Jump to content

Talk:List of Nintendo Switch games

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Zacharyalejandro (talk | contribs) at 07:07, 4 November 2021 (→‎Dates/Lists/References). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Notable games?

So can anyone bring me up to speed on why we removed a huge chunk of games from lists and keep doing so? If I find sources for those, what’s the point in removing those? Zacharyalejandro (talk) 19:54, 9 September 2021 (UTC)Zacharyalejandro[reply]

Please read the "Notice - Inclusion Criteria" at the top of the talk page, a condition you were required to do for your unblock appeal. Games without appropriate reliable secondary coverage can be removed outright. If the only information is a Nintendo site or Direct, then it doesn't meet the criteria. If you can find reliable secondary coverage, they can be kept. -- ferret (talk) 20:13, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Zacharyalejandro: Thanks for opening this topic. As ferret mentioned above, the gist of the matter is that games need to have appropriate secondary coverage. The notice at the top of the article goes into more detail on this though and I recommend you to read it in full. In particular, sources that are themselves a catalogue/database are not sufficient to establish notability. In particular this includes things like the "Nintendo Download" pages which are just indiscriminate lists of upcoming Switch games. Those pages were used in many cases as a source for Switch games.
You have been very good at adding sources to demonstrate verifiability and I hope you continue to do so. However we now have a requirement to demonstrate both notability and verifiability. I notice that you removed some sources that I had added specifically to demonstrate notability of certain games. I'm sure you did this in good faith, but hopefully after discussion we can avoid any future misunderstandings. Thanks again. Kidburla (talk) 20:42, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Zacharyalejandro: PS: I've tried to ensure games don't have proper sourcing before removing them, but if you disagree with non-notability of any particular games then feel free to open a topic. Always happy to discuss. And I'm only human, so I might well have missed something. Kidburla (talk) 20:48, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To only add, I've seen a few articles of late from RS that talk about the amount of shovelware/asset flips on the eshop that for us it is reasonable to require more than mere evidence of availability for inclusion. --Masem (t) 21:06, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Following on with this, it makes no sense why we don’t just split the page again with A, B, C, D, etc. And I don’t know why this discussion ONLY pertains to this and not any of the other lists as well. I’m guessing if we’re going this route, we’d stop adding games altogether except for the ones from major companies. And that brings me up to another topic, about the page protection, you guys refuse to add semi-protection to prevent anonymous users from adding a number of games, most of them will contain unreliable sources, which they seemingly ignore. The other game lists don’t even remotely come close to the scope of the large number of games or “shovelware” as you guys call it. And those pages aren’t even protected from users anonymously adding games. Anybody’s take on this? Zacharyalejandro (talk) 15:52, 11 September 2021 (UTC)Zacharyalejandro[reply]
There's essentially zero disruptive IP editing at this list, so the page protection policy forbids us from simply protecting it. You might also want to read Wikipedia:IP editors are human too. Anonymous editors are not second class citizens or "lesser" than registered editors. -- ferret (talk) 16:25, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Zacharyalejandro: Regarding your point that "I don’t know why this discussion ONLY pertains to this and not any of the other lists as well" - arguably, it should apply to the lists for other modern consoles as well. The reason this discussion only pertains to this is quite simply because it's on the talk page for this article and not other articles. There have been previous attempts to agree something similar at WikiProject-level, but the discussion petered out without reaching any consensus. I think that's basically why we avoided raising this up to the WikiProject level, and agreeing it just for this page, because we could get to an actual outcome (consensus) quickly, which was necessary to be able to keep working on the page. Personally, I don't have the time to get involved in pushing for this policy to be adopted at WikiProject level (especially as I have no interest in editing other game lists than the Switch one), but if someone else wants to champion this, I'm happy to add my view to any consensus discussion. Kidburla (talk) 18:26, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Zacharyalejandro: Also, regarding your point "it makes no sense why we don’t just split the page again with A, B, C, D, etc" - we can still split the page whenever we need to, in order to address technical limitations. The removal of non-notable games is to implement the consensus on inclusion criteria, which relates to Wikipedia policies, and has nothing to do with the technical limitations. It's not related to whether we split the page or don't split the page. Kidburla (talk) 18:33, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This ordeal is starting to even be more of a problem for me. Why am I even on here anymore? Zacharyalejandro (talk) 00:35, 14 September 2021 (UTC)Zacharyalejandro[reply]

