I am nominating List of The Simpsons video games to become a featured list because I believe that after my hard work on it, over a period of several months, it now meets the FL criteria. The issue in the article's first nomination was mainly the table, which has, for the third time, been completely reworked. The article has gone from this and this to this and its current state. Statυs (talk) 01:37, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support The new table is quite interesting and attractive. Also, prose comments and other issues were fixed during the previous candidacy. No reason yet to oppose. Regards. —Hahc2102:10, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"The shorts became a part of The Tracey Ullman Show on April 19, 1987. After a three-season run, the sketch was developed into a half-hour prime time show and became a hit series for Fox" two short sentences, consider merging, same for various others
Almost there. Now perhaps note that there are footnotes after "A detailed overview of each game can be found in their corresponding articles." If you have a good reason not to, I'm all ears. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:45, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is redundant whether you like it or not as it is not your page, but the main point is that the table should cover important things, but the current one has missing information. So I am afraid I have to Oppose its promotion. You do not state the release dates of every platform, while the standard template includes this information. Also, I am not sure if using colour without a key passes WP:ACCESS. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 13:41, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I never stated that I didn't like it. I said that "it's quite ugly and it doesn't give what this list is to accomplish". There is actually no set guideline for how video games lists are supposed to look like, so quite frankly, you have no premise to oppose on that. It's not as if there is a WP:DISCOGSTYLE for this type of list. The release date of every platform is available on each individual article, it does clearly state: "A detailed overview of each game can be found in their corresponding articles." As for the colors, somebody else will have to comment on that. Statυs (talk) 13:53, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with Status regarding that template. It's downright hideous and not very intuitive. The current list gives a much better "at a glance" overview of the topic. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:09, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As an aside, that template looks perhaps useful for inclusion in an article (especially with limited entries), but for a list like this it would be a wall of grey with too much text. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:12, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm no expert on the subject, but I agree with Kürbis that the colours may fail MOS:ACCESS – how would the Key look to someone who is colourblind? They'd think that they're missing some important information. To be honest, I'm not entire sure that that colours are even really needed for this article – it seems reasonable to me that if a cell of the table doesn't list any consoles for a particular game, then it wasn't released on that platform. Another way to convey the same information without the colour (and therefore pass MOS:ACCESS) might be this, for example. Take it as you like. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 16:44, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Contrast ratio for text coloured like this is 9.53 according to this tool, so the text is WCAG 2.0 AAA compliant. I also think that it meets the first bullet of WP:COLOUR, because the coloured background is not the only method used to convey certain information: all green cells contain at least one item of text, whereas all pink cells are blank. Would welcome second opinion though. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:45, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Redrose64: your review is accurate as always, it's good to have you around. :-)
@Status: it was a good idea to ask the accessibility project for advice. In such cases, we should always check color contrast and ensure that color is not the only mean to convey information. In this case the table meet the accessibility guidelines. Cheers, Dodoïste (talk) 11:16, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Still not a fan of the table at all =). I feel it should be consistent with similar articles. It is just missing many information, and many readers just don't like clicking on the articles. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 09:58, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"The Simpsons Game, developed by Radical Entertainment, further expanded the game franchise, releasing the game for new systems...". Reads like the game released the game. Surely the developer did?
"Due to its longevity, The Simpsons video games have also spanned across...". Can't have "its" and "have" like this. Maybe try "Due to the series' longevity".
