the industry should be adequately covered in the respective genre and company articles, even if it isn't at present. -- Sabre (talk)
 * It seems number one is the popular choice. Should we proceed with this in mind, or give people more time to voice their thoughts? (Guyinblack25 talk 20:48, 18 November 2008 )
 * I'd give is a little longer, say until Sunday? -- Sabre (talk) 21:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I Support no. 2. Without the games as the driving force behind the hardware and the industry then their would be no sales so thus it could be argued that the games are more important than the consoles they run on and the genres they defined and therefore should be in Top importance too. Cabe 6403  (Talk•Sign!) 00:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Minor quib but upon re-reading mid importance level, I'd change it to read:
 * Successful or critically acclaimed games, most likely having sequels, that had some level of influence other non-sequal unrelated games, or franchises, at least 1-2 years since release for proper assessment.
 * This makes it more clear distinction as to make certain spin-off titles wouldn't be used as justification since they are basically one-step removed from sequels. The removal of the comma also changes the the meaning to mean to help clear that as well by associating "unrelated" to both games and franchise. Leaving the comma in would muddy that.Jinnai (talk) 02:14, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

To get this motion moving (and amend from there on) instead of letting the current situation persist, I am in favor of no. 1 as it is the closest to my personal opinions stated above. Jappalang (talk) 09:25, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Just trying to get an idea where everyone is coming from. How many people are placing more importance on history and how many are placing more to impact? And are there any people trying to weigh them 50/50? (Guyinblack25 talk 19:07, 19 November 2008 (UTC))
 * It seems that no one proposal allows for top importance in both series articles and character articles. I definitely think Mario, Pikachu, and the like are of top importance. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:33, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If #2 was supported, that Top articles are more than just the field's technical basis, then in addition to games, there would be a few series and characters Top articles. --M ASEM 19:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Link to the Past: This are guidelines. That means, without good reason they should be followed. For something like Mario you can always propose pushing it to a top level article.Jinnai (talk) 21:01, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * What is a guideline? A miserable pile of secrets. But also, are you referring to the proposals as guidelines? If so, as long as it allows for characters and series to be of top importance, then I'm all for it. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:23, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * First, let's make one thing clear. As of this moment, the above is nothing more than a proposal. However when it is adopted (and at this point it appears in some fashion it will be), it will become a guideline. A guideline differs from policy in that policy does not allow much, if any, wiggle room. If policy says something, it needs to be done or contested to change policy. Guidelines are a step below. They are there to flesh out policy and to help writers design better articles. Guidelines can be ignored at times, but there must be a very good reason that is adopted by consensus.
 * Using your example, simply putting "Mario" and "Zelda" as top because you believe it should be would be a violation and get them removed ASAP to at most "High". If however, you think they should be, you must make a case as to why they are special and convince others. Even if you succeed though, at a later date it's still subject to revision as people might have other reasons, or more people might chime up who weren't active during the discussion. However, you do have precident on your side, so at that point, the onus would be more on them, but still with the intent of guidelines behind them.
 * Bottom line is, don't expect any article about a character, video game or video game series to be "TOP" in the near future without it being reverted.Jinnai (talk) 03:11, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I support #1. It avoids favoritism, and reflects the topics that are truly important. Randomran (talk) 06:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Arb. Break 2 - Moving forward
Given the above discussion it seems the preference is for option #1 - that our "Top" articles define the field of what video gaming is through core genre articles, companies, hardware, and people involved, without emphasis on any specific title, series, or character. We probably should review what is currently given as "Top" for our assessments and consider each.

To address a few points above for those that favored #2, this is not meant to prevent any game, series, or character from being "Top", but I would be hesitant to include a game, series, or character that is already mentioned in the other "Top" articles, avoiding as much duplication in topic coverage as possible assuming that these are our core articles. (This is why the genre articles should be "Top" since they hit on so many games and usually those that are standouts in the field). For example, there's no doubt that Nintendo should be a top article; that said, since coverage of Nintendo should obviously mention Mario, there's no need to specifically call out Mario the character or the series (which itself should also be called out via platform game as well). --M ASEM 23:46, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a good point, that top importance covers the most important aspects of gaming - genres, companies, systems, etc. But I think it should also encompass series articles. While the Mario series should be covered in Nintendo, it may not be covered sufficiently. The Nintendo article has a lot to cover, and Mario can cover a lot more than Nintendo could, making it not redundant. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see why Series has to be top: an article on a series is more important than the concepts that make the games? Just seems a little odd to put that much weight on something when High can suffice. I mean to someone that isn't knowledgeable to Nintendo's work, how is the Mario series top priority to them to be informed of over the company itself? On a side note, not entirely sure Link's Awakening needs High priority over Mid...it's an important game, but without going into opinion it doesn't seem as influential to the series as the original LoZ.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Personally, I've always seen series articles as a higher-level, overview article—not as high as a genre article, but certainly a step above a normal video game article. Because of that I view them above most game articles in importance.
 * Having said that, I still have to agree that most game, series, and character articles don't really need to be Top importance.
