Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/List of video games

List of video games considered the best

– Closed as failed. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Andrzejbanas on 00:45, 11 January 2026 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• List of video games considered the best (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Andrzejbanas (talk · contribs)
• Pro translator (talk · contribs)
• NegativeMP1 (talk · contribs)
• TompaDompa (talk · contribs)
• Phediuk (talk · contribs)
• Rollinginhisgrave (talk · contribs)
• SnowFire (talk · contribs)
• Shooterwalker (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

A discussion that initially involved suggesting changing the past "List of video games considered the best" to "List of video games voted the best". From there, the conversation has been expanded to the list being against various guidelines. The ones brought up were WP:LISTCRITERIA (" Avoid original or arbitrary criteria that would synthesize a list that is not plainly verifiable in reliable sources."), WP:INTERPRETING (on how the data is interpreted to clarify "considered the best" games). Further discussion has come as discussion went further on clarify that if what "best" is meant to be, as sources put different figures on this or if even using the term "best" is appropriate here per MOS:WTW. All the editors can not seem to agree if the current format is following the guidelines or not.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

Talk:List of video games considered the best#Changing title to "List of video games voted the best"

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

The discussion has come to us sort of continuously replying or re-iterating points to hope and convince each other. It's gotten to a point where it's unclear on what points we are all at and how to analyze rules and guidelines. Mediation on where we currently stand and fresh guidance to help us get our points across would help us move forward with how to handle the article.

Summary of dispute by Pro translator

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by NegativeMP1

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

The dispute here is over the methodology used on List of video games considered the best (a list that features video games that six or more video game critics listed as one of "the best games ever made") and how it may or may not correlate with Wikipedia policy, primarily WP:OR, WP:NPOV, and WP:SYNTH. There are also concerns such as the inclusion criteria being seen as potentially arbitrary, or leaving out significant viewpoints. The catalyst of this discussion was regarding whether or not the list should be similar to List of films voted the best, where it only lists games that were specifically singled out as THE best on critics list, rather than an inclusion criteria of "has this game appeared on X amount of lists regardless of placement". I'm providing the most basic overview here, and I'm deliberately leaving out my personal viewpoints; even then, my opinions on this matter are pretty neutral. (Also, honestly, I don't remember all of it myself, it was very long and I didn't engage with it beyond the start...) λ NegativeMP1 07:36, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by TompaDompa

NegativeMP1 describes it well: the dispute is about the methodology used at List of video games considered the best, namely (1) whether it is a valid one from the perspective of Wikipedia's WP:Policies and guidelines and (2) if it isn't, what other approach might be used instead.

My own position is that the current approach is not valid. Multiple sources listing a game among the X best does not amount to that game being "considered the best", that's a novel WP:INTERPRETATION of the data, which is a form of WP:Original research. At minimum, this would mean that the list is mistitled and should be called List of video games considered among the best.

Nevertheless, that something is the best (or among the best) is a subjective opinion, and our coverage must reflect that it is an opinion and not a fact (and any objection along the lines of "it's a fact that this opinion is held" fundamentally misunderstands WP:NPOV). WP:YESPOV mandates, among other things, that the reporting of different views on a subject adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views and that it does not give a false impression of parity, or give undue weight to a particular view. The current approach does not satisfy this requirement, and cannot be made to do so—without a meta-ranking we are creating a false balance between entries that do not have an equal standing in the field per the sources, and we cannot create a meta-ranking without engaging in blatant original research.

There are at least three factors that would need to be considered to accurately reflect the overall balance of the sources that the list currently overlooks completely: differing levels of agreement between sources, varying quality/authoritativeness of sources, and different placements on the source lists. Treating a game that appears on a small handful of lists the same as one that appears on the majority creates a WP:False balance. Treating a high-quality/authoritative list the same as a lower-quality/marginal one means giving WP:Undue weight to the latter. Treating a #1 placement the same as a #97 placement is non-neutral in a similar way that omitting when a source expresses strong confidence or is overtly cautious in its phrasing is.

My proposal would be to adopt the methodology used at List of films voted the best: restrict the list to entries that are cited as the best (not second-best, one of the best, or similar), with WP:INTEXT attribution for each entry. This would resolve issues with WP:OR and WP:POV. I would note that List of films voted the best has been largely stable for quite a few years now, which I would consider evidence in favour of that approach being workable. TompaDompa (talk) 02:13, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Phediuk

The dispute centers on whether or not to restructure the list in some way away from the current structure, which allows any video game to be listed that has been listed by multiple reliable sources as one of the best games of all time. The page, as it currently is, deliberately does not include any meta-ranking of its entries, and includes both ranked and unranked lists as sources. Some editors want only ranked lists to count, and to limit the citations in some way according to a meta-ranking element (such as, e.g., only the top 10 of a given list); some want older sources to be excluded; some want to expand the page's scope to include sources that are not strictly about the "best" games ("Most influential", halls of fame, etc.); some want critics' opinions replaced with audience/reader polls; and others prefer the current structure to the proposed alternatives, albeit some of them would prefer the inclusion threshold changed.

My position is that the current structure of the page is less arbitrary and more grounded in Wikipedia policy than any of the proposed alternatives. It fulfills WP:V by requiring multiple reliable sources for every entry, a measure allowed by WP:EXCEPTIONAL; it does not require us to declare that only ranked lists count, which arbitrarily excludes some sources otherwise; it avoids WP:OR by making a single claim, that each game is named by multiple reliable sources among the best of all time, with every provided citation supporting that claim; it avoids having to define what "best" means in Wikivoice by restricting its sources only to those that explicitly frame their lists as "best" or "greatest"; it avoids WP:SYNTH by not synthesizing rankings between different lists; and it does not incorporate sources based on dubious online polls, but sticks to editorial and solicited expert opinion from reliable sources. The effectiveness of this approach is demonstrated by the page's stability, which it has maintained since adopting its current format in 2017. Shooterwalker's position is close to my own, except that they would prefer the source threshold to be three, rather than six. Phediuk (talk) 23:55, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Rollinginhisgrave

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by SnowFire

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Shooterwalker

• Summary of the dispute
  • The problem is editors can't even agree on the problem, but I think Andrzejbanas has summarized the broader dispute correctly. This list currently has selection criteria where "each game must be included on at least six "best games of all time" lists compiled by separate publications", which has caused frequent disputes on the talk page across a decade.

• The root problem
  • This selection criteria is WP:OR. The talk page archive has frequent discussions that try to change the title and/or pick apart the methodology of the list criteria. (These discussions are just from the past two years. There are far more.) The discussions usually go off track when an editor proposes a new WP:OR criteria to fix the existing WP:OR criteria. The root problem is using WP:OR criteria at all.

• Solving this at the root
  • The solution is to use Wikipedia's simplest process by summarizing the reliable sources: once a game article can verify in multiple reliable sources that it is among the "best video games", the article should be added to a category and/or/then this list. This would settle the dispute at its root and harmonize the list with basic Wikipedia practice. This solution has failed to gain traction because it is somewhat unsatisfying for everyone, which is often a sign of a good compromise.

• Further evidence
  • A sign of the meta-issue is the number of talk page comments asking why X game or Y game isn't on this list of "best games", even though multiple reliable sources say it is. It's a bad sign that a small number of editors need to WP:OWN this list and revert people who add facts verified in reliable sources. I realize WP:OWNing an article is a de facto solution for complex topic areas, but it starts to become antithetical to WP:5PILLARS as an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. It's made worse when confused editors are asked to consult two off-wiki google docs..

Talk:List of video games considered the best discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Ahh sorry everyone I screwed this up. I should've submitted it as Talk:List of video games considered the best, not the other proposed title. Uhhh...is it okay to continue or does this need be resubmitted? Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:53, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

I've fixed the header and the template, so this should be able to continue just fine. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 01:01, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I've never participated in one of these. Do I need to summarize the whole thing in my own words, or simply give my opinion on the matter? λ NegativeMP1 01:05, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

My understanding is yes. (That said, I've only been involved in one of these myself.) I believe its so the neutral party knows we've read the conversation and so they can know we are all on the same page. (anyone who knows better, please correct me if i'm wrong here!) Andrzejbanas (talk) 05:14, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm asking which one I need to do; I'm guessing based on your response here it's summarizing the conversation in my own words? λ NegativeMP1 05:16, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Oops sorry the key word in my reply got lost thre. Yes summary of the situation in that spot. Andrzejbanas (talk) 05:25, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Zeroth statement by volunteer (List of video games)

It isn't clear which of two types of issues this case is about, and it isn't clear whether DRN is a right forum. The discussion on the article talk page began as a question of whether to change the title of the article, and then became mostly a discussion of whether to change the methodology of selecting games to include in the list. A question of whether to change the title of the article should be decided by a Requested Move. If anyone wants to have a move discussion, I will close this case to allow the move discussion to run without competing or conflicting with any other dispute. If no one wants a Requested Move at this point, then we may (or may not) have a content dispute which can be dealt with at DRN. If so, how to go forward will depend on whether there are any specific ideas for how to change the methodology, in which case we can discuss specific changes, or whether we need to brainstorm to discuss how to change the methodology.

So my first question is whether any of the editors wants to start a Requested Move.

My second question is whether any of the editors has a specific proposal for how to change the methodology used to select the games.

My third question is whether there are any other questions.

After I review the answers, I will have a better idea whether DRN is likely to be useful, and, if so, how. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:31, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Fifth statement by moderator (List of video games)

I have created a subpage of this discussion, at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/List of video games. Discussion will take place in the subpage. This discussion will remain here for reference, but I will collapse it so that it does not distract from current discussion. Please read DRN Rule B.

I will start by asking two questions. First, please make a concise statement about how you think the article should be improved. After I see the statements, I will decide what idea to discuss further. Second, do you want the name of the article changed? I will also decide whether a Requested Move is needed. If there is a Requested Move, this discussion will be on hold until the Requested Move is closed.

Third, there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:57, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Fifth statements by editors (List of video games)

I believe we have some agreement in principle that:

• We should rename the list to be more clear -- "ranked", "listed", "among" are words often used
• We should go with the ordinary standard of citing to "multiple high-quality sources" from WP:V / WP:EXCEPTIONAL

We're trying to remove the WP:OR/WP:SYNTH/WP:INTERPRETATION involved in policing the right number/recency of sources. Hence why we are trying to move towards letting the sources speak for themselves, in the sense that they are "best games" lists that aren't restricted to a certain platform, time, or genre. The details of the new title are still being worked out, and I try to stay flexible as long as we don't become too pedantic. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:18, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

• To answer the question, I agree with both of Shooterwalker's points above. I agree that a retitle is in order. An expanded lede to introduce the concept of "best games of all time" lists would also help. I have placed a draft of an expanded article lede here. It aims to establish lists of "best games of all time" as a common format, and clarify that different publications approach the notion of "best" differently, while nevertheless characterizing their choices as "best" or "greatest". Per Shooterwalker, inclusion requires multiple sources, here defined as three, reflecting an ordinary WP:V / WP:EXCEPTIONAL standard. It clarifies that each source chooses the "best games of all time" as of the time of that list's publication. I believe the title "List of video games listed among the best" would accurately reflect the content of the page, clarifying that listing a game, rather than simply mentioning it somewhere, is the focus here. Phediuk (talk) 22:27, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
• Answers: Q1) Avoid making ambiguous and unverified claims of what is considered the greatest, and make clear when games were listed as the best to avoid implying assessments are more current than sources support. Q2) Yes, and while the suggested "video games listed among the best" (omitting list of) does not satisfy all my concerns, it is an immediate improvement. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 02:04, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
• (1) The methodology needs to be changed. It should be more like List of films voted the best. (2) A rename is necessary; what the new title should be depends on what we do about the contents. TompaDompa (talk) 05:47, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Sixth statement by moderator (List of video games)

One editor has created an expanded proposed version of the lede section, which can be seen at User:Phediuk/Lede . The first question is what each of you wants to do about it. In particular, should we:

• Ignore it (leaving the existing lede alone)?
• Accept it as the new lede?
• Change it (either providing your own version or not providing a new version)?

If there is agreement to accept it, we will accept it, and continue discussion about other changes. If there is disagreement, we can either work on improving it, or launch an RFC on whether to accept it.

The second question is whether we want to rename the article, and, if so, to what. If there is agreement, we will rename it boldly. If some editors want to rename it, and others do not, or if editors disagree on what the new name should be, we will launch a Requested Move.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:57, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Sixth statements by editors (List of video games)

• I'm okay with the new lead, but would adjust:
  • Three separate best-of-lists to six until we agree on a new methodology
  • Change experts to better attribute characterisation. There is no such thing as an expert at video game bestness, and some characterizations are very contestable.
  • Not sure about the inclusion of Hardcore Gaming's characterization, which seems quite POV to be given such emphasis / credence.
  • Remove the last sentence of the second paragraph "Nevertheless, each list characterizes all of its entries specifically as "best", or the synonym "greatest"." which forms the crux of some editors arguments. If it were to be kept, I would expect some elaboration that some lists rank some listed games as better.
• I am okay with "All included lists consider the medium of video games in its entirety, as of the time of their publication" for now, although in the previous discussion it was raised that a list of "best games of the 20th century" is fundamentally the same as a list of "best games" published in 2000, and it is common sense to include both if we include one and I would like to see the criteria modified accordingly if we are to include lists in this manner. As above, I am okay with a bold rename as a stopgap, with a preference for omitting "List of". Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 04:35, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I will change "experts" to "solicited outside opinions". "Three" here is simply to fill the plain meaning of "multiple", per Shooterwalker; I will change it to "multiple" for the time being. I included Hardcore Gaming 101's quote as simply an example of how one publication compares its value of "best" to another, but that each nevertheless converge specifically on "best". I can add another example or two, if that would help. That each game is named as "best" in every list of "the best 50 games of all time", for instance, is a verifiable fact. My proposal below would add a "Notes" column to the page that would also directly quote if and where a game was named explicitly as the singular best by a given publication. Phediuk (talk) 11:08, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

There are multiple meanings of best being invoked, best as class (these are the best games) and best as individual superlative. Only including one is... I won't say lying by omission because you're not lying, you just don't seem to get it, but it's only half the truth. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 11:12, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

The point of adding the "Notes" column would be to accommodate both. The games are all verifiably and objectively called "the best games of all time" by each source; I propose we note, in addition, directly quote if and where a source explicitly identified a game as the singular best of all time. I am not seeing what the downside of this approach would be. It fulfills the goals of both of the approaches here, while sticking strictly to explicit, verifiable claims, and could be easily implemented. We would also add a line to the lede along the lines of, "In addition, the 'Notes' column beside each entry quotes if and where that game was explicitly named as the singular best game of all time by a given source." Phediuk (talk) 12:26, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

I am okay with the "Notes" column suggestion conceptually, I may have different feelings in implementation. I don't see why its existence would justify only including one mention of best from the lead. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 12:30, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm not crazy about the lead. It goes down the rabbit hole where we are making ourselves into the subject of the article. It reads as a summary of the talk page discussion, and not what the sources have said. It goes in the wrong direction in terms of WP:OR. I'll see what other editors say, but this is what a simplified lead might look like, without the WP:OR:

• This is a list of video games that video game journalists or magazines have considered among the best of all time. The games are included on at least six separate best-of lists from different publications, according to published lists ( inclusive of all time periods, platforms and genres ), as chosen by their editorial staffs and solicited experts.

