To-do list for List of Electronic Arts games:
Priority 3
|
missing ssx games guys 201.241.191.76 07:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Great list. But missing /info/en/?search=Command_%26_Conquer:_Tiberian_Sun — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.153.4.51 ( talk) 19:18, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
I started this list and have a huge list of most of EAs games to add. I'll do it letter by letter. I have to hand edit the list which takes time. You're welcome to add any games yourself, but please note that I don't intend on leaving it as incomplete as it is. You're also welcome to disambiguate/fix any links, as the entries may not match the names for games which we have articles. I try to correct them as I add them, but I'll probably miss quite a few. — Frecklefoot | Talk 14:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Does this have anything to do with EA? I thought it was developed by SquareEnix and published by either them or Sony? Can anyone confirm this. Alexj2002 15:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I have a game by Electronic arts called Small Soldiers (Based off of the Movie). I think you should add it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.128.186.205 ( talk • contribs)
What does everyone think of putting the games in a list like this:
Game | Year | Platforms |
---|---|---|
007: Agent Under Fire | 2001 | GameCube, PlayStation 2, Xbox |
007: Everything or Nothing | 2004 | Game Boy Advance, GameCube, PlayStation 2, Xbox |
007: Nightfire | 2002 | GameCube, PlayStation 2, Xbox |
007 Racing | 2000 | PlayStation |
007: The World is Not Enough | 2000 | Nintendo 64, PlayStation |
1503 A.D.: The New World | 2002 | Windows |
2002 FIFA World Cup | 2002 | GameCube, PlayStation, PlayStation 2, Windows, Xbox |
4-D Boxing | 1991 | DOS, Macintosh |
688 Attack Sub | 1989 | Amiga, DOS, Genesis |
Just for each section. I don't think we should combine all the sections, because that would just make it harder to find specific games by letter. Of course, this is not ideal, since sorting by platforms will be problematic. Thoughts? Suggestions? — Frecklefσσt | Talk 00:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Should iOS releases be added? 2.97.229.116 ( talk) 14:00, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
As I said above before I found my log-in, shouldn't iOS Games be added. Note that I am not saying add iOS, as iOS is quite clearly not an EA thing >_>. Also, why is the key their if 90% of the abbreviations arent used? Kingcjc ( talk) 16:14, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
I want to revive this question since there was so little feedback the last time I brought it up. What does everyone think of putting the games in a list like this:
Game | Year | Platforms |
---|---|---|
007: Agent Under Fire | 2001 | GameCube, PlayStation 2, Xbox |
007: Everything or Nothing | 2004 | Game Boy Advance, GameCube, PlayStation 2, Xbox |
007: Nightfire | 2002 | GameCube, PlayStation 2, Xbox |
007 Racing | 2000 | PlayStation |
007: The World is Not Enough | 2000 | Nintendo 64, PlayStation |
1503 A.D.: The New World | 2002 | Windows |
2002 FIFA World Cup | 2002 | GameCube, PlayStation, PlayStation 2, Windows, Xbox |
4-D Boxing | 1991 | DOS, Macintosh |
688 Attack Sub | 1989 | Amiga, DOS, Genesis |
Just for each section. I don't think we should combine all the sections, because that would just make it harder to find specific games by letter. Of course, the layout above is not ideal, since sorting by platforms will be problematic. Thoughts? Suggestions?
See List of Strategic Simulations, Inc. games for an example where the entire list is in a table. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 15:18, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Correct me if I'm mistaken, but aren't many of the games on this list created by companies prior to being absorbed into Electronic Arts, and therefore shouldn't be on here? 99.8.175.113 ( talk) 02:07, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
How do you add the PlayStation Vita onto the game platform key in this article? Lacon432 ( talk) 03:03, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
There is very little purpose in having the list separated by letter. We can have the table of contents jump to any row within the table, so I will be converting the table to a single, unified one with the first game of each letter having its ID. This will allow for proper sorting by year. Phailhaus ( talk) 00:41, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
As the editor mostly responsible for changing this list from a simple list to a table, and then to a unified table, I once again am making a major change. I'm converting the table from this format:
Name | Year | Platforms | Description |
---|---|---|---|
007: Agent Under Fire | 2001 | GCN, PS2, Xbox | A first-person shooter video game based on the James Bond franchise |
To this format:
Name | Year | Platforms | Description |
---|---|---|---|
007: Agent Under Fire | 2001 | Nintendo GameCube | A first-person shooter based on the James Bond franchise |
PlayStation 2 | |||
Xbox |
The updated multiple-platform version is more useful (it reliably lets users sort by platform, as well as the other columns) and, frankly, it just looks better. The only downside is that it might be a little harder for novices to edit. It will take forever, but feel free to pitch in and help. Thanks! — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 20:03, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on List of Electronic Arts games. 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 08:35, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on List of Electronic Arts games. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:45, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
I am currently editing this list to verify as many of the listed entries as I can find. I have altered the list to make it focused specifically on the versions of titles of which Electronic Arts was the developer or the publisher, as well as those versions' release dates. This makes for a good start. However, I am also wondering how the list should be formatted and what information it should give besides the titles, the years, the platforms, the descriptions, and the references. I need some advice on what lists like this should look like. As you can see with my recent edits here, I am thinking about adding a Legend box that tells the user whether the title is developed by EA or cancelled, but I am also thinking about whether that can be used to replace the Description column. I need some opinions on this. In the meantime, I will keep searching for more reliable sources for this already lengthy list.