 * Should we start finalizing the table now? (Guyinblack25 talk 02:01, 23 November 2008 (UTC))
 * In general, i'd say series should be equal to the highest level of one of its related games. There are exceptions, both ways. FE: Dot Hack video games might very well be low priority as invidisual video games. Taken as a whole though the series probably warrants a mid level importance. On the opposite side, Bard's Tale likely warrants a top rating, but a page about the series probably doesn't warrant that high of one because the series as a whole was not as influential as the first game, so a mid level would be more appropriate.Jinnai (talk) 17:22, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Pokémon is not actually covered in Nintendo. But the issue is that regardless of it being just a series, Pokémon is way too large to be covered in enough detail at Nintendo, because Pokémon encompasses many series - RPG series, spin-off series, and then it's got the anime, trading card game, manga, and merchandise, all of which have been extremely successful and received incredible coverage. It's stuff like this, where the series vastly transcends its role as a video game series, that should define it as a top importance article. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It should be covered in Nintendo. It's one of their biggest franchises, extended the life of the Game Boy, earned them billions, and kept them financially afloat during their slump with the N64. If it isn't now, it should be covered in Nintendo and Game Boy when they get cleaned up.
 * I'm afraid I have to disagree with the rationale of Pokemon being top importance. I believe the top articles should further a layman's understanding of video games, not just show them the most popular and influential. And I don't see how knowing the details of Space Invaders or Halo 3 are "essential" to that understanding. Knowing the general information will certainly help though, just as it would to know general info about Pokemon. And all that info would likely be covered in the related top articles. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC))
 * Pokémon is more than just a popular game, it's a phenomenon - no game series has transcended gaming in the way that Pokémon has and had such a significant influence as well. Heck, Pokémon has its own separate company now - The Pokémon Company. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * And there's no reason why Nintendo would cover Pokémon adequately - Pokémon branches out too much for there to be enough possible coverage there. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Link- I can't help but feel like we're going in a circle with our statements. We're mainly reiterating the same points again and again. You belief their high level of influence warrants top-importance, and I belief their influence is important but not as important when compared to their higher related articles. I doubt we're going to convince each other to think the other way. (Guyinblack25 talk 20:46, 25 November 2008 (UTC))

I agree that "Top" is virtually synonymous with "essential". If someone were trying to understand video games as a whole, would they need to read it? You'd probably read some history articles, some technology articles, some articles about terminology and genres. I think series and games would rarely be of Top importance, let alone details like characters or lists. Also, I happen to think that some series articles are more important than game articles, and vice versa -- it depends on whether it's important to understand the whole series, important to understand one specific game in the series, or both. Randomran (talk) 20:28, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sooooo....... Should we start finalizing the table now? (Guyinblack25 talk 20:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC))

Arb Break 3 - Table v2
I've added a hardware category, but like with video games, the top level should be generic about hardware only mentioning specific systems via the History articles (akin to games via the genre articles). Note that where I've left "discuss on WT:VG" in certain areas as this goes with the suggestion that once in a while there will be something that fits to these importance levels from this area but we better decide that as a group. --M ASEM 21:16, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that the three lists of video games should be included as top, and a list of video game consoles should too. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The console list should be duplication (in tabular form) of the console history articles. As for the "three lists of video games", which three are those?   I'm guessing the 360/PS3/Wii lists are the ones in question, but this is too narrow, if we put any such list at the top, then all lists of games for any console should be there, and that really doesn't make sense for the short-lived consoles. --M ASEM  21:34, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * There are three lists that list all released games across all platforms. I think that they'd be pretty important, though they're incomplete. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:36, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I think we can afford to condense the list a bit. This is pretty brutal and complicated. Can we combine the guidelines on individuals and organizations? Can we combine the guidelines on series and games? Randomran (talk) 21:42, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't really use a character's in-title weight to determine importance. Truthfully you get many cases where there is no definitive main character, or cases where a main protagonist has significantly less coverage than another character (Siegfried (Soulcalibur) vs. Ivy (Soulcalibur). Additionally, generally character articles are now being treated as requiring a significant amount of notability to remain compared to video games, so by that standard the bar really shouldn't go below "mid", no? Or if so with combining the character list criteria with the character article criteria?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * This table is pretty good as is but Randomran's suggestion can be taken, as the criteria for series/games and individuals/organizations are pretty close in each pair. Kung Fu Man, I think the "main character" qualifier for Mid-importance characters are just as an example ("typically appearing as").  Jappalang (talk) 22:16, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Hm. Alright, other cases can be discussed. But character lists still seem something more for Low priority if character articles of already mid importance exist, though that can lead to overcomplicating things if not dealt with carefully.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:12, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Seems good, but for Video game series do not use any red-links (ie Pokemon). A red-link is not a good example. Also, for top video game titles, use an older series as an example, like Wizardy 1 or Bard's Tale 1 (org) so people can get an idea of a game that might not be well known, but historically important (and thus less likely to have edit wars on priority for more obscure titles. EDIT: Also on game concepts, i'd have to say probably "none" for low. The idea is that genre can be split into sub-genres infinatly. Thus I'd say if it's not important enough to be mid, it probably shouldn't be included. However saying "none" would make everyone put it in mid, so rather i think something like "Almost Nothing. Anything this [specific] is likely to specific of a breakdown likely pertaining to only a handful of games and thus unlikely to meet WP:N or is covered better in a higher level article." - the part about notability is implied. じん ない  23:42, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Minor nitpick, but given the recognizability of the character outside of its series and usage in titles having nothing to do with Metal Gear (other appearances besides Brawl), wouldn't Solid Snake count as a High-priority article for the examples given here?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:42, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * "Cultural" would mean the character is ingrained with the image of the company or society. Mario is associated with Nintendo, who uses his image to readily tout the company's presence at fairs, launches, and other events.  The same goes with Sonic for Sega.  Pikachu is somewhat readily recognizable by most of the world as a mascot for Japanese animation.  Solid Snake... is not at that level.  Jappalang (talk) 00:56, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Point taken. Truthfully I missed the cultural aspect of that in there.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:05, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Modified concepts low category. To clarify why there shouldn't be hardly any (which is not the same as none). Also edited lists and others to have all lists being low priority to put in line with other projects. じん ない  07:59, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Corrected a few article links in the table (Just Halo's, Sonic's and OoT's. Two were disambigs).--Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:35, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Is anyone really going to read 32 cells? Don't get me wrong. This is important. But it risks being pointless bureaucracy that we care more about writing than people care to read. For starters, I'd like to try to cut the number of cells in half. I have three basic ideas: I think that's a good place to start. Conciseness is under appreciated. Randomran (talk) 19:55, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Drop the "Low" column, and just add a summary sentence: "All other notable articles and lists are considered a low priority by default."
