Talk:List of Game of the Year awards/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about List of Game of the Year awards. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
Discussion
What's the game tat's got most overral GotY awards?
Half Life 2 got 35, MGS4 got over 40. I guess Super Mario Galaxy must have got around as much, how bout it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.103.21.116 (talk) 04:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Missing some important GotY awards, like 1up and IGN reader's choice awards (Just as important as the gamespot reader's choice awards, MGS4 got it this year.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.253.25.201 (talk) 23:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
am i the only one that will improve this article>:( ><ino 10:23, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
- I dunno. Why are you creating seperate articles for each platform? There is no need for that. Thunderbrand 17:43, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Yea there is a need, if i creat them in one, it won't look good, it needs to look professional, if i seperate them people can know what year and what platfrom of GAME OF THEY YEAR, anyway like what i did?:D
the way i did it, seems the right way
I think we need a per medium (magazine/website) GOTY article.
Fskn 12:41, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Please, update this page!
This stub needs to be updated.....badly. It has links from 2004 in it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.229.50.193 (talk) 04:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Super Mario Galaxy did not win the majority of the Game of the Year awards, Bioshock actually did. Regardless of who won, neither should be listed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.227.77.144 (talk) 10:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Bullshit. I put up a list on Talk: Super Mario Galaxy#Game of the Year Roundup, using only NOTABLE critic awards, not those you awarded on your personal blog. Prove me wrong. Wikipedian06 (talk) 08:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
IGN UK does not represent IGN overall, IGN AU gave Mass Effect 2 GOTY. Taking out IGN GOTY 2010 until the overall GOTY is picked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.119.61.165 (talk) 03:02, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
AIAS
Why are the AIAS awards in this article? It's an obvious bias, and Wikipedia is no place for promoting the views of the AIAS (especially outside of its own article), and not when there are dozens of other media organizations (see IGN, Gamespot, etc.) whose selections are far more notable within the gaming community. (Look at the GameFAQs boards whenever IGN and Gamespot announce their picks, and compare that to after AIAS announces their picks. Few people care about AIAS because (1) they are a relatively obscure organization [1] [2]; (2) their picks are announced very late -- into the next calendar year instead of at the end of the year; and (3) a lot of GameFAQs users have discounted their credibility due to their preference towards first-person shooters, with 7 out of 11 GOTY winners being of that genre.) Wikipedian06 (talk) 21:57, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
- Mere inclusion of information relevant to the subject, and notable to anyone searching for Game of the Year does NOT imply bias, and certainly not an "obvious" one. Please note that the inclusion of the AIAS selections did not come at the expense of any other list of awards. Your personal opinions of the AIAS awards themselves are moot (not to mention incorrect, but that doesn't matter here); feel free to add any other overall Game of the Year listings from any other publication or organization noted in the article, as that is the point - to inform the reader. Fifty7 (talk) 23:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
- I have undone your revision. If you feel like adding the other publications' or organizations' overall GOTY lists, I would suggest removing the "see below" next to the AIAS listing, and turn the list of publications/organizations into a table of contents. Fifty7 (talk) 23:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
How about a seperate page for games that claim to be "game of the year"
- Quite a few games use game of the year as a selling point on the front cover, and a few have titled "Game of the year edition"s (all I can recall are Deus Ex, Morrowind and Oblivion) while other list game of the year awards recived (IIRC The Witcher does)
2008 GOTY Roundup
- Edge: LBP
- Eurogamer: LBP
- Gamepro: LBP
- Gamespot: MGS4
- Gamespy: Fallout 3
- Gametrailers: GTAIV
- Gamezine: MGS4
- IGN: (Pending announcement)
- X-Play: Fable 2
Wikipedian06 (talk) 22:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
- AIAS has given LBP game of the year. Ffgamera (talk) 08:57, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
GOTY Editions of Popular Games
It might be worth mentioning the phenomenon of many games being re-released as "Game of the Year" Editions, often with added DLC or Expansion packs now integrated into, or included with, the game. Any thoughts? Cyclonius (talk) 15:03, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
I think that's a good idea. It would be useful information to list, anyway. Off the top of my head, I'm coming up with Oblivion, LittleBigPlanet, Fallout 3, Gears of War 2, Left 4 Dead, CoD4. 128.38.168.103 (talk) 13:04, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
who the hell labeled Batman AA as a shooter?!??!? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.148.157.116 (talk) 17:56, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Also add The Operative - No One Lives Forever and Warhammer 40k - Dawn of War as well as Kohan - Immortal Sovereigns. I wonder why none of them appear in any of the lists. Do these games just claim to be GotYs?--TeakHoken91.47.70.240 (talk) 21:41, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Best Review Score Not Mean Game Of The Year Award
Metacritic & GameRankings use average review score. The best average review score not mean game of the year award. There are many cases that game of the year award give to game that review score lower than the others.
