Talk:List of video games listed among the best

(Redirected from Talk:List of video games considered the best)
Latest comment: 31 minutes ago by ~2026-35526-57 in topic Any updates on the Kanobu situation?

List of games with most sources?

edit

Hey, I was just wondering if there's a list of games organized by how many sources they have. I know this article used to have that, but that was a long time ago. Maybe there can be an updated version or something?

Also, I don't know where else to put this, but I'm the guy that added the Creator column to the list way back in 2017. Don't believe anyone else, but I had nothing else to do when I was at the library one day and had time to kill. Dunno if I should be expecting a check since that was on a public IP address... Draper Doodah (talk) 13:03, 21 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Another editor created such a list here. Phediuk (talk) 17:24, 21 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
I have about 100-110 different lists on hand right now that we could use to turn into a comprehensive article if you want.
Some ideas would be
- Lists must be ranked articles in order, not unranked lists of different games
- Games are listed based on how many times they appear #1 or #2 on such lists
- The sources for the articles are listed beneath or maybe in a table under sources that highlights every article placing each game in first as the greatest game of all time or second place
- A separate table for audience rankings amongst the public or folding such audience polls into the main table, public voted rankings especially for a interactive medium such as video games really shouldn't be ignored and it was common for magazines and websites to host such polling. Never17 (talk) 04:42, 14 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
edit

This isn't directly about this page, but I've wondered about this since it seems to be standard (typically done in the intro paragraph) but not always done. I also couldn't find anything in the archives discussing this.

For example, these articles have a link to this article with text like "one of the greatest games of all time":

Halo: Combat Evolved, Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater, Final Fantasy VII, and Metroid Prime

However, these don't (not exhaustive):

The Oregon Trail (1971 video game), F-Zero GX, and Horizon Zero Dawn (this seems to be a new addition so maybe word hasn't gotten around)

Should we make the practice done in the former examples standard? Should it be all games or should it be games that meet a number threshold for how many lists it's on? Or based on notability? Maybe have "influential" in the text be for 10+ lists? I'm just spitballing but maybe something worth considering. ThePoggingEditor (talk) 17:41, 24 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

They can link here, and often do, but they are not required to do so. This practice was recently discussed at the WP:VG talk page here. Phediuk (talk) 00:03, 25 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
If an article on a video game is to contain a piped link from something like "one of the greatest games of all time" to this article (i.e. one of the greatest games of all time), the video game should both (1) have sufficient sourcing to make that statement in WP:WikiVoice while abiding by WP:DUE, and (2) appear on this list. One is not enough without the other. TompaDompa (talk) 15:59, 28 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
Yes. It would be accurate to keep individual articles in sync with this list. This list includes releases that have been ranked among the best games of all time by multiple reliable sources. It helps to attribute it but we need not be wordy about it. If someone wants to propose a standardized phrasing I'd be fine with that. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:12, 7 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

Moustique, 2024

edit

I am revisiting this list, which I presented here awhile back, but was never added. The editors of French-language Belgian news magazine Moustique did a "top 100 video games since Pong's release in 1972" to celebrate the publication's 100th anniversary in 2024. I have transcribed it below:

The list is editor-chosen, explicitly about the best games (per its preamble), and is not bound by genre, era, or platform. The one question that remains is if Moustique is a reliable source; a quick Google search turns up a spate of citations for the magazine on the French version of Wikipedia. The paper is owned by L'Avenir, which is widely cited on WP. Both papers are part of the IPM media conglomerate. The paper's staff list is here. I asked about the source on WP:VG/S previously, though nothing come of it. Phediuk (talk) 12:25, 4 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