 * Combine a few rows: video games + series, individuals + organizations... (there appears to be some support for doing this already.)
 * Drop the "High" column and just add a summary sentence: "High importance articles are exceptional, and should be discussed at WT:VG."
 * Looking at the descriptions, Video game series and video game articles could be combined since the former notes mostly on reknown and the latter does that, plus historical significance for high. All the rest are similar. We could then have 3 articles listed, one series, one video known for reknown, but not historical importance such as GTA3 and one not well known, but important for historical reasons such as Bard's Tale (since i've used it here). The age should be made to be 10 years for the historical importance, but the former shouldn't need an age as reknown can come quickly. The other levels are even closer to being similar.
 * As for the others, indivisuals and organziations are too different and governed by 2 different criteria to group together. High status should not be dropped either. Other projects do not drop it from use like that. High is not the same as top. じん ない  02:54, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Err, I meant to say we should drop "Top" status. These are very rare, and for the most part have been already flagged as such... and usually require discussion to get there. But at the very least, we should drop low status. It's really a default for all other articles and lists. I already combined the video games and series rows, though... trying to avoid verbosity. Randomran (talk) 06:15, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * We shouldn't drop it because it is still a basic guideline. Also, occasionally new things needing classification as top will be added. While hardware might be unlikely to change, companies and individuals certainly will. It also helps editors make certain an article should be there in case of an edit-war on the importance of an article. じん ない  21:19, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. What about dropping the "low" column, widening the other columns, and adding "All other notable articles and lists are of a low importance." Randomran (talk) 22:17, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * This is a bit of a silly idea, but maybe we could do low-top importance articles by what kind of article they are? We could have one for video games, characters, lists, genres, etc. Personally, I'd like this, because it allows for more convenient searching - when I'm looking for character articles by priority, I get far too many video game articles and such. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:24, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I just don't think that's how a WikiProject deals with its content. It's the same scale for everything. Also, it wouldn't really fix anything: you'd still have characters minced in with games and companies. But maybe it couldn't hurt to have a task force devoted to characters? Also, I think there are third-party tools out there that let you do cross-categorization searches. Articles in "video game characters" that are also "high importance", for example. Randomran (talk) 22:41, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well...i'd agree except for the concepts part. I particuarly want that to be noted because I don't want someone writing an article on Realistic 3-D physics martial arts fighters that use guns and think that it's specific enough to warrant an article, albeit on a low category. じん ない  02:29, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Arbitray Break 4
Well, it looks like the table seems to be stable now. Should we go ahead and ratify it or are their any more major objections/changes that anyone wants? じん ない  07:57, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The only other suggestion I have is to expand characters to include all other fictional elements like Ivalice, Halo (megastructure), and Gravity gun. Since we combined video games and series together, I think it makes sense to combine all fictional elements together as well. (Guyinblack25 talk 20:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC))
 * Make a proposal for what you want. Probably post a new version in this section so we can compare it. I do want to make certain it's worded so people won't think "Hey, I can now make a list of every Final Fantasy VII item" because the guide says so. じん ない  21:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Here's a crack at it. I didn't think much needed to be changed because if a topic as is doesn't satisfy WP:Notability and WP:Verifiability then it has no business being on Wikipedia regardless of how our project guidelines can be interpreted. (Guyinblack25 talk 22:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC))


 * I cleaned it up a bit, removing some of the wordiness from there and a few other sections. じん ない  23:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposal for Video Game Priority scale
With the exception of maybe adding an example of a non-character/mascot as an example of high-class article for that type (or removing anything of that nature from it), this is the proposal. I have also shrank the "Low" section and enlarged the top/high/mid sections based on some criticism by Randomran that there was too much white space in that section since most of it was basically "everything else". じん ない  23:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 *  Low importance articles and all lists cover very specific or obscure knowledge. Any other notable article or list not described in the table below is of low importance. A low importance article is not the same as a bad or unnecessary article. But in some cases there is more value to merging it under the umbrella of a larger article, as this will enhance both topics.