If it's too much for you, then don't do it. You have no obligation to edit or maintain the article. It is not your job; it's not like you have to do it to pay your bills or something. If you don't enjoy it, just step away. Sergecross73 msg me 00:58, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is a volunteer collaborative effort. If having to abide by the consensus on how a given article is edited is too much of a strain, you should find another article to work on. I'm also, if you like, willing to provide a self-block so you can spend time away until you're ready to edit again. -- ferret (talk) 01:53, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

May I also ask why we have a huge chunk of references from different websites, when technically 1-3 is enough for each date? Zacharyalejandro (talk)Zacharyalejandro

@Zacharyalejandro: Thanks for asking. So first of all, sources need to demonstrate both notability and verifiability. For some games, they already had 3 sources just to demonstrate verifiability (usually one each for NA, EU and JP), so obviously would be adding to this (having at least 4 in total) for notability. I've kept to a maximum of three sources for notability. I tried to put just one source for each game for notability, however sometimes I wasn't sure which source to keep. For example, I might have a long article from IGN but written in a foreign language, a much shorter article in English from a smaller website (which is nevertheless certified as RS), and a reference to a game having been reviewed in Famitsu. In general where I was not sure what source(s) to keep, I tried to err on the side of caution and keep multiple sources. However I'm interested to hear others' views on source selection so we can avoid the article size becoming unnecessarily large. Kidburla (talk) 07:46, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As long as the basic details are verified, with reliable secondary sources, we don't necessarily need to "prove notability". That should, in general, require no more than 3 sources at worst (for each region). I'd say if you're gathering enough sourcing to prove notability, you should consider starting a stub article for the game instead and then moving all the sourcing there. -- ferret (talk) 11:58, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ferret: I think you may have misunderstood me. When I said "prove notability" I didn't mean anything other than adding reliable secondary sources. In many cases, sources ineligible for notability proof (e.g. primary sources, catalogue/database sources, or sources with constraints on use) have been used to demonstrate verifiability. In those cases I have needed to add additional sources to prove notability and those will obviously be secondary sources and could push past the number of three in total. Kidburla (talk) 12:18, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Every admin here just likes to ruin Wikipedia. This is why I don’t take part in discussions on change. Just adding 10, 20 references doesn’t change the fact that I don’t like that. If three references is enough than three references is enough for each game. Or, or, just get rid of all entries and only keep big titles from major companies like Sega, Nintendo, Monolith Soft, Ubisoft. That would get rid of thousands others that shouldn’t belong on the list. If we don’t do that, I’d rather spend time elsewhere now. I’m done. Zacharyalejandro (talk) 17:57, 20 September 2021 (UTC)Zacharyalejandro[reply]

  1. You need to assume good faith.
  2. Discussions are not optional - you need to be able to work and communicate with others if you're going to edit Wikipedia.
  3. Your ideas often don't get a consensus because they're often based on your own personal whims rather than any concrete enforceable idea. Ideas like "just keep games from major companies" would cause all sorts of disagreements and disputes over what makes a major company or game. They're not workable solutions.
  4. As you've already been told, you have no obligation to work on the list. Or to give us updates on whether or not you're working on the list. Simply stop editing the list and go edit something else. No need to keep announcing it. Sergecross73 msg me 18:54, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Zacharyalejandro: I'm not totally sure I understand what your concern is. If you feel any particular game has too many sources, and notice that you can remove some of the sources whilst still demonstrating both notability and verifiability, then just remove them. Kidburla (talk) 20:40, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well why can’t just create articles for a lot of games if we aren’t going to delete every shovelware game on these lists? That is what I don’t understand. It kinda much simpler in template size if we do so. I believe a lot of this has to do with how much references we put in these lists. Zacharyalejandro (talk) 22:21, 22 September 2021 (UTC)Zacharyalejandro[reply]