The newspaper seems to be a legitimate source with well qualified staff. IIRC the problem before was getting someone who speaks French who could fully confirm the validity of the source. Is that a required step or is the newspaper's history in being used for other articles acceptable? ~2026-14348-03 (talk) 05:26, 6 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
Hi, native french speaker here! I took a moment to find this link that shows the multiple times that this publication was referenced across French Wikipedia. My knowledge is pretty limited on how to confirm the validity of this source myself, but I hope that it helps. Jabberwocky7297 (talk) 16:44, 13 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
The discussion of Moustique over at WP:VG/S has produced no objections so far, and it appears to be accepted as a reliable source over on French WP, so I will incorporate the list shortly. Final Fantasy IX and The Sims 3 will be added to the main page. (EDIT: Gran Turismo 2 and The Last of Us Part II as well.) Phediuk (talk) 00:15, 15 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

Semi-protected edit request on 8 March 2026

edit

Dexerto, 2026

edit

https://www.dexerto.com/gaming/best-games-all-time-2855973/ I personally think that updating an all-time list this frequently raises questions about how much effort is going into them, but if the previous lists were eligible then I suppose we're obliged to accept this one as well. IlmeniAVG (talk) 14:16, 12 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the heads-up. I have transcribed the list below:

25 games appear on this list that were not featured on either of the prior Dexerto lists. I will incorporate this list onto the main page shortly. While no new entries will be added to the main page, Divinity: Original Sin II and Battlefield: Bad Company 2 will both be at five sources. Phediuk (talk) 21:40, 12 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

Done. I have also added the Dexerto list to the omnibus data. Phediuk (talk) 15:16, 15 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
Visualized list also updated. BenSVE (talk) 19:23, 15 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
Isn't Dexerto considered an unreliable source? HUMANXANTHRO (What you say about his company is what you say about society) 16:12, 3 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
As of 2026, it appears so, per WP:DEXERTO and WP:VG/S. Rhain (he/him) 01:28, 4 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

Lead still need work

edit

Previously during our debate about the film, we went into discussion about changing the lead to better reflect the content of the article and have some meat on the bones of the list outside the numerology reasoning which was just chosen by a sample of editors involved. I'd like to cycle back to that if we could here. As Shooterwalker said, changes are best made to be WP:INCREMENTAL, so I'm going to just focus on adjusting the lead here as currently, the list is vague on why the number is applied and what being on a best of list means in a wider spectrum.

@Phediuk: had their suggested re-write here User:Phediuk/Lede. I've attempted a mild variation of the phrasing at User:Andrzejbanas/ListLede. I think some clarification on these qualifications will help make it a better article. Any thoughts/comments/issues? Any preference on what would improve the phrasing? I only request anyone following up that we focus just on the lead for now over how material is organized, displayed or other types of material at this moment. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:27, 18 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

