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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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 [1][2][3] and/or pick apart the methodology of the list criteria[4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13]. (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.[14][15].

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

To answer your questions

• For your first question, I feel like some editors would want to push forward with a rename, which I believe was for consistency with similar articles like List of films voted the best. Personally, I don't think it would solve the issue as not all these lists are "voted" some are just lists with no information on how the publications listing was calculated.
• For your second, I don't really have a proposal beyond trying to define what "best" means as the term is a WP:WTW as it is too vague. While some of the lists definitely say "our list of top/best/greatest 50 games" as other editors have pointed out, this isn't like an "Academy Award for Best Cinematography" which is the title given to an award. The list cited either do not define what quality/greatness/best means to them or define their lists in different ways "still fun today" or "influential" or "had to receive good reviews in the past and still be fun today". For me, we are implying a synthesis of material (see WP:SYNTH). As an alternative, if there was written material about select games that explains why some games are "the best", we may have a list we can work with that qualifies them better. Andrzejbanas (talk) 07:22, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• In answer to the questions, I don't believe a move would address the fundamental issue. (Maybe "ranked" would be slightly more clear than "considered".) The past move disputes hint at the deeper problem of methodology. In past disputes, editors will propose a new methodology that is WP:OR, which not only goes against Wikipedia policy, but makes WP:CONSENSUS impossible. It's one editor's preferred methodology against another's. To solve this problem at its root, we should try to align this list with basic principles like WP:V and WP:RS, without WP:OR criteria. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:48, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Regarding the first question, I agree with the others above that a rename to "voted the best" would not actually address the dispute over the methodology, as the page's reliable sources are the opinions of editorial staffs, along with solicited experts (e.g., critics, developers, and other industry figures) and generally contain no element of voting. Furthermore, many of said sources are not ranked. Regarding the second question, I believe the fundamentals of the page's approach are already where they should be; we do not need to define "best" ourselves (i.e., Andrzejbanas's proposal), since we are reporting only on what others consider to be so. Lowering the threshold that defines "multiple sources" (i.e., Shooterwalker's position) is a comparatively minor dispute, since doing so would retain the page's structure. Phediuk (talk) 13:22, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that we will not be considering moving / renaming the article. The remaining question is whether there is interesting in changing the methodology. I am willing to try to facilitate brainstorming to change the methodology. Do the editors want to take part in brainstorming about the methodology?

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:30, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

New to this and not sure if this is the right place to share my thoughts. If not, feel free to move it, or point me to where this should go.

I think there is a more fundamental question than the methodology, and that is whether or not the article is about video game lists, or if it is about actual video games. If it is about actual video games, as the current title claims, then the methodology is spectacularly flawed. Appearing on at least six unrestricted all-time lists is not the only way (or even a good way) to determine that a game is considered among the best. Other types of evidence that should probably count, but doesn't include the following:

- If a game gets a perfect (or very high) review score, then it can be inferred that it is considered one of the best by that publication (especially in conjunction with a clear review scale).

- If it is stated in prose that a game is among the best (in a review, non-all time list, or elsewhere) then that is a sufficiently clear endorsement.

- Some non-all time lists are easily competitive enough (or at least more competitive than some of the currently included all-time lists) for it to be inferred that the listed games--especially the highest ranking ones-- are considered among the best.

- Metacritic and Open Critic scores above a certain threshold also strongly imply that a game is generally considered among the best.

Widening the criteria would help resolve what I believe to be a fundamental issue with the article in its current form, which is that there are many games that clearly should be listed (in the sense that they are clearly considered among the best), but aren't because the evidence isn't in the required format.

Because these games are missing, and especially because some of the listed games are obviously less acclaimed, I question what value the list even has. What meaning can we ascribe to the fact that a game has appeared on six unrestricted all-time lists--especially when there's a criteria mismatch between many of the lists, when not all sources are equally notable, and when they're not even close to equally competitive due to being released at different times (in different decades, a lot of the time)? The article certainly isn't an exhaustive list of games considered the greatest, it's doesn't necessarily imply consensus, and the number of mentions doesn't necessarily correlate with how acclaimed the game is. I won't go as far as saying that it's completely meaningless, but it also isn't particularly meaningful. Worse: the more meaning that someone reads into it, the more it appears to violate Wikipedia policies.

In summary, if we want the article to focus on games, then I think the criteria for inclusion needs to be widened considerably to include anything that could reasonably be considered an endorsement as one of the greatest games (probably not "of all time" since whether or not the claims of older lists is at least questionable now that the pool of games is so much greater and more competitive). As well as allowing for other valid forms of evidence, this would also allow appropriate weight to be given to the sources that are already listed.

However, if it is be preferable to keep the focus on greatest games lists, then the discussion can shift to how to format that article. An advantage of this approach is that it would allow for lists other than strict all-time lists to be shown, many of which deserve more weight than the currently mentioned lists. What statistics about these lists are worth preserving can be discussed separately. IlmeniAVG (talk) 10:31, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The methodology / criteria is always the main point of dispute, for more than a decade. We can try to come up with something new. Even with my criticisms of the current methodology, a lot of proposals end up being worse. So the question is always "would this be better than what we have now"? (For example, turning this into "list of highest ranked games on Metacritic" is an occasional request, but it's often rejected because many sites have moved away from scoring systems, and Wikipedia is WP:NOTMIRROR of one website.) Just as a matter of process, it might be healthy to spend at least one round where we brainstorm, without criticism. I say that for myself as much as any other editor. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:21, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think moving/renaming is ruled out (in fact I think it is necessary), but it's downstream of settling the methodology question. There are several variables in the current approach that could be tweaked:

• The type of sources used. Currently it's best-of lists from different publications (inclusive of all time periods, platforms and genres), as chosen by their editorial staffs and solicited experts. I don't think those are the only, or even necessarily the most, valid sources to use. We could make it broader (e.g. allow "best NES game" and "best horror game" lists, or allow reader polls) or more restrictive (e.g. not allow picks by editorial staff, only experts).
• The number of sources needed. Currently it's six. We could lower the limit (it is extremely rare that we require more than three sources for WP:Verification) or raise it (six sources is still a tiny minority, and as such an WP:UNDUE perspective).
• The placement on the list. Currently there is no limit. We could introduce one (a game that has placed #97 on six lists is hardly "considered the best", especially compared to one that has placed #1 on five).

Alternatively, we could change the approach entirely. Some kind of metaranking that takes several factors into account could be devised, but that would almost certainly violate WP:CALC/WP:SYNTH. We could also move away from relying strictly on "best of" lists entirely (I rather agree with IlmeniAVG that by doing so, this list currently takes a very restrictive perspective on what it means for a game to be "considered the best"—one that I don't think is justified by the sources). For mine own part, I don't think any argument has really been put forth against an approach like the one used at List of films voted the best, i.e. listing entries that are cited as the best (not second-best, one of the best, or similar), with WP:INTEXT attribution for each entry. That list has been largely stable for a long time, and unlike the one currently under discussion there hasn't been recurring disagreements about the approach. TompaDompa (talk) 18:04, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Going to be brief on a chime in but from all the discussion so far, I think if we are approaching a re-evaluating of what is used to qualify "the best" that should probably come first. The details found out in that would probably make it easier what the article would be titled to best represent the list/article. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:13, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone, thanks for the comments. First, regarding IlmeniAVG's various proposals, review scores and mere mentions a game as "best" in a context other than a "best of all time" list are currently excluded from the page specifically to avoid running afoul of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. A high review score is not equivalent to calling a game one of the best of all time. Furthermore, we are not looking for any mention anywhere that a game is one of the best ever, as this would make any passing comment sufficient for inclusion. Restricting the criteria to lists specifically dedicated to naming said games ensures focus of purpose, i.e., that calling specific games the best of all time was the explicit intent of a given publication.

Next, I have a few objections to TompaDompa's proposal of making the page akin to "List of films voted the best", some of which I have discussed before. First, most of the sources we have contain no element of voting. Second, many of the lists already on the page are not ranked; this scheme would arbitrarily exclude a large swathe of reliable-source lists solely because they did not place a number beside each game. Doing so would place undue weight on arbitrary rankings, which the page currently avoids by using inclusion on lists as its criterion instead. Third, declaring that only a #1 ranking should be mentioned defeats the purpose of citing lists in the first place; the sources are lists, not singular games, and all of the games included on a given list are considered the best by that publication, not just the #1. Appearing on list of the top 50 games of all time (out of the hundreds of thousands of games that exist) is more notable than being ranked #1 of those 50. Having said all of that, I am amenable to TompaDompa's prior suggestion of changing the page title to "List of video games considered among the best". Although I feel that such a move would be unnecessary, since the lede already explains what the article's title means, doing so would clarify even further that each source lists more than one game as the best (though, even then, the sources characterize the games they list as "the best", not just "among the best", so the current title reflects them more closely.) Regarding the page's stability, this page has also been stable for several years, with every new list being vetted and all entries being thoroughly sourced. It has remained so by focusing on a single claim, i.e., that each game is named by multiple reliable sources as one of the best ever, in lists dedicated to naming the best games of all time. I believe this is a less arbitrary structure than the alternatives proposed, requiring us only to define the number of sources that constitutes "multiple sources" for inclusion (and WP policy allows us to do, since it does not define "multiple".) Currently, that number is six, though we can raise or lower it via consensus. Keeping it at six has played a large role in the page's aforementioned stability, but I view the precise number as a comparatively minor aspect of the discussion here.

Finally, regarding the re-evaluation of the meaning of "best", I believe the page already adopts the most neutral approach, which is to report what the sources list as best, rather than creating a wikivoice definition of "best". The page is not a list of best games, but a list of what others consider to be such. Phediuk (talk) 23:35, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I did intentionally leave out the voting aspect of List of films voted the best in describing it as listing entries that are cited as the best (not second-best, one of the best, or similar), with WP:INTEXT attribution for each entry, since that is not necessarily a crucial component of the approach. The most important thing is that for each entry, we can write a sentence that says something along the lines of "Game X was named the best by source Y in year Z." If we cannot say in WP:WikiVoice that a list game is considered the best, we can't very well list it as "considered the best" either.

Your argument presupposes that the kind of lists that this article cites is the arbiter of whether a game is "considered [among] the best". IlmeniAVG is right that this is a very narrow perspective on what it means for something to be "considered [among] the best". For instance, we currently have the restriction that Lists must also be editor-chosen and not reader/fan polls. Why is an editor's personal opinion more valid than the combined opinion of potentially thousands of readers? A game that is deemed the best by a large number of people is surely "considered [among] the best" by those people, even if they are not employed by a magazine or similar. Likewise, we have the restriction that a list cannot have any limiting criteria that narrows its scope to a particular time period, platform, or genre. Lists such as "best games of 2012", "Best SNES games" or "Best horror games" are thus not acceptable. Surely a game that consistently features on "best horror games" lists or "best SNES games" is "considered among the best" even if it only features on five unrestricted all-time lists (or one less than whatever the threshold happens to be at the time, since it can change)? You object to only considering top list placements on the basis that many of the lists already on the page are not ranked; this scheme would arbitrarily exclude a large swathe of reliable-source lists solely because they did not place a number beside each game. One could similarly argue that the present scheme arbitrarily exclude a large swathe of reliable-source lists solely because they are not unrestricted all-time lists, or because they are reader polls. Indeed, does the current scheme not arbitrarily exclude a large swathe of reliable sources solely because they are not lists?

Or to approach it from the opposite direction: you note that most of the sources we have contain no element of voting. Certainly one can argue that this means that those sources are unserious/arbitrary and not fit to base a meta-list on—shouldn't the sources we use be robust in their assessments, especially since this is something of a fraught topic (and an inherently-subjective one)?

You assert that the rankings in lists are arbitrary. You are going to have to back that up.

You say that Appearing on list of the top 50 games of all time (out of the hundreds of thousands of games that exist) is more notable than being ranked #1 of those 50. That's your opinion and you are certainly entitled to it, but it is an opinion and I for one don't share it.

Re: all of the games included on a given list are considered the best by that publication, not just the #1, I suggest that we have very different understandings of what "considered the best" means, which is indeed the problem. I put it to you that according to GQ's "The 100 greatest video games of all time, ranked by experts" The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild (2017) is considered the best at #1, whereas Return of the Obra Dinn (2018) at #97 is not considered the best but the 97th-best (in much the same way that e.g. List of tallest buildings does not say that The Marina Torch is the tallest building, but currently the 93rd-tallest).

You say that The page is not a list of best games, but a list of what others consider to be such. I put it to you that were it actually the latter, we would not be here. It is a list of games that some others consider to be among the best, but only if they have expressed that assessment in a format that has been approved by the editors of this Wikipedia page. If they had instead expressed that assessment in an essay, an article in a peer-reviewed academic journal, or a book, it would not count for the purposes of this list. That's arbitrarily excluding reliable sources, to borrow your phrasing. As IlmeniAVG suggests, and you tacitly admit in saying that declaring that only a #1 ranking should be mentioned defeats the purpose of citing lists in the first place; the sources are lists, not singular games, the current approach is not really about the games at all, but the lists. Why should lists be the only valid sources? If a reliable source deems game X the best of all time, why does it need to include the runners-up for it to count here? I mean, you say that we are not looking for any mention anywhere that a game is one of the best ever, as this would make any passing comment sufficient for inclusion. Restricting the criteria to lists specifically dedicated to naming said games ensures focus of purpose, i.e., that calling specific games the best of all time was the explicit intent of a given publication, but it is entirely possible for a given publication to have the explicit intent to call specific games the best of all time without being a list (or indeed a passing mention). I'll give you an example: "Why 'GoldenEye' Is the Greatest Video Game in the History of Video Games" by Thrillist. You keep going back to the notion that Wikipedia is not saying that these games are the best but rather that the sources are, but then we need to accurately reflect the overall balance of the sources per WP:NPOV—which this approach does not and cannot do.

Finally, you say that I believe the page already adopts the most neutral approach, which is to report what the sources list as best, rather than creating a wikivoice definition of "best". I almost agree with this. The most neutral approach, which is the only approach that is actually neutral (anything less neutral is not neutral), is to report what the sources say is the best, not only list.