–

We can iron out the specific "exceptions" later, but I think it looks pretty good. (Guyinblack25 talk 23:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC))
 * I added "culture" impact to high and mid priority video game series since I realized that we had no way of ranking games that weren't commercially successful nor were critically acclaimed, yet none-the-less were important because of their real-world impact. The number of games are few, but I can name a few that could fall into that category. じん ない  05:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I made a couple of changes to reduce verbosity. I only really see two more outstanding issues: I'm just thinking out loud. Randomran (talk) 17:44, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) I think there was a good point (which I removed) under the "genres and concepts" heading, which is that many low importance concepts can be covered in a more high importance article. But a topic like turtle (computer gaming) really can't be covered in a larger article. I think we can afford to make a generalized statement that "Low importance articles are not bad. But sometimes there is more value to merging it under the umbrella of a larger article, as this will enhance both articles." I think this represents a consensus of how we do things around here.
 * 2) There's a big gap here for "history and events". By that, I mean Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Nintendo Co., Ltd., First video game, or even E3. This doesn't fit well under any heading, but there are enough of these articles that we need to figure out what to do with them.
 * I think history and events can be adequately covered in "Other topics or lists", with some examples listed in the table. I agree the statement about low articles is a good idea. (Guyinblack25 talk 18:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC))
 * I tried to incorporate events and other topics into the table. I also added a quick statement about low importance articles. Randomran (talk) 19:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me. Let's see what others think. If there are no more issues, then we'll add it to WP:VG/A. (Guyinblack25 talk 22:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC))
 * I did not think history aspect was adequately covered when Guvinblack25 brought it up. I also moved the note about low articles to the top where it would get more prominence.
 * EDIT: In an attempt to make the policy fit better the low section was increase to 13%. nothing else was changed. じん ない  01:17, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I made a few tweaks on the history part. But I also feel like it could be combined with something else. Randomran (talk) 04:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think E3 should be top. History of gaming conventions would be better. and E3 should be high. じん ない  08:13, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm concerned adding in a history/event row further bloats an already large table, but it seems wrong to exclude them given their importance. I agree E3 is not an essential historical event and I replaced it with North American video game crash of 1983. History of video game companies is more a list of historic companies and their subsidiaries, so I removed it on the basis that it doesn't accurately portray a historical article. I also bolded the definition text to distinguish it from the rest of the table. Any other tweaks or ideas? (Guyinblack25 talk 15:51, 5 December 2008 (UTC))
 * I was just going with the actual ratings I was seeing. I was surprised to see that E3 is rated a top-importance article as well. ... otherwise, I agree that we could really afford to find ways to reduce bloat. Merging two rows, dropping a column, or even reducing the amount of content in each cell... something to make it a bit more readable. Otherwise, we've probably spent a whole lot of time making something that no one will read. Randomran (talk) 16:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, but it is a fine table of information no one will ever read.
 * Did a minor tweak to one description. Dropping the low column sounds like a good idea, though I think it may look weird without it. (Guyinblack25 talk 18:11, 5 December 2008 (UTC))
 * You know I'm fond of dropping the low column, to reduce clutter. It can be summed up in one statement. "Any other notable article or list is of low importance." In fact, we could put this right ahead of the statement, "A low importance article is not the same as a bad article. But sometimes there is more value to merging it under the umbrella of a larger article, as this will enhance both articles." Randomran (talk) 18:30, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I removed the low column in a single edit to see what it looks like. Feel free to revert. (Guyinblack25 talk 20:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC))
 * It's looking a bit more clear now, and we haven't really lost anything IMO. Randomran (talk) 20:54, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

←I'm a bit nervous about saying "sometimes there is more value to merging it... etc." as the way it's worded gives the impression that low importance articles in most cases should be merged. I agree that in some cases it would be better, but we need to stress "some cases"; there are enough random video games out there that warrant their own articles. -- Nomader (Talk) 21:05, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Did some minor tweaking. How's that? (Guyinblack25 talk 21:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC))
 * That works much better, thanks. -- Nomader (Talk) 21:40, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Added appropriate font color to Low importance so it might catch anyone reading it better.
 * EDIT: I rewrote history section better since we have "events" listed under other to better clarify what "events" under history meant. じん ない  04:32, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with your edit to the table. Just out of curiosity though, what do lists of game series (like List of Harvest Moon titles)? Right now, they're all currently listed as low importance: what should they fall under in the new assessment system? -- Nomader (Talk) 18:20, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * All lists are low by default. Unless there is a massively good reason, and by that, it means probably to the point that in most cases you'd not even try. Even for popular High or Top class articles. じん ない  22:47, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * As an example, I'd say something like List of acquisitions by Electronic Arts would be an example of a list I think would have enough real-world and historical relevance to be rated higher than low. But that's just me. (Guyinblack25 talk 01:22, 8 December 2008 (UTC))
 * Well to put it in perspective, Properties licensed by Funimation is rated as low. じん ない  02:42, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Earlier, it was suggested that lists that are closely related to Top importance articles would be at least medium importance themselves. I think that makes sense. Randomran (talk) 02:44, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well based of the current TOP-ranked category, i doubt any of them would have list offshoot categories. For those we might later deem worthy of bumping to TOP, such as specific games, that should not be seen as a green light to bump up importance for every article.
