Talk:List of Acorn Electron games

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Indexes

This alphabetical index of Wikipedia articles falls within the scope of the WikiProject Indexes. This is a collaborative effort to create, maintain, and improve alphabetical indexes on Wikipedia.IndexesWikipedia:WikiProject IndexesTemplate:WikiProject IndexesIndexes

Video games Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks

AfDs

Merge discussions

Other discussions

No major discussions

Notoriety

Wikipedia guidelines are that there is no point creating wikilinks to non-existant articles that wikipedia wouldn't carry due to their lack of significance. In my opinion, many of the games on this list need to have their square brackets removed as they simply weren't important releases. Anyone got any opinion on which titles aren't worthy of wikipedia articles? - ThomasHarte 15:37, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Significance is a matter of perception, and perception can change. Consider Tennis for Two. Invented in 1958 it remained insignificant until 1985 when it became evidence in a court case with Company that legally invented videogames battling the Company that would dominate videogames for the immediate future. Suddenly, Tennis for Two was perceived as significant.
So, I would like to say, keep the links. We have no idea which of these games might suddenly be perceived as significance. And when they are, it would be nice to have a head start on the information needed to have an A-Class article. I submit that the very presence of a red link can prompt someone to add an article, but only if the subject of said article is considered significant to them. If no one ever considers a red link to be significant then it probably isn't and the link remains red and no harm is done.
Finally I ask that this be considered:

This non-article page is part of WikiProject Computer and video games, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to video games on Wikipedia.

(emphasis mine)
What part of "comprehensive and detailed" justifies the the idea that some releases should not have a comprehensive and detailed article about them?

significance--Zerothis 04:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BBC Micro

How intercompatible are the BBC and Acorn? Will these games run on both machines or just the Acorn? Should this article be titled List of Acorn Electron and BBC Micro games? 2fort5r (talk) 14:42, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not especially when it comes to games. Acorn Electron states It had feature limitations such as being unable to output more than one channel of sound where the BBC was capable of three-way polyphony (plus one noise channel) and the inability to provide teletext mode. [...] reading or writing RAM was much slower than on the BBC Micro. Some Beeb versions did run on the Electron, but rather too slowly. Some titles had separate releases, while others had shared releases (with either a single fully-compatible version, or different versions on each side of the cassette).

However, the list could potentially be moved to List of Acorn Electron and BBC Micro games as suggested, provided it's amended to state which titles were available for which machine. Perhaps a sortable wikitable would be a more suitable format for this. -- Trevj (talk) 15:17, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]