Talk:List of Nintendo Switch games/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Too long

This article currently has 457,908 bytes of wiki-markup, and so needs to be split. What's the best way to do that? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:50, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

A to L, M to Z. Check the archives though, we split it before and it was heavily contested, on the basis that SIZEFORK supposedly doesn't apply to lists. Currently we are waiting for the issue to be forced by post expand template size limit. -- ferret (talk) 17:17, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

That's a much-touted canard, but bogus. And even if it were true, usability for our readers matters more than policy-lawyering Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:36, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Don't take me the wrong way, I am the one who performed the last split and took the heat for doing it. I'm all for splitting it. The opposition argument was the opposite of what you're thinking: that a fully sortable table for readers was more important than editor discomfort caused by the wikisource size. If someone proposes the split and we establish a consensus, I'll gladly perform it again. I'm just not going to BOLDLY do it again and get roasted a second time. -- ferret (talk) 00:41, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Fully supported by myself and many experienced editors, but passerby gamer fans tripped up the consensus on the last discussion on it. Some demand being able to see every game on one list... Sergecross73 msg me 22:57, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Then we can point them to a Wikidata query... Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:36, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Just for the arguments sake, post-expand include size is at 1,842,209/2,097,152 bytes. I'm ready to make the argument "too close" and go ahead and split, if no one opposes. -- ferret (talk) 00:45, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Go for it. I’m not sure the opposers are even around anymore. They only seem to crawl out of the woodwork once it’s split. Sergecross73 msg me 00:50, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Just to chime in on this as a reader and not an editor; I was trying to find a list of recent and upcoming switch releases that wasn’t surrounded by a ton of “content is king” crap that made it nigh impossible to actually find a consistent delivery of information. I came to this page and was a little irked to see the table was not sortable - but it being on one page meant I could grab the info I wanted and process it anyway. Splitting the page becomes difficult for the reader; unless you have some other way of presenting the information to go alongside it Chrisjfinlay (talk) 00:06, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Uh, this table IS sortable currently. -- ferret (talk) 01:21, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

What browser/device are you trying to sort it with? It's sortable for everybody else. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 19:51, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm all for a split, and an alphabetical split is better than not splitting at all, but wouldn't a split by date make more sense? Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:42, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Probably not. That’s not how any video game lists have been set up in my experience. Readers are generally looking by name, not by timeframe. Sergecross73 msg me 12:12, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Onetwothreeip I would personally prefer it by date (for example, seeing how NES games evolved over time is an awesome feeling), but I do agree with Sergecross73 in that most people would prefer it by name. Alphabetically, it looks more encyclopedic and everyone knows how to read the info. By dates, I do see advantages in that it may be easier for the editor to modify by simply going to the latest entry rather than ctrl-F every time, but the whole point is for the readers. Us minority can always copy both lists into Excel and sort there for our personal use if it's a huge concern. --Bchill53 (talk) 16:49, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Is this technical limitation for the transclusion we previously had a hard limit and unable to be adjusted at all? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 19:06, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

@Sergecross73 and Bchill53: We can have both an alphabetical and a timeline list. It would just be easier to split it alphabetically. We have a million different ways of listing the countries of the world, we can have two for Nintendo Switch games. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:51, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

@Onetwothreeip: True... I don't really like the precedent that sets though. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't usually a sound argument on its own. Like I said, as long as the two tables are consistent, it is fairly easy to copy and paste the info into other software to sort it however you like. --Bchill53 (talk) 22:21, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

No, that won’t work in the confines of how Wikipedia works. One would get deleted on the grounds of redundancy, and it would almost certainly be the “by year” one that gets deleted because there’s no precedent for arranging them like that. (It’d also hypothetically be double the effort to maintain two lists, especially when editors barely keep up with this one.) Sergecross73 msg me 00:18, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

A lack of precedent doesn't mean anything. If readers find it useful for these to be sorted by year, that article would most certainly be retained. As can be seen with the many lists of countries that we have, it's simple and possibly desirable to have these games in two different kinds of list. It would probably also remove the need to split the list as well. We could have one list for the date they were released, and one that lists them alphabetically. This could also be done for all the lists of video games on Wikipedia. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:31, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

We don't create articles for utility purpose (save for some pages on core reference data), even if readers find it useful. --Masem (t) 00:34, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Please read WP:USEFUL. Something being useful isn’t in itself a valid reason to do something on Wikipedia. It’d be useful to have an article for all phone numbers for Pizza Hut so I can quickly call my local Pizza Hut to quickly order dinner tonight. That doesn’t make it appropriate for an encyclopedia. (Quite the opposite.) You can argue all you want, there’s no way in hell youre going to get a consensus supporting having two identical lists for the same thing under different organizational schemes. Sergecross73 msg me 00:39, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

I actually made that same argument earlier today on another article, but instead of a list of phone numbers I used the example of a list of items that were in my refrigerator. You're definitely having a very major misconception here, I don't think there should be another article with identical information but sorted differently, they would be different articles and not identical. In no way did I mean to say that simply because it is useful that it would be retained as a Wikipedia article, I was implying that it would already be encyclopaedic. So please take those remarks to mean both useful and encyclopaedic, since a list of video games sorted by release date is just as encyclopaedic as one sorted alphabetically. Essentially, assuming an article is encyclopaedic, it wouldn't be deleted if it was useful. Nobody was suggesting that a chronological list wasn't encyclopaedic, so I assumed it went without saying. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:57, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

I’m still doubting this is a valid path to take, but if you’re so certain there’s a misunderstanding, I guess you should be more specific in what exactly you’re proposing here... Sergecross73 msg me 02:45, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

One list for the video games and their release dates, another for the video games generally and sorted alphabetically. So there would be information that one list has that the other doesn't. The current list is not just a long list, it's also a wide list, and essentially splitting its width could remove the necessity to split the list by length. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:51, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

It would still feature a tremendous amount of redundancies, in both game titles and sourcing. Sergecross73 msg me 03:02, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Do you mean duplication? With the amount of lists on Wikipedia, overlap is inevitable. Cutting the article horizontally also has problems, but either way a split is necessary. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:19, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, a split is inevitable, but your proposal would require double the maintenance though, because every game would have to be added to each list. This is not a good trait for a subject that is continually growing by 10-20 items a week, and likely will be for years to come. And it goes completely against the grain of the cleanup efforts of the last few year, which was to eliminate these sorts extraneous lists. (No matter how you spin it, your proposal is too very similar lists - “List of Switch games”) I’ll stop now and let others comment, but I’m against the idea and find it unlikely to garner a consensus. Sergecross73 msg me 04:08, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm also 100% against the idea. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 05:08, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Inclusion criteria

Regardless of a split, surely the inclusion criteria is far too low, if any exists at all. Should we really list games without a Wikipedia article about them? Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:19, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

• That has been discussed before, but doing this would likely make the list be a continuous target of edit warring or forced article creation spam to bypass it. Not to mention we'd have to do the same thing on every other games list, which I just see as too large of a task to undertake and maintain. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 05:08, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

If this forces the creation of new articles, that is very good. I highly doubt there would be warring since it would be too much effort for nothing. The other video game lists are too large as well, and the same rule should apply there. The articles never have to perfectly conform to this, it would just be much better to get somewhere towards only having notable entries on these lists than having basically so many useless entries which bloat the size of them and necessitate them being split. It would also be far more in line with Wikipedia guidelines. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:09, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Please note that there’s not a single “list of (platform) video games” list on Wikipedia that operates like this. I’m totally against these sort of schemes to get the list to fit in one page. It’s just not a problem to do an alphabetical list split. Sergecross73 msg me 11:31, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm not saying it should be done to get it fitting into one page. It would be good on its own, but probably remove the necessity for a split. I'm well aware at the other similar lists aren't sorted how I describe, I am saying this would be better for all of them. Onetwothreeip (talk) 12:07, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Well I’m with Dissident again then - this is another high effort/high maintenance/low benefit proposal in my eyes. Sergecross73 msg me 13:16, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

I understand your intent and would support this if people were not almost guaranteed to do as I said. And yes, article creation is a good thing, but only when it's natural. I just feel like doing this would force the creation of a bunch of hastily written stub articles for when people want to include them on the list. Maybe I'm overreacting with this, so even if this wasn't the case, then people would still just add unlinked games constantly, either due to not understanding the policies or by protesting the decision to do so and doing it anyway. Neither of which are big problems on their own, but if we were to apply this to other game list page (it wouldn't make sense to only have it done here) then you can see the largescale problem. But what do you mean "useless" entries? Even if a game doesn't have an article, as long as they are sourced to exist and to have released on the Switch, then that's all they need to belong here. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 17:32, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Any articles they make would still need to be referenced, and if they aren't notable they won't last long, so it seems like way more effort than anybody would consistently want to do. We also could just stop any more without articles from making the list, and slowly cull the list down over time. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:54, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

