Wikipedia

Talk:Google Stadia/Archive 1

< Talk:Google Stadia
Latest comment: 1 year ago by MaterialWorks in topic Requested move 16 April 2023
Archive 1

Semi-protected edit request on 24 May 2019

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

The last paragraph in the "Hardware" section is still a rest of the vandalism in capital letters. Should be removed. DerManu (talk) 12:05, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

-- I made the edit now since posting this edit request pushed me over the autoconfirm limit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DerManu (talk • contribs) 12:08, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 20 March 2019

Latest comment: 5 years ago20 comments13 people in discussion
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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved per snowball clause   (closed by non-admin page mover) SITH (talk) 22:30, 26 March 2019 (UTC)


– Let's see if I can explain this correct the first time. After seeing Stadia moved to Google Stadia with the explanation of natural disambiguation, it looks like the current "Stadia" page does not have a primary topic. After reading WP:DETERMINEPRIMARY, there's not a lot of pages that link directly to its current page. Google is purposely not attaching their name to this service and it does not seem precise to have the article title named as such. – The Grid (talk) 16:48, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

@Yoshiman6464: "Google Stadia" is a perfectly valid percise name for the service, as it is used widely by reliable sources to describe the product. Here's Gizmodo [1], Polygon [2], TechCrunch [3], Engadget [4], Forbes [5], and Gamespot [6] using the phrase "Google Stadia". One can make a solid case that it is the common name. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 04:18, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
@PhilipTerryGraham: Aren't we getting into a "baby and bathwater" situation by following what tech news dictating this so soon? – The Grid (talk) 14:08, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
@PhilipTerryGraham: A couple of tech sites referring to the Strata as the "Google Strata" doesn't guarantee it's official name. That's like calling the "iPhone" the "Apple iPhone" [1], or the "Wii" the "Nintendo Wii" [2]. Yoshiman6464 ♫🥚 14:52, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
@The Grid and Yoshiman6464: The fundamental difference here is that both iPhone and Wii don’t require disambiguation and Stadia does. Please don’t mistake an official name for a common name as they are different things. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 17:38, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
@PhilipTerryGraham: Like I said, I want to move the page back to "Stadia (streaming service)". Yoshiman6464 ♫🥚 17:47, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
@Yoshiman6464: And that isn’t necessary because “Google Stadia” is a name used in a variety of sources, and thus fulfils the requirement of natural disambiguation; “Using an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources, albeit not as commonly as the preferred-but-ambiguous title.” – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 17:54, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
@Harshrathod50: Natural disambiguation is less about the most used name for the subject and more about "an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources". "Google Stadia", without the possessive, has been used by CNET [1], CNN [2], Eurogamer [3], Gamasutra [4], Gizmodo [5], IGN [6], Inverse [7], Kotaku [8], Polygon [9], and The Verge [10]. It is objectively in wide use and does not violate guidelines against "obscure or made-up names". In addition it is both preferable to Google's Stadia and superior to a generic parentheses disambiguation. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 06:09, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Move as per Lordtobi. Harsh Rathod Poke me!
  • Oppose. The name "Google Stadia" helps with disambiguation. It is too early to tell if the name should eventually be changed to simply "Stadia". ARZ100 (talk) 23:53, 25 March 2019 (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.

Split game section

Latest comment: 5 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

Since we do this for every other game console, might as well get this one quick before this article blows up. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 16:35, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Article is far too short. When the article gets long then we can talk about it. --Masem (t) 16:40, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
This website is an accessibility nightmare but this contains a game list. Its already pretty long. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 17:02, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
No no no no no stop stop stop stop! If Stadia becomes what they say they are attempting to become, then it is more like Steam or GoG than any console. We should probably not even have a game list except for any so-called "exclusives", but I recognize that there's no stopping people from adding it while the list remains this short and (relatively) manageable. Nevertheless, my position remains to nuke the list and definitely do not split. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:19, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
I agree on principal, but knowing how Google seems to abandon the majority of their projects, I personally doubt that the service will ever get to a point where the number of games on it becomes so large that we basically decide to not manage a list anymore. However, that's just speculation on my part. As for now, I say we keep it on the article until it reaches around 50 games, then do a split. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 15:38, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Either it implodes (as I've noted before) and the list remains finite, manageable, and (importantly) unchanging, or it's a success and the list becomes unmanageably large. In both scenarios, the list should not be split: either it lives here or it's too large to live anywhere. Please understand that this is a position taken only to save bureaucratic headache in the future, as splitting only increases the nuisance of getting rid of it if/when we decide it needs to go. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:24, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Titling the article

