Wikipedia talk:Notability (toys and games)

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)

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)

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)

Is the third point of the nutshell correct

Because notability is not inherited. How to deal with this? Ultra! 16:05, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

To quote that section of the essay:

"In addition, notability of a parent entity or topic (of a parent-child "tree") does not always imply the notability of the subordinate entities. That is not to say that this is always the case (two of the notabilty guidelines, for books and music, do allow for inherited notability in exceptional circumstances)"

Ignoring for now that WP:INHERITED isn't policy, or even a guideline, what it's saying is that there's no general case of notability being heritable. SamBC(talk) 18:51, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I think, for example, the idea is that the game is included in a museum's collection. I don't know of many modern toys/games that are in such a collection, but then I think there is a gaming museum in Sweden somewhere (which I've been meaning to look into). I believe the point is not that notability is inherited, but that inclusion in a notable collection is an indicator of notability for the toy/game in question. If you look at point 3 in the main criteria, this is basically what it's saying. --Craw-daddy | T | 19:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

P.S. If you like, the "notable collection" (such as a museum) is an indicator of notability as well as being an "reliable and verifiable source" at the same time. --Craw-daddy | T | 19:19, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

RFC???

Is it time for a RFC on this proposal? --Craw-daddy | T | 01:05, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

No, one major thing is missing: Remakes of notable games. Ultra! 19:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Is a remake/re-publication of a notable game necessarily notable in and of itself? If there aren't any (or many?) substantial changes the remake can be addressed in the article on the (original) notable game. See, for example, Axis & Allies where this is such a case. It's been republished and updated, with some rules changes, but these are discussed in that article and not a separate one. Could you give some further clarification on what you think could be missing in the guidelines regarding remakes? --Craw-daddy | T | 21:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I am going through a current issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pokemon. It could help. And I added few things here. Ultra! 21:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I modified the text of the board/dice game section to eliminate "continuously." Frankly, if a game is in print, then goes out of print, then is back in print, etc., it is actually a plus for longevity/notability. In addition to Axis and Allies, such games as Star Fleet Battles, Rolemaster, and Traveler (role-playing game) have all gone in and out of print--and those are just off the top of my head. That's not their ONLY claim to notability, of course, but it makes sense to craft guidelines that encompass existing games we know to be notable. Jclemens (talk) 22:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Great Job

I want to commend the practical, common-sense approach taken by the authors of this guideline to date. Please don't take my copyediting as criticism, speaking as someone who started Role Playing in 1980, I think you've done a fantastic job of articulating guidelines for this topic. Jclemens (talk) 22:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

This guideline is not needed

This guideline is a perfect example of WP:CREEP. Can some give me an example of an outcome that would be different if this guideline were applied, rather than applying the core, parent guideline WP:N? No offence intended to the editors who, in good faith, have obviously put a lot of thought and effort into this guideline. Just my 2 cents. UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Consider Category:Spiel des Jahres winners. Several of these articles don't have any sources. The only claim to notability is that they have won this (highly notable and prestigious) award. Where in WP:N does it specify that this award is sufficient for the game to be recognized as notable? Basically, by winning this award, there is a presumption that there will be reliable, secondary sources that talk about the game (and likely why it won the award, etc). Obviously further sourcing for each of these games (e.g. about their significance in some manner) is highly desirable, but this guideline clarifies that the games are notable by virtue of winning this award (as winning the award implies the further existence of sources, etc, etc). This, for example, is analogous to criteria 3 in WP:MOVIE. --Craw-daddy | T | 09:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:N states If an article currently does not cite reliable secondary sources, that does not necessarily mean that its topic is not notable. In other words, per WP:IMPERFECT, we don't just look at the current state of the article. If a game is award-winning, then I don't need this guideline to tell me that it is, ipso facto, notable. There must necessarily be some source verifying the prize in question (otherwise we wouldn't be sure of it). If this source is not cited then just add it to the article. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:18, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