To be perfectly clear: I am not suggesting that we adjust the current approach. I do not believe it is fixable from a WP:NPOV/WP:OR perspective. My points about how it could be done differently are intended to illustrate this, not suggested changes. What I am proposing is using a different approach altogether. TompaDompa (talk) 02:06, 16 January 2026 (UTC) Typo fixed. TompaDompa (talk) 23:45, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your response. I will respond, in turn, to each of your points (I agree on a couple of them!):

• The most important thing is that for each entry, we can write a sentence that says something along the lines of "Game X was named the best by source Y in year Z." Agreed, we could do this for every entry on the page already. Every single citation supports the assertion that X game was named as one of the best games of all time by Y source in Z year, and the page could be formatted as such. We do not write this all out in prose, though, because the page is a list, not an essay.
• If we cannot say in WP:WikiVoice that a list is considered the best, we can't very well list it as "considered the best" either. The page is not about the lists being considered the best, but the games. If Y source produces a list of the 50 best games of all time, and lists X game as one of its entries, we can say that Y source has listed X game as one of the best of all time.
• Why is an editor's personal opinion more valid than the combined opinion of potentially thousands of readers? A game that is deemed the best by a large number of people is surely "considered [among] the best" by those people, even if they are not employed by a magazine or similar. The same reason we cite professional reviews in reception sections, rather than Youtube comments. We do indeed treat professional opinions as carrying more weight than those of anonymous readers. The focus on journalists and solicited experts here is specifically to ensure actual people have selected the lists, and that they are not just generated from dubious online polls somewhere; older iterations of the page (pre-2017) included stuff like GameFAQs polls, which are easily manipulated and don't say much of anything other than "Game A has a bigger number than Game B." Furthermore, reader polls are often not actually framed as a list of "the best" games, but rather, as "favorites", etc., which is not the same as "best".
• Surely a game that consistently features on "best horror games" lists or "best SNES games" is "considered among the best" even if it only features on five unrestricted all-time lists (or one less than whatever the threshold happens to be at the time, since it can change)? You could say that a game that features on a list of "best SNES games" is considered the best. This, however, would be a much less exceptional claim than listing a game as one of the best across all platforms, eras, and genres. The page, as it currently stands, aims to ensure the exceptional quality of being included on a list of best games by including only lists with the widest scope. This also provides us with a consistent standard for what kind of scope is acceptable for inclusion here, a question that would have to be answered regardless; if "best SNES games" and "best horror games" both count, then would a list of "best SNES horror games" also count? If not, why not? The current structure makes all such disputes moot by including only "best of all time" with no platform/era/genre restrictions.
• One could similarly argue that the present scheme arbitrarily exclude a large swathe of reliable-source lists solely because they are not unrestricted all-time lists, or because they are reader polls. Indeed, does the current scheme not arbitrarily exclude a large swathe of reliable sources solely because they are not lists? The present scheme does exclude those lists, for the reasons stated above, and I argue that those reasons are better than excluding a reliable source because it did not put numbered rankings beside each entry. At any rate, arguing that one arbitrary scheme should be replaced with another arbitrary scheme does not solve the alleged problem.
• Certainly one can argue that this means that those sources are unserious/arbitrary and not fit to base a meta-list on—shouldn't the sources we use be robust in their assessments, especially since this is something of a fraught topic (and an inherently-subjective one)? No, I would not say that lists produced by the staffs of reliable sources are "unserious". I argue the opposite, that such sources are the basis of what Wikipedia considers to be serious opinions on pop-culture topics, hence the focus on critics' opinions in the reception sections of almost any work in any medium. I agree that the assessments should be robust, hence why we focus on said serious opinions, in lists dedicated to naming the best games.
• You assert that the rankings in lists are arbitrary. You are going to have to back that up. If a source produces a list "the 50 best video games of all time", then all of the games on the list are considered the best, not just the #1; to interpret the source as otherwise would be to arbitrarily exclude 98% of the source's information. The page's current set-up avoids this by treating inclusion on the list as the criterion, not the achievement of a particular ranking.
• I suggest that we have very different understandings of what "considered the best" means, which is indeed the problem. I put it to you that according to GQ's "The 100 greatest video games of all time, ranked by experts" The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild (2017) is considered the best at #1, whereas Return of the Obra Dinn (2018) at #97 is not considered the best but the 97th-best (in much the same way that e.g. List of tallest buildings does not say that The Marina Torch is the tallest building, but currently the 93rd-tallest). GQ's list does indeed call all of its entries the greatest games of all time; "greatest video games" refers to all of them, not just the #1. The source does not say that the existence of a #1 ranking means the others do not count. Treating the list as such would be arbitrarily excluding most of the source. Likewise, regarding the tallest buildings article, we do not say that any buildings other than the #1 tallest don't count; the inclusion of a building on a list of the tallest buildings is notable in itself.
• I put it to you that were it actually the latter, we would not be here. It is a list of games that some others consider to be among the best, but only if they have expressed that assessment in a format that has been approved by the editors of this Wikipedia page. If they had instead expressed that assessment in an essay, an article in a peer-reviewed academic journal, or a book, it would not count for the purposes of this list. That's arbitrarily excluding reliable sources, to borrow your phrasing. I will start here with the smallest point: I don't know of any academic journal articles specifically devoted to naming the best video games of all time, and a quick Google Scholar search turns up no obvious results. If such a source exists, I would be happy to read it. You are correct that we do not accept individual mentions of a game being best, instead avoiding WP:INDISCRIMINATE by focusing on lists dedicated to naming the best games. Narrowing the scope of inclusion here to something such as "it was mentioned to be the best game in a review once" would be a much less meaningful claim than being named by multiple reliable sources in dedicated lists of the best games of all time. Next, I agree with you on your point about articles that function as "lists of one", such as the Goldeneye article you provide; there is nothing, in my mind, that would automatically preclude such a source from being used (and only a couple of words would need to be changed in the lede to accommodate it.) However, sources usually do not produce articles dedicated to discussing a single game as the greatest game ever; generally, if they are doing their own dedicated "greatest games of all time" article, they make a list. In this way, the page already functions similarly to the "films voted the best" article, which de facto uses lists as its basis without requiring that sources be such.
• The most neutral approach, which is the only approach that is actually neutral (anything less neutral is not neutral), is to report what the sources say is the best, not only list. Agreed, we should say what the sources say, ensuring, of course, that said sources are dedicated to naming the best games, and are not just off-hand mentions, etc. Those dedicated sources are generally lists, not just articles about singular games, though, as mentioned, nothing currently excludes these "lists of one" other than their comparative rarity. The page is currently structured to ensure this is the case, reporting only what the sources list as the best video games of all time in lists dedicated to that purpose. Phediuk (talk) 17:52, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  You spotted a typo I made; I am confident that you understood what I meant nonetheless. The fact of the matter is that we cannot state in WP:WikiVoice that the games are "considered the best"—only "considered among the best", which is a much weaker claim. You know this, or else you would not keep making the same motte-and-bailey argument. I find it frankly astonishing that you distinguish between "favorite" and "the best" but not between "the best" and "among the best". For that matter, why is 1001 Video Games You Must Play Before You Die cited—surely that's not the same thing as "the best" either?

  If a source produces a list "the 50 best video games of all time", then all of the games on the list are considered the best, not just the #1; to interpret the source as otherwise would be to arbitrarily exclude 98% of the source's information. Again, no. This is basic reading comprehension, and any teacher would give you a failing grade for this intepretation. Are all of them considered among the 50 best? Yes. Are all of them considered the best? No, only #1—the rest are the second-best and so on. Why are you choosing to arbitrarily exclude information that the source explicitly provides as to the relative assessments of the games? Why are you deciding that the rankings are "arbitrary" when the source chose to use an explicit ranking system?
  regarding the tallest buildings article, we do not say that any buildings other than the #1 tallest don't count; the inclusion of a building on a list of the tallest buildings is notable in itself That either misses or ignores the point I made: only the #1 entry can be said to be the tallest building, the others are the second-tallest and so on. This is the point you keep overlooking or evading. You keep equivocating between "the best" (singular) and "[among] the best" (plural).

  We are not here because editors don't understand your position. We are here because they find it to be flawed. Again, I'm not saying that the approach should be adjusted to include reader polls or whatever, I'm saying that it could, and the decision not to is not a value-neutral one but an active decision, and as such arbitrary.

  Largely, it boils down to this: either the page is supposed to reflect the overall state of the treatment of the overarching topic by the relevant sources (which may be a clear consensus among the sources, a rough one, or a lack thereof), in which case it must per the non-negotiable WP:Core content policy of WP:NPOV do so accurately (which means weighing the relative authoritativeness of the sources, among other things), or else it is not supposed to do so, in which case it is an arbitrary and WP:ORIGINAL slicing of WP:RAWDATA in violation of policy. Given that you say that you agree that we should say what the sources say I would think that you are of the opinion that we should take the former approach. TompaDompa (talk) 23:45, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks again for your response. I will respond to each point below:

  • You spotted a typo I made; I am confident that you understood what I meant nonetheless. I did not, because that is not what the sentence said. Thanks for the clarification.
  • I find it frankly astonishing that you distinguish between "favorite" and "the best" You shouldn't, because "favorite" and "best" are not synonyms.
  • but not between "the best" and "among the best". Yes, because the sources themselves treat all the games they list as "best". When a source produces a list of "the 50 best games of all time", reporting that they call all of those games "best" directly reflects what the source says. Describing an entry on those list as being among a given source's choices of "best games" is, likewise, an accurate description of how the entries appear in the sources. This is, after all, a list of games, and not a list of lists.
  • For that matter, why is 1001 Video Games You Must Play Before You Die cited—surely that's not the same thing as "the best" either? Because it also identifies the games it covers as "best".
  • This is basic reading comprehension, and any teacher would give you a failing grade for this intepretation. Are all of them considered among the 50 best? Yes. Are all of them considered the best? No, only #1—the rest are the second-best and so on. That a source considers the word "best" to apply all of the entries on a list of "the 50 best games of all time" is a straightforward reflection of the source. Declaring that they don't really think anything other than the #1 is "best" is a claim not reflected by the source, since they have already applied the word "best" to all 50 entries. If sources list more than one game as "best of all time" (and they do), the page should reflect that.
  • Why are you choosing to arbitrarily exclude information that the source explicitly provides as to the relative assessments of the games? Why are you deciding that the rankings are "arbitrary" when the source chose to use an explicit ranking system? We exclude the meta-ranking element from the page because we are focusing on a single claim, that being that multiple reliable sources list (x) game in lists of "best games of all time", unrestricted by platform/genre/era. This is a standard we can apply to all such lists. To exclude a list of "the 50 best games of all time" because it did not place a number beside each entry would be arbitrary, as would excluding the other 49 games below #1 on a list identified as "50 best games of all time". Replacing one arbitrary standard with another is not a solution, and I argue that the current set-up reflects the sources more completely, and less arbitrarily, than the alternative in which only ranked lists count and everything but #1 is ignored.
  • That either misses or ignores the point I made: only the #1 entry can be said to be the tallest building, the others are the second-tallest and so on. This is the point you keep overlooking or evading. I neither missed nor ignored the point; we do not exclude buildings from being mentioned on "List of tallest buildings" because they were ranked below #1 somewhere. All of the buildings on the page are considered "tallest" in the relevant sources, and included for that reason.
  • either the page is supposed to reflect the overall state of the treatment of the overarching topic by the relevant sources (which may be a clear consensus among the sources, a rough one, or a lack thereof), in which case it must per the non-negotiable WP:Core content policy of WP:NPOV do so accurately (which means weighing the relative authoritativeness of the sources, among other things) Agreed, and the page is already currently designed to do so. It makes a single claim, that each game is named by multiple reliable sources in lists of "best games of all time", unrestricted by platform/genre/era. It fulfills WP:NPOV by reflecting the diversity of its sources; it includes any game named by multiple sources, and allows any such list from a reliable source, whether a magazine, a newspaper, a website, or a book, etc. It "weighs the relative authoritativeness of the sources" by requiring each source be RS and be the result of editors' and/or solicited experts' choices, rather than machine-generated lists or anonymous polls. That the list passes WP:V is evident from the page's extensive sourcing and citation, all sources being vetted for their reliability on the talk page before inclusion. It fulfills WP:OR by not including any meta-ranking or tallies, nor imposing any definition of "best" other than reporting what the sources describe as such; if the game is listed by multiple sources, it is included on the page. Your are correct that WP:COPO does not require a page to reflect the "consensus" of sources (in fact, it doesn't use the word "consensus" in relation to sources at all), but only to reflect the treatment of the topic among the sources, which it does. The page claims that each game on the page is named by multiple reliable sources in lists of "best games of all time", and it provides said sources for every entry. Phediuk (talk) 19:22, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    A brief, and comparatively unimportant aside: All of the buildings on the page are considered "tallest" in the relevant sources, and included for that reason. No, and I have no idea where you got that from. Do you honestly believe that The Marina Torch is listed at #93 at List of tallest buildings because some source calls it the tallest?

    [the article] makes a single claim, that each game is named by multiple reliable sources in lists of "best games of all time", unrestricted by platform/genre/era. You keep saying this as if that somehow made it WP:NEUTRAL and free from WP:OR. You decided to extract this data in this way. You decided what kind of sources could be used and not. And most importantly, you decided that this "single claim" is a meaningful one. That's a value judgment. You can't hide behind "just reporting the facts" when you decide what facts are supposedly relevant. There is an active choice going into deciding which facts to present and how; that's not only stating the facts. The selection of facts we choose to present reflects a belief that those are the relevant facts.

    Since you agree that the article should reflect the overall state of the treatment of the overarching topic by the relevant sources and abide by WP:NPOV in doing so, it seems that the next step would be to reach a common understanding of how WP:NPOV applies here. I would start by pointing out that WP:WEIGHT says:

    Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects.

    This means, among other things, that the article must present games that are significantly more prominently considered the best in the sources than others in a way that reflects this disparity proportionately. How do you suggest we do that?

    It "weighs the relative authoritativeness of the sources" by requiring each source be RS You seem not to understand what the word "relative" means here. Surely you understand that two sources can both be reliable yet one moreso than the other? Do you understand that if you have sources that are not on the same level of quality/reliability/authoritativeness, and you treat them the same—as this article currently does—that you are directly violating WP:NPOV?

    It fulfills WP:NPOV by reflecting the diversity of its sources; it includes any game named by multiple sources, and allows any such list from a reliable source, whether a magazine, a newspaper, a website, or a book, etc. That does not remotely mean that it fulfills WP:NPOV. Do you believe that WP:NPOV means treating all sources or viewpoints as equally valid? As Andrzejbanas pointed out below, applying all these publications as equally authoritative is not being neutral.

    A core problem here seems to be that you have an idiosyncratic understanding of WP:NPOV and WP:OR that does not align with how those policies actually work. I've encountered a very similar situation before: editors who thought that giving equal weight to everything meant that it was neutral (which is wrong) and that since it was possible to apply the methodology they came up with for a list with internal consistency, it wasn't WP:Original research (which is also wrong). They thought that their approach was self-evidently justified as a reflection of (their reading of) the sources. They thought that others did not understand why the list was constructed the way it was, and tried to explain this to people who insisted that they understood just fine but disagreed about the validity of the approach. They viewed the way the criteria were chosen through discussion and compromises between editors on the talk page as reflecting thorough consensus-building, rather than compounding WP:Original research. They thought that their position on what should count and what should not was the correct one. They spent an enormous amount of time and effort editing and discussing a list that was ultimately novel content in disguise as proper encyclopedic content. They were, from start to finish, wrong. In the end, List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation had to be rebuilt from scratch, following extremely lengthy and tedious discussion, to actually comply with policy. TompaDompa (talk) 20:49, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    • Do you honestly believe that The Marina Torch is listed at #93 at List of tallest buildings because some source calls it the tallest? Yes, it is there because the sources support including it on such a list, just like on any other Wikipedia list. Notably, the page does not require its sources to be ranked, nor does it only count the #1 entry of a ranked list.
    • You keep saying this as if that somehow made it WP:NEUTRAL and free from WP:OR. You decided to extract this data in this way. You decided what kind of sources could be used and not. And most importantly, you decided that this "single claim" is a meaningful one. That's a value judgment. You can't hide behind "just reporting the facts" when you decide what facts are supposedly relevant. Agreed, we should decide which facts from the sources are relevant, and the most neutral approach is to represent the sources in the most complete manner we can. This would include, for instance, not excluding sources because they did not put a number beside each entry in their list, and not ignoring everything other than a #1 entry on a list identified as "the 50 best games of all time".
    • This means, among other things, that the article must present games that are significantly more prominently considered the best in the sources than others in a way that reflects this disparity proportionately. Indeed we should, which is why, if a list is identified as "the 50 best video games of all time", then all entries are verifiably considered "best", and should be represented. Ignoring unranked lists would be giving undue weight to certain sources, as would ignoring all entries other than #1 on lists identified as "best games of all time"; if a source names more than one game as "best", as all of the sources on the page do, we should not be acting as if it contains only one. This is why I argue that making inclusion on a list is the most complete way to represent the sources; it does not make a source's validity hinge on whether or not they place a number beside each game, and it does not treat everything below #1 on a ranked list as though it does not count.
    • Surely you understand that two sources can both be reliable yet one moreso than the other? If a source covers video games and is otherwise reliable, we can assume their expertise is sufficient for their opinion to be meaningful. This would be, for instance, the usual standard for the reception sections in game articles; if the review is from a reliable source, it can be and is cited, whether an academic or a "pop" critic. The "films voted the best" article, likewise cites both academic and "pop" sources. No video game equivalent of, say, the Sight & Sound poll exists, but if you have some academic sources that list "best games", we can of course include them, as long as they are actually about "best games".
    • That does not remotely mean that it fulfills WP:NPOV. Do you believe that WP:NPOV means treating all sources or viewpoints as equally valid? No, it means that we vet each source before it is included on the page to ensure its reliability and that it meets the criteria. On the other hand, excluding an otherwise reliable source that meets the criteria because we have deemed not reliable enough would be an arbitrary and subjective move.
    • A core problem here seems to be that you have an idiosyncratic understanding of WP:NPOV and WP:OR that does not align with how those policies actually work. The page is not OR. It is the opposite; it makes a single claim, that (x) game is included on multiple lists of "best games of all time" from reliable sources, unrestricted by platform/genre/era, and provides said sources for every entry. There is no original interpretation here, and Wikipedia allows for contentious claims to require multiple sources; the page cites exactly what it claims. It is also neutral, in that it does not arbitrarily declare one reliable source's choices of "the best games" to be more reliable than another reliable source. To declare that, say, Polygon is more reliable than IGN would be NPOV on its face. There must be a consistent standard for inclusion, beyond the "vibes" that one source is more reliable than another; to do otherwise is NPOV. If the standard is that a source must be academic, then okay, make the standard, but it must be something other than "reliable source (X) is still not reliable enough for the list, because it just isn't". Phediuk (talk) 12:02, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

      Both of you, these walls of text are making the conversation impenetrable for anyone trying to enter or follow along. When you reach an impasse as it seems you certainly have or will, a third opinion will be the best avenue out, but no one will want to provide one if they can't gauge what they are commenting on. At minimum, try to keep your reply shorter than what you are responding to, and generally just try to respond to the strongest/essential point. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 12:15, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

      To the extent that anyone assigns meaning to the fact of a game having appeared on six, unrestricted all-time lists--which they are encouraged to by the title of the article--then it obviously violates WP:NPOV and WP:OR. The title says that this is a list of games "considered the best." By extension, it is implied that any game not on the list is not "considered the best." This binary categorisation was arrived at by a methodology decided on arbitrarily by Wikipedia editors, and that would be OR.

