Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of AO-rated video games/archive1

List of AO-rated video games

Featured list candidates/List of AO-rated video games/archive1

Nominator(s): ViperSnake151 Talk 18:37, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a particularly notable subject; in line with the NC-17, its interesting to see that relatively few "mainstream" games have ever dared to receive an AO rating, and I bet you most people don't even realize there's something higher than M! I did a lot of cleanup lately, adding some more backstories, filling out references, adding a lead, etc. ViperSnake151 Talk 18:37, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comments by Mattximus (talk) 23:58, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not too impressed with the list itself. The note section only has a few notes, most have a dash, one is blank. Maybe a year column would benefit? What is the difference between "PC", "Windows", and "Windows PC"; all three are under that one column. You have a cancelled game, a game that was re-rated, there seems to be no real criteria for inclusion here. I'm confused.

These are all video games that were rated AO by the ESRB; how can the criteria for inclusion be any clearer? And I fixed up those formatting issues. ViperSnake151 Talk 00:33, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I'd mention when the ESRB started, probably at the end of the first paragraph.
Might also be worth mentioning its equivalents in other countries, or that it's like NC-17, if you can find sources.
"was given the AO rating for its violent content, so much so that when its publisher" - 'so much so' what? It was rated so much? Sentence needs reworking.
Since the platform column is sortable, every instance of each term should be linked.
I'd add a release date (or at least release year) column, as well as a developer column.
You seem to have notes only on the non-sexual games- any way to get notes for the others, or would they all just be "digital nudity and explicit sex"?
The Joy of Sex should sort under J, not T.
If you add notes to the other games, you can drop the sorting on the notes column, since the result is arbitrary.

--Pres N 05:59, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed up the Thrill Kill mention, but I can't seem to find release years for those remaining AO games that are otherwise unremarkable and lacking notes (aside from Lula 3D; which I also got a chance to add to List of video games notable for negative reception as well). This table is sourced directly from the ESRB pages, which don't distinctly list developers or release years. ViperSnake151 Talk 06:04, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...}:

Tables need to comply with MOS:DTT and utilize column and row scopes.
Do we have any more info about the games? Usually lists of video games include title, developer, publisher, and year. I'm not pushy about needing a developer column since we have the publisher list, but I think a column with year of release would be helpful and necessary to make this a complete list. I can see PresN noted this, but I would say it's necessary to meet criteria 3a of WP:WIAFL. You may want to try using IGN or Allgame to fill in some of the information on some of these games.
Instead of having a ref next to the game title, it might be better to place it in a separate column since there are individual references for each title here and not one overarching reference. See List of Sega 32X games for a suggestion on how this might be accomplished, and would neaten up the title field.
Though not necessary, you may want to place {{portal}} in the See also section to add a link to the Video games Portal, which may be helpful for readers.
There's an extra ] next to the word Windows in the last paragraph of the lead.

Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 22:19, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reiterating the need for release dates, or at least release years, especially for the blacklinked items. If the only source used does not contain them then it is not an adequate source for an FL, we'll need more. --Golbez (talk) 15:56, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - no response from nominator or edits to article for a month regarding adding developer or release date to table; that you would have to find another source beyond the ESRB for those is not a valid excuse. --Pres N 19:49, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (having stumbled here from my FLC discussion page). The list page is certainly useful, but valid concerns have indeed been raised above. I think the refs from the Title column should be moved instead to the Notes column, for uniformity with other FL quality list pages I've come across. Also, I've left a helpful reminder note about this ongoing discussion page at user talk for ViperSnake151. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 12:17, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I have to agree with Red Phoenix here about 3a. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 10:10, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. - SchroCat (talk) 09:46, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]