Talk:E3 2011

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Removed info about new Xbox[edit]

EA has denied the rumors about new Xbox on E3. Source: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2011-05-06-ea-new-xbox-rumours-total-fabrication —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.29.161.70 (talk) 10:28, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GTA V[edit]

There's no source to say that GTA V has been confirmed by Take Two.

It's not been listed on the IGN link, so I'm pretty sure someone's put it there as an assumption. There's been no Grand Theft Auto confirmation as of yet, and if there has then there should be a source link. I've removed GTA V from the list, but anyone can feel free to correct me. 2.25.122.253 (talk) 16:39, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Minecraft[edit]

I think I heard that Minecraft is going to be at E3 also. http://kotaku.com/5805149/minecraft-mobile-getting-e3-outing/, http://www.finallevel.co.uk/2011/05/03/minecraft-sets-for-e3/, http://getandroidstuff.com/minecraft-debut-xperia-play-e3-watch-video-preview/, http://www.moddb.com/games/minecraft/news/minecraft-activities-on-e3. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.26.100.247 (talk) 03:52, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could Minecraft (an tndependent game developed by an independent company) be considered notable? 66.59.49.88 (talk) 16:30, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mojang were there, but they did not show off anything of substance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thevas (talk • contribs) 10:50, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Mojang should be notable despite the many games listed. It at least deserves a mention in the article. Not being a very large company doesn't mean it shouldn't be mentioned. Also, off-topic, I suggest that next time, try to indent your post. --Longbyte1 (talk) 04:11, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently 2 538 788 preorders for the game, and it's still in beta. That, I think, makes it a notable game. And Minecraft for the Xbox 360 (Kinect?) was announced/showcased, that is a pretty big thing. 83.233.121.239 (talk) 15:27, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sony Conference[edit]

Really? "The conference was delayed by 16 minutes"? Do you seriously that's notable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thevas (talk • contribs) 10:49, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion/exclusion criteria[edit]

By what criteria are some exhibitors and games deemed notable for inclusion on these lists? Is there any grounds for inclusion, or is it merely opinion of editors? What tells me whether another exhibitor, or another game, should or should not be added? Any verifiable reason, or is it just whim of the editor? Kevin McE (talk) 18:49, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notability:[edit]

The method of determining importance of inclusion of these particular exhibitors and games might be subjective, but to plainly delete an entire section as you have done, twice, is not contributing to the debate of inclusion. Your edits were reverted because deleting as you have done without consensus is paramount to vandalism of an article. Its not entirely difficult to understand what the original posters thought process for inclusion of this section in the article was.

As per the article itself, "E3 is an annual trade show for the computer and video games industry presented by the Entertainment Software Association (ESA)" this means a wide variety of games and authors come to together for this event. If we were to list all games and authors, the list might be too long to justify as a single section in the article, perhaps such a section would be more suitable for a new article. (I think most games presented at the show are in this list! Perhaps you would be happier if the name of the section was re-titled to "games presented at this years trade show" or something else to that effect.)

Directly answering your questions:[edit]

1. By what criteria are some exhibitors and games deemed notable for inclusion on these lists?[edit]

The criteria is notability, and this is a list of "notable games." The only reasoning I can see for you deleting this list is that you don't believe the companies or products listed as being notable.

If you are having troubles understanding why or why not something can be considered notable you should read here: Wikipedia:Notability I might also add that notability can be contextual to the subject of the article.

Contextually, I would assume notability comes down to:

  • size of the production company
  • general popularity of previous titles in a series (popularity based on sales and revenue)
  • media hype etc.

I think the list itself is relatively accurate to the majority of games presented. If you believe something should be included in the list, feel free to add it. However, I cannot see how arguing whether something is or isnt notable is justification for deleting the whole list.