@Zacharyalejandro: If you want to create articles for a lot of games, you can feel free to do that. As long as the game is notable enough to have its own article as per WP:GNG, you can create an article. Obviously, as you say, creating articles reduces the page size of this list, as then the references can be held on the article page rather than on the list itself. Kidburla (talk) 22:36, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Kidburla:. @Ferret:, @Sergecross73:, what is your take on this? Any further details I need to know about before I take note on creating articles? Zacharyalejandro (talk) 23:09, 22 September 2021 (UTC)Zacharyalejandro[reply]
I think it's a great way to direct your editing energy. Just make sure that WP:GNG is met. Generally you're going to want to see at least 5 strongly reliable sources for a basic stub. If you really want to slam dunk it, 10 is a great number to shoot for. This doesn't mean you have to use every detail from every source and fully flush out the article, it just helps avoid any issues with GNG, lack of notability, and ending up with an AFD on your hands. Remember to check the custom search engine at WP:VG/S. -- ferret (talk) 23:43, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that about covers it. If a game has reliable sources like Ferret describes, but no article exists yet, it's probably just that no one has had the time or interest to make it yet. I get it - sometimes when you see a Zelda or Mario game article get created within 10 minutes of its announcement, it's easy to think that's how it always goes. But there's many that aren't made until months or years laters later. I created multiple Switch game articles this year that came out 2-3 years ago. Sergecross73 msg me 12:58, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If I would need help when possible, would you two or anyone who would be willing, help me? As far as I know, I know the infobox template to insert when creating an article for a game. It’s just like screenshot grabs of the icons for games (like Surviving the Aftermath, Hexceed, Atomicrops, to name a few) that I don’t know how to insert one for the article. And I have trouble actually summarizing a game to a minimum of like 10 sentences (excessively detailed, as you guys put it) and was wondering if you guys could be able to help with that as well? Zacharyalejandro (talk) 02:12, 22 October 2021 (UTC)Zacharyalejandro[reply]
I myself almost never upload images as I don't like dealing with the rules around it, so I just avoid it. Cover images aren't required though, and you can put "cover-requested" in the project banner to put it in the queue for someone to handle. -- ferret (talk) 02:32, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure where the "minimum of ten sentences" rule is - I'm not aware of that; especially for stub articles I thought they can be really short. However remember you should only create articles where you can pass WP:GNG - in which case you'll already have a few sources which are significantly different in content. You should fairly easily be able to copy information from those (of course paraphrasing it into your own words), to make up whatever length of text you think is appropriate. Kidburla (talk) 08:04, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Revisit: Should we require secondary sources to specifically refer to the Switch version of the game?

This was previously discussed here. However, at the time, some people felt that this would be an exceedingly rare scenario and had asked for example(s). In fact, while going through the games to determine notability, I am consistently finding a few games which have references on other platforms but not on Switch. In many cases, this is because they were previously released on some other platform, and reviewed at the time of release on that platform, and then later ported to the Switch - in my opinion, it's quite understandable that a website wouldn't do a full article on the Switch port if they had already reviewed it on another platform.

Here are a few examples to illustrate the point.