Let me add one more thing: I agree with a couple of the other reviewers that having colors without matching symbols violates WP:ACCESS, and am reluctant to promote the list as long as this is an issue. Frankly, I'm not sure what purpose the colors actually serve. They basically indicate whether or not a video game was released on a platform. Sounds like a job that system names and dashes would do perfectly well on their own. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:40, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This table does not violate WP:ACCESS. When color is used to convey an information, there is a need for a redundant textual information. It can be achieved by text, symbols such as a dagger, etc. In this case, red cells are empty and green cells contain some text. The redundant textual information is there. You have the right to dislike the layout of the table, it's a personal choice. But there is no accessibility issue here, you can trust me on this as I'm one of the main authors of WP:ACCESS. Cheers, Dodoïste (talk) 00:50, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily, WP:ACCESS states "Ensure that color is not the only method used to convey important information." At the moment the red cells are not doing this, I just think it would be simpler to remove the colours and just have the platforms and dashes instead of red cells. NapHit (talk) 13:56, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is my opinion, but as you have a number of reviewers who have expressed concern about this, I think it would be wise to remove the colours altogether so there is no concern, despite what the WP:ACCESS editor has stated. NapHit (talk) 13:43, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@NapHit: Several reviewers were right to express concern that this table "might not" be accessible. They stated that they did not knew much, but they did know that colors inside a table "might" be an issue. It is a special case that needed a review from the accessibility project. Fact is that red cells are empty, and green cells are not emtpy. This is a textual information that blind users will get instead of the colors. That is all there is to it. Cheers, Dodoïste (talk) 08:12, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, great work on the table looks a lot better than the previous nom. Its definitely an improvement and I would not recommend using the template advocated above, its outdated and does not meet MOS:DTT
refs should come after punctuation, currently ref 2 does not
Not sure why ref 29 has been archived the original link works fine for me, same applies to ref 8
I've been working on archiving all the links in the article; actually forgot to finish it. As Crisco said, it's a "just in case" sort of thing. Statυs (talk) 01:47, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Would add a note saying Simpsons Arcade game has been re-released, when I saw the IGN links I initially thought it was a new game
Regarding archives, sometimes it's best to be proactive. I started habitually archiving all references last October, and that came in handy after several sites reorganised (including putting some articles behind paywalls) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:12, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
One quibble with the table is that just has one release date, whereas the template has three for Japan, USA and PAL. What I would do is have Release as a column header and then dates and details underneath, so you've got both info. It would look similar to the Platform(s) column but with just two columns instead of five
This is a list detailing the most important information of a release. Things other than the first date it was released is irrelevant, and as the little intro says: "A detailed overview of each game can be found in their corresponding articles". Statυs (talk) 00:24, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, currently, we have varying styles of release dates, I see a single year used, a month and a year and a precise date, you should be consistent throughout the list. Obviously this will be an issue as games get released on different dates in different regions. Providing dates for the three regions I outlined above would solve the issue. I don't think its irrelevant at all, currently a naive reader could assume the titles are released on the same day throughout the world, which is obviously not the case. NapHit (talk) 17:15, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do you actually expect there to be exact release dates available for releases from the 90s? I've looked, and there's no reliable sources for such information. It's almost impossible to find any information on those ones what-so-ever. Unless specified in small letters beside it, each release came out on the same date. Unless, of course, it's not specific, which, quite frankly, I can't do anything about. Statυs (talk) 05:15, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
IGN has exact release dates for some of the games, so you've obviously not looked hard enough. Fair enough about three different release dates, as majority of the games have mainly been released in the US. I would add a note stating release dates are when it was released in the US, and explain about the small letters beside the release date, as currently this is not elaborated on. NapHit (talk) 13:56, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Found exact release dates for Bart vs. the Space mutants, Bart Simpson's Escape from Camp Deadly, Bart's house of weirdness, Bart vs. the Juggernauts, Krusty's fun house and Bartman meets Radioactive man on IGN, so much for the info not being there. NapHit (talk) 14:06, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, right. I forgot about that website. Yes, I did the dates a while ago, so I was just incorrect in what I was saying. I found some dates for some of them, but a lot of the ones I found were conflicting. IGN, for example, said one thing, while another said another. I decided to just use the same source (MobyGames) for all of the dates because of this reason. Again, I sorted that out a while ago, so I forgot on the scope in which I had originally done it. Statυs (talk) 01:51, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well I'd go with IGN as the main source, as it is more comprehensive then moby games. Not entirely convinced by the reliability of Moby games. NapHit (talk) 13:47, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