There are no other articles that need to restate elements of our WP:RS policy in the lead. (Let alone that systematically exclude material from reliable sources). Shooterwalker (talk) 17:56, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

• (1) The proposed new WP:LEAD should not be adopted, for two reasons: it does not reflect the current state of the article, and it does not reflect a state of the article that has been agreed upon. (2) The article should be retitled, depending on the chosen methodology: List of video games voted the best if the methodology is changed to be like list of films voted the best including the voting aspect, List of video games ranked as the best if the methodology is changed to be like list of films voted the best but not including the voting aspect, List of video games appearing on "best of"-lists if the current methodology is retained, and some other title if the suggestion to not rely (exclusively) on list sources is adopted. Both of these questions are, to me, putting the cart before the horse inasmuch as both the lead and the title should reflect the contents of the article which is the current main point of contention. TompaDompa (talk) 04:40, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

  Not sure where to put this so hopefully it being here it OK (if it's not clear, I'm a very inexperienced Wikipedia editor and my interest in this article is its overlap with a separate project).

  This is basically my take on the list:

  1. If we start from the observation that a game has appeared on six "unrestricted" (of course, none of the lists are actually unrestricted because that would mean covering games released in the future) all-time lists (from different publications), then there's a sense in which summary that they are "considered the best" is accurate--as long as "best" is defined very loosely.

  However, if we do the opposite and begin with the goal of listing games that are "considered the best" and work backwards to a sensible criteria/methodology, then there's no way anyone would arrive at "appearing on six unrestricted all-time lists." This not the only way, or even a good way, of determining the games that are generally considered the best.

  So, the title of the article does not communicate what the list is, and it's evident that people do not understand this both from the talk page, and also from the pages that link to this article. I opened the Wikipedia pages for the first 10 games that appear on this list (all games listed and released between 1971 and 1980) and eight of them make a general claim that the game is considered among the best, and link to this article as evidence of that. Whether or not that claim is equally prominent for games further down the list isn't something that I investigated, but there is very obvious miscommunication happening here. At the very least, the title of the page needs to changed to stop this kind of thing, which I'm sure violates some Wikipedia policies.

  2. I personally see the fact of a game appearing on six (or any number of) "unrestricted" all-time lists as a fairly meaningless statistic. Because of that, and especially because there's so much potential for miscommunication, the page in its current form is highly problematic.

  A related point is that there seems to be broad agreement that the list should not be a meta-ranking by number of list mentions, and to me that is a tacit admission that the number of eligible lists a game has appeared on is not particularly meaningful. I would add that a binary list (included/not included) is still a meta-ranking, just a simplified one, and I strongly suspect that it's this simplified meta-ranking, posing as something other than a meta-ranking, that is the primary appeal of this page. It's original research in disguise, in my opinion.

  3. The only way that I can see to address all of the issues with the page is to embrace it being about lists, rather than trying to show the games represented in those lists. The format of the List of films voted the best page would be a good starting point for this. A brief summary of each of the lists individually would highlight the fact that they don't necessarily approach the topic in the same way, and also that they all cover different time periods. It would also allow for non-all-time lists to be included, some of which I think are a lot more notable than some of the currently included all-time lists. It could easily be tweaked so that unranked lists and lists not voted on could be included, which were the only objections that I saw in the previous discussion. Since those objections are so easy to address, I'm not sure what reason there is to oppose this format. IlmeniAVG (talk) 08:49, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the points. I will respond below:

1. Regarding the notion of the definition of "best", we do not have to define the term, as the point of the page is that others have named the games as such. The proposed lede draft notes that "best games of all time" lists are commonly produced by professional publications; the page treats the format as notable in its own right and aims to reflect which games have repeatedly appeared on them. That every game is called ""best" by every publication is verifiable and directly reflects the sources.

2. Agreed, it is a meaningless statistic; however, the page is not a meta-ranking or otherwise a tally, but a record of games that appear on multiple best-of lists. The requirement of multiple sources is simply to fulfill WP:EXCEPTIONAL's allowance of multiple sources for contentious claims. This approach is also used on other pages: List of prominent operas, for example, requires that entries appear on at least five out of a selected nine "lists of great operas". That page is also, plainly, not a ranking of any sort.

3. The number of lists upon which a game has appeared is meaningful insofar as it fulfills "multiple". See, again, the aforementioned operas list for another example. Shooterwalker has proposed a plain meaning of "multiple" as three, with which I would agree. We have established "best games of all time" lists as a meaningful and prevalent concept, and so the contents of those lists is also meaningful.

4. Making the page a list of lists, instead of a list of games, is one idea, but then, that still leaves the question of what content should be noted. Saying that a given game has been named the singular best of all time is WP:POV and WP:OR on its face unless the source has explicitly said so. Applying significance to a ranking beyond what the source has explicitly said it means is, likewise, WP:POV and WP:OR. Excluding unranked lists is WP:POV, and even ranked lists still verifiably call all of their entries "the best games of all time". Including smaller categories, such as (for example) "best Dreamcast games" is problematic. We have sources on record treating the concept of "best games of all time" lists as notable, but where has anyone noted the prevalence of "best Konami games"? Perhaps one of those categories is prevalent enough to deserve its own article, and in that case, I would support such an article. Otherwise, I do not see how including every category of list on one page would be workable. I agree that the page must include unranked lists. Conversely, a list of "the 100 best games of all time" explicitly states in its title that all of its games are "best of all time"; an accurate treatment of the sources must reflect that each source has verifiably named multiple games. My proposal to add a "Notes" column to the page, directly quoting if and where a given game was explicitly named as the singular best game of all time, would resolve this; it would sticking strictly to explicit claims, while also reflecting that each list also names multiple games as "best". Phediuk (talk) 12:02, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

@Phediuk, what is the contentious claim? Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 12:18, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

"Agreed, it is a meaningless statistic" then I think we should abandon the methodology entirely. If it's meaningless then it's also of no value, so nothing is lost there, and there's too much potential for people to read meaning into it, and cite the list as evidence of something that it's not, which is what's happening presently. IlmeniAVG (talk) 13:05, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks @IlmeniAVG, I'll leave comments below, but for now I'll note that I've left a note on other pages using this list at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#List of video games considered the_best. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 12:19, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Seventh statement by moderator (List of video games)

I sometimes start to telling the editors to be civil and concise. You all have been civil, which is the fourth pillar of Wikipedia, but have not been concise. So I will almost repeat the previous questions.

First, I am asking each of you to state what you think should be the name of the article. Do not tell me that it will depend on what methodology we will be using. Just state what the name should be, and maybe that may drag the methodology with it.

Second, please state concisely what you think should be done with User:Phediuk/Lede . Should we:

• Ignore it?
• Accept it?
• Replace it with your version?
• Change it in some other way?

Third, are there any specific content issues that any of you want addressed?

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:50, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Seventh statements by editors (List of video games)

• 1) List of video games voted the best (1), List of video games listed among the best (2)
• 2) Use it as better than what we have, with the addition of the multiple meanings of best.

Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 06:41, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

I have boldly moved the page to List of video games listed among the best. Not my first choice or something I would like us to stay on, but I see agreement that the current title is bad and general agreement with some dissent that this page would be an improvement. Ultimately as with all hold moves, this change is subject to BRD. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 05:52, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

• (1) List of video games voted the best. (2) For now, change it to match List of films voted the best. (3) The methodology. TompaDompa (talk) 06:41, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

  I'll also give my vote to using the List of films voted the best article as a template. Ideally I would tweak it to centre the lists rather than the games, and allow for unranked lists and lists not voted on, but that template is still a big step in the right direction. I'm cosigning this, essentially. IlmeniAVG (talk) 14:02, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

  I'm very confused to where we got to this and why we're commenting on this after several conversations below. I'm not satisfied with "voted the best" as there is no indication that's how all lists are tabulated. I'm far more confident on "List of video games appearing on "best-of" lists" or something similar. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:18, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

  I agree with Andrzejbanas. The conversation keeps getting reset to zero, which prevents us from reaching a consensus. I'm against List of films voted the best as a template, for both the title and contents.

  • (1) Something close to the current title, representing incremental fixes and not radical change. "List of video games listed among the best" by Rollinginhisgrave/Phediuk would be acceptable, for example.
  • (2) Something with less WP:OR / editor commentary, not more. The goal should be concision. I would consider expansions if they are cited to WP:RS.

  Shooterwalker (talk) 14:53, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

  How do people feel about my suggestion of having written summaries of each of the lists (and potentially other notable lists/articles), covering who was involved in making it, how they defined best, comparisons with previous lists from the same publication, whether or not they picked an overall no#1 etc.? Using this approach, it would no longer be a list of games, and no one would be using it as a reference for what games are generally considered the best. For that reason, I don't think it particularly matters how much of the list is cited in the article (no#1, top 10 etc.). The purpose of mentioning games at all would be to show what game(s) the authors thought best matched their definition of "best". It would not be read as a claim about the game being better in a more general sense.

  Apologies if people have already commented on this. There's been a lot of writing here, and it's hard to remember all of it. For those who don't like this idea, do you think this page necessarily has to be a list of games? I would prefer that it not be a list of games, but if people aren't willing to move on that then I think there are ways that we can make a list of games work, e.g. @TompaDompa's suggestions below.

  I think that's the first question we need an answer to, though: are we set on this page being a list of games? IlmeniAVG (talk) 15:36, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

• First choice, List of video games listed among the best; second choice, List of video games appearing on best-of lists. I would also suggest List of video games appearing on best-of-all-time lists as a more precise variant of the second title. I concur with Andrzejbanas's confusion; the body of reliable sources we have generally do not present their choices as votes. Phediuk (talk) 14:51, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Eighth statement by moderator (List of video games)

We have not really made any progress until now, except for two specific actions, which were, first, a proposed rewrite of the lede section, and, second, a bold renaming. In my opinion, the main reason is that some of the editors are writing at too much length. However, we can now see whether we have made any progress.

First, now that the title has been changed, we need to discuss User:Phediuk/Lede . Should we:

• Ignore it?
• Accept it?
• Replace it with your version?
• Change it in some other way?

Second, an editor has boldly moved the article to List of video games listed among the best. Is there a rough consensus to leave the title as moved? If not, does anyone have an alternate name?

Third, are there any other specific content issues that any of you want addressed?

After I read the responses to these questions, I will have a better idea whether to send this discussion back to the article talk page.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:54, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Eighth statements by editors (List of video games)

I support using the draft article lede as a base (with whatever revisions are necessary.) I support keeping the current title, which more accurately reflects the content than the previous title and thereby immediately addresses many of the concerns raised previously. I would also support adding brief descriptions of each source to the page, as previously proposed. Phediuk (talk) 02:07, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

My response to the mediator's questions:

• 1. To avoid WP:OR, a lead is meant to follow the article contents. By that measure, the proposed lead (User:Phediuk/Lede) is a WP:GOODFAITH step in the wrong direction. Adding our own editorial doesn't help. Aiming for a concise summary helps.

• 2. The new title is meant to be more clear, which I accept, but the previous title was acceptable too. If it creates a WP:CONSENSUS, I'm open to other clarifications.

• 3. My main criticism has consistently been that the current "6 source" standard is WP:OR. Policies such as WP:V and WP:RS simply ask for multiple (meaning more than one) reliable sources for exceptional claims, which is echoed in MOS:VGREC, MOS:ACCLAIMED, and WP:TVRECEPTION.

On the last point, other WP:OR standards are even more inappropriate ("only games ranked since 2010", "only games ranked by a majority of sources", "only games with a top 10 ranking"). Editors should not be inventing new standards, but we can always discuss how to refine how a summary is phrased. Wikipeia summarizes what sources say, and lets readers draw their own conclusions. Shooterwalker (talk) 04:03, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

• (1) Do not accept User:Phediuk/Lede as-is, open to accepting a revised version. Several sentences need to change before it can be accepted. The sentence The games are included on at least three best-of lists from different publications. does not reflect the current methodology, and it does not does not reflect a methodology that has been agreed upon, so it needs to be changed. Remove the sentence Nevertheless, each list characterizes all of its entries specifically as "best", or the synonym "greatest". as editorializing. The sentence 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. describes a change that has not been implemented (yet), is more than a little bit clunky, and if this change is implemented it should not be a quote anyway; it could be changed to e.g. Where a game has received the top placement on a given list, this is noted in a separate column. Sources also need to be cited for parts of the proposed lead. (2) Do not move it back. I would prefer List of video games appearing on "best of"-lists to this title as a more accurate description of the present methodology, but ideally the title should be changed to reflect a change in methodology. (3) The methodology still needs to be addressed; there is no justification whatsoever for requiring 6 sources. If the article is supposed to reflect consensus among the sources, six out of nearly a hundred is nowhere near enough for that. If the article is on the other hand supposed to merely report individual viewpoints, only one source should be required. I don't think the article should use a variation on the present methodology in the first place, however, but an entirely different one. TompaDompa (talk) 06:19, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

  Why don't you update the lead with what you are comfortable with from Phediuk/Lede and we can go from there? Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 06:22, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Ninth statement by moderator (List of video games)

We are still making very little progress. There have been three topics of disagreement:

• 1. The name of the article.
• 2. A proposed change to the lede section.
• 3. The methodology.

The article has been renamed. Does anyone have an alternate title that they want to submit to a Requested Move?

The rewrite of the lede section should be paused until the methodology is addressed.

Does any editor have a specific proposal for a revised methodology for the listing of games?

I will also ask each editor a version of my common opening question. Is there any specific change that you (each of you) want to make to the article?

So my questions are whether there are any:

• Renaming suggestions?
• Specific ideas for changes to the methodology?
• Other requests to change the wording of a section of the article?