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I think the article should be titled simple "Stadia", not "Google Stadia". The only official material to include the Google before is their Twitter handle (@GoogleStadia), probably because @stadia was already taken. I think the wiki should follow their naming convention. Also, the first line already specifies it's operated by Google. Fernandossm (talk) 12:38, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 4 October 2019

Latest comment: 5 years ago6 comments6 people in discussion
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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Consensus to not move. (closed by non-admin page mover) SITH (talk) 12:43, 12 October 2019 (UTC)


Google Stadia → Stadia (streaming service) – The service's name is Stadia, not Google Stadia. 51.252.179.247 (talk) 20:26, 4 October 2019 (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.

Feral Interactive

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Should the Feral Interactive be mentioned maybe for the Developer part of the Rise of the Tomb Raider and Shadow of the Tomb Raider. It is known they did Linux ports of these two games, and Stadia port is definitively based on it, and probably finished by Feral Interactive themselves, but I couldn't find definitive source on that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:168:F609:0:9F35:E3E4:E3A6:EF54 (talk) 14:08, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

If it cannot be sourced, then certainly no. Even if it can be sourced, it seems like trivia. We do not need to list every company involved in a game. They are neither the original developer, nor the publisher. ResultingConstant (talk) 21:36, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Pre-release reception

Latest comment: 4 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

I'm sure there's enough articles available to source this, but I think there needs to be a bit more in this section detailing the opinions of critics, publishers etc. in regards to the success of Stadia, some of whom have expressed apprehension and doubt, particularly for its release plans. All we have here so far is impressions of how well the hardware worked during its beta release. -- Wikibenboy94 (talk) 09:54, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

I know there's writings on "its all about latency, has Google solved that", type of things, but I think that's fair concern of any stream solution and not just Stadia. I will say the last week has changed a few things (with Microsoft's various news from their London event) may have prompted a few some additional commentary worried that Stadia could be DOA, but I'm not sure how valid that is either. --Masem (t) 15:11, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
The very first reviews are certainly overwhelmingly lukewarm to negative. Those reviews are also full of straight up provable misinformation, so should be taken with a critical eye. But in any case, I think we should let the dust settle just a bit first before we say what the reception is overall. No non-media have played yet. If they are also up in arms, and that gets reported on, then I think the initial tone is set. If player response is more positive, I would expect a second wave of reviews that perhaps are more balanced. ResultingConstant (talk) 19:30, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
Provable misinformation? The valid criticism should be stated for the negative reviews. Pixel 3 and Pixel 4 have valid criticisms that are simply stated from the articles even though it can be a bit weighted. The latency, ISP data caps, the different tiers of Stadia, license policies, etc can be mentioned as criticism as well as reviews providing light to how the network works. I can easily see this being debatable for months (and years). – The Grid (talk) 13:56, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
Despite making several statements in the last week about the state of Stadia, Google released a product that numerous tech sites have found problems with. Google may be able to fix those in time, but from our point as an encyclopedia, we are not going to bury or wait for better reception to come out. If Google improves Stadia that it becomes a gold-star standard platform, we can add additional reception to discuss that (akin to the situation around No Man's Sky) but we absolutely should reflect what the reviews that came out this week have said. --Masem (t) 15:23, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Second sentence

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The second sentence is as follows:

It is said to be capable of streaming video games up to 4K resolution at 60 frames per second with support for high-dynamic-range, to players via the company's numerous data centers across the globe, provided they are using a sufficiently high-speed Internet connection.