IGN does not include every Simpsons game released, most notably their first one, whereas MobyGames does. So now you don't believe MobyGames is reliable? Not sure why you seem to keep coming up with issues. Statυs (talk) 14:13, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I keep finding issues because as a reviewer that is what I'm supposed to do, if there were no issues I wouldn't find them. The main issue I have with Moby games is that it appears that anyone can edit the content on the site, which does not indicate to me that the site is reliable. Here is IGN link for the first game you stated was not on there. NapHit (talk) 20:39, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I searched for The Simpsons Arcade Game and it failed to appear, weird why it says The Simpsons: The Arcade Game as its title. Anyways, I looked into the website; registering for it. Users cannot edit entries on the website, they can submit corrections to articles that are then approved or denied. Let me just direct you to its use in an FA Donkey Kong (video game). If other users feel as if IGN should be used instead (for whatever reason that may be) and that they do not consider MobyGames to be a reliable source, I might feel more inclined to change them. But it appears that the site is fine with 5 other reviews who left their support of the article's FL promotion. May I also just note that sourcing with IGN would be a bitch, considering they don't have a nice clean list like MobyGames does, and instead have a different entry for each type of release. Statυs (talk) 21:39, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
After looking at the site, and our own page on the site I'm still not convinced the site is as reliable as other sites such as IGN or Gamefaqs. The fact it seems to be similar in ways to Wikipedia has me worried. The fact its used in a FA is irrelevant, especially as that article was promoted six years ago, standards change quickly here. Anyways I've capped my resolved and will leave the resolved ones here for a few days so other users can have their say, as I think we've reached a bit of an impasse. NapHit (talk) 17:17, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I thank you for your comments. I will wait to see what others have to say about the matter. As it's quite a big thing to change (basically every reference on the article) I would require more than one user who has a problem with the source; which I hope you understand. Statυs (talk) 17:54, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As long as most of the references are to a source that is as questionable as it appears to be, due to its user-open nature, I'm going to have a hard time promoting this article. I'd strongly suggest following NapHit's advice and switching as many of the references as you can to IGN, which I know is reliable enough to be used comfortably. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:31, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, as I was looking through IGN, I noticed a lot of their dates saying January 1 and December 31. To me, that looks like random placeholder names. GameFAQs seems to have an indept look at the release dates, including their product IDs. Users can, also, contribute to that website, which has to approved. The site has received awards and is owned by CBS. Is that fine to use? Statυs (talk) 10:00, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, you shouldn't use IGN because they don't have the exact release dates. I've noticed that while writing some of the Simpsons video game articles. I don't know if Gamespot has the same problem. Theleftorium(talk)10:16, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looking through that, I didn't know Rovi had a game database. I've used Allmusic for a lot of music articles, and they always have the right information. Gonna use Allgame. Statυs (talk) 10:25, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's true. Alright, so with sourcing Allgame, they have separate pages for each game on a different platform. Can I just cite one of them? At the bottom of each page, it says "also available on". And if so, how would I do this? Would I add a note in the reference? Statυs (talk) 10:36, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looking much better now, one thing I noticed is that the names of the authors are not right. For instance ref 11 has Brett Allen, but the page gives Brett Allen Weiss, few other instances as well. Other than that, page looks great. NapHit (talk) 12:45, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take a look through all the authors. I used webreflinks (I know, I'm lazy) to format them, then fixed the work and publishers, so I'll go take a look at those. Statυs (talk) 12:49, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You got a clear that the green cells pass WP:ACCESS, not the red cells, I'm sure they don't in their current guise, one solution would be to add dashes as well as the colour, that would make it comply. NapHit (talk) 17:15, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I saw no need to analyse the contrast of the pink cells, because every single one is blank (and intentionally so). When a cell qualifies for text, its background should be changed to green at the same time. But since you have asked, the contrast ratio for text coloured like this is 8.17 according to this tool, so any hypothetical text would also be WCAG 2.0 AAA compliant. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:42, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
