Wikipedia

Talk:List of Nintendo Switch games/Archive 2

< Talk:List of Nintendo Switch games
Latest comment: 6 years ago by Dissident93 in topic Adding applications to list
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Nights of Azure 2 coming to Japan

Latest comment: 7 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

http://gematsu.com/2017/04/nights-azure-2-coming-switch Nintendoswitchfan (talk) 07:06, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Someone please add this since I'm away. Nintendoswitchfan (talk) 07:07, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

  Done I'm working on combing the entire Japanese direct, and I'll be removing Japanese dates on games they didn't have in their video.--Pandarenninja (talk) 07:57, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Nintendoswitchfan (talk) 10:43, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Release dates and new games announced during April1 2 Nintendo Direct

Latest comment: 7 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion

Minecraft coming May 11th ARMS coming June 16th New game Monopoly announced with a release date of fall Rayman legends definitive edition announced for later this year Pay Day 2 coming 2017 Namco Museum will include many classic Namco games and they'll be released on the Switch and it's announced for this summer Extra docks/seperately sold docks will be availible for purchase May 19th 2017 New Splatoon 2 modes-Salmon Run with 4 member teams where you need to defeat enimies who come from the water around the map I'd add these dates, but I typed them while watching the event as they got announced so I'm tried to get them all typed down. Could someone add these dates to the list and there article pages? Greshthegreat (talk) 22:32, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep in mind these dates are for North America only, so they may differ by a day or two in PAL regions and Japan. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 22:49, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Yah, your right they could be the North America dates. However, the Nintendo Direct event was livestreamed online and only one set of dates were announced for each game. However it could still be the North America dates. Greshthegreat (talk) 22:58, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

The last few Directs, Nintendo has had one for NA, EU, and JP. That being said, checking the EU Nintendo Twitter gives the same dates for Arms and Splatoon, so the dates all seem to be worldwide, but confirmation for the other games would be appreciated. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 23:08, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
  Done My understanding was that this was all worldwide-focused titles, so I decided to put in Japanese and European dates knowing the format of the direct. You know I've been critical about putting in Japanese dates for games that aren't coming to Japan in the past, but I think this was the right call this time based on current understanding. Also I saw you tell me not to use a YouTube link when an article exists. Keep in mind I made these edits DURING the live stream and finished up shortly after. There may have been some article somewhere on the internet that covered it all by then, but they were working simultaneously to me. Regardless, changing the source to be something else is fine but there was a reason to do what I did.--Pandarenninja (talk) 03:47, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm going back on my decision to include Japanese dates across the board. Sounds like they actually had a totally different direct than us, despite reports. I'm trying to get ahold of the video and will make changes.--Pandarenninja (talk) 05:52, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
You don't have to add the info as soon as the Direct gave it, see WP:NORUSH. It's always better to wait until a proper reliable source is created (which will always happen for these Nintendo games). Also, the Japanese direct is here. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 15:05, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. I found it and made corrections a couple days ago.--Pandarenninja (talk) 21:03, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Petition for physical releases column

Latest comment: 7 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion

Help fight the anti-information elitists! This page sorely needs information on physical releases. Please sign here and let your voice be heard! Let's overwhelm those who wish to censor this vital information! 70.190.166.108 (talk) 16:26, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

This sort of thing doesn't help in the least. Wikipedia is not ran by voting. -- ferret (talk) 16:29, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, this even seems satirical, or at least gives that impression. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 16:35, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
This isn't a vote, it's a war. You hate information, we want more. 70.190.166.108 (talk) 16:41, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Seems like satire.--Pandarenninja (talk) 21:02, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
You are always welcome to do this on your own site or blog, if it's that important to you. Should we add catalog numbers too? What about eShop download links? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 14:53, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Please read WP:NOTCATALOGUE or WP:POINT, depending on if you're serious or not. Sergecross73 msg me 16:08, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Monopoly

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

http://kotaku.com/1794274942

and also

Sine Mora EX was confirmed in the new Nintendo Direct today

These have been addrd already. Nintendoswitchfan (talk) 13:08, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

  Done - Please add new discussion topics to the bottom of this page.--Pandarenninja (talk) 09:45, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Suggestion - eShop/Physical Release Column

Latest comment: 7 years ago83 comments15 people in discussion

I'd love to see a column that shows whether a game is exclusive to the eShop (like VOEZ), exclusively physical (like Skylanders), or is available in both ways (like Zelda). We'd need some notations for games like I am Setsuna, which is available physically, but only in Asia. Is anyone interested in doing this?

--Pandarenninja (talk) 08:08, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

This would just make the games list complicated as stated in the archived talk page section on this, also, the articles of the games themselves will most likely say whether they are physical or eshop releases. Nintendoswitchfan (talk) 03:13, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

This complication in the list of games is also why the exclusivity was simplified to yes, no, and Nintendo, instead of yes, no, Nintendo, console, and timed. Nintendoswitchfan (talk) 03:15, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

  Done I spent the evening doing it in a way I thought was tasteful, simple, and followed what was done with the Exclu. column. I may have held off had I seen this comment from Nintendoswitchfan, but I think it is worth keeping. Especially as more and more games become available, it may be difficult for people to understand where games can be purchased if they haven't followed the news. It also indicates to people some games that may be available for preorder. I checked a few game pages, and they are inconsistent in explaining availability.

I think this is worth keeping, but if somebody really wants to roll it back they can. It was quite a bit of work and I think it's very useful information to casual/new Nintendo Switch fans.--Pandarenninja (talk) 09:40, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_Nintendo_Switch_games/Archive_1#Column_for_physical_release Nintendoswitchfan (talk) 14:57, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

This explains why most don't really want to have another column for eshop/physical releases, most especially since not all eshop/physical games are available on all regions hence the hassle to make columns like that for each region, so for now, I'll revert your edit given how many are against this idea, based on the archived talk page section. Nintendoswitchfan (talk) 14:59, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

That wasn't a formally established consensus... Also regarding your confusion, I was just saying if there has to be a way to add eShop information into the list, make another column, there are no better alternatives. Rukario-sama ^ㅈ^ -(...) 22:53, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
There wasn't any consensus for it though, and more than a few people thought it was a bad idea. And I already responded saying that adding another column is the opposite of what we should be doing, not sure how you missed that. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 23:03, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

@Dissident93, don't forget that we have to fix Project Sonic 2017 again and change it to Sonic Forces, its official name alongside the updated Sonic Mania release date. Nintendoswitchfan (talk) 15:07, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Already   Done, but some other valid edits in the meantime might need to re-added. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 15:10, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

That doesn't really look like a formal consensus any more than the discussion about the Arcade Archives that didn't really seem to be a consensus either (people just were told 'no'). That archived conversation looks like Dissident93 just said "no" and it was so. I may be newer to editing Wikipedia articles, but is there some sort of established seniority I don't understand here that gives one user the authority to overrule another (in this case Rukario-sama)? Valid points have been made on both sides, but there has to be a better way to settle disagreement than to just have people do the work on something and have it reverted. Please help me understand how this is normally handled, because I legitimately don't know.