"It is said" is a bit weasel worded and I'm wondering whether it has been independently verified or is a claim by Google, depending on which a citation as well as inline attribution might be called for. SITH (talk) 13:46, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

I've changed the wording to "It is advertised to be", which should address the weasel word. Regarding the claim itself, it is cited in the Features section. --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 13:42, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Listing as a platform in articles

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Can we please get a consensus over whether it is appropriate for Stadia to be listed as a gaming platform in the infobox of articles for games available on it? Granted, I have not gone through every article to see if all include it, and if so who (if ever) has ever reverted it, but I have seen a number of edits to the Red Dead Redemption 2 article where user Masem has reverted those attempting to do so, advising Stadia is a subscription service and not a platform. If there is agreement on this, then Stadia should be unlisted from each game article's infobox. -- Wikibenboy94 (talk) 09:33, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm wondering this as well. Why is Stadia listed but not PlayStation Now? Include everything or none at all. Blsupr (talk) 18:48, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Games for Stadia seem to be specifically ported to Stadia whereas PlayStation Now games are simply PlayStation 4 games run through an emulator. Lordtobi (✉) 19:21, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 30 December 2019

Latest comment: 4 years ago16 comments6 people in discussion
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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move. Common name is the key issue on which a consensus was not found. That table was really nicely made, by the way. (non-admin closure) Red Slash 23:49, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Google Stadia → Stadia (service) – I realize that a similar move has been proposed before, but I would like to bring this up again. The proper name of the platform is "Stadia", without the "Google" prefix. The artificially amalgamated title returns zero results when searching for it on the service's website, and the move that got us here has was never explained. Since "Google Stadia" fails WP:OFFICIALNAME, it would consequently also fail WP:NATDIS. Also, both titles appear at roughly the same frequency in reliable sources (which might or might not be fuelled by this article's title), wherefore neither is more common than the other. In general, this would allow us to fall back to the official name, namely "Stadia".

Of course and as discussed before, Stadia is not (yet?) the primary topic for the word "Stadia", thus a generic, concise "(service)" disambiguator should suffice. This move is in the same vein as Steam (service) and Origin (service), which we do not call "Valve Steam" and "EA Origin" either for pretty much the same reasons. Lastly, using parenthetical disambiguators encourges piping, leading to a more frequent use of the correct (official) title within other articles. Lordtobi (✉) 12:20, 30 December 2019 (UTC) —Relisting. – The Grid (talk) 00:54, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Support per nomination and the argument presented. I'm going to note that I brought up the last move mentioned but it also involved moving Stadia. – The Grid (talk) 13:05, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Oppose I see the proposer's point like we do not call Steam (service) "Valve Steam". However on this occasion "Google Stadia" is the common name in reliable sources as seen here: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]. So we should use the common name per WP:COMMONNAME. Whereas the common name for Steam is not Valve Steam.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 15:51, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
"Steam" not being called "Valve Steam" was just one of multiple arguments. As I stated above, it appears from an overhead view as though both versions are mentioned at a similar frequency; the usage is not uniform. You provided a handful of articles saying "Google Stadia", but one would easily be able to find reliable sources that do not, such as [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], and [27], just to name a few. You will find that there are even discrepancies between individual articles of the same outlet. I also expressed the concern that many uses of the "Google Stadia" name in the media could pertain to Wikipedia's title for the article, as Wikipedia can pose a significant influence. Lordtobi (✉) 16:15, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
We can also note that adding Google to the article title helps to gain views for the third party sources as well. – The Grid (talk) 16:18, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
This is rather odd, I may need to investigate its usage in reliable sources further.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 16:41, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Comment I am not opposed to this move, but I do point out that within Google, Stadia also appears to be a division since they have acquired one studio and plan to acquire more. I don't know if that means there's a better name or not, or similar that (service) is the primary use with the article clearly distinguishing the history of the division from the service ... --Masem (t) 16:24, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
You are probably referring to the "Stadia Games and Entertainment" division created in March, which Jade Raymond is part of. Since it has its own unique name, it can be naturally separated from the service article if required, or have an eponymous section in this article. Lordtobi (✉) 16:28, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
That's right. And at least at this point, that should be under this article (it is too close to the stadia service topic to make sense as a separate entity, yet. If they grow, then maybe) --Masem (t) 16:37, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
(And just added a quick section for this). --Masem (t) 16:42, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Reliable Sources Usage Table

