Talk:Deck Nine

Objecting to proposed deletion

The developer is one of the producers of the game Ruin (video game) which has recently had fairly extensive coverage due to it being used to demonstrate PlayStation 3 / PS Vita cross functionality at the E3 conference 2011. There's some unrelated coverage through the gaming press of the company, and I'm sure the organisation would pass notability (though not with flying colours) with the proper research.

Also, It looks like the game "Ruin" is going to be fairly good (opinion) - it's likely therefor if the page is deleted now it will have a good chance of being created later, when notability is more easily established (they also have a fairly extensive record games production too). ie deleting now would just make more work later (I feel).

I'm currently working on the related game article, but will attempt to write some actual content for this when that is finisihedImgaril (talk) 19:36, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

File:IdolMindsLogo.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:IdolMindsLogo.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 22:15, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Idol Minds Logo.jpeg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Idol Minds Logo.jpeg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:12, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Move page back to "Idol Minds"

An unknown user erroneously changed the title of the page from 'Idol Minds' to 'Deck Nine'. I am an owner of this company. Idol Minds still exists, and we have a 20 year history as Idol Minds. Idol Minds created the games that are listed here, and it is confusing to do away with 'Idol Minds'.

We have re-branded the company and added Deck Nine as a company that we are doing business as. We will create a new page for Deck Nine. I have added a paragraph to this Idol Minds page that describes the new arrangement. However, it is not correct to simply change this page to the title Deck Nine Games.

Deck Nine Games will be making new games in the future, and will need a new Wikipedia page.

DeckNineLucie (talk) 20:31, 8 June 2017 (UTC)Lucie Lyons

@DeckNineLucie: It appears that all traces of Idol Minds being Idol Minds have been erased, as for example the website idolminds.com now redirects to the new Deck Nine website. If it is public knowledge that a company uses a different name than it did before, we here on Wikipedia do not create new articles for the new name if the other is abandoned, but rather keep both in the same spot to have one healthy article outlining that it is the same company but of two different names. Regards, Lordtobi (✉) 07:58, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

"Deck Nine" or "Deck Nine Games"?

Which article title, and subsequent usage in the article itself, use for the new name? Colorado's business registry shows that both versions (short, long) are registered trading names of Idol Minds, LLC (this company), and both have been registered on April 24, 2017. Hence I wondered, which should we use? Judging from the logo and the usage on the website, I personally would prefer simply "Deck Nine" (and as of currently, it also redirects here). Reliable sources seem to be split, our reliable sources search engine has 28.0k results for the short version and 21.1k for the long one. @Cognissonance: What do you think? Lordtobi (✉) 08:05, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

In the same vein, Dontnod Entertainment yields 83,100 results, while Dontnod 74,600. It's not a huge sample, comparing two, but the short versions are both mostly used. The longest versions may be read as more official and therefore less used in periodicals. The list of video game developers shows qualifiers like "Games", "Entertainment", or "Studios" used in pretty regular fashion. I think this is what convinces me that the longest version should be the title. –Cognissonance (talk) 08:37, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

I think the difference here, especially in comparison to Dontnod, is that Dontnod, which is also legally registered with the Entertainment suffix, bears it in its logo, on their website, everyhwere. For Deck Nine, most primary sources, including BTS' Steam listing, only say "Deck Nine". Their website is split about that. Lordtobi (✉) 08:48, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

P.S.: I have adjusted your above links to show what they are supposed to, they don't change automatically, which is a bummer. P.P.S.: Also checking the links afterwards, it seems that the longer version actually has more hits, I have adjusted your numbers for you to see. Lordtobi (✉) 08:51, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, that destroys my first argument. The business registry warrants us the choice. I have no problem with it being called Deck Nine, as long as Deck Nine Games is, per the registry of both, added as an alternative trading name in the infobox. –Cognissonance (talk) 09:02, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

For the infobox, we will probably have to differntiate what names they are obliged to use, and which they actually use. Listing both would likely be overkill and could confuse readers. We should just boldly WP:COMMONNAME, even if it is just such a slight difference, and keep it that way if there is no opposition. Lordtobi (✉) 09:22, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Actually, yeah, WP:COMMONNAME makes more sense. No opposition on my end. –Cognissonance (talk) 09:50, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

That suits me well, will go bold now. Lordtobi (✉) 09:52, 4 July 2017 (UTC)