Edit request from 141.218.227.165, 20 January 2011
{{edit semi-protected}}
Requesting the section "Art of Interactive Entertainment" be removed for reasons of notability and self promotion.
141.218.227.165 (talk) 03:30, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Not done: I don't see a section called "Art of Interactive Entertainment". I do see a section called the "Academy of Interactive Entertainment," but the fact that they have their own wikipage implies to me that they meet our notability standards. I don't see how they are any more or less promotional than the rest of the awards handed out by companies, magazines, and other groups. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:57, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Typo
Is it just me, or is the "Games" GotY list a year ahead? 74.197.34.135 (talk) 07:11, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
- You are correct. The note underneath that table explains why. Should we add a note to the top as well perhaps? -Thibbs (talk) 15:58, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Suggestion/Other Use of Term
I suggest we add a clarification that "GOTY" often refers to a re-release of a game including its full DLC, and it's not necessarily an award from a reviewer. In fact I'd wager most games with the GOTY branding are using GOTY with that meaning today. Though some games do use different labels, such as the recent release of "Saint Row 3: The Full Package". GOTY seems to be the most common label for DLC re-releases though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.50.186.170 (talk) 09:32, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Moby Games
Moby Games is a website which ranks the games according to the average review score, just like Gamerankings and Metacritic, so I suggest to add it since the web shows a list of its GOTY from 1980 to 2012. Moby Games GOTY list --Apolo13 (talk) 03:11, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Needed changes
I iVoted keep at the AfD on condition of changes. The article seems to be a valuable information source (see item #1 WP:LISTPURP), but has problems. I think the following changes should be made and the AfD issue revisited in light of the changes or lack of these changes:
- 1. Rename to Lists of Game of the Year awards or List of games receiving Game of the Year awards.
- 2. For the "Video games – Critic and editor awards (Game of the Year)" section, create a "Critic and Editor" column in each table and then put all the tables into one connected table. By allowing multiple Critic and Editor listed for a single entry, that will shrink the long article. Also, readers of the list are no so interested in who gave the award. Rather, they first are interested in the "Game", then the Year, then interested in which Game of the Year awards it received. After all, the article is called "Game" of the "Year". The other sections can be similarly changed so that the page only has five tables.
- 3. Create a Notes column for each table. Each entry needs to be sourced and the Notes column is where that reference can be placed.
- 4. The references used need to be independent of the organization giving the award and need to be published by a reliable source. This will help focus the article.
- 5 Selection criteria - The lack of selection criteria is where this article fails:
- Who: If I create a website and list my Game of the Year awards, will my website be listed in this Wikipedia article? That certainly would help publicize my website! Should this list be limited to awards from publications that are printed with ink on paper on a regular or periodic schedule? We could have separate Lists of Game of the Year awards from print publications and Lists of Game of the Year awards from websites to have better control over the website entries.
- When: Should the Lists of Game of the Year awards entries be from the very first game invented (e.g., by cavemen) or is it limited to games that came into existence after the 19th century? Is it limited to awards focused on the first year a game is published?
- What: What about board games like mancala or is it awards for only electronic games? Should new versions of Kick the Can game or other play type game that receive Game of the Year awards be included?
- Where: Should the Lists of Game of the Year awards entries be from any Game of the Year award given anywhere in the world? Should the list be limited to awards list originally published in the English language?
