Talk:List of video game websites

This article was nominated for deletion on 31 December 2015. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

This article was previously nominated for deletion. The result of the discussion was delete.

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

Purple Francis (7 participants)
Gilman Louie (2 participants)
Yoshimitsu (3 participants)
Dr. Wily (8 participants)
First Internet Backgammon Server (3 participants)
Emote (2 participants)
Preston Arsement (6 participants; relisted)
Jackpot World (3 participants; relisted)

Merge discussions

Other discussions

No major discussions

Table format

I switched to a table format. We're going to have to fix the alexa rank column if we want it to be sortable. Also, normally User:OKBot updates the alexa data. We're going to have to contact the bot's maintainer to see if we can get him to update this page as well. SharkD Talk 21:46, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We're probably going to need an Archive URL column as well, as many of the sites are defunct. SharkD Talk 22:34, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Store pages for Xbox, PS, Nintendo?

Though the specific storefront pages for these consoles do not have individual articles, if we are listing Steam, Origin, and GOG, for example, I think we should include these too. --MASEM (t) 17:16, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Meets WP:LISTN

Of note is that this topic also meets WP:LISTN, part of Wikipedia's main Notability guideline page, having been "discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". Source examples include: ^[1], ^[2], ^[3], ^[4], ^[5], ^[6]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:25, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Playing to Learn: Video Games in the Classroom. pp. 229–230.
^ From Gamer to Game Designer. pp. 278–279.
^ "Development and validation of an instrument to evaluate the content effectiveness of video games: a pilot study". "Most video game websites and magazines offer their own classifications (eg www.gamespot.com, www.gamespy.com and www.gamasutra.com). ..." (subscription required)
^ "Introduction to video games, their publishers, and social responsibility concerning video game addiction". p. 6.
^ "YouTube and Twitch square off at E3 with video game websites". Los Angeles Times.
^ "YouTube takes on Twitch with launch of gaming channel". Los Angeles Times.

Developers?

I see NorthAmerican added EA and Valve (probably others), but I feel this might be too much. For one, compared to nearly all the other websites which are visited for news or other functions, there's little that one visits EA or Valve of the same purpose. We have List of video game developers which includes these types of companies, and which should be a seealso link (if not explained that this list does not include dev/publishers outside of any storefront sites like Origin, Steam, Uplay, etc.). --MASEM (t) 01:02, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did not add the text for those companies; it was already there. I only added links to the respective Wikipedia articles. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:08, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah my bad. Same question though if they should be included on this list. --MASEM (t) 01:17, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's all right. For example, the Electronic Arts content in the article is listed under the Owner/Publisher section of the table, to denote the owner of Origin (digital distribution software), which is an online gaming, digital distribution and digital rights management (DRM) platform. I think it's appropriate to include the owners/publishers of the respective websites. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:35, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think developers should be listed. But Origin should be because it sells and distributes them. Basically, I don't think a site should be listed if it deals with only a single product. SharkD Talk 05:35, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, yeah, my bad all around, I thought they were being added as first-column named entries, but they weren't. Agree to keep Origin etc., with the developer linked as the owner. No issues then. :) --MASEM (t) 15:32, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]