 * Also should we maybe leave history of hardware to history section like everything else and maybe replace it with series brands like Playstation (brand), if anything? じん ない  03:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You're right that most lists should not be automatically assigned anything above low. Right now I'd say virtually of our current top, high, and mid lists are improperly rated, and will have to be reassessed with a good number of other articles after this table is done. We can discuss exemptions here or the assessment talk page.
 * I'd say anything related to hardware, history of it or otherwise, is still hardware and should be assessed as such. I think in most cases, there are very few branded systems that could have a single article. PlayStation, Atari, Game Boy, and Xbox are the only ones that come to mind. But they'd have to be something more than just a repeat of their single articles. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:51, 8 December 2008 (UTC))

←Seems kind of odd to have hardware articles be a special exemption from the history section where normally they'd be rated high, because their hardware they might get rated top. じん ない  17:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I'm understanding the issue. Are saying that articles on hardware like the PlayStation and NES should not be top-rated, or articles about the history of hardware should not be top-rated? (Guyinblack25 talk 17:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC))
 * Histories of specific eras of hardware should not be top-rated. History overall of hardware or historically important events that were critical in forming the relationship of the industry for decades to come should be. History of each generation should be high, not top. Also individual systems should be high, brands should be top, if they are well-known and had significant real-world impact, such as playstation brand. Those still might be high rating though being close to VG series in importance. Articles like video game consoles should remain top. じん ない  18:04, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The history of each generation should be top because that gives the overview, just as the genre articles, of the hardware side of video gaming. It makes sense in the same way we treat video games not to put any specific consoles at top, but to include the key ones from each generate as high, and all others at Mid or lower. --M ASEM  18:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the current wording in the table allows for most of the appropriate articles fall into their proper rating. The history of eras seem like they would hit on all the major milestones that shaped the industry and provide essential information a layman would need to understand the evolution of video game consoles. (Guyinblack25 talk 18:20, 8 December 2008 (UTC))
 * I'd still say that those are not so important in terms of research compared to a general overview of the history. If there is an important era in console design, it would be discussed there first. This basically makes it more able to classify what generations of consoles really were significant compared to other generations; they weren't all equal. じん ない  18:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know. It's hard to really say which generation is more important or signficant than others. Each one contributed in ways that future ones built upon.
 * The first laid the ground work for companies to create a profitable industry and saw several important games released.
 * The second made cartridges popular and culminated in the crash of 83.
 * The third marked the shift to Japanese development and introduced many conventions that are still around today.
 * The fourth began pushing technology more and introduced popular handheld systems.
 * The fifth marked the shift to CD format and 3D graphics.
 * The sixth saw the beginnings of mainstream online gaming among consoles and the release of the best-selling system.
 * The current has pushed technology even further with photorealism, online gaming, realistic physics, etc.
 * Personally, I find it hard to say which one is the most important out of these milestones and think they all are needed to paint a proper picture. (Guyinblack25 talk 18:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC))
 * By that context 4th and 7th would not be worthy "Pushing the technology further" is considered just normal progress and not especially noteworthy, atleast in reguards to what would be a "top class article". The 6th as well might not make it since the shift had been in the works for several generations.
 * Removed 4th as i skipped over the handheld aspect. Baiscally it's just the newer consoles that would not noteworth. Part of this may be lack of historical prespective and in the future they might, but if all that is applicable is pushing the technology forward and changing media (the leap from cartridge to CD has far more impact than CD to DVD and DVD to Blu-ray/HD discs) then it's not so notable.
 * Readded 4th. Handhelds are not considered consoles. They are listed as a seperate class, therefore that generation is not top-class material for consoles, but is for first-generation of handhelds. じん ない  19:33, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Though handhelds are technically different from consoles, they've traditionally been included in the generations they've been released in. But I must admit, the technology advances are weak arguments. I think all the generations paint a bigger picture and should be rated top, but I wouldn't be opposed to the fourth being rated only high.
 * I still think the sixth is important because Xbox Live significantly effected how this current generation has focused on online gaming. It may have been around before, but it became mainstream in this generation. The sixth also saw the introduction of a non-Japanese company competing against Nintendo and Sony.
 * I agree the current generation should never be rated top as it is impossible to gauge its historical impact until after the fact. Let's see what others think. (Guyinblack25 talk 20:05, 8 December 2008 (UTC))
 * Xbox Live had an affect, yes, but not as much as you give it credit for. Games had already been moving toward online play. Earlier generation FPS games, RTS games and World of Warcraft were far more instrumental in the move to online play than Xbox Live.
 * As for fourth, well again I'd split consoles from handhelds because they are classified differently. I mean consoles could also be classified as computers, especially the newer ones, but we don't. As for painting a better picture, well that too isn't a good argument as almost every high-level article also paints a better picture. Hellenistic period helps paints a better picture for History of Europe, but the former is high, not top.