I'm skeptical that a selection criteria can be made that is unambiguous and objective. However, I'm willing to give editors a chance to address the above issues to then judge at AfD in two months from the close of the AfD as to whether the product resulting from those changes should be kept or deleted. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:36, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Removed content
I removed any section that lacked even a single citation, the tables and content are preserved here so they can be cited and restored when someone gets round to it. If someone is re-adding, please make sure and put the tables in the correct sections. Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign) 09:49, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
This information simply isn't available online. These publications were magazine-only and will never upload their content. So there are no "sources" that could be linked. The "source" would just be to say "PC Gamer December Issue 2000" and then put that at the bottom of the page. That's the best you are going to get. Anyway, the lists look correct to me, and I think it serves the article better to have this content listed rather than delete it. Can we restore this content to the article? Cecoppola (talk) 04:41, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
References
- ^ a b c "Top 100 Games Ever". Electronic Gaming Monthly. Kisrael. 2002. Retrieved 14 April 2012.
- ^ a b c d e f "The Best Video Games in the History of Humanity". Filibuster Cartoons. March 2012. Retrieved 12 April 2012.
- ^ "Electronic Gaming Monthly Reveals Winners for '2003 Gamers' Choice Awards'". PR Newswire. 2 February 2004. Retrieved 8 February 2012.
- ^ "1998 Gamers' Choice Awards". Electronic Gaming Monthly (117): 107–114 [114]. 1999.
{{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter|month=ignored (help) - ^ "Readers' Choice Awards". Electronic Gaming Monthly (104): 100. 1998. Retrieved 8 February 2012.
{{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter|month=ignored (help) - ^ "Spike TV Announces 2008 "Video Game Award" Winners".
Selection criteria
For this article to be more than a repository of every GotY award awarded we should have some sort of selection criteria for each category: Video game specific print, Video game specific website, Institutions and award shows and other publications/media
I've laid out a very simple set of criteria and hopefully we can expand on them Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign) 10:07, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
- What is the purpose of compiling all GOTY lists into one place? If you're interested in a particular publication's GOTY, you should be able to find it at the article for that publication. If you're interested in a game's accolades, you should be able to find it at the reception section of the game's article. What do we gain from copy-pasta-ing all of those GOTY tables into one place, besides convenience for the lazy? I think that an article that aggregated which games got the most GOTYs by year would be more interesting (kind of analogous to "number of Oscar nominations", perhaps?). The selection criteria discussed below would be decided to limit the scope to notable publications, of course. Axem Titanium (talk) 14:14, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
- I somewhat agree if I'm honest but that is a huge piece of work to undertake, one I'm not sure I could manage (I'm not very good with wikitables and, while I know scripts exist, I've never used them). I think we consider that the end goal but, for now, cleaning up the data should be a priority. Once this article is nicely sourced and with the right stuff included we can take the data and transform it into something like your suggestion. Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign) 09:06, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
- I agree, it is quite a large undertaking and I'm not necessarily up to do it right this moment either. Glad we're on the same page about the eventual direction of the article though. Axem Titanium (talk) 13:31, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
- I somewhat agree if I'm honest but that is a huge piece of work to undertake, one I'm not sure I could manage (I'm not very good with wikitables and, while I know scripts exist, I've never used them). I think we consider that the end goal but, for now, cleaning up the data should be a priority. Once this article is nicely sourced and with the right stuff included we can take the data and transform it into something like your suggestion. Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign) 09:06, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
General criteria
- How many years do we consider a minimum? Is one year enough or should it be at least 2/3/5 or does it not really matter so long as the specific criteria for that awarder is met? Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign) 10:07, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure every publication, web or print, has done a GOTY every year since they started publishing, and if they started this year, they're gonna do it again next year. This criterion doesn't seem like it'll weed anyone out. Axem Titanium (talk) 13:31, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
- It was more for publications or websites that are now defunct. Some magazines lasted for around 18 months and produced one GotY list. Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign) 10:52, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure every publication, web or print, has done a GOTY every year since they started publishing, and if they started this year, they're gonna do it again next year. This criterion doesn't seem like it'll weed anyone out. Axem Titanium (talk) 13:31, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Video game specific publications criteria
- Should we go based on print run? Number of copies sold per issue? Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign) 10:07, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