Games with coverage in reliable sources on other platforms but not the Switch
Game Coverage in reliable sources on other platforms Platform(s) covered
Bad Dream: Fever [1] Mac, PC
Battle Supremacy: Evolution [2] iOS
Black Rainbow [3] Android, iOS, Mac, PC
Blood Will Be Spilled [4] Steam
Bot Vice [5][6] PC

Now with these specific/concrete examples in mind, I wondered if others may be willing to re-consider the position. I still strongly feel that we need to establish notability of the game as a whole, and not only the Switch version of it. This is because the intent of the list selection criteria is to weed out "shovelware", and such games which are notable on other platforms are surely not "shovelware". The current policy/consensus has resulted in all of the above games being removed from the list because I could not find secondary sources talking about the Switch version specifically. And this is just what I was able to find when doing searches that specifically look for Switch coverage - I'm sure there are other examples that I have not come across. Kidburla (talk) 10:53, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why can’t I make my own list of games? This is the main reason why I hate Wikipedia even more that you flat-out remove games and are refusing to just improve upon it. I know very well Wikipedia is a collaborative site to others, but this is ridiculous and this is also why I simply refuse to take part in discussions that don’t require other users needs/input. Zacharyalejandro (talk) 17:59, 14 October 2021 (UTC)Zacharyalejandro[reply]
Final warning - stop with the off-topic complaining. If you want to do whatever you want, go make your own Wordpress blog. Wikipedia is a collaborative project by definition, there is no storming off and doing whatever you want. Sergecross73 msg me 18:11, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Try Fandom. You could always make your own project there, if nothing else. -- ferret (talk) 18:21, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Zacharyalejandro:
  1. As ferret suggested, try Fandom if you want to make your own list of games. They actually have a List of Nintendo Switch games already, which it seems no one else is really working on. The problem is that probably no one will ever see the results because if you search for "list of switch games" or "how many switch games are there" on Google, it only returns the wikipedia results.
  2. "you flat-out remove games and are refusing to just improve upon it" - I presume this is directed at me specifically, but I'm not sure what you think I'm refusing to do. If you have suggestions for improvements then we can discuss them. I'm not refusing to do anything. Wikipedia works by consensus and I'm following the consensus. We discuss to reach a consensus, but if you decide not to participate in the discussion, there is no way for your voice to be heard. Kidburla (talk) 13:01, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To me, if the game is notable, and there's any reliable source verifying a Switch version, then I would think it's okay. I don't have strong feelings either way though, and still think it's a comparatively rare scenario. Sergecross73 msg me 18:15, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not terrible invested in this. If the game is notable, and there's sourcing for a Switch release, should be good enough. -- ferret (talk) 18:21, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your responses, for some reason wikipedia didn't notify me even though this page is on my watchlist, so only just saw these. Really glad to hear that there is some willingness to change. Later I will draft some text for the inclusion criteria with minor modifications to what's there currently, and propose. Kidburla (talk) 13:01, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've done a revision with this modification, see Special:Diff/1050067592. Can you let me know if you are happy with this? (cc: @Ferret, @Sergecross73, @Masem, @Dissident93) Kidburla (talk) 15:42, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Seems perfectly fine to me. The simpler guidelines can be explained, the better. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 18:43, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Sergecross73 msg me 19:26, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done As no one objected and this has been up for a while, I've applied the change to the inclusion criteria. Kidburla (talk) 23:13, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TouchArcade sources

Until very recently I was under the impression that TouchArcade sources could not be used for the Switch, as the WikiProject page lists it for use with "mobile games". I can understand that loosely speaking, Switch games are mobile games. I asked about this on the WikiProject page Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources#Use of Pocket Gamer and TouchArcade for Nintendo Switch games and it seems that it's fine to use TouchArcade sources for the Switch. TouchArcade cover a lot of Switch games via their "SwitchArcade round-up" articles. These cover mini-reviews of multiple games in one article. The coverage of each game is fairly substantial, critically assessing the game and whether it's worth buying (as opposed to just listing basic details). In other words, it's more than just a passing mention. I can't see anything in the inclusion criteria that precludes its use.

