List of games containing time travel : Recent discussion at WT:VG .  Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs ) 20:13, 31 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions .  Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs ) 20:13, 31 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy , Games ,  and Lists .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:14, 31 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Pure overlistification, time travel is too common a trope to keep a comprehensive list of games featuring it.  Pointless lists with a scope this large put a drain on Wikipedia editors' time and resources, when a category can accomplish it better.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 05:06, 1 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , covered in reliable sources, meets WP:LISTN , per the first nomination, and lists and categories should never be "put up" against each other but officially complement each other.  Randy Kryn ( talk ) 09:08, 1 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] On what grounds are you asserting it meets LISTN?  You've got to advance a rationale in how or this is just a WP:ITSNOTABLE stance.  Sergecross73 msg me 15:17, 1 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:LISTN : "Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability.", which this list fits well.  And removing this list does not maintain Wikipedia, a policy requirement.  Randy Kryn ( talk ) 11:08, 2 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This is not the normal application of LISTN.  I do not find it persuasive.  Sergecross73 msg me 12:21, 2 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] What?  The application is one of the recognized routes listed in WP:LISTN .  There is no "normal" and "not normal" application of these routes, they are all normal.  Randy Kryn ( talk ) 14:08, 3 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Usually LISTN is proven by providing reliable sources that cover the list grouping in significant detail, not just super-focusing in on the subjective claim that " it's useful" for navigation.  And if vague allusions to "you can't delete this because deletion goes against maintaining the encyclopedia, which is policy"  (or whatever you were trying to say at the end there)  were valid, it'd be conceptually impossible to delete anything on Wikipedia.  You could say that about virtually anything that isn't blatant vandalism.  It's simply not how it works.  Sergecross73 msg me 15:44, 3 April 2023  (UTC)  [ reply ] I'm not sure why editors are repeating the claim that this list topic is not covered in significant detail by reliable sources.  Gamerant , CBR , TheGamer and ScreenRant are unquestionably RS, as far as I know, though I am less sure about Game Informer and Gaming Scan .  In any event, the assertion that the topic of the list doesn't meet WP:LISTN seems to me not to be based on the actual deadline.  (If editors are misunderstanding LISTN as saying that sources contributing to the Notability of the list topic must all be listing exactly the same set of entries as the WP list article - well, that just isn't the way Wikipedia list articles actually work.)  Newimpartial  ( talk )  16:33, 3 April 2023  (UTC)  [ reply ] Well, context matters - I was asking Randy to clarify his stance in this conversation thread, where, despite multiple responses, he's yet to present any examples .  As for your sources, well, define "unquestionably reliable".  See WP:VG/S .  Game Informer is good, but many of the are tagged as "cannot be used to demonstrate notability"  (GameRant/TheGamer)  for churnalism / low quality issues.  Not exactly a batch of sources you want to write an article around.  Sergecross73 msg me 16:52, 3 April 2023  (UTC)  [ reply ] Well, I would think that Game Informer and CBR represent suffficient sourcing all on their own to meet WP:LISTN .  I am curious to what extent either the nominator or any of the Delete ! voters actually complied with WP:BEFORE .  Newimpartial  ( talk )  19:51, 4 April 2023  (UTC)  [ reply ] ScreenRant is generally speaking fine when it comes to pure facts about entertainment  (release dates and so on), but pretty much garbage when it comes to analysis.  ScreenRant has never been a source to base an article on.  TompaDompa  ( talk )  20:43, 3 April 2023  (UTC)  [ reply ] Delete as not meeting the requirements of Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists .   — Fourthords | =Λ= | 11:16, 1 April 2023  (UTC)  [ reply ] Incorrect.  LISTN states "Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability.", and this one also has independent notability  (everyone, please read the first deletion attempt, thanks).  Randy Kryn  ( talk )  11:22, 1 April 2023  (UTC)  [ reply ] You are suggesting that this serves a navigational purpose.  I don't see it.  Generally speaking we are talking about lists of things that would be too large for an article on a specific subject to include in that article.  For instance, a list of games released on a video game console would be fine mostly because it has a defined notable tie between these items.  If we include items in a list that are just items in a list like this, we might as well have list of video games with eggs in them or similar.  Things having a similar plot device might be suitable for a category, but not a standalone list.  Whats more, we all "travel through time" every day.  I get that we are talking about having the ability to manipulate time in some way, but even the title doesn't make sense.  Even if this were a navigational list  (which it isn't), LISTN only says we can retain such lists - not that we should.  