Usage of Google Stadia and Stadia in Reliable Sources
Publication Use of "Google Stadia" Use of "Stadia"
IGN [28], [29] [30]
GameSpot [31], [32], [33], [34], [35]
Eurogamer [36] [37]
TechRadar [38]
PC Magazine [39]
Trusted Reviews [40]
Wired
Digital Trends [41]
PCGamesN [42]
Kotaku [43], [44]
PC Gamer [45] [46], [47]
GamesRadar [48]
Polygon [49], [50], [51], [52] [53]
Financial Times [54]
Wired [55], [56]
Engadget
Ars Technica [57]
VentureBeat [58]
Vice [59]
VG247 [60]
TechCrunch
CNET [61]
Rock, Paper, Shotgun [62]
The Verge [63]
New York Post [64]
Yahoo! Finance [65]

Feel free to expand the table. One thing I noticed throughout quite a few of these articles is that an article will often introduce the article with "Google Stadia" and then continue on using "Stadia" throughout the rest of the article (an example).  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 17:25, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't be against having the table separate from the vote. It would be a good way to summarize the usage regardless of the outcome. – The Grid (talk) 17:38, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
I feel like the sole necessity of this table (+ what I mentioned above) shows that there is no clear common name to this. Being the common name is not a matter of having a handful more mentions than the other; both appear all the time, so WP:OFFICIALNAME should apply instead. Lordtobi (✉) 18:33, 30 December 2019 (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 move review for above requested move, of this article to "Stadia (service)"

Latest comment: 4 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

I just left a section about this on User talk:Red Slash because it says above that that's what you should do before requesting a move review. Anyway, I definitely support renaming the article. If you look at WP:COMMONNAME, it says (with my emphasis added):

Wikipedia... prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources)
— WP:COMMONNAME

The name "Google Stadia" doesn't seem to enjoy this "significant majority", though. Many sources refer to just its official name of "Stadia" (many sources were collated in the above move discussion, but here's some more: The Verge, Eurogamer, Engadget, Gamasutra).

So what should be done if no name enjoys a "significant majority"? Here's the answer (link and emphasis added by me):

When there is no single, obvious name that is demonstrably the most frequently used for the topic by these sources, editors should reach a consensus as to which title is best by considering these criteria directly.
— WP:COMMONNAME

The first three criteria (recognisability, naturalness, and precision) could probably apply to both "Google Stadia" and "Stadia (service)". But the last two are where I think "Stadia (service)" must win: conciseness, and consistency with similar articles. "Stadia (service)" is more concise than "Google Stadia". And "Stadia (service)" is more consistent with Steam (service), Origin (service), Uplay, GeForce Now, PlayStation Now, xCloud, and even console pages like GameCube, Dreamcast, and Xbox (console). None of those pages feature their manufacturer's name in the article title. Which is why it is completely inconstistent to have an article named "Google Stadia" instead of "Stadia (service)". CyclingFan1234 (talk) 23:59, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

You were absolutely right to write on my talk page; thank you! You are also well within the time frame for listing a move review; actually, it's closing on being too late for one, though you still have time.
The problem is that my job as a closer is not to actually decide what the best move would be. My job was to decide if there was a consensus consistent with Wikipedia guidelines. There was not a consensus there. You're raising great points, but the flip side is WP:NATURALDIS. Once that was raised, nobody really had anything to say about that, so I really would not have been able to close in favor of moving. (Also, because some of your points weren't raised in the actual move request, it would be flagrantly against our closing procedures for me to consider them. I can't introduce new evidence or arguments and then decide the move!)

However, your arguments are very well laid out, and you could totally raise them in a new move request. My advice would be to re-raise the move request in a few months. I personally will not be able to close that request (I'm not "uninvolved" any more), so someone else will get to do so. Maybe your arguments will win! Maybe they won't! It's the fun of Wikipedia! Red Slash 19:02, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