Including TouchArcade sources will significantly increase the scope of games which are considered "notable". As an example, I took 100 of the games I have removed recently, and I was able to find TouchArcade ("SwitchArcade round-up") sources for 83 of those games. I am posting this here, prior to embarking on the (significant) effort of re-adding many of the previously-removed games, to avoid wasting time in case I've missed something or people prefer to modify the current policy. Kidburla (talk) 22:03, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable source is reliable source, generally. TouchArcade is just primarily mobile. -- ferret (talk) 22:09, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, exactly this. It wasn't commentary on the scope of their reliability, it was merely pointing out what they primarily cover mobile. They can be used for any video game type stuff. Sergecross73 msg me 23:01, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I understood all that from the response on the wikiproject talk page. My post here was more to make sure that no one had any objections to me using their "SwitchArcade round-up" posts as sources, due to the significant number of games that will be re-added. I didn't want to put all that effort in and then someone turn around and say "okay this is ridiculous let's just change the inclusion criteria to exclude SwitchArcade round-up" or otherwise disagree that SwitchArcade round-up posts fit the criteria for some reason. Kidburla (talk) 07:39, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I've left this notice here for more than 1 week and no one objected, I'll assume everyone is fine with this. I'll start to work on adding all of those games to the list. I'm not sure when this will be completed - it might take me a few days due to the quantity of games being added. Kidburla (talk) 22:08, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced/unreliable material added; possibly vandalism?

Can someone please tell whoever is making these assumptions that these are being released on Switch to stop? I keep seeing the same website from last time I removed these and the site does not mention a Switch release as far as I know. I did a little digging last time for these, but didn’t find a single reference pertaining to these releasing on the platform. Thank you. Zacharyalejandro (talk) 08:00, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Zacharyalejandro: I agree that the edit you refer to was incorrect and you were right to revert it. It's also not a reliable source. However, I have looked back through the history using WikiBlame and also through that IP user's contributions, and I can't find any other uses of this website "cover project". Can you provide other examples of where this website was used incorrectly as a source? If not, I think maybe let's just leave it for now (maybe just a genuine mistake), if it continues to happen again and again then we can take action. Kidburla (talk) 12:40, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I agree, I can't say I've seen that source used all that much. Zachary, you're right to remove poorly sourced entries, but there's really nothing else to be done here. An anonymous editor added a bad source once. You reverted it. Problem solved. Popular pages like this are always going to require maintenance like this. Sergecross73 msg me 13:19, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've definitely removed some cases of "coverproject" being used as a source in recent-ish memory, but it may have been other lists, can't remember if it was here or not. -- ferret (talk) 14:48, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. If I see that game added again in the future because I remember it being used once before actually a few months into early 2021 having a mistaken dts template of 2021, with that source not even mentioning any trace of a Switch release being made. But as far as Serge and Ferret said, problem solved. I’ll keep a close eye if I spot more of these references being used. I’ve never actually heard of that website before as it’s not located anywhere on the reliable sources WikiProject page. But happy to revert again if it happens in the future. Zacharyalejandro (talk) 16:56, 23 October 2021 (UTC)Zacharyalejandro[reply]
Sounds good, thank you. Sergecross73 msg me 18:52, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Following up with this guys, I did some digging and it also wasn’t made by the same IP but a different IP or at least I think. Ferret did remove that though back in June. As far as I know, I haven’t seen other IP’s making this game reappear constantly. I don’t know if it happened on other lists as well but I’ve just been seeing these appear on this list. Zacharyalejandro (talk) 17:15, 23 October 2021 (UTC)Zacharyalejandro[reply]

@Zacharyalejandro: Thanks for your research. I'm sorry, I missed that when doing WikiBlame earlier. I think it's likely to be the same person, but as they are using different IPs, not even in the same IP range, I think there's very little we can do. Kidburla (talk) 23:04, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Depreciation of DTS template for PEIS reasons

To avoid having to split A-C list yet again following a large addition of titles, I've talked with Kudburla and Izno in Discord to brainstorm ideas to help keep the lists under control. One of those things is the removal of the DTS template, which uses a substantial amount of the PEIS limit. This means the dates have been converted to plain ol' ISO dates, which sort automatically without any special help.

They could be converted back to MDY as well, which tables know how to sort those natively these days, however the usual script for doing date conversions wants to reintroduce the Dts template, so should NOT be used here.