      But if no extra meaning is attached to that statistic, then why do we have an article dedicated to it? Doesn't the article's very existence imply some sort of importance to a game having appeared on six, unrestricted all-time lists? I don't think you can have it both ways here: either it's meaningful and OR, or it's neutral and meaningless.

      @Phediuk, in response to claims that claims that the article is OR, you argue for its neutrality, but what would you have to say in response to the claim that this binary division that the article creates with its six unrestricted all-time lists doesn't really mean anything? To put it another way, what can you say, definitively, about games that satisfy this criteria, which you definitively cannot say about games that do not satisfy the criteria? (Without restating the criteria, obviously). IlmeniAVG (talk) 14:57, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

      I think your first point is certainly wrong and your second is less certain than you give it credit. For the first, if we have List of Turkish painters, we do not ask the reader to infer that anyone not listed is not a Turkish painter.

      This is my steelman for why the list is not OR: if we are constructing a list of video games that have been considered the best, we might begin by listing every game that has appeared in reputable sources's list of best games. There's no OR there, this is simply a list of games that someone has considered the best at some point. That list would quickly get unwieldy, and just as with a list of Turkish painters we may require names be blue linked so we only keep significant figures, we may here try to restrict names to keep only significant views. In an article of video games considered the best by someone, what more obvious way to establish significance to a view than more than one outlet expressing the view? Yes, six or seven is arbitrary, but really, so is WP:NCREATIVE/WP:GNG in the Turkish painters article, and it's just a size cap, which all articles have in some form. There are plenty of articles taken through FAC that I think should go into less detail, and when more buildings get built, List of tallest structures may update their criteria to only accept buildings that are 1230 ft tall instead of 1148. It's ultimately down to editorial discretion. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 15:32, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

      I'll make more-or-less the same point I did at the talk page. In an article of video games considered the best by someone, what more obvious way to establish significance to a view than more than one outlet expressing the view? I would say that being listed at the very top, rather than appearing anywhere on the list at all, is a more obvious approach. In other words, being considered the best, not just among the best. Having a size cap on a list is fine, but it's not just a size cap if we have multiple possible variables we could cap the size through and pick one of them—then we have made the judgment call that this is the variable that matters. Why any placement on six lists rather than, say, a top-ten placement on three lists or a #1 placement on one list? Any of these could be argued for, and they would all be equally arbitrary. Everything else aside, I think IlmeniAVG has it right in saying that the list cannot simultaneously be argued to be meaningful and free from WP:OR. TompaDompa (talk) 16:25, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

      I think it depends on what we want the list to cover. Do we want best, individual, superlative? Or do we want best, quality, class? Consider the two meanings in the phrase best of the best. Following how the sources are framing this, particularly in those unranked lists of best games, I think we should go with the latter (quality, class), and since following the framing of sources around the subject of the list is not arbitrary, it's not just a size cap if we have multiple possible variables we could cap the size through and pick one of them becomes untrue. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 20:59, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

      I think that framing immediately undoes any and all justification to limit the sources to lists of this kind. TompaDompa (talk) 21:06, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

      I'm certainly of the opinion that the omission of certain sources is a failure of YESPOV, but I suspect you mean something more. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 21:08, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

      If "best" is not in the literal superlative sense here, then being the best of a subset (e.g. best of 2018, best NES game, best horror game) is equally valid as being the best of the unrestricted set. It also means that if the "best" assessment comes from a WP:Reliable source that does not happen to be a list, that's equally valid as a source that is a list. TompaDompa (talk) 21:31, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

      Inclined to agree with all these, although I'm not sure how it follows from the framing I gave. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 21:37, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

      If "best" is in the literal superlative sense, then being the best of a subset (e.g. best of 2018, best NES game, best horror game) does not necessarily imply being the best of the unrestricted set. If, however, "best" is not in the literal superlative sense but functions as a descriptor just like any regular adjective would (e.g. "amazing", "fun", or "controversial"), it is actually the case that being "best" in a subset necessarily implies being "best" in the unrestricted set—just as being considered a controversial 2018 game, controversial NES game, or controversial horror game necessarily implies being considered a controversial game.

      Likewise, if "best" is not in the literal superlative sense here, there is no reason to require that assessment from a source that makes it in a comparative context (i.e. a list), only that it is a WP:Reliable source—in much the same way that there would be no justification for List of controversial video games to require that the sources for WP:Verification be in a list format (I think most people would find that absurd on its face). TompaDompa (talk) 22:14, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

      Sorry, maybe superlative was not the best word in drawing a distinction. I am trying to distinguish between best as a ranked item (a game can be said to be considered the best if an outlet ranks it #1), and best as belonging to a class (multiple games can be considered the best, "these are the best games").

      Does that change anything in your assessment? Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 23:00, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

      It changes my assessment a little, but the conclusion remains materially the same. If "best" is a class, that makes its definition so nebulous that there is no obvious justification for treating it differently from any regular adjective/descriptor—nothing really to distinguish a game that is "best" by that token from one that is "amazing", "great", "really good", or a similar strong positive endorsement. If we take it to its logical extreme, every game ever made is strictly speaking one of the 20 million best ones. Treating something ranked #97 on an unrestricted list as belonging to the "best" class but not something ranked #1 on a subset list seems to me like speaking out of both sides of one's mouth at the same time. TompaDompa (talk) 23:37, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe I said that best can only be meaningful in a ranked order? I said that "best" is nebulously defined if treated as a class, much like regular adjectives and descriptors such as "amazing" and so on. When treated literally as a superlative, "best" is well-defined (but still subjective, of course). That it is logically consistent to be the best horror game but not among the best games overall is beside the point—we shouldn't be arbitrarily picking and choosing when to treat the term "best" strictly and when to treat it loosely. Internal consistency in the list criteria and their application is necessary, but not sufficient. It is possible for multiple approaches to each be internally consistent, but that does not imply that they are equally valid. The list format absent prose here invites arbitrariness in the list criteria, because it obfuscates both the justification for inclusion for any given entry and the justification for the construction of the list as a whole. Having entries with WP:INTEXT attribution as to why they are included is one way to reduce the risk of criteria growing increasingly arbitrary and unjustified.

Anyway, back to my earlier point: I can see a reasonable argument that a list of video games considered the best in the strict, literal, superlative sense should be based on lists to ensure that the source indeed considers the game in question the best in the strict, literal, superlative sense (and not in some other sense); on the other hand, I do not see this as being justified for a list where "best" is treated as a class—that's just arbitrarily excluding WP:Reliable sources for no good reason (for that matter, if "best" is treated as a class we should also include what would then effectively be synonyms: "one of the best", "among the best", and so on). TompaDompa (talk) 01:53, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if this comment will move us forward so I'll leave this thread here if it doesn't bring us to some mutual understanding.

I actually don't think "best" as a class is as nebulous as you describe — a list of the 50 best games, unranked, can generally be considered interchangeable with an outlet saying "for all intents and purposes, we consider these 50 games to be equally #1". Our desire for a discrete #1 over a more vague "general best games" does not permit us to exclude the perspectives of reputable sources merely out of convenience. Agree with your comment on synonyms as reasonable. I admit I struggled to parse some of your comments. For instance, I don't see how we are treating the term "best" strictly in excluding the best horror games but not otherwise; with the horror exclusion it is just a case of verifiability's requirement that a source directly support a claim, and the source is not directly supporting the claim that it is among the best overall. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 02:25, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is necessarily the case that a list of the 50 best games, unranked, can generally be considered interchangeable with an outlet saying "for all intents and purposes, we consider these 50 games to be equally #1". That is one possible reading, to be sure, but another is "one of these 50 games is #1, we just haven't identified/determined which one (yet)". And of course this argument does not apply to a ranked list. I also don't think of it as Our desire for a discrete #1 over a more vague "general best games" does not permit us to exclude the perspectives of reputable sources merely out of convenience., I think of it as making sure not to conflate/equivocate different senses of the same word. As for the source is not directly supporting the claim that it is among the best overall, my point is that requiring "best" to mean "best overall" is treating the term strictly. But yes, the important point upon which we appear to agree is that relying exclusively on lists to determine which games are considered the best is not justified. TompaDompa (talk) 04:21, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• • • If that were a list of Turkish painters "considered the best," then it would be perfectly reasonable to assume that any Turkish painter not mentioned was generally not considered to be among the best--or at least not held in as high regard than those who are. If some particularly notable Turkish painters were missing, then I expect that page would be scrutinised about as much as this one is. And if, in response to the claim that said notable Turkish painters were missing, it was argued that they shouldn't be listed because they hadn't appeared on six "Greatest Turkish painter" lists, then this would be seen as patently absurd. IlmeniAVG (talk) 17:18, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

      I'm sorry Phediuk, I can interpret what you are saying in no other way than that you either lack reading comprehension or are intentionally trolling. You repeatedly assert agreement with my points while misrepresenting them or misunderstanding them.

      I asked if you think it is listed because some source calls it the tallest. Do you not understand that it is there because the sources support including it on such a list is not the same thing?

      Agreed, we should decide which facts from the sources are relevant My point was specifically that you should not.

      Indeed we should, which is why, if a list is identified as "the 50 best video games of all time", then all entries are verifiably considered "best", and should be represented. This has nothing at all to do with what I said, which was that if some games are significantly more prominently considered the best in the sources than others, then the article must reflect that and different games get different weight in the article as well. TompaDompa (talk) 16:25, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

      I asked if you think it is listed because some source calls it the tallest. Do you not understand that it is there because the sources support including it on such a list is not the same thing? We don't have to "assume" anything here; if the sources identify a building as one of the tallest, we can cite that on WP; in fact, the page cites at least one such list, and does not act as if everything below #1 does not count.

      My point was specifically that you should not. My point was that your point was bad, since no Wikipedia article can exist without determining relevant facts.

      This has nothing at all to do with what I said, which was that if some games are significantly more prominently considered the best in the sources than others, then the article must reflect that and different games get different weight in the article as well. When IGN calls its list "the best 100 video games of all time", they don't mean that only the #1 counts; nothing in the article's text supports that interpretation. They are plainly applying the term "best of all time" to all the entries; that is a verifiable, objective fact. Assuming otherwise is applying POV. To present the source neutrally, the page must reflect that it names more than one game as "best". Even more POV would be the suggestion that unranked lists don't count because they did not put a number beside each entry; that would be an arbitrary exclusion of reliable sources. Phediuk (talk) 17:13, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

      I'll give the game away: List of tallest buildings does not determine inclusion by whether sources refer to a building as "tallest", it goes by the height listed in the sources. If a building is not referred to as "tallest" but meets the height requirement, it goes on the list. Conversely, if it is referred to as "tallest" but does not meet the height requirement, it does not go on the list.

      no Wikipedia article can exist without determining relevant facts I think you know that's not what I was saying. I was criticizing you for imposing your view of what facts are relevant and acting as if your view is inherently neutral and correct. Specifically, the notion that [the article] makes a single claim, that each game is named by multiple reliable sources in lists of "best games of all time", unrestricted by platform/genre/era. You say that this is a meaningful fact. That's a value judgment. I suppose I'll ask the same thing IlmeniAVG did: is it meaningful that a game appears on a certain number of such lists? If so, what is the meaning? If it is not meaningful, then why do we have the list?

      When IGN calls its list "the best 100 video games of all time", they don't mean that only the #1 counts; nothing in the article's text supports that interpretation. They are plainly applying the term "best of all time" to all the entries; that is a verifiable, objective fact. Assuming otherwise is applying POV. To present the source neutrally, the page must reflect that it names more than one game as "best". Even more POV would be the suggestion that unranked lists don't count because they did not put a number beside each entry; that would be an arbitrary exclusion of reliable sources. Regardless of whether this is correct or not, it still has nothing to do with what I was saying about WP:WEIGHT. How do you propose that the article reflect that some listed entries feature more prominently in the sources overall than others? TompaDompa (talk) 17:37, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

      • I'll give the game away: List of tallest buildings does not determine inclusion by whether sources refer to a building as "tallest", it goes by the height listed in the sources. If a building is not referred to as "tallest" but meets the height requirement, it goes on the list. Conversely, if it is referred to as "tallest" but does not meet the height requirement, it does not go on the list. These height criteria also have no relevance to a list of video games. I was responding to the part of the comparison that was, in fact, relevant: we do not exclude a building from being on the list because it wasn't ranked #1 in a source.
      • You say that this is a meaningful fact. That's a value judgment. I suppose I'll ask the same thing IlmeniAVG did: is it meaningful that a game appears on a certain number of such lists? If so, what is the meaning? If it is not meaningful, then why do we have the list? Yes, it is meaningful. That the notion of "best video games" is notable is evident from the large number of reliable publications that have produced lists naming them. The sources consider the topic of "best games" important, as the lists themselves demonstrate, and our coverage should reflect the sources. Since the sources determine what "best" means for themselves, we do not have to define what "best" means here, just as the List of films voted the best article does not. In fact, that page only discusses the word "best" in two sentences at the start that note that it means different things to different sources. It doesn't define "best" at all otherwise, and if simply adding that note to the start of the article is good enough for you, then okay, let's add that note.
      • Regardless of whether this is correct or not, it still has nothing to do with what I was saying about WP:WEIGHT. How do you propose that the article reflect that some listed entries feature more prominently in the sources overall than others? Ranking numbers are not equivalent to prominence. The source in question, IGN's list of "the best 100 video games of all time", identifies all of the entries on the list as "the best", both in its title and its preamble. This is an objective, verifiable fact. It does not single out its #1 as being better than the others; it does not refer to the #1 ranking as THE best or anything comparable. Claiming any such significance to the #1 rank here is POV, and a misrepresentation of the source. We should stick to what the source actually says, which is that it calls all of the games on the list "the best". You cannot assign significance to a ranking that the source does not itself state. Phediuk (talk) 19:52, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

        I was responding to the part of the comparison that was, in fact, relevant No, that's not what happened. This began when I said that appearing on List of tallest buildings at #93 is not the same thing as being listed as the tallest. You replied that regarding the tallest buildings article, we do not say that any buildings other than the #1 tallest don't count; the inclusion of a building on a list of the tallest buildings is notable in itself., which I then said did not address my point. You then said that All of the buildings on the page are considered "tallest" in the relevant sources, and included for that reason. That is, you were straightforwardly wrong about how inclusion on that list is determined, and the rest of my input has centered on your misunderstanding of the basics of how that list functions. I asked you to clarify whether you indeed think being called "tallest" by a source is what makes something qualify for that list. You replied that Yes, it is there because the sources support including it on such a list. To this, I said that those two things ("because some source calls it the tallest" and "because the sources support including it on such a list") are different claims. You then reiterated that if the sources identify a building as one of the tallest, we can cite that on WP, and I finally pointed out explicitly that your understanding (or at least your explanation) of how that list determines inclusion is incorrect. I'm not pointing out that you were wrong to be mean, I'm doing it because I think there is a serious problem with reading comprehension here; you recurringly reply to points other than the ones that were made, and from the looks of it you do not recognize that you are doing so.