This is a talk page, so let's talk about it. --Pandarenninja (talk) 23:27, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, in pretty certain there was consensus against adding more columns, on the grounds that it makes the chart overwhelming to read and maintain. At the very least, there wasn't a consensus supporting the change. Sergecross73 msg me 03:36, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Being WP:BOLD and getting reverted for it is apart of the learning process. You posting suggestions on the talk page and only allowing a few hours for people to respond (which nobody did in time) doesn't mean people silently agree. Talk page archives are annoying to read through for editors who weren't around for them yes, but that's why other editors who were (myself, in this case) point them out when needed. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 23:08, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

In this case I went back and read it, and I get it. I'm no longer pushing for this column. I'd like it to be there for other people, but it doesn't sound popular so I'm not pushing for it anymore. --Pandarenninja (talk) 23:27, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Well if more people decide to want to include it in the future, it will be done. As for now though, there aren't enough people arguing in favor of it. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 15:40, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Just wanted to speak up for my unwavering support of adding a physical release column. Long lists like these often provide little value by themselves. Right now it provides a great resource to easily see: All the games for the Switch, All the games in a certain genre for the Switch, All the games developed/published by X for the Switch, Exclusives, and Regional Releases. The type of people who generally obsess over macro lists like this are often historians or collectors though; with traditional video game collectors generally only interested in physically released titles. It would be a HUGE positive to include this information considering the type of person who uses these lists and how these lists will benefit consumers going forward. Your suggestion that each individual page would specificity whether it received a physical release would prove to be a huge burden upon someone trying to match their collection against what is available to purchase physically. If something like this is not actively logged now, then it may end up being an even bigger burden when it is realized that it is needed. My two cents.170.202.222.2 (talk) 18:11, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Merging conversation from below on same topic --Pandarenninja (talk) 20:52, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Please add a physical/digital release column to the grid. 73.123.24.237 (talk) 23:27, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

People have already discussed this above, and as of now, the consensus is to not add one since it complicates the list. Nintendoswitchfan (talk) 00:38, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
  Not done - for reasons explained above - Arjayay (talk) 20:06, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Keep in mind that there are some inaccuracies from that discussion (such as all games being on the eShop - Skylanders isn't). This is due to the bulk of the discussion taking place before the Switch was released. --Pandarenninja (talk) 20:52, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
What is the rationale? What encyclopedic value does this hold? Is a "digital only" release notable and worthwhile to maintain? We don't do this in most lists or even call it out in most game articles themselves. For example, you mention Skylanders: Imaginators is not on eShop, but the article itself doesn't make note of this, and there's no secondary sourcing that cares. I can't think of any article that ever has called it out. How can we source it accurately? If these questions don't have a good answer, then its just increasing the size of the list/table with data that cannot be verified and has little value. -- ferret (talk) 13:35, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Agreed. We should never do anything here that we wouldn't even mention on the game's main article. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 17:03, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Some game pages (many?) include it in the body text of their introduction about the game, so release info is important in my cases. I will point back to the thing that an anonymous user said above that I fully embrace/agree with. "The type of people who generally obsess over macro lists like this are often historians or collectors though; with traditional video game collectors generally only interested in physically released titles. It would be a HUGE positive to include this information considering the type of person who uses these lists and how these lists will benefit consumers going forward." It is with this mentality that I was preparing us for the future, knowing that even by the end of 2017 I'm going to want to sort by what games are physically released, as I am a collector. --Pandarenninja (talk) 05:42, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
In order to get a clearer picture of what the consensus is, I think we should have a vote. Ozdarka (talk) 07:51, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
See the very bottom of this page where that was declared problematic. --Pandarenninja (talk) 10:11, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
The idea that collectors find it useful doesn't address the issue of verifiability, which is a core Wikipedia policy we must meet. Gamers and collectors find all kinds of things useful that we exclude from Wikipedia, such as the extensive list at WP:VGSCOPE. The fact that someone is interested isn't really enough. Is it notable and verifiable information? How are we going to source it? It may be easy to prove that Skylanders is not on eShop, just by checking, but how do you prove that some random eShop game does NOT have a physical release somewhere in the world? It's presence in the eShop doesn't verify that. -- ferret (talk) 11:32, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
To me that seems fantastically easy to find out, given that there are only 5 release regions for the Switch as of right now: Europe is one release that is shared with AUS and NZ as "PAL", Japan is one, North America is one, and what I've been calling "Asia". These are the official territories that we can check for physical releases easily, and the question boils down to the same answer as how we get games on this list - we source information from all our users and verify those sources. If somebody told us that there was a new game launching in Europe, physical or eShop, the process would be the same.--Pandarenninja (talk) 11:45, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Let's try another angle. I would like you to copy the table to your sandbox, and add the column. Please mark each game with one of the following: Physical Only, eShop only, Physical and EShop, Unknown/Unverifable. Please include sourcing (or a note on how it was checked, and in what region) for each. If this results in a table that is verifiable and other editors agree to its inclusion, I'll even volunteer to merge it back to the main article for you, if its not easily done due to edits in the meantime. -- ferret (talk) 11:58, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
As you've noticed with release dates though - there's a lot of maintenance involved in that, because so many people add games without really putting much thought into verifying the release details or dates. You've experienced this first hand, in how many people wrongfully added Japanese release dates for all those indie games. This would double the maintenance required. Sergecross73 msg me 12:58, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Which was part of my original reasoning for not including this. We don't note this on the game's page, unless it's a notable, sourced case like Rune Factory 4 being released solely on the eShop in Europe years after the original release. But even in that case, it had a physical release prior, which defeats the purpose of having a eShop checkmark or whatever. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 15:45, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
So I am clear about what we are or are not considering a source for this type of information, let me ask a question. Normally we do not use retailers as a source for dates because their dates are often placeholders and wrong - I've known this for years and wouldn't even consider it. However, if they are selling physical copies of a game, it seems like a legitimate source of information. Moreover, I think if they are taking preorders on a physical game, and if multiple retailers are taking preorders for that same physical game, I would call this a reliable source. I've personally never seen Amazon or Best Buy, for example, take preorders for a physical game only to have it turn out to be eShop only. I think that would be a messy refund situation for them, so they must be getting confirmation that these games will exist in physical form unless, of course, they were to get cancelled, which would remove them from our list entirely. I vote in favor of using retailers as a source for physical media confirmation.--Pandarenninja (talk) 00:38, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I believe a retailer would be fine for positive confirmation of a physical copy. It'd be limited though: They wouldn't help with sourcing digital copies, and they'd only be okay for retailers of a specific region. So many scenarios would require many links to cover a single entry even though, using that approach. Sergecross73 msg me 00:59, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, positive confirmation was what I meant, sorry. To be safe, there will be a lot of "unknowns" in this list for games that are coming out months from now. The column will serve more value for games that have been released or are going to be released in the near future. My vision right now is one column, rather than a column for each region. The reason for this is simply that there hasn't been a lot of variability in whether a physical copy is available in a region the game has been released or not. I am Setsuna is the only confirmed instance. Binding of Isaac wouldn't count because a physical copy has been confirmed for Europe and the game isn't even available there yet, so that column would get a "Yes" despite the game not being available in Japan at all. Effectively I think a footnote in Setsuna's case would serve the page better because 3 more columns is a lot for one game that is a variant in this case. Even if more games come that are physical only in certain available markets, I'd expect them to be few and far between. Let me know how you feel.--Pandarenninja (talk) 01:18, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
That may not be a good longterm plan though. It may Setsuna may be a rarity now, but the scenario occurs a lot for the Vita. Physical versions differing with region happens a lot more with JRPG, visual novel and Japanese games. Something Switch is poised to have a lot of down the line... Sergecross73 msg me 02:18, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
I would strongly suggest we cross that bridge when there's a stronger indication that it will be more common. 3 columns doesn't match what those of us who were in favor were actually asking for, and it leads me to agree with the concerns about bloating this page - I feel it's wholly unnecessary today. I'm nearly done with this work in my sandbox.--Pandarenninja (talk) 05:46, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
  Done I've finished the first-pass on this on my sandbox. The only things I did not source were games that are already released.--Pandarenninja (talk) 07:16, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Model for "Physical Release" column