 * Anyway, hopefully we can get some more comments. じん ない  04:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think I didn't clarify that last statement well enough. I'm talking about things in terms of console generations; keeping computer gaming separate from consoles gaming. Yes, computers established online gaming well before consoles did and the Xbox was not the first console to support online gaming, but it was the first console to make it popular among console gamers and profitable to console developers. Microsoft's (a non-Japanese company) Xbox Live brought online gaming to the console mainstream which had been previously dominated by Japanese development. (This coming from a PS2 and Sony fanboy. I pray my friends never see this thread.) :-p (Guyinblack25 talk 16:29, 9 December 2008 (UTC))

Cleaned up hardware top/high to reflect that. Basically it would, under that circumstance leave 4th and current, and maybe 6th (it's best to get more opinions on 6th) as high and rest as top. I tried to make it as clear as possible as concise as possible. It doesn't look like we're going to get much more input on it at this point. じん ない  05:49, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me. Let's go ahead and categorize the sixth as high for now. That specific issue and many other exceptions brought up can be discussed later. I guess let's wait a couple days and see if there are any other general comments. If not, we'll move the table to WP:VG/A and start reassessing articles. (Guyinblack25 talk 17:34, 10 December 2008 (UTC))
 * Looks good. My only other criticism is tiny, but we might as well get it right. See the cell at the bottom-right? "Gaming events and other specialized topics." That's pretty vague. First of all, gaming events (like E3) are covered in the row above. Secondly, "other specialized topics" seems pretty vague. Can we give this some clarity? Randomran (talk) 17:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Caramelldansen might be an example considering the origin of it's popularity being based upon a video game + the song. じん ない  17:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I did a tweak of that sentence. Don't know if it's an improvement though. (Guyinblack25 talk 18:59, 10 December 2008 (UTC))

I have one question, where would cancelled games fit into this? 98% of the time, most cancelled games don't have any lasting impact, but some do. The cancellation of Sam & Max: Freelance Police, for instance, is often cited as the culmination of the decline of the adventure genre; very few games can claim the death of a genre as a legacy. Vapourware also questionable, titles like Team Fortress 2, Duke Nukem Forever and StarCraft: Ghost in particular are considered amongst the highest rankers as far as that goes with video games, even though one of those is now released and another is seemingly on back on course with development. Currently those four are ranked as low, mid, mid and low, respectively. How would these fit into the importance criteria? Going by the current proposal for standard video games, DNF and Freelance Police both easily pass the description of "shown to have a lasting impact on a genre, culture or the industry itself; typically need a few years to assess this impact" for high importance. -- Sabre (talk) 17:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Personally, I see a cancelled game and vaporware as still video games. If they fit the description, then I see no reason to treat them differently. However, as you said, I don't think most would have any kind of impact and would more than likely be rated low.
 * In regard to the two titles you listed, if Sam & Max contributed to the decline of a genre, then I'd say it at least qualifies for mid, maybe high. But Duke Nukem doesn't seem to have had that big an impact outside of receiving a lot of press coverage and becoming a running gag. (Guyinblack25 talk 18:59, 10 December 2008 (UTC))
 * I agree that most would be classified as low. Chrono Break is rated as low. It has had very little impact except to demonstate the tensisons inside the team that created Chrono Trigger. Thus a low rating is good. Maybe mid, because it had Hironobu Sakaguchi has commented on it having the lack of the title impact his work on Blue Dragon.19:13, 10 December 2008 (UTC) じん ない
 * Very well, based on this discussion, I'll shove Freelance Police into the "high" category if there's no objections, but I won't touch any of the others I mentioned, as their ratings are seen as accurate. If cancelled games should be rated on the same level as released games, then this is likely to be the only high-rated one on the whole project; its very rare that cancelled games fall into either the described mid or high importance criteria. -- Sabre (talk) 19:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Final call
It's been a month since the discussion started, and I think the table has made some real progress. Here's the current table (copied from above). If there aren't any more concerns/issues/comments/suggestions, then we'll copy this to WP:VG/A. If you don't have anything to add but would like to express your support of the table, that would be helpful in demonstrating consensus. (Guyinblack25 talk 19:28, 12 December 2008 (UTC))


 *  Top importance articles reflect the basis of video gaming and not so much the hallmarks of the fields. Such hallmark games and other aspects are typically discussed in Top articles.
 *  Low importance articles and all lists cover very specific or obscure knowledge. Any other notable article or list not described in the table below is of low importance. A low importance article is not the same as a bad or unnecessary article. But in some cases there is more value to merging it under the umbrella of a larger article, as this will enhance both topics.