For this to be considered quality, how should this list look, besides the needed citations?
Gamingforfun
365
04:01, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
This list is missing information about Block'd. The destroying colored blocks game that was in some of the Nokia S40 mobile phones, like the Nokia Cseries and some 2009 Flip phones. PedroLucasDBr ( talk) 02:17, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
I think we need to stop and take a look at what sources we are using.
Having just returned to this list to edit and verify its contents, I see that more than 100 references have been added to this list since my last edit as of this post, and that I can say is good. However, when I look at the references, with regards to the new sources, I see a mixture of reliable and unreliable sources, as well as databases. I see 26 references to MobyGames, which the Video games WikiProject highly recommends against. I also see sources like N4G (also unrecommended) and AppAdvice, which I think is a reader's typical tabloid-esque website with mediocre credentials, as well as a lack of awards and recognitions from third-party reliable sources.
There are also plenty of sources to databases such as on IGN, and I think of it as pitiful when we could instead be using news articles or press releases. I also see plenty of Electronic Arts primary sources. I am actually fine with the sources being primary, but I will caution that for titles that are not notable enough to have a Wikipedia article, they will probably need a secondary source instead. In this case, I certainly would not mind for titles like EA Star Wars Battlefront, for obvious reasons, but for titles with red links, I would prefer secondary sources to prove that they exist or have existed.
I am sorry if all of this sounds like my ranting, but the sources do need to be replaced, and there are not nearly one hundred of them, so it is not that hard.
Gamingforfun
365
00:21, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
It has been shown that the list is long and bulky, and there is evidence that it is only going to continue to expand. It may be time to split the article into two. Opinions? GaɱingFørFuɲ 365 04:15, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
i recommend splitting the games into categories like developed by EA, published by EA, and games released by EA but not published or developed by EA, and if games are developed and published by EA it would just go into the developed section, this is just my thought, and the reason i say these categories is because when i look up games that are developed by EA i get this page, and you cant really see which games EA developed themselves unless you go through the whole page, and i'm guessing other people search that way also, at least when i look up game companies, what to see what games they actually made instead of what their name is on, then i can look for games made by the same people instead of who published it, because usually the publisher doesn't help make the game they just fund it, its like art, if i want to see what art someone has made i can, but it would suck if they showed all the art they sold even if they didn't make it. ARKNIGHT89 ( talk) 18:18, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
Well this is stupid. This is an excellent example of "Just because you CAN do something doesn't mean you SHOULD." Separating the comprehensive list by alpha is fine if readers already know all of the titles and only need to get information referenced by title. But making separate lists by alpha makes all of the other data meaningless as a part of a list. I can compare a title that begins with "C" to a title that begins with "E" but if I want to compare, say, John Madden Football to Touchdown Football, I've got to look on two separate pages. How many sports titles did EA release before 1990? When did EA stop writing for DOS? How many games for Windows did EA release in 2003? With a comprehensive list, I can sort by the parameter of interest and get the answer. Since the full list has been chopped up by alpha, now the answer is found by sorting NINE SEPARATE LISTS. What rocket surgeon thought that was a good idea? Look, this is Wikipedia. It's an electronic medium. Here in the 21st century we can hyperlink to anywhere in a list. You don't need to print things out on paper, and the length of the list doesn't matter. Look at the thousands of other lists on WP and see how they are organized. Heck, look at the list of titles published by Activision or Ubisoft. There are zero other lists on WP that are divided up over multiple pages by alphabetical selection. There are lists of, say, all Roman Catholic Popes by century, and of all Roman Catholic Popes by name, and of all Roman Catholic popes by country, but there aren't any pages of Popes with names beginning with L. There aren't any pages like that, because it isn't useful information. The list should be comprehensive and contiguous. If you feel that it's too hard to find the information you are looking for, then perhaps you need practice with the alphabet. Pcress ( talk) 20:54, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
To-do list for List of Electronic Arts games:
Priority 3
|
missing ssx games guys 201.241.191.76 07:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Great list. But missing /info/en/?search=Command_%26_Conquer:_Tiberian_Sun — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.153.4.51 ( talk) 19:18, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