Please review and use User:Pandarenninja/sandbox as part of this discussions continuation. -- ferret (talk) 12:59, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

How about denoting physical releases with a simple tick {{ya}} instead of a another Yes/No column? And if there is no physical release we just leave the box empty. — TPX 13:38, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
I'd ignore formatting for the immediate moment. We can easily enough switch from {{Yes}} to {{Ya}}, etc. It would definitely need to at minimum have Yes, No, and Unknown/Blank. But the biggest concern is deciding whether this is notable and verifiable to include at all. -- ferret (talk) 14:00, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
That's only the way to play nice with template:gamelist counter. It counts the exclusive games using template names the Exclusive column is using. Rukario-sama ^ㅈ^ -(...) 18:25, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Feel free to continue to tweak on my sandbox till we are happy, but yeah, I thought the counter worked with Yes and No so that's why I used those. I actually think the information is more notable when we say which games explicitly did not or are not getting physical releases, rather than leave the No blank. As far as verifiable, I included 31 additional sources and I am happy to include more if this wasn't thorough enough.--Pandarenninja (talk) 21:15, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
I think we're having little misunderstanding here. We shouldn't be using the same templates the Exclusive column is using to keep the gamelist counter sane. Template:Ya and Template:Na are good alternatives to use in other column, and luckily that Template:Unknown isn't part of gamelist counter's search string list so it's safe to use outside of Exclusive column. Rukario-sama ^ㅈ^ -(...) 23:27, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm clear on that now that I've re-read the above discussion. I read it the other way around. Looks like you beat me to cleaning up the sandbox with this change. What we have on my sandbox now is looking really good to me, and I think it is helpful to those that care about this type of information. What else do we need to discuss in order to move forward with a merge?--Pandarenninja (talk) 01:12, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
Need to give time for the previous opposing editors to weigh in. -- ferret (talk) 01:38, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm still against it, per my previously stated reasons. Also, the column is currently too wide and attracts the eye more the other fields, despite it being the least important field. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 05:08, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
Thoughts, @Sergecross73? -- ferret (talk) 11:44, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm still against it too, I don't like the increase in size - it already feels overwhelming to me - and I don't like that its tracking something that isn't consistently mentioned in individual articles either. Feel free to ask WP:VG for more input if we're still at a stalemate on this though. Sergecross73 msg me 12:26, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
Also, how is this even going to be helpful (the only real argument for it) if the vast majority of it is listed as "unknown"? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:19, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
As I had pointed out previously, it's not as useful for upcoming releases (though it is still somewhat - for preorders) as it will be for historic ones. As anon said above "The type of people who generally obsess over macro lists like this are often historians or collectors though; with traditional video game collectors generally only interested in physically released titles. It would be a HUGE positive to include this information considering the type of person who uses these lists and how these lists will benefit consumers going forward." I am one such collector, and I like buying physical media when possible. Physical games are becoming the exception, not the rule, and in short time I think lists of physical games, as is being suggested here, for future consoles will become useful. I'd be over advocating the same thing on Xbox and PS4 pages, but I am trying to really keep track of one thing right now, and I'm building my knowledge around this platform. I think it's only useful to certain people - as is the genre, developer, and publisher column (3 I find less useful than the physical column, but I am not debating their validity as they are part of the template).--Pandarenninja (talk) 08:05, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
If its becoming the exception rather than a rule, might I suggest this may be better served by a category than a list. I.e. Category:Nintendo Switch games with a physical release. If the usefulness being sought is that collectors and the like need to find titles that had physical releases, this would work. It would also ensure the actual game articles themselves are categorized, rather than the data being here and essentially "unlinked" with the original subject. To add to this, games should be set in Wikidata with the "Distribution" property and "Physical retail" value. This is a much better approach to capture this data than the list table here. -- ferret (talk) 13:04, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Agreed, and this would also apply to all consoles; historic, current, and future. Also, I fail to see what the medium a game was released on is more important than the type of game it is, as well as who created and funded it. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 17:44, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Ferret, his suggestion would also help keep the article as simple as possible, which is what we've been trying to do for the past months as seen in how the exclusivity criteria for Switch games was simplified. Nintendoswitchfan (talk) 16:36, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I think there should be a column coding whether a game was released physically or not. I came here looking for this information, and was disappointed that it's missing. This is information that is useful for current buyers and for collectors later on down the road. While the information is available elsewhere (as is a lot of other info provided on this page), you have to dig a bit to find it. It would be nice to have it easily available. Finally, wiki lists for other systems contain this information (e.g., Wii U), so there seems to be precedent. --Jgull (talk) 01:33, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

You must feel strongly, to make your first edit in six years just to voice your support... Sergecross73 msg me 01:58, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
I hadn't even seen what the WiiU page did. This is a lot more columns than I'm suggesting adding. I have to imagine some of you guys contributed to the WiiU page. How did the eShop columns (5 of them) get approved back then? We should be able to approve one physical column now (again, assume I do all the work to make sure it's verified)? I've made a strong case that it doesn't hurt anyone to have it, and to see the 718 games on the WiiU list verified that for me, even just checked it on my phone. I didn't feel like there was any issue with it and it's a lot more than what I want. If I do the work to verify it, and so many folks have asked for it, I still don't see the need for such a staunch resistance. It's adding value for some users while not degrading the experience for others (especially since it's at the far right side). Let's be a little more like the WiiU list, knowing that Nintendo's platforms attract a lot of collectors like myself. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wii_U_software --Pandarenninja (talk) 10:50, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Many of the opposers here are against the weird format of the Wii U table as well, it just hasn't been addressed. It's an unnecessarily complex table format that increases the size of the article for no real gain. It's full of unsourced/unverified data. There's a common argument that "OTHERSTUFFEXISTS" isn't a valid argument to do something, i.e. just because another article does something questionable or wrong (Not making a claim, just a statement), doesn't mean another article should. I think we're at an impasse with the editors who are participating here. A wider audience is needed to break a deadlock like this. Those who want it should approach WT:VG and ask for new opinions to visit the discussion. -- ferret (talk) 11:34, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, the Wii U tables were done without discussion or consensus or anything, so it shouldn't exactly be used as a sort of precedent. Sergecross73 msg me 12:34, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
The frequency of a user's edits do not weight against the validity of their arguments. See WP:INDCRIT. Ozdarka (talk) 11:54, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
I didn't say otherwise, but FYI - when editors "come out of the woodwork" after many years to jump into a stalemated or heated discussions, its often a sign of off-wiki canvassing to sway the course of the discussion. Another classic sign of this is giving a statement of assured importance, without any real proof or addressing of policy. Which is all that editor really contributed, another WP:ITSUSEFUL statement. If it's not the case, forgive me, but a number of the signs are there. Sergecross73 msg me 12:34, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Make a column for physical releases