<shrug> Your mileage may vary. In the past there have been editors that didn't accept awards as evidence of notability, ignoring the continuing advice of others at AFDs and such. The awards were claimed to be nothing more than "trade awards" and therefore to be ignored for notability purposes (in particular the Origins Award was singled out). Of course, the Oscars are nothing more than "trade awards" too, but are specifically mentioned in WP:MOVIE. I don't think these particular guidelines are an example of WP:CREEP myself, as they are not overly complex. The Role-playing games project did start to formulate some guidelines for notability of role-playing games in the past, and then it was noticed that these proposed guidelines were already in place and it was deemed appropriate to abandon those and work with these guidelines. I guess this was why I was suggesting an RFC above, to see if there really is a need for such guidelines, or to get other comments from a wider audience. Perhaps the original creator of these proposed guidelines (Mr Senseless) could shed some light on why he started them, and I will leave a message on his talk page for such comment. --Craw-daddy | T | 13:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be broad dissatisfaction with WP:N, but the solution is not more and inconsistent subject specific guidelines. Let's work on the problems at WP:N instead. Please don't use MOVIE as an example, because that is one of the worst examples of CREEP, which was only passed as a guideline by persistent forum shopping and wearing down the opposition. The complexity while evident here within this guideline, is more of an issue when the notability infrastructure of subject specific processes is taken as a whole. --Kevin Murray (talk) 13:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I could have just as easily mentioned WP:BK (criteria #2), WP:ACADEMIC (#6), or WP:MUSIC (#8) in this particular regard. Are these all equally contentiously passed guidelines? --Craw-daddy | T | 15:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that any of these would be adopted today. WP:ACADEMIC (#6), or WP:MUSIC (#8) are substantially redundant to the improved BIO page, but emotion over the topics has prevented mergers. We are locked into some pages because of the enthusiasm of the participants and the ambivalence of the opposition. I think that the current environment opposes further creep but lacks the initiative to breakdown the cabals protecting some pages. We are better off working to make WP:N do a better job, than to repeat the failures of these subject specific prescriptions. --Kevin Murray (talk) 18:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I originally proposed WP:TOYS after a few bizarre AfD discussions concerning various board games, and because in my opinion WP:N did not adequately cover toys, games, and other such subjects, and that some secondary notability criteria that went well beyond "noted in secondary sources" perhaps should be considered, and guidelines that are specific enough to the area of children's toys that working them into WP:N might not be the most appropriate course of action. Guidelines on RPG's were added in by other editors during the brainstorming phase. I've been on a bit of a Wikibreak for the past couple of weeks, so I never saw any of the most recent discussion, but personally I think an RFC might be an excellent idea right now, to get a wider discussion from the community. Hope this helps. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 15:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. It would be perhaps interesting to note a few of the AFDs in question here (if only for my own curiosity). --Craw-daddy | T | 15:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at most of the Warhammer 40,000 AfDs, especially Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Horus Heresy though there are others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tealwisp (talk • contribs) 21:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

See also:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Schola Progenium
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Age of Strife
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adeptus Custodes
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Immaterium
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Squig
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marneus Calgar
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alien Hunters (Warhammer 40,000)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Astronomican

these were all (or at least most) deleted for non-notability. I'm sure most of those concerned know that 40k recently celebrated its 25th anniversary. Tealwisp (talk) 23:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

While I know I'm chiming in here well after the fact on these deletions, I think most (if not all) of them were warranted. Warhammer 40,000 is notable, but these were all in-universe aspects that aren't notable outside of WH40k. That sort of information more properly belongs on the WH40k wikia where the notability standards are lower (if non-existent). I'm not trying to appear "snobbish" in anyway here, but these articles simply didn't have the required independent references to support articles here. These proposed guidelines (in my opinion, of course) aren't meant to supplant the notability guidelines of WP, but merely to define and elucidate upon what is meant by "third- (or second-?) part" references, what sort of awards demonstrate notability, etc, etc. --Craw-daddy | T | 17:47, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Systemic bias

The guideline is currently poor at addressing the real problem in this field - the difficulty of citing sources. All it does is list a lot of reasons why a source may not be acceptable. In doing so, it shows little appreciation of the field, adds nothing to the general guideline of WP:N and just gives ammunition to those who seem overfond of deleting this material.