Some comments on User:Andrzejbanas/ListLede:
  • Try to avoid "This is a list" per MOS:THISISALIST.
  • The games are included on at least three best-of lists from different publications. – it's currently six, no?
  • I don't think the phrasing All included lists included are not limited to consoles, genres or select time periods. works. The repeated "included" aside, it's a bit difficult to figure out what it's supposed to say if you don't already know.
  • Game scholars Kretzschmar & Raffel (2023), for instance, observe that [...] – I take it this will be covered by a reference that is not included in the current draft. I would avoid using what looks like WP:Parenthetical referencing and instead use a phrasing such as "Game scholars [First name] Kretzschmar and [First name] Raffel, for instance, wrote in 2023 that [...]"
  • Some list reflect – this should presumably by plural, i.e. "lists".
  • I would try to avoid lengthy verbatim quotes in favour of paraphrasing where possible.
  • 96 different best-games lists, representing 54 unique publications – I think these figures are now out of date?
  • The "Notes" column beside each entry quotes where the game in question was explicitly named as the singular best game of all time by a given source. – this has not yet been implemented (but I don't think there was any particular opposition to doing so?).
Ping Andrzejbanas. TompaDompa (talk) 17:52, 19 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
Hi @TompaDompa:. Sorry for the slow reply, I initially waited to see if any others had any comments or big issues. I'm presuming there is not really any other issues or anyone against updating the lead to clarify the items we previously discussed.
  • Fair, was unfamiliar. I've changed this.
  • Ahh yeah. This number was something we discussed earlier in the discussion, but leave it for six for now and discuss that point another day.
  • I've added the source for this and expanded as you requested. I've also added the IGN and Hardcore Gaming 101 sites. While these are just ones I happen to pluck, we might want to look at what other websites or information says on this topic.
  • Re-wrote the quotes, a bad habit of mine! :)
  • Yeah, I've moved it to over 90 for now, which seems accurate. Might as well have it so we don't have to automatically update every time a list shows up.
  • True, probably something to discuss as a separate topic. but I've basically removed it for now.
How's it look now? Feel free to make some other edits to it. I've also added the sources. The "blank" ones, are using the citation names used in this article. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:52, 29 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
Some new comments:
  • The lists included have were ones that do not limit the scope – anacoluthon. How about "These lists do not limit the scope"?
  • This ranges from Hardcore Gaming 101's overview illustrates these differing approaches writing give a broad overview of many different types of games across the medium’s history” – I am unable to parse this, and there's an unmatched quotation mark.
I'll probably make some copyedits once it goes live as well. TompaDompa (talk) 17:56, 29 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
Yeah, I think it might be easier for you to give it a quick edit. Your welcome to edit my draft, I think it may be just easier that way. :) Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:40, 29 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Andrzejbanas: I gave it a shot. Please check if I unintentionally changed the meaning to something that is not correct. TompaDompa (talk) 13:51, 3 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
Sorry for my snail's paced reply! I think this will do. If anything, using it and changing it will get more eyes on it if there are any missing bits or further issues. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:12, 14 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

Moustique, 2024 list incorporated

edit

Following the discussion in the "Moustique, 2024" section above, I have incorporated Moustique's top 100 list onto the main page, and added entries for Gran Turismo 2, Final Fantasy IX, The Sims 3, and The Last of Us Part II accordingly. In addition Outer Wilds and Life Is Strange are now at five listings each. I have also added the Moustique list to the omnibus data. Phediuk (talk) 17:54, 18 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

Great. Visualized list has also been updated accordingly. BenSVE (talk) 19:37, 18 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

Semi-protected edit request on 27 April 2026

edit

Need to add the games considered best from 2023 onwards. Keep it up to date Change the table to the remaining years For reference: https://www.imdb.com/list/ls023816644/ https://thegameawards.com/ AaronKoshy (talk) 15:11, 27 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please detail the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Day Creature (talk) 16:41, 27 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

Kinopoisk (2023)

edit

https://www.kinopoisk.ru/media/article/4008429/#gg100

Thoughts? The list was compiled from the opinions of solicited experts (translated: "Representatives of the video game industry and film critics, game journalists and bloggers, stars and just gamers"), similar to this British GQ list. Kinopoisk is primarily a streaming service and online database, rather than a media outlet, but it does have thousands of citations on Wikipedia. Everything I can see points to this being reliable. IlmeniAVG (talk) 02:56, 4 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for finding this. I have transcribed the list below:

The site is widely cited across the Russian Wikipedia, so it appears to be accepted as a reliable source. The list is explicitly about the "greatest games in history", is unrestricted by platform/era/genre, and is based on solicited expert opinions, so I will incorporate it shortly, if there are no objections. Entries for Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, Metal Gear Solid V: The Phantom Pain, and Outer Wilds will be added to the main page. In addition, Firewatch, Titanfall 2, and The Stanley Parable will now be at five sources each. Phediuk (talk) 23:23, 4 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

Any status on this update? Alena 33 (talk) 03:48, 5 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
Done. I have also added the Kinopoisk list to the omnibus data. Phediuk (talk) 08:39, 7 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