        Yes, it is meaningful. That the notion of "best video games" is notable is evident from the large number of reliable publications that have produced lists naming them. Okay, if I understand you correctly you have now asserted that a game appearing on a certain number of these types of lists is meaningful, because it means that the game is considered the best. Do I have that right?

        Ranking numbers are not equivalent to prominence. By all means, let's leave ranking aside for the moment. Do you believe that, based on the sources, Tetris and Ultima IV: Quest of the Avatar are equally prominently considered the best? TompaDompa (talk) 20:33, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Phediuk I'll leave it to others to comment on whether or not the current criteria is technically in line with Wikipedia policies. I'm not convinced, but there are more qualified people to weigh in on that. Instead, I want to draw attention to a claim that I think we are obliged to make if we are to defend the current criteria, which is that there is not yet enough evidence to say that a game like The Legend of Zelda: Tears of the Kingdom (chosen because the most recent discussion on the talk page relates to it) is considered [among] the all-time best. To me, this is absurd. It is already abundantly clear where the consensus on Tears of the Kingdom lies, and it is far more acclaimed than many of the games already on the list.

In the aforementioned discussion, the 10/10 review from IGN is rejected as evidence that it is considered [among] the best. I don't think that makes sense. IGN's review scale explains that a 10/10 review is only given out to games considered a "masterpiece". If that's not enough, the review prose compares Tears of the Kingdom favourably to its predecessor, concluding with, "The Legend of Zelda: Tears of the Kingdom is an unfathomable follow-up to one of the greatest games ever made, somehow improving upon it in nearly every way." And in case that still isn't clear, here it is ranked first, and above numerous all-time greats, on IGN's recent The 100 Best Nintendo Games of All Time list. Rejecting all of this is absurd, and obviously so.

There is plenty more evidence that I could bring up if I wanted to fully support the claim, but my point should already be clear. If we are to support the current inclusion criteria, then I don't know how we can sensibly respond to someone who thinks that Tears of the Kingdom should be included, that isn't just arbitrarily excluding reliable sources. IlmeniAVG (talk) 19:00, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the comment. There's nothing absurd about excluding the IGN TOTK review from the page. First of all, while the review in question calls Breath of the Wild one of the greatest games ever, it does not call TOTK that; since it does not apply the "best game(s) of all time" rhetoric directly to TOTK, we should not be reporting that it does. Second, even if it did, a review of a game is not the same thing as an article dedicated to naming the best games ever. We are not indiscriminately cataloguing every time a game received a high review score, nor every time it was called "best ever" in an article where that was not the main focus, nor every time it was lauded in a narrow category such as "Nintendo games", which is far more limited than an all-inclusive list. Using sources specifically dedicated to picking the best games ever among all games ensures that the page fulfills its exceptional claim (i.e., that multiple reliable sources have named each game as one of the best of all time in articles dedicated to that purpose), and is not a collection of review scores and off-hand comments. Phediuk (talk) 22:43, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot agree with you here. If someone says that a game is a masterpiece, and an improvement "in nearly every way" on one of the greatest games of all time, then I think they are also necessarily saying that it is one of the greatest of all time. I also think that, considering the strength of Nintendo's catalogue, calling Tears of the Kingdom their greatest game ever is also saying that it is one of the greatest of all time. I don't understand how it could be interpreted any other way. But I'll try a different approach:

If we ignore for a moment what games have specifically been named as being among the best, and instead focus on the broader question of critical acclaim, then do you think that Tears of the Kingdom is less acclaimed than all of the games on the list? To me, the answer is obvious enough here that I feel like I can continue on to the main point, which is that I think you are obliged to argue that this list of games considered the greatest is not a list of the games that are the most critically acclaimed. My concerns there are 1) how to communicate that to readers since it's certainly not intuitive, 2) what exactly "being considered the best" means, if it's not a reflection of critical acclaim, and 3) whatever this does mean, why it's important enough to have an article dedicated to it. IlmeniAVG (talk) 23:54, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

My contributions will be intermittent as work has been busy. I think this discussion has gone off track from the question that the mediator has offered. But I will respond to other editor's comments until we have more guidance about how the next step.

• There is no problem if we include a "top 100" games in a list of "best games" (or "among the best" if we're being pedantic). There are quite literally a million games, once we count multiple platforms. "IGN's list of best X video games" still holds its plain meaning.
• It's not our job to analyze or filter the sources. The sources say what they say. Saying the 49th best game is best but the 50th best game is not is personal opinion. Not only is it WP:OR, but it directly contradicts what the source says.
• The sources are one of the most settled aspects of this article. They are well-vetted. (And we could always re-vet a source as needed.) We've chosen sources that (a) come from broadly chosen editorial panels and not just a single person, and (b) don't limit their interest to a single platform or genre or time period. That keeps it wide and thorough, representative of a wide selection of games and opinions across history.
• I don't think we should consider WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS of excellence within an isolated game review. List of video games notable for negative reception handles its content that way, and it has become a subjective editorial disaster. Every discussion follows the form of "this game has a negative reception", followed by "that doesn't count", followed by some circular argument about how negative is negative enough.
• Perhaps more focused lists (list of best RPGs, list of best Playstation 4 games) could have their own articles. That a whole other discussion. Whether those sub-lists cover other "best" games, I'm confident they are usually included if we follow the ordinary standard of "multiple reliable sources" for the sources we already use.

A lot of the "problems" that people are raising aren't Wikipedia's problem. If one reliable source is biased, we address that by requiring multiple reliable sources. Yes, the entire body of reliable sources could have biases, like recency bias, popularity biases, or demographic biases. But it isn't our role to editorialize or add a correction step, as that swaps their bias for ours. WP:ENCYCLOPEDIC reminds us that we provide a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject. If we've summarized what the sources say, then we have done our job. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:26, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Shooterwalker that we are getting sidetracked from what was asked by the mediator. I agree that the sources are reliable but I am in doubt that listicles or "best of" lists are a qualifer as lets say a full page document on the writing of why one game is "the best". I'm not concerned with bias as this is subjective. Someone who made it to the finals in the olympics is probably still a great athlete, even if they didn't win a medal so number placement on a list seems problematic. My bigger concern is suggesting listicles are the most high quality writing on the topic and that the topic remains purposely vague to qualify the lists.

Reading through the comments, I've applied Phediuk's comments in a lighter green, Shooterwalker in burgundy, and TompaDompa as gold and wiki guidelines in green text and outside commentary in cyan.

Phediuk: "The page is not about the lists being considered the best, but the games." and such sources are the basis of what Wikipedia considers to be serious opinions on pop-culture topics

• • Per WP:BESTSOURCES, "basing content on the best respected and most authoritative reliable sources helps to prevent bias, undue weight, and other NPOV disagreements." and WP:RSEDITORIAL, When taking information from opinion content, the identity of the author may help determine reliability. The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint. The idea of something being the best, I think we can agree, is an opinion. Using the list format is at best "ok", but we should focus an authors as a recognized experts or specialists. Failing that, authors who do more than put their name in a hat.

When applying all these publications as equally authoritative, this would be going against the above. This This implies that a writer, such as Adam Schubank who wrote the Popular Mechanics list who's HuffingtonPost profile here states he "covering topics ranging from men's fashion and pop culture to the LGBTQ+ experience." All well and good, video games may fall under pop culture. But this would be applying that he's a "specialist and/or recognized experts" on film as much as Roger Ebert who won a Pulitzer Prize for Criticism for film. Or that they would be as recognized expert as lets say LGBTQ themes in video games as Bo Ruberg who has written five books on the topic. I'm not suggesting that we vet very author of these articles, but I'm implying that the higher quality authors do not make listicles as they are considered relatively lower class editorials. articles are weak qualifiers for the best quality of writing on "games considered the best". Hardcore Gaming 101 said in their poll that in 2015 states: "Nowadays "top X" articles on the internet tend to be seen as clickbait, hastily assembled list determined by some quick democratic polling of staff." If you need a grander source, academics similarly weighed in in 2023 with "Almost every video game site will eventually have multiple web pages of the "Best Video Games Ever Made." Academia, too, offers suggestions with the added layer of peer review to hopefully allay concerns about subjectivity (see [Perron's "Fifty Key Games"])."^[1] Let's expand on it with Sean R. Sadri saying that "Listicles have the popularity; aesthetic appeal; and, as evidenced by this study, the credibility to draw in millennial readers as legitimate news stories."^[2] I believe with the above, books, more in-depth length discussion of a "best" topic and acacdemic writing on a topic would trump a listicle, especially with WP:SIGCOV implying that it suggests signifigant coverage "addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content" I believe applying something like TompaDompa suggesting the thrillist article about GoldenEye would have more detail than the lists which go into the topic at grander scale.

• • Phediuk: we do not need to define "best" ourselves (i.e., Andrzejbanas's proposal) and the current summary avoids WP:OR by making a single claim, that each game is named by multiple reliable sources among the best of all time I believe I'm being misunderstood here, I'm not saying we should decide on some consensus of what "best" means, I'm saying that best approach would be to analyze sources and clarify what it means when the sources describe something as "considered the best". This is backed up by WP:SUBJECTIVE, "Articles on creative works should provide an overview of their common interpretations, preferably with citations to experts holding those interpretations. Verifiable public and scholarly critiques provide a useful context for works of art. This comes into play creative works such as video games. We also should apply WP:AUDIENCE, which states "Make your article accessible and understandable for as many readers as possible. Assume readers are reading the article to learn. It is possible that the reader knows nothing about the subject, so the article needs to explain the subject fully. I am unconvinced that "best" is something obvious everyone would understand. if we created a list article called "List of fruits considered the best" and said "this is a list of fruits that are considered the best as voted by experts in the field" none of us would walk away with an idea what it was about. Healthiest fruit? Tastiest? Most popular? most aesthetically appealing? Most value for money? All of the above? Only some of the above? The current descriptor returns to the problem with the vague nature of "best" as I mentioned earlier as WP:WTW. This isn't like the "Academy Award for Best Picture" where "best" is part of the name of the award, this is a term that makes qualifying it as a "single claim" when not clarifying the detail. While previous editors have suggested that the idea of "the best" does not require interpretation, The Mashable cite used in the article itself suggests otherwise used in the article itself says which is included in the article "Even the basic definition of "best" and how it's applied to one or a list of games is open to debate." Remember this isn't stating that a what is the best game is open for debate, but what it might mean to be the best or "best enough" to qualify for a list. Currently, nobody walks away with a similar understanding of what the list represents, we only walk away with an understanding of how the list was calculated. The topic isn't addressed in the article, only the means of calculation, which as as Shooterwalker and I have summarized: [the current] selection criteria is WP:OR We are not a catalog providing the number of times something appears on a list or whether 52nd on a list really means its "good enough" compared to the 53rd, we are about explaining topics from the most authoritative sources. As for Phediuk not finding an academic material on the subject, I have already provided the 50 Key Games book published by an academic publisher and written by academics. It was dismissed because it says "key" not "best" which further cements me saying there has to be some understanding what "best" is understood as. This isn't an upholding of wp:neutrality, its attempting to make a complex topic simple when it is not. Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:56, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi, thanks for the thoughts. I agree that the page should not be a meta-ranking, and that we should not be deciding whether (to borrow your example) a placement of 52nd on a list counts more than 53rd. Regarding the explanation of what "best" means, I will observe letting the term speak for itself, i.e., letting the sources determine what "best" means, and reporting only the works to which the sources apply the term, is already an established practice. For example, List of films voted the best, to which this is often compared, spends only a couple of sentences on its lede, defining "best" only in the sense that it notes that differing sources place different values into the term "best"; its individual entries likewise leave the term "best" itself unexplained. The lede at this page is of similar length, and explicitly notes that it covers what other sources have named as the best games. In that sense, I am not sure what room there is for confusion on the part of readers, since WP is clearly not the one defining what "best" is here. Would your solution be to add a few sentences noting that "best" can be interpreted differently by different people? I mean, we can do that (really, I would support this, if it would help), but I believe that the variance in the sources' opinions is already obvious from the fact that different entries appear on different lists.

Regarding the proposal to restructure the page to what I think you are suggesting (correct me if I am wrong), which would be essentially a series of mini-essays on each game akin to List of video games notable for negative reception, I believe that doing so would cause more problems than it would solve. I agree with Shooterwalker's observation above that the essay format of the aforementioned page leads to endless vibes-based "how negative is negative?" discussion due to its nebulous criteria. With this page, the criteria are clear, objective, and testable, requiring only that multiple sources name a given game in "best games of all time" lists; a game either meets these criteria, or it does not, and no further editorializing is required.

You have mentioned Fifty Key Video Games again, and I understand that its authors present it as an academic list of important games, but they are still not framed as the best games. The aim of the book is thus still outside the scope of this page, unless we rename it to something like "List of games considered significant" or something like that, which is far broader and thus more nebulous. The presence of the terms "best" and/or "greatest" has been one of the criteria to determine whether a source is appropriate for inclusion here precisely to avoid debates on whether "important" or "influential" or "essential" is the same thing as "best". I agree that we should include academic opinions of what the best games are, and if such an article exists, I would be happy to read it. We are working with the sources that we have, all of which are deemed reliable, and thus acceptable to use for pop-culture topics, such as this. You observe that lists of best games are not generally associated with higher-level writing on video games, but I also do not see the problem with that; most coverage of video games is not academic, and we do not require reliable sources to be academic. If a source covers video games regularly, and they are otherwise deemed reliable, we can assume they have sufficient expertise for their opinion to be meaningful. This would be, for instance, the usual standard in game article reception sections, and the aforementioned "films voted the best" article likewise cites both academic and "pop" sources. Phediuk (talk) 22:15, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Struggling to find a way into this conversation, sorry if I miss something above that responds to my comments. After revisiting this, I disagree with the notion that if the staff of IGN, GamingBolt, the Spanish edition of GQ, Hardcore Gaming 101, Collider, and Parade put out lists of video games they consider the best, and a game is in multiple of these, it is verified that the game is among those "considered the best". It doesn't matter how we try to justify it in the lead. I also think the choice between listing games that make it onto 5, 6, or a majority of these lists is arbitrary, and it's a judgement call beyond what Wikipedia editors should be doing. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 04:12, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard § First statement by moderator (List of video games)

I asked whether the editors wanted to engage in brainstorming about changing the methodology for listing the video games. I thought I was asking whether the editors wanted me to facilitate brainstorming, but it appears that the editors have started brainstorming without my assistance. That isn't really how DRN normally works, but it is the sort of discussion that can usefully happen on an article talk page, without my assistance. I will be copying some of this discussion to the article talk page where it can continue.

It appears that the editors are being civil and constructive, so I will encourage them to continue to be civil and constructive.

If there are any specific content issues, we can discuss them here. Otherwise I will see if this discussion is continuing usefully on the article talk page, and will then close this discussion.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:58, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• If the discussion is to be moved to the talk page, can you offer any advice for bringing the various threads of discussions and isuses with the methodology together into a path forward for resolving the dispute? Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 02:20, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• I believe there are content issues. The guidelines aren't being followed in my most recent post. What would be helpful for us to get this back to a moderated discussion? Because I think that's the only way to move forward. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:24, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Like Andrzejbanas, I find there to be content issues. A major reason that this discussion isn't advancing towards resolution is that not everyone in the discussion agrees that this is the case—it's difficult to find a change that we can agree upon when not everybody thinks anything needs to change at all. So we have ended up arguing about whether there is even a problem that needs to be resolved in the first place. I don't believe that there is any intentional stonewalling going on, but the end result is much the same. I might suggest that the course of action most likely to lead to some kind of progression in the discussion—rather than going in circles—would be to desist from discussing the status quo as such and instead focus on discussing the alternatives. TompaDompa (talk) 02:52, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I suspect framing the discussion around alternatives, unless we're doing so in a brainstorming sense to generate framings to put against current approaches, is begging the question and may not be fair to editors who think there's nothing wrong with the current list. If we want to establish first whether there's an issue, I imagine a two-pronged RfC asking if the current methodology is OR / doesn't violate NPOV would be a good first step, even if some of the issues editors have raised (including myself) aren't directly addressed therein. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 04:24, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I was thinking, given that quite a few people think there is something wrong, that we would discuss alternatives first to come up with something (quite possibly multiple concurrent alternatives) that could replace the current approach to make it possible to make an informed decision based on a concrete suggestion—is that more-or-less what you meant by brainstorming to generate framings to put against current approaches? I don't think it's a good idea to start with asking whether things should change without a clear alternative to consider, since that runs a considerable risk of getting stuck due to the vagueness of the proposal (and ending up back here again down the line with no meaningful progress one way or the other). TompaDompa (talk) 04:53, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  In my head, I prefer the approach of "is this policy compliant?" then, "if not, what is?" Because even if an alternative isn't selected, we don't just defer to a status quo that we have established violates OR/NPOV. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 05:00, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  That's probably the best approach. We will be closer to finding what does work with this kind of material and what may be the best approach. Perhaps if we go into details and confirm what we generally (I don't think this will go across the board) of what does not work with the current status quo, we then make an effort to find the better alternative? Andrzejbanas (talk) 05:28, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  If this helps any, I'm willing to start a userspace draft using some of the list's currently used sources (plus maybe a few others I can find for things like "best games in X genre") to establish a sort of template on how List of films voted the best could translate over into video games. Then we can go from there to explore alternatives (so basically using List of films voted the best as a starting point). If this is the alternative that we want to start with, at least.