@CyclingFan1234: You make some valid points however I disagree with most of your points. Regarding recognisability "Google Stadia" certainly has the edge as seen on the table. Regarding naturalness (The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles) "Google Stadia" far outweights "Stadia (service)" as seen on this Google Trends comparison [66]. Regarding precision both are on par since there is only one thing that called "stadia" that Google operates and there is only one major stadia service (Although there are a few [67], [68]). Regarding conciseness I do not see how "Stadia (service)" is preferable to "Google Stadia". They are both two short words with "Stadia (service)" being 1 more character longer (excluding brackets) and 3 more characters with brackets than "Google Stadia". Here "Google Stadia" has the edge. Regarding consistency you make some valid points regarding the naming of other video game articles like Steam (service) and Xbox (console). However, looking the wider technology-related articles we often see preceding company names like: Microsoft Windows (Microsoft Word, Microsoft PowerPoint, Microsoft Excel, Microsoft Office, Microsoft Access), Google Street View, Google Translate, etc. Even if I were to determine that that "Stadia (service)" is more consistent than "Google Stadia" I still think that based on the rest of the criteria "Google Stadia" makes more sense than "Stadia (service)" Regards  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 21:32, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Why did you compare Stadia service and Google Stadia as search terms in Google Trends? The reason for the parenthesis is to separate the identifier. Use Google Trends to compare "Stadia" and "Google Stadia" and you'll notice why people are arguing for usage of just "Stadia" [69] – The Grid (talk) 17:31, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
That comparison tell us nothing since "Stadia" by itself does not mean the Stadia streaming service. "Stadia" has mutliple meanings: such as
  • "A station temporarily occupied in surveying"
  • "An instrument for measuring distances by means of the angle subtended by an object of known dimensions"
  • "In civil and topographical engineering, the method or the instruments by which what are called stadia measurements are made" as well as the other uses at Stadia ([70]). Regards  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 17:58, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Right, but can't you interpret the trend of the search term goes along with "Google Stadia"? – The Grid (talk) 23:35, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Possible addition

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I would like to see the software and hardware specifics explained and why this lead to devs porting their games to Stadia but not doing normal Linux ports. Pretty sad to see they run Debian but Linux gamers do not gain anything if they not use the service and want to play the games natively. Of course its about money for devs but to me it sounded like the perfect opportunity to do general purpose Linux ports of games but seems like its not happening.

2A02:8108:96C0:986:68EA:DFCF:253D:A601 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:16, 26 September, 2021

Unfortunately, we don't have a lot of sources that go into the specifics of development or behind the scenes to be able to document this. --Masem (t) 19:22, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Who is raymond and who is harrison?

Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Under scaling back:

"Google shut down Stadia Games and Entertainment on February 1, 2021. This decision would also cause the closure of Typhoon Studios. The announcement came after decisions were made about Stadia's priorities for game development and delivery. Harrison stated that the decision would focus on making the platform more amenable as a publishing platform for third-party developers, stating "We believe this is the best path to building Stadia into a long-term, sustainable business that helps grow the industry."[40] The shutdown affected about 150 employees, including Raymond who left Google that day"

it's not clear who Harrison is nor is it clear who Raymond is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.67.135.196 (talk) 05:22, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Please read the previous paragraphs. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:24, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Do you know what sub-headings are for? Especially in an encyclopedic context? People look things up, they're mostly not here to read the entire article. Most people are not Hermione Granger. jae (talk) 00:24, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:22, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

"...though the technology will be integrated in other business areas within the company."

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

What, exactly, does this mean, and what would it mean to readers? In tech sectors, "integrated" is already a bit of a vague buzzword, so this should not be included as inadvertent PR=speak. If sources explain what this means we should summarize those. If this helps readers understand the entire topic, it could then be mentioned in the lead, but this isn't a given. Grayfell (talk) 23:06, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

"We don't need chapters for every paragraph of the text"

Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments3 people in discussion
08:22, 11 November 2022‎ IceWelder talk contribs‎ 67,737 bytes −531‎ Reverted 1 edit by Konstantin Kosachev (talk): We don't need sections for every single paragraph undothank Tags: Twinkle Undo
Well, the paragraphs are quite large, so the text becomes what I call "a brick" - just as heavy and stubborn for comprehension. Why not divide it? Those headers actually about quite different aspects, it turns out. For a casual reader it might be particularly convenient if he's interested in a given fact he's looking for. Konstantin Kosachev (talk) 13:43, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
No, we don't overuse headers like that. As MOS:LAYOUT says "Very short sections and subsections clutter an article with headings and inhibit the flow of the prose. Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading." There is no issue with headings that cover 3-5 paragraphs of related information. Masem (t) 14:15, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
Merely looking on it top-down, you could argue that "Strategy change and shutdown (2021–present)" could be split into two separate sections as it contains eight paragraphs at the moment. However, a section for virtually every paragraph is overkill, not only because it overflows the ToC, but it also makes the articles less readable due to the frequent flow interruptions. IceWelder [✉] 15:59, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Reason ?