Adding some games to the 2020 year

edit

2020 has three of the five great games of 2020. (Last of us Part 2, Hades, and Animal Crossing: New Horizons. However, many people (both fans and critics/reviewers) have stated that Ghost of Tsushima and Final Fantasy VII: Remake are among the greatest games of the 2020 year. Many sources have stated this as well as the Game Awards nominating both games for Game of the Year (With Final Fantasy VII Remake winning best RPG and best soundtrack) TheAdorkables (talk) 04:50, 4 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

Please refer to the FAQ up on top of this page as to why they do not currently qualify. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 06:23, 4 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
I've read it. I'm not sure I understand. There are indeed countless editors that have stated that both Ghost of Tsushima and Final Fantasy VII Remake are indeed among the greatest games of 2020 that perfectly meet the qualification standards set in the rules above. Not just for the year 2020 or their respected genres or platforms. TheAdorkables (talk) 03:22, 16 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
To perfectly meet the qualification standards set in the rules above, they must be mentioned on "best of all time" lists from six different publications; being named among the greatest games of 2020 is not enough. According to the omnibus data, Ghost of Tsushima has been named once and Final Fantasy VII Remake zero times; there's obviously a chance that some lists have been missed, but probably not enough to meet the current criteria anytime soon. Rhain he
him
04:00, 16 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
edit

GameRant did too, but that was a reader poll, so it doesn’t count. Alena 33 (talk) 21:35, 5 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

I can confirm that the Popular Mechanics list is identical to their 2019 list. Phediuk (talk) 23:59, 5 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

Kanobu

edit

Recently I tried looking for some lists and found this one from Kanobu. This list is a compilation of a 10 part series of articles ranking top 100 games. A quick search shows that the source is used on Wikipedia. The list description says "Let's be clear: these aren't academic top lists. There won't be games like Pong or Pac-Man. If game X introduced an important mechanic long ago, and game Y perfected it 20 years later, game Y will make the top. Aside from a bunch of subjective categories, all the games were subject to one key criterion: do they play well today?" So it seems to fit the criteria. One thing to note is that the source says it was updated in 2021, however wayback machine shows that the list existed back in 2018, while the first part of the series was posted in 2017. The rankings didn't feature any differences (though I could have missed something) so I'm not sure whether it would be better to list the ranking as from 2018 or 2017. IgorRoman10 (talk) 09:17, 11 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for finding this. The list is staff-chosen, unrestricted by era/platform/genre, and explicitly about the "best games in the world", per its #1 entry. The only question that remains is whether Kanobu is a reliable source; a quick Google search turns up hundreds of citations on the Russian Wikipedia, so it seems accepted there, though running the site by WP:VG/S would still be a good idea. I have transcribed the list below:

If this list is incorporated, EVE Online, Fable, Deus Ex: Human Revolution, FTL: Faster than Light, Bayonetta 2, Life Is Strange, Ori and the Blind Forest, Doom, Firewatch, and Divinity: Original Sin II will all be added to the main page. In addition, Final Fantasy XII, To the Moon, and What Remains of Edith Finch will all be at five sources. Phediuk (talk) 08:59, 12 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

It's been a couple of weeks since I started a discussion on WP:VG/S; what is your idea so far about its inclusion? Jabberwocky7297 (talk) 20:25, 24 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
The discussion is inconclusive so far, though the source's reliability on the Russian WP has been established. We should wait a bit and see if anyone else weighs into the discussion. Phediuk (talk) 16:30, 25 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
this discussion around the Kanobu incorporation has been oddly quiet nowadays, you should discuss this more and do more research. ~2026-35526-57 (talk) 07:19, 17 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Old Format

edit

Previously Wikipedia had a ranked format featuring all of the games placed in order based on how many lists included them & or how often they ranked at the top of the list. Whatever happened to that format and is there any interest in editors for bringing it back? I feel like such a format would be more indicative of video game critical acclaim than a list that's unranked as it includes a huge list of titles simply for being listed on just a small number of articles. Never17 (talk) 04:33, 14 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