The problem is that our processes such as AFD are currently dominated by Google which has a strong systemic bias against the sources which cover this field as it only seems to cover academic periodicals. For example, the journal Games & Puzzles was quite prominent in the UK in the 70s and 80s but you will find little trace of it on the net. The result is then a bias in favour of recent material such as computer games and games which get coverage in book form such as chess. Editors such as myself, who have good collections of older periodicals, are overtaxed because such paper sources cannot practically be searched quickly.

Notability guidelines which do not address this issue in a practical way don't help improve the encyclopedia and so should be discounted per WP:IAR and WP:BURO. If this guideline is to be of any value then it needs to provide help and guidance to editors by, for example, affirming that BoardgameGeek, say, is a reliable source.

Colonel Warden (talk) 12:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

A couple problems....

While I understand the motives behind this proposal, the problem of creep has opened up a few cans of worms i think are better left closed. The general problem is that this whole guideline seems to be written from the premise that an existing game/toy article (at the highest topical level) should be deleted if it hasn't received "significant" independent coverage. This runs counter to the way we run things in other areas of the encyclopedia (e.g. we have an article on every single US Highway, we strive to complete the Tree of life project, we have 200+ articles on math theorems and another 100+ on categorical theory alone). If guidelines are to reflect how we actually do things here, it would seem that yes, just because a toy/game has been manufactured and sold it does deserve an article. To be honest there is nothing at all notable about the Broad-toothed Mouse, but we include it because it is alive. If we really need this guideline, then we need to be less strict.

• Something to reiterate along the lines of WP:VANITY that basically restricts people from creating articles about their latest new toy/game they made themselves that has almost 0 distribution.
• for a compromise, a suggestion that stub-class toys and games be merged together by manufacturer or other meaningful aspect until enough information is written to at least graduate the section to a start-class article (for an inane example - there is always a surge of merchandise for the current children's movie. If we really have something to say about them, rather than create a seperate article for each, just combine them together; i.e. Po action figure, Kung Fu Panda merchandise). This is a reflection of how we actually do things anyways.
• caution against creating an indiscriminate list. Editors should be discouraged from creating long lists of redlinks or tables with zero info short of the toy/game's name. The only real criteria should be that there's something to say about the item. Even an availibilty date is something - when all the items are taken as a whole, it can give the reader perspective about the manufacturer and marketing.

Anything more than these criteria and we'd be making a special case out of toys/games. These aren't like books, which can be easily self-published by you or me, and they aren't like albums which a couple of guys in a basement/garage can put together and hand out at a large gathering. Toys/games are 9/10 times manufactured by established corporate entities and tied into a long running franchise - whether that be G.I. Joe or How the Grinch Stole Christmas. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 06:48, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

• • I doubt that 9/10 figure greatly, when one considers the number of cheap (or even well-made) Flash games out on the Internet. The vast majority of those are not remotely notable, even if thousands of people have played them. For a constructed, manufactured plastic toy, what you say may hold true, but for games, it's not that clear at all. Powers ^T 20:36, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Good Idea

i agree with this idea and i say it should go into affect asap. Goodguy007 (talk) 17:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Mark as rejected

Since there have been no substantive edits to this page since August, and the page gives no evidence on how this would lead to one single different AfD outcome than the application of the "significant coverage" criterion that is in WP:N, I thik it is unlikely to gain consensus as a guideline, and I am going to mark it as inactive. UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps that would be premature as there has been no formal RfC on these proposed guidelines. But then again, I'm ceasing to care much about what goes on anywhere in WP. <shrug> Proceed as you see fit. --Craw-daddy | T | 20:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I done it Secret ^account 16:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

In 2015 nothing has changed, so {{Rejected}} appears to be correct. No problem has been identified that needs to be solved by such a specialized interpretation of WP:N.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  01:38, 5 August 2015 (UTC)