I think I get how the bytes system works I think. Isn't it like when you view the history of edits, you can see how many bytes there are in total; then you see the number of bytes decreased (I removed some archive data which took 10,000+ bytes, and putting some redirects in for some titles, so now it's at 467,718). Is this correct? Zacharyalejandro (talk) 22:37, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

That is the total size of the article, which impacts loading. It is not the hard technical limit related to templates though. You can see it by doing a preview and scrolling to the stats at the bottom, where the post-expand template limit is shown. -- ferret (talk) 22:43, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

So putting shortcuts on references for the same release dates for games, like what I've been doing, helps slim it down? Zacharyalejandro (talk) 00:22, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Reduces overall size and I believe also template expand size. The reference is generated only once, and linked to several times. Much smaller than having multiple individual references. This should be done anyways, to avoid duplicated references. -- ferret (talk) 00:40, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

@Zacharyalejandro: Citation information is not "unnecessary", culling them in an effort to prevent a page split is not the solution, which we have discussed before. You have been caught multiple times for doing the same edits over and over months later hoping the page watchers either aren't aware of previous discussions or simply forgot about them. I honestly think its time for you to be blocked for a short while, but do the admins here agree? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 04:18, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

The page split is done now so slightly moot, but Dissident is correct. If proper citations hit the post-expand limit, then we have to split. Removing citations is not the correct path. We all knew it was coming either way. -- ferret (talk) 12:45, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Page split

A page split has been done but improperly. I'll be working to fix it shortly. -- ferret (talk) 12:18, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Split redone, TOCs and counters cleaned up, etc. -- ferret (talk) 12:35, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the effort in doing this, hopefully that will keep things smooth for a while. JamminBen (talk) 09:05, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Until people complain and try to create another RfC to revert it (it's already happened). ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 04:44, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

That's not surprising as I remember it was changed and reverted once before. While I do think it's more convenient in a single list, it's only going to get harder (or impossible) to work with as more Switch games come out. JamminBen (talk) 10:40, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. I think the move should stay permanent now that more games continue to be announced. That is unless we decide to change the scope of the list entirely, such as omitting games without articles. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 17:43, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

I have to say something. Firstly and foremost, I very much apologize for my rational behavior over the last few weeks/months. Working on these lists especially when it was larger before the split I guess made me take a larger toll (on my behavior) than it had when this page was split some time ago I think it was. I have a very high tendency for this type of behavior not just offline. It's just very hard to add games while trying to balance other things in life, like work. Again, please, please understand that I'm not trying to cause any harm or trouble, I'm just trying to help out in any way I can. Also, I have a very hard time remembering things in everything, and its repeatedly caused me to get frustrated at times, and I simply can't help that it's part of my Autism, just wanting you guys to know. Secondly and finally, regarding the split, I find it helping now that it is easier typing in the information/citations then before, like when it took a minute to load the 'curly brackets' if {{ these are called (Didn't know what they were called, so I looked it up easily). Hope you guys can forgive what I've done. Thank you! Zacharyalejandro (talk) 06:51, 30 March 2019 (UTC)Zacharyalejandro

We are aware you have the best intentions for the article, but that is still no excuse to consistently make the same edits against consensus (sourced from discussions you were active in) every few months... ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 17:43, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Do we still have to remove refs?

Now that the page has split, we don't need to remove references if there is a page linked anymore, right? TheAwesomeHwyh (talk) 03:44, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

The page will still continue to expand, but we should leave the linked pages unreferenced, I believe with what we've done before. Zacharyalejandro (talk) 04:00, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. That is unless somebody wants to go and cite every game again by hand for consistency reasons, which seems unlikely. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 04:34, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Do we include DLC/Expansion packs in lists?

As the title implies, do we really include Expansion packs if they have a physical release? I think I know that this has been brought up in another discussion, but I just wanted to know that we shouldn't include Expansion packs in the lists, regardless of having to split the list(s)? Zacharyalejandro (talk) 23:17, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

DLC/expansion typically aren't included in platform lists, regardless of being physical or not. -- ferret (talk) 01:18, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

No, because they depend on the base game to be played. Torna is a rare (can't even think of any others) example that it's actually a standalone release that does not need the original Xenoblade 2 to be played, so it can belong here. It being physical or not is irrelevant. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 17:10, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I was gonna say, either way it’s a pretty rare situation, especially on Switch. Sergecross73 msg me 17:57, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't know if this goes similar in this section or needs a different one, but is there a possibility that we could remove games that have Remastered, or Edition, in the title (this probably goes to detail with what was explained above, because these are like games that have platform-exclusive extra content). Zacharyalejandro (talk) 16:12, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow why we'd want to do that. They may be ports or re-releases, but they're still fundamentally Switch games... Sergecross73 msg me 16:39, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Suggestion re Switch Lite

As the bulk of games will be compat with the Lite with only a few that either require external joy-con (1,2,switch) or will otherwise be completely unplayable because they use TV mode only, I think this should only be reflected in a footnote and not as an extra column. I think there's only roughly some dozen games that would there. --Masem (t) 17:13, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

There aren’t any that are fully incompatible yet, are there? I thought that the handful with issues like 1,2 Switch and Mario Party could still be played with external controllers synced? Definitely agree with no extra column though. Sergecross73 msg me 17:59, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

I though there was one TV mode-only game, but that was Voez which required the touchscreen so cannot at all be played TV mode. In any case, we know there's only a handful of games that cannot be played immediately on the Lite, but out of thousands, there being so few do not require a new column across both articles. --Masem (t) 18:01, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Ah right, I do recall that. And yeah, good to get s consensus now, as passerby editors love to always try to bloat the list out and add extra columns. Sergecross73 msg me 18:25, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Updated list and possibly another split in the future?

Can we include updated release dates if games contain a physical release? And is there a possibility that, in the case of the lists of PlayStation Vita games, would we be able to do at least another split from like M-S or something if we do hit the size limit in the future? Zacharyalejandro (talk) 23:25, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

The first release is what we should list. Physical or digital is irrelevant. There's no need right now for another split, if it becomes necessary we'll do one though, goes without saying. -- ferret (talk) 23:26, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

We don’t track whether or not a game is released physically, so I don’t know why we would track a physical releases date separately... Sergecross73 msg me 01:40, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Hasn't this been asked before? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 22:59, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

I also think this probably needs to go in another section, but would we be able to page protect if things go out of hand, seeing as this game was added hours ago yesterday with no actual link or a reliable source confirming said game exists? An anonymous user also posted things out of the ordinary which Sergecross took care of over on the List of Nintendo 3DS games. I think a page protection over on that page might be in need of consideration. Thank you over on that page Serge! Really appreciate it! Zacharyalejandro (talk) 06:59, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Disruption is no where near the level required for protection. Generally protection is used where blocking a single user is insufficient and the activity happens repeatedly. -- ferret (talk) 15:01, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Zachary, but ferret is right on this one. Sergecross73 msg me 16:00, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

In regards to another split, yes we would eventually do that, but only once it is needed. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 22:59, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Plague Inc: Evolved

Can someone add Plague Inc: Evolved to this list? I am having trouble formatting it correctly. Geolodus (talk) 06:51, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

@Geolodus: It's already listed on List of Nintendo Switch games (M-Z). -- ferret (talk) 12:11, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

I didn't notice that. Geolodus (talk) 12:33, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Belated clarification: I actually did check on the page you linked, but missed it somehow. Geolodus (talk) 17:58, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

In fact, I was redirected here from Talk:List of Nintendo Switch games (M-Z). Geolodus (talk) 13:42, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps if we exclude games that have *not* been released?

I see that there's been a few "clearings" of games announced with no strong release dates that were planned but since have been vaporware. What if we made this list of games that have been confirmed to be released for the Switch, instead? That way, we aren't listing vaporware... but I don't know how much of a difference that would be. --Masem (t) 18:32, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

A half way solution might also be to require a release date for at least one region. -- ferret (talk) 18:50, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Beyond just a general year/quarter window, right? I think this works, but only for games without articles, otherwise we'd end up removing notable games like the Breath of the Wild sequel due to it. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 18:55, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Let's put it this way, the issue comes to the non-blue linked games for the most part. At worst with blue-linked games exclusive to the Switch that go vaporware (have there ever been yet?) you still have a notable article about a failed product.