This page is deliberately not a meta-ranking to avoid WP:SYNTH, but another has editor has created such a list here. Phediuk (talk) 20:09, 14 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
Such a format just ranks older games higher because they've been around longer. TarkusABtalk/contrib 01:52, 15 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
Not that I think this should be added, I don't agree that would be the case. For neutrality, it should be just listed alphabetically or chronologically (as it currently) Andrzejbanas (talk) 06:22, 15 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
Okay based on the comments from you guys, i think i found a better solution.
- Magazines / Outlets listed in chronological order from when the list was made
- On the table we directly link each publications source, including ones were the website hosted surveys amongst their user base which is what IGN & Game Informer and others have done in the past
- At the end of the table it would be the game that was ranked #1 on the list, perhaps the #2 as well
A example would be since it came first chronologically, the start of the table looks like
Year / Publication / #1 Game / #2 Game / Reference
1996 / Next Gen Magazine / Super Mario 64 / Tetris / Source URL
Then it continues downwards by the year the article was published. This is much more efficient and easier for editors to manage, and additionally is not a ranking of games directly but rather highlights outlets themselves and what was #1 in that period of time
This would show a historical shift of Public & Critic Opinion spanning the last 30+ years of the Gaming Industry, very informative for the average reader who stumbles upon this article Never17 (talk) 20:36, 7 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
Rather than Wikipedia providing a synthesized ranking, this would provide the raw data in chronological order starting from when the first established source was published and then continuing to present day. People who view the article would be able to count themselves and make their own independent rankings without having Wikipedia doing it on their own. Never17 (talk) 20:40, 7 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
I proposed something similar to this in a particularly lengthy discussion about this article a few months ago, but it was rejected. I'm not sure how ready people are to have a discussion like that again, but I would prefer the format you suggest over the current format, for what it's worth. IlmeniAVG (talk) 00:17, 8 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
I would be willing to help you guys if there is a consensus, but it would be useful as well to establish a baseline as to what sources are deemed acceptable. Never17 (talk) 00:21, 8 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
If a game appears in the top 10 across a dozen lists, but never cracks the top 2 on any of them, it would not be listed here with your format. I do not think that's an improvement to the page. TarkusABtalk/contrib 07:43, 11 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
That is a valid concern, you are right. Resident Evil 4 for example could be top 10 numerous times but if it doesn't make the top of the list it wouldn't be here.
Then we'd need something different. Any ideas? Never17 (talk) 08:30, 11 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
List aggregation should not be attempted on Wikipedia. Any attempt to do that is original research by definition. That is one of the main criticisms that people have of this page: that it is original research disguised as neutral reporting of facts. Discussions such as the above, which centre on how to fix the clearly flawed aggregation method, show that the page is still, even with the recent revisions, broadly understood as a list aggregation project. I know people are attached to this page and others are tired of debating it, but we're going to have to revisit it eventually. There are way too many problems here. IlmeniAVG (talk) 08:58, 11 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
The proposed format would be chronologically listed to avoid any aggregation. Which addresses the issues we currently have, however a issue would be less games highlighted than present. Never17 (talk) 16:10, 11 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hyper, 2018

edit

Hyper was Australia's biggest and longest-lasting multiplatform games publication published by Future Plc. In 2018, they published an unranked 200-game The 200 Games You Must Play list. Like 1001 Video Games You Must Play Before You Die, this is a list appropriate for inclusion as an unranked multiplatform, multi-decade list from a major publication clearly intended to represent the best games of all time as 'must-play' games. The publication has some sub-lists interspersed between the main list with amusing themes: these are not part of the 200. I am aware this is yet to be confirmed as WP:VG/S and am starting a discussion to that effect - I strongly consider this is easily identifiable as a reliable source. See the list below:

