Wikipedia talk:Notability (toys and games)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Policy proposal

Hey everyone. These were a few ideas I brainstormed, please feel free to contribute or change anything here. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 21:58, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

What purpose does this serve that is not already accomplished by WP:N? Is there a specific problem that we are trying to address with a new guideline? If there is not a compelling reason for a new guideline, let's not add to the rule creep. --Kevin Murray (talk) 15:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:N provides one sufficient condition for notability, but not the only necessary one. As it says, "If an article currently does not cite reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, that does not necessarily mean the topic is not notable." It doesn't provide a way to judge the importance of topics within their field; for that, editors need more specific guidelines. This page attempts to provide those for toys and games. Percy Snoodle (talk) 16:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

A need for this sort of clarity has certainly been felt around roleplaying articles, where people instead try to shoehorn the articles into the criteria from a nearly-but-not-quite fitting guideline. Accepting awards as evidence of notability, for example, merely puts it on a part with, for example, books and films. SamBC(talk) 16:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

• The proposal fails WP:CREEP. I read the other day that 25% of Wikipedia is now meta-content like this. Keep this up and we will have huge amounts of policy-cruft and no content. Rules like this are utterly antithetical to the idea of Wikipedia which is not a bureaucracy. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:18, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Did you read the comments above? Let's let the community make that final determination.Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 11:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Good job

Just wanted to note that you are not operating totally in a vacuum. I may not have much to add, but I do think you are on the right track here. Even if you do get little or not feadback at the current stage, I would encourage you to keep at it and eventually put this up for offical proposal. Once you reach that stage, I'm sure you'll get a lot more feadback. :) - TexasAndroid (talk) 19:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Heh. You beat me to it. :) - TexasAndroid (talk) 19:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, good start. I think Wikipedia:Notability (toys and games) would be a better title, as the parenthesised part is rarely capitalised and video games are games. Have you seen Wikipedia:WikiProject Role-playing games/Notability? That might give you some ideas. Percy Snoodle (talk) 09:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I've merged that in, since it seems like there's no need for specific RPG articles if we have a good set of game ones. I've also changed the primary/secondary criteria to criteria/evidence to match WP:NOTFILM, which I think is a well-laid-out guideline. Percy Snoodle (talk) 11:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Article guidelines

Are there any (proposed) article guidelines that go along with this proposed notability guideline? I'm thinking, in particular, of something like WP:GAMECRUFT which, at the moment addresses video and computer games, but something similar applies to board/card/role-playing games. Of course this partially falls under WP:NOT#GUIDE, and to some extent WP:NOT#PLOT and (especially in terms of RPGs) WP:WAF as well. I was just curious as to what others think about this issue. I do believe that it can be relevant and appropriate to give some (small!) summary of gameplay, but obviously it shouldn't repeat all the rules, and articles on games (of any form) should focus on why they are notable, i.e. what influence have they had on the rest of the gaming world, what awards they've won, what's good/bad about them (not, "this game is awesome!" or "this game blows!", but what reliable reviewers say about them, especially in the context of the industry and other games), what new mechanics make them distinctive (again, as reported by reviewers), etc.

In general I dislike the use of the term "cruft" as it can be both dismissive and slightly divisive, but when it comes down to it there are many articles on games/RPGs that do have a lot of cruft in them (for lack of a better term). --Craw-daddy | T | 12:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't recall seeing much in the way of extravagant opinion such as "this game blows". Editors usually stick to the plain facts and it is these that are sneered at as cruft. The best way of encouraging good articles is to link to some examples. In other words, show people what is wanted rather than inventing lots of silly rules about what is not wanted. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

No, I think the stuff that is sneered at as "cruft" is when someone describes a fictional organization in a RPG as if it were a real organization (i.e. the "in-universe" writing). Excessive plot summary and fine detail of game rules are sneered at as "cruft" (and likely rightly so in my opinion). The point of WP:GAMECRUFT is generally saying that if the information given is only useful to someone playing the game, then it likely shouldn't appear in the article. If that one sentence summary is "Silly", then call me silly. The point is to write an article about the game for an encyclopedia, not a guide to playing the game.

An obvious example of a good article is the featured one Dungeons & Dragons. In a not-so-humble moment, I'd offer My Life with Master as a good example, one that I've nominated for GA status (almost a month ago, and am still waiting). It provides a brief overview of the game, together with critical reception of the game. Continuing in the not-humble mode, Ogre has GA status, and again has a brief description of the game, together with critical reception, and the "influence" of the game, in this case what other games have arisen from it. For more moderate to good examples (of variable quality), see things like Settlers of Catan, CJ Carella's WitchCraft, Illuminati, Apples to Apples, To Court the King, and Chrononauts. At the very least, each of these provides some (perhaps small, but it's there) real-world context.

As examples of things that I think are filled with "cruftiness" we have Invictus (Vampire: The Requiem) and Borgut Facebeater (before the redirect). Beyond maybe a few sentences in each one, where is the real-world context and information useful to people outside of those who play the game? --Craw-daddy | T | 13:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)