This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Chardish (talk | contribs) at 20:18, 29 April 2007 (→[]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 20:18, 29 April 2007 by Chardish (talk | contribs) (→[])(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)List of controversial games
- List of controversial games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Most of the information in the article is unsourced. Contains 3 sources despite naming 100+ games. "Controversial" is a poorly-defined weasel word. Fails WP:V, which is non-negotiable. Chardish 18:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom.Reconsidering vote per below. JuJube 18:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)- Delete but do not salt; there could conceivably be a good, well-sourced article at this title, but this isn't it. *** Crotalus *** 21:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- Incredibly strong keep, because this list is convenient, helpful, addresses an encyclopedic and relavent topic. If anything it should be expanded and more references added, which is likely to happen over time. No legitimate reason to delete. Best, --24.154.173.243 21:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - There is no objective definition of "controversial" (fails WP:POV) and this list is indiscriminate (fails WP:NOT). Otto4711 00:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Any article that contains a section called: "Video Games that Depict or Reference Urination" is... I'm laughing too much to finish my sentence. Croxley 05:07, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Definite KEEP - There is clear definition of "controversial" (succeeds WP:POV)in that the games have generated controversat nd more references will show that (yet, another jump the gun deletionist WTF) and this list is well argued nd NOT indiscriminate (does not fail WP:NOT) as reasons are given for each game. Cheers! --Horace Horatius 14:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- WP:POV is an essay, and is far from widespread acceptance, let alone policy. It's very very difficult to classify items in a list based on a POV term like "controversial". The term is ill-defined: Final Fantasy IX is a controversial game? Knights of the Old Republic? The Legend Of Zelda: Ocarina of Time?- Chardish 19:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, because reasons listed bove. I brainstormed and couldn't come up with a legitimate or smart reason for deletion in this case. I could only see someone wanting to delete it if they have a malicious agenda . . . --172.133.4.245 14:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 14:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, because controversatwith games, especially video games is a hot topic. Fools tried to link it to the Virginia Tech fiasco even (Cho's suiet mate told Chris Matthews that Cho didn't play video games)! But because of controversial subject matter with games like The Guy Game and its legal history of having a minor nude or Thrill Kill not being released for violence and so definitely makes a list of this nature valuable in a historical, cultural, nd media sense. --63.3.1.1 20:58, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- It may be a hot topic, but it's poorly defined and a POV term. See WP:LISTS#Lists_content - Avoid creating lists based on a value judgment or opinions of people or organizations. For example, "List of obnoxious people" is clearly not acceptable, but more subtle examples could be "List of demagogues", or "List of exploitative companies", or "List of authoritarian leaders", as each one of these are based on value judgments even if these can pass the test of verifiability. "Controversial" certainly falls into the bove category of "value judgments". - Chardish 21:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Then, why not just request that the games listed each have a reference that shows where someone considered them controversial nd/or rename the fantastic article List of games considered controversial to have some fun alliteration and indicate that what's controversial to one is not to others. If nothing else, I cannot see how anyone wouldn't find urination or spanking controversial content for video games! --63.3.1.1 21:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, my opinion as to what "controversial content" is doesn't matter. Neither does yours, or anyone else's who edits Misplaced Pages. The point is that there is no objective description of what "controversial content" in video games is. Video games notable for negative reception is a good topic for an article because it makes two assertions: notability, which can be verified through the standards in place at WP:N, and negative reception, which is a well-defined and unambiguous term. Your suggestion that we say "what's controversial to one is not to others" is fallacious; neutrality is objective, and only what is objectively considered controversial should be included in the encyclopedia. Please read the Misplaced Pages policy on neutrality. And, on a lighter note, what is a controversy, anyway? - Chardish 23:37, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Then, why not just request that the games listed each have a reference that shows where someone considered them controversial nd/or rename the fantastic article List of games considered controversial to have some fun alliteration and indicate that what's controversial to one is not to others. If nothing else, I cannot see how anyone wouldn't find urination or spanking controversial content for video games! --63.3.1.1 21:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- It may be a hot topic, but it's poorly defined and a POV term. See WP:LISTS#Lists_content - Avoid creating lists based on a value judgment or opinions of people or organizations. For example, "List of obnoxious people" is clearly not acceptable, but more subtle examples could be "List of demagogues", or "List of exploitative companies", or "List of authoritarian leaders", as each one of these are based on value judgments even if these can pass the test of verifiability. "Controversial" certainly falls into the bove category of "value judgments". - Chardish 21:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, but few can reasonably deny that there ARE controversies with some games and whether or not we agree with the controvsery or how it's defined, the media, lawyers, groups, etc. see controversies and these imagined controversies have a historic nd media relevance as suggested bove. If encyclopedias are convenient reference tools, having a list like this is a useful guide for people to read about the items and then go to their main pages to see what the fuss was in each instance. We shouldn't deny researchers such convenience when data space is hardly an issue for Misplaced Pages. Give the article more time to improve as it is definitely relevant and worth keeping as myself and others obviously believe. --24.154.173.243 23:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Other than Horace Horatius, all keep votes are from anons. JuJube 23:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- So what? We are all anons with vastly different edit histories, i.e. different people, and are making articulate arguments. Not everyone has a need to make an account, especially those of us who use multiple computers. --63.3.1.1 00:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment While this is not the proper forum to debate why you should or should not create an account, it should be noted that anonymous votes are frequently ignored by closing admins. JuJube 00:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- That's ridiculous when those trying to delete the article are members of some kind of agenda group out to diminish Misplaced Pages by deleting other editors' hard work. --63.3.1.1 00:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comments like that aren't going to help your case. JuJube 00:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Nor are your irrational arguments. --63.3.1.1 01:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Both you and 172.133.4.245 have theorized that those who vote to delete have some kind of "agenda." Please assume good faith and realize that we are trying to better the encyclopedia; deleting content that violates Misplaced Pages policy is just as important of a task as adding new content that adheres to Misplaced Pages policy. Also remember that there is no cabal. Addendum: one of the reasons that the arguments of anonymous IP addresses do not carry as much weight is because it is perceived that they are new to the project. As such, the perception is that they do not have the sound understanding of Misplaced Pages policy needed to participate in AfD discussions. Again, this is a matter of perception - but it is very much to your advantage to register an account and participate in the community if you want your arguments here to carry more weight. - Chardish 01:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- You're a member of some group whose stated goal is to delete articles. So, what y'alljust lurk on the deletion debates to overwhelm people before they can make their cases? An article such as this one has a clear reason to exist and yet if groups exist whose sole purpose is to delete articles allows for violations of POINT and OWN. Instead of actually considering individual articles' merits, how can we take people seriously who are on an admitted deletionist rampage? --63.3.1.1 01:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- The problem is clear. What constitutes "controversial" is a matter of opinion. Your "reasoning" consists of WP:ILIKEIT. JuJube 01:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- At least I have reasoning. If you want to compromise, then rename the article List of games considered controversial as suggested above and improve it. Totally axeing it is ludicrous and unfair. --63.3.1.1 01:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Changing the name to "List of games considered controversial" would do nothing but add a weasel word to the title. - Chardish 01:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Then just keep the article as titled and include a sentence noting that what is controversial to some is not to others. One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter, yada yada, yada. --172.150.213.178 01:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- But lists based on a POV judgment are not allowed. There's a reason there's no article called List of terrorists, with or without a disclaimer sentence. - Chardish 01:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Then just keep the article as titled and include a sentence noting that what is controversial to some is not to others. One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter, yada yada, yada. --172.150.213.178 01:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Changing the name to "List of games considered controversial" would do nothing but add a weasel word to the title. - Chardish 01:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- At least I have reasoning. If you want to compromise, then rename the article List of games considered controversial as suggested above and improve it. Totally axeing it is ludicrous and unfair. --63.3.1.1 01:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Deletionism and inclusionism are not blanket philosophies that everything should be deleted or everything should be included. (Otherwise, what would be the point of participating in AfD?) At the risk of trivializing a complicated and long-running debate, inclusionists believe that poor articles should be kept and improved; deletionists believe that poor articles should be deleted. The inclusionist argument is that someone might improve the article someday. The deletionist counter-argument is that the inclusion of poor content hurts Misplaced Pages as a whole, and that deleted content can be easily re-added as soon as its quality has been improved and/or its appropriateness for Misplaced Pages included. Also, I would advise you to avoid attacking the motives of participants in this discussion; such behavior could be percieved as personal attacks. - Chardish 01:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Please refrain from harassing fellow editors who appear to make valid points. --172.150.213.178 01:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- I