The only thing I would add with the table is the rationale that has gone into this, mostly that our Top articles reflect the basis of video gaming and not so much the hallmarks of the fields, those certainly hallmark games and other aspects are typically discussed in Top articles, and of course link back to this convo once it is archived.) --M ASEM 19:39, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Added a bit about that. (Guyinblack25 talk 20:32, 12 December 2008 (UTC))

Looks basically good to me. I'm sure we can make small tweaks later if needed. But this is clear and about as concise as we're gonna get. Randomran (talk) 18:06, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it's a little odd that we have a history article under consoles. It kinds of confuses everything. Randomran (talk) 19:46, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you think such articles should be under "History and events" and "Hardware" should only be definitions related physical video game hardware? (Guyinblack25 talk 20:32, 12 December 2008 (UTC))
 * Yeah, I think that would be more clear. Randomran (talk) 20:34, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Jinnai brought up a similar issue before, and after thinking things through again, it would probably be best to keep the two separate. I've tweaked the section to better convey the difference. Any good? (Guyinblack25 talk 20:57, 12 December 2008 (UTC))
 * You might want to add an example to other low category. I was only able to think of 1 offhand though. じん ない  02:33, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. At this point the changes are more nit-picking, not enough to justify adding the table to assessment. We may have to look into dealing with wholesale reassessment of every article afterwards given just the few examples here of how a lot of articles are overrated and some are underrated compared to the chart. じん ない  15:55, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * As there have been no objections within the past week. じん ない  02:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Something that may be of use in the long run for this
Started this concept up. Basically lists each article by their relative category, and listed in a block by importance. Each section allows for notes regarding rationale on placement if needed, meaning why said article is at its current class. This seems a better idea to the current pure template setup, as that's a bit more difficult to readily track with a multitude of editors and even harder to readily justify an article's placement without something to fall back on in such cases. Guess all that's left to as is...thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kung Fu Man (talk • contribs) 02:18, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It is a good idea at a glance, but considering that there are currently 21420 articles in the WikiProject, this would be a very large endeavour. Jappalang (talk) 04:07, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If someone were to design a bot it wouldn't be so much, but at the same time the article might become unreadable because of length, becoming larger than even the 400k limit which still plauges some browsers. じん ない  07:52, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Hm, a possible combination then might be a bot that handles the additions with the same time splitting the current page into separate ones based on the subsections? Main issue from there of course would be to sort everything by said category however: the template has never actually taken that into account save for lists, and even then it isn't absolute.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:32, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not especially difficult to get WP:AWB to do intersections of e.g. Category:Video game characters and, say Category:High-priority video game articles. The hard part is maintaining it. Nifboy (talk) 04:07, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Mass-reassessing of VG articles without reasons given
has been changing the assessments of many VG articles without giving any explanation as to why, according to the contribs. A couple of concerns have already been brought up on his talk page, and now I am bringing this up here to the WikiProject's attention. Changing assessments without reason only serves to piss off some users and result in edit/revert-warring, which we want to avoid. MuZemike ( talk ) 17:36, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Surely these reasons are already outlined on the assessment page? I doubt he really needs to cite what he's likely already using as a guideline. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 18:08, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I left a note on his talk page. User:Krator (t c) 18:19, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Looking at some of the assessments, I agree with the ones I saw. But I can see how this would cause some problems with little explanation given. Admittedly, I did some similar mass-reassessing for the Version 0.7 Workshop. Perhaps a boiler plate could be developed for those doing a large number of assessments. Something that explains what they are doing with links to WP:VG/A and a section to leave comments. Any thoughts? (Guyinblack25 talk 18:33, 12 December 2008 (UTC))
 * Meh, looked at some myself and he seems to have very stringent B-class criteria... look at Doom (video game) or Pong. Not even close to C in my opinion. Sure, not brilliant articles, but definitely not under B. His assessment method seems to be something like "Do I like this article?" - if not, downgrade by one. User:Krator (t c) 18:38, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, ask yourself this - my favorite series, EarthBound, is now a C-class. Must hate that series. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:23, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Pong has improved, but I think it still has a ways to go. Admittedly, my perspective is probably different because I've been working on the article and know what is wrong and missing. Plus, I'm by no means a regular assessor.
 * Anyway, any thoughts about a template for starting assessment discussions on talk pages? (Guyinblack25 talk 18:54, 12 December 2008 (UTC))
 * This was the editor formerly known as A Link to the Past, right? I get confused when people change their usernames. Either way, I tend to agree with the note Krator left on the talk page here, this is assessment without assessment, which really isn't useful for the editors on those pages without some explanation as to why the articles have been downgraded. Some of the re-ratings I agree with, others I really don't, but without any comments, such reassessments are useless. -- Sabre (talk) 18:51, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * B-Class is not a very... reliable class. Because C-class was recently implemented, B-class is often labelled as such, but in this current rating situation, it's perhaps not exact.
 * And my assessments are indeed assessments. I didn't write my assessments, but I personally read over every page. If you disagree with a particular assessment, then I will assess it, like I've done with previous objections. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:26, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Link, given how you've acted since this name change...it's possibly uncalled for for me to say, but I've lost some of the respect I had for you. This is starting to turn into a "my way or the highway" epidemic when coupled with previous issues like the Bulbasaur talk page fight which was grossly uncalled for.