Lee Vilenski  ( talk • contribs )  13:54, 1 April 2023  (UTC)  [ reply ] Once again, categories and lists are two complementary ways of navigation on Wikipedia, and are mandated by policy to stand together and not be either-or  (please read Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates ).  The navigational purpose is obvious - games which contain time travel  (and you know what this means, not that we travel through time every second but moving from one recognizable point in time to another by skipping other points in time).  Randy Kryn  ( talk )  11:08, 2 April 2023  (UTC)  [ reply ] What you say is true; they are complementary.  However that doesn't mean that there must be a list for every category, only that there can be one.  LISTN says "The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been." and the notability of the grouping  (ie "games containing time travel")  still has not be demonstrated IMO.  Nigej  ( talk )  12:56, 2 April 2023  (UTC)  [ reply ] Keep - obviously anything unverifiable should be stripped off the list  (and I believe it has)   but the topic itself meets LISTN and represents a good use of standalone list functionality.  Newimpartial  ( talk )  11:35, 1 April 2023  (UTC)  [ reply ] what sources actually talk about this as a group for it to meet WP:LISTN ?  Lee Vilenski  ( talk • contribs )  13:45, 1 April 2023  (UTC)  [ reply ] I am not seeing the relevant references in the current version of Time travel in fiction but I have read them before, so they exist.  Newimpartial  ( talk )  14:01, 1 April 2023  (UTC)  [ reply ] But every entry in the list is currently unsourced...?  Sergecross73 msg me 15:20, 1 April 2023  (UTC)  [ reply ] It's possible that Newimpartial saw the version of the article that'd been culled of uncited claims, which were replaced by Randy Kryn as an April Fools?  .   — Fourthords | =Λ= | 12:26, 3 April 2023  (UTC)  [ reply ] My point was that unverifiable claims needed to be excluded.  Uncited ! = unverifiable.  Newimpartial  ( talk )  14:04, 3 April 2023  (UTC)  [ reply ] They are sourced at their links.  If every blue-linked item on Wikipedia had to be sourced there would be few lists - Wikipedians are volunteers not employees and on blue-linked lists do not have to work to move a source from each entry to the list page.  WP:COMMONSENSE .  Randy Kryn  ( talk )  14:14, 3 April 2023  (UTC)  [ reply ] Delete Fails NLIST.  No indication that the topic  (games containing time travel)  "has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources".  Seems too general a topic to me.  We could have all sorts of other daft "List of games containing ..." articles.  What about ""List of games containing mentions of quantum physics".  The list is endless.  Nigej ( talk ) 14:05, 1 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  WP:OR / WP:SYNTH , noticing a kind of theme or trope in media, non actual WP:SIGCOV .  soetermans .  ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 19:04, 1 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Well, except for the actual WP:RS on the topic of this list (such as the Game Informer and CBR sources I linked above), which do establish list notability .  Newimpartial ( talk ) 19:54, 4 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as per nomination.  A video game Wiki would be a better home for such a list.  TH1980 ( talk ) 00:16, 2 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Speaking only for myself, I recognize and appreciate that this list has a description column that explains exactly how time travel figures into each game's plot.  This helps me distinguish between games that use time travel solely as a plot device, compared to ones that incorporate them into game mechanics.  This is barefacedly an " WP:ITSUSEFUL " line of thinking, but it's also something that gives this list an advantage over a category.  It's also completely true that most of the descriptions are WP:JUSTPLOT and virtually all unsourced to boot.  Thus, I'm conflicted and uncomfortable falling on either 'keep' or 'delete'.  I don't see a path forward for this list unless the 'keep' side is willing to put in some elbow grease to actually find sources that discuss time travel in games as a concept, rather than simply gesturing around and declaring that they exist (and y'know, also adding sources to each entry too, per WP:V , can't skip that either).  I don't really have the bandwidth right now to do an in-depth search so I suppose here's a start: Critical Distance had time travel as the theme for their January issue.  The rest I found are of the "listicle" type, although from quite reputable publications: RPS , VG247 , Paste Mag , Inverse .  Hope this helps someone.  Axem Titanium ( talk ) 02:35, 2 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Agreed with the arguments above that this fails WP:LISTN as there are no reliable sources that discuss the concept as a group or set.  I am also unconvinced that the number of blue links means its a valid navigation list, as argued in the No Consensus AFD from 15 years ago - you can essentially make any kind of "List of X that contains Y" that has a bunch of blue links, but that doesn't mean that it should be done or that such lists actually serve any actual navigational use.  As the information here is extremely poorly sourced, then merging any information to any other related topic, such as Time travel in fiction , would not be recommended.  Rorshacma ( talk ) 06:25, 2 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There are literally several links to sources that cover the topic in the sentence preceding your comment.  Of course this serves a navigational purpose, for readers interested in video games about time travel.  How else do you define "navigation" than providing links to similar topics?  