I started this list and have a huge list of most of EAs games to add. I'll do it letter by letter. I have to hand edit the list which takes time. You're welcome to add any games yourself, but please note that I don't intend on leaving it as incomplete as it is. You're also welcome to disambiguate/fix any links, as the entries may not match the names for games which we have articles. I try to correct them as I add them, but I'll probably miss quite a few. — Frecklefoot | Talk 14:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Does this have anything to do with EA? I thought it was developed by SquareEnix and published by either them or Sony? Can anyone confirm this. Alexj2002 15:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I have a game by Electronic arts called Small Soldiers (Based off of the Movie). I think you should add it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.128.186.205 ( talk • contribs)
What does everyone think of putting the games in a list like this:
Game | Year | Platforms |
---|---|---|
007: Agent Under Fire | 2001 | GameCube, PlayStation 2, Xbox |
007: Everything or Nothing | 2004 | Game Boy Advance, GameCube, PlayStation 2, Xbox |
007: Nightfire | 2002 | GameCube, PlayStation 2, Xbox |
007 Racing | 2000 | PlayStation |
007: The World is Not Enough | 2000 | Nintendo 64, PlayStation |
1503 A.D.: The New World | 2002 | Windows |
2002 FIFA World Cup | 2002 | GameCube, PlayStation, PlayStation 2, Windows, Xbox |
4-D Boxing | 1991 | DOS, Macintosh |
688 Attack Sub | 1989 | Amiga, DOS, Genesis |
Just for each section. I don't think we should combine all the sections, because that would just make it harder to find specific games by letter. Of course, this is not ideal, since sorting by platforms will be problematic. Thoughts? Suggestions? — Frecklefσσt | Talk 00:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Should iOS releases be added? 2.97.229.116 ( talk) 14:00, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
As I said above before I found my log-in, shouldn't iOS Games be added. Note that I am not saying add iOS, as iOS is quite clearly not an EA thing >_>. Also, why is the key their if 90% of the abbreviations arent used? Kingcjc ( talk) 16:14, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
I want to revive this question since there was so little feedback the last time I brought it up. What does everyone think of putting the games in a list like this:
Game | Year | Platforms |
---|---|---|
007: Agent Under Fire | 2001 | GameCube, PlayStation 2, Xbox |
007: Everything or Nothing | 2004 | Game Boy Advance, GameCube, PlayStation 2, Xbox |
007: Nightfire | 2002 | GameCube, PlayStation 2, Xbox |
007 Racing | 2000 | PlayStation |
007: The World is Not Enough | 2000 | Nintendo 64, PlayStation |
1503 A.D.: The New World | 2002 | Windows |
2002 FIFA World Cup | 2002 | GameCube, PlayStation, PlayStation 2, Windows, Xbox |
4-D Boxing | 1991 | DOS, Macintosh |
688 Attack Sub | 1989 | Amiga, DOS, Genesis |
Just for each section. I don't think we should combine all the sections, because that would just make it harder to find specific games by letter. Of course, the layout above is not ideal, since sorting by platforms will be problematic. Thoughts? Suggestions?
See List of Strategic Simulations, Inc. games for an example where the entire list is in a table. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 15:18, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Correct me if I'm mistaken, but aren't many of the games on this list created by companies prior to being absorbed into Electronic Arts, and therefore shouldn't be on here? 99.8.175.113 ( talk) 02:07, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
How do you add the PlayStation Vita onto the game platform key in this article? Lacon432 ( talk) 03:03, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
There is very little purpose in having the list separated by letter. We can have the table of contents jump to any row within the table, so I will be converting the table to a single, unified one with the first game of each letter having its ID. This will allow for proper sorting by year. Phailhaus ( talk) 00:41, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
As the editor mostly responsible for changing this list from a simple list to a table, and then to a unified table, I once again am making a major change. I'm converting the table from this format:
Name | Year | Platforms | Description |
---|---|---|---|
007: Agent Under Fire | 2001 | GCN, PS2, Xbox | A first-person shooter video game based on the James Bond franchise |
To this format:
Name | Year | Platforms | Description |
---|---|---|---|
007: Agent Under Fire | 2001 | Nintendo GameCube | A first-person shooter based on the James Bond franchise |
PlayStation 2 | |||
Xbox |
The updated multiple-platform version is more useful (it reliably lets users sort by platform, as well as the other columns) and, frankly, it just looks better. The only downside is that it might be a little harder for novices to edit. It will take forever, but feel free to pitch in and help. Thanks! — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 20:03, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on List of Electronic Arts games. 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 08:35, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on List of Electronic Arts games. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:45, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
I am currently editing this list to verify as many of the listed entries as I can find. I have altered the list to make it focused specifically on the versions of titles of which Electronic Arts was the developer or the publisher, as well as those versions' release dates. This makes for a good start. However, I am also wondering how the list should be formatted and what information it should give besides the titles, the years, the platforms, the descriptions, and the references. I need some advice on what lists like this should look like. As you can see with my recent edits here, I am thinking about adding a Legend box that tells the user whether the title is developed by EA or cancelled, but I am also thinking about whether that can be used to replace the Description column. I need some opinions on this. In the meantime, I will keep searching for more reliable sources for this already lengthy list.