- I don't know that that kind of data is available to us in a complete enough form to make decisions like that. Most magazines are notable so the ones which have (or should have) articles on Wikipedia should be included here. Axem Titanium (talk) 13:31, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, I originally used this as a criteria and removed anything without its own article Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign) 10:52, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
- I don't know that that kind of data is available to us in a complete enough form to make decisions like that. Most magazines are notable so the ones which have (or should have) articles on Wikipedia should be included here. Axem Titanium (talk) 13:31, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Video game specific website criteria
- Number of unique hits per day/month? Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign) 10:07, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
- This is tricky, since there are so many websites and the threshold for notability seems to be lower. It's a lot easier to make a website than a magazine, so that's why there are so many more of the former. I think the only way to hash out this list is to put it up at WT:VG and discuss, case-by-case. The obvious ones like IGN, GameSpot, etc. don't need to be, but stuff like MMGM, CrispyGamer, etc. should be. Axem Titanium (talk) 13:31, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Institutions and award shows criteria
- Specific events that are notable in themselves (and have an article) Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign) 10:07, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
- I like this. Axem Titanium (talk) 13:31, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Other publications/media criteria
- Major publication/tv show Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign) 10:07, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
- Game TV shows and newspapers which cover games (NYT, etc.) are still few in number. I think they should all be included, if applicable. Axem Titanium (talk) 13:31, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Platform-specific publications
- What should we do about platform-specific magazines and websites? They don't seem to be included at present. Including them would seem to turn the article into a contest of whoever has the most platform-specific publications on their side. I think, at best, they should be listed in their own section. Or, in the hypothetical end-state of this article, they would be aggregated separately from the platform-agnostic publications. Axem Titanium (talk) 13:31, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
- I agree, at the moment since we're going on a publication/website basis it's not a huge issue but when the data is amalgamated we'll want to consider seperating them to avoid skewing the figures. Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign) 10:52, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Are the E3 awards really appropriate here?
They're not exactly "game of the year" since upcoming games with impressive demos often / usually win. Note that the Titanfall preview won in the summer of 2013, despite the game not even being released as of today! It's certainly possible to imagine games with great demos that win E3 and are tremendously disappointing at launch. It just doesn't seem to be a very good fit here, and would be better moved to an E3 article or the like. SnowFire (talk) 00:13, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Date ordering?
Some of the awards are listed with the most recent games at the top of the tables, while others have the oldest at the top and the newest added as rows on the bottom as they're announced. Can we get some sort of standardization? CyMoahk2 (talk) 17:27, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 16 external links on List of Game of the Year awards. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gamespot.com/features/bestworst96/goty.html
- Corrected formatting/usage for //www.videogames.com/features/universal/awards98/sec15.html
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gamespot.com/features/awards1998/gameofyear2.html
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://gamespot.com/gamespot/features/video/bestof_2000/p6_01.html
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://gamespot.com/gamespot/features/pc/bestof_2000/p5_02.html
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://gamespot.com/gamespot/features/video/bestof_2001/p6_06.html
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://gamespot.com/gamespot/features/pc/bestof_2001/p5_06.html
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gamespot.com/pages/features/bestof2005/index.php?day=6&page=1
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gamespot.com/special_features/bestof2006/gameofyear/index.html?page=2
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gamespot.com/best-games-of-2007/gameoftheyear/index.html?page=2
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gamespot.com/best-of-2008/game-of-the-year/index.html?page=2
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gamespot.com/best-of-2009/game-of-the-year/index.html?page=2
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gamespot.com/best-of-2010/game-of-the-year/index.html?tag=topslot%3Bimg%3B3
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gamespot.com/best-of-2011-awards/game-of-the-year/index.html?page=1
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gamespot.com/best-of-2012/game-of-the-year/index.html
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://kotaku.com/338725/kotakus-overall-game-of-the-year
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:24, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Platinum Triad Strategy Game of the Year from CGR
is claimed by some computer games... Apparently sth called Computer Game Review... Completely non-notable? or just needs to be included with sourcing? — LlywelynII 07:11, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
References
These shouldn't exist.