Vote here:

  • Support:

Metalreflectslime (talk) 10:06, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Oppose:
  • Neutral:
Wikipedia doesn't use direct votes counting to decide things. Unless you have an argument to make in support of such a column, your support vote is essentially just "I like it". State a policy or readability / maintainability issue in support or opposition, otherwise its wasting time. A new discussion section just fragments the discussion. -- ferret (talk) 13:31, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, see WP:NOTAVOTE. This is generally not how we handle disagreements on Wikipedia. The correct way would be to continue the prior discussion - which isn't really that old or anything, and try to get a consensus going there. Sergecross73 msg me 13:39, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
I came to the page specifically looking for this information, and was disappointed. Having physical copies of games is super useful for gift giving (gift cards are simply not as exciting for a kid). Also, I'm pretty wary of digital-only titles as a consumer... right or wrong, they make me think of the bargain bin, so having a physical copy is at least a vote of confidence by the publisher. Finally, this article speaks of physical copies, and as a result it ranks at the top of Google results when trying to find a real list of physical games, so you're wasting people's time. For others in need, I found this page: http://www.nintendolife.com/forums/nintendo-switch/switch_physical_boxed_games_list_and_release_dates 72.214.208.2 (talk) 22:47, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Being "useful" isn't necessarily the main reasoning for making decisions on Wikipedia. It'd be useful to list their price too. Or a link to Amazon to buy them. Or the phone numbers to your local GameStop at the bottom. But we don't, because we're an encyclopedia, not a buyers guide. Sergecross73 msg me 23:43, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Exactly, Wikipedia shouldn't include every form of distinguishable information just because we are able to (WP:NOTACATALOG). You wouldn't look in a published encyclopedia for shopping ideas, would you? Also as said above, how would this list even be that helpful if the majority of the games are listed as unknown? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 02:01, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
"how would this list even be that helpful if the majority of the games are listed as unknown?" - I feel that I have answered that question sufficiently several times, so I'm not sure why it keeps getting asked. It's the same question as "Why are dates useful if most of them are TBA?" Please understand that the answer to both of these questions is that they will have historic significance when the console isn't one month old and that people looking to know what games were released physically on the Switch will still be able to do so dozens of years from now. They'll be able to find them at some used game shop, long after the eShop has been taken offline and can no longer be accessed.
I think a far better question is "what is the harm?" It's not like some sort of slippery slope - there's a council of people here clearly not willing to just accept any major change that would differ from other lists on the website (and that includes me - I have actually given this significant thought). So I don't worry this would let others slip through, which had been mentioned previously. Yet on the other side of that you've had new user after new user come here to ask for this change since well before I even started contributing. Each of them has been told no, and they won't be the last. So why should we continue to ignore something obviously a half-dozen or more people have spoken up about on the talk page or in the archives?
I realize this isn't a voting platform, but even so, it feels more people have spoken in favor of it than specifically against it. It's just that the people who contribute to this page regularly are the most vehemently opposed (outside of myself, who I'd consider a normal contributor and thoughtful curator at this point). And each time it comes up on this talk page I'm going to continue to wonder why the old templates, which aren't a Wikipedia rule, outweigh the desires of the many for what information this page should provide. We live in a time where things are constantly changing, and the shift to digital is having a major impact on how people view physical games. You've heard it from plenty of folks other than myself.
I've made strong arguments for the inclusion of this column for weeks, and I've done the work proving that it doesn't break the page or displace more useful information. Yet I feel like the answer to "what is the harm in proceeding with this change?" is "What's the point of making it?" - and that question has been sufficiently answered by myself and others. Look, not every column or every page on wikipedia will be useful to all people. However, the only useful information is correct information, and if we want to make sure that the list of physical games is well-curated and as accurate as possible, this page is the correct place for it. I could easily go make another page about physical releases, but sharing the information and number of people that curate each page will lead to inaccuracies and inconsistencies, so I do not like that solution.
I do appreciate the amount of thought that is going into this discussion and how much time has been dedicated to hearing the concerns of both sides. However, Wikipedia serves many millions of people, and thousands of people have looked at this page we all contribute to: we have no idea how many have left without saying a word about how disappointed they are about the lack of this information, but enough have come forward asking for it that I think it is time to make a change. The work we do here serves many people other than ourselves. Thank you all. --Pandarenninja (talk) 06:57, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Just wanted to provide a link to the archived discussion regarding this topic as well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_Nintendo_Switch_games/Archive_1#Column_for_physical_release. --Pandarenninja (talk) 08:02, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Okay, how about they're there as video game preservation guide? Also, I think the opposers here have not provided a single real reason yet, them saying that there are too many columns aren't real, saying it will overwhelm the reader and editor isn't real, saying there are too many "unknown" isn't real, suggesting alternatives like having them as category isn't very helpful, none of these are good reason. Hello opposers, the real Wikipedia doesn't care about your personal preference. Rukario-sama ^ㅈ^ -(...) 10:36, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia isn't a "video game preservation guide" either. Opposers have argued from multiple points of Wikipedia policy, including NOTACATALOG and V. The sandbox showed how formatting would work, which was nice, but completely lacked any sourcing to verify the details, which I explicitly asked for. I'm sorry but it doesn't matter how useful data might be to particular users like collectors. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, core policy. And if we cannot meet WP:V, it doesn't get included, and WP:BURDEN is on the supporters to provide for it. The fact that new users or users unaware of Wikipedia policy keep asking for it is not an argument to do it. Again, the main articles of these games do not make note of physical release, and do not source it. If we can't solve that (And the sandbox has not, yet), then it shouldn't be included. If you're unhappy with the "council of people here", it has already been suggested you seek a wider audience at WT:VG. -- ferret (talk) 14:16, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Cone on, you can't list off your opposers stance as "not real" over and over again, and expect to arrive at a consensus. One would hope you could be a little more articulate in your reasoning, especially if you feel a lack of reasoning is a main criticism of the opposers. (Concerns about "readability" are not real? WP:NOTCATALOGUE is just a "personal preference"? Come on.)Anyways, you've been here a long time, you should know how to handle stalemates by now. (And if you don't, Ferret and I have already said it here too.) Sergecross73 msg me 14:27, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
I agree you can not dismiss the opposite side as "not real", and I think we can do a little better job articulating our thoughts than that (as I did in my reply from last night) and remembering WP:CIVIL. However, I think this is also not a fair statement by ferret to say "but completely lacked any sourcing to verify the details, which I explicitly asked for." - I'm sorry... I added some 30+ new sources at the time I created that Sandbox. The delta is decreasing because of new sources being added to the main article at this point, but I spent hours and hours searching for information on every game in the list. Generally speaking, if pricing information was not yet available, neither was release medium (with a few exceptions). If I couldn't find information, I left it unknown. Per WP:V I didn't make an assumption. The only things I didn't specifically source were games that are already released, and I am happy to add those, but doing more work on a column I'm making no traction on in this conversation seems like a waste of time. If adding sources for already-released games will get us further to implementing this, I am happy to do the work. My feeling right now is even if Nintendo released an official statement detailing the physical releases in every region it wouldn't be enough to convince folks to merge this in because sources are not the issue here. It is fine you disagree with the inclusion of this column, but please don't say I didn't spend hours looking for sources. That's not really WP:CIVIL or respectful of the time I put into my sandbox. --Pandarenninja (talk) 21:30, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
I truly missed that some store references had been added, in all of the references that were already there, so I apologies. There's nothing unCIVIL in stating that I don't see what I asked for. I didn't make any sort of attack, and it's easy to clarify or point out that I missed something. But, to reply about the sourcing itself, 1-2 Switch is listed as having a Physical Release. However, the only source is the original sourcing that Switch would use game cartridges, which makes no mention of the 1-2 Switch game. Seeing multiple entries like this is why I assumed no further sourcing was added, and it appears you're saying you didn't source released games, so it makes sense that I found nothing. Everything on Wikipedia must meet WP:V. "Already released" does not source for us that it was "Already physically released". If Nintendo released an official statement of every game to see physical release, it would 100% satisfy WP:V, which is my primary issue at the moment. However, you are correct. Those who feel this information crosses over what Wikipedia is not will likely not budge just because WP:V is met. -- ferret (talk) 22:12, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Let me also clarify I was not intending to start an attack either, I'm trying to remain civil here as well, because that's the best way to get people to buy in to what I'm trying to get done. In any case, if it is not clear to anyone from my previous post, I am happy to source all of the currently-released games as having physical editions if we agree that is the last bit of work needed to get this merged in. Until then I am going to hold off. I believe I sourced everything from LEGO City Undercover and onwards (in terms of US release date), if I recall.--Pandarenninja (talk) 22:50, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