don't see how anything I've done here could be construed as harassment. "Valid points" is subjective - harassment is not. On the contrary, I've tried to be very accepting and including of the new users - primarily my recommendations that you guys register accounts and thoroughly familiarize yourself with Misplaced Pages policy. - Chardish 01:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- You really shouldn't accuse those who disagree with you of personal attacks. That's a bit paranoid. I'd also suggest you avoid using the word "very," as style guides on how to write denounce this word as overused and ineffective. I just think you should work on improving articles, rather than destroying them. And just seems, well, friendlier. And plus, the deletionist thing seems kind of defeatest, like a give up, quitting attitude. Be more optimistic! :) --63.3.1.1 01:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- I said that attacking motives could be perceived as personal attacks - I didn't accuse anyone of making personal attacks, as I'm really trying to be civil here (and my first rule of WP:CIVIL is that accusing someone of violating it is, in fact, uncivil.) And we deletionist types are friendly people, too. We just have high standards! : ) - Chardish 02:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- I see the other anonymous has reworded some of the text. Give this article a shot to be revised as it seems entirely possible. Even one of the few who voted for deletion above said similar "there could conceivably be a good, well-sourced article at this title" and so just add some kind of improvement tags instead. No real justification to delete. --172.150.213.178 02:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- The additions to the article simply add weasel-word disqualifiers from verifiability, which cannot be in the encyclopedia per policy. - Chardish 05:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep the article and if I get chance, I'll add some more references. I like the new addition too as it really showcases and follows cleae encyclopedic policy. --24.154.173.243 14:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- I said that attacking motives could be perceived as personal attacks - I didn't accuse anyone of making personal attacks, as I'm really trying to be civil here (and my first rule of WP:CIVIL is that accusing someone of violating it is, in fact, uncivil.) And we deletionist types are friendly people, too. We just have high standards! : ) - Chardish 02:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- You really shouldn't accuse those who disagree with you of personal attacks. That's a bit paranoid. I'd also suggest you avoid using the word "very," as style guides on how to write denounce this word as overused and ineffective. I just think you should work on improving articles, rather than destroying them. And just seems, well, friendlier. And plus, the deletionist thing seems kind of defeatest, like a give up, quitting attitude. Be more optimistic! :) --63.3.1.1 01:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- I don't see how anything I've done here could be construed as harassment. "Valid points" is subjective - harassment is not. On the contrary, I've tried to be very accepting and including of the new users - primarily my recommendations that you guys register accounts and thoroughly familiarize yourself with Misplaced Pages policy. - Chardish 01:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Please refrain from harassing fellow editors who appear to make valid points. --172.150.213.178 01:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- The problem is clear. What constitutes "controversial" is a matter of opinion. Your "reasoning" consists of WP:ILIKEIT. JuJube 01:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- You're a member of some group whose stated goal is to delete articles. So, what y'alljust lurk on the deletion debates to overwhelm people before they can make their cases? An article such as this one has a clear reason to exist and yet if groups exist whose sole purpose is to delete articles allows for violations of POINT and OWN. Instead of actually considering individual articles' merits, how can we take people seriously who are on an admitted deletionist rampage? --63.3.1.1 01:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comments like that aren't going to help your case. JuJube 00:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- That's ridiculous when those trying to delete the article are members of some kind of agenda group out to diminish Misplaced Pages by deleting other editors' hard work. --63.3.1.1 00:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment While this is not the proper forum to debate why you should or should not create an account, it should be noted that anonymous votes are frequently ignored by closing admins. JuJube 00:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- (Indent reset). Now that he brings it up, Mr. Anony has a valid point. There exists an article called Films considered the greatest ever. If that can survive, there is a valid reason to keep an article called "List of games considered controversial". JuJube 01:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reconsideration and by the way, I noticed on your user page that you have recent health issues. Anyway, although I may disagree with other editors here and there (I hate the deletionist cruft, but don't wish ill on the actual people), so I sincerely do hope that your health improves or works out. Best, --63.3.1.1 01:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- KEEP, because I've yet to see non-suspicious reason not to. The reasons to delete seem to be using, if I may paraphrase our President, "fuzzy logic." --172.150.213.178 01:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- SPEEDY KEEP, because this relevant article meets Misplaced Pages's guidelines and standards to a T. --164.107.223.217 19:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps you might want to brush up on your understanding of Misplaced Pages's guidelines and standards - this discussion is not a candidate for speedy keep. - Chardish 20:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)