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on List of Game of the Year awards. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gamepro.com/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:56, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
non-sense goty awards
why magazine picks are considered goty?or even readers pick??shouldn't only professional voting count as any other medium?only the video game awards/game developer awards/bafta/NAVGTR/and D.i.c.e awards should be counted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.65.154.90 (talk) 01:29, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 20 external links on List of Game of the Year awards. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gamepro.com/
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131103063554/http://www.gamesmagazine-online.com/gameslinks/archives.html to http://www.gamesmagazine-online.com/gameslinks/archives.html
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gamesmagazine-online.com/gameslinks/archives.html
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gamesmagazine-online.com/gameslinks/archives.html
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gamesmagazine-online.com/gameslinks/archives.html
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gamesmagazine-online.com/gameslinks/archives.html
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gamesmagazine-online.com/gameslinks/archives.html
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gamesmagazine-online.com/gameslinks/archives.html
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gamesmagazine-online.com/gameslinks/archives.html
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gamesmagazine-online.com/gameslinks/archives.html
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gamesmagazine-online.com/gameslinks/archives.html
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gamesmagazine-online.com/gameslinks/archives.html
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gamesmagazine-online.com/gameslinks/archives.html
- Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.videogames.com/features/universal/awards98/sec15.html
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080708023228/http://www.netlaputa.ne.jp/~dummy/gamest/magazine/gamest/v068.html to http://www.netlaputa.ne.jp/~dummy/gamest/magazine/gamest/v068.html
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080708023308/http://www.netlaputa.ne.jp/~dummy/gamest/magazine/gamest/v084.html to http://www.netlaputa.ne.jp/~dummy/gamest/magazine/gamest/v084.html
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110116042603/http://www.giantbomb.com/features/best-of-2008/1/?category=1 to http://www.giantbomb.com/features/best-of-2008/1/?category=1
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131206114833/http://bestof.ign.com/2005/overall/25.html to http://bestof.ign.com/2005/overall/25.html
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090529161834/http://www3.ocn.ne.jp/~kikux68k/x68k_ohxgamedata.html to http://www3.ocn.ne.jp/~kikux68k/x68k_ohxgamedata.html
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://crispygamer.com/GameTrust.aspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:48, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Why who is not admin cannot edit on this page anymore?
Let's give an example, I saw that the Game Awards gave GOTY to Zelda, so I come edit and make this page more updated, but it will not be possible because the Master of page will evaluate if the edition its good enough.. So even if the winner has already been chosen and has links and everything to prove, is not my edition worth it until you accept it? This to me is bullshit, I know you protected the page because people can not edit the idiocy, but you can do the same before, see the edit and delete if it was bullshit, now an edition of a site that changed the name came quick to change, nor to check if it was true before deleting, I think it's good you to change your concepts. 20:42, 20 October 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.47.27.247 (talk)
- Several people without accounts have made vandalistic edits to this page in the past, so the page has been semi-protected so that edits to the page must be “accepted” in order to be finalized and added to the page. I hope this makes sense to you and you understand why edits need to go through pending.