  I admittedly haven't kept much track of this conversation because it's appeared to, for the most part, just go in circles as y'all mentioned and I truly don't hold much of an opinion other than I'd maintain the list regardless. So sorry if there's something important I have missed, that's fully on me. λ NegativeMP1 05:36, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, I have tried to read it over three times now and have stalled out on all of them. A mock-up of would be helpful to have regardless of where it is invoked.

  @Andrzejbanas, when you say go into details, can you be specific? Do you mean being specific in an RfC by presenting the main contentions people have, or parsing the RfC afterwards to see where people agree, or doing something out of an RfC format to confirm what we generally believe doesn't work with the current methodology? Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 05:46, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I mean, i think go into details would be something as simple as.

  • "The article currently fails *WP:whateverguideline*, its specifically breaks the *whatever quote here*
    • A solution to this could be the following
      • A) one idea
      • B) another idea
      • C) Another great idea. You get the point.

  That way we can read at ease what are the actual problems that don't boil down to opinions. Once we find some majority on where we stand on where we come from. We can then maybe try to create the other templates that may fix the problem. I have my own ideas, but I think in a sea of giant paragraphs above, often reptitive comments (mine are equally reptitive so I'm guilty of this), boiling it down to this will make it much easier to parse. Andrzejbanas (talk) 05:54, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Not sure I follow where this is being put or if we currently have any shared agreement of PAGs being failed, but I'll leave it for others to evaluate. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 06:18, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  @NegativeMP1: I think creating such a draft would be helpful, yes. @Andrzejbanas: did you have something like the below in mind (I'll collapse it since it's rather lengthy)? It's just a first draft, obviously. TompaDompa (talk) 18:24, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I was toying with something, but I'll need a bit to figure it out. I think part of the troubling solution to making a change to the current status quo is that there is no "quick fix". There is no "well just adjust the number of things here" or "add a sentence to the lead" doesn't fix the problem. I'll read through your suggestion and follow-up. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:38, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  For what it's worth, there actually is a quick fix that would resolve basically all of the issues that I personally have with the article, and that's renaming it to 'List of video games appearing on "best of"-lists', or similar. As stated above, I don't think appearing on any number of best of lists necessarily means anything, but at least nothing is being miscommunicated. With that name, I think there would be far fewer complaints about highly acclaimed games missing, and probably also fewer objections to the methodology. And it's useful for the raw, "what lists had this game appeared on," data to be available for anyone writing about a game's critical reception.

  That said, I think the ideal solution is to centre the lists themselves, rather than the games. This would open up for inclusion other lists that are currently excluded, e.g. notable reader polls, best console games lists, best PC games lists, and lists that cover a significant portion of time but not the entirety of gaming history, e.g. Edge Magazine's list from a few years ago that covered the magazine's 30 year history. These are more notable and of more interest to readers than a lot of the currently included all-time lists, in my opinion. That's not a quick fix, though. IlmeniAVG (talk) 19:46, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree that would help, we'd probably have to get rid of the limit of "has to appear on six", as that rule seems to be just applied to keep it short (if I'm wrong, I'd need to be shown where the discussion to apply this was.) Perhaps a column to indicate how many times it shown up, but I wouldn't fight vigorously for that. I don't think people would be happy about that solution, but its the "easiest" and is far better representation of what the article represents. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:52, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I would be fine with a rename along these lines, and cannot really think of a downside, although I believe it to be unnecessary, since the lede already explains what the title means. The source threshold (i.e., what we define as "multiple sources" for purposes of inclusion) can always be discussed, too; the page is quite lean on readable text at 70KB; compare that to, say, List of video games notable for negative reception, which is over 200KB. I don't think there's any immediate danger of the page becoming too long, even if the threshold is lowered. I agree with IlmeniAVG that having that information all in one place would be highly useful for the project. Phediuk (talk) 20:11, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  That would be easily be fixed by splitting it if the length were cumbersome. Just as we do with List of Italian films, List of PlayStation (console) games, Lists of operas, etc. I think we've established the lead basically limits the broad spectrum. I would however, remove any re-direct of List of games considered the best to this article, as its not the same thing. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:18, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Regarding the redirect (and I don't think this a major consideration, but nonetheless), the page, regardless of its title, would still reflect what multiple sources consider to be specifically the best games of all time, so I can think the redirect could remain. IGN's list of "The 100 best games of all time", for instance, considers all of the games to be "the best"; stating that those games are considered as the best of all time is a straightforward reflection of the source. The page criteria would remain (perhaps with a different source threshold), and the new title ("Video games listed as the best", perhaps?) would simply clarify what it means, i.e., state in a few words what the lede does in two sentences. Phediuk (talk) 20:32, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Renaming it to List of video games appearing on "best of"-lists (as suggested by IlmeniAVG and by me in the collapsed section below) is a possible approach, but hardly an ideal one—generally speaking, we should not be working backwards from a flawed methodology to find a title that would seem to justify it. Moreover, while it would solve some problems, it would not solve all of them. We still have the question of meaning. If I understand the respective positions correctly (and please correct me if I do not), Phediuk is of the opinion that this is a meaningful metric and that it reflects being considered the best, to the point that we can say so in WP:WikiVoice. On the other hand, IlmeniAVG is of the opinion that it is not meaningful, and that this lack of meaning is what keeps it from being WP:Original research. These are irreconcilable positions—at least in WP:Mainspace. Another option would be to move it to WP:WikiProject Video games/List of video games appearing on "best of"-lists and be done with it. That way, it would remain a resource that is useful for the raw, "what lists had this game appeared on," data to be available for anyone writing about a game's critical reception (though I'm skeptical that this is a good way to write about the reception, but whatever). As long as it remains in mainspace—regardless of title—I would oppose a column to indicate how many times (at least if I understood Andrzejbanas correctly: the number of lists the entry appears on) as that would be inventing a metric and assigning a meaning to it, thus going far beyond what our policy against WP:Original research allows. TompaDompa (talk) 20:50, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I disagree that these are irreconcilable positions; if anything, they are the opposite, being reconciled positions, having arrived at a solution that satisfies the two different perspectives. This is the purpose of discussions like these. I propose "Video games listed as the best"; this reflects both the large body of reliable sources that have produced lists dedicated to naming the best games of all time, making that a notable topic, and it accurately characterizes said sources; for example, IGN's "The 100 best games of all time" list verifiably calls all of its entries "the best of all time". We could possibly add "of all time" to the title, as well, if necessary. Phediuk (talk) 21:09, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I would say that the position "it is meaningful, and that's what makes it valid from a WP:NPOV perspective" and "it is meaningless, and that's what makes it valid from a WP:Original research perspective" are irreconcilable, and this is what I take your respective positions to be (again, please correct me if I have misunderstood your position). Or as IlmeniAVG put it: I don't think you can have it both ways here: either it's meaningful and OR, or it's neutral and meaningless. TompaDompa (talk) 21:20, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Disagree with Phediuk as we've established limiting it to best-of lists ignores other forms that go more into depth on the topic. This would have a title that actually captures the content. I agree with Tompa Dompa that this is a possible approach. I don't think this would have us "done with it" as a "List of video games considered the best" or similar phrasing could be expanded upon with a separate discussion. As for the column, my heart was not set on it in any major way, so I'm more than happy to not have that. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:03, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't feel beholden to the redirect. The rename, on the other hand, would be a good idea. Phediuk (talk) 21:09, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  (edit conflict)It would have us "done with it" in the sense where "it" is arguing about this particular list. We could move the current list out of mainspace to WP:WikiProject Video games/List of video games appearing on "best of"-lists and start working on a new List of films voted the best-style list. I would be in favour of that solution. I agree that List of video games considered the best is inappropriate as a redirect to List of video games appearing on "best of"-lists / WP:WikiProject Video games/List of video games appearing on "best of"-lists. TompaDompa (talk) 21:13, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I approve of all of this. The rename was suggested as a quick fix for the major problems with the article, but if people are willing to put the work in then what you propose is much better. I agree that the redirect is inappropriate. Articles that wish to cite where a game has appeared on greatest games lists should cite those lists directly. Linking to a page that seems to make a meaningful claim, but then pretends not to when this meaningful claim is argued to be OR, is obviously not something that should happen on Wikipedia. IlmeniAVG (talk) 21:24, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Basically agreed. This would solve one problem and this is a complicated task that may require solving it one problem at a time to get to where we want to get. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:26, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Linking to a page that seems to make a meaningful claim, but then pretends not to when this meaningful claim is argued to be OR, is obviously not something that should happen on Wikipedia. See also: Motte-and-bailey argument. TompaDompa (talk) 21:34, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I want to clarify my position on the current "games considered the best" page here, because it has been repeatedly misrepresented in this discussion. At no point have I claimed the page is both meaningful and meaningless; this is a strawman. My position is that the page, as is, fulfills all of Wikipedia's core policies, and is a notable topic well-supported by extensive reliable-source coverage. Here is a fuller explanation:

• The page fulfills WP:V. It makes a single claim, that each game on the page is named by multiple reliable sources in lists of best games of all time, unrestricted by platform, era, or genre. It provides sources for every entry to verify that claim. All sources are reliable and vetted on the talk page before being used. The page focuses on articles that specifically call the games “best” or “greatest” of all time, to ensure that these sources actually consider them “best” and not just “important”. Furthermore, it focuses specifically on articles dedicated to naming said games as the best of all time; it excludes off-hand mentions in other articles to avoid becoming an indiscriminate list of every time someone called a game “the best” somewhere (such as, say, in a regular review.) The focus on “lists” here is more descriptive than prescriptive; if a “list of one” article devoted entirely to naming a specific game as the best of all time were to appear, that would also be valid for inclusion. The only reason “lists of one” are not currently included is because of their comparative rarity, since when sources want to specifically name games as “best of all time”, they usually end up making a list. If anyone wants to find more single-game “best of all time” articles and include them on the page, nothing in the current criteria would prevent us from doing so.
• The page also fulfills WP:NOR. It makes a meaningful claim, but not an original claim; it claims that the sources for each entry name the game on lists of “best games of all time”, and it provides citations for every entry to prove that claim. It does not contain any meta-ranking or tallying. The page’s requirement of multiple sources is not the content of the article, but its inclusion criteria, fulfilling Wikipedia’s allowance that a contentious claim may require multiple sources. The guidelines do not define how many sources constitute "multiple"; currently, the page has defined it as six, but this number can be changed (whether lower or higher) via consensus, and the precise number is a comparatively minor point.
• Finally, the list fulfills WP:NPOV. It represents a wide range of opinions from, currently, 54 different reliable publications, mostly from journalists and game critics, with some incorporating opinions from industry figures. It does not privilege one publication’s view above another, nor declare that only a certain number of entries per publication count, or that games below a certain rank (in ranked lists) do not count. It includes both ranked and unranked lists, reflecting the reality that both approaches are common. The page is designed to reflect the sources in the most complete manner possible.

I hope this cleared up my position on the page. Phediuk (talk) 22:02, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe anybody has stated that your position is that the page is meaningless? You have repeatedly stated that you believe the single claim, that each game on the page is named by multiple reliable sources in lists of best games of all time, unrestricted by platform, era, or genre to be a meaningful one—and unless I have misunderstood you, that it is equivalent to the game being considered the best. Others have disagreed, either (1) by finding the claim to be meaningless or (2) by only finding it to be meaningful if meaning is assigned to it beyond what is acceptable in terms of WP:Original research. TompaDompa (talk) 22:28, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Phediuk: Since you want to clarify your position, I'll ask something I've been wondering regarding the WP:WEIGHT clause of WP:NPOV: do you believe that, based on the sources, e.g. Tetris and Ultima IV: Quest of the Avatar are equally prominently considered the best? TompaDompa (talk) 23:51, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

seems to make a meaningful claim, but then pretends not to There it is. I did not "pretend not to" make a meaningful claim at any point. That is a false claim. On the contrary, I have stuck beside that the claim that multiple reliable sources have named a game in lists of "best games of all time" is meaningful, because the sources demonstrably treat it as such, as evidenced by the extensive body of reliable sources we have that all have made lists for the express purpose of naming the best games of all time. No original interpretation or research is required. The plain meaning of a source such as IGN's "The 100 best games of all time" is that the games it lists are the best games of all time. We can therefore report that IGN has listed (x) game as "best of all time". This is an objective, factual claim that directly reflects the source. When we have multiple sources name a game on their lists of "best games of all time", we can, also, neutrally and factually, state that multiple sources list it as one of the best of all time. This is the most straightforward interpretation possible of the sources. Phediuk (talk) 00:05, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I took what IlmeniAVG said as referring to the page itself rather than to you personally, given that the subject of the verb "pretends" is "a page" in the full sentence Linking to a page that seems to make a meaningful claim, but then pretends not to [...], but perhaps they can clarify their intention.