For this to be considered quality, how should this list look, besides the needed citations?
Gamingforfun
365
04:01, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
This list is missing information about Block'd. The destroying colored blocks game that was in some of the Nokia S40 mobile phones, like the Nokia Cseries and some 2009 Flip phones. PedroLucasDBr ( talk) 02:17, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
I think we need to stop and take a look at what sources we are using.
Having just returned to this list to edit and verify its contents, I see that more than 100 references have been added to this list since my last edit as of this post, and that I can say is good. However, when I look at the references, with regards to the new sources, I see a mixture of reliable and unreliable sources, as well as databases. I see 26 references to MobyGames, which the Video games WikiProject highly recommends against. I also see sources like N4G (also unrecommended) and AppAdvice, which I think is a reader's typical tabloid-esque website with mediocre credentials, as well as a lack of awards and recognitions from third-party reliable sources.
There are also plenty of sources to databases such as on IGN, and I think of it as pitiful when we could instead be using news articles or press releases. I also see plenty of Electronic Arts primary sources. I am actually fine with the sources being primary, but I will caution that for titles that are not notable enough to have a Wikipedia article, they will probably need a secondary source instead. In this case, I certainly would not mind for titles like EA Star Wars Battlefront, for obvious reasons, but for titles with red links, I would prefer secondary sources to prove that they exist or have existed.
I am sorry if all of this sounds like my ranting, but the sources do need to be replaced, and there are not nearly one hundred of them, so it is not that hard.
Gamingforfun
365
00:21, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
It has been shown that the list is long and bulky, and there is evidence that it is only going to continue to expand. It may be time to split the article into two. Opinions? GaɱingFørFuɲ 365 04:15, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
i recommend splitting the games into categories like developed by EA, published by EA, and games released by EA but not published or developed by EA, and if games are developed and published by EA it would just go into the developed section, this is just my thought, and the reason i say these categories is because when i look up games that are developed by EA i get this page, and you cant really see which games EA developed themselves unless you go through the whole page, and i'm guessing other people search that way also, at least when i look up game companies, what to see what games they actually made instead of what their name is on, then i can look for games made by the same people instead of who published it, because usually the publisher doesn't help make the game they just fund it, its like art, if i want to see what art someone has made i can, but it would suck if they showed all the art they sold even if they didn't make it. ARKNIGHT89 ( talk) 18:18, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
Well this is stupid. This is an excellent example of "Just because you CAN do something doesn't mean you SHOULD." Separating the comprehensive list by alpha is fine if readers already know all of the titles and only need to get information referenced by title. But making separate lists by alpha makes all of the other data meaningless as a part of a list. I can compare a title that begins with "C" to a title that begins with "E" but if I want to compare, say, John Madden Football to Touchdown Football, I've got to look on two separate pages. How many sports titles did EA release before 1990? When did EA stop writing for DOS? How many games for Windows did EA release in 2003? With a comprehensive list, I can sort by the parameter of interest and get the answer. Since the full list has been chopped up by alpha, now the answer is found by sorting NINE SEPARATE LISTS. What rocket surgeon thought that was a good idea? Look, this is Wikipedia. It's an electronic medium. Here in the 21st century we can hyperlink to anywhere in a list. You don't need to print things out on paper, and the length of the list doesn't matter. Look at the thousands of other lists on WP and see how they are organized. Heck, look at the list of titles published by Activision or Ubisoft. There are zero other lists on WP that are divided up over multiple pages by alphabetical selection. There are lists of, say, all Roman Catholic Popes by century, and of all Roman Catholic Popes by name, and of all Roman Catholic popes by country, but there aren't any pages of Popes with names beginning with L. There aren't any pages like that, because it isn't useful information. The list should be comprehensive and contiguous. If you feel that it's too hard to find the information you are looking for, then perhaps you need practice with the alphabet. Pcress ( talk) 20:54, 14 January 2020 (UTC)