Relevant to my own interests, adding this would lead to the inclusion of A Mind Forever Voyaging which would then have six entries. VRXCES (talk) 06:30, 24 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for this, The list is staff-chosen and unrestricted by platform/era/genre. In addition, it is selected based on what Hyper considers the best games; the entry for The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past, for instance, says, "We argued long and hard over which of Link’s adventures should make this list and in the end we decided that his SNES outing was his best" and the Hitman: Blood Money entry says, "Hitman 2016 was a wonderful game, but Blood Money is still the best Hitman". I doubt there will be any trouble confirming Hyper as a RS, since it is already widely cited. If there are no objections, I will incorporate the list onto the page shortly. Entries for A Mind Forever Voyaging, Head over Heels, Crazy Taxi, Freespace 2, Lumines: Puzzle Fusion, The Stanley Parable, Life Is Strange, and Divinity: Original Sin II will be added to the main page. In addition, The Sentinel, Rainbow Islands: The Story of Bubble Bobble 2, Herzog Zwei, Ultima Underworld: The Stygian Abyss, Puzzle Bobble, Saturn Bomberman, Worms Armageddon, Jet Set Radio Future, God Hand, Far Cry 2, Flower, The Binding of Isaac, Fez, and Bayonetta 2 will all be at 5 entries. Phediuk (talk) 17:36, 24 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
Done. I have also added the Hyper list to the omnibus data. Phediuk (talk) 19:18, 26 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
Visualized list has also been updated. Thanks. BenSVE (talk) 21:49, 26 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

Missing entry problem

edit

So I was just checking the omnibus out of curiosity and I saw Bayonetta 2 at six entries, I then went back to the page and scrolled through the list and the game was missing even though it meets the inclusion criteria of six entries, can anyone please fix this? ~2026-35526-57 (talk) 07:02, 17 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Bayonetta 2 is at five entries at present (Edge, HG101, Hyper, GamesRadar, and Polygon), according to the omnibus data, so probably just a minor error on the spreadsheet. Rhain he
him
07:11, 17 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
yeah sorry bro, I didn't know it was the omnibus's fault and not the editor's fault, you should correct that page, also on a related but unrelated note, can you provide me a list of games that are at 5 entries on the omnibus, for curiosity purposes. ~2026-35526-57 (talk) 07:17, 17 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
Bayonetta 2 should be fixed on the visualized sheet. Thanks. BenSVE (talk) 21:12, 23 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Any updates on the Kanobu situation?

edit

since discussion around Kanobu has been very inactive, I wonder if any advancements have been made to ensure it's a reliable source to incorporate into the list or not. ~2026-35526-57 (talk) 06:10, 20 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

The WP:VG/S discussion on its reliability was inconclusive, so it will not be incorporated for the time being. Phediuk (talk) 15:40, 20 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
but can you discuss it more? ~2026-35526-57 (talk) 03:52, 21 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
the criteria mentions it has to be picked by a editorial staff and solisticed experts. ~2026-35526-57 (talk) 03:01, 3 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Split Fiction, 2025

edit

Steam: 97% positive reviews

PlayStation 5: 92% of "5 stars" reviews

XBOX Series X/S: 93% positive reviews  Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-35866-73 (talk) 16:07, 20 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Doesn't meet the inclusion criteria—not currently on any list of "best games of all time" by reliable publications. Review scores play no role here, especially not user reviews. Rhain he
him
23:28, 20 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
can we tell this newcomer about the six entries rule? ~2026-35526-57 (talk) 03:52, 21 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Decide if Kanobu is a reliable source. (Again)

edit

hey guys, since the first discussion resulted in a inconclusive answer, I want you guys to find more about Kanobu and decide wherever it should be added to the list or not, and if the discussion results in yes, we will incorporate that into the list with new additions, if it results in no, you should just ignore it and move on. See you tomorrow! ~2026-35526-57 (talk) 07:40, 23 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