I looked at Pandarenninja's sandbox, and I really like how they made the physical release collum. I would suggest a digital/eshop release collum as it seems many of the Switch games are gonna be Eshop/digital only. Due to this fact, it looks like adding an eShop/digital release section would be important and usefull. I agree that this idea would be usefull and a good idea for this list, but I'm only agreeing with this if an eShop/digital release collum is made and used as well as a Physical Release collum. In my opinion just get the last bit of work mentioned done and then add the physical release collum, and don't forget the eShop Collum. I'd be glad to seek out sources for information on eShop/digital releases, check the North America eShop, etc. for that collum if needed, as I really want to see that collum as I already explained, most Switch games will probably be eShop/Digital only as is already the case, at least in my area. --Greshthegreat (talk) 04:41, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Despite my unwavering support of a physical column, I can't understand the need for an eShop column in addition if literally every game (except one) is available on the eShop by default for this platform. It's actually the very reason I most want a physical column - physical releases are far and few between. eShop is the norm for the Switch.--Pandarenninja (talk) 09:52, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
But that still comes back to the issue of it not being important enough to mention in the game's own article 99% of the time, so why should we point it out here? (outside of "helping collectors"). ~ Dissident93 (talk)
You're doing a better job continuing to show us you don't care about it (or see it as useful) than to illustrate what harm it will do if those of us that DO find it useful want it. It's verifiable, maintainable, doesn't break any Wikipedia rules, takes a small amount of space, uses styling conventions consistent with other lists, and continues a tradition that began on the WiiU wikipedia list. We are maintaining the list for the console that replaced the WiiU, after all. It's useful to collectors, which are a demographic that tend to be attracted to Nintendo platforms. Half a dozen people requested it before I ever found this page, but I'm continuing to carry the torch. At this point I think we should implement it, see if it is ruining the experience for those of us that didn't want it and, if it is, remove it with less work than it took to create it. Seriously some platforms have game lists with a lot more columns than we do, and they seem to have coexisted (the columns and the authors that didn't want them).--Pandarenninja (talk) 19:52, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

For the record, I think its too early to be saying things like "physical releases are/will be a rarity". We're extremely early (1 month) into the console's lifespan, and little has been revealed outside of the initial launch window and a ton of those small "Nindie" indie titles from that dedicated showcase- this may be a rather lopsided representation of the game's library. I'd wait until Electronic Entertainment Expo (June) and the Tokyo Game Show (September) before making a call like that - a lot more bigger titles, more likely to get a physical release - would be likely to revealed then. Sergecross73 msg me 20:26, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I'd be pretty shocked if physical releases ever even got to be half of what was available once we get later in the year, even after E3. I'm fine waiting till after E3 before making this change, but unless they announced 50+ new physical games it would be unlikely to change the landscape and add additional useful information to the discussing taking place now. At this point I feel like only Dissident93 is strongly opposed. Most are indifferent. ferret was just concerned about verifiability, and I've committed to following Wikipedia standards in the final implementation to address that because it is valid and a rule.--Pandarenninja (talk) 09:09, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Eh, "verifiability" is a pretty major concern on Wikipedia, as is WP:NOTCATALOGUE and readability, which are my major opposition points. Anyways, please keep in mind that when there's no consensus, the change isn't made. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 12:38, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
This should still not work due to WP:NOTCATALOGUE. Should we add catalog numbers for the physical releases and eShop download links too? I mean, both are just as helpful to collectors, aren't they? And majority of the opinions so far have been against this, not sure how you got indifferent from that. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 17:29, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
First of all - nobody is suggesting that WP is a Catalogue, and I think saying that this change is in direct violation of what "WP is not" is a bit extreme. Also, this isn't a voting platform so I wasn't taking a tally, but since you said "not sure how you got indifferent from that" I went back and re-read this entire section as well as every post in the archive on this topic. I did not include the satirical-sounding segment further down on this talk page.
People for it include: Ozdarka, Rukio-sama, 170.202.222.2, 73.123.24.237, Jgull, Metalreflectslime, 72.214.208.2, Greshthegreat, and myself. People against it are you, Sergecross73, and NintendoSwitchFan. People indifferent are TPX, Plutoz123, and ferett (was against but only because of WP:V and said adding more sources to my Sandbox would address their primary concern). So I guess I'm not sure where you're seeing 'majority of the opinions so far have been against this' as I've just verified that is not the case. But it hardly matters, as we don't make a change if we can't reach consensus, and I understand that. I just wanted to point it out for accuracy.--Pandarenninja (talk) 00:05, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Unreleased

Latest comment: 7 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

I remember seeing here before that someone said that they were going to mark all of the Japanese Titles that didn't get English trailers as unreleased, and I do agree with that, but I think they may have jumped the gun a bit on one or two. Specifically the Untitiled Shin Megami Tensei. Outside of a couple phone games and a spin-off for the GBA, we've gotten every SMT released since 2004. Just seems a little early to say we aren't getting it at all, just because we didn't get a trailer. I'm just suggesting it be relisted as TBA, rather than unreleased. It's not important, and I won't really be dissapointed if I get a no. Just a minor detail.MosaicaFlamet (talk) 12:29, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

"TBA" is technically supposed to be used when a release in a region has been announced, but no actual release timeframe has been announced. Unreleased doesn't necessarily mean that it won't ever come out in English regions, merely that it hasn't happened, and there hasn't been anything announced for the specific region yet. It doesn't mean "no" or "never". It can just mean "not yet". If it hasn't been announced for English or featured in an English-region Nintendo Directs, then "unreleased" would be the more accurate label. Sergecross73 msg me 13:22, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Okay, I wasn't aware that, that was what it meant exactly. I'm relatively new to Wikipedia. Thank you for the help. MosaicaFlamet (talk) 13:28, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
It's no problem, in our last discussion on it, I was actually talking about how few people seem to understand it, so I understand. Wikipedia certainly has a learning curve. Feel free to put comments here or on my talk page if you have questions or need help. Sergecross73 msg me 13:46, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
To add to that I've mostly finished doing this work now, though I'm sure I may have missed a couple of them. It tends to be, for the Switch, that games released in NA are also released in EU - but even for those I have tried not to assume and look for sources to verify what regions the game is planned to be available in. I always use 'Unreleased' now to show that it is unconfirmed that the game will be released in a given region. I completely agree with you, in this case, that Shin Megami Tensei will be released in western countries. However all of the source links for this game are from Atlus in Japan or Nintendo of Japan and therefore I can't verify an international release. Glad we cleared it up. Probably good we had this conversation to reference in the future. --Pandarenninja (talk) 01:26, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Clarification on Japanese release dates and titles.