2. Is there any grounds for inclusion, or is it merely opinion of editors?[edit]

Yes, and yes. Think about the size of the company, sales of the series, expected sales of a series, media hype and expectation for release of a title. Personally, there are few games in that list which I have not heard about. It is sometimes difficult to see what is and isn't notable, particularly when a notability determinant is an unknown value such as "expected sales of the series" I'm sure some opinion had to be thrown around, particularly when you consider the phrase "List of "notable" games." The very basis for such a list is a point of view. But again deleting it is not the best answer, adding to its content so that it provides a broader scope and is still easy to read would be much better. Wikipedia pages are designed to be easy to read, and to quickly gain information - the list gives information to those quickly looking to see what major titles were showcased. (again yes, the word "major" is a POV)

3&4. What tells me whether another exhibitor, or another game, should or should not be added? Any verifiable reason, or is it just whim of the editor?[edit]

Kevin McE "(No apparent inclusion/exclusion criteria, even after such being requested at talk. Lists deleted as OR/POV)"

If you are having troubles understanding why or why not something can be considered notable you should read here: Wikipedia:Notability I might also add that notability can be contextual to the subject of the article.

To be frank, most games showcased at the event are in this list.

Extra[edit]

If noone has responded to a question on a talk page does that give you authority to delete a section? If the word "notable" is removed does that mean the list is no longer "OR/POV"? It seems you have an agenda about what should be in the list.
There is a general trend among the E3 pages to present a list of that years "notable games".
Since all titles and producers in this list have their own wikipedia pages they must be notable. (again as per: Wikipedia:Notability) If they are notable enough to have their own pages, does that not put them under the category of "notable featured games"?

I hope I have answered any questions/concerns. :) I may revert your edit since you deleted a section without adequate reasoning - something which might be construed as vandalism. Andrewtss (talk)Andrewtss 14:15, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eliminating edits that appear to be based on POV is not vandalism, especially when there is no defence offered against the suggestion that this is the case. Notability in terms of wikipedia articles is by no means the only definition of the word, nor was it explicit that Wikipedia's article criteria was what was intended in this use of the word. You have still provided no actual criteria. If a company with 5,000 is notable, and a company with 5 is not, what is the cut off? 6, 50, 500, 1000, 2000, 4995? Similar questions could be asked of the other loosely defined thresholds that you suggest. If notability is contextual to the subject of the article, (which seems to contradict your suggestion that Wikipedia's definition of notability holds sway here) then how can most games showcased at the event be notable in terms of the event?
A short list of examples, that makes clear that that is what it is, is one thing; a list that claims to be a comprehensive list of those which are "notable" needs to have some kind of workable definition of "notable", suitable for the context (and therefore not simply "it has an article that has not been AfDed") rather than being a free for all with no grounds to limit the whimsical inclusion of any editor's fancy. Kevin McE (talk) 23:07, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wargaming / WOT[edit]

In case anyone wants to wipe off my recent additions, please provide reasons for it here. Thank you in advance Barvinok (talk) 07:22, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is inclusion that needs to be justified, not exclusion: on the basis of what Reliable Source do you consider these to be valid additions to a list of "notable" exhibitors/games? However, it is rather unfair to ask you that when none of the others have a clear criterion for inclusion. Kevin McE (talk) 09:59, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking particularly of World of Tanks, I guess, having 2+ million active gamers with peak on-line count reaching 160.000+ on each cluster is worth of notability. As well as bringing in the real-life tanks to the event, winning "Best New Concept" award and so on. However, I'm not fluent in PC gaming world so I don't know which of the multitude magazines are authoritative enough on the notability for E3. Barvinok (talk) 11:22, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Modern Warfare 3[edit]

I don't believe it is valid of its own sentence fragment, if you mention that one project release, also mention Halo 4, Halo CE anniversary, youtube, minecraft, and live tv with bing, Call of Duty alone is not needed in that one sentence, I am a new user and cannot change anything currently.

Space Marine[edit]

Any reason Space Marine isn't listed? It was probably THQ's most notable title, with a large display and people in Space Marine costumes wandering around the booth. I'm guessing its exclusion is simply an oversight...? 165.142.249.81 (talk) 05:00, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Jamesdabrit (talk) 04:05, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Electronic Entertainment Expo 2011. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:33, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:E3_2011&oldid=1199968555"