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:46, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Ninth statements by editors (List of video games)

Focusing just on the methodology, there seems to be some (?) agreement that requiring "six sources" per statement/game is outside of the standard for Wikpiedia. The most direct way to fix the methodology is to use the ordinary standard seen in MOS:ACCLAIMED, MOS:TVRECEPTION, WP:V, and WP:RS -- multiple reliable sources. Other notes:

• I agree that the lede discussion is difficult as long as methodology is a live question.
• The article talk page has had many "no consensus" discussions on fixing the methodology/title. The pattern is that people try to leverage the issue with the current methodology to substitute a completely new (and problematic) methodology of their personal preference.

I don't see how we can find a consensus unless we can (a) agree very specifically about what the current problem is, and (b) react to that specific problem with an equally specific solution that is grounded in Wikipedia policy. (Not personal preference or unique ideas.) Shooterwalker (talk) 19:39, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

• I'll also focus on the methodology, as I think it is the most acute issue (and has been all along). My preferred solution would be to adopt the same approach as List of films voted the best, i.e. that entries "have been voted the best in national and international surveys of critics and the public". As noted below (in so many words), non-poll "best of"-listicles—being arbitrary compilations of editors' opinions—are not serious journalism, and are not considered to be so within the field. Wikipedia lists should not be based on churnalism put out by content farms. I am also open to other suggestions, including doing away with the list entirely in favour of a prose treatment of the overarching topic. Failing a complete revamp, I could find tweaking the current approach to only require a single source tolerable. There is no justification whatsoever for requiring 6 sources. If the article is supposed to reflect consensus among the sources, six out of nearly a hundred is nowhere near enough for that. If the article is on the other hand supposed to merely report individual viewpoints, only one source should be required. Requiring "multiple reliable sources" is also not justified—the usual standard for WP:Verification is one reliable source, in spite of assertions to the contrary. A game is "listed among the best" if it appears on one "best of"-list, so only one list should be required for verification. The above-mentioned MOS:ACCLAIMED, MOS:TVRECEPTION, WP:V, and WP:RS do not support the notion that "multiple reliable sources" is "the ordinary standard". TompaDompa (talk) 18:38, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

• I generally agree with Shooterwalker's position; the topic's notability is demonstrated by its wide, dedicated coverage in reliable sources; reporting that a game has been listed among the best of all time is a verifiable and objective fact for all entries on the page. The lists are cited extensively across the project, including in many of its featured articles, as Shooterwalker has shown at length. The source threshold can be raised, or lowered, and I see little reason why it has to be at one extreme or another. Shooterwalker's proposal sounds fine. Also, contrary to what TompaDompa implies, the discussion at the bottom of the page does not differentiate between poll and non-poll sources; in fact, the relevant draft proposal (which is not a policy) calls to include only lists that are covered by secondary sources, a bar that almost everything on the "films voted the best" page other than the Sight & Sound polls would fail. Phediuk (talk) 23:13, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

  if we can barely agree on a paragraph intro for this, the unencyclopedic nature of the WP:WTW term "best", reers its head. The fact that other articles uses lists as a source is hardly a qualifier in terms of trying to write better articles. As shown by the previous Dracula research earlier, there is no correlation between any critical consensus or understanding what makes something quality or not. Again, it has the same merit as a "sexiest/cutest characters" or "25 Best snacks to have before bedtime." The latter would be laughable to anyone trying to find serious info about healthy eating and trivial to an every day person reading lists for fun. If your best argument is that other articles use it, I find that very weak in terms of trying to learn anything beyond trivial notions.Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:16, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Tenth statement by moderator (List of video games)

I think that the approach that is most likely to be useful (or least likely to be another rabbit hole) will be for each editor to propose a different methodology. I spot-checked the links to archived discussions of methodology, and it appears that they were all article talk page discussions rather than RFCs on the article talk page. Maybe if we can decide on one or two alternate proposed methodologies, we can start an RFC, and obtain more input from other interested members of the community, both by publicizing the RFC neutrally on project talk pages, and by having the bot randomly invite people. So I would like each editor to describe one proposal for an alternate methodology. Be Specific at DRN.

If anyone wants to change the title again, please state what you think it should be. However, naming should not distract from the focus on methodology.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:27, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Tenth statements by editors (List of video games)

I propose that we use Wikipedia's standard methodology, as seen consistently across our policies and guidelines.

• WP:RS: an exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources
• WP:V: any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources
• MOS:ACCLAIMED: superlatives such as "critically acclaimed" or "box-office bomb" is loaded language and an exceptional claim that must be attributed to multiple high-quality sources
• MOS:TVRECEPTION: superlatives such as "critically acclaimed", "universal acclaim" or "audience or ratings bomb" is loaded language and an exceptional claim that must be attributed to multiple high-quality sources
• MOS:VGREC: Stack similar claims. When five reviewers write that the controls were clunky, write the claim as a single sentence with multiple refs.

I am fine if someone insists on an RFC for a more original re-invention of the methodology. I will just caution that previous talk page discussions reached no consensus, and I doubt more editors will make it easier to reach a consensus. I will invite other editors to come to some consensus here, even in principle. Shooterwalker (talk) 07:03, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

I've reached a point where I'm unconvinced the topic is viable for a list. All pushes towards methodology of a list as Shooterwalker have suggested are WP:OR. While Phediuk argued the topic is "notable", the way its applied implied is WP:OR and other suggestions of voting or others are not used as a defacto way to determine "greatness" or quality. It becomes yet another counting game.

Similar to the MOS's Shooterwalker pointed out, I've addressed a number of times that WP:WTW suggests we should not apply these terms that Shooterwalker presented. I feel like the arbitrary sources just confirm that it said "best" or "greatest" or similar terms and "all time" and ignore the complexities of the issue. There's no source that suggests that a best of list are respected in any serious way from previous research, and the articles themselves even address the problematic nature of these lists in trying to determine a "best". Ignoring those points boils the discussion down to violating WP:HEADLINES, specifically, headlines "Headlines are written to grab readers' attention quickly and briefly; they may be overstated or lack context, and sometimes contain exaggerations or sensationalized claims with the intention of attracting readers to an otherwise reliable article." I believe that's what the issue with these lists are, there are hundreds of them, and a mention of one is as trivial as "The best fight scenes in the movies" or "The Best Pokémon Plushies for Kids and Adults in 2025". If the topic of "best video games" can't be discussed, the lists exists, but all come with a caveat of "do not take this seriously".

Lets look at a similar article like BFI's 10 Great Films Set in the Swining 60s]. Even reliable sources in other mediums makes "best of lists" but outside talking about the brief qualities of these films ("capturing the period", "influential", etc.), you couldn't just summarize that these are "the best". If anything, when the sources do have meat on their bones and go into detail about the topic, it all more closely resembles my original draft for User:Andrzejbanas/Best, which people said was not the same thing, the more I try to read about material placed in "best of"s, the less I agree with this. Andrzejbanas (talk) 08:01, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

I agree with Shooterwalker's proposal. The topic is notable, as can be seen by its extensive coverage in reliable sources. As Shooterwalker has shown at length, "best games" lists are cited extensively across the project, including in many of its featured articles, and this is even before we get into the ubiquity of "game of the year"-type lists in reception sections. Regarding WP:WTW, that guideline applies to using words in Wikivoice (in its words, "The guideline does not apply to quotations"), and the "games listed among the best" page reports only where it is used by others, in lists dedicated to identifying games as "best of all time". All of the page's citations objectively and verifiably reflect what the sources say. This is in line with how we report on the reception of pop-culture works in general. Phediuk (talk) 15:13, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

• I have stated my preference for adopting the approach used at List of films voted the best before, as well as possible compromises I am willing to consider. I think we need to clarify what the prose equivalent of having an entry in the list is. If video game XYZ appears on the list, would that correspond to a prose article stating "Video game XYZ appeared on source ABC's list of the best video games", or "Video game XYZ is considered one of the best video games", or something else? The references to MOS:ACCLAIMED and so on above would seem to suggest the second option. I would invite Shooterwalker and Phediuk, who favour some kind of variation on the current approach, to state their position on this. I would also invite Phediuk to clarify The topic is notable, as can be seen by its extensive coverage in reliable sources., specifically what "the topic" is understood to be and whether the reliable sources referred to here would be the cited "best of"-lists themselves or some other set of sources. I invite anybody who disputes Andrzejbanas' statement There's no source that suggests that a best of list are respected in any serious way to provide sources to the contrary. I am inclined to agree with Andrzejbanas that the topic may not be viable for a list in the first place (which does not preclude a prose treatment). TompaDompa (talk) 16:09, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

There topic is as notable as any other trivial list. I'm unconvinced by the topic as a threshold as there's little discussion beyond "here's the list", no explanation, no advancement in knowledge other than "well they call it that." As useful as other generic terms. As for "WTW", we aren't quoting a list, we are making a topic based on headlines. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:48, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Eleventh statement by moderator (List of video games)

When I said that each editor should submit a proposed methodology, I did not mean that each editor should discuss what the new methodology should be or what was wrong with the existing methodology. I meant that each editor should Be Specific at DRN and say what the new methodology should be. I haven't seen any new methodologies.

Does anyone have a proposed methodology?

Should I close this discussion?

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:00, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Eleventh statements by editors (List of video games)

• The methodology should be the same as at List of films voted the best: a list of entries that "have been voted the best in national and international surveys of critics and the public". This would mean excluding some of the sources presently used (because they are not polls) and using some that are currently excluded (because they are not unrestricted in scope). Each entry should have WP:INTEXT attribution giving context for what poll(s) it has been voted the best in. TompaDompa (talk) 19:11, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
• Looking at Wikipedia's standard methodology at WP:RS, WP:V MOS:ACCLAIMED, MOS:VGREC, and MOS:TVRECEPTION, the ordinary meaning of "multiple sources" is two or more. There may be other reasonable interpretations of that.
• I am sympathetic to people who believe that summaries of opinions are inherently WP:NOT what an encyclopedia is about, and thus reasonable grounds for deletion. The last AFD was a unanimous keep and I doubt consensus will form at AFD.
• The proposal to move to List of video games voted the best was unanimously rejected more recently. Leaving out the fact that this approach isn't grounded in any policy or guideline, I also doubt consensus will form at RFC.
• To be clear, I'm fine if editors want to rehash a past RFC or AFD in hopes of getting a 180° opposite result. I'm saying that we should be realistic about the consensus-building process. We often have to accept WP:IMPERFECT solutions for the sake of wide agreement. (Including sometimes the status quo.) Shooterwalker (talk) 19:47, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
• Generally not convinced any methodology is line with how media like this should be portrayed. We scrape bottom of the barrel content to try and present complicated ideas. As for the previous deletion proposal, that was from around 10 years ago. The methodologies proposed are WP:OR and the sources themself discuss lists as poor representations of what they promise and outside sources discussing the relative quality or indepth discussion of the comments provided by these kind of listicles are trivial. The proposal of having it be a vote makes it like other lists, but doesn't solve a problem. While I would be happy for an imperfect solution, it feels like we'll just have more problems and equal amount of surprise from readers when they don't understand why some titles are considered great or not (WP:SURPRISE again). The list will remains as relevant as any other listicle online without addressing the topic first. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:01, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

I believe the methodology that has the most traction here is simply lowering the source threshold for inclusion. I have not seen anyone favor a higher one, and most of the participants have voiced their willingness to compromise on this point, so simply adopting Shooterwalker's proposal would immediately get us closer to a solution. I also note, as with Shooterwalker, that the last proposal to change the title to "List of video games voted the best" was unanimously rejected, just a year ago, on the grounds that almost none of the sources are votes. Phediuk (talk) 21:08, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Twelfth statement by moderator (List of video games)

Any editor who wants to change the methodology for selecting the games is invited to write the language that they want to replace, so that I can develop a clearly worded RFC. If at least one editor provides the wording for how the article should be changed to change the methodology, then I will prepare a draft RFC. I am asking for the exact wording. At this point, I am not interested in long discussions.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:59, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Twelfth statements by editors (List of video games)

I might suggest a multiple-option RfC along the following lines. I have tried to summarize the underlying rationales for each option to the best of my ability/understanding of the arguments in favour, but the precise wording of the options may still need to be tweaked in case I didn't get it quite right. TompaDompa (talk) 22:23, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

RfC draft #1

How should inclusion on the list be determined?

• Option A No change. Leave the inclusion threshold at six source lists, treating the threshold as a matter of WP:CONSENSUS among Wikipedia editors.
• Option B Lower the inclusion threshold to two source lists, treating inclusion as the equivalent of a WP:WikiVoice-level WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim requir[ing] multiple high-quality sources, along the lines of "video game XYZ is considered to be among the best".
• Option C Lower the inclusion threshold to one source list, treating inclusion as the equivalent of a WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV statement along the lines of "video game XYZ appears on source ABC's list of the best".
• Option D Increase the inclusion threshold to require a representative sample of the total number of sources (e.g. a majority), treating inclusion as the equivalent of a WP:WikiVoice-level statement of (some degree of) critical consensus along the lines of "video game XYZ is widely considered to be among the best". For an example of how this could work, see List of prominent operas.
• Option E Adopt the methodology used at List of films voted the best: that included games "have been voted the best in national and international surveys of critics and the public".
• Option F Make the "best of"-lists themselves—rather the video games—the entries, summarizing each list's overall approach separately without comparing or combining different lists.
• Option G Do not rely on list sources for inclusion, but use other types of sources that attempt to determine the best video games.
• Option H Remove the list entirely in favour of a prose treatment of the overarching topics. See User:Andrzejbanas/Best for an example of how this could look.
• Option I Some other approach, or combination of approaches (possibly in separate articles), specified below.