Latest comment: 7 years ago22 comments7 people in discussion

Why is it such a big deal with Japanese release dates and titles? Japan doesn't have the same names as in the West. And the source provided by the wiki page on the release date does NOT say anything regarding a release in specific regions. This is the most dumbest thing the internet has done. And also, GameFAQ's takes their information from like Twitter, or GameSpot, stuff like that. So either take the information or look for exact information from sources that state worldwide releases. Zacharyalejandro (talk) 03:57, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Gamefaqs violates WP:USERG, that's why it cannot be used on Wikipedia. Sergecross73 msg me 04:07, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)Note that GameFAQs is listed as an unreliable source over on WikiProject Video games' list of reliable and unreliable sources (see WP:VGRS. It shouldn't even be allowed as a source here. — Gestrid (talk) 04:09, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
  • We aren't even supposed to list this in the lead of articles anymore (WP:JFN), so why would we do the same here? This is an English encyclopedia, if you have forgotten. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 15:08, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Honestly, I don't see why we don't simplify down to simply "First release date". -- ferret (talk) 15:29, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I'd support that. Would take the maintenance out of looking for dates in three separate regions, and it's what we already do in certain articles. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 15:40, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Im not crazy about going that far. There's often a large difference between JP and Western release dates. This is doubly so in Japan-centric platforms, like this or Vita. I think it worth noting if English versions exist. Sergecross73 msg me 17:07, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
  • True, it would perhaps give problems like Persona 5 has (first released in Japan last September). What about a Japanese and then an international/worldwide field, which would be the first of an NA and PAL release? That being said, the current way hasn't really proven an issue thus far, and shouldn't have to change if people don't mind the higher maintenance on it. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 18:25, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
I am opposed to changing the data columns from what they are now. We have seen variance between these 3 regions (even NA/EU) but not within them (for example we haven't seen a difference between US and Canada, or a difference between UK and Germany). For now I think the granularity of 3 columns makes the most sense in terms of what is both accurate and informative. Removing any of these columns or collapsing them would be a big step backwards, and I do not currently find the maintenance overwhelming.--Pandarenninja (talk) 19:08, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
If the game is not coming to Japan, the wiki page of the game needs to be listed as a release dates for NA, PAL, not Worldwide if Japan does not get the game. Why can't anyone understand that? It's a simple thing to fix!! Oh, how I would love Wikipedia to be a better place, this is not what I pictured it being.Zacharyalejandro (talk) 15:52, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
That's an entirely separate issue that doesn't affect this page. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 16:31, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, but how do you explain this revert that typically has a release date set for worldwide, which typically confuses me every time I try to edit the page to fit in with the List of games itself, only to get reverted back to its original edit. Zacharyalejandro (talk) 18:18, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
You shouldn't be using these lists to adjust the articles. Sources should be used. Additionally, Czar did not change it to say "Worldwide". He changed it to simply state no region at all, which is fine. It's not making a declaration of "worldwide". -- ferret (talk) 18:27, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm losing track of what we are discussing, because this started as a discussion about showing Japanese and English names, then turned into a confusing discussion about how dates work in this list versus on individual game pages - and how those reference each other? If I understand ferret, he/she and I agree. Dates should be sourced, and I reverted the Tumbleseed Japanese date from this list (I think I was the second person to do so) because the game has not been confirmed for a Japanese release. We can't assume the game is being released in that region because 1) It wasn't mentioned specifically and 2) It seems most western indie games are not being released in Japan, so that's usually the exception, not the rule. Wonder Boy is the first one in a while that has been released in Japanese. This was discussed in an earlier topic on this page, where I committed to going through and source dates by region, which has largely been completed to this point.--Pandarenninja (talk) 09:49, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Yeah we seemed to have gone off the original topic. Anyway, the original point of this post was to give reasoning for not including Japanese titles (katakana/kanji/romaji) anywhere in this article, even as a note. (WP:JFN doesn't direct apply to lists like this, but we should follow it anyway for the same reasons). The second topic was about shortening the release date field to just the initial release date without regards for region, or to perhaps just Japan and NA/PAL under the banner of worldwide/international. The third topic was about not including a Japanese release date for TumbleSeed due to one not actually being specifically mentioned, which was already a topic we discussed above. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 17:37, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Passing through, but why is this list even tracking Japanese dates? This is the English-language encyclopedia. I'd focus more on getting the source up to snuff than verifying the Japanese dates.   czar 21:32, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Its the norm on every single "List of ____ games" list Ive ever seen. I can't find one that doesn't, honestly. I'm not saying we necessarily have to "do it the way we've always done it" - if you want to advocate change, go for it - but you can't pretend it's not the current status quo. Sergecross73 msg me 21:46, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
I think it serves a very special purpose for the Switch that makes it even more valuable for this console than others: region-free gaming. And in several cases games that have come out in Japan first (or only) have had English available on them as well. I've seen that importing games has already been very popular for this console, even among people who do not speak a word of Japanese. While importing games has always been possible, with the way the eShop is set up on the Switch it's now trivial, and becoming more and more common.--Pandarenninja (talk) 08:43, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
I'd actually argue the opposite, since the Switch is region free, it having a Japanese or North American-only release doesn't matter as much as it did on other previous systems. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 17:39, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Are you suggesting that a simple 'Release Date' column would be good enough for this list? I know you've said before this isn't a buying guide, but I see that leading to a frustrating scenario where somebody can't find a game we say has been released at their local store because it was only released in Japan. In Japanese only... and they speak English. At some point if we start taking out all of the columns from this list I start to wonder what purpose it serves at all. To illustrate my point, but not something I'd ever suggestion, would it be useful to anyone if it was just the names of games with no dates for any region? There's a balance to be had between 'not a buying guide/not a catalog' and 'not useful'. I remain in opposition to removing the Japanese release date column from this list. --Pandarenninja (talk) 01:22, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm suggesting that only having the initial release date (regardless of which region it was for) would be better, yes. "but I see that leading to a frustrating scenario where somebody can't find a game we say has been released at their local store because it was only released in Japan." Doesn't this fall under a buying guide then? You seem to want the article to be written to help shoppers and collectors primarily, which is not what Wikipedia should be used for. Would Encyclopædia Britannica include all of this stuff, just because it's considered helpful? Japanese release dates (outside of a few special cases which may cause confusion due to the large gap in between releases, like Persona 5) never matter for English regions, and especially so now as the system is region free. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 16:39, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
I would like to understand what the point of this article is. Taking your last reply at face value I can't see any reason we include publisher or developer data in this article. Especially since you can find that information on the individual game pages if you really need to know. This should just be a list of the games on the platform without any dates or other columns at all. Even genre can just be found on the game page. The dates can all be found in the individual game pages. This page is just to collate all of the individual game pages into one place for users to get the information about each game on their individual game pages. I don't even think that's extreme to say, it's entirely consistent with what you've suggested over and over. Why draw the line at Japanese dates or a physical release column? What purpose does any date serve? Or the genre, publisher, and developer columns? Also, region free != available to play in your native language, but I'd rather stick to what you think the purpose of this article is.--Pandarenninja (talk) 21:59, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