Would you care to clarify your position on the WP:WEIGHT question I posed, i.e. do you believe that, based on the sources, e.g. Tetris and Ultima IV: Quest of the Avatar are equally prominently considered the best? TompaDompa (talk) 00:29, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion of an entry’s “prominence” is irrelevant, as we should not be inserting subjective ideas of what counts as “prominence” into the page. Hence, the page focuses entirely on an objective claim, directly supported by the sources. For example, ‘’IGN’’’s list of The best 100 video games of all time calls all of its entries “the best”, both in its title and its preface. This is an objective, verifiable fact; therefore, reporting that (x) game was named by IGN as “best of all time” directly reflects what the source says. Conversely, the source does not state anywhere that its rankings indicate that (for instance) its #1 entry is superior or more “prominent” than the others, nor does it claim that its #1 ranking represents the singular best. To say that it does is to make a POV claim not supported by the source (and thus also OR.) The point is that rankings are not equivalent to “prominence”. Neither is the page a meta-ranking of the number of times a game appeared on a list; that would be WP:SYNTH. The sources are provided in full after each entry; every listing is cited. If the readers want to see the relative number of listings for each entry, they can, and the citations provided are indeed proportional to the number of sources that have listed them. However, this is pointedly not the content of the article. It is a list of games named by multiple reliable sources in lists of “best games of all time”, not a ranking of them. Phediuk (talk) 09:54, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Phediuk: I believe you may have misunderstood my question. I'm not asking about your view regarding the rankings, which you have made abundantly clear over and over again. WP:NPOV mandates that Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects.. Given your reading of the sources, do you believe that e.g. Tetris and Ultima IV: Quest of the Avatar are equally prominently considered the best (in the sense this article uses that phrasing)? TompaDompa (talk) 10:36, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I understood the question the first time. It asks for my opinion of "prominence", which is a slippery term, often used in a subjective manner. I mentioned the WP:POV and WP:OR flaws of focusing on rankings because determining what constitutes "prominence" matters, especially when we want to be objective. To that end, I am concerned with the objective fulfillment of the page's criteria. Insofar as "prominence" is the objective number of the available sources that cite each entry on lists of "best games of all time", the page already fulfills WP:WEIGHT. We have provided the sources; all listings are cited in their entirety beside each entry. The relative number of listings is clearly observable for a reader, without turning the page into a meta-ranking or score counter, which would be WP:SYNTH. This structure is objective, verifiable, and reflective of the sources proportionally; Tetris has more citations than Ultima IV, reflecting their respective number of listings; nevertheless, both games fulfill the page criteria. My opinion of their "prominence" is thus unnecessary. Phediuk (talk) 12:31, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You may think that "prominence" is a slippery term, but that's what policy says—we have to reflect the prominence of each viewpoint proportionately. If we grant for the sake of argument that a game is "considered the best" if it appears on a "best of" list, then that viewpoint (a game being considered the best is a viewpoint) can be more or less prominent in the sources. You argue that the only relevant factor for the purposes of this list is the appearance itself—not the ranking (if the list is ranked), not the relative quality of the source (as long as it is reliable enough to count in the first place), only whether or not it appears. As you say, determining what constitutes "prominence" matters, and your position is that the only valid way is the objective number of the available sources that cite each entry on lists of "best games of all time". I don't particularly agree that this is the only valid way to make that determination, but let's go with what you said for now. It follows from your position, necessarily, that if Game A appears on more lists than Game B, the former being considered the best is a more prominent viewpoint than the latter being considered the best—and WP:NPOV mandates that we give the former viewpoint due weight and avoid giving the latter undue weight: articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Per your own logic, Game A being considered the best is a more widely held view than Game B being considered the best, and the latter is not to get "as much of or as detailed a description". This is the first time I have ever seen anybody suggest that the number of citations is the way we give WP:Due weight, and I think most experienced editors would find that notion patently absurd. However you got from "as much of or as detailed a description" to the number of sources cited, I suppose I will never know. I picked Tetris and Ultima IV: Quest of the Avatar for a reason: Tetris cites all six lists that Ultima IV: Quest of the Avatar does, and on more than 60 additional lists that Ultima IV: Quest of the Avatar does not cite (I'll assume that the citations are all correct so that Tetris then appears on all of those lists and Ultima IV: Quest of the Avatar appears only on six, but I haven't checked). Tetris is then, by what you deem an objective standard, much more widely considered the best than Ultima IV: Quest of the Avatar, but the only way the reader would become aware of that is if they checked the citations. That is such an obvious failure of presenting views in proportion to their representation in the sources that it's puzzling to me that you cannot see it.

As for rankings, which you keep going on about, you are really just imposing your own views about what is meaningful and what is not and pretending that it is somehow objective. If the sources didn't think rankings were meaningful, they wouldn't include any rankings (as some don't), and they especially wouldn't be counting down to #1. It's not for you to say that the sources' decision to include a game on their lists is meaningful, but the decision to put it at #1 rather than #97 is meaningless. TompaDompa (talk) 03:32, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If the sources didn't think rankings were meaningful, they wouldn't include any rankings (as some don't), and they especially wouldn't be counting down to #1. We do not report what the sources "think"; we report what they say. To do otherwise is WP:POV and WP:OR. When the sources call a list The best 100 video games of all time, then they are calling every entry "best of all time"; this an objective, verifiable fact. To say that only certain rankings "count" contradicts the source. If the source does not say that certain rankings count as more "best" than others (and indeed, the linked list does not), then you cannot report that they do; applying any significance to the rankings that the source does not state is WP:OR. Similarly, if the source does not say that a #1 ranking means they consider that game to be the single, definitive best, you cannot say that they do; per WP:OR, this would be "stat[ing] or imply[ing] a conclusion not directly and explicitly supported by the source". Counterfactuals such as "If the source didn't think [x], they wouldn't [y]" are WP:POV and WP:OR on their face, because they are inherently based on something that the source didn't say (notice, again, your use of the word "think".) If you claim that a ranking means what you say it does, the source must say that. Conversely, we can objectively, neutrally, and factually report what they do explicitly say, which is that they have named each entry on a list called "The best 100 games of all time" as "best of all time".

This is the first time I have ever seen anybody suggest that the number of citations is the way we give WP:Due weight, and I think most experienced editors would find that notion patently absurd. Correct, the "number of citations" is not what fulfills WP:DUE, and I didn't say that; the fact that we provide all of the listings beside each entry does. Since the sourcing of the page is complete for each entry, it is also proportional. This approach fulfills WP:WEIGHT, accurately reflects the nature of the sources themselves, and is based on an objective standard (i.e., being explicitly named as "best") that we can apply to any relevant source. I will explain in fuller detail:

First, and foremost, let us discuss WP:WEIGHT: it requires that we "fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources." The sources included are characterized as, for example, "the 100 best video games of all time"; every source, in fact, contains multiple games. The page must reflect that reality. The page must also accurately represent the reality that in a list of "best video games of all time", the "best of all time" verifiably and factually refers to all entries. To declare that only certain rankings "count" is WP:UNDUE, on top of WP:OR, unless the source explicitly says otherwise. Likewise for any claim that a source considers one game the singular best; if it does not explicitly say that, we cannot say that it does. Otherwise, we are imposing a WP:POV onto them.

Second, I refer to WP:GNG: "There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected". The notability of a claim is established by the fact that multiple sources say it, a standard to which this page adheres. Furthermore, per WP:EXCEPTIONAL, "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources." To claim that a certain games are named as "best of all time" across the entire medium is an exceptional claim, and thus requires multiple sources. All of the sources are currently considered vetted as reliable, and thus presumed acceptable to cite for pop-culture topics (this is, for instance, the usual standard in reception sections for video games and other media.) If you take issue with a certain source, you may discuss that at the talk page.

Finally, this is a list, not an essay; we do not adjust the size of list entries based on how many sources discuss them. If an entry meet the inclusion criteria, it is included on the list, because the fulfillment of that criteria is the point of a list; no one would argue, for instance, that List of Renaissance figures fails due weight because its entries are all the same size, or that its entries are not ranked. There, as elsewhere, entries are included if they are notable and meet the criteria.

The point of this is that the page criteria are objective, verifiable, and factual, and properly representative of the sources. Including all of the relevant citations beside each entry fulfills all of these goals. Phediuk (talk) 11:25, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If we grant the premise that there is a policy-compliant way of interpreting this article (I don't, and for multiple reasons, but for the sake of argument), then isn't it at least a little concerning that this supposedly correct interpretation still isn't clear to some people (myself included) after a multiple-thousand word back and forth, while the lead of the article is a mere two sentences? It doesn't matter how obvious this "correct" interpretation is to you; when discussions about it come up this frequently, and the "correct" interpretation is this hard to explain, then that still points to a seriously flawed article, in my opinion. IlmeniAVG (talk) 12:53, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) You know, we could also objectively, neutrally, and factually report the rank a source gave a particular game on their "best of" list. That a particular game is ranked at #1 is an objective, verifiable fact. To say that the ranking doesn't "count" contradicts the source. Further, applying any significance to appearing on multiple lists that the sources do not state is WP:OR. Saying that appearing on multiple "best of" lists is the same thing as being considered the best would be "stat[ing] or imply[ing] a conclusion not directly and explicitly supported by the source". I'll note that I'm far from the only one who has raised objections to your approach. For one thing, Rollinginhisgrave said I disagree with the notion that if the staff of IGN, GamingBolt, the Spanish edition of GQ, Hardcore Gaming 101, Collider, and Parade put out lists of video games they consider the best, and a game is in multiple of these, it is verified that the game is among those "considered the best". It doesn't matter how we try to justify it in the lead. I also think the choice between listing games that make it onto 5, 6, or a majority of these lists is arbitrary, and it's a judgement call beyond what Wikipedia editors should be doing. For another, IlmeniAVG said I agree with this. Specifically that, "we really have no business whatsoever relying on something appearing on multiple lists as a basis for anything at all." You keep asserting your position about the supposed neutrality, objectivity, and meaningfulness of the list with the criteria you have made up from whole cloth, but it seems to me that you are not really convincing anybody. Other editors have made concrete suggestions about how to address the fundamental issues with this whole endeavour, and I would suggest that it would be more helpful if you work with other editors collaboratively to this end rather than restating your position that amounts to "no, it's fine, actually" over and over again.

Correct, the "number of citations" is not what fulfills WP:DUE, and I didn't say that; the fact that we provide all of the listings beside each entry does. Since the sourcing of the page is complete for each entry, it is also proportional. So not the number of citations, but the citations themselves, then. All the same, this is the first time I have ever seen anybody suggest that the citations is the way we give WP:Due weight, and I think most experienced editors would find that notion patently absurd.

First, and foremost, let us discuss WP:WEIGHT: it requires that we "fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources."

Second, I refer to WP:GNG: "There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected". The notability of a claim is established by the fact that multiple sources say it, a standard to which this page adheres. I'll give you a chance to identify the error you have made here which demonstrates that you do not at all understand what you are talking about.

Finally, this is a list, not an essay; we do not adjust the size of list entries based on how many sources discuss them. I'm not sure why you jump to "the size of list entries" as the thing to adjust, but also: we absolutely can, and sometimes do. Trivially, explicitly which lists each video game appears on would do so.

no one would argue, for instance, that List of Renaissance figures fails due weight because its entries are all the same size, or that its entries are not ranked Comparing a navigational list and an informational one like this is quite silly, which I should think you would understand. TompaDompa (talk) 12:58, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You know, we could also objectively, neutrally, and factually report the rank a source gave a particular game on their "best of" list. That a particular game is ranked at #1 is an objective, verifiable fact. You have missed the point completely; putting a #1 ranking beside a game is not the same as calling it the singular best, and in fact, that interpretation directly contradicts a source such as the IGN list, which plainly identifies all of its entries as "the best 100 video games of all time", and makes no mention whatsoever of a singular best. If the source does not explicitly call a game the singular best, and you say it does, you are imposing a WP:POV and WP:OR reading onto it; per policy, do not "state or imply a conclusion not directly and explicitly supported by the source."

Saying that appearing on multiple "best of" lists is the same thing as being considered the best would be "stat[ing] or imply[ing] a conclusion not directly and explicitly supported by the source" The games listed are explicitly, directly, and verifiably included on lists of "best games of all time" lists from reliable sources; every entry provides the sources to support that claim. Please provide an example to the contrary if not. The requirement of multiple sources is to fulfill the recommendation of WP:EXCEPTIONAL. If we are claiming that reliable sources consider certain games "best of all time" across the medium, in lists specifically dedicated to naming said games, that is an exceptional claim, which should require multiple sources. The number that constitutes "multiple" is currently six, but that can change.

Further, "applying any significance to" appearing on multiple lists that the sources do not state is WP:OR. The claim the page applies to its entries is the same that the sources that list them do: that they have named it on a "best video games of all time" list. A large body of sources treat the notion of "best games" as notable, so we should, also. If you have a found a case where a source is erroneously cited, please present it.

You keep asserting your position about the supposed neutrality, objectivity, and meaningfulness of the list with the criteria I defend the list criteria as objective and verifiable, because they are. They present a claim that can be, and is, objectively and verifiably fulfilled for every entry. During this entire discussion, no one has presented a single instance of the page's claim (that [x] game is named as "best of all time") not being supported by multiple reliable sources. Furthermore, no one has presented a single source as unreliable for the page's purposes, or even proposed that any sources be removed. The reliability of an individual source, or whether it should be included or not, can always be discussed; they have all been vetted before inclusion, but if any are found not to be suitable in some way, that can change. My point is that I am not defending the sanctity of any sources here; I defend specifically the criteria. I defend the meaningfulness of the claim, as well, as the sources treat the idea of naming the "best games of all time" as notable; it is widely covered in the reliable sources we have. If there is an objection to these points specifically, please present it.

So not the number of citations, but the citations themselves, then. All the same, this is the first time I have ever seen anybody suggest that the citations is the way we give WP:Due weight That, also, is not what I said. The body of reliable sources on the topic at hand are what determines an article's WP:Due weight, and the page represents those sources verifiably and exhaustively.

I'll give you a chance to identify the error you have made here which demonstrates that you do not at all understand what you are talking about. If you're not going to respond to the points, then both of them stand: WP:WEIGHT requires that we accurately reflect the reality that the lists name multiple games as "best of all time", and WP:GNG apply here as anywhere else. Per WP:NLIST: "Notability guidelines also apply to the creation of stand-alone lists and tables".

For maximum clarity, I will go through the explicit list-criteria guidelines at WP:LSC so that I can explain my position point-for-point.

 • First, it says, "Selection criteria (also known as inclusion criteria or membership criteria) should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources." The list clearly focuses specifically on claims of "best games of all time" on lists devoted to that purpose, and applies this standard to all sources. It states its criteria in the lede. All sources are vetted to be reliable.

 • "Avoid original or arbitrary criteria that would synthesize a list that is not plainly verifiable in reliable sources." The list requires multiple reliable sources to fulfill WP:EXCEPTIONAL, which, as a requirement based in policy, is not arbitrary. Furthermore, WP:EXCEPTIONAL not specify how many sources should constitute "multiple"; this number is six, but can change. The page makes no original claims, instead reflecting exactly what sources have named as the best video games of all time.

 • The inclusion criteria are not "indiscriminate", as defined at WP:IINFO; the page does not indiscriminately list every time anyone has ever referred to a game as the best ever, but focuses entirely on dedicated lists created by reliable sources for the purpose of naming the best games.

 • The policy says that "data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources"; the page contains no meta-rankings or tallies, and the only data in it are citations that directly fulfill the page's claim, i.e., that game [x] is listed by [y] source in its dedicated list of "best games of all time". The only number on the page is the requirement of multiple sources for inclusion, as allowed in the aforementioned policy.

In short, I argue the page meets all of the relevant WP:NLIST and WP:LSC criteria.

Trivially, explicitly which lists each video game appears on would do so. I would be fine with this, though it is at least somewhat redundant, given that the sources are already right beside the entries. If you want to propose how this would look, I would be happy to hear it.

Comparing a navigational list and an informational one like this is quite silly, which I should think you would understand. All lists are subject to Wikipedia's policies regardless of purpose, so the point stands. For an even better example, consider List of prominent operas, which, indeed, does provide an exhaustive list of all operas deemed "prominent" in reliable-source lists, and provides each with an entry of the same size, regardless of whether some are mentioned by more sources than others. Furthermore, most Wikipedia articles are at least partially navigational anyway, given that they typically consist of things that have their own WP articles; thus, most lists are designed to facilitate navigation to different pages, as is this one. Phediuk (talk) 16:14, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

At some point you are going to have to deal with the evident and problematic fact of people not understanding the list the way you do. I don't even think it really matters if they are correctly interpreting it as synthesis/original research or misinterpreting it as that. It's a problem either way, and that problem can't be addressed by defending the status quo. IlmeniAVG (talk) 17:01, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't miss the point, I'm using your own arguments against you in the hope that you might understand why your arguments do not persuade me. That a particular game is ranked at #1 is an objective, verifiable fact. Your argument boils down to this not being sufficient on its own to base an article on—that's my point against your approach.

The games listed are explicitly, directly, and verifiably included on lists of "best games of all time" lists from reliable sources; every entry provides the sources to support that claim. I don't think that anybody has disputed that the games are included on the lists. What I'm saying is you cannot say, based on that, that they are "considered the best" in WP:WikiVoice absent further qualifiers or attribution.

The claim the page applies to its entries is the same that the sources that list them do: that they have named it on a "best video games of all time" list. And also that this makes the games WP:WikiVoice-level "considered the best" without further qualifiers or attribution.

During this entire discussion, no one has presented a single instance of the page's claim (that [x] game is named as "best of all time") not being supported by multiple reliable sources. Furthermore, no one has presented a single source as unreliable for the page's purposes, or even proposed that any sources be removed. I gather that you think that this is because you think these points are unassailable. The actual reason is that we are not here to discuss minutiae-level details about individual sources or entries, but the overall methodology.

I defend specifically the criteria. I defend the meaningfulness of the claim, as well, as the sources treat the idea of naming the "best games of all time" as notable; it is widely covered in the reliable sources we have. If there is an objection to these points specifically, please present it. I think you know that numerous objections to the criteria and overall meaningfulness has been made.

The body of reliable sources on the topic at hand are what determines an article's WP:Due weight, and the page represents those sources verifiably and exhaustively. But not proportionately, which is the issue.

