Talk:List of Gameloft games

Video games Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks

AfDs

Pit (Kid Icarus) (8 participants)
Dancing Stage Max (3 participants)
Bez-MX (9 participants)
Ghosts (Pac-Man) (14 participants)
Midnight.works (5 participants)
Revenge of the Killer Robots from Hell (3 participants)
Vette (Star Wars) (5 participants; relisted)
International Hobo (2 participants; relisted)

Merge discussions

Other discussions

No major discussions

Is this notable or advertising[edit]

This page seems to be a huge list, some or much of it unsourced and some red links. To me this is pure advertising and it may be appropriate to take it to AfD - or it may not be appropriate. There must be some other way to discuss this. So, I am seeking opinions. Steve Quinn (talk) 05:38, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is interesting. Gameloft seems to be notable. Quite a few of the games also have their own articles. Since there are quite a few, I guess this could justify such a list. What I am concerned about are the unsourced non-notable games. Also, we do have some similar lists such as List of Electronic Arts games. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:17, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Lemongirl. I am also concerned about the unsourced non-notable games. But these can be edited out. I was going to do so, but I didn't want to make major changes to this article after deciding to open this discussion. I guess I want fellow editors to see the article as is. Also, input like yours above is why I opened this discussion - I'm not sure my view is the best one regarding this article. Steve Quinn (talk) 17:01, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We have similar lists for every company. Most include all the games, not just the notable ones. I have therefore reverted the removal of the non notable games, on the basis of apparent practice for other companies. If we make a decision about this , it should be global for all the company lists. If anyone wants to referencing them this should be easy enough. And considering our apparently very low standards for notability of games, quite possibly every one of them could be considered notable. To anticipate one common objection, lists and categories are complementary, and there is no reason not to have both. Categories are automatically populated, but lists can give some information. DGG ( talk ) 19:58, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't view this as advertising; there is no promotional tone whatsoever. This list qualifies for an article per WP:NOTDUP relative to Category:Gameloft games, and is also a functional navigational aid per WP:LISTPURP, as evidenced in part by the 18,776 page views the page has received in the last 90 days. It would be nice if someone would add sources and citations to red-linked or unlinked entries to verify content, but I don't forsee myself doing so in a significant manner. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:55, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with the sentiment that notability standards for video games are quite low. I thus believe that non-notable (red-linked or no-link) entries should be deleted. I looked at some of the articles and several did not list 3rd party sources, so I don't see how all of the entries are indeed notable. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:58, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Lemongirl942:, @DGG:, @Northamerica1000:, @K.e.coffman: - I wasn't basing my opinion (that this is advertising) on whether or not categories and navigation templates have similar information - this did not occur me.

And as North America has pointed out, WP:NOTDUP and WP:LISTPURP covers these ideas or actions. DGG pretty much said the same. Nor do I see any kind of promotional tone.

What I mean is - it seems we are advertising for this company - as if we are a catalog of games - for free. And since other companies have been brought into the discussion, we seem to be advertising for them as well in the same fashion - as a catalog. But, maybe my view is not a helpful view in this instance. And, as has been noted, the threshold for notability in this area is low - which I did not realize.

So, in what way can the notability bar be raised across game company lists? I am thinking there would have to be discussion at one of the related Wikiprojects (see Wikproject banners above). Maybe an RFC would be helpful at some point?? Any other ideas?? Or is there really a need to raise the bar? Also, I wish to thank everybody for taking the time to "chime in" here.

I suppose, as an aside, single prose articles without references can be dealt with in some way or other, if there is inclination to do so. Steve Quinn (talk) 06:34, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with games that are not really notable will have to be dealt with elsewhere. Probably the best start will be combining articles for individual versions of games in to a single article. Not only will it reduce clutter, it will also benefit the reader, who I would think nomally wants to see the entire group or sequence. DGG ( talk ) 20:42, 19 November 2016‎ (UTC)[reply]

About removed games[edit]

I was trying to download Thor: The Dark World from them and i'm not seeing the game on both Google Play & App store. Does this article list games that are not in the Google Play & App Store? Kurt R. (Zirukurt01)✉ 22:19, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Like Shark Dash. And you can get via APK anyway. PedroLucasDBr 17:10, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Shark Dash WAS available on Google Play, now it's not since 2014. PedroLucasDBr (talk) 17:40, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]