Talk:Baldur's Gate

Requested move 15 April 2018

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: no consensus to move the pages at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 05:38, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

---

• Baldur's Gate (series) → Baldur's Gate
• Baldur's Gate → Baldur's Gate (video game)

– Fulfills the criteria for a video game series page to be primary topic due to having print media in the form of several books and a comic in addition to video games. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 11:43, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support, exactly per WP:NCVG#Media franchise. -- Netoholic @ 12:44, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose as the first game is notable enough on its own moreso than the series. BOZ (talk) 12:45, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  • The first game lends its notability to the entire franchise, and so the sum is greater than the parts. The first game will be prominently linked via a hatnote. -- Netoholic @ 12:53, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
    • That is quite simply not the case. Baldur's Gate II is just as notable if not moreso than the original._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 15:07, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose: This is what people are searching for if they type in "Baldur's Gate." Of the Baldur's Gate series as a whole, only Baldur's Gate 2 has comparable name recognition, and its title is sufficiently different that no one will be searching for "Baldur's Gate" full-stop to find it. Swapping in the series page as the main article will create needless confusion and hassle—as with Neverwinter Nights or World of Warcraft, the lead game looms large enough in people's minds to justify it as the main search result. (In addition, we have to contend with the existence of Baldur's Gate (city), which falls outside the scope of the BG series but is covered currently in the DAB page at the top of Baldur's Gate.) JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:49, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Is that not the same as almost every other VG article series page? It seems like you are arguing a point that is already moot. For example, Tomb Raider directs people to the series, though someone might be searching for the reboot. So does Resident Evil. The list goes on, refuting your claimed point about confusion. Hatnotes can solve any confusion by the searcher.

The article about the city appears to be non notable, and by all respects should probably not exist. It will be difficult to find sources about the city rather than the game of the same name. This is one of the only sources I could find, but it's not enough to prove it passes WP:GNG._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:52, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Suggesting that Tomb Raider and Resident Evil (both better-known as multimedia brands than as individual games) are in positions equivalent to the first Baldur's Gate is a strange leap. I don't see how this is connected to my argument at all. I was considering cases like World of Warcraft, which has a huge amount of multimedia tie-in material under the World of Warcraft name, but the lead product is in a unique position when it comes to name recognition and relevance. It would make no sense to redirect World of Warcraft by default to a franchise page. Ditto here. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 02:20, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

• Weak oppose. Dark Alliance & the comics exist and all, and DA certainly sold well, but they were basically their own side-series that happened to have the same name. The "series" connection was extremely tenuous, especially since they were different subgenres (DA is much much more hack & slash). Baldur's Gate 1 + expansions is probably more "important" than the tenuous series article when the series connections (barring BG1 -> BG2 + BG1/2 expansions) are weak. SnowFire (talk) 20:52, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support. The second game was nearly as high profile as the first, and the presence of multiple articles on the expansions also muddies the waters. It makes a lot of sense to put a WP:CONCEPTDAB at the base name.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:49, 19 April 2018 (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.

Potential references/news for Baldur's Gate III

Copied from Baldur's Gate III's talk page before it was redirected here:

Here are a few articles that might contain information that's useful to reference/integrate into the article or provide enough to justify a standalone article:

• IGN: Baldur's Gate 3 Officially Announced for PC and Google Stadia
• PC Gamer: Baldur's Gate 3 will combine the best of Divinity and D&D 5th Edition
• VentureBeat: Baldur’s Gate III is coming for PC and Stadia ‘when it’s ready,’ takes place after D&D’s Descent into Avernus
• Rock Paper Shotgun: Baldur's Gate 3 announced, from the creators of Divinity: Original Sin
• GameSpot: Baldur's Gate 3 Wants To Do What No Other RPG Has (this one's an interview with Larian Studios head Swen Vincke!)
• PCGamesN: “If you like D&D, you’ll be happy” – why Baldur’s Gate 3 will be the adaptation you want (another interview with Swen)
• Bonus: Baldur's Gate 3 – Community Update 01 by Larian Studios

Feel free to point out others. V2Blast (talk) 08:06, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

As the one that was redirecting, the articles from PC Gamer, GameSpot, and PCGamesN are definitely sufficient to expand the development section to keep the article and not redirect. We just don't want standalone articles that are solely covering the announcement of a game, regardless of how "big" that game could be. --Masem (t) 20:46, 7 June 2019 (UTC)