The error you made, which I gave you an opportunity to identify yourself, is applying WP:Notability to article content. The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic may have its own article.

The page makes no original claims Yes, it does: that these games are WP:WikiVoice-level "considered the best" without further qualifiers or attribution.

focuses entirely on dedicated lists created by reliable sources for the purpose of naming the best games Yes, to the exclusion of other sources that would also be WP:Reliable in this context.

the page contains no meta-rankings or tallies, and the only data in it are citations that directly fulfill the page's claim, i.e., that game [x] is listed by [y] source in its dedicated list of "best games of all time". In other words, it presents the WP:RAWDATA without context.

consider List of prominent operas, which, indeed, does provide an exhaustive list of all operas deemed "prominent" in reliable-source lists, and provides each with an entry of the same size, regardless of whether some are mentioned by more sources than others. You do understand that different levels of WP:Due weight can be given by the actual contents of the description, not just its length, right? Further, you do see that it has a separate "Operas included in all nine lists" list, right? I don't know if it's a good example to follow in general terms (I haven't taken a particularly close look at it), but there are pretty obvious and significant differences between that list and this one. TompaDompa (talk) 17:24, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

My position is a bit more ambivalent than the strident language there, but generally yes. I'll also note that the IGN source is really obviously a ranked list in any plain reading, and indeed at the bottom it asks "Where did your favorite game fall on our list?", which is incoherent if the reader is expected to assume the numbering in such a list is not rankings. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 13:06, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No one disputes that the list is ranked. Where WP:POV and WP:OR enter the picture is when we apply a meaning to those rankings not specified in the source. If a source does not identify a game explicitly as the singular best, you cannot say that they do. The IGN list is a good example, because it explicitly states that all of its entries are "the best", but nowhere states that any of its entries should be considered better than others, let alone that any are the singular best. To say it does is to say something the source does not, and is, hence, WP:OR, which says not to "state or imply a conclusion not directly and explicitly supported by the source." Phediuk (talk) 16:28, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Interpreting that IGN list as essentially unranked is a spectacularly wild take. It is abundantly from contextual cues, established norms, and by process of elimination that IGN did in fact identify a singular best, second best, third best, and so on. You are welcome to that interpretation, but I find it hard to take seriously, and I suspect others find it hard to take seriously also. IlmeniAVG (talk) 16:43, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say that the IGN list is unranked. I said that the source does not indicate that any game listed is better than any others, nor does it apply any particular meaning to its rankings (in fact, neither the preface nor any of the entries mention the rankings at all), nor does it state that any game is the singular best. Conversely, it explicitly identifies all of the games as the best in both its title and preface. To state that they have declared a singular best is directly contradicting the source. Wikipedia does not operate on "contextual cues, established norms, and by process of elimination" in sources; per WP:SYNTH, "That kind of 'connecting the dots' is improper editorial synthesis and is a form of original research." We must rely on what sources explicitly say; per WP:SYNTH again, "do not combine different parts of one source to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source." If we are claiming that a source has declared a specific game to be the singular best of all time, we must, according to policy, show where they explicitly said so. Phediuk (talk) 17:31, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"I did not say that the IGN list is unranked. I said that the source does not indicate that any game listed is better than any others" Yes it does. That's what the ranking is: a ranking of best to 100th best. If you are somehow correct and it isn't that, then we should remove IGN as a reliable source, as that is gross miscommunication and we should hold reliable sources to higher standards than that. IlmeniAVG (talk) 17:39, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The article does not explain or even mention its rankings in the preface or any of the entries. We cannot say they mean anything except what the source says they mean; per WP:OR, we do not state or imply conclusions not explicitly stated in the source. If they do indeed consider some of the games listed to be superior to others, we should be able to find a clear statement of that. If the #1 ranking means they consider that game the singular best of all time, we must point to where they said that. Instead, the source states the opposite, that all of the games are "the 100 best video games of all time", again identifying them all collectively as "the best of the best" in its preface. To state otherwise is to contradict what the source explicitly says, and is thus WP:POV and WP:OR. Perhaps you are right and IGN fumbled their messaging; however, we are not allowed to assume what a source "really" means, as doing so is also WP:POV and WP:OR. We must report what they actually say. Phediuk (talk) 18:10, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Phediuk, let's get real. IlmeniAVG thinks it's obvious that it's a ranked list, from best to 100th-best (or really, the other way round since it starts at #100 and counts down to #1). Rollinginhisgrave thinks it's obvious that it's a ranked list. I think it's obvious that it's a ranked list. It might be time for you to start seriously considering the possibility that maybe the editors who disagree with you are right and you are wrong. I don't really want to belabour the reading comprehension angle because doing so doesn't feel particularly kind, but... well, WP:Competence is required and you have repeatedly displayed an inability to properly understand the written word. TompaDompa (talk) 20:40, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, this is not the relevant point; in fact, you have repeatedly avoided it, so I will state it again. The fact that the list is ranked is not in dispute. What is WP:POV and WP:OR is to apply a signficance to those rankings that the source itself does not state. Per WP:OR, we cannot "state or imply a conclusion not directly and explicitly supported by the source", and WP:SYNTH also says, "do not combine different parts of one source to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source." The IGN article does not mention its rankings in its preface or in any of its entries. It does not state that its #1 ranking is the singular best game of all time, or that a #1 ranking would mean that. Conversely, the article explicitly identifies all of its entries as "the best" in both its title and its preface. To interpret any of its entries as being the singular best game is to contradict what the source actually says, which is WP:POV and WP:OR. Per WP:COPO, "The principles upon which these policy statements are based are not superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus." If you claim that IGN declared a game the singular best game of all time, you must show they actually said that. Phediuk (talk) 21:45, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You are interpreting something so obvious as to not require explanation as unexplained. This is ridiculous and embarrassing. In another context, I would think you were trolling. I hesitate to point this out in case you decide to push your interpretation elsewhere, but the editors of the page for The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild also apparently agree that the list in question named a specific greatest game. So does VideoGameCanon. It's also an established norm to interpret rankings this way, and you can see that from IGN's previous lists, if you care to investigate those. You are alone in this, and it's as close to certain as you can get that everyone else's interpretation is in line with IGN's intent. You really need to drop this, and I daresay people will start to ignore your suggestions if you don't. IlmeniAVG (talk) 02:19, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

When we have multiple sources name a game on their lists of "best games of all time", we can, also, neutrally and factually, state that multiple sources list it as one of the best of all time. So long as you avoid the question of whether this meaningfully verifies that a game is "considered the best" we will not get anywhere. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 01:10, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose moving it out of mainspace; it is a well-sourced article with demonstrated, extensive, and dedicated reliable source coverage. It is a demonstrably notable and widely-covered topic, and thus, it is appropriate for an article. Whether that is alongside another article called "considered the best" is another discussion. Additionally, I still hold several objections to the "Films voted the best"-style format, for several reasons:

• Its focus on "votes", which few of the sources for the video game equivalent are.
• Its dubious focus on rankings, which, first of all, excludes unranked lists for no reason other than that they did not put a number beside each entry, eliminating a swathe of reliable sources for an arbitrary reason.
• Its POV interpretation of rankings. I point once again to IGN's list of "The 100 best games of all time", which explicitly identifies all of its games as "the best", and never refers to its #1 ranking as *the* best, or even implies that it is better than the others. To report that the #1 ranking here is equivalent to calling it the singular best is POV that is not supported by the text of the source. We can report only that a #1 ranking is a #1 ranking; we cannot say it means "the singular best" unless the source actually characterizes it as such.
• Its focus on assorted narrower categories, such as genres and nationalities. What exactly is the standard for determining whether one of these categories is appropriate for such a page? Would "best Konami games" or "best games of 1995" be fine? If not, why are some narrow categories fine, but not others?

I would support Andrzejbanas's idea of a page (whatever it would be called) that writes about each game in more detail, as that would, at least, avoid the problems of transposing the "films voted the best" format onto games. Phediuk (talk) 21:43, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a heads-up, I am attempting a draft of such a page for these "best games" or similar terms as we speak. @Phediuk: , @TompaDompa:, @IlmeniAVG:, I believe I've found material that can help us decide on what may or may not work based on the best sources I can find on trying to analyze these topics. Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:12, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Good to hear; seeing that draft should help us forward. Phediuk (talk)

Thanks for responding. You've said the topic is "notable". But you haven't addressed how your article follows the guidelines. It can't and I'm leaning towards, it does not or is unable to. As for the lead not saying "best", it because the best games are just part of a canon, its a small topic within a grander one. That's clear if the article is read and as you said, its there. Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:08, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks. My first question is whether this draft will simply replace or add onto Game canon, because from what you are saying, that sounds like the primary topic here, and "best games" are a subset. Second, regarding solving the WP:AUDIENCE and WP:SURPRISE concerns you raise above, I agree with Shooterwalker below that a rename ("List of video games listed among the best", etc.) could alleviate much of those concerns. Furthermore, regarding the WP:AUDIENCE and WP:SURPRISE guidelines, I believe that, if the current lede is not already sufficient, we could add a couple of sentences establishing the notability and prevalence "best games of all time" lists as a common format. The sources that you use in your draft even comment themselves that these lists are widespread, so a few RS references simply establishing the concept and the fact that they are prevalent would help. Phediuk (talk) 22:31, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. I'm glad we can agree on some stuff (genuinely! I can feel the tension in these discussions!) I've seen you suggest a few times that we add a few sentences. I'm do not disagree but could you expand on that with some suggestions? I just want to make sure I understand what angle you are going at here. I mostly suggest this as if we get that expanded, I think a new title that makes the most sense can be applied. Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:40, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Something like this:

This is a list of video games that multiple video game journalists and other publications have listed among the best of all time. The games are included on at least six separate best-of lists from different publications. All included lists consider the medium of video games in its entirety, with no restrictions by time period, genre, or platform; the games chosen by each publication’s editorial staff, sometimes including solicited outside experts.

Lists of best video games of all time are commonly produced by outlets that cover video games, as well as professional writers and critics. Game scholars Kretzschmar & Raffel (2023), for instance, observe that “Almost every video game site will eventually have multiple web pages of the ‘Best Video Games Ever Made.’” Some outlets periodically update their lists to reflect new games and shifting opinions on older games.

This list’s entries are compiled from 96 different best-games lists, representing 54 unique publications. This body of sources is not complete, but grows as new lists are periodically produced and older lists are rediscovered.

I would probably add a couple of more references in the middle paragraph, but I used the same source as your draft for the time being, since it is a good RS summation of the lists' prevalence. I suggest "List of video games listed among the best" as a new title, as it accurately reflects the content. I believe the title including both "list" and "listed" is fine, as "best video games of all time" lists themselves are an established format. Phediuk (talk) 23:23, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Not bad! I think we should perhaps accentuate as well the different leverage of some lists use. I think the Hardcore Gaming one or some others I've shared either. "List of video games listed among the best" is a bit awkward for me. First for a sort of funny reason is that it says the word list twice in a sentence which uhh...feels off? Has this "Lists of lists" kind of vibe to it. I still feel like List of video games that appear in best of all time articles or something similar. This would solve the following

1. allow us to not ignore other areas for discussion on suggested bests like the Thrillist article or other similar essays that surely can crop up.
2. This would also stop the issue with discussions about "why not include best of the game gear" lists, etc.?
3. The only (immediate) thing that stands out with my suggestion, is that its an unwieldy name. I think that's small price to pay to avoid bi-weekly discussions over it. I have other issues with this phrasing/organization, but I figured we tackle this one point at a time.

I think/hope we are on the same path. Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:46, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, here is a revised version. I added a summation of differing aproaches from HG101's list overview:

This is a list of video games that video game journalists and other publications have listed among the best of all time. The games are included on at least six separate best-of lists from different publications. All included lists consider the medium of video games in its entirety, with no restrictions by time period, genre, or platform; the games chosen by each publication’s editorial staff, sometimes including solicited outside experts.

Lists of best video games of all time are commonly produced by outlets that cover video games, as well as professional writers and critics. Game scholars Kretzschmar & Raffel (2023), for instance, observe that “Almost every video game site will eventually have multiple web pages of the ‘Best Video Games Ever Made.’” Some outlets periodically update their lists to reflect new games and shifting opinions on older games. Each list reflects a publication’s differing set of values as to what makes a given game “best”; illustrating these differing approaches, Hardcore Gaming 101's list overview reads, “IGN and other mainstream sites tend to focus on newer releases at the expense of gaming’s history. The goal with our book is to give a broad overview of many different types of games across the medium’s history.” Nevertheless, each list characterizes all of its entries specifically as "best", or the synonym "greatest".

This list’s entries are compiled from 96 different best-games lists, representing 54 unique publications. This body of sources is not complete, but grows as new lists are periodically produced and older lists are rediscovered.

Regarding the title, I think shorter is generally better; even with the repetition. It conveys in only a few words that being included on a list, and not just review scores or off-hand mentions, etc., is the focus here. That cuts out the bulk of the talk-page edit requests immediately. Additionally, the longer lede should help to allay any possible confusion. I don't think the "list/listed" doubling is a big deal, since being listed is itself central to the article, which is also a list. Phediuk (talk) 00:24, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

We can treat something like the Thrillist article as a list of one. The only reason they haven't been included up until now is that articles dedicated entirely to naming a single gsame as the best have been comparatively rare. Generally, if outlets want to make a "best of all time" article, they name multiple games. I will add a note about

22:20, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm assuming this part of this thrillist is part of your sentence Phediuk? It got cut off. I think you might want to re-vise your sentence and maybe work in a editing space to make this intro for the ease of use of others (as I did when writing the video game canon article.) Making this entry paragraph as you have some of HardCore 101's entry start talking about a book they want to promote. :) As for the length, that is not an an issue with Wikipedia:Article titles. Mine is also more percise per WP:CRITERIA on what someone should expect without having to read anything and will prevent the surprise factor. I understand that mine also would go against the similar titles of other "best of lists" on wikipedia, but I think from our conversations and examples provided, most do. I don't think this opening intro is something we're going to wrap up in an evening I'm afraid. As for an article being "rare", I don't understand how that's a disqualifier. Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:17, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have placed the new lede draft here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Phediuk/Lede . I agree that something like the Thrillist article is not disqualified for being rare. We can clarify that an article dedicated to naming a single game as "best" can still be used, and treated as a list of one for the purposes of the page. Regarding the title, I still feel unsure: the topic is notable not strictly because the games are on lists, but that the lists specifically call them the best of all time. Essentially, the difference here is "These games were listed as the best" versus "These games were on lists of the best games"; the first emphasizes the claim of "best" a bit more, and the second abstracts it slightly. We may be splitting hairs here, since both titles mention use the word "listed" specifically, and the lede will define what it means regardless. Phediuk (talk) 13:26, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(I apologize for the long comment)

I was trying to brainstorm ideas earlier today on how we could do an approach like "list of films voted the best" but tailored specifically to the type of sourcing that the list has at present. My idea is that we keep the table format, with the years of release and launch platforms and developers and all of that, but we implement something like a "Notes/refs" column that says, for example "Topped X's best games of all time lists from 2017 and 2021, Y's 2024 list, and a Z 2016 readers poll" (not based on any particular game or source, just a formatting example). What I have in mind on how to handle this is List of video game soundtracks considered the best (which I made a couple of years ago) which has a "notes" column listing extra potentially noteworthy achievements. Only here, we use that to supply the sources and attribute the opinions to the source directly.

I think that this approach can work because it clearly states what sources listed the game as the best of all time and shouldn't cause any original research issues. I think a threshold on how many sources need to consider the game the best to make it viable for the list should also be considered (not six, but rather two or three, since that's still "multiple").

Another consideration is games considered the best on a specific platform or in its genre. I feel like with how many game platforms there are, and how many specific genres of games exist, this could become a real mess. I don't know an easy solution to this yet.