Please do not reintroduce the Dts template. -- ferret (talk) 23:15, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I'll try to work on a script to replace the YMD by MDY without using dts (being conscious we still have the MDY template at the top of the article even though it's now mostly YMD). Will try to update on that later or tomorrow. Kidburla (talk) 16:15, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done however unfortunately it has resulted in an ~10kb size increase to each page :( Kidburla (talk) 18:53, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. It's still roughly half what {{Dts}} was using, and with no PEIS overhead. I have fixed the column sorting. -- ferret (talk) 18:55, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Remedy 2: Depreciation of hlist

This hasn't occurred yet, but I recommend the depreciation of hlist in favor of a simple comma delimited format. There are 406 hlists on A-C alone. -- ferret (talk) 00:10, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ferret: I agree, it makes sense. Can I proceed with the replacement of hlist or do we want to get some more opinions on this? Kidburla (talk) 16:15, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you sandbox it to start and let's see what the savings are. -- ferret (talk) 16:39, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ferret: See User:Kidburla/sandbox1. This was based on Special:Permalink/1052163362, the latest revision of 0-9,A-C at this time. Ordinary page size: 478kb (hlist) vs 475kb (csv). PEIS: 2044kb (hlist) vs 1856kb (csv). I think it's a fairly significant reduction but I still think we are eventually going to have to split the page, even if we do this. Kidburla (talk) 20:09, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A page split may be inevitable but I think a 10% reduction is worthwhile at no real loss to data presentation. Keeping in mind it'll also push the need for splitting the other three pages even further out as well. -- ferret (talk) 20:11, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done across all 4 pages. Kidburla (talk) 20:29, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Remedy 3: Move C into D-G

At the current list sizes, moving C into the D-G list will result in all four pages having approximately equal 350-370kb. However, my concern is that Kidburla's efforts to expansion and enhance sourcing in regards to the inclusion criteria have primarily centered on A-C, so the other three pages may be lacking expansion at this time. I think we can wait a bit before shuffling anything further, but C into D-G would otherwise seem to proper move unless entries swing wildly. -- ferret (talk) 20:30, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ferret: I agree we can wait a bit. I note that Index of Windows games, at a similar list size to ours, has split into individual letters already. Kidburla (talk) 20:34, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Zsteve21: If you're going to do this in the midst of discussion and efforts to trim size, could you please at least fix all the links and templates? -- ferret (talk) 21:06, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ferret: I'll try. zsteve21 (talk) 21:13, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I completed the fixes needed. -- ferret (talk) 22:16, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, ferret! So much for all our efforts to delay the split, hey? Kidburla (talk) 22:37, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source removal

Hi, as discussed with ferret on Discord last night, I have gone through the sources and removed some of the superfluous sources - specifically where there was a secondary source from a website which is known to have release dates in articles, and that secondary source confirmed the release date for one or more regions, I removed the release date verifiability source for that region. The impact is not really that large:

  • Removed 5 sources where there was also an IGN source which confirmed the release date
    • Reviewed an additional 92 IGN sources which did not result in removals. This was because either there was no other verifiability source for that game, the IGN source didn't confirm the release date, the IGN source was from a region other than NA/EU/JP, or the release date given in IGN did not match the one on the eShop (this is usually because IGN gives the release date for the game as a whole across all platforms, which may differ from the release date for the Switch specifically)
  • Removed 5 sources where there was also a Famitsu source which confirmed the release date
  • Removed 22 sources where there was also a Nintendo World Report source which confirmed the release date
    • Reviewed an additional ~60 NWR sources which did not result in removals. This was because either there was no other verifiability source for that game, or the NWR source did not confirm the release dates for all regions (often the NWR source only confirms the US release date and this means we can't remove the verifiability source if it confirms both US and EU dates)

In addition, I went through and changed a number of Nintendo Life editorial verifiability sources for catalogue sources, which take up less space due to the shorter URLs and titles (in all these cases the NLife source was superfluous for notability and probably not legitimate anyway given the RS restriction on this site).