I imagine we're all stalling for similar reasons: it's not particularly urgent, and it's tricky to research things in a foreign language. If you want to see some progress then I suggest trying to address some of the concerns yourself. They are, from what I can see, the lack of an editorial policy, and some concerns about the experience and qualifications of some of the editors. If you can find some new information on either of those fronts, that will get us closer to a decision. IlmeniAVG (talk) 13:41, 23 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
update: I did the second discussion again on WP:VGS, after a long conversation, someone put the page through a accurate English translator to see if it was reliable, after that, we came to a consensus that Kanobu is a reliable source with a few minor issues, so we think it could be incorporated into the list. ~2026-35526-57 (talk) 07:15, 24 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
I'm not sure what "long conversation" you're referring to; this one only has one other contributor (who considers it reliable based on past usage and the Russian Wikipedia). It's a promising start, but last month's discussion was a bit more cautious, so we're not in a hurry here. Rhain he
him
09:32, 24 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
how about you and I go to the page to discuss it together to find more answers. ~2026-35526-57 (talk) 10:23, 24 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
No need to wait for me! The discussion is still open—feel free to take a look at the website and see how it holds up against Wikipedia's guideline on reliable sources (and video game sources in particular). Rhain he
him
10:46, 24 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
So I translated the entire page into English, and I found it overall to be fine and dandy in reliability with a few hiccups in the way. ~2026-35526-57 (talk) 12:17, 24 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
guys, I'm going to go to sleep now, bye bye, I will come back tomorrow. ~2026-35526-57 (talk) 14:12, 24 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
OK, I'm back, should I should go and message Phediuk about this? ~2026-35526-57 (talk) 05:46, 25 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
hey Rhain, how many Simpsons episodes are you going to edit before you answer me about messaging Phediuk? ~2026-35526-57 (talk) 05:50, 25 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
There is no rush; this thread is ongoing. Editors will reply if and when they want to. Demanding an answer after four minutes is not going to make it appear any faster, nor will tracking a user's contributions. Rhain he
him
06:13, 25 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
ah sorry mate, but can I message Phediuk? ~2026-35526-57 (talk) 06:59, 25 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
Editors will reply if and when they want to. Rhain he
him
07:00, 25 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
so, I think the editorial process of the article is kinda scarce to be honest, it's implied that the site used to be edited by everyone, and each entry on the list was submitted by a different editor on the website, I supposed you could see this as a detriment to reliability. ~2026-35526-57 (talk) 09:43, 26 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
OK, more people have decided it's reliable by pointing out how Russian and Western gaming sites are very different in approach, which makes researching as a non-Russian a pain in the ass, so yeah the only issues are presentation. ~2026-35526-57 (talk) 14:11, 27 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
hey Rhain, so the discussion has gone more in-depth, the Russian users say it's reliable while non-Russian users have a more mixed opinion. ~2026-35526-57 (talk) 10:37, 28 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
after the discussion, I think it's a 50/50 in reliability but still should be incorporated. ~2026-35526-57 (talk) 03:29, 29 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
If there isn't a consensus in favor if it's reliability, you have no grounds to be using it in this article. Sergecross73 msg me 23:11, 30 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
I'm no longer interested in this discussion, I'm leaving. ~2026-35526-57 (talk) 08:44, 2 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

The outcome of the Kanobu conversation

edit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Kanobu has been confirmed to be semi-reliable, please use this source with caution, btw if the source was incorporated, new entries will be on the list. ~2026-35526-57 (talk) 05:04, 2 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

The discussion looks far less conclusive to me. I don't expect to see the list implemented any time soon. Rhain he
him
05:06, 2 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
OK, before I go, what are your thoughts on changing the criteria number for a game's inclusion on best-of lists to 5 instead of 6? ~2026-35526-57 (talk) 05:49, 2 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
There have been several proposals over the years (both to raise and lower the threshold), but we're still at six for now. That can, of course, be changed by consensus—see Q3. Rhain he
him
06:08, 2 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should we change the criteria number to 5?

edit

hi there, sorry about the Kanobu situation, but I think 5 is better than 6 for the amount of sources to make a entry valid, so please discuss this proposed change, and I'm sorry for fabricating the Kanobu consensus. ~2026-35526-57 (talk) 02:59, 3 July 2026 (UTC)Reply