You could always create an account if you want to edit pages, of course! :)TheDisneyGamer (talk) 21:21, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
- So, just that this type of edition you approve, right? That you let pass ... Detail: it has no account, only appears his IP, so technically he can't edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Game_of_the_Year_awards&diff=805650638&oldid=805565483 02:40, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Please Just Read
I'd just like to know why of your bias by random people's edits on this page. Not everyone here comes unwillingly to ruin the page, there are people who come here and make an edition of which the information is correct. But you simply interpret it as vandalism or whatever. Ask ADM that protected the page remove this blocking that I assure myself that nobody will come edit nonsenses here, we just want to add information to the page. MalakoiExpert (talk) 18:27, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
- Nobody is saying that all people who come to edit this page are 7 year-olds and other vandals who have come to completely mess up Wikipedia, we really aren’t. The reason that this page was protected is because several people were making problematic, unhelpful edits in the past, and in order to end that he page was protected so that edits have to be accepted before being enacted. If you really have such a big problem with that then feel free to keep conplaining about it- I certainly won’t stop you from it!- or you could just deal with the solid fact that at the moments your edits must be approved by administrators before it’s applied to the page- then, if your edit is deemed viable then it will be approved and added to the article, otherwise it’ll be undone/reverted. It affects me and every other non-admin editor here just as it affects you, so instead of complaining why don’t you just deal with it? I mean if your edits aren’t vandalistic and contribute helpful info to the page then I don’t see what the problem is in it being reviewed by other people before it’s finalized.TheDisneyGamer (talk) 19:58, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
- Um, you got angry, huh? Buddy, I did a simple questioning, you got angry because you wanted to. The point is that this page is already bad, has several awards that no longer exist, and I think it should have a update to this page, but with this system pending is complicated, because they do not even look to see if the edition is compatible. And another, you are ADM here, nobody will change your edition, but there are others around here who do not even wait to check the edition, and remove it by pure ignorance. I'm not fighting, I'm just debating, remember that. MalakoiExpert (talk) 02:25, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
- Alright, it seems that you’re somewhat misunderstanding what the protection does and who it affects. First of all, I’m not angry, I’m only questioning why you’re so upset by this. Secondly, I’m not an administrator- You seem to think that I am, but I really am not. I’m a normal editor like you, but I’ve been editing for at least a year or two. You only started editing at least a couple of days ago, and THAT’S why you aren’t able to edit this page- the page is protected so that only autoconfirmed users can edit it, not so that only administrators can edit. The reason I’m able to edit the page is because I joined WP a couple of years ago and have thus been autoconfirmed by a bot. You’ve been editing for a very short period of time, and this you still count as a “new user”. After a few months (I think; I’m not sure exactly how long, but something like that I’m pretty sure), you will be autoconfirmed probably by a Wikipedia bot, and then you’ll be able to edit this page without having to deal with any pending process crap. I can see that you have legitimate feelings about this article, and I understand that it must be somewhat annoying to be unable to edit anything, but I’m afraid that it’s just the way that it is- when a WP article is being vandalized by several IP editors, it’s probably going to be protected so that IP’s can’t mess it up anymore, even though not everybody who’s an IP editor/new user has malicious intents. In the meantime, there are probably plenty of other articles that aren’t protected that you could contribute to, instead of lingering on this one and continuing to complain about the fact that it’s protected.TheDisneyGamer (talk) 17:23, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
- Okay, thanks for the explanation. I guess, they should create a Bot to monitor this page, and evaluate the editions, not the editors themselves to do it, so you do not have to protect the page from malicious issues, of course, sometimes the Bot can go wrong and delete a correct edit, but if it is well programmed, it will not make mistakes and it would make it easier to work, rather than waiting for someone to evaluate your issue and perhaps delete it only by not knowing who you are and thinking you are a vandal. I do not know if I was clear, but this is my opinion about this. MalakoiExpert (talk) 00:36, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Please review the Protection policy for any questions you may have relating to the protection of this page. Just a few days ago I was involved in blocking several new editors who were engaging in behaviour that was deserving of a block, making personal attacks towards each other, and editing the article in a disruptive manner. Just today I have had to warn an editor against making personal attacks towards others on this talk page.
Unfortunately, when folks cannot behave in a civil manner towards each other and the article begins to suffer as a result of disputes between editors (including vandalism), page protection is one of the many defences against such disruptive editing.
Pending revisions to the article are brought to the attention of others and they'll be reviewed accordingly by users with the appropriate access to do so. If you wish to see the article unprotected, then those engaging in the disruptive editing will need to learn to behave according to Wikipedia policy. It's not that hard to be civil, cooperate, and put petty disagreements aside if you try. -- Longhair\talk 01:12, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on List of Game of the Year awards. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://bestof.ign.com/2007/overall/25.html
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111127061905/http://ps3.mmgn.com/Articles/Game-of-the-Year-2011-Winners to http://ps3.mmgn.com/Articles/Game-of-the-Year-2011-Winners
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://games.tecmundo.com.br/Busca/Buscar?q=melhores+do+ano+2010
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://games.tecmundo.com.br/Busca/Buscar?q=melhores+do+ano+2011
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://games.tecmundo.com.br/Busca/Buscar?q=melhores+do+ano+2012
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.melhores2015.com.br/tecmundo-games.htm
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://crispygamer.com/GameTrust.aspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:57, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Remove them, please.