In total the page size was reduced by about 9KB, which is nothing in the grand scheme of things. I can't really think of anything else to do here. I think we can return to working on the page as normal, but in my opinion a future split at least into A-B and C-? is inevitable as there is a limit to what we can do to reduce the page size. Kidburla (talk) 16:13, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming of part 1

The first part was renamed today by Georgia guy, adding "0-9" to the page title (List of Nintendo Switch games (A–C) -> List of Nintendo Switch games (0-9 and A–C)). Unfortunately this has broken the row counters on List of Nintendo Switch games itself, as well as parts 2-4. Before fixing it I just wanted to check:

  • Is there a consensus for this move? (Personally I think it's probably the right thing to do, although does mean we are not consistent with other video game lists such as List of PlayStation 3 games (A–C) and List of Xbox One games (A–L).)
  • If yes, is there any reason we are using a hyphen (-) rather than dash (–) for "0-9"? I think we should use a dash for consistency.

Thanks. Kidburla (talk) 20:44, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kidburla, I just find it convenient to use a hyphen because it's one of the standard keys on a computer keyboard; the dash is not. Georgia guy (talk) 20:54, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Simple redirects can solve stuff like that, so that doesn't really need to be factored in. Sergecross73 msg me 20:58, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've no comment on the name. The row counter just needs the page name updated on each page though. -- ferret (talk) 21:13, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ferret: Okay thanks, as this doesn't seem too controversial, I'll fix it all up (and probably at some point we should do the same for the other platforms). Kidburla (talk) 21:16, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done (for the Switch list) - we can always revert if people object, but at least the row counts are correct again now. Kidburla (talk) 21:37, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dates/Lists/References

I would like to know why we are messing up the dates. It makes look weird now though. Should we resolve this by abbreviating the month like other competitor lists have done? It just looks odd leaving it that way as it is now. And the point of moving vgrh and hlist templates from the past edits? Can we keep those in place? If the page size is an issue for you guys, why can't we either remove some games that are non-notable or split the pages even further or everyone chip in and create the pages? This is really hard for me to try and get everything started from scratch and familiarize with so much changes being made. Do I have any say to object on the matter? No? Alright then. Zacharyalejandro (talk) 21:01, 28 October 2021 (UTC)Zacharyalejandro[reply]