mark released titles

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

It would be cool, if in the columns for release dates already released titles would be marked differently (color or something). Some release dates are not kept, so marking the already released would help. 93.219.93.141 (talk) 16:37, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Couldn't you just sort by release date? Adding color coding would take up unnecessary maintenance time, and make the article harder to edit in the future (due to larger processing power needing; yes this is a thing). ~ Dissident93 (talk) 16:51, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Agreed. Also, things would get complicated because its not always as simple as "released" or "unreleased". For many games, it temporarily, or permanently, varies between region. Sergecross73 msg me 17:55, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Genre listing used in other "List of" game articles.

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Could we start listing genres as they are in the other lists, like List of Wii U software? There are a few instances where the list has role-playing in the title instead of role-playing game. Would wordings such as role playing video game|role-playing game, be a little bit of nonsense doing it that way? Zacharyalejandro (talk) 03:32, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

New games announced for the Nintendo Switch – addition.

Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Apparently from these sources: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=61OlUTbTV9A, https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=eKTuiyr8nxY, https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SnxHEV9cYoc, these titles were announced by the developers and are all scheduled to arrive in the summer. I don't know if you guys take YouTube video announcements, but they've been announced within 5 days and no one hasn't added these in yet. Zacharyalejandro (talk) 02:34, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

They can be added in then replaced with proper news articles if there are any, since articles are supposedly better than Youtube videos. Nintendoswitchfan (talk) 05:09, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

  • In terms of a source's type of media, articles are always better than a YouTube video, whenever possible. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 17:31, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Though I think only the Japanese one hasn't been added yet unless @Pandarenninja already has added it. Nintendoswitchfan (talk) 05:10, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Rumor from reliable source

Latest comment: 6 years ago8 comments6 people in discussion

I'm not sure if this is even a "rumor" anymore if you read this article - Kotaku, a very reliable source, is coming out and saying they have the real art for the game. I just want to know what WP:V would say about this. Can anyone advise? http://kotaku.com/source-the-rumored-mario-x-rabbids-rpg-is-real-coming-1794849712 --Pandarenninja (talk) 02:35, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

It could be included in an article that has prose that allows for proper context ("According to Kotaku", "Not officially announced" etc) but not in a list like this, which does not allow for said context. Sergecross73 msg me 03:57, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Not officially announced, so it does not belong here. Simple as that. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 22:46, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
It is my understanding that this game is STILL rumored, how ever many leaks come out from whatever sources. If I couldn't use Kotaku (above) then it doesn't really matter what source is saying this game is real. I'm sure it is, but it's still all based on leaks. Leaks shouldn't be treated as a source, based on my understanding. I think The1337gamer should hold off on undoing my undo. What is the consensus on this? This is the source in question, which, in the very beginning, they confirm is based on a leak. http://www.nintendoworldreport.com/news/44682/new-details-about-mario--rabbids-kingdom-battle-confirmed-for-switch --Pandarenninja (talk) 01:49, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
My take on this is that RSs reporting on a leak means that the game probably is happening, but we don't know for sure if those are the real, final plans or if they've been changed or even outright canceled since the leak happened. There's no harm in waiting for this game to be announced properly.--IDVtalk 07:29, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't know why an article has already been created for it, claiming this as 100% fact. Despite it being almost certainly true, it hasn't been officially announced yet, so in the mind of Wikipedia, it doesn't exist. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 17:30, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Apparently TheManKnownAsC keeps adding the game to the list twice and I've reverted them back. So far I've reverted this edit and this edit. Zacharyalejandro (talk) 19:43, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Supporting that this should not be added until N or Ubi announce it (which, given that we have all this artwork, and that some of the initial rumor-breaking stories were pulled, suggest a planned E3 reveal). We're in no rush here. --MASEM (t) 19:51, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Games that need better sources

Latest comment: 6 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

I'm not sure if anyone is up to this task, but here is a list of Switch games I am aware of that need better sources before they can be put on the list. If anyone finds better sources and wants to put them on the list, please feel free.

--Pandarenninja (talk) 07:21, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

  • These smaller scale/indie games probably should just wait until an eShop link is up for them, as I can't really find any reliable sources reporting on them either. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:33, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I think there's already consensus to remove Rise from the list. I believe ferret did some research and found that the studio wasn't really in business anymore, or someone died or something. Basically, further developments seem to make its release unlikely... Sergecross73 msg me 21:23, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Yeah, as far as I can remember, RISE had NX featured on its announcement trailer, but has had no news regarding it since. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 22:33, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Yup. The lead director behind Rise: Race to the Future died already according to the Facebook page of the game's developer, so they stated that it's unlikely that the project will push through. 49.151.144.195 (talk) 20:06, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

http://badly.network/letusplay/2017/01/28/rise-race-the-future-a-development-journey/ Says there that the developers are still planning a Switch release, but most likely during Q4 2017 or so. The PC version will be released first while the suposed Wii U version is now cancelled. Also, the reason why there's no Switch logo in their announcement trailer or website is supposedly because Nintendo asked them to remove the outdated NX logo and they haven't updated it yet. So, given this, do you guys think we should add the game back?

  • Is this site reliable? If not, then it shouldn't influence our decision to keep them off the list for now. This was also reported four months ago, so the info could be incorrect now. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 16:34, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

RiME

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Does case not matter? Because the mixed case was intentional. http://store.steampowered.com/app/493200/RiME/ --Pandarenninja (talk) 04:33, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Lists should follow the same MOS as normal articles. See the fact that it's not titled this way on the article and MOS:TM/STYLE. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 16:33, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
  • This is correct. As a general rule, standard English capitalization should be used on Wikipedia. Sergecross73 msg me 23:04, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

FIFA on the Switch

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Should we change Fifa 18 back to "Untitled Fifa game"? 'Cause numerous reports such as those by Eurogamer, Nintendo Life, and Polygon, recently have been saying that Fifa 18 is not coming and that EA is making a Fifa game exclusive to the Switch. Nintendoswitchfan (talk) 22:27, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, we should label it however those sorts of sources/EA labels it. Sergecross73 msg me 23:03, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Nintendoswitchfan (talk) 21:21, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Reliable Sources

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

ZacharyAlejandro and others, just a helpful tip for all of us when using sources; make sure to check if the source being used provides actual proof that the game is coming to the Switch, most especially when it comes to Nintendo Life 'cause some of their articles are false articles with no proof on whether or not certain games are coming to the Switch just like the source ZacharyAlejandro used for Poi. Nintendoswitchfan (talk) 03:17, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

dtba vs. dts

Latest comment: 6 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

What is the main difference between dtba and dts? Nintendoswitchfan (talk) 04:27, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Basically what dtba is is the To Be Announced stated within a purple cell (what the 'd' stands for I don't currently know) and dts are for the actual dates explained in a white cell. Hope this makes sense. Zacharyalejandro (talk) 05:33, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Nintendoswitchfan (talk) 11:16, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome. Zacharyalejandro (talk) 13:04, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
D is "Date". "Date to be announcement". DTS is "Date time sorting" -- ferret (talk) 14:43, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks too. 