These Voxel guys have no credibility at all, you guys should take them off this list, they do not even play to make reviews, how can they award a Game of the Year? In fact, none of these journalists even play the games, I think those awards sucks, but it's because these journalists want to talk about what they do not know, so I think it's irrelevant. The readers is even asking Gamertag and PSN ID of these journalists to know if they play, because they influence many to buy games based on their opinions, being that they talk about what they do not know, especially these guys from Voxel. I would like to remove them from this list, they have no merit. And another, I would like you to go to GOTYPICKS.BLOGSPOT.COM, because they do a compilation of Goty's said by various sites and awards, and there you can see other sites to include in this list. See you. 15:06, 21 November 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:7F0:A090:EDBD:3D03:70AB:AF8E:1A4A (talk)
- A lot of your suggestions in terms of Voxel and these other GOTY awards seem to stem solely from your opinion... it may be true that they don’t actually play the games, but that’s besides the point of Wikipedia, which is to be an encyclopedia- in other words, inclusions aren’t made based on the quality of the award so much as the notability of the award. Basically that means whether or not it’s something that’s cared about y a large number of people- the difference between, say, a popular artist like Elton John and an obscure rapper on YouTube or something like that.
- Basically my point is that regardless of the “credibility” of Voxel, the point still stands that it’s a recurring award ceremony that exists and is prolific enough to be mentioned on WP.
- Sorry if this is inadvertantly unclear or confusing- I tried to make what I’m talking about as understandable as possible. I’ll totally try and look into the website you mentioned though! :)
- P.S. I left a message on your talk page that I suggest you check out.TheDisneyGamer (talk) 15:42, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
- If possible take a look at this site, it is very good to make compilations of awards from Goty, even the game companies use it with reference, you have seen in that Goty version of Overwatch, which they saying that it is a winning game of more than 100 awards? Or have you seen that The Witcher 3 won 257 awards? Probably caught on that site. And I left a question on your dialogue page, please do not criticize me for what I asked and I'm not a jerk if you get a bad impression of me. OldHunterX (talk) 00:05, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
I have a suggestion
I wanted to propose to you if I could put a list that shows the game that won the most awards in the year, or else the games that won the most, like a top 3, since 2003 we already know the number of goty of certain games, I think that it would be cool for you to report on the game that won the most prizes like Uncharted 4 in 2016, The Witcher 3 in 2015, etc. I know you already have a website that does this, as has already been said in another paragraph, but there are many people who do not know this site and come here to know that game won goty in certain awards in certain sites, would be an interesting thing, could put before or after all the sites listed, just to people have a notion, if you decide to add I volunteer to put in . Thank you in advance if you will respond. BriefingMan (talk) 18:50, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
- Do you have any sources or references to back your point up? Neverrainy (talk) 03:32, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
- Of course, if I say it's because I assure you, you can leave it to me. BriefingMan (talk) 21:24, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
- Your suggestion has been rejected as you don't have any sources or references to back up your point and you didn't even bother editing the article. Neverrainy (talk) 22:33, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
- So, go fuck yourself ok? I do not even know why I try to help you, they would not let me edit anyway, their bunch of wanker BriefingMan (talk) 00:34, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
- You're arrogant, huh? FelinoPlayer (talk) 00:46, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
- Please refrain from using coarse language on Wikipedia. That will not help get your point across your reason on editing Wikipedia. Neverrainy (talk) 16:09, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
- You're arrogant, huh? FelinoPlayer (talk) 00:46, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
- So, go fuck yourself ok? I do not even know why I try to help you, they would not let me edit anyway, their bunch of wanker BriefingMan (talk) 00:34, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
- Your suggestion has been rejected as you don't have any sources or references to back up your point and you didn't even bother editing the article. Neverrainy (talk) 22:33, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
- Of course, if I say it's because I assure you, you can leave it to me. BriefingMan (talk) 21:24, 27 November 2017 (UTC)