I basically support this. Gives a lot for people to chew on, but it seems to be covering the wide approaches here. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:03, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Thirteenth statement by moderator (List of video games)

Are there any further comments about the RFC proposal? If not, I will begin developing a draft RFC, by adding the boilerplate, and will then make it available for review.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:52, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Fourteenth statement by moderator (List of video games)

The draft RFC is available for review at Talk:List of video games listed among the best/Draft RFC One. It is a draft RFC, not a live RFC, so please do not vote in the draft RFC, and please do not comment in the draft RFC. If you have comments about the draft RFC, please enter them here, on the DRN subpage. After there is agreement that we want to launch this RFC, I will launch it by moving it to the article talk page, at which time you should vote in it and may take part in discussion.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:06, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Fourteenth statements by editors (List of video games)

• I would add something about the current title not being definitive to the RfC. Perhaps something along the lines of The current title of the article is a provisional one, and may need to be changed depending on the outcome of this RfC. TompaDompa (talk) 12:32, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

  Yeah no qualms with this. Andrzejbanas (talk) 11:31, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Fifteenth statement by moderator (List of video games)

I have added a comment to the RFC to reflect the comment by TompaDompa. If there are no further comments, I will launch the RFC by moving it to the article talk page.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:28, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Fifteenth statements by editors (List of video games)

I would add a comment that the title was recently changed from "List of video games considered the best". Phediuk (talk) 12:31, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Sixteenth statement by moderator (List of video games)

I have added a comment to the RFC stating what the former name of the article was. If there are no further comments, I will launch the RFC by moving it to the article talk page.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:44, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Seventeenth statements by editors (List of video games)

• Please add "if any" to the question at the start, since the first option keeps the methodology as-is. We could add also a note that not all of the options are mutually exclusive, and that commenters can make suggestions not already covered in the list, if they have any; they could conceivably favor a set-up that combine aspects of more than one option. Phediuk (talk) 14:29, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

  I think Option I (Some other approach, or combination of approaches (possibly in separate articles), specified below.) covers that second part fairly well already? TompaDompa (talk) 20:16, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Seventeenth statement by moderator (List of video games)=

I think that stating that the options are not mutually exclusive or encouraging the participants to suggest other options is likely to result in the responses being so scattered that the RFC will be uncloseable. I will launch the RFC in about 24 hours unless I see a reason to change it.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:57, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Back-and-forth discussion (List of video games)

• Noting here that I disagree with bullet point 2 of Shooterwalker's summary above. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 02:05, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

  Likewise, and even if I did I don't think list sources like the ones cited in the article fall under the heading of "high-quality sources" by any common understanding of that term (noting that WP:Reliable is a much lower standard than high-quality when it comes to sources). TompaDompa (talk) 05:48, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

  I saw some constructive dialog around re-titling this to represent the list's current contents, and I inferred some willingness to compromise. It turns out I was mistaken about our willingness to agree, and I'm not sure what the alternative is. I've seen people suggest using any reliable source that has ever used a superlative (best, greatest, 10/10) for a game, but I'm opposed to that as nearly unworkable, and don't think there will be much consensus for that either. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:41, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

  Whether there is willingness to compromise is one thing, but I don't think it's an accurate summary of the state of the discussion thus far to say that there's agreement that We should go with the ordinary standard of citing to "multiple high-quality sources" from WP:V / WP:EXCEPTIONAL. Without getting into why people may not agree with that or what they think should be done instead, I don't believe it's a correct reading of the discussion that this point is more-or-less settled. I don't think we have even agreed upon what kind of sources the article should be based upon yet. I do believe that your other point—that there is agreement that the article should be renamed in some way—is correct. TompaDompa (talk) 20:09, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

  I might summarize the state of the discussion of the article's contents thus far as broadly speaking coming down to two opposite viewpoints: (1) that the current methodology of cross-referencing "best of"-lists and listing the overlap is the correct way to construct the article, though perhaps in need of fine-tuning, and (2) that the current methodology is not the correct way of doing it, and should be replaced by some other approach. TompaDompa (talk) 20:21, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

  BESTSOURCES doesn't make sense to invoke here; it pertains to fact-checking and accuracy while this is a simple value judgement. I also don't know what the WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim is; that an organisation listed a game among the best? Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 21:30, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

  Agreed that separating "high-quality" from "reliable" sources does not make much sense for non-academic pop-culture reception topics, such as this. If a source is good enough to cite in a game reception section, as virtually any reliable source would be, then their opinions are already assumed to be notable enough to cite. As for WP:EXCEPTIONAL, the value of which games are best is contentious by its nature, and narrowing down the entire medium to a list of best, out of the hundreds of thousands that exist, is to identify the entries as exceptional. If we are claiming that the sources have named these games as such, we should require multiple sources to back up that claim. We can point to other pages that take comparable approaches: List of prominent operas, for instance, requires each entry to be identified as such in at least five "lists of great operas". Phediuk (talk) 22:02, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

  I don't think the notion that WP:EXCEPTIONAL applies here holds up to scrutiny. "X is the best" as a factual claim would be WP:EXCEPTIONAL, if not for the obvious point that it is of course not a matter of fact to begin with but a matter of opinion. "X is considered the best" as a statement of opinion is not an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim but a WP:YESPOV statement; "X is considered the best by Y" is standard WP:INTEXT attribution and does not require multiple sources. If we instead take the perspective that being included on the article does not mean that a game is considered the best (despite the title) but merely that it appears on "best of"-lists (and that this does not necessarily signify anything), we end up in the same position: "X appears on 'best of'-lists" is not an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim either.

  An argument could perhaps be made from a WP:DUE perspective instead of a WP:EXCEPTIONAL perspective, but that's not the argument that has been made here. The point about List of prominent operas is WP:OTHERCONTENT, and I would note that in requiring five out of nine lists to include an entry, it requires a majority, which the WP:LEAD also states: This list provides a guide to the most prominent operas, as determined by their presence on a majority of selected compiled lists, which date from between 1984 and 2000. That is a very different standard than is applied here. TompaDompa (talk) 04:47, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

  Regarding the first point, nothing in WP:EXCEPTIONAL indicates that its guidelines do not apply to opinions, and this claim does not hold up to scrutiny. For example, if someone says, "In my opinion, the Earth is flat", saying they hold that opinion would still be exceptional. I agree that including any off-hand mention of (x) game being the best would not be exceptional, but naming it as such in a list specifically dedicated to listing the best games is a much narrower and, thus, exceptional claim. Similarly, a page such as List of prominent operas recognizes that including an opera in a list of great operas is more meaningful than just saying the opera is great. Aside from that, the point remains that List of prominent operas provides us with an example of a page requiring appearances on multiple lists for inclusion. Regarding the page's title, I agree that the "considered the best" phrasing in the title should be changed; I suggest "List of video games listed among the best" would be a more accurate title, and I would support a rename. Phediuk (talk) 13:38, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

  Phediuk, you should ask at WT:RS whether the flat earth example you gave above is an exceptional claim. If you do not get such outside perspective, we will continue to stall. If you would prefer I ask on your behalf, I can. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 13:44, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

  Hi @Phediuk, I've now left a note at WT:RS. Realise now it should be at WT:V, although it shouldn't matter. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 14:16, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

  Thanks. Phediuk (talk) 14:28, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

  @Phediuk (sorry for the ping, lots of content to get lost in). Not sure if you've followed the conversation at WT:RS, but most editors weighing in appear to disagree with your understanding. How does this change your approach to the methodology? Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 01:44, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

  Regarding the first point, nothing in WP:EXCEPTIONAL indicates that its guidelines do not apply to opinions, and this claim does not hold up to scrutiny. This is responding to a point I did not actually make. What I said was that "X is the best" cannot be treated as an WP:EXCEPTIONAL factual claim because it is not a factual claim in the first place. I also said that "X is considered the best" is a WP:YESPOV claim (that policy says Avoid stating opinions as facts. [...] opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc.). Finally, I said that "X is considered the best by Y" is standard WP:INTEXT attribution which does not require multiple sources for verification (WP:EXCEPTIONAL is part of the WP:VERIFIABILITY policy).

  For example, if someone says, "In my opinion, the Earth is flat", saying they hold that opinion would still be exceptional. No, that would fall under WP:ABOUTSELF. It might be WP:UNDUE to include in an article, however. If somebody else reports that person X believes the Earth is flat, that might be an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim (that policy says that Reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character or against an interest they had previously defended should prompt extra caution).

  the point remains that List of prominent operas provides us with an example of a page requiring appearances on multiple lists for inclusion No, it doesn't require appearances on multiple lists for inclusion. It requires appearances on the majority of lists for inclusion. Do you recognize the difference here? Besides, this is a WP:OTHERCONTENT argument. TompaDompa (talk) 15:35, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

  Invoking WP:BESTSOURCES in this context doesn't make a whole lot of sense from a WP:RELIABILITY perspective (since this is indeed not a matter of fact-checking and accuracy but a value judgement), but it can make sense to invoke from a WP:DUEWEIGHT perspective. Certain critics are more respected in their field than others, and certain "best of"-lists are likewise more respected than others. In a film context, for instance, Roger Ebert is one of the most highly-regarded critics and the Sight and Sound poll is one of the most highly-regarded polls. TompaDompa (talk) 15:35, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

  I believe I was the one who made that argument, but it wasn't a serious suggestion. My intent was to highlight a problem with the current methodology. I agree it would be unworkable. But it demonstrates how the current methodology defines "best" inconsistently. It's a very broad category when it comes to including unranked lists (including an unranked top 1000), lists form the 1980s (which select their "bests" from a very limited pool of games), and for allowing lists with different definitions of "best", but it becomes a very specific category when it justifies excluding other types of data. The result is a list that doesn't correlate strongly with the general level of critical acclaim, and that's a problem because it's the most intuitive understanding of a phrase like "considered the best". In theory, not focusing solely on lists would probably help with this, but in practice I agree it would be unworkable. IlmeniAVG (talk) 06:10, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

• I have an idea that I believe could alleviate some concerns, in addition to those addressed in the lede draft I have prepared. We could add a “Notes” column to the page, in which we could directly quote where a game was explicitly called the singular best game on a given source's list. I believe this solution would highlight these specific distinctions where they exist, while still reflecting the reality that every list also explicitly identifies all of its entries as “the best” (and furthermore, that many lists are unranked); furthermore, this approach would not require us to read any WP:POV or WP:OR significance into rankings, since it would focus on an explicit claim instead. I cannot see a downside to doing this, as it would fulfill both of the main approaches discussed here, while also ensuring every claim on the page remains objective and verifiable. Phediuk (talk) 23:22, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
  • In this vision, what would be done about a game that is explicitly named the best by at least one source, but does not appear on the threshold number of lists for inclusion? TompaDompa (talk) 04:49, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
    • This would be very rare, but if such a case ever happened, we could simply note it in a separate section, perhaps even just the overview. Add a line to the lede that says "The 'Notes' column beside each entry quotes if and where that game was explicitly named as the singular best game of all time by a given source. In addition, while it has not been listed by multiple sources, Game (x) was named by Publication (y) as the single best game." Phediuk (talk) 12:17, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
• In good faith, I thought the willingness to refine the name of the list was an indication that we could fix the current methodology. If there's no consensus around this, then the conversation has come full circle, with people merely restating restating position again and again. Matching that, in good faith, my original statement was "the problem is we can't agree on the problem". In the absence of an agreeable improvement, we're back to the status quo. I don't love this, but there's only so much energy we can put into a yet another discussion to nowhere. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:41, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

  Maybe you can point out where you saw BESTSOURCES being discussed? I'm not sure what you were drawing on to say there was agreement there. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 00:44, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

  I can admit I misread the discussion. I saw people starting to coalesce around words like "listed" or "among" as a way of clarifying the title, which might also imply something about how the list is constructed and how it might approve. If we don't agree on that, then there's currently very little to agree on (other than that we disagree). Shooterwalker (talk) 00:55, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

• To IlmeniAVG's comments, I am quite troubled with how people misinterpret the list. I insisted in the initial conversation that readers would think this is a claim about what games are currently considered the best, and was essentially told my reading was unreasonable. Looking at other pages, I see this page is being used to verify that very claim. The concern about formatting after list of films voted the best is that we would be excluding any lists that did not rank the games or pick a singular "best". Excluding assessments because they are difficult/inconvenient to summarize will understandably cause consternation and likely selection effects on what gets included (more polling of magazine employees, less recognition of the absurdity of distinguishing a 25th from 26th best game). Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 12:26, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

  I agree that it would be silly to omit lists that don't pick a specific best. I would rather modify the criteria so that such lists could be included. For example, the entry for "1001 Video Games You Must Play..." could summarise the number of people involved, their methodology and how they defined "best" (if at all), name the earliest and most recent entries for the sake of showing the time period covered, talk a little about the spread of video games (what year(s) were most represented), and anything else that might be worth mentioning. This doesn't seem like much of an obstacle to me. In fact, for all lists, I see this summary as more important and interesting than what was picked at the no#1 game (if anything). IlmeniAVG (talk) 12:40, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

  I don't mind that, although I will be among the easiest to convince on it. If this were retitled to list of video games voted the best, how would such lists be naturally integrated? I imagine such discussions would seem off-topic. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 12:47, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

  I was imagining a page that centres the lists rather than the games. I'm not sure how you would title that, and I was hoping someone could come up with a title that doesn't have an awkward "list of lists" feel to it. I don't love it, but something like "Attempts at determining the greatest video games" might be OK. If not, hopefully it inspires someone to come up with something better. As an aside, I think it's hard to centre the games without the page appearing as a sort of meta-ranking, or at least people expecting it to appear that way. Determining what games have featured prominently on such lists requires original research. That's just the nature of the project. IlmeniAVG (talk) 13:00, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

I don't think the "centering the games" and "centering the lists" approaches are mutually exclusive. We could do both. The page, as-is, already has a section that lists the sources and their year of publication. We could restructure this section to add a brief description of each list, while still maintaining a list of games that appear in multiple sources. In fact, List of prominent operas more-or-less does this already, containing both a list of operas that appear in multiple "great operas" listed, while also describing the sources in the "Lists consulted" section. Phediuk (talk) 13:52, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

List of prominent operas explicitly requires not just "multiple" sources but a majority of the sources. TompaDompa (talk) 15:47, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Respectfully, you have it backwards.