If a game is not blue-linked nor can be reasonably covered in a blue-linked article (a continuation of a series, for example), and not yet released, we should expect a non-social media, non-catalog, non-blog link (read: an article from an RS) that affirms the game is in development and some window for release to include the game on this list. That is, a good third-party source that acknowledges this game is in the works. Once the game is released in at least one market and hasn't been added yet, then it can use a catalog page to affirm the release. Basically, I'm looking at this fact that anyone can claim a game is coming, and right now we'd add it because we are considering a Twitter announcement "good enough". Let RSes decide when the Twitter announcement is "good enough" to cover for us then to include.

I'm considering this based on the recent news of the Hamster Corp. having been given a worlds record for 130+ some straight weeks of releasing a new game on the Switch, where barely any of there games are notable. [1]. Their releases can be added since we can source the eShop, but their not really appropriate to add until that release given the zero coverage I've seen of their titles, until now. --Masem (t) 22:29, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

I support requiring a third party RS verifying release (no social media or YouTube) but not particularly anything else proposed so far. It’s just too counter-intuitive for it to run smoothly - it’ll be a maintenance nightmare. See the section above - even our current system is confusing to your average editor. Sergecross73 msg me 22:58, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

If we just went with either "third party RS discussing the game, regardless of release date" or "storefront page w/ concrete release date" that would be simple and help reduce cruft. --Masem (t) 23:34, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

I was under the impression this is what we've been doing anyway. Unless we simply omit social media/YouTube, even temporarily for breaking announcements. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 00:10, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Well, right now, on the first half of the list, there's about 40-some refs to Twitter and YouTube. Now some of these seem to be official announcement videos on Nintendo's channel, but I don't think all of them are. --Masem (t) 13:43, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

They should have been replaced by now. If a third-party source can't be found for them by now, then they should be removed. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 15:34, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Well, let me go back to my other point: if the game is released and is on the eShop in one of these regions, that's fine to keep it even if no other 3rd party mentions it. The eshop page with a "buy" is evidence that the game is a NS game, not vaporware. So those should be replaced - if they can be -with store links. (A reminder is that when blue-linked games do come out, we expect that to be sourced too just to confirm they made their date of release. Usually not a problem for a notable game.) --Masem (t) 15:42, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

I have been removing games that had at least no update since like 2 years ago. I think we shouldn't include games until we get a finalized release date. Since these lists also seem to only include games that seem notable for inclusion, like if they have a link or suitable reference. There's over 2000 games. I hope this 2000 number goes into fruition in the future. People lack common sense, I've been told numerous times. I'm going to stop talking about this before this gets way out of hand. It's been a stressful few weeks. Zacharyalejandro (talk) 22:23, 23 September 2019 (UTC)Zacharyalejandro

"I think we shouldn't include games until we get a finalized release date." But then that would remove games such as Metroid Prime 4 and the BOTW sequel, which I don't think anybody here actually supports removing. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 19:14, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

• So here's two easy rules:
  1. If the game is not yet released, the existence of the game in development should be verified by at least one RS (from WP:VG/S) of this. This would mean that we have a blue-linked article about the game or the game in the series with this source in it, or it is a non-linked game and the source is in this table.
  2. If the game is released, and there is otherwise no sourcing to validate point #1, then the eShop page(s) of the game, confirming available for purchase, can be used as the source if the game is non-linked. (A blue-linked game is expected to satisify #1)
• And to add that for non-linked games that fall of the radar and go for more than 2 years without updates, what Zachary did is correct, removing those. --Masem (t) 19:25, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Well, removing titles such as the Breath of the Wild sequel and Metroid Prime 4, (which the latter had been nothing short of vaporware since its announcement at E3 2017, and its restructuring video in January) is unacceptable. Smaller games made by third party developers, I can see, but I'll leave that up to the admins to decide. Think it's best to keep with the current releases for now. But after like 2-3 years with no updates on a game, we should request removing the game that has been referenced for 2 years at least. Zacharyalejandro (talk) 21:21, 20 November 2019 (UTC)Zacharyalejandro

Policy on wikilinks to games which do not have the Nintendo Switch platform listed

I have been watching both Nintendo Switch pages and the talk pages for a while now, although I must admit that I haven't kept up that well with the consensnus on references on this page, so I apologize in advance if this was already established.

From my understanding the current consensus is that games that do not have a wikilink should be sourced and that games with a wikilink should not have a source (to keep the page's size down). However, I've noticed multiple games with a wikilink (and therefore without a source), where that game's page doesn't state that it is for the Nintendo Switch platform in any way. I understand that not sourcing wikilinked games is to ensure that this page's size stays small, however I personally think that games with a wikilink where that page does not state that this game is for the Nintendo Switch platform, should either be a) removed from the list, b) given a source on here or c) given a source on that game's page. Reasoning for this is that such games have no source to back up that they're actually for the Nintendo Switch platform, which completely violates WP:V. I do understand that keeping this page's size down is important, but I also think we should still, in some capacity, follow this core Wikipedia policy. Stefvanschie (talk) 13:31, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

A blue link must have the release with source. Otherwise, this list should have a source still. We walk a fine line with this "size saving" concept, but WP:V must be met. If the linked page is lacking sources, it's unsourced both here and there. -- ferret (talk) 13:51, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

This. The only reason we do this is because a lot of people would rather have it done this way than have the page split 3-4 times with all entries sourced. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 15:52, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

So, are we still agreeing with not having sources to articles that are linked? If they aren't linked anywhere on the linked page, we should find a suitable source or sources to back it up, so as to not flood both pages with references. Zacharyalejandro (talk) 17:05, 30 November 2019 (UTC)Zacharyalejandro

I see no reason to think otherwise? You’ll need to keep in mind that such a plan is going to require constant upkeep though, as it is not a common or intuitive solution. You’re always going to have passerby editors who don’t follow it just because not everyone checks talk pages before making changes. Nor should we expect them to. I don’t think any of us can say we read the talk page of every single article prior to editing the article. Sergecross73 msg me 17:35, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

So, what would you guys suggest I do with, for example, a page like Asdivine Kamura? I have added the additional platforms (including Switch) to it so the game being listed here is at least sourced, but release dates are nowhere to be found on that page. Should I completely overthrow the consistency in that page (with it being a simple list of games without release dates) just to include the release date, because we don't want to keep the references here? I personally don't feel like just adding a release date in the middle there while all the other games listed don't have a release date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stefvanschie (talk • contribs) 10:12, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Collections and the games included in them

How do we handle collections? I ask this because of this edit I made today - the Japan-only collection Steins;Gate: Divergencies Assort contains the games Steins;Gate 0, Linear Bounded Phenogram, and My Darling's Embrace, which have not been released individually in Japan on the Switch. Yesterday, Spike Chunsoft released Steins;Gate 0 and Darling on the NA/EU Switch eshops, but individually (and they did not release Phenogram). Do we want to list Divergencies Assort as its own entry anyway, or do we want to break it up into three separate entries for the games included in the collection? As is, this list says that Darling and Steins;Gate 0 are "unreleased" in Japan, which is a little misleading.--Alexandra^IDV 11:26, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

My vote would be to list them all, as they've all be released, separate or together, in some capacity (albeit with variations in regions.) But there are some...different...viewpoints on this "list of games" article, with people trying to save page size to avoid page splits, so there could be opposition? Sergecross73 msg me 13:24, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

What I think we want to avoid are things like the old arcade/console collections to have every game in those listed. I see the clear different between something like Sega Classics and this Steins;gate package (where I do agree the individual games should be listed), but I don't know how to clearly delineate these cases. --Masem (t) 15:43, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree with you both that I think the individual games in this type of collection should be listed, while things Sega Classics are a different thing, but yeah - I also don't know how to formulate what separates the two beyond "I know it when I see it".--Alexandra^IDV 16:09, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Same. Sergecross73 msg me 16:20, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

The fact that those games are emulated should make them different. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 22:17, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that does make sense to me. Since we seem to have a consensus here, I'll split up the S;G collection into three entries.--Alexandra^IDV 06:10, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Seiken Densetsu Collection