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Is something like OFFICIAL reason for shutDown ? 46.34.240.236 (talk) 05:13, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Versions of the hardware

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

It would be really nice to have a list of versions of the hardware, the different controllers, different sets they sold etc. I don't know much about the topic. Here is a list of the colours of controller I can find:

John Cummings (talk) 13:36, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Stadia Failure

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Stadia By Google Announced It Would Shutdown In 2023 80.233.52.186 (talk) 15:52, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 16 April 2023

Latest comment: 1 year ago13 comments10 people in discussion
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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) – MaterialWorks (contribs) 17:09, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Google Stadia → Stadia (gaming service) – Article was moved to incorrect name Google Stadia for no reason. Service is called "Stadia", not "Google Stadia", "Stadia Google" and not "Alphabet Stadia". "Google Stadia" is misleading and fake. Eurohunter (talk) 16:52, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

  • Oppose WP:NATURAL allows for articles to be at titles used by reliable sources, and while the product is not officially named "Google Stadia", that is a highly-used term for the service used by reliable sources. As such, this is a better means to disambiguate Stadia than the parenthecial approach. --Masem (t) 16:56, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NATDIS. While you're correct that the product name is Stadia and not Google Stadia, when independent third party sources refer to it, they typically refer to it as Google Stadia or occasionally in the possessive form of Google's Stadia (Eurogamer, Sky News UK, 9to5Google, IGN, PC Gamer). This isn't unusual within the tech sphere, despite the official names of the products not currently containing the company name sources typically refer to products with the company name, for example Microsoft Windows, Adobe Photoshop, Google Chrome. There are of course exceptions, as was stated in the December 2019 RM Steam is referred to as Steam and not Valve Steam, and macOS is referred to as macOS and not Apple macOS, however this does not appear to be one of those exceptions. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:15, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
    • @Masem: @Sideswipe9th: Then why you don't introduce this name in lead first? Readers independently see two different names, and it's more misleading than anything else. Who accepts such name changes? If you do one thing, then do the next as a whole, not just part of it. It's mess now. Eurohunter (talk) 21:25, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
      There's no requirement that the page title, as is, be bolded as is in the lede sentence. To take an example from NATURAL, French language introduces it as "French" and within the context of the first sentence, establishes it as a language. We are doing the same here, introducing Stadia and then immediately the tie to Google. Masem (t) 00:38, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
    • when independent third party sources refer to it but is this not because the third-party sources provide their own synthesis? We already agree that third-party sources can have an editor provide their thoughts on an item - provided it is stated as such in the Wikipedia article. What gets me with applying WP:COMMONNAME is what magazines and their publishers are establishing the common name. It's not really natural, especially with known SEO search tricks and the sources creating "articles" that borderline as advertorials. – The Grid (talk) 15:14, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
      I also like to think that the existing Wikipedia article name plays a not insignificant role in what websites use for headlines. IceWelder [✉] 16:02, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
      We don't care when reliable sources do their own synthesis; part of being reliable is that we can generally take such synthesis as fact for us (case by case basis) We cannot do it as WP editors, though. So if we were the only ones to call it something like "Stadia by Google", then that would be a problem. Masem (t) 00:49, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:NATURAL. (WP:COMMONNAME may also apply, but I'm not going to look into validating that, considering WP:NATURAL would be a stronger case than WP:COMMONNAME here anyways.) Steel1943 (talk) 21:00, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Reluctant oppose – Stadia is (was) indeed the service's official name, and in an ideal world this article would be titled just Stadia. But since there is a need for disambiguation, WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NATURAL make it pretty clear that "Google Stadia" is a superior option to "Stadia (whatever you put here)", no matter how wrong it seems. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:30, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose per last RM [71].  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 14:57, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose. One of the prior requests ended in a "consensus to not move" at Talk:Google Stadia/Archive 1#Requested move 4 October 2019. This move request does not present any new reasons. SilverLocust (talk) 03:30, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Page moves

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Those trying to move this page, be aware there have been three prior move requests in the archives Talk:Google Stadia/Archive 1, all with consensus to keep the page at Google Stadia as that is acceptable under WP:NATURAL (it is a common name used in reliable sources)

Please use a new move request if you think this should be moved, since you're challenging these prior consensus. Masem (t) 16:11, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Google_Stadia/Archive_1&oldid=1228807897"