• A game builds a reception based on its reception in reliable sources. Y
• A game's builds a legacy subsection/paragraph by citing these "best games" lists. Y
• A game's lead summarizes the legacy/reception with "... has been considered one of the best video games by multiple publications".Y
• ... and then hundreds of games are excluded from this list based on some WP:OR filter.N

Most lists are built around this simple approach, minus the WP:OR step. (I used List of prequels or List of police television dramas as examples, but there are countless others.) Shooterwalker (talk) 14:47, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Agreed with Shooterwalker. When ledes link to the page, they usually say that "numerous critics have considered it to be one of the best games of all time", which is an accurate reflection of the sources. If a lede in any article says more than that, just change it. I believe we all agree in principle on an article rename, specifically to replace the word "considered"; I suggest again "List of video games listed among the best". Phediuk (talk) 14:55, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Have a look at Zork. In the lead, it says "Critics regard it as one of the greatest video games." and links to this page ("list of video games considered the best" in case you weren't sure how to interpret greatest). In the legacy section, several sources describe the game as very influential, and we note that a decade after release it was considered among the best. So it is not that page, but this list verifying the claim. I think there's some general agreement here (sans Phediuk) that inclusion on this list cannot verify that a game is "regarded by critics as one of the best video games". Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 15:04, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Generally, the Reception section for a given game will cite the lists on which a given game appeared, as part of its "legacy", etc. I agree that the relevant sources should be cited directly in the appropriate article, whether it links to this page or not. Phediuk (talk) 15:14, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Zork is a featured article. The lead matches the body, and the body is cited to reliable sources. I don't understand how that's a problem. You aren't suggesting that we should go into featured articles and remove statements cited to multiple reliable sources? Shooterwalker (talk) 15:28, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Surprised to hear you say that. I don't think the lead matches the body, that's what I'm trying to say. What in the body do you think supports "Critics regard it as one of the greatest video games"? Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 15:33, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm honestly think these kind of wide and broad statements are problematic as well. Similar articles do it to render it meaningless. We learn that some game is called "the greatest" or "best" of all time. Again, this is part of MOS:PUFFERY, we aren't even supposed to address something thats "award-winning", we are supposed to clarify not write things like "Bob Dylan is the defining figure of the 1960s counterculture and a brilliant songwriter." but "Dylan was included in Time's 100: The Most Important People of the Century, in which he was called "master poet, caustic social critic and intrepid, guiding spirit of the counterculture generation".[1] By the mid-1970s, his songs had been covered by hundreds of other artists." The sentence quoting the time list clarifies the intentions. Being placed on a list with no context of the how and why is not helpful for people who come are trying to learn about something. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:33, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Featured articles are considered to be some of the best articles Wikipedia has to offer, as determined by Wikipedia's editors. They are used by editors as examples for writing other articles. Before being listed here, articles are reviewed as featured article candidates for accuracy, neutrality, completeness, and style...

Most succinctly, featured articles face an RFC-like process where a consensus of editors agree that they meet a set of Wikipedia criteria even more rigorous than our policies and guidelines. They become examples of how we should write other articles.

Here is quick survey of featured articles, as reviewed by multiple Wikipedia editors. Each of them cites several reliable sources used to make this list, usually with a summary in the lead:

• Marble Madness: (lists individually cited, without broad summary)
• Super Mario World: "... is often considered one of the best games in the series and is cited as one of the greatest video games ever made."
• Zork: "Critics regard it as one of the greatest video games."
• Ninja Gaiden (NES video game): "... continued to receive acclaim from print and online publications, being cited as one of the greatest video games of all time."
• Space Invaders: "... is considered one of the most influential and greatest video games ever"
• Sonic the Hedgehog 2: "... is considered one of the greatest video games."
• Wolfenstein 3D: "... was a critical and commercial success and is considered one of the greatest video games ever made."
• Doom (1993 video game): "... was a critical and commercial success, earning a reputation as one of the best and most influential video games of all time."
• The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening: "... has appeared on multiple game publications' lists of the best video games of all time."
• Myst: "... has been called one of the most influential and best video games ever made."
• Secret of Mana: "... Retrospectively, it has been considered one of the greatest games of all time by critics."
• Daytona USA: "... has been frequently named one of the best video games."
• Donkey Kong Country: "... is considered one of the greatest video games of all time"
• Final Fantasy VI: "Many critics have ranked it as the best entry in the series, as well as one of the best video games of all time."
• Nights into Dreams: "... has been cited as one of the greatest video games."
• Super Mario 64: "... has been considered one of the greatest and most influential video games of all time."
• Fallout (video game): "Often listed among the greatest video games of all time..."
• Final Fantasy Tactics: "... has been cited as one of the greatest video games of all time."
• Final Fantasy VII: "... remains widely regarded as a landmark title and one of the greatest and most influential video games of all time."
• Grim Fandango: "... is often listed as one of the greatest video games of all time."
• The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time: "... has been ranked by numerous publications as the greatest video game of all time"
• Panzer Dragoon Saga: "Many publications have named Saga one of the greatest video games."
• Resident Evil 2: "It is widely listed among the best video games ever made."
• Homeworld: (lists individually cited, without broad summary)
• Planescape: Torment: "... is commonly cited as one of the greatest video games of all time."
• System Shock 2: "... has been included in several greatest games of all time lists.
• The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask: "... is considered one of the greatest video games of all time."
• Perfect Dark: "... is occasionally cited as one of the greatest games of all time."
• Thief II: (lists individually cited, without broad summary)
• Vagrant Story: "... received critical acclaim from gaming publications, with some calling it one of the greatest games of all time."
• Devil May Cry (video game): "... is considered among the greatest video games ever made."
• Final Fantasy X: "... has been cited as one of the greatest video games of all time."
• Ico: "... has been called one of the greatest video games ever made..."
• Super Smash Bros. Melee: "... is now considered one of the greatest video games ever made."
• The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind: "... has since been considered one of the best video games ever made."
• Kingdom Hearts (video game): "... is considered to be one of the greatest video games of all time..."
• Metroid Prime: "... is regarded by many as one of the greatest video games"
• F-Zero GX: (lists individually cited, without broad summary)
• Halo 2: "... is often listed as one of the greatest video games of all time."
• Katamari Damacy: "Certain critics have hailed it as a cult classic and one of the greatest video games of all time..."
• God of War (2005 video game): "... has been cited as one of the greatest video games ever made."
• Guitar Hero (video game): (lists individually cited, without broad summary)
• Kingdom Hearts II: "... has been cited as one of the greatest video games of all time."
• Shadow of the Colossus: "Cited as an influential title in the video game industry and one of the best video games of all time, ..."
• The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion: "... is considered one of the greatest games ever made."
• Ōkami: "... is considered to be one of the greatest video games of all time..."
• Wii Sports: "... is considered one of the greatest games of all time."
• God of War II: "... is considered as one of the greatest video games ever made..."
• Halo 3: "... is frequently listed as one of the greatest video games of all time."
• Portal (video game): "... is often cited as one of the greatest video games ever made."
• Super Mario Galaxy: "... was a critical and commercial success, hailed as one of the best games in the series and one of the greatest video games of all time."
• The World Ends with You: "... is regarded as one of the best Nintendo DS games, and one of the greatest video games ever made."
• Super Smash Bros. Brawl: "... is also considered to be one of the best video games ever made."
• Batman: Arkham Asylum: "... has been cited as one of the greatest video games ever made."
• League of Legends: "... is widely considered one of the greatest video games ever made."
• Plants vs. Zombies (video game): "... has since been considered one of the greatest video games of all time."
• God of War III: "... has also been named as one of the greatest video games ever made."
• Limbo (video game): "... has been listed among the greatest games of all time."
• Mass Effect 2: "... is considered a significant improvement over its predecessor and one of the best video games of all time."
• Super Meat Boy: "... has been cited as one of the greatest video games of all time."
• Batman: Arkham City: "... is considered one of the greatest video games ever made."
• Dishonored: "... has also been cited as one of the greatest video games ever made."
• Journey (2012 video game): "Critics have called it a moving and emotional experience, and have since listed it as one of the greatest video games of all time."
• Grand Theft Auto V: "... is considered one of seventh and eighth generation console gaming's most significant titles and among the best video games ever made."
• The Last of Us (video game): "... s considered one of seventh-generation console gaming's most significant titles and among the best video games ever made."

I'm noting the good articles for future reference. They aren't as useful as featured articles, but many follow a similar pattern:

• Pong, Combat (video game), Asteroids (video game), The Oregon Trail (1971 video game). Adventure (1980 video game), Defender (1981 video game), Galaga, Joust (video game)], Pitfall!, Robotron: 2084, Super Mario Bros., Tetris, The Legend of Zelda (video game), Out Run, Mega Man 2, Super Mario Bros. 3, The Secret of Monkey Island, Another World (video game), Final Fantasy IV, Lemmings (video game), Micro Machines (video game), Sonic the Hedgehog (1991 video game), Alone in the Dark (1992 video game), Contra III: The Alien Wars, Indiana Jones and the Fate of Atlantis, Super Mario Kart, Day of the Tentacle, Gunstar Heroes, Mega Man X (video game), Mortal Kombat II, Ridge Racer (1993 video game), Sam & Max Hit the Road, EarthBound, Super Metroid, Theme Park (video game), Command & Conquer (1995 video game), Wipeout (video game), Yoshi's Island, Mario Kart 64, Pokémon Red, Blue, and Yellow, Tomb Raider (1996 video game), Wave Race 64, Wipeout 2097, Age of Empires (video game), GoldenEye 007, Star Wars Jedi Knight: Dark Forces II, Banjo-Kazooie (video game), Crash Bandicoot: Warped, Half-Life (video game), Thief: The Dark Project, Xenogears, Unreal Tournament, Silent Hill (video game), Pokémon Gold and Silver, Baldur's Gate II: Shadows of Amn, Deus Ex (video game), Jet Set Radio, Marvel vs. Capcom 2: New Age of Heroes, Grand Theft Auto III, Ikaruga, Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney, Rez (video game), Silent Hill 2, Grand Theft Auto: Vice City, The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker, Warcraft III: Reign of Chaos, Beyond Good & Evil (video game), Max Payne 2: The Fall of Max Payne, Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time, Burnout 3: Takedown, The Chronicles of Riddick: Escape from Butcher Bay, Dragon Quest VIII, Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas, Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door, Resident Evil 4, The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess, Mass Effect (video game), Peggle, Braid (video game), Dead Space (2008 video game), Fallout 3, Gears of War 2, Grand Theft Auto IV, LittleBigPlanet (2008 video game), Persona 4, Dragon Age: Origins, Fallout: New Vegas, Heavy Rain, Red Dead Redemption, StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty, Super Mario Galaxy 2, Xenoblade Chronicles (video game), The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim, Portal 2, Borderlands 2, Far Cry 3, Fire Emblem Awakening, Hotline Miami, XCOM: Enemy Unknown, Dota 2, Final Fantasy XIV, Alien: Isolation, Rocket League, Undertale, The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, Dishonored 2, Uncharted 4: A Thief's End, The Witness (2016 video game), Hollow Knight, The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild, God of War (2018 video game), Red Dead Redemption 2, Return of the Obra Dinn, Animal Crossing: New Horizons, Elden Ring, Baldur's Gate 3

You could convince me that some of the featured articles phrase their summary of these sources better than others. But if you're telling me that we need to completely remove those statements from all those featured articles, then we have a deeper problem here. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:07, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

That's another issue, but still related to this. For example, The Link's Awakening article saying the game "has appeared on multiple game publications' lists of the best video games of all time." is probably apt summary. The Sonic the Hedgehog 2 "is considered one of the greatest video games" is far less specific and definitely far from neutral. By whom? Do all critics agree on this? Some of them? The three we found? Poorly summarized and misleading to audiences. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:15, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

I want to sympathize, but this is a problem beyond the scope of Wikipedia. For a more high stakes example, we have Armenian genocide. Who calls it a genocide? Do all historians agree on this? By that standard, even our most featured articles are "misleading" once you start picking apart how many sources are needed to support a summary statement. This is why I reject any attempt to scrutinize the sources as WP:OR, and keep insisting that we WP:STICKTOTHESOURCES in the standard Wikipedia practice. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:31, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

I disagree. To address your "Who calls it a genocide? Do all historians agree on this?", In your example it immediately points to a Terminology of the Armenian genocide. While hobbyist activities like video games are trivial in comparison to real world catastrophe. Many of the examples suggested and the current format presents an illusion of consensus. I don't think we have to write "_____, _____, and _____ the three Western video game magazines which have been discredited by some but praised by others have placed it as the potentially fallable "best-of" lists." which is a obviously reaching self-parody. What i'm suggesting is that Link's Awakening alternative is just as quick and easy way to say what is said and its more neutral and feels like like puffery. Personally, when I'm writing review sections, I try to avoid saying something like "Critics said graphics were low quality" which implies some phantom consensus, and aim for more "A number of critics have said the graphics were low quality". While both showcase it as a reoccurring theme which is okayish, one implies a consensus, the other does not, so that's why I lean towards phrasing like that Link's Awakening example. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:52, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Actually, I don't disagree. Some of these featured articles do a better job of avoiding "wikivoice", and Link's Awakening is one example of a well-crafted summary statement. I also agree that readers can dive into the article for further context -- whether for the Armenian genocide or the reception of The Last of Us -- which is why we have citations and a transparent reference section. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:59, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Ahh okay! I'm glad we're on the same kind of page here. I do think we should summarize this kind of stuff, but just that like, a slight re-phrase doesn't mean we have to throw the baby out with the bathwater. There's probably not a bullet-proof way to re-phrase all of these, but I wouldn't say it hurts to check them out case by case to see what may be a more neutral way to suggest what is presented in the article. Like, I haven't dived into the Perfect Dark article, but its phrasing of "occasionally cited as one of the greatest games of all time." kind of strikes me as unintentionally funny in a way. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:24, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

I smirked at that one too. I think of our FA treatment on this issue as "basically right, if flawed in some phrasing". But I left my personal feelings out of it when I started a neutral discussion at WT:VG. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:27, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

This is great, thanks for compiling. You may be interested in Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources#WP:RS/AC - limit to "academic"? where this kind of topic was recently broached. I do think this is a deeper issue, though with how entrenched it seems to be I'm not surprised you thought this was okay. We can draw a few distinctions between the weasel-y but eh "has been cited as one of..." and those like "is considered as one of the greatest video games ever made". I would like to escalate this, is that okay with you? If it is, do you have any preferred places you would like to see it raised? Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 17:31, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly as I started to compileit. I went ahead and started a discussion at WT:VG, without steering the discussion. Let's allow other editors to offer their opinions. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:00, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

To be clear, I'm not advocating more restrictive criteria that excludes games from the list, but restructuring the article so that it's no longer a list a games at all. I think it should be a "list of lists", so to speak. IlmeniAVG (talk) 16:32, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

• Here is what I propose we do at present, based on the discussions above:

1. Rename the page to something along the lines of "List of video games listed among the best". Doing so would reflect the nature of the sources, i.e., that this is not about any mention of a game being the best, but specifically in the context of lists dedicated to naming the best games of all time. I believe there is agreement in principle to a list rename.

2. Rewrite the lede to clarify the content; I have produced a draft here. Per Andrzejbanas's prior suggestion, it establishes "best games of all time" lists as a notable and prevalent concept among publications that cover video games. Per Rollinginhisgrave, it clarifies that each source reflects "the best of all time" as of that list's publication. It also clarifies that "best" is a value determined by each publication, providing a couple of examples of such; it also notes that nevertheless, all lists converge on the claim that the games they choose are the "best of all time". I believe everyone agrees that we should focus on claims that are objective and verifiable, and sticking strictly to games named as specifically "best" will ensure we do so.