Seiken Densetsu Collection is just the same as Collection of Mana. It's just the Japanese name for it. Kidburla (talk) 15:56, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

 Done ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 21:27, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Gotouchi Tetsudou

I think "Gotouchi Tetsudou" and "Local Train" are actually the same game. Just a different translation/transliteration. Kidburla (talk) 14:06, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

 Done, "Local Train" doesn't even seem to be an official translation either. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 21:30, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Your Four Knight Princesses Training Story

Your Four Knight Princesses Training Story is the same as The Princess Guide. The former is the literal translation from Japanese, the latter is the official English translation. Kidburla (talk) 16:31, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

 Done, good work finding these. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 21:27, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Yup, seconded, thanks for finding these. You don’t have to ask for permission on these, you can just do it and leave an edit summary explaining the situation. But if you’d rather just point them out, that’s fine too, and one of us can take care of it too. Sergecross73 msg me 00:53, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

I would normally make these kinds of edits myself, but this page is so massive that my (mobile) browser is incredibly slow at editing it. It literally takes about 10 seconds just to type or delete a single character, so removing entire rows is impractical. In this case it was just easier to post the inaccuracies I noticed on the talk page. Thanks a lot to User:Dissident93 for actioning them. Kidburla (talk) 01:14, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, that’s fair, that’s actually why I didn’t take action when I saw this earlier. Sergecross73 msg me 01:29, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

PSA regarding editors who are editing the page

I want to make this perfectly clear. Anyone (and I mean anyone) who starts editing these pages needs to be redirected to the talk page first. Everyone here who edits these pages either 1. Doesn't do the editing process right or 2. Does not provide a reliable source regarding stuff. Apparently someone put TBA on Moon and Yo-kai Watch 4 when it's not announced yet to release in those regions. I left them as Unreleased until further notice is made. I don't know why people are like this. Why the hell isn't this page protected yet? It's almost 2020 for goodness sake! I wish I could learn how to learn page protection myself Zacharyalejandro (talk) 16:58, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

There’s no way to force people to check the talk page first, nor is it realistic to expect people to. Do you check every talk page of every article you edit before you make a single edit? Fake/unconfirmed release dates are an ongoing issues everywhere on Wikipedia. I’m not sure why you’d be riled up about it today. It’s nowhere near the level needed to warrant page protection. If making little corrections to release details is that stressful to you, I recommend taking a short Wikibreal to gain some perspective. This shouldn’t be so stressful to anyone. It’s a list based around a simple hobby. Sergecross73 msg me 17:31, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Which is almost always quickly fixed anyway. I also don't see what's so worrisome about it; there are other pages/lists in much worse condition that this. Pre-protecting a page to prevent potential vandalism (which these edits are not even) is against admin policy too. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 21:20, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm the one who changed those from Unreleased to TBA. For Moon, this is mentioned in the reference that's already linked for this game. The reference is even called "Japan-Only 'Anti-RPG' Moon Is Getting A Worldwide Switch Release 22 Years Later" and that article is specifically about the release in regions outside Japan. For Yo-kai Watch 4, this has been widely reported e.g. [2]. I didn't think I needed to post on the talk page in either case. And I noticed my edits have been reverted with a message "What are you fucking doing????", was that really necessary? Kidburla (talk) 00:02, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

No, those messages are not necessary, and Zachary has been repeatedly warned for civility. -- ferret (talk) 00:30, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I undid Zachary's revert, and added in the aforementioned reference for Yo-kai Watch 4. For Moon, as mentioned above I think it's sufficiently supported by the reference that's already there. Kidburla (talk) 23:09, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

I would like to respond to many things wrong with everywhere on Wikipedia. I'm going to make this brief.

First, Links: Links that are linked in blue are acceptable. Red links that are on pages that don't have a respective page linked about said thing are not abd either should be created or redirected.

Second, we should never, ever by any means, put Ltd. Co. or Pty. Whatever title it needs to be is where it needs to be, redirect it, in this case.

And Third, we don't really need to capitalize on titles, publishers and/or developers regardless if it says on a simple Google search or anywhere else on the internet. This site is wrong in so many ways and it just keeps getting worse. Would love a change someday. Zacharyalejandro (talk) 21:00, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

"Dragon Quest Heroes 1 & 2" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Dragon Quest Heroes 1 & 2. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 06:17, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Edit war on Moon and Yo-kai Watch 4

I'm starting a new section to raise visibility, because no one is talking on the talk page about their views but just reverting my edits. (I had previously posted about this in the previous section "PSA...etc" but no one replied except to comment on Zacharyalejandro's language.) My last revision [3] invited people to reply on the talk page if they disagree but no one has replied to my comment in the previous section. Regarding Moon, my revision was reverted the last time by Zacharyalejandro with message "I'd suggest waiting on a release date". What is the reason for this? The entire point of "TBA" is that we don't have a release date. Unless I'm mistaken, TBA is being used for announced releases with unannounced release date. Regarding Yo-kai Watch 4, my latest edit was reverted by Zacharyalejandro with message "Why????" even though I'd explained why on the talk page and referred to this in my edit summary. His edit was then reverted by Dissident93 with message "confirmed for release, so what" but then Dissident93 deleted my source with message "should be sourced on the page", what does this mean? It *was* sourced on the page, this revision actually removed the source that I added. Dissident93 then completed the revert of my change in his next revision which was tagged as a minor edit with no edit summary. I can understand it being removed as unsourced information, but Dissident93 was the one who removed the source in the first place. Kidburla (talk) 11:51, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

I’ve warned Zachary that he needs to participate in the discussion if he’s to be reverting on this subject. To help facilitate things though, I’d ask - how have we handled it with other titles so far on the list? The situation appears to be how to label games that are announced for a region, but have no indication of release date or year? Sergecross73 msg me 14:05, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

My understanding is that (a) where there is a release date or year for a region (even if in the future) put that, (b) if there is no release date or year for a region but it's announced then put "TBA", (c) if there has been no announcement for that region then put "Unreleased". This seems to have been how it's been handled so far. For both "Moon" and "Yo-kai Watch 4" it's option (b), that's why I changed them from Unreleased to TBA. It's clear cut as far as I'm concerned and I don't see where the disagreement lies if people have read the messages I posted on the talk page on this already. Kidburla (talk) 14:11, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

If there has not been any update on a release date for months on end, say, we have a game that's announced in January for release in the summer-fall, then we would get release info in like May-July towards like E3 sort of, and those get delayed or something along that, with no updates since its original update. If there is no word on either release date on any game whether be on Switch or other consoles, via a reliable source present, then until further notice like I said, should be listed as Unreleased. And other complaint goes as saying that we don't use "tba" or "TBA" or "DTBA" or just the years by itself. We have rules about this stuff, something of which I've had fixed, overtime when I do. However, I think I just need to keep my big mouth shut. I hate trying to abide by certain rules and guidelines, but it's this sort of thing that gets me in trouble both online and offline.

That being said, if a page doesn't have anything regarding a release date for the west, be it a reference that's recent, and it shown as TBA in the infobox, then it shouldn't be listed on the game list. If that makes sense to you guys. Zacharyalejandro (talk) 20:02, 28 December 2019 (UTC)Zacharyalejandro

Thanks @Zacharyalejandro: for responding. I hope I understood you correctly, we are saying that if we haven't got a recent confirmation that the localization is in development then we keep it as Unreleased. The sources I quoted for Moon and Yo-kai Watch 4 are from about 6 months ago so that's why they can't be used as evidence to mark it TBA. If that's the policy that has been used for the other rows then I agree we shouldn't change it for Moon and Yo-kai Watch 4, that makes sense. I wasn't aware of that. It would be helpful in future if you would just have explained that rather than getting angry with me :) Kidburla (talk) 20:43, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

@Zacharyalejandro: Looking at this again, while the source for Yo-kai Watch 4 is from about 6 months ago, the source for Moon is from more recently, less than 4 months ago, and from the latest Nintendo Direct (there hasn't been a general-purpose Direct since then), so I don't really follow your logic that is not recent enough or that we should have received more news by now? Also, for Yo-kai Watch 4, both the articles for the series and the individual game still say that a localized release is in development, so if Wikipedia is going to take the position that this is not recent enough to act as confirmation, shouldn't we also update those other articles for consistency? Kidburla (talk) 11:18, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

• I don't even understand why this is an issue. Unless we have a more recent source stating otherwise (or it's been long enough that we can reasonably assume it's not longer the case), then we shouldn't be claiming the game is no longer releasing outside of Japan. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 19:18, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

