Talk:Video games as an art form
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Video games as an art form article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find video game sources: "Video games as an art form" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk |
Archives: Index, 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 180 days  |
_%22BIG_GOMEZ%22.svg)
 | A former version of this Wikipedia article has been cited in an academic work: Tutt, Andrew (15 November 2012). "Software Speech". Stan. L. Rev. Online. 65: 73. |
2022[edit]
In 2022, two prominent student-run newspapers published articles taking the position that video games are art; The Miscellany News,[1] and The Queen's Journal.[2] --2001:1C06:19C9:400:D411:F23A:A538:40CA (talk) 21:49, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- Maybe also Collegiate Times.[3] --2001:1C06:19C9:400:D411:F23A:A538:40CA (talk) 21:58, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
References
- ^ Cooke, Justyn (7 September 2022). "Video games are art, and I'm not sure if that's still controversial". The Miscellany News. Retrieved 27 January 2023.
- ^ Wrixon, Ben (4 March 2022). "Video games are art, too". The Queen's Journal. Retrieved 27 January 2023.
- ^ Coghlan, Liam (4 April 2022). "Video games: The new age of art". Collegiate Times. Retrieved 27 January 2023.
Moriarty[edit]
I can’t find Gage’s criticism of Moriarty and we should maybe note that Moriarty has backed down from his statements with more recent articles. 2603:6010:11F0:3C0:9C91:9750:853D:2CB0 (talk) 12:48, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
Talk page archival issue[edit]
 | This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
This Talk page has an archival issue that I'm unable to tackle myself. There is no archives box, even though a bot is archiving to Talk:Video games as an art form/Archives/1. I'm not sure why there isn't. Maybe the template is missing completely, and/or maybe the "ClueBot III/ArchiveThis" template that is used has an incorrect archiveprefix ("Talk:Art game/Archives/"). Either way, can someone add the archives box. And maybe we can figure out why there isn't one, to prevent the same problem on other Talk pages. Thanks. --2001:1C06:19CA:D600:6050:8C06:DA00:38A7 (talk) 11:53, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
- It has been set up in a non-standard format which is causing the archive links to not show. I have fixed the issue. If you want more help, change the {{help me-helped}} back into a {{help me}}, stop by the Teahouse, or Wikipedia's live help channel, or the help desk to ask someone for assistance. Primefac (talk) 12:26, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for fixing it. --2001:1C06:19CA:D600:6050:8C06:DA00:38A7 (talk) 12:57, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
No examples whatsoever?[edit]
From what I can tell, the article has no examples whatsoever. Not even a couple of games with a bunch of refs, that some critics have called these artistic. Back in the day, the article included a list, but that was moved to a separate list article, which was then deleted. Quite frankly, including no examples whatsoever is ridiculous. Surely one reliable source somewhere has called at least one game at least somewhat artistic. How do we manage to create such stupid articles. --2001:1C06:19CA:D600:6050:8C06:DA00:38A7 (talk) 12:01, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
- Imagine you needed to provide “examples” of people claiming that painting is art, or that literature is art. It makes no sense.
- This entire article is that. It’s nonsense created by people using Wikipedia to hash out their emotional validation. And that group is so large that this page hasn’t been deleted.
- First sentence is blatantly false fluff: “commonly debated in the entertainment industry.” It’s not discussed in “the industry” it’s discussed in surrounding conversation, by randos, and by editorialists. Somebody made up that “in the entertainment industry”
- Because they were flailing around trying to justify the “topic.” It’s a gigantic weasel word tornado: hotly discussed in [random word] [INDUSTRY].
- Yet the article still stands despite being an embarrassment to Wikipedia. RandomEditor6772314 (talk) 04:03, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
Wiki Education assignment: Plagues and People[edit]
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 August 2023 and 11 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): DianaDuran36 (article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by DianaDuran36 (talk) 17:58, 2 September 2023 (UTC)