 * Beyond that, I disagree with you on Doom: that article is B-class quality in my opinion, as it has more material than a C-class quality article easily.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:10, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * How is my attitude relevant to this? I didn't realize it was bad for me to not revert reversions of my assessments. I've given my reasoning every time someone questions my assessments, and not reverted any edits. And with Bulbasaur, it had nothing to do with the contents and all to do with the fact that the opposing user was refusing to answer my questions. Is there some kind of bad attitude in slashing all of the comments that were unhelpful to the discussion and then leaving an apology on the opposing user's talk page (which was deleted shortly afterwards)? Is that the kind of bad attitude you make reference to?
 * But yes, I would like to know why you brought up my attitude - is there something wrong with correctly stating that many B-class and Start-class articles are actually C-class? Or to say that I will assess it, which I have done with every single article anyone had an objection with and have never reverted anyone regarding the issue? Or that I reassessed two articles disputed - not to B-class, but to a higher class than I rated, agreeing that they were both better than Start-class?
 * And Hell, I offered to help improve some of the articles whose assessment was questioned. Whether or not my attitude is worse after the name change is irrelevant to this discussion, where my attitude is better than it was when I was A Link to the Past. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 23:42, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I've undone the reassesment here, as I think it doesn't match the criteria. Also, if you're going to downgrade an article, it's helpful if you provide reasoning, especially when the prior assesment is a thread on the same talkpage. Many thanks,  Gazi moff  02:36, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll admit that that was a mistake of mine - not from not reading it, but I mistakenly assessed the wrong article as Start (I was intending to leave it as B). - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 02:38, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * This whole thing is very odd, in that a lot of relatively stable articles with full contents and sources are going from "B" down to "Start" during this reassessment, e.g. Microsoft Points. In some cases, the articles are too detailed in certain areas, but other than that seem relatively solid, leaving me confused.  For my own benefit, I re-read the definitions of what a "B" class article is vs. what a "Start" class article is, and most of the articles in question seem to be either "B" or "C".  I erred on the side of caution and bumped a few which were downgraded to "Start" back to "C".  I do wonder if we wouldn't get more value out of having someone go through all the "Start" articles looking for ones to promote, rather than going though all the "B" articles, looking for ones to demote.  --Slordak (talk) 21:46, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Because B-class is just as bad. While it's better to promote, no effort was made to fix the ratings of B-class articles when C-class was implemented. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:55, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Priority scale clean up
I have gone through the Top-Importance category and assessed the items there in accordance with the new Importance scale. All games that were rated as Top are now High or lower. If there is a plan to rate a game as Top, please raise it up here and obtain concensus first. Someone might want to run through the Top-Importance category to check if I have missed out something. Jappalang (talk) 03:22, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Two I'd say were missed. The first is actually cited as a "High" class article in the table, Golden Age of Video Arcade Games. The other I might question is Magnavox Odyssey. Nothing in particular, but that one just seems like it was included because it "was the first" and for little else. --Izno (talk) 03:51, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It will take a while to go through. We'll have to go through all levels eventually. じん ない  03:54, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Fixed the Golden Age article importance, but unsure how to proceed about the Magnavox Odyssey. It would seem rather odd for the first console to be rated High, while a later (yet still very important) console the Atari 2600 is Top. Hmm.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:56, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Consider the number of each sold. That should say what the difference between the two was. --Izno (talk) 03:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I question for the Odyssey whether or not sales are significant here. This is the first console. Ever. Think about the significance of that; it set the groundwork for every console that has come about since... I feel it has to be top. -- Nomader (Talk) 04:17, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Computer Space was the first coin-op arcade, but I wouldn't categorize it as top when compared to Pong. Similarly, the Odyssey was the first home console, but Home Pong did more for the video game industry; Home Pong popularized home video game systems. Admittedly, Pong was derived from the Odyssey, but other consoles did more. (Guyinblack25 talk 05:04, 17 December 2008 (UTC))
 * I left Magnavox alone as I was not too sure, but if it did not have a significant impact on the gaming industry (by igniting demand, or sparking a flood of copycats) other than being the "first", then I agree it should not be Top. Jappalang (talk) 05:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I dug deeper and classifed sub-genres such as first-person shooter, racing games, etc as High. Only core genres and concepts are to be Top.  The changes might be wrong, so please discuss and revert if necessary.  Jappalang (talk) 06:55, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I really think that first-person shooter and real-time strategy should remain as Top-importance. The mere fact that they are sub-genres is irrelevant in my mind, the FPS is the most popular and successful genre to date, and the RTS is somewhat rather close behind. I also disagree with rating GoldenEye 007 as mid, although I don't know much about it, its often put forward by the media as one of the more influential titles in the development of FPS's. -- Sabre (talk) 10:30, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I put GoldenEye 007 as Mid because Doom was the game that push FPS into the forefront of the gaming industry then (one could also argue for Wolfenstein 3D). Half-Life was the next benchmark of FPS (and the gaming industry).  On the console front, it is more evident that Halo: Combat Evolved (even though later than GoldenEye 007) was the success that led to more and more FPS console games.  GoldenEye 007 was the first Nintendo FPS and was recognized as a successful movie-video game adaptation, but few refer to it as the FPS forerunner.  Jappalang (talk) 22:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Template
Someone needs to redo the template so importance links to both the general importance scale and VG importance scale. じん ない  05:14, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It would be better to bring this request to the template's talk page. Jappalang (talk) 06:55, 17 December 2008 (UTC)