@Dissident93: so you agree that we should put the two games as TBA? It was Zachary who wanted to keep them as "Unreleased". You also changed Yo-kai Watch 4 back to Unreleased as noted above. Reading your message, I wonder if this was some kind of mistake on your part? Kidburla (talk) 22:43, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, if they are confirmed for release in those regions, why put unreleased? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 19:58, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

But if there hasn't been a release date update for about a long time, say a year or 2, do we proceed with unreleased until a release date is officially confirmed? According to Yo-kai Watch 3's release as far as I'm concerned, Japan got the game first, and while a western release date wasn't announced until two years later, I would assume it will take the same timeframe or earlier to release the fourth game in the west. Because they would have to wait for approval from Nintendo to release the game here in the west, and if greenlighted for release, they would have to localize the game, which takes a considerable amount of time before they finalize the game and have a release date on schedule, and of course it might not release as planned, cause they have to consider if they've found a game-breaking bug, or they want to add final polish to make the games appear perfect, then a delay ensues, however long that may be, whether by a week or two. I don't know. This is just how I would put these as unreleased till then. Zacharyalejandro (talk) 18:54, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Genre listing

I wanted to also discuss how we go about the 'Genre' listing. For the numerous game lists, if a game has multiple listings comprising of two to three in the infoboxes (sometimes four) but in the description of the game, it lists it by two separate genres or like two together, (like a puzzle-platformer, action-adventure, puzzle role-playing, etc.) do we go with the one that's in the description or if a website lists it as a "unique puzzle game with RPG elements", how do we go about that? Zacharyalejandro (talk) 18:48, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

• I'd honestly just like to get rid of mentioning genres on these game lists, but that's an unpopular opinion. Anyway, just go with the primary genre to reduce bloat. We definitely do not ever need more than two. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 22:59, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

References discussion

I want to address a thing here that's been reoccurring over time and nobody (that I believe) seemed to address it. Although some probably addressed it, but let this pass and forgot about it.

Wasn't there numerous discussions about references on these pages, where we didn't link them if they have an article present? If they do have a linked article and the respective reference is not found on the linked page, could we find a reference and so, remove them from the lists itself?

I was reverted because of said remove and I feel this needs to be addressed again because of page size limitations. Zacharyalejandro (talk) 22:16, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Alexandra's revert seems to have a pretty valid and straight to the point message. A blue link isn't enough. The release information has to be mentioned AND referenced at the linked article as well. Only then can it be removed here, and that is a local consensus to help with the page size that is not 100% supported by policy. -- ferret (talk) 22:21, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

I see. But can we move the reference to the linked article? What is it that we can't possibly do that as well? Please explain. Zacharyalejandro (talk) 22:27, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Is something stopping you? If you want to remove references, the WP:BURDEN falls on you to make sure the target article is sourced. -- ferret (talk) 22:31, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

So are you saying if we transfer the source to its respective page, then that would be okay? Zacharyalejandro (talk) 22:36, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes. The point is that the information must be sourced somewhere before the source can be removed here. -- ferret (talk) 23:00, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Also, this is off-topic, but I keep getting a Wikimedia server error, I was just wondering how do I report it or fix it? Zacharyalejandro (talk) 02:03, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

The server operators are aware, so there really is nothing to do except wait for the problem to be fixed. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 23:00, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Mention

I couldn't think of a particular title for this topic but there's something minor about the main list. When I edit the main page, the page like, has this white space off to the right, like how you scroll your finger to the left and right to read text, it does this to the main page, but not the M-Z page. Anybody have this problem? It didn't go like this a month ago, just a few weeks ago it started happening. Zacharyalejandro (talk) 16:53, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Clarify on including information about Japanese releases in the lead paragraphs

According to @Stefvanschie:, he claims that a Japanese release date for the game needs to put on said wikipage to be accurate for inclusion on list, however, we have discussed numerous times (this discussion being another one) and that we should not list it until we list it on the wikipage itself. I believe that I have seen this similar discussion somewhere else, but I don't remember actually going through with it, I just list the Japanese source in the edit summary and I believe that is acceptable? Or should we list an insert about a release date for Japan on any respective page if Japan gets the game? @Sergecross73:, @Dissident93:, Wanted to see if you guys understand what's going on. Zacharyalejandro (talk) 07:08, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

As a clarification, I want it to be stated on the wikipage or here on this page, but since we're against putting references for blue-linked games on this page I said on the wikipage itself. I'd personally prefer the reference to be on this page, but at this point I'm already happy if it's at the very least stated on the wikipage. I'm personally against only linking the source in the edit summary itself: when doing that it becomes completely impossible to find that reference back, especially for people that only read and don't necessarily contribute to Wikipedia themselves. Stefvanschie (talk) 11:08, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Citations should always be added on the page. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:56, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. It doesn’t do much good to add the source in the edit summary. It quickly falls deep into the page history, making it hard to find or associate with the edit made down the line. Sergecross73 msg me 21:31, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Alright. I guess I'll do that then on the various pages that games was released in Japan. Zacharyalejandro (talk) 16:19, 27 January 2020 (UTC)Zacharyalejandro

Page Protection

Somebody added this title to list, with no edit summary or a reliable source on the page itself. This is just a rumour about a Paper Mario game listed as leaked as coming this year. But we have nothing to assume that these games are coming. @Sergecross73:, could you either talk with this user, or instead of just randomly allowing these edits to happen, provide page protection against these. Cause these pages aren't going to fix themselves if I'm not here. Thank you. Zacharyalejandro (talk) 19:00, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't think page protection is really necessary in this case. Sometimes people add unsourced information now and then, but it doesn't really happen on a very frequent basis, nor is it any kind of severe vandalism (in my experience every page gets unsourced content added to it every once in a while), so I don't think page protection is necessary. Stefvanschie (talk) 19:26, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Redirect additions, getting rid of words like '#', 'The', and 'A'

I want to discuss a few more additions going into 2020.

Is there a possibility that we could improve:

1. Sorting, such as getting rid of words in games like 'The' Legend of Zelda, 'The' Stanley Parable, 'The' Touryst, and other games that have 'The', 'A' and the symbol #. Making sorting much easier. However, we can leave stuff like The Walking Dead (video game) alone, but the other The Walking Dead title can have 'The' out.

2. More Redirects. Same goes with the first part, if pages contain 'The' in the title and it is linked, removing those provides a redlink, or those are already redirected.

I know there will be backlash against this, but we (or I, in this case) would love an update on pages like this to have these changes implemented regardless. Zacharyalejandro (talk) 00:35, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Ignoring my personal objections to this, are you really sure you’d want this? You don’t seem to like it when people don’t follow counter-intuitive rules. This is counter-intuitive and would require constant maintenance to enforce. Sergecross73 msg me 00:46, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Well this is just my approach in adding change to the page. I'm already in the process of reference cleaning, like what I've done with the updates provided by Nintendo Life's Nintendo Download info. However, I actually firmly believe that this is starting to look like a catalog if games continue to trickle on with the required references being put in for inclusion. Zacharyalejandro (talk) 08:29, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

I’m just saying, I can already see you getting mad at people for adding the full name of a game when a new game is announced and added to the list. Every time Nintendo announces a game called something like “The Yoshis”, people are going to add it as The Yoshis, not Yoshis. They’ll likely keep re-adding it or reverting you in it too, insisting that it’s the correct name. It would be a constant battle, whether we all agree on this talk page or not, because most people don’t check talk pages before editing, and most people wouldn’t think to omit a “The” from a title. Sergecross73 msg me 15:21, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

But if The Legend of Zelda Breath of the Wild is already listed as Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild (as a redirect) and the other games are too. Obviously I created those cause who cares. But everytime I open my mouth, it always end in either a warning or block. This never seems to fail. And apparently the sequel is titled as Breath of the Wild without the main title listed for whatever reason. I know that game is under development, but why list it just as Breath of the Wild? Zacharyalejandro (talk) 06:53, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