If there is some sort of existing consensus already on how we might want to go about formatting a new list and it goes against what I am suggesting, then I apologize. Once again, this entire discussion has become quite difficult to keep track of. But I remain interested in being involved in helping set up a possible alternative once we know where to go. But it seems that @Andrzejbanas: is going to set up a draft like I mentioned already; I'm interested in what your current ideas on how to handle this are. λ NegativeMP1 22:47, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'll summarize that I'm currently going into research on ways to approach a "best" in terms of people who have studied this in terms of games and video games. For the record, I don't feel that any example of similar "best of" lists on Wikipedia are very satisfactory in how they are presented. But that's neither here or there at the moment. I'll get back to you. Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:16, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've written a rough draft. I think in my attempt to create something to solve our problem, I kind of addressed it from slightly different angle, so um, have patience with it. But this is still a better approach to what we have now.

I suggest readers read through the entire article before replying as it will give a grander scope of the problem with what the current approach is in terms of how video games are received and read in better quality sources. I'm also undecided if a list is "useful" in the terms of determining a list of "quality" or "best" video games. Anyways. It can be previewed at User:Andrzejbanas/Best. Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:16, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is useful sorry. If you want to write an article on games considered the most important, by all means do so, but it is a separate thing to those considered the best. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 02:29, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Where did you get the idea that the above is about "most important"? Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:35, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is about canons, which the lead sentence defines as works given "special importance"? Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 02:38, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As I before, please read the entire article before responding. The idea of "best" is addressed within this. The idea of a canon is more than "most important". This is why the current article is equally faulty as it presumes best is just some phantom agreed upon set of ideals. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:44, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I can assure you I read the whole thing. The idea of "best" is discussed as it pertains to canons, which you define as games having special importance. Therefore it's about games considered the most important. If another person reading this thinks I have the wrong end of the stick I will defer to their reading. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 02:51, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I don't define it. The source do. And most sources for any medium defining a "canon" goes beyond if its "important" here, here, and any other source you'd look up. This is as close to as getting to explain what "best" may mean in a more general sense. I'd challenge any editor to find a better answer that would be significantly different. Andrzejbanas (talk) 03:10, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No trouble, you're of course right that canons go beyond assessing if a work is important. If my distinction was too reductive, consider instead that this is an article about video game canons and not the games considered the best. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 03:47, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

See, I don't see much of a difference that's significant. This is why a definition of "best" is essential. Every definition I've read within the citations seems to be consistent within establishments of a canon. Andrzejbanas (talk) 03:57, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I find your idea interesting but it is definitely different than what I, and I'm sure most other people, were envisioning. This really does seem like a "list of the most important video games" or so (or at least I can see why one would view it as such rather than a "best of" list like we're trying to work with here). And yes, I did read the whole thing. I don't think it's a bad idea, just very different in scope. Not opposed though.

I find the line "Not even sure if a list should be included" interesting though. Are we not trying to rework the list criteria here? Rather than just... get rid of the list entirely? λ NegativeMP1 04:35, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I also forgot to bring up that we'd still need to figure out a criteria on whether a game can go onto the list. λ NegativeMP1 04:39, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It was suggested in Tompa's summary below that it may be premature that we can even neutrally extract an idea of "best" from articles like listicles or anything. Is it sensible/possible to tabulate something subjective? I understand my write up different approach. I think my argument from the research is that the masterpieces or the most and important in some search for "the best" are not mutually exclusive. I've suggested before that the list is an attempt to "suggest an implied canon if games" which was responded to with "know it's not, it's just listing games called the best". From my research, and the vagueness of what "best" may mean, I struggle to see a difference. Curiously, one of the game canons me ruined in the article kind of applies what we currently do for the list in discussion. If best is too broad to define (which I haven't seen anyone try to do here beyond opinions). From what I've read in the research of the idea of a canon in media is that academics tend to say they are bad, but also useful, and still applied, despite their inherent use "i.e: suggesting "essential works") is so problematic it may be best to not present anything as one. I'm slowly leaning towards the latter based on what I have read. Andrzejbanas (talk) 04:48, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If it helps explain my thinking, I disagree with your earlier premise that the current article "presumes best is just some phantom agreed upon set of ideals". I see no suggestion that the sources share any sense of what constitutes "best", and rather it seems clear that the list is merely the coincidence of assessments rather than alignment of ideals. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 04:56, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"it seems clear that the list is merely the coincidence of assessments". I'm not sure I'm convinced that "best" is something calculable though. I'm convinced defining what best could mean "best" is a requirement for this to exist. And as each list either has different meanings, different boundaries, or no qualifiers at all. Ignoring this is misleading to users as it gives an implication the "best" is a mutually agreed upon qualifiers among games that journalists/experts/academic/etc. agree upon, even generally. Is there any consistency among all the lists of a criteria for "best" to sense there is any string that holds them together? That also skips the idea that lists are by default, the only or best way to calculate this outside convenience. This is why I feel that list does relate to my canon proposal, as canon at least is qualifiable. I don't see it to different than a "Mount Rushmore of games", a "half of games" of games, or yes, "the best". Andrzejbanas (talk) 05:29, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I see no suggestion that the sources share any sense of what constitutes "best", and rather it seems clear that the list is merely the coincidence of assessments rather than alignment of ideals. That says to me that we really have no business whatsoever relying on something appearing on multiple lists as a basis for anything at all. Which may have been your point. TompaDompa (talk) 06:24, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think I gave the example in the earlier discussion of a book article, where we have one reviewer saying they thought the book was good book because they liked the mood, and another saying they thought the book was good because it raised important issues. We can say both gave positive reviews without first defining what they believed made up a good book, and when we didn't want to go into too much detail we might not give their reasoning at all.

That aside, I think I've overstayed my welcome in this thread, so I'll take my leave and just weigh in if called upon or when we get to the next step. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 06:33, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That would be against WP:SUBSTANTIATE. I'd normally quote a phrase from the guideline here, but its basically the whole thing. Andrzejbanas (talk) 06:51, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think from "further positive reviews..." in Naples at Table is covered by what I described and doesn't violate WP:SUBSTANTIATE. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 06:59, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this. Specifically that, "we really have no business whatsoever relying on something appearing on multiple lists as a basis for anything at all." This, for me, is the primary appeal of the List of films voted the best format: the lists are summarised individually, rather than any similarities between them being used to draw broader conclusions. A broader discussion of canonisation and what "best" means, I think, is welcome as either an introduction to that page, or as a separate page, so I generally like what @Andrzejbanas has come up with (except that VideoGameCanon was referenced over my own, obviously superior website, Acclaimed Video Games). But I would remove the list that follows and replace it with brief summaries of the individual sources. These would include the selection criteria ("best", "most influential", "most important" etc.), the methodology (whether it was voted on, discussed etc.), who was involved, and whether or not a specific game was ranked no#1. This allows for a much broader range of lists to be included, e.g. unranked lists, lists not strictly aiming to identify the "best", user/reader polls, significant non-all-time lists, and so on. I don't see a downside to this approach. It properly communicates the complexity of the topic, and doesn't suggest that there's a neutral way of putting all of the data together. IlmeniAVG (talk) 20:27, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! I can only go by the sources! Your site is is impressive so be proud! Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:47, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think [it] doesn't suggest that there's a neutral way of putting all of the data together is an important point. Far too often (and indeed here), we get problems because editors believe that their way of massaging the data is objective and neutral (and often, not massaging the data at all), and all others ways of doing it are not. TompaDompa (talk) 03:40, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed as well that the topic on going back and forth on the editors is that "but everything is sourced!" which isn't the issue. I thought initially it may have been how they were applied, there may be some truth to that but I am leaning towards that attempting a list in this form can't be done that educates anyone about the topic, and I think that's probably why the list never had a strong opening, either because when you try to push it all together to explain it, you can't justify the list anymore. If anything, i think from what I've read and responded and even engaged in, there is always going to be a temptation to list these kind of things, but the due process of how is generally a convolutes the issues and leaves everyone with unsatisfying results. Andrzejbanas (talk) 03:53, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I hope it's clear that the comment on my website not being there was made in jest. There is, obviously, no reason for it to be mentioned. IlmeniAVG (talk) 04:45, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Of course! Andrzejbanas (talk) 04:56, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I will be copying the discussion here to the article talk page and closing this discussion as being continued by discussion on the article talk page. The reasons why I am moving this discussion back to the article talk page are, first, that the size and length of this discussion is likely to make it difficult to discuss other content disputes, and, second, this discussion is proceeding without moderator assistance.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:10, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize as I figured my previous edit has contributed to this. I think we require some sort of moderation still to get together on this as it has boiled down to "______ refuses to understand ______'s" suggestion/point-of-view. I would propose that we have all expanded upon this a bit, that we suggest a refresh on stating our points on the topic to move forward. Clear, concise, perhaps even with a character limit to get our points across. Wait for your response to our parts, and try and continue. Otherwise, we'll just have more endless talk page bits and be back at square one. Can that be considered Robert? 19:14, 20 January 2026 (UTC) Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:14, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I see some slight progress.

• I consent to a rename, if it would help close the gap between the title and contents. The current title "List of video games considered the best" is pretty clear to me, but some combination of "listed" or "ranked" or "among" might be clearer, without too much downside. Let's just not be too pedantic.
• I see a consensus that "this list should not be a meta-ranking". Even though we might disagree on how much the current list is already a meta-ranking, let alone changes that would make it more of a meta-ranking, I think this is a good principle for us to acknowledge.
• Examples such as List of prequels or List of police television dramas show what the normal Wikipedia standard is for a list that is WP:NEUTRAL, WP:VERIFIABLE, and WP:NOTORIGINAL. Nobody proposes arbitrary filters based on the recency of sources, or the quantity of sources. It's a prequel if multiple sources say it is. It's a police television drama if multiple sources say it is.
• List of prequels and/or List of police television dramas have a thousand entries or more. We would keep this list smaller than those even if we included every game considered the best within the ordinary meaning of WP:EXCEPTIONAL, referring to "multiple high-quality sources". Most people take multiple high quality sources to mean three, which would link this to 600-odd entries. But even if someone were to take a more loose interpretation of two igh quality sources, we'd still only have 900-odd blue links. This is fine for a navigational list, and avoids this being a meta-ranking based on arbitrary filters.

If this discussion needs to continue outside WP:DRN that's fine. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:47, 20 January 2026 (UTC) I would also agree to a rename.[reply]

• The current format fails WP:AUDIENCE and WP:SURPRISE, and I think is the reason why the lists is continuously being debated on its talk, and here. As stated if we walk away to understand why some games are great, we are presented with a game that appeared.
• The subjective nature of appears on a list seems weak, but acceptable. Is being #99 or #1 mean one is greater than the other? Maybe. But they are all great/the best/etc according to the source.
• I'd agree that the limit of six seems arbitrary. This is why the game canon article I proposed was iffy on if any list should be included. We can't gatekeep via a number based on our preferences. If this makes the list hundreds of items long, that sounds pretty normal for a list that calculates games that appear on a best of list.
• I would be for expanding the lead with information about how top video games list work in the video game industry. qualifications of what best should mean to an audience, even if it turns out that its vague, we should walk away with some sort of understanding of what each game represents as nobody in this conversation seem to give me a unified answer, I can only imagine what the hundreds of readers who walk away from this would get from it either.
• The only listing I can think of is that would maintain a status quo is "List of video games that appear on best-of lists" as that is the only thing that checks out for what it currently does. Agreed with shooterwalker on three, but would even settle for two, namely as that would make a "best of lists" instead of a "on a best of list" Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:20, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I also realize my own comment about "lists" meaning two has this sort of "No Homers" vibe to it which amuses me. "It says no HOMERS! We can have one." I kind of stand by it though. Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:49, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Just want to make it clear that I strongly prefer "List of video games that appear on best-of lists" over "List of video games listed among the best". The former is much clearer and takes us further away from the issues with the current title. I would also suggest that the lead should acknowledge that none of the lists are unrestricted by era, since they can only cover games released up until the publication of the list itself. This may seem like a pedantic point, but we should make it clear that the lists are not picking their "bests" from the same set of games. Lists from the 1980s are picking their bests from a vastly reduced set of games than those released in the last year. Those lists from the '80s had every right to call themselves "all-time" lists when they were published, but in retrospect we would call such a list one that only covers games up until a certain year. To illustrate that this point matters, this list of the greatest games of the 20th century, published in 2010, was previously rejected for inclusion for not being an all-time list, even though it covers the same period as a hypothetical all-time list released in the year 2000. "All-time" is relative to the year of publication and it should be clearly communicated that none of these lists actually cover the same time period, except by coincidence. IlmeniAVG (talk) 02:01, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree with IllmeniAVG about the titles and their issues. As Phediuk has suggested that articles are rare. I think its best to drop the all-time as well. This is something that could be better explained in prose that the lists draw from their own eras and reflect on it. "List of video games that appear on best-of lists" seems to be the best realization of what the article actually presents currently. If articles are allowed later, it would suggest changing "lists" to "articles", but lets not get ahead of ourselves. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:40, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  One thing about List of video games appearing on "best of"-lists (or similar) is that it would mean working on a different level of abstraction. For instance: from a WP:LISTN perspective (a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources), the question would no longer be whether such sources discuss games being considered the best as a group or set (which the "best of"-lists themselves satisfy) but whether they discuss games appearing on such lists as a group or set (which the lists themselves cannot satisfy, since they are not independent of the topic). Similarly: from an WP:EXCEPTIONAL perspective, the question would no longer be whether it is an exceptional claim that a game is considered the best (which I don't think it is, I think it's a WP:YESPOV claim, but I know others disagree), but whether it is an exceptional claim that a game appears on "best of"-lists (which I think makes requiring multiple sources much more dubious from that perspective). It's the difference between the article being about what appearing on the lists signifies versus being about appearing on the lists in itself (absent any particular meaning). TompaDompa (talk) 05:01, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Hmm. I think this where we I think our problems come meet up again. That title is more accurate and would lead to less surprise and issues. But as you said, there is WP:LISTN. I think this is why earlier I was trying to define "great" or "best games" if the topic is being discussed. This is why I think the topic of the article, i.e "Best games" requires some discussion for clarification. The we come to our first problem that I came up with that trying to find a "topic" about this led to my draft at Video game canon. While others have said it seems to be "talking about something else" (such as "important games"), nobody has displayed anything to suggest they are not interconnected, and as the discussion discusses, the "greatest" or "best" qualities are involved in the idea of Video game canon. As any one seraching Best video games (which re-directs to List of video games considered the best)...well, then we're back where we started.

  So uhh, anyone else want to take a crack at what "best" means in terms of writing about it as a topic? Andrzejbanas (talk) 05:51, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with Shooterwalker's and Andrzejbanas's points here generally, and would support a rename ("List of video games listed among the best" would work) and an expansion of the lede to establish the prevalence of "best games of all time" lists in the body of sources. Phediuk (talk) 22:41, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion here has been very lengthy and inconclusive. I sometimes instruct editors to discuss on an article talk page, but add that if discussion is lengthy and inconclusive, a new DRN case can be opened. This DRN discussion is lengthy and inconclusive. One of the reasons is that the editors are making lengthy statements rather than concise statements. Another reason is that the editors are engaging in back-and-forth discussion, rather than moderated discussion. I will offer the editors two alternatives. The first is that I can close this DRN case, and send discussion back to the article talk page. The second is that I can create a subpage of DRN, for this discussion, so that this discussion does not take up nearly all of the space for DRN, and will allow back-and-forth discussion in a space for back-and-forth discussion, but will also ask questions, which should be answered with concise statements addressed to the moderator and the community. I am inferring that the editors want the second alternative, which will be a restart of moderated discussion. If that is what some of you want, please say that that is what you want. If so, I will create a subpage for moderated discussion of the list of video games, and will be asking questions.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:52, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your patience. I understand a desire to close and have us re-group, but a sub-page for discussion and a re-boot here would help get use to where we want to be. Andrzejbanas (talk) 05:55, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Seconding this. I have placed the draft for the page's lede here, and hope it will get us most of the way there. Phediuk (talk) 13:37, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thirding this. Having a longform dedicated discussion page is helping. I recognize most of the editors here, and everyone seems to be operating constructively to reach consensus. It may still be useful to have a mediator around to help us if we hit an obstacle.

I'd just add, let's not be too pedantic about the article title. It's always implied that every article is "... according to reliable sources", and we don't need to re-title articles to Barack Obama according to mainly the American English-language media or Microbiology according to science textbooks and scholarly journals. "List" or "rank" implies lists of ranks that are reliable sources with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy, and "video games" implies lists that consider all video games without limit as to platform or period or genre. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:37, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]