And references do have a major issue here. Last time I had checked months ago, the references weren't nearly as bad as today's references were, meaning that there weren't a thousand references listed on just one part of the lists here. What happened to condensing references now? We're not going to do that? Zacharyalejandro (talk) 21:22, 28 October 2021 (UTC)Zacharyalejandro[reply]
Have you tried reading the talk page, particularly the section just above that explains exactly why? There is no change to the article's appearance, the same date format is still presented. -- ferret (talk) 21:38, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Zacharyalejandro:
  1. Similarly to ferret above, I have no idea what you mean about the dates, especially saying "It makes look weird" and "It just looks odd". The dates look exactly the same as they did before, the only difference is that we are not using the DTS template.
  2. For the same reasons, I don't think we should abbreviate the month, as we never did that before, and I don't understand what problem you are trying to solve.
  3. I haven't touched any of the vgrh templates, I don't think others have touched them either. Not sure where you are seeing that vgrh templates were moved.
  4. The removal of hlist templates is already discussed in an earlier talk page section. We did that to reduce the page size as it was getting too large. We may still need to split the page in future but we are trying to avoid splits if possible because there are already 4 parts to the list.
  5. I will continue to remove games that are non-notable, but I don't think it will have a major impact on page size. We are now seeing that the vast majority of games are notable according to the inclusion criteria. For example, I've reviewed 922 games so far, and only 25 of them were removed as non-notable.
  6. As mentioned before, if you want to create pages for games and they pass WP:GNG then feel free to do that. I don't have a particular interest in doing that. I think many of the games on this list wouldn't pass WP:GNG anyway.
  7. I'm sorry if the number of recent changes are hard for you to process. But it's really not that complicated: (a) use comma-separated lists rather than hlist, (b) use plain dates rather than dts.
  8. You are always welcome to contribute to any discussion. So yes, you do have a "say to object on the matter". But you have said before multiple times that you don't want to participate in discussions.
  9. I disagree that "months ago, the references weren't nearly as bad as today", many games didn't have any references at all. I am working on adding references for those games where they are lacking.
  10. As I mentioned to you in an earlier talk page section, if you see that some references are superfluous for proving both verifiability and notability, then feel free to remove those. So I don't know what you mean by "What happened to condensing references now? We're not going to do that?" I went through and removed some myself earlier this week as I noted above, but there are many cases I couldn't remove them because they were still necessary for some verifiability or notability reason. Again, see above for the explanation. Kidburla (talk) 22:27, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well regarding the dates mainly, these had dts|2020|06|20 and the genres, publishers and developers had vgrh and hlist templates respectively. They're all gone and replaced by commas instead, undoing all past edits and a discussion you guys maybe had on the matter years ago. Can we go back to that? Or was it when you guys made numerous changes when I was gone? Zacharyalejandro (talk) 18:02, 29 October 2021 (UTC)Zacharyalejandro[reply]
Are you going to read why it was done? To avoid having to split the list into 8+ pages? Dts brings no value to the page but forces it to be split far earlier than necessary. -- ferret (talk) 18:05, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Zacharyalejandro: Have you actually read the messages that me and ferret left here yesterday for you? We already answered all these questions.
Pretty much all I can do is reiterate:
  • We didn't have a discussion years ago, we had that in the last few days. Check the other sections of the talk page. Also this has nothing to do with stuff which happened while you were "gone" (I presume this means while you were banned)
  • I don't know how many times I have to say this, but no changes were made to vgrh. If you disagree then please provide specific examples as requested above.
  • The reason dts was removed is to reduce the page size and it has no impact on the page appearance. I really don't understand why you are so uncomfortable about it?
  • No one has "undone all past edits", we just used a script to update the page and change the formats of dates and hlists.
  • Can you explain your issue with replacing hlists with commas? This change reduced the page size by about 10% which both ferret and I agreed was worthwhile as it only has a minor difference in appearance.
Kidburla (talk) 18:18, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I think I might understand why you think we have undone all past edits, because ferret's edit to remove dts also reintroduced a lot of games previously removed. However this is perhaps a bit misleading. ferret had previously reverted an edit I made which re-added those games. So he re-applied my edit and at the same time removed dts, which was necessary as the page would have been too big otherwise. So I was actually the one re-adding those games and the original reason for that has nothing to do with dts. It's because of the clarification on the use of TouchArcade sources, as mentioned earlier on this talk page. So this is not undoing all past edits, it's re-adding previously-removed games where TouchArcade sources exist for those games. The edit also included those TouchArcade sources and removed sources that were there before but should not have been, so it's not even an "effective revert" of those removals. Kidburla (talk) 18:38, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't condensing it to Feb, Jun, Jul, etc., warrant anything? I don't know what makes these changes so different than others that have this implemented. Don't know if we ought to get pages split to single letters in the future. The dates just seem off to me compared to PS4 and Xbox One lists. Obviously this is also probably pushing towards a catalogue sorta thing if we add the missing what? 30-50 games that were removed previously? The only thing I'm concerned about is the date template. Zacharyalejandro (talk) 07:07, 4 November 2021 (UTC)Zacharyalejandro[reply]

C list

Any thoughts about putting the C list into its own article called List of Nintendo Switch games (C)?? Georgia guy (talk) 22:11, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Georgia guy: Not nearly large enough on it's own to warrant it. It was only 22% of the combined A-C list. I do not support any further page splits at this time. The lists are more or less balanced for the moment. -- ferret (talk) 22:14, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Nintendo_Switch_games&oldid=1053493304"