Nintendoswitchfan (talk) 18:01, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Untitled Yoshi game?

Latest comment: 6 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

I have no idea why the upcoming Yoshi game has had a page created by Greshthegreat named Untitled Yoshi game. He even linked it on the Electronic Entertainment Expo 2017 page and I reverted his edit and left a note saying that we should hear more information on the title in the future, and that the page was redundant to even be created shortly after E3. Can somebody like, delete that page and give him a warning or something? I think its just way too early to create a page with that game that we know next to nothing about. Zacharyalejandro (talk) 17:24, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

My understanding was that it wasn't untitled, it was just simply called Yoshi. Sergecross73 msg me 18:46, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
So should we just keep improving the page until the game progresses with new information in the coming months, (i.e. adding developers/publishers, box art, etc.)? Zacharyalejandro (talk) 19:02, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
An article has been created, so as long as its around, the links are appropriate. If the article itself is inappropriate, try PRODing or AFDing it. If it is deleted, then delink it. If the title is actually just "Yoshi", it can always be moved later. -- ferret (talk) 19:41, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
At the very most, the article should be moved to the correct name format and the redirect deleted. It's common for Nintendo to just call their games [Series name] until they decide on an actual title. See here, here, here, and, finally, here for example. Throughout that whole time, we didn't have a title except for "the upcoming The Legend of Zelda game for Wii U" (and, later, "and Nintendo Switch"). If possible, it could be merged into List of Yoshi video games, delete the article, and create a redirect to the aforementioned page from Yoshi (2018 video game). In my opinion, we should start an AfD with WP:TOOSOON as the rationale. I prefer the last option in this case because literally the only unique thing (something that differentiates it from other Yoshi games) we know about the game is the camera thing. Other than that, we pretty much know nothing of note about the game. — Gestrid (talk) 00:39, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Oh. Looks like Yoshi (2018 video game) already exists and redirects to List of Yoshi video games. In that case, just delete Untitled Yoshi game via AfD. — Gestrid (talk) 00:45, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

To address a few things:

  1. Even the sources used in the "Untitled Yoshi game" article refer to the game just being called Yoshi, so I've moved it to Yoshi (2018 video game).
  2. Its up to someone else if they want to send it to AFD. I personally wouldn't recommend it though, and would probably argue against its deletion. It's my personal stance that its a bit of a waste of time to delete articles like this, where there's just no way that the title isn't going to be notable if its not already. I mean, its an entry in a long running franchise that debuted at a massive tradeshow. Even if it was cancelled tomorrow, it'd still get enough coverage to be notable, just for the fact that such a high profile game was cancelled. It probably received enough coverage at E3 2017 as it is though. I think our efforts would be better spent just making the article better. Sergecross73 msg me 14:36, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
    1. Agreed with Serge. AFD is a waste of time, this WILL be an article sooner or later. Just let it incubate for now. -- ferret (talk) 14:44, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Nintendo Life

Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

What do you guys think of using Nintendo Life as a source? I figured it's about time we discussed this and made a consensus on it since some people deem it as unreliable while others deem it reliable. It is important to note how at times, their information is poorly sourced or incorrect. Nintendoswitchfan (talk) 08:27, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

  • This should be proposed at WP:VG/RS. And if the information is constantly incorrect, then we should we be using it as a reliable source. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:23, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Nintendoswitchfan (talk) 04:09, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

A discussion has been opened here, if any other editors here would like to express their thoughts on the matter. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 16:52, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Twitter

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

So when it comes to sources on upcoming Switch games, we prefer actual news articles over "Tweets" on Twitter right? Nintendoswitchfan (talk) 14:38, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Preferred, yes, but a developer tweeting that a game is coming, as a primary source, is generally enough to cover that basic fact. Needs to be an official developer tweet though, not just some random guy. -- ferret (talk) 15:47, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Nintendoswitchfan (talk) 16:05, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Discussion.

Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Okay, I don't know how many times I've discussed this, but I have one thing to point out.

1. If Worldwide means Japan as well, why can't we NOT put WW to every page that does not have the game come to the region, or if better yet, just put TBA in Japan's column, simple as that. I don't really like to obey some guidelines, so I don't really have an option but to leave. Can't we undo a lot of WW releases and put either NA or PAL instead? I don't get how this hasn't been discussed before.

2. Can we start listing Japan's date in the infobox? I know it's against Wikipedia's infobox template guidelines, but it really doesn't seem right to just leave it out.

Zacharyalejandro (talk) 18:16, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

This article's talk page isn't the proper venue for what you're asking. But to address it anyway: 1) If an article isn't released worldwide on a given date, it should not list WW. If there's sourcing that states it's general release though, it is probably accurate. Please obey guidelines, I'm sorry you don't like them. These things have been discussed repeatedly and numerously over the years. 2) No. It's against the template's documentation for a reason. We list English regions, or in cases where the developer is non-English, the developer's region. If a game is not developed in Japan, don't list Japan in the infobox. -- ferret (talk) 18:27, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Zachary, this sounds like a request for permission to ignore past guidelines and consensus. That's...not how it works. You'd need to get consensus to actually change the guidelines, not just choose to ignore them on articles you personally edit. Sergecross73 msg me 02:49, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Guidelines exists for a reason. If the game hasn't been directly announced for a Japanese release, (or reasonable doubt, such as by a Japanese developer), then we shouldn't assume it is. As for the infobox, more people than not decided against including Japanese releases for non-Japanese games there. If it's important enough, it belongs in the article body. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 05:10, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

GameStop citations.

Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

It appears that we have a few video games that list a citation from GameStop with no other proof that said game is coming. We shouldn't include GameStop as obvious sources for upcoming video games such as Cartoon Network: Battle Crashers and instead, replace them with reliable sources. Zacharyalejandro (talk) 17:37, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

This is correct, GameStop should not be used as a source. They sometimes put up erroneous listings, and/or use placeholder/unofficial release dates frequently as well. Sergecross73 msg me 17:38, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
GameStop or any other vendor should only be used for historical date confirmation, not pre-release. They want to pre-sell a unit, to do that they need a date in their databank, and they will put something that might make sense but has no grounds on anything the publisher has said. Once the game's out, they're fine to use. --MASEM (t) 17:45, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
I am not finding any reliable sources for that title (including Monster Jam: Crush It which seems unlikely to be true) other than sources pointing to that same listing. I don't know who posted those entries originally, but I removed them until further confirmation arises, (possibly unlikely to be true like I said). Zacharyalejandro (talk) 17:58, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Adding applications to list

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Regarding my edit on the application that was released in Japan recently, but was removed, it got me thinking, couldn't we list a section for applications that may get expanded later on in the Switch's lifetime? I thought it wouldn't be a problem with listing a section. Zacharyalejandro (talk) 19:39, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

  • I'm conflicted on this because how many non-games are going to appear on the eShop? How many does the Wii and 3DS have? And wouldn't the article have to be moved to something like List of Nintendo Switch software to accommodate this? But that being said, I'm not against it, assuming it follows the same established formatting and sourcing. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:58, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Nintendo_Switch_games/Archive_2&oldid=1136363732"