3. I agree with Shooterwalker's proposal to adopt a plain meaning of "multiple" for multiple sources, this meaning three; I have not seen anyone prefer six to three, so I have adjusted the lede accordingly. Requiring multiple sources to be included in a list has precedent in other Wikipedia articles; I have given the example of List of prominent operas above, which requires that an entry be included on at least five of nine "lists of great operas". This is a different definition of "multiple" from just making it a plain three, but the point remains that requiring multiple sources for inclusion in a list is accepted elsewhere on Wikipedia.

4. Add a "Notes" column to the page to directly quote where a game has been explicitly named by a source as the singular best game of all time. No one has yet objected to this proposal, and I believe it would accommodate both approaches here while also sticking strictly to explicit claims. Phediuk (talk) 12:49, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm fine with the rename and see that title as marginally more clear, if somewhat pedantic. Just to clarify, the current name is already fairly clear by Wikipedia standards, as there will always be editors who jump onto a high profile article and say "why doesn't this article cite this YouTuber" or "most people on Reddit disagree with this article". It's always implied that an article is cited to reliable sources, and in this case, reliable lists about the topic (best games). I'll leave it to other editors to decide if a rename will satisfy their concerns, as I've received mixed signals on whether there is any compromise there. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:54, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

• I still think "List of video games listed among the best" is still better captured best as "List of video games that appear on best-of lists". That still better captures what is being presented. That, or the introduction should more clearly state that.
• As for your write up, you seem to develop a conclusion out of thin air "Nevertheless, each list characterizes all of its entries specifically as "best", or the synonym "greatest". Its like "well people discuss the problems with lists or apply different values to it, but don't mind that." I think there needs to be some clarification that tabulating a list is or that lists are ideal is some way that the "best" films are considered in the medium. As the articles in questions suggest that this isn't ideal.
• I think saying which publications is fine. Perhaps in the listing format I did suggest we could include a year and publication that included the list. I think this information is relevant. (I.e: gives people some closure on when some games drop off some lists, etc. It increases a scope of knowledge)
• I'm not sure how "List of prominent operas" or any other source listing their material is still considered good or a way this material is viewed in their respective committees. So this saying that other lists organize their material is an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument.
• I agree with Shooterwalker that we don't have to say who is saying it. We don't have to re-iterate general wikipedia standards here. Just like in any media that has a rabid fandom, some editor will come in an want to add material saying "It is considered one of the best of all time" or other uncited material which can be removed or pointed to the most basic rules. The issue here is that the list suggests this is some calculated standard way of ascertaining some colloquially agreed upon "best". Which it isn't, its a list of games that appeared on best-of lists. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:04, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

I agree in principle with most of your points, and feel that we are getting closer to common ground here. I do have a couple of comments and questions, though, which I hope can help the process along:

1. I'm fine with that title too, though I think "List of video games listed the best" emphasizes the "best" part a bit more.

2. The conclusion there is just an emphasis that the games are named specifically "the best", and not some other superlative. I do not see how this is "pull[ed] out of thin air", as even the secondary sources comment on the phenomenon of "best games of all time" lists. Being listed among the best is still a verifiable fact for every game on every list. Would simply moving the sentence to the first paragraph, for instance, fix this issue? I believe the lede should include an explicit clarification that "best" is the focus here.

3. We do not have to establish "best games of all time" as an ideal format; we need only to establish the format's notability. A large number of publications see fit to make lists dedicated to naming the best games of all time, and we should report on them, regardless of their imperfections. Would simply adding a couple of comments from secondary sources noting the limitations of lists like these be sufficient?

4. I mention List of prominent operas to show that it both provides descriptions of each source while also listing operas that appear in multiple sources. I do not see the downside of expanding the list of sources with, say, a sentence each describing them.

5. I agree that simply providing the name of the publication and year beside each citation on each entry would improve the page (as you say, increase "scope of knowledge"). Phediuk (talk) 15:51, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

We are tabulating it as if it is considered the end all and be all of determining "best". The way it is presented, suggests this is a agreed upon format in the medium to determine it. Because "each magazine has their own best of lists" is not generally considered in support of it, and as the my previous draft suggests, there is little oversight in such material. As for your question (I only see the one), I don't know, but I'm leaning towards that I don't think so. Most of the sources discussing the lists seem to suggest this should not be used as some gold standard. None of this avoids the problem with the WP:WTW which I haven't seen appropriately addressed here as the term is vague, used differently in the lists, and becomes the puffery we are supposed to be avoiding. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:47, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Okay, I am fine with the title "List of video games appearing on best-of lists". I agree that this is a more accurate reflection of the material. Phediuk (talk) 19:00, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Shooterwalker, sorry if I've already heard this from you, but what does reliability mean in this context? How can someone reliably say that a game is good or not? It is just their opinion, no? When you look at Historical rankings of presidents of the United States, do you say "but why are the opinions of members of the public being included? They are not esteemed historians." Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 15:08, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Respectfully, that's not your job or mine. WP:RS and WP:V are thorough on this point. We also have WP:GAMESOURCES which is very specific about sources we use, and about broadly avoiding user generated content. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:36, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Not sure if you checked out Historical rankings of presidents... but if you did, I think you would see it's not user generated content. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 15:38, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

That article is a clear example of WP:SYNTH. It's not how most lists are usually constructed. Other lists more commonly follow what reliable sources say and don't use polls. That said, Gallup polls are meant to be scientific based on random sample, and not based on volunteer bias seen in reader surveys. Either way, it's not a useful example here. (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS) Shooterwalker (talk) 15:45, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Really. Again, surprising, I see it as a simple application of WP:YESPOV and see no way it could be SYNTH (not to say I'm right ofc). My first comment on this page was criticising it for YESPOV failure. Not sure we will reach an agreement, I would normally suggest posting at WT:NPOV to clarify the meaning of YESPOV or WT:ORN to clarify SYNTH, but I don't want to carpetbomb noticeboards. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 15:52, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Looking at the historical rankings of presidents, they do apply it to academic terms "In political studies, since the mid 20th-century, surveys have been conducted in order to construct historical rankings of the success of the presidents of the United States. Ranking systems are usually based on surveys of academic historians and political scientists, or popular opinion. The scholarly rankings focus on presidential achievements, leadership qualities, failures, and faults." We don't seem to have an equivilant format for this kind of material, let alone other more widely discussed material such as film or music. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:41, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

I agree with IlmeniAVG (1) that if it is granted that appearing on lists is a meaningless statistic then this list should go, and (2) basically everything said in this comment such as if we [...] begin with the goal of listing games that are "considered the best" and work backwards to a sensible criteria/methodology, then there's no way anyone would arrive at "appearing on six unrestricted all-time lists." This not the only way, or even a good way, of determining the games that are generally considered the best. I think I have made my own position that the methodology needs to be completely overhauled abundantly clear, but in the spirit of compromise I will describe two conceivable ways of tweaking the current methodology that I could find tolerable, contingent upon certain other conditions being met.

The first would be if we grant that appearing on these lists fundamentally doesn't mean anything other than appearing on these lists. In that case, we could move the article to the title List of video games appearing on "best of"-lists, include all video games that have appeared on any of these lists (no justification for requiring appearing on multiple lists if appearances don't signify anything), and write a WP:LEAD that provides context for "best of"-lists more broadly and—crucially—robustly explains that being listed in no way implies that any of these games are considered the best in any meaningful sense. User:Andrzejbanas/Best and/or User:Phediuk/Lede might be a decent starting point here. It would also be necessary to get rid of redirects such as List of video games considered the best to avoid hyperlink misuse. I think this approach is problematic from a WP:RAWDATA perspective, but it would eliminate most WP:OR issues (but not all; as noted in the comment linked above, a binary list (included/not included) is still a meta-ranking, just a simplified one [...] posing as something other than a meta-ranking and It's original research in disguise).

The second would be if we take the position that appearing on lists does signify being considered the best in such a general sense that we can say so in WP:WikiVoice without further qualifiers or attribution. In that case, we could move the article to a title like List of video games widely considered among the best or List of prominent video games and do what List of prominent operas does, namely require presence on a majority of selected compiled lists. At time of writing, this would require appearing on 49 lists; which lists to include as the "selected compiled lists" could be discussed (List of prominent operas uses lists "created by recognized authorities in the field") and a more restrictive or inclusive set chosen as desired. Requiring appearances on a majority of lists would then be a way of ensuring WP:DUEWEIGHT by restricting the list to games widely considered the best, or in other words reflecting the consensus among the sources rather than minority/outlier opinions. As with the preceding proposal, it would be necessary to rewrite the WP:LEAD to provide context. I think this approach is problematic from a WP:SYNTH perspective, but it would eliminate problems with presenting minority views on the subject as being on par with more widely held views.

Thoughts? TompaDompa (talk) 16:50, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

The first suggestion above is a tolerable compromise. I would also be open to adding the word "multiple" to the title ("List of video games appearing on multiple "best of"-lists"), so that the threshold could be raised to two or three (I don't mind either way). I don't necessarily prefer that, but I foresee objections to only requiring a single mention on the grounds that the resulting list would be too unwieldy. IlmeniAVG (talk) 17:10, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

The first seems more in-line what what has bene making sense to me. Agree with IllmeniAVG that two or three (if I had to choose between either, I'd lean towards two) as being enough. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:19, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

I'll clarify that I consider the threshold for inclusion being one list to be a crucial component of the first suggestion. As soon as we require multiple lists, we are cross-referencing them and attaching meaning to the overlap—which is not consistent with the perspective that appearing on the lists does not signify anything beyond appearing on the lists. We can't have it both ways: either it means something and we have to evaluate stuff, or it doesn't really mean anything and we mustn't evaluate stuff. TompaDompa (talk) 17:39, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Sorry did you mean "the article should be one list" or "inclusion on the list should not require any number of times it appears"? I just don't want to misread you here. :) I think I'm getting ahead of myself on what information on the list is relevant to the topic, but I just don't want to misunderstand you here. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:58, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

The latter: any game that appears on any of the source lists should be included at List of video games appearing on "best of"-lists, even if it only appears on a single source list. In other words, List of video games appearing on "best of"-lists would be an exhaustive listing of games that appears on the source lists it cites. And to reiterate: I would only support this compromise if (1) the WP:LEAD is rewritten to make misunderstanding inclusion on the list as conveying any sense that a game is meaningfully considered (among) the best impossible (or near-impossible), and (2) we get rid of redirects such as List of video games considered the best to avoid hyperlink misuse. TompaDompa (talk) 18:13, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

This is starting to sound like a criticism of Wikipedia itself. "Multiple reliable sources" is central to most of our policies and guidelines, culminating in our best articles. What is this project, if not "attaching meaning" to what multiple reliable sources have said? It's not that I disagree with the criticism. It's that I strongly reject the alternatives. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:09, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

That's why I was leaning towards to for an effort to balance out having multiple sources (two is surely that) and also, potentially a bit pedantic, but if we say they are on lists, than you know, the old No Homers joke, we have more than one. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:13, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

I don't think it's a criticism of Wikipedia at all? "Multiple reliable sources" is central to WP:Notability (i.e. whether a topic can have an article in the first place), but I don't think it's accurate to say that it's central to most of our policies and guidelines. Most statements in Wikipedia articles do not require multiple sources, and that includes what are supposed to be our best articles, WP:Featured articles.

What I'm saying here is that applying a filter of "multiple sources" to individual pieces of content (list entries) for inclusion imbues the number of sources with a significance—which is counter to the original premise that appearing on these lists fundamentally doesn't mean anything other than appearing on these lists. Or, if you prefer being explicit about the singular, that appearing on a list like this fundamentally doesn't mean anything other than appearing on a list like this. Requiring multiple sources is saying that "appearing on multiple lists is significant, while appearing on one is not". TompaDompa (talk) 18:28, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

"Multiple" appears explicitly in WP:V and WP:RS, just as examples. I don't think we're going to come to a consensus if we reject multiple sources as a widely accepted standard. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:36, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

"Multiple" appears precisely three times in WP:V: Twice in the section "Exceptional claims require exceptional sourcing" (Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources. and Surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources) and once in the section "Original research" (drawing inferences from multiple sources to advance a novel position is prohibited by the NOR policy). It likewise appears precisely three times in WP:RS: once in the "News organizations" section (Multiple sources should not be asserted for any wire service article. Such sources are essentially a single source.), once in the "Breaking news" section (The On the Media Breaking News Consumer's Handbook contains several suggestions to avoid spreading unreliable and false information. These include: distrust anonymous sources, unconfirmed reports, and reports attributed to other news media; seek multiple independent sources which independently verify; seek verified eyewitness reports; and be wary of potential hoaxes. With mass shootings, remain skeptical of early reports of additional attackers, coordinated plans, and bomb threats.), and once in a footnote to the "Editorial and opinion commentary" section (An exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources.). Requiring multiple sources is not a widely accepted standard for verification overall.

Why do you think we won't reach a consensus if we reject multiple sources? What's wrong with requiring one source to demonstrate that a game has appeared on at least one "best of"-list? TompaDompa (talk) 18:50, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused by WP:Exceptional. Maybe I should clarify

• I don't think it means we'd need two sources to state something appeared in a "EGM's Bestest Gamest Ever" list that aren't EGM.
• Its an exceptional claim to say its one of the best games of all time and only citing one source. its not an exceptional claim to say it appeared on a best-of list. Very similar sounding, but unique things.
• As a heads up, the first statement also doesn't address issues involving puffery around it, but I digress! Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:25, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

I have a lot of respect for TompaDompa as someone who has fixed a lot of articles on the verge of AFD. My honest thoughts:

• The suggested title seems pedantic to me, and I would prefer a simpler wording. But I've seen other editors suggest a similar rename, and I would strive for consensus and compromise. I'll let other editors workshop it.
• I'm actually sympathetic to the viewpoint that this this "this list should go". But just as I could reasonably see this being nominated for AFD, I also realistically see this reaching no consensus, as people say it's fixable without agreeing on a fix. As with many content disputes, incremental change usually beats out all-or-nothing change.
• I strongly oppose interpreting the sources using hidden criteria or explicitly in the article, as compounding the WP:OR instead of reducing it. That includes editorial notes about what being on this list does or does not mean. That also includes new numerical thresholds of what constitutes "prominent" or "widely considered". That also includes using our editorial judgment to remove summaries of what these sources have said about individual games on those individual articles.