You asked for input, and I answered. Look, you’re a very good editor when it comes to maintaining a list. But you seem to struggle when it come to bigger picture things like policy and guidelines. Your proposals are often shortsighted, and you can’t seem to understand page protection policy. Which is why I’m telling you that I think this proposal would not work out like you seem to think it would. Feel free to wait for other opinions. Perhaps others will weigh in. Sergecross73 msg me 14:09, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Zacharyalejandro, I linked the sequel that way for space reasons. It's obviously not the official name, and will most likely not be BOTW 2 judging by previous series examples anyway. Because of that, it should not be brought up as an example for your proposal. But back on topic, I also don't support this as it would require a large amount of maintenance for minimal gain, and would ideally also be done on every other games list for consistency if we did decide to do this. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 21:22, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Maybe we could do something like "Legend of Zelda, The", "Stanley Parable, The", "Touryst, The"? That way we still have the full game title, but when sorting, those "The"s and "A"s don't cause the games to appear in a spot, you wouldn't expect them in. Stefvanschie (talk) 20:07, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Stefvanschie, I've personally never liked that sorting style. What does the MOS say about it? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 21:24, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

MOS will say to set a sortkey. -- ferret (talk) 22:00, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Ferret, that's what I assumed. It shouldn't just be listed in plaintext. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 22:08, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

I didn't know that sort keys are a thing, but if that's possible then I'm all for that over what I suggested. Stefvanschie (talk) 16:08, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

So we are just going to ignore redirects around here I guess? Why can't we list these as redirects? What has you guys being against every single redirect available?? We don't need to change the actual title of a wikipage. But let me ask. Are you guys really against redirects for everything now? I don't really care about this issue now, because more backlash is a thing against me changing simple things here, for lists, not articles. Zacharyalejandro (talk) 16:30, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Exactly what are you talking about? No one has said redirects are bad or should be removed. However, full titles should be used in the list. If you need to change the sort due to articles like A, An, The, then put a sortkey in front of it. -- ferret (talk) 16:47, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

How are you reading this discussion and coming away with that conclusion? Just because people are against your proposal mean that they’re against redirects. We’re just against your counter-intuitive proposal. I mean seriously, let’s say we implemented your proposal. What would make you think that other editors wouldn’t come in and undo your changes all the time? Why wouldn’t a newbie editor come in and say “Hey you forgot the ‘The’ at the beginning of ‘The Legend of Zelda’, so I added it for you.” It’s not about hating redirects. It’s about being against counter-intuitive proposals and not using games most commonly used names. Sergecross73 msg me 20:56, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

It's whatever I guess. I really don't care. Whatever I'm doing, I do it. I think I've now had quite enough of these discussions not taking my way. Zacharyalejandro (talk) 15:46, 23 February 2020 (UTC)Zacharyalejandro

If you aren't gonna follow the consensus of the discussion, what was the point of starting the discussion in the first place? Stefvanschie (talk) 09:15, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

I demand this be issued. Does Wikipedia seem to have lawyers, hm? Zacharyalejandro (talk) 19:20, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Please be aware that I've blocked Zachary for 2 weeks for disruptive proceeding against the consensus of this discussion and created "The-less" redirects and editing the list to suit. He was warned previously not to do this. -- ferret (talk) 20:54, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Seems like he did it again today (on just a single game). However, this shows that he is not willing to follow consensus and continues to be disruptive even after a 2 week block. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:03, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Warned. -- ferret (talk) 22:27, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Weighing in here as I don't see much justification for doing this, but it looks like it's already been done to the entire list. E.g. Count Lucanor vs The Count Lucanor; End is Nigh vs The End is Nigh; Escapists / Escapists 2; Jackbox Party Pack (up to 6); etc. The actual game titles set by vendors have "The" in them; wouldn't accuracy of titles outrank being able to sort nicely? I haven't used sortkeys but sounds like that might be a better solution. Don't really understand why this was asked and then done without consensus. Plus, it's inconsistent with others lists, e.g. PS4 games. JamminBen (talk) 11:47, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

If you see older entries that are not correct, feel free to fix. This discussion happened long after many of those titles had been added. -- ferret (talk) 12:02, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

JamminBen, because Zacharyalejandro goes against consensus anytime he doesn't like the result (which happens often). I've fixed some, but haven't had the time to go through the entire list. I would usually just revert to an older version, but that would need every new game added to the list since re-added manually. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:10, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks both - I've updated a few too, will try to do some more as I get time. JamminBen (talk) 07:27, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Overwatch 2 and Shin Megami Tensei V

Zachary recently attempted to remove major titles like this. This is not appropriate. I know we occasionally trim minor shovelware stuff that go for a while without release, but we should not be removing higher profile titles like this unless there is confirmation of cancellation. This is an exceedingly bad judgement call. Sergecross73 msg me 02:22, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

The maximum should be two years without an official announcement of a release date. There have been dates pushed back due to the ongoing pandemic till further notice or a further date. But Metroid Prime 4 has been in development since E3 2017, maybe even before that. So I don't know why this needs to be considered. Do we leave games vaporware for 10+ years on that list? I think not. I would assume we wait on further info. Am not saying anything more on the matter. Zacharyalejandro (talk) 03:29, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

1) At no point has there been any consensus on a “2 years standard”. You can’t just go and make up rules as you go. 2) Overwatch 2 was announced on November 2019. That’s barely 1/2 year ago, so even that doesn’t comply with this standard you just made up. Feel free to not comment further, but such an action forfeits any right to make any further edits of this type, as you have no WP:CONSENSUS and would not be following through with the WP:BRD process. Sergecross73 msg me 03:36, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree, we should only remove a game if we have evidence that the game was cancelled and in the case of SMTV we had confirmation in November 2019 that the game was still being worked on https://www.thegamer.com/shin-megami-tensei-v-hasnt-been-cancelled-confirms-atlus/. It shouldn’t be removed.--69.157.252.96 (talk) 06:11, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

I managed to restore removals of Bayonetta 3 and The Legend of Heroes: Trails of Cold Steel IV (which was announced last month so I have no idea how their two year timeline justifies that one).--69.157.252.96 (talk) 06:23, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Please note those removals were from before this discussion started.--69.157.252.96 (talk) 06:24, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

We don't even need to set a standard for this. 95% of the games announced for the Switch (and basically any other platform) will eventually release, that remaining 5% (or whatever it actually is) can just be removed on a case-by-case basis like we've always done. According to his logic, we might as well just not allow any game whose release date exceeds today's. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 09:26, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Completely agree. Not needed at all. And right now, even terms like “indefinitely delayed” has changed in meaning lately. Before, that would often mean a game was cancelled or pushed way out into the future. But recently, The Last of Us 2 was “delayed indefinitely“ only to be pushed back less than a month. There’s so much uncertainty with releases right now with Coronavirus that, even if we wanted to go down this path, it would be a terrible time to start trying to make calls like this. Sergecross73 msg me 12:09, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

References.

Okay. Apparently nobody is listening to directions on this topic. I want to enforce this subject. For page limitations, we need to not list references in the list or any other list out there. Anybody who reads this, please watch this page. I feel like this has taken no effort to enforce this subject in users who are editing all willy-nilly whenever they want and don't care about such rules here. This includes to references for blue-linked articles, like how hard is it for anyone to just move the reference into the respective articles? It's simple to do. Zacharyalejandro (talk) 17:43, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

As I’ve told you before, I don’t think that it’s people don’t understand, it’s that they don’t know. And they don’t even know that they should be looking for this info to learn, because it’s not a common situation. If you see someone doing it wrong, feel free to politely inform them. But not every passerby editor checks the talk page before adding, so there’s bound to be people who don’t follow it because they didn’t know. Sergecross73 msg me 18:48, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Makes sense. I'll just fix it and move on. It's all I can do without making a huge fuss about it. Zacharyalejandro (talk) 22:00, 13 May 2020 (UTC)Zacharyalejandro

Physical or eShop Column

I think it would be a good addition to the list to see if a game is or was made on cartridge. That could be down with a cartridge icon or with a 'yes' in a physical column. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Himmelsfeger (talk • contribs) 09:02, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Please search the archives for "physical", this column has been repeatedly discussed and consensus is that it violated WP:NOTCATALOG, a core Wikipedia policy. -- ferret (talk) 11:14, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

The search has no results Himmelsfeger (talk) 13:25, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Search using this, the page was moved a while ago and I guess the old archives weren't linked here. L ke (talk) 13:46, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

It’s been discussed a ton. It’s been repeatedly decided that it’s not appropriate. Per WP:NOTCATALOGUE, and the fact that it’s rather difficult to find sources for every entry when there’s thousands of games on the platform, many minor and obscure. Sergecross73 msg me 13:57, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Island Saver

I noticed Island Saver was missing. I don't know the exact release dates, but it was released this year. Kidburla (talk) 19:03, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, I've added Island Saver to the list. (Was released on 13 May apparently.) Stefvanschie (talk) 10:37, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Proposal to improve table spacing

Instead of reducing font size, I propose adopting a shorter date table sorting template for release dates {{dts|2020|Jan|23}} similar to List of PlayStation 4 games and List of Xbox One games. MOS:DATEFORMAT says abbreviated dts is a perfectly viable format "where brevity is helpful" (e.g. refs, tables, infoboxes) providing the style remains consistent throughout. A shorter date format creates more space for the first four columns and improves table readability for visitors with small or standard monitors that cannot output at high resolutions. If editors approve, the conversion can be made with ease (example of how the new page will appear).

