Talk:List of game manufacturers

FASA Not Out of Business

FASA Corporation is not, nor has it ever been, "out of business." The owners withdrew from publishing but it still exists to license FASA's IP. See the Wiki[edia article on FASA to see this is wrong. [[1]] Stilleon (talk) 01:10, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

The Recent Trim

While the contention that Wikipedia is not a link farm is certainly correct, I think this went way overboard. This is a list of game manufacturers, so any company that has published games belongs on this list, unless those games (and presumably, by extension, the company) are entirely non-notable. The only criteria that seems to have been applied is whether there was an existing article. This is not an adequate judge of notability, and further, redlinks should be encouraged, so that they can encourage the appropriate articles to be written. --Rindis 16:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

There are many list articles on Wikipedia. A few redlinks may be tolerated, if we are confident that the subject would warrant an article if only we could be bothered to write one, but weblinks are generally discouraged. Feel free to re-insert any redlinks you feel are likely to be justified by the prominence of the subject; permit me to be slightly skeptical about the chances of there being a genuinely notable game company with no article in the Wikipedia of today. Guy 17:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

You're certainly permitted to be skeptical, but I would say that Wikipedia's game industry coverage is still pretty barren (at least outside of computer games). --Rindis 17:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree emphatically about the "pruning" of this list. Wikipedia should be as comprehensive as people feel like making it, in my opinion, and redlinks don't cost anybody anything and encourage people to write about these topics. External links could be a problem, but as the person who introduced many of the external links, I can aver that creating a link farm was not my intent. As far as the significance of these companies, I defy anyone to judge that, and Wikipedia has thousands of articles on towns and schools that are less important to me than these game manufacturers.

As an amateur game inventor, Wikipedia provided me with a list of potential markets; because I am looking to consider ALL companies that theoretically could publish my games, I object to incompleteness of the list: perhaps the links should be removed, but the items themselves should remain. (For myself, I've already completed the research, but there will come others.)

I would add all the links back myself, but I want to hear others' opinions on this, especially JzG. --downtown_dan_seattle 17:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that the list should be as complete as possible. Val42 02:51, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

One of the things I wanted to work on was actually writing articles for many of these publishers. As the print RPG industry continues to shrink, the hobby has evolved to a point where electronic publishers are becoming the primary source of support for the hobby. The PDF RPG industry runs very differently from other game industries, and merging this list with a more generic one would confuse, not clarify, the problem. Littlemissthing 19:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposing another trim

There is a real problem in having a list with so many redlinks; it goes against Wikipedia's guideline for stand alone lists, which states: "Each entry on a list should have its own non-redirect article in English Wikipedia (which in turn requires list members to meet the appropriate notability criteria), but the existence of an article is not required if the entry is verifiably a member of the listed group, and it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the future. "Creation guide" lists containing a large number of redlinked (unwritten) articles are also inappropriate; instead consider listing the missing articles at Wikipedia:Requested articles or in the appropriate Wikiproject." I think the redlinks here fail the two-fold test of the guideline: there is no way to verify they are actually game manufacturers, and no reason to expect those articles will be forthcoming. Accordingly, I am going to begin removing the redlinks. UnitedStatesian (talk) 00:57, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Three years later, I've gone through and cut all 510 (!) redlinks from the article. If there were any significant (but article-less) publishers in there, they were swamped by the unreadable swathes of smaller, non-notable companies. --McGeddon (talk) 15:20, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

List manufacturers, not publishers

Manufacturers are factories that publishers contract to manufacture games. The name of the page shows that it should be about those manufacturers. Instead it currently lists publishers. This is very confusing. The current page should be renamed to "List of game publishers", and a new one with the current name "List of game manufacturers" should be created. Avangorok (talk) 07:30, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. I will try a an uncontroversial moveSciencefish (talk) 16:31, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

==========================================

INCORRECT. These companies have been called manufacturers since the 70's. You are trying to rewrite 50 years of common parlance. It's even captured in such terms as:

• Game Manufacturer's Association (no factories/manufacturing facilities are members)
• Manufactuer's Suggested Retail Price

Many of these companies are also called publishers, but that is not the common usage in the hobby game industry.