I'll let other editors offer their reactions. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:22, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Pretty much in agreement with Shooterwalker here. I am fine with a title change; my first choice would be "List of video games among the best", but I would support "List of video games appearing on best-of lists", also. If we want to maximize clarity and length is not a concern, "List of video games appearing on best-of-all-time lists" would be even better. I also strongly agree that the list should focus specifically on verifiable claims that a publication has named games as "best" on their list, and not rely on any WP:POV or WP:OR claims (such as applying significance to rankings that the sources don't, or excluding unranked lists, or saying that a game was considered the singular best when they did not explicitly say that.) Phediuk (talk) 19:00, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Just to make sure we understand each other correctly: do you find the first of my two suggestions above to be an acceptable compromise, including the provision that a game would only have to appear on a single source list to be included? TompaDompa (talk) 19:08, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

This is workable, as long as we clarify that it must appear on a "best games of all time" list, not just a "best Dreamcast games" or "best Konami games" and so on. Also, am I correct in reading that you see the two compromises as essentially different topics? If "Video games appearing on best-of lists" is no longer makes any claim that it represents what is considered best, then a "Video games widely considered among the best" along the lines of List of prominent operas would then be able to co-exist with it, yes? In that case, I would definitely support this compromise. In fact, we probably should have done it that way from the start. Phediuk (talk) 19:26, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure how many of us are on the page that games appearing on a "best of 2006" "best of the Virtual Boy" (can you even imagine such a list) would be discussing the same topic. If I may Phediuk, I may try to take your draft opening and combine it with some of the concerns here to sort of re-organize it for clarification. Nothing is bullet-proof as we said earlier, but it may give the kind of context that's appropriate. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:24, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes, we will need a concrete draft here before anything else happens. Phediuk (talk) 22:19, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm not really in favour of having both topics exist simultaneously. The second one I don't even really like in general because I can't really think of a way for it to work. Requiring a game to appear on a literal majority of lists excludes games released post 2014-2015 since they haven't been around long enough to appear on a majority of lists. It would exclude The Witcher III, for example, despite that very clearly being "widely considered among the best". Requiring games to appear on a majority of lists that they were eligible for solves this problem but introduces a few others, and is generally a worse method in my opinion:

1) A recent game could find itself eligible by appearing on the first and only list that it's eligible for, allowing for some pretty strange games to appear on what would otherwise be a very exclusive list. For example, Monster Hunter Wilds would have entered the list following Indy100's list, Blue Prince would have entered following Dexerto's list, etc.

2) Figuring out what lists a game was actually eligible for isn't an easy task. Would games released only in Japan be considered eligible for lists outside Japan? Would games in early access be considered eligible?

3) Even if there was some sort of consensus on how to handle these things, the fact that it's even necessary gives me strong original research vibes.

With all that in mind, I think we would have to require a literal majority. Not many older games are going to be able to satisfy that, and it will likely take decades for recent games to even have a chance. Overall, I'm not seeing value in it. IlmeniAVG (talk) 00:40, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

I don't want to say an outright "no" about a topic, but from the discussion had here, I'd say a firm "good luck" on trying to sort it out as I don't think its something manageable. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:26, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

My will to engage this conversation is wearing thin, so just briefly, I think it's more important that we get a title that conveys what we want it to before bringing in considerations of clumsy wording / pedantry. The status quo is unworkable. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 01:56, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Clearing out

I apologize for creating a separate section here, but with people commenting and trying to make decisions paragraphs inbetween, its been very difficult to keep up in any form. If people could re-iterate where they believe we are going with this article below in bullet points, we might be able to format discussion in a more presentable manner. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:51, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

To follow-up myself

• Per @IlmeniAVG:, "Should this be a list of games?" At this point, nobody has suggested anything else other than proposing this idea, or proposing no list at all. My response to this is if the list is kept in a somewhat current state, a list is acceptable with no limits number of times it appears on a list (i.e: doesn't need to be on six, as that's us picking and choosing). The discussion where I last left it seems to have been either 1-3 based around wiki rules.
• I don't think "List of games voted the best" is appropriate still as that's not how the lists are all calculated and some have no suggested calculation at all so we should not presume. This is obvious within their sources and one method does not appear to be "superior" or "more correct" than another to create a "best of" list.
• My push is still, to make it match its current content in the most basic way, is to have a "List of video games that appear on best of lists" or a similar title. "considered the best" causes issues with suggesting lists are the only way to tabulate a way a game is determined "best".

In an effort to move forward, please just present your views forward. Probably best to not immediately respond to others as we end up down rabbit holes. Once your points are presented, we can probably discuss in a more productive manner. Just my two cents! Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:57, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

The question that I posed above, and which I think is important to answer if we're going to move forward, was this: How attached are we to this being a list of games?

Personally, I would prefer a different format altogether. Ideally, I would have written summaries of each of the currently included lists (and perhaps others) that focus on how the list was put together rather than the games on them. The list of games could then be removed entirely. My support for the List of films voted the best format is based on it being similar to that suggestion, though I don't like how it requires lists to be voted on, and to have picked a specific no#1.

If there's not enough support for removing the list of games, then I think @TompaDompa's first suggestion above offers a path for keeping it. IlmeniAVG (talk) 16:17, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

• My main position, on which I am not willing to compromise, is that the status quo cannot stand (for reasons that have been outlined at length already). I see a few different ways forward, which I'll list in my order of preference. These are not necessarily mutually exclusive, inasmuch as it is possible to have multiple parallel articles on related topics (compare e.g. List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita, List of countries by GDP (nominal) per capita, List of countries by GDP (PPP) per person employed and so on).

  1. Adopt the methodology used by List of films voted the best, and use the title List of video games voted the best. The source lists for this would overlap with the current ones, but a number of source lists that qualify under the current approach would not qualify under the new approach, as well as vice versa.

  2. Make the article about the lists themselves rather than the games on them, as suggested by IlmeniAVG. Call it Lists of best video games, perhaps.

  3. Adopt either of my two compromise suggestions above: (A) List of video games appearing on "best of"-lists with every single game that has appeared on any of the source lists, or (B) List of video games widely considered among the best with games that appear on a majority of the lists. These actually are mutually exclusive: if (A) is valid then (B) is a WP:SYNTH violation, and if (B) is valid then (A) is a WP:DUEWEIGHT violation.

TompaDompa (talk) 19:05, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

• I generally agree with Andrzejbanas's position, as well as Shooterwalker's, which they have expounded at length. I agree with a title change, my preferred choice being "List of video games listed among the best", which removes the ambiguity of "considered". As long as articles that link to the page report only what is objectively true, i.e., that multiple publications have listed (x) game as one of the best of all time, then I see no real problem. Strong oppose to inaccurate titles such as "List of games voted the best" and all the WP:POV and WP:OR that would bring. A "list of lists" approach like what IlmeniAVG has proposed is doable, but also essentially makes it a different topic altogether, given that it omits what is the main point of interest of such lists, that being the games they list; it feels analogous to making a page about hall-of-fame inductees and then not listing the inductees. At any rate, a sentence or two describing each source is not mutually exclusive with a list of games; we could simply expand the Sources section to do that. Phediuk (talk) 19:53, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

• I haven't participated in this because I don't think this is the right venue. But I've stated my beliefs at length on the talk page before, which is the correct place for this (as any inter-user dispute is secondary), and don't agree with the objections and think that the status quo is fine. I'm also opposed to the recent page move (which is what caused me to stop by), as formal WP:RMs have been filed before inviting community input that weren't DRs that did not come to that conclusion. It's not a huge deal but it's not good practice to not involve the wider community.
• More generally, my thoughts are this. There are lots of ways to possibly do this article. Some changes are the equivalent of picking vanilla ice cream or chocolate ice cream - both are valid, but it's not like one of them is "correct" and the other "wrong". It's understood some people want to switch flavors, but this will just annoy the people who want the other flavor; it's not a simple win. Other changes are akin to vanilla ice cream vs. poison, and many of the requests have been akin to that in the past. These are non-negotiable: we can't do things the bad way.
• The recent move made the archives unsearchable, but I laid out my stance at some length before. The key question is if, in an article on a media property, it is OR or not to say that the piece of media has been considered among the best and cite reliable sources that indeed list it as the best. The answer, to me, is clearly yes, if the sourcing backs it. Once that is allowed, then it's allowed to move that same referenced sentence to another article. And it's okay to change "XYZ is considered one of the best games by media critics" into a table entry which is just the same sentence repeated over and over: "This game is considered one of the best games by media critics." We can debate around the edges, but the approach is fundamentally sound. And if it's not sound, then it's basically a statement that the way criticism is covered should only be strictly quotes and "person A said this on date B". Which is one style, but that's not what Wikipedia actually adopts. SnowFire (talk) 09:35, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

  Snowfire, feel free to revert if you think the move should more appropriately go through a requested move. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 09:41, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

  I moved the talk page archives to the new title, so they are now searchable again. Phediuk (talk) 14:20, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

  Snowfire is correct about how Wikipedia articles work. Once you have multiple reliable sources to verify a statement, you simply summarize that statement. Or if we're more cautious, we say "multiple sources have made this statement". Going beyond a summary -- introducing our own criticism, analysis, or weighting -- is WP:OR. (And I continue to criticize our WP:OR weighting of "at least six sources".)

  This article could be written as a series of bullet points:

  • Sources have considered X one of the best video games
  • Sources have considered Y one of the best video games
  • Sources have considered Z one of the best video games

  ... Turning it into a table just makes it more concise and readable: "sources have considered the video games among the best: x, y, z..." My criticisms of the weighting/filtering aside, Snowfire is right about how we write Wikipedia articles. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:17, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

  The key question is if, in an article on a media property, it is OR or not to say that the piece of media has been considered among the best and cite reliable sources that indeed list it as the best. This framing is half-right. Whether it is WP:OR-compliant is only one of the key questions. Is it WP:YESPOV-compliant to state it in WP:WikiVoice without further qualifiers or attribution? Is it WP:DUE? As a somewhat-extreme hypothetical example, if a game is considered among the best by some sources and among the worst by other sources, we can't just say "This game is considered one of the best games by media critics."—not because it would be WP:Original research, but because it would be counter to WP:NPOV. It is also important to remember that what is WP:DUE in one context can be WP:UNDUE in another—it is not at all necessarily the case that what would be WP:DUE in an article on a media property would be WP:DUE in an article that covers that kind of media property more broadly. Summarizing sources on a specific game and summarizing sources on games in general might result in rather different results.

  The plain reading of "This game is considered one of the best games by media critics." is as a statement of some degree of critical consensus. Are we saying that this list reflects critical consensus (or is supposed to)? If that's the case, it is very obviously misrepresenting that critical consensus by overemphasizing minority viewpoints. TompaDompa (talk) 17:57, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

  "Sources have considered X one of the best video games" is fine. (Or "Multiple sources..." if we're being more careful.) I dislike your phrasing of "this game is considered one of the best games by media critics" for the reason you suggested. While it's not wrong, it's misleading enough to correct it, not remove it.

  We can find a phrasing that is careful without being pedantic. I strongly disagree with turning Wikipedia into a project where we attribute every statement in-line, instead of just using a citation. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:33, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

  "This game is considered one of the best games by media critics." wasn't my phrasing but SnowFire's; your proposed phrasing of "Sources have considered X one of the best video games" is also one whose plain reading is as a statement of some degree of critical consensus, so it does not resolve the issue. I don't think anybody has suggested turning Wikipedia into a project where we attribute every statement in-line, instead of just using a citation, but WP:YESPOV explicitly states that opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. If it is justified to describe opinions such as (in this case) a game being considered one of the best as widespread then we can do so, but otherwise it needs to be attributed WP:INTEXT per existing non-negotiable policy. The article under discussion does not abide by this requirement. TompaDompa (talk) 18:50, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

  "Multiple sources say..." is attribution, especially when you add the citation (see our policy on WP:CITEBUNDLE). We can nitpick the exact phrasing ("Multiple rankings of the best games have said..."), but it's not a pretence for removing reliably sourced information. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:06, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

  "Multiple sources say..." is attribution, yes. Specifically, it is a WP:VAGUEATTRIBUTION that is only acceptable per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV inasmuch as it is a statement of some degree of consensus among sources, i.e. only if it is the equivalent of saying that the view is widespread (or similar). Note how WP:YESPOV says attributed in the text to particular sources—both "in the text" and "particular sources" are relevant here. TompaDompa (talk) 19:58, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

• Thanks for everyone for replying. It's made it more clear where I believe people are standing so far. I think only @Rollinginhisgrave: has not given a full reply yet. So I think we should for them. I know earlier they had said they were on the fence of stepping away from the conversation, but I figured I'd reach out to see if they want to state where they are on the status of everything. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:02, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

  IlmeniAVG's list of lists described earlier sounded the most inclusive of sources with the least risk of OR and the best application of MOS:DATED. I'm really up for anything in the right direction. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 15:09, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

  If you could phrase this in your own words, this would be more helpful for everyone to see where you are coming from, I can't really parse the what or why you thought of here. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:20, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

  The proposal to write about the sources/lists would transform this into an essay. Editors build Wikipedia by summarizing the sources. We don't WP:SYNTHesize them into a new format invented by a few editors. I'm looking for common ground, such as accepting a rename that I don't fully agree with. But people are getting too creative about new ideas and formats, when countless examples like list of prequels or List of police television dramas are Wikipedia's norm. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:36, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

  Agreed with both of Shooterwalker's points above; the lists are clearly about games, not lists. I also agree with the notion that one of the main purposes of a list page is to avoid the repetition of stuff such as "Game 1 was named by source 2 as one of the best of all time. It was also named by source 3 as one of the best of all time. It was also named by source 4 as one of the best of all time", and so on. Furthermore, WP:LISTOFLISTS is clear that each entry in a "list of lists" should be bluelinked. Since these lists are not (with the exception of 1001 Games), then if we summarize each source on the page itself with a brief description (and I would be fine with this; we could simply expand the Sources section), those summaries must be part of "list of games" page itself, and not their own page. Phediuk (talk) 18:27, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

  I think you may have misunderstood IlmeniAVG's suggestion: the idea, as I understand it, is not that the source lists are "about lists" (I'm not even sure what that would mean), but that our article could be about the source lists themselves rather than the games that are listed within them. I'm not sure where WP:LISTOFLISTS enters into the picture here; that's about Wikipedia lists whose entries are other Wikipedia lists, e.g. Lists of sovereign states and dependent territories whose entries include List of countries and dependencies by population, List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita, and List of countries that have gained independence from the United Kingdom. TompaDompa (talk) 18:38, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

  WP:LISTOFLISTS does not say it doesn't apply to things that aren't Wikipedia lists; it says the opposite, that any list of lists must consist of lists that are Wikipedia articles. It says, explicitly, "the links in a 'lists of lists' should be active (blue, not red)." List of top book lists, for instance, does, indeed, include only lists with their own WP articles, saying explicitly, "This article enumerates some lists for which there are fuller articles." Phediuk (talk) 19:11, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