From

September 27, 2014

September 27, 2014

September 27, 2014

to

Sep 27, 2014

Sep 27, 2014

Sep 27, 2014

You can comment on the proposal here. — Niche-gamer 18:39, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Support as long as it remains consistent with the other lists. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:26, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Nintendo is a completely different company and should go with the list it already supports. If we did go this route, we would have to go through every Nintendo-specific list to apply the changes. So however, I strongly disagree with this change. However, I fully agree splitting the pages again to decrease page consistency. Zacharyalejandro (talk) 07:18, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Incorrect titles for the "99" games

Specifically 99Moves, 99Seconds, 99Vidas. They have all been renamed to have a space after the 99, e.g. 99 Moves. Minor issue, but I googled all three games and they are named without a space. Couldn't find which edit did this, and it's an easy fix, except with 99Vidas the article also has a space. A while back, "The" was removed from lots of titles. Thought I'd ask if this was being changed due to an editor's preference rather than what the games are actually named. We should go for the actual titles, right? JamminBen (talk) 08:14, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Apparently no one is no longer paying attention to the pages now not even the admins. I think we should change that to have a space. So my definitive answer would be no. This is Wikipedia so literally anything can be changed. If you don't like it, leave it be or move onto something else. Zacharyalejandro (talk) 16:25, 16 September 2020 (UTC)Zacharyalejandro

Zachary, do you just WANT blocked? 99Vidas is clearly the actual article name and sourcing does not agree with there being spaces. I'm sorry us Admins didn't notice when you first added the unnecessary space. Clearly, we've been trying to trust you not to make disruptive edits, but maybe we can't?

Jammin: Fixed the 99 games, which was done in this edit. Game titles should be complete, including articles like "The" and "An". They should however been properly sorted with articles ignored, i.e. "The Legend of Zelda" goes under "L". Zachary's personal preferences should be ignored and reverted. -- ferret (talk) 17:26, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Seconded, on every point. Sergecross73 msg me 17:27, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! Agreed on all fronts. JamminBen (talk) 18:24, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

I really don't care anymore honestly. Zacharyalejandro (talk) 03:37, 21 September 2020 (UTC)Zacharyalejandro

It is seriously time to consider pruning this list

While splitting the list is reasonable for the size, we are well beyond what NOTCATALOG recommends. Digital download capabilities here changes what makes it reasonable to document compared to physical releases (which had more cost associated with them and thus served as a barrier to publishing), and a list of 2000+ games for a system is beyond reasonable. This is basically like documenting all the games on Steam. And yes, this would apply to PS4/Xbox One and pending PS5/Xbox Series X lists, so I'm not calling out this specific list only.

We need criteria that the game needs to be notable (standalone article) or part of a notable series. Simply being documented by the switch shop or twitter or even just announced on a Nintendo Direct does not cut it anymore. Even the Nintendo Life listings should not be considered sufficient. Yes, this will make it a partial list, but it will be more in line with what we expect an encyclopedia list should be. --Masem (t) 04:17, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Masem, this would apply to all other lists too, right? I'm all for it (Steam comparison kind of convinced me) but we'd have to be more vigilant in maintaining it and any other lists that follows it, which I guess sounds worse on paper than it would in practice. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 18:55, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I proposed this on the WT:VG as well. --Masem (t) 19:12, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

It’s here, FYI. We really shouldn’t have two concurrent discussions going on this. At the very least link people to the discussion... Sergecross73 msg me 00:34, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

FYI, discussion has since been archived to here, just adding this so people don't have to search through the archives to find it as I just did :) Kidburla (talk) 18:27, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Physical release column?

Hi, would it be too much(not relevant) or ruin the organization of the tables to have another column to know which games got a physical retail release(excluding games that got one via limited run print companies like Limited Run, Signature Edition, Special Reserve, etc.). I just think it would be nice to know which games had a physical release or are eshop only.

However, if you guys think it's not necessary or it would just clutter up things then I understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanchoco (talk • contribs) 22:37, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

We had a discussion a ways back and it was rejected because of a multitude of reasons. Sergecross73 msg me 22:51, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

I see, thank you for the response Sanchoco (talk) 01:26, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

The main reason being it served more of a shopping guide than encyclopedic role. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 01:46, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Missing games

At time of writing, the game list on Wikipedia apparently contains 3317 games, whereas on DekuDeals, which gets its data directly from the Nintendo eShop, they are listing 5628 games. That's a pretty huge difference of over 2000 games "missing" from the list. I'm wondering if anyone knows a reason why those games might be missing? For example, is it likely that a large number of them are ineligible to be included in the list for some known reason? Is there any automation that is checking the synchronization between this list and what's on the eShop, or does this Wikipedia list just rely on people adding games when they notice they are missing? Kidburla (talk) 10:24, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

I think it's just that they're are soooooo many cheap shovelware games on the eShop. Anecdotally, I've never noticed any games I've ever looked for being missing - it's all the $2 "Uncle Tony's Pizza Maker Simulator" games that are generally missing. There's nothing keeping them off the list outside of a sheer lack of interest or motivation. We also dont list any of those Arcade Archives or Sega Ages re-releases either - they have their own lists - but that's probably closer to 100 or so than it is 2000. Sergecross73 msg me 12:54, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Okay thanks. I'll try to figure out what's missing and add it, I'll exclude the AA and SA as you have said. Might take a while though but just wanted to check it wasn't due to something stupid I forgot about. Will continue to contribute in other ways in the meantime. Kidburla (talk) 15:06, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

The ACA NeoGeo titles also have their own list. JamminBen (talk) 15:33, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Oh okay. We should list that in the lead like AA and SA is too then. Sergecross73 msg me 15:52, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

I was pretty sure we already did that, but apparently not. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 19:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

How to list games which were released only in Asia, but not Japan?

Case in point is The Legend of Heroes: Zero no Kiseki which was released in Hong Kong and Korea (but not Japan) on February 25, 2021. It's currently in the table with an older February release date in the JP column, which is incorrect. Having said that, the table doesn't actually have a column for "Asia" ("AS"). I can see three possible options:

1. Rename the column from "JP" to "JP / AS" or even just "AS"
2. Add a new column for "AS" (note that List of Wii U games has an extra column for Australasia, so a fourth column is not unheard of, although it would mean we would need to find a way to populate this column for all of the existing rows)
3. Don't change the column definitions, but list such games as unreleased in all three columns, with a note saying that they were released in other Asian countries and giving the date within the note

I would be interested in peoples' thoughts? Kidburla (talk) 01:16, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Option 4: Remove the regions entirely and just list the earliest release date. -- ferret (talk) 01:26, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

• I'm a "hard no" on #1 or #2 - this list is already insanely massive and doesn't need any more options or anything that will bloat it even larger. #3 would probably be the easiest route, especially since this scenario isn't super common. I have no problem with #4, but I don't have the willpower to argue in favor of it if oppositions comes for it, which based on prior discussions, probably will. Sergecross73 msg me 01:35, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: I don't totally understand your logic here. I do accept that option #2 would bloat the table and this is undesirable. But I don't see how replacing the column header "JP" with either "AS" or "JP/AS" (i.e. option #1) would bloat the table, given that the column width would not expand as the header would still not be the longest thing there? In fact, taking option #3 would add more space than #1, because we would have text such as "Unreleased^{[note 1]}" which would then become the longest thing in that column and expand the column width.