Randy Kryn ( talk ) 14:06, 3 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The only link to an actual valid source that isn't a listicle or a literal game guide is the first one, which contains two articles on two very specific games - that is not a discussion of the concept as a group or set.  Rorshacma ( talk ) 15:45, 3 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , I see a category fulfills this role.  In this case, no source elaborates this topic as a whole, and the list just reads like a cherry-pick of the pages in this category, omitting a lot.  Milky Defer 14:59, 2 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, sources exist and are linked above.  Categories and lists officially complement each other on Wikipedia and in discussions shouldn't be set against an either-or atmosphere.  Randy Kryn ( talk ) 14:06, 3 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Neither useful as a navigational tool nor informational.  I believe it might be possible that an article about time travel mechanics in video games could be built, and then having a list atop that prose may be possible, but that prose-based article needs to exist first.  -- M asem ( t ) 15:00, 2 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It is both useful and informational for people interested in games about time travel.  How is it not useful for those readers?  (seriously, please explain, I don't get that mindset)  Deleting a good list page because a prose article could also be written throws out the baby without bathwater even being in the bath.  Randy Kryn ( talk ) 14:19, 3 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as non-defining.  Time travel is common in fiction, and even more in games where the player might repeat sections.  Maybe there are sources for an article about time travel in video games, but the list would be far too long, subjective, and indiscriminate.  Shooterwalker ( talk ) 15:13, 3 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as overly broad.  Also, I politely suggest that Randy Kryn reads WP:BLUDGEON .  QuicoleJR ( talk ) 16:15, 3 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks for the politeness.  In this case I've addressed specific reasons people are using to delete the page which, if they had read this page, the sources found during the discussion, and the important comments present in the first deletion attempt, they may not have used their particular lines of argument which, I believe, have been adequately countered.  Sometimes, not always or even often, that approach is needed in a deletion discussion in which a point-of-views exists that believes that maintaining the encyclopedia would be better served by keeping a page and, if so, that policy instructs us to do so.  Randy Kryn ( talk ) 03:03, 5 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with List of time travel works of fiction : While this list doesn't currently seem viable as a standalone entry, I think it would be better served as a section of that article.  A prose article about time travel as a game mechanic may be viable, and for that reason I believe this list's contents should be kept around in some form.  At the very least, I would support draftifying it.  silvia (BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) ( inquire within ) 23:21, 4 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  RadioactiveBoulevardier ( talk ) 01:06, 5 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] One more comment and then I'll leave this page to its fate.  RadioactiveBoulevardier , please, in good faith, come back and re-read the page (unless you read it all, understood the flow of the discussion, noticed that sources had been found and cited, read the first deletion discussion which were pointed to within this discussion, and typed your comment within a two-minute window).  Editors at deletion discussion are the jury of pages which fellow Wikipedians created and worked upon.  Deletion juries should really take the time needed to study the viewpoints and evolving discussion before going on to the next deletion discussion.  Okay, I'm outta here.  Randy Kryn ( talk ) 03:13, 5 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Alright, I’ve read it.  By the way, I’m only an occasional visitor to AfD and generally don’t go through the lists one by one and “move on to the next”.  The no-consensus AfD is from fifteen years ago, and since then, perhaps a clearer community consensus has developed about notability and other things.  The arguments there seemed ever so slightly amateurish in how they were phrased.  As for the articles you cited, I don’t see how they’re different in purpose from “The 20 Best Games Containing Princesses/Knights/Castles/Whatever”.  I think that subjectively this is a borderline case of WP:NOTDIRECTORY .  I also agree with Masem, Milkydefer, and Shooterwalker.  RadioactiveBoulevardier ( talk ) 04:08, 5 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - per my above comments on NLIST.  Sergecross73 msg me 13:04, 6 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete for a variety of reasons.  I don't feel like the sources provided are ideal to demonstrate grouping games this way (as Randy put it, it tends to come off as listicles or just articles about time travel as a game mechanic).  Another issue is that the article is likely going to be gigantic, as the parameters allow for many games that aren't already listed.  Off the top of my head, there are two Yoshi games with time travel, Tracer from Overwatch can time travel as a core mechanic, and basically any DBZ game that has Future Trunks deals with time travel.  It's about as notable as "List of video games featuring princesses."  It's a good category, but not a good list.  - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 02:40, 7 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: delete