  Again with the reading comprehension. On lists of lists, nonexistent lists should not be included. That is, all the links in a "lists of lists" should be active (blue, not red). That is, a "nonexistent" list in this context is the same thing as a WP:REDLINK. A "list of lists", in Wikipedia-specific parlance, is a "list article of list articles" (see the essay WP:Lists of lists for further information). I daresay your reading makes the meaning of the quoted passage (specifically, "nonexistent lists") nonsensical. If you still believe WP:LISTOFLISTS is a prohibition against list articles whose entries are Wikipedia-external lists unless those Wikipedia-external lists also have stand-alone Wikipedia articles, by all means raise that at interpretation at Wikipedia talk:Stand-alone lists and see if it enjoys consensus (and please ping me there if you do). TompaDompa (talk) 19:58, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

  I ask that you provide an example of an article of the "List of lists" format that links to existent lists that are not themselves bluelinked. A search of List of lists of lists indicates that every linked entry on every page is at least intended to be bluelinked. There is no page where links to non-bluelinked lists are the norm, as would be the case on a "List of best-games lists". If you know of any lists-of-lists that are not on that page that would be relevant here, please provide one. Phediuk (talk) 21:20, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

  What are you talking about? IlmeniAVG's suggestion, the hypothetical "List of best-games lists" or Lists of best video games, would not be a "list of lists" in the sense of a "list article of list articles", which is the entire point. TompaDompa (talk) 21:40, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

  Correct, such a "list of lists" would not be a "list article of list articles", but this is the point. I ask you to provide me an example of a "list of lists" article that isn't one of those, and is therefore not bound by WP:LISTOFLISTS; if they exist, then examples should not be hard to find. I cannot yet find a single example of an article with a title beginning with the word "Lists" (or phrased as "List of (x) lists") that links to existent lists that are not bluelinked. You can peruse List of lists of lists for yourself, or locate an example that isn't there. Can you provide one? Phediuk (talk) 23:58, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

  I have no idea why you think I should play fetch for you or what this is supposed to prove, and am unable to parse what you mean by links to existent lists that are not bluelinked (do you believe list entries must necessarily be formatted as links?). Anyway, List of astronomical catalogues is a list article whose subjects are lists, but is not a list article of list articles. For that matter, something like List of city nicknames in California is a list article for which the entries are lists (sometimes containing only one entry) of the nicknames for each individual city—i.e. it doesn't link to a List of nicknames for Los Angeles article, it includes a list of nicknames for Los Angeles as a list entry. Having a list article whose entries are Wikipedia-external lists is really no stranger than having a list article whose entries are e.g. books. Inasmuch as a bibliography is a form of list, List of bibliographies of works on Catullus (a WP:Featured list) is a list article whose entries are lists, but is not a list article of list articles. TompaDompa (talk) 00:42, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

  The vast majority of the astronomical catalogues that are cited on that page are bluelinked. The rest seems to have undergone minimal oversight, hence why the non-bluelinked entries (which are huge in number) are almost entirely without citations at all, meaning very few are cited to an external list. Not a great example, and, at any rate, a far cry away from linking to an external list for every entry, as would be the case on a "List of best-games lists" article. The city nicknames list provides the entire list within the article itself, and therefore does not link to non-bluelinked lists. The original point here was that I am favor of including descriptions of the sources in the same page as the list, rather than making a "list of lists". Phediuk (talk) 01:16, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

  Clearly, we are not understanding each other. IlmeniAVG}'s suggestion, as I understand it, was to have a list article where each entry summarizes one of the source lists (one entry summarizing GQ's "The 100 greatest video games of all time, ranked by experts" list, and so on). I still do not understand why you brought up WP:LISTOFLISTS in response to this. I also do not understand what exactly it is you mean by phrases such as "links to existent lists that are not themselves bluelinked", "links to non-bluelinked lists", and "linking to an external list for every entry", and my best guess at this point is that you are using "link" to variously mean "link to another Wikipedia article" and "cite to an external source". Could you clarify? The original point here was that I am favor of including descriptions of the sources in the same page as the list, rather than making a "list of lists". If I'm parsing this correctly it sounds like being in favour of the proposed "List of best-games lists" or Lists of best video games, and bring up WP:LISTOFLISTS for no clear reason. TompaDompa (talk) 05:44, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

  That is what I'm suggesting, yes: an article about the source lists themselves. It would read similarly to List of films voted the best, but allow for lists that didn't pick a specific no#1 to be summarised as well. IlmeniAVG (talk) 18:49, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

  I would be fine with that; one of the major advantages of such an approach is that it would (likely) dissuade hyperlink misuse. TompaDompa (talk) 18:52, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

  I'll let IlmeniAVG explain their idea better than I can. But I will say that this is not a list about games, but opinions. It is the opinion of IGN that this game, these games are the best. When we write reception sections, even though sources are talking about games, we frame it as "Joe Schmo from IGN liked". Are reception sections now SYNTHESIS? Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 21:36, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

I've tried to summarize the points people have made my last request here. I apologize if I had misunderstood anyone's suggestions. I've placed a number down next to them when what I read as common point between editors emerged.

1. "List of games voted the best" is not ideal [1]
2. "List of video games that appears on best-of lists" is a more apt title for the current form. [2]
3. "List of video games listed among the best" as an alternative title, as it removes the ambiguity of the term "considered" [1]
   • Remove an arbitrary amount of times an item has to appear on a list.
4. A new intro should explain the content of the article a bit better [1]
5. Content should contain written summaries of each list. [1]
   • One user suggested that doing this would transform this into an essay and be against WP:SYNTH as it would
6. The list should be removed entirely [1]
7. Should be formatted like "List of films voted the best" [2],
   • This would eliminate some of the sources used as they were not determined from voting.
   • Users have suggested that this brings in issues of WP:POV] and WP:OR, without specifically stating why [1]
8. Changing the list as it currently as it currently stands is unacceptable [1]
9. Moving the current page has made archival talk material for the page inaccessible. [1]

That being said, the title has already been moved to "List of video games listed among the best." since this conversation started. I've brough up my specifics with each of these. Its easier to probably references them by their numbers. These aren't hard "yes/no" votes, but ideas on what makes it a better idea, or what makes it worse.

My follow-ups (Andrzejbanas)

1. This would require a step-by-step removal of some items from the list. I'm not sure why "voted" is superior to any other best-of list, so I'm not sure how this makes the lists better other than other lists have presented it this way. None of these lists are quite as prominent as lets say The Sight & Sound Greatest Films of All Time 2012 or The Sight and Sound Greatest Films of All Time 2022 so I'm unconvinced its a solid measuring stick for the medium.
2. This "appearing on best-of" lists is a more accurate depiction of what is currently displayed, and a better placeholder to solve one of a few problems people have.
3. "List of video games listed among the best" feels more oddly phrased than the previous list.
   • I agree that there should be no attribution to how many times it should appear on a list. There have been discussions on ranging whether this should be lowered from numbers ranging from 1-3. I'm leaning towards 1 or 2. As for this making the lists "longer", I do not see a problem with this.
4. I do think an expanded upon intro is required. I did not mind @Phediuk's write-up, but I think it needs fine-tuning, which I have not had time to focus on.
5. As for "content should have written summaries from a list" I think we'd need to see how this would look. If an example could be shown of what this may or may not look like, it would be easier for us to understand what this may be and how it does improve or not improve the list.
   • I'd need to see an example of what this may look like before yay-ing or nay-ing this idea.
6. Removing the list in its current form requires some sort of explanation of "best" games. So we'd have to see some example of this to see what we are getting at.
7. Changing the list to games voted the best, is a far bigger task. Some lists remain inaccessible and I'm still not sure why this is better per my reasoning in point 1.
   • Not sure how summarizing a list is synth. I believe its premature to imply this without seeing what an example of it might look like.
   • I would need to see what specifically is what and how here to understand this POV.
8. Changing the list basically is required moving forward. even if its only changed in increments bit by bit to get some better term. As it was listed as "list of video games considered the best" it ignored the plethora of ways this could be determined. The reason why there were several edits and over a dozen talk page discussions even within the past two months about additions or changing the rules suggests that users were surprised by the content they were trying to find in the article per WP:SURPRISE, they shouldn't be.
9. I think regardless of how we move the list or change re-directs depending on what the article remains, its easy to move an archival history of an article to another section without losing much.

I think if we address it point-by-point, without saying yes or no, we can see where the article may be bettered and to stop the current problems it has. IF there are points you think were missed or misinterpreted, please make note and we can bring them back up in another round. Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:30, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

I believe we are making progress here, however slowly. I support expanding the article's lede, and perhaps adding brief descriptions of each source. Would anyone oppose adding source descriptions? I haven't seen any opposition to it. Phediuk (talk) 01:16, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

I just don't see how most of these proposals improve this list's alignment with Wikipedia standards. "List of games voted the best" was rejected unanimously and is unlikely to gain a consensus. I'm open to further renames for clarity, but there's a line that crosses into pedantry without really satisfying people who fundamentally don't like the content of this list. Same thing with tweaking the lead or "adding source descriptions". It's unclear what problem these are trying to solve, let alone what they would look like. Shooterwalker (talk) 04:26, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

That title was rejected as an inaccurate description of the methodology used at the time. TompaDompa (talk) 05:44, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

1. I like the format of List of films voted the best, but the requirement that lists be voted on and to have chosen a specific no#1 doesn't make sense for video games. I propose an article along the lines of, "Attempts at determining the greatest video games", which would remove those restrictions, allowing for unranked lists and lists not voted on to be summarised as well. However, "List of games voted the best" is my second choice because the format solves essentially all of the issues with the current article.

2. This is the best title for the list if the current methodology is to be kept. I don't think the current methodology should be kept, but if it has to be, then this at least communicates what the list is better than any other title.

3. This is less clear than the title suggested in point 2, in my opinion.

- On reflection, I would only be in favour of keeping the current methodology if the number of mentioned were reduced to one.

4. Even among supporters of the current methodology, there doesn't appear to be consensus regarding what the list is. Some believe that it's accurate and policy-compliant to summarise the listed games as being "considered the best" in Wikivoice, while others have conceded that appearing on six "unrestricted" all-time lists is fairly meaningless. Writing an intro that explains the article better, before there's agreement on what the article actually is, will be a difficult task. The article does require a concise explanation, obviously, but I expect this will only further highlight problems with the methodology.

5. I proposed written summaries of each list as a replacement article. In conjunction with the current list of games, I think this will only further highlight how problematic it is to consider each list to have made the same claim about the games listed.

6. I agree that the list of games should be removed entirely.

7. See point 1 above. I like the format of the article, but not the inclusion criteria.

8. Ideally, the list would be removed entirely. If that's not an option, then I would reluctantly accept changing it so that only a single mention is necessary.

9. This issue doesn't interest me enough to comment.

Personally, and as a broader summary, I think the path forward is to get outside help on how a game appearing on multiple best of lists should--and shouldn't--be summarised in prose. This should assist us in deciding what kind of format/methodology/framing is best for this article. IlmeniAVG (talk) 19:01, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Not to spoil the discussion or add more headaches. But on reading Wikipedia:Awards and accolades (while a draft for a policy, it weighs in with the topic at hand), brings up some issues with the topic on the list. I mainly bring up their points that Some editors also treat listicles as awards or accolades. Some list articles in press are notable, but most are not and They suggest lists like Forbes 400 or Forbes 30 Under 30. While we do have articles for some specific awards (i.e: Seumas McNally Grand Prize), the continued debate of what lists are valid or if a vote makes something more worthwhile or not, doesn't really strengthen our argument. As @Shooterwalker:'s previous post has pointed out, most suggestions so far have been WP:OR on what makes them more inline with our guidelines. While I understand the idea of a vote, as that would make it closer to something like The Sight and Sound Greatest Films of All Time 2022, but that exists because it has third party in-depth discussion on the topic, not because it was voted in.

While Phediuk has shown the sources to be reliable, and (while others have doubted that, I do not, as the reception is subjective), I don't see any discussion within video game journalism that suggests these are anything but churnalism. The proposed guidelines suggests Listicles based on subjective attributes (e.g. attractiveness) are unencyclopaedic. As Pheldiuk states, the article makes no claims on what "best" means, just that its called that, it becomes as useful as video game characters considered the hottest which we could find several sources for (as I have: 1, 2, or alternatively, IGN's the most adorable characters in gaming). Would anyone support the current list suggest that these lists, drawn with similar amount of prose or organization, are as valid within our guidelines?

I'm going to ping @JzG:, the creator of the proposed guideline to weigh in on this topic here as I feel they may have insight to it that may be able to help us out. I hope they don't mind!

So to summarize, I ask the following:

• Are any of the citations we applied in the current article considered notable (i.e: discussed broadly, as if we would write an article about the list itself) from third-parties?
• Is there any source that discusses the topic in a broad strokes (i.e: what is a "best game" what makes a game "the best", is it qualifiable? universal? Problematic?) If so, the article could potentially exist as a topic, even if a list is deemed impossible.

I emphasize the latter, which was an issue that @TompaDompa: brought up with Phediuk's previous draft, that after stating the issues with best, it editorializes that "nonetheless, they are still called the best". TompaDompa is correct in their ascertain of MOS:EDITORIAL here. Any content I've found about best-of lists or listicles, generally finds them a weak way to presume a consensus. I think the continued subjectiveness of the topic and lack of discussion of "best" in games makes it a non-definable characteristic to apply to these kind of works and gives readers little meat to chew on. If best were just a title or a vague name we apply to things, it would be useful like List of people with given name Andrew which is not a subjective trait, I continue to teeter towards that this can't be handled the same way due to the subjectiveness and lack of depth on the topic. Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:47, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

I started Wikipedia:Awards and accolades due to the proliferation of self-sourced industry and other awards with absolutely zero independent coverage, and also the plague of adding listicles in the lede of articles.

I get that Wikipedia has some awesome fan communities. But we are not a fansite. We are here to reflect things according to the significance accorded by independent observers.

The Oscars are 100% notable, and winning one is a Big Deal. I do not believe that communities of Wikipedia editors can conjure significance out of thin air through subject-specific guidelines. We might think that everyone who ever competed in an Olympiad is "inherently notable", but Wikipedia policy does not recognise inherent notability, it is a concept that requires independent evidence in the form of reliable independent secondary sources.

Every year, magazines and websites compile arbitrary lists of the "100 best" this and that. These are of absolutely no merit, encyclopaedically. They are space-fillers for slow news days. My intent for the guideline was to summarise the project's consensus on sourcing, as applied to lists, and especially listcruft. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:32, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

@JzG: Have you any thoughts about what should be done about List of video games listed among the best, specifically? TompaDompa (talk) 16:12, 30 January 2026 (UTC)