Talk:Square Enix Montreal

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Good articleSquare Enix Montreal has been listed as one of the Video games good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Good topic starSquare Enix Montreal is the main article in the Square Enix Montreal series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
April 15, 2017Good article nomineeListed
December 15, 2017Good topic candidatePromoted
Current status: Good article

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Square Enix Montreal/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Wizardman (talk · contribs) 18:12, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I'll give this a review. Wizardman 18:12, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Here's what I found:

  • The Go series link in the infobox can be removed, since it's just redirecting right back to this article.
  • "And they viewed the critical response to Deus Ex Go" Don't start a sentence with and.
  • i'm not a fan of starting them with but either if you can changed the sentence in that one as well, though that's not a deal breaker.

Not much to modify, article's on hold until fixed. Wizardman 02:24, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, @Wizardman! Done. It should be okay to start a sentence with "And" as long as it isn't a fragment, but no complaint here—I found a better rephrase anyway. czar 08:11, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Looks good now. Using and for a sentence beginning isn't technically an MOS violation, it just looks wrong to me and ruins article flow. Anyway, the article passes as a GA. Wizardman 15:41, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 28 October 2017[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Despite the fact that the proposed new title is what the company itself uses, consensus is that reliable sources generally use the current title, so there is insufficient reason to change.--Aervanath (talk) 22:14, 9 November 2017 (UTC) Aervanath (talk) 22:14, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Square Enix MontrealSquare Enix Montréal – Company name and logo officially use accent in the title. Lordtobi () 17:49, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

  • Support It checks out with MOS:TRADEMARK and is the correct name of the company Hecseur (talk) 18:35, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. To the contrary, MOS:TRADEMARK#General rules states, "Do not 'correct' the spelling, punctuation, diacritics, or grammar of trademarks to be different from anything found in reliable sources" (emphasis added). Most of the reliable sources cited in this article do NOT use the diacritic mark. Zzyzx11 (talk) 18:50, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
You're right! Man am I good at reading... Anyway, in light of this new information, I have to Change my vote to oppose Hecseur (talk) 21:03, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
@Hecseur: He's not right for reasons, I detail below.  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  01:16, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Yeah? And if you survey your own link of discussions, we still follow the version used most often in the sources. I'm sure you can pull company names whose sources actually use the diacritics, but that isn't the case here. Note also in this specific case of "Montreal", our article on the city doesn't use the diacritic, despite being its (as you put it) "proper" name. czar 17:11, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Or instead Talk:Montreal#Requested move 10 September 2017, in which the similar proposed move to diacritic was also rejected czar 17:11, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Support—reluctantly, and only because it's a proper name. Tony (talk) 01:51, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Support per Trademark, and Nestlé etc. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:51, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Zero sources provided. And contrary to the assertion above, WP:DIACRITICS explicitly says to use the name most common in reliable sources. Jenks24 (talk) 10:08, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Jenks.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:55, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. There's no evidence that the majority of relevant sources use the accent, and in fact the opposite appears to be true.--Cúchullain t/c 16:14, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.