Regarding @Ferret:'s option 4, it does sound sensible but I think we should be consistent between this list and other video game lists (for current gen and previous gens consoles) all of which split the release dates into region columns. So I think this would need to be applied across all of the lists and it seems a bit drastic to me. Kidburla (talk) 14:21, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Take it to WP:VG or MOS:VG and make it so. :) Consistency in our lists is a great thing to strive for... so let's make it consistent all at once. :) -- ferret (talk) 14:25, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps I didn't elaborate enough on #1. I'm against changing it to AS as that's not generally how English reliable sources refer to the region, and I didn't think JP/AS was good considering comparably few AS only/AS first releases tend to happen. Sergecross73 msg me 14:31, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

I picked AS just based on how it is labelled in the infobox on the article itself. I assumed "AS" was the standard abbreviation for Asia on Wikipedia. Would "APAC" be better? Kidburla (talk) 20:45, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

No, I just mean that NA, EU, and JP are the main ones the industry tracks, so JP should definitely be present. Sergecross73 msg me 20:59, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I've just implemented the option 3 and this didn't grow the column widths as text from other rows such as "December 21, 2017" is still longer than "Unreleased^{[note 2]}". Kidburla (talk) 18:52, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm also in favor of just listing the initial release date regardless of region for both ease of maintenance and page size reasons. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 19:39, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Adding the missing games, part 1

I have just made my first edit to start adding the missing games (see previous section). In this edit I have added 47 games which start with a number or "A". In order to help I have used some automation which scrapes data from the web so this task of adding 2,000+ games can be remotely feasible.

The whole process is already quite tedious and a mammoth task regardless of which way you look at it, however in order that it can be viable to tackle it I have had to make a few compromises. I used my own judgment here and I feel it's better to get the games into the table, then they can be cleaned up going forward, rather than getting the data 100% perfect which would take forever.

A few points on the data I'm entering:

• For the game title I mostly just used exactly what is on the eShop, I did do some sanity checking for each title to check if the title is already present but under a different edition. But if the title is listed already somewhere else and drastically different, I probably wouldn't have noticed it. We can probably fix this in future via a two-way mapping (currently mapping is only one-way: eShop -> Wikipedia)
• I haven't checked whether articles exist for any of the added games or wikilinked them, I have assumed that probably in 99% of cases there won't be articles or these games would have already been added
• For genres I have based it exactly on what is on the eShop, with the exception of Japanese exclusives for which I manually added the genres rather than trying to translate them from Japanese. The eShop has a very coarse-grained view of genres, e.g. Action, Adventure, Shooter, Music etc. I have not made any attempt as yet to get more fine-grained genres based on what is in the existing table where you have much more fine-grained values like "First-person shooter", "Action-adventure" etc. I have just directly mapped the eShop genres to the Wikipedia equivalents
• For developer and publisher fields, usually these are listed in the eShop, but sometimes one or both are missing. In this case I have just left them blank
• I haven't made any attempt to wikilink the developer and publisher fields if they have their own articles on Wikipedia
• If any game is listed as "discontinued" in a region with a singular release date, I have assumed it was previously available in that region and marked that release date against the region (the fact it's "discontinued" doesn't affect the Wikipedia page)
• I manually excluded titles such as "Aqua TV" and "Astrology and Horoscopes Premium", as they are not "games" (e.g. YouTube, FUZE4 etc which are already excluded)
• I just used my own judgment for title capitalisation and formatting etc; many games are capitalized on the eShop but not Wikipedia, so in general I have not capitalized games (e.g. "ASSAULT GUNNERS HD EDITION" (eShop) was changed to "Assault Gunners HD Edition" (Wikipedia)), but in cases such as "AMNESIA LATERxCROWD" (eShop) I changed it to "Amnesia LATERxCROWD" (Wikipedia)

If anyone wants to provide any help cleaning up entries that were just recently added, of course feel free to do so! I will be continuing to look at adding more games, with the next batch probably being "B" or "B-C" depending on how many I get through. Kidburla (talk) 21:38, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

PS: I also excluded unreleased games from all my data analysis. I'm only considering released games for now. In my experience, the presence of a not-yet-released game on the eShop has very little to do with its notability. Once all released games have been added, I may look at adding more unreleased games. (Though personally I would be much happier if unreleased games were in a totally separate table.) Kidburla (talk) 22:04, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

When you say "unreleased", do you mean future games to be released, or do you mean like cancelled games? Sergecross73 msg me 22:14, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, if you mean games yet-to-be released then we don't exclude those from here. Only games that were planned to be released but later cancelled fit that. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 22:53, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Exactly. Future releases, like BOTW2 or Mario Golf, definitely belong. Outright cancelled games can be moved to here. There were a bunch of AFD discussions earlier in the year that ruled that splitting out cancelled games was generally okay if done like this. Sergecross73 msg me 23:59, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I'm talking about future games to be released. I wasn't saying I'm excluding them from the page, I was saying I'm excluding them from my data analysis. That means that even if they are on the eShop, I won't be adding them to the page (for now). However, personally, I feel that not-yet-released games shouldn't even be here on the page at all, and should be in a separate table. That's a separate discussion though for another time. My point was that, as we have hundreds of missing released games, I am prioritising the released games over unreleased games. Including unreleased games in my data analysis would bring up more issues such as when to list games as TBA, I don't want to have to get into that for now. Once the released games have been added, I may look at adding the missing unreleased games, for which there are much better sources available than the eShop, because there seems to be no rhyme or reason as to whether unreleased games get added to the eShop (up until the point that they can be preordered anyhow). Kidburla (talk) 00:31, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

That's all fine, I was mostly making sure you were aware of the cancelled games list, that's all. You're free to add whatever games you want, I just wanted to make sure you weren't actively removing future release games either. Sergecross73 msg me 00:52, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I'm not planning to remove anything, at least not in the near future and anyway would discuss it on the talk page before doing anything like that. Cancelled games is a bit of a bugbear of mine as most of the time companies don't announce that they have cancelled a game but just stop making announcements about it, so at some point would like to reach consensus on when we consider a game as cancelled, but we can discuss it another day. I am continuing to add already-released games; a short time ago I added the missing "B" games, I think it was about 52 more games. Kidburla (talk) 01:01, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Double Dragon & Kunio-kun: Retro Brawler Bundle

Hi, I added the above title yesterday. But on closer inspection, it's a collection of 18 games, some but not all of which have been released separately. For example, "Double Dragon II" was released separately, but "Nekketsu High School Dodgeball Club - Soccer Story" was not. In total I think 10 items were released separately and 8 were not. I am wondering if we should list each of the separate games in the bundle as well as the bundle itself? And whether we should list the games that were not released separately with their own rows? I recall an earlier similar conversation and it seems to be a bit of a nuanced situation, so wanted community opinion. Kidburla (talk) 21:02, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Unreleased, {{Unreleased}} and N/A

Someone changed all the "Unreleased" cells to "n/a", only on the A-F page. I am not sure why. I reverted the edit, as this is inconsistent with G-P and Q-Z pages, as well as other consoles such as PS4 etc.

However, looking at other consoles such as PS4, they actually use "{{Unreleased}}" rather than just "Unreleased". Is there a reason we don't do that for Switch? Personally I don't care either way, but it makes sense to be consistent across console articles. It seems the general consensus across the VG community is to use {{Unreleased}}. Kidburla (talk) 15:56, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Reverting the n/a change is proper. Please don't replace "Unreleased" with {{Unreleased}}. We stopped using the template because this page has bad issues with template transclusion limits. When the limit is hit, the page has to be split or templates stop working. This is partially due to the fact that almost the entirety of this list is actually sourced, whereas many other older lists are not. Giving up formatting templates for sourcing content is much preferred. -- ferret (talk) 16:22, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Okay, got it. That makes sense; we'll stick with just "Unreleased" then. Kidburla (talk) 18:12, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Clearly this article also needs to be split. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:22, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

It's very close to requiring another split, yes. Transclusion limit is about to be hit. However with a mass of missing games to be added, it may be best to let it break first and then better be sure of where to split. However, replacing "Unreleased" with "N/a" solved nothing. -- ferret (talk) 01:26, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't see what the change from 'unreleased' to 'n/a' or vice versa has to do with splitting the article. Surely the most obvious way to split the article is A-C and D-F. Regardless of the transclusion limit, this article should certainly be split. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:24, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

@Onetwothreeip: I think because we are assuming that you tried to replace "unreleased" with "n/a" to reduce the overall page size, thereby reducing the need for a page split. But may be a wrong assumption, as you didn't mention why you were trying to make that change. I tend to agree with ferret that we should wait until more missing games have been added /re-added with required sources, to determine where to split the page. Otherwise we run the risk of splitting it and then splitting again shortly afterwards. Kidburla (talk) 02:33, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with splitting again later. We could also split A-B, C-D and E-F right now. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:59, 11 April 2021 (UTC)