Talk:List of Nintendo Switch games/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Page split for size and continued expansion

The list is growing at a fairly rapid clip and past 200kb. While perhaps a little early, I have gone ahead and split it by 0-9/A-L and M-Z, similar to List of PlayStation 4 games. I've done this WP:BOLDLY but if anyone strongly disagrees, follow WP:BRD. -- ferret (talk) 23:46, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

P.S. I know a few references are broken on both pages, I expect AnomieBOT to fix them shortly. -- ferret (talk) 23:49, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Personally not a fan of split pages, but there isn't really a better option for large lists like this. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 00:49, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

This has reduced the functionality of being able to see games in the region and release date quite significantly. Now a sorted list by date is spread across two pages. No idea what the thinking is behind this as web pages are designed to scroll vertically. Shepherdnick (talk) 14:10, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Not only games by region of release, also Switch exclusive games. Maybe a dynamic list made using a database would fix? --62.18.15.96 (talk) 16:00, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Larges lists commonly get cut down because, at a certain size, many people with (older) browsers have a hard time loading the whole thing. I'm not crazy about splitting the list either, but similar to Dissident's stance above...there really isn't a better option. List of 3DS games is surprisingly not split, but many similar ones are - List of Vita games, List of PS4 games, etc - It's a common approach. Sergecross73 msg me 14:30, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

The scary things about the Vita lists is they really need split again, over 400KB for each individual half currently. -- ferret (talk) 15:08, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Pretty surprising the whole 3DS list is just 367K too. Sergecross73 msg me 16:20, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

No, both of you are wrong, the PS Vita game list HAD to split because of the post-expand include size, not because of the scary number in page size. Right now you have the actual reason to split the Nintendo Switch list like just now, because it's really close to max out the post-expand include size. Rukario-sama ^ㅈ^ -(...) 10:27, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

The transclusion of the separate list was added after the list was split. The transcluded full list would clearly be over size (which is why we have the separate lists that stay under size), for those readers that need to see the entire list as one. --Masem (t) 14:36, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

If the Vita list was properly sourced through out, it'd almost certainly hit the limits and require splitting again. That said, I knew this would eventually have to be redirected again, just surprised at how quickly it came. -- ferret (talk) 15:09, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Unfamiliar with transclusion limits, but was it the final size that hit its limit, or one of the halves? If it's the second, would it even be worth it to split it into four pages? This whole thing is a mess with no real solution that would make everybody content. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 22:11, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

It was the combined transcluded main page. The limit is the total on any one page. Splitting the list will not allow for a complete transcluded table to work again. The only way to fix it is to reduce the number of templates in use. All the different colored cells, date cells, cite webs, etc. A lot of rows do have over-referenced issues, but even then it's just a temporary fix if duplicates refs were removed. In the end, every row adds 4-5+ templates. Neither of the current halves are over the limit on their own yet. -- ferret (talk) 22:26, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

That's what I thought. Could the transclusion limits be adjusted at all, or is this hardcoded in such a way that makes it impossible? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 00:56, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

(1 edit conflict later...) The data information is available below the edit window when you preview the page. Right now the first half of this article has

Post-expand include size	831,118/2,097,152 bytes

and the second half has

Post-expand include size	995,046/2,097,152 bytes

When the number reaches the limit the problem will pop up. Wiki will not parse any more templates, like you'd see at bottom in https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Nintendo_Switch_games&oldid=821119943. And oh, I wouldn't recommend creating a transclusion article primarily to combine large tables together again. {{:article}} will be treated as template and there will be several overheads going on. It's worse than the table that hasn't even been split yet. I think Ferret shouldn't have split the table in the past yet, but now's about the right time anyway. 831,118 + 995,046 = about 1,826,164 out of limit's 2,097,152 and considering that the Nintendo Switch is still early in its lifespan, I can still see many more games coming and there will be problematic going on in the near future. You will be correct to guess that the list of PlayStation Vita games will have the problem once their divided tables finally merged back together. WP:SIZESPLIT is meant for readable articles, so please never mind about the scary number you see of this page's size because this is a list page. The include limit is a true determining factor whether to split the table or not.

I don't think it's possible to lift the limit, but you can try clean up redundant template parameters, the major contributing factor to include size is citation templates. You'll be surprised how little include size this page will have once all the citations are wiped. Redundant parameter like |author |first |last |date, and others, they've got no real use-case, they're bloat. It's still good idea to purge them even if the table has been split, this will provide small performance regain. Rukario-sama ^ㅈ^ -(...) 01:22, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I disagree with all your suggestions. We shouldn't be removing citation info just to fit size limitations of something that was never even officially supported or preferred by the MOS. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 07:23, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Can you give me wikilink saying this shouldn't be done? Rukario-sama ^ㅈ^ -(...) 07:38, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

WP:V says we need sources, WP:LINKROT says its best if they're formatted. This is...very basic stuff. Sergecross73 msg me 13:52, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't know the solution that this provides yet, but it might be possible to consider using the subst: approach, which would copy the results of the smaller tables into the large one. The biggest drawback is that to keep the main table updated, the subst: code has to be reapplied at an editing level. That still keeps the dynamic editable split and an relatively up-to-date main table. --Masem (t) 14:15, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

The issue there is the main list looks to be a full and valid table, so users will just edit it. Their edits would be lost on the next subst. -- ferret (talk) 14:50, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm not following the tech side of all of this, so forgive me, but how is the List of PS4 games list, which has far more games to list, not having the same problems? When I created this article, I mirrored it off of the PS4 game list. I mean, there's been hundreds of edits and changes since then, so I suppose things have changed, but I'm surprised that this is having issues that the PS4 game list isn't... Sergecross73 msg me 15:16, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

It's the references. The PS4 list has only 80-sme refs (and technically should be a ref per game, but let's not go into that now), while this list has been strongly maintained with a ref for each announcement. That's 600+ refs. Those refs, expanded out via cite templates, expand the allowable byte size for template transclusion. --Masem (t) 15:21, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

When you think about the principle behind WP:LINKROT, they're to help other wiki editors to find the source again or, a new one, once the link is dead. This is especially true for the hard-to-find information, but this doesn't seem very true to this game list. I know about WP:V, sorry if I seem to suggest removing citations. I was just giving fun fact about them. Rukario-sama ^ㅈ^ -(...) 06:43, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

This split is silly and inconvenient. There are plenty of pages that are well above that size and are not split https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:LongPages 89.247.124.84 (talk) 08:59, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Linking to things that don't follow guidelines isn't a valid argument to not follow guidelines elsewhere. Sergecross73 msg me 14:16, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

This should be reverted back to a single list. You've broken the ability to see releases in date order by splitting this list. Also, I can't find other game lists done this way on Wikipedia. Playstation 2 is over 2500 games and it's all on a single page. Size isn't really a factor here. Even on a 56K modem (which is honestly absurd) a couple hundred kilobytes would download in a few seconds. Bkellihan (talk) 20:40, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

It's not about number of games, its about data size. The PS2 list is smaller data wise because it's almost entirely unsourced - not a good thing or something we should be aspiring for here. If it were done correctly, it would need splitting too. (Technically, according to WP:TOOBIG, it should even be split as is]].) What is it about the Switch fanbase that demands all titles to be listed in one place? I haven't seen people complaining about this at any other game list I've monitored over the years... Sergecross73 msg me 20:51, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

You should read that link again. In regards to the sizes "These rules of thumb apply only to readable prose [...] and not to wiki markup size (as found on history lists or other means)." "They also apply less strongly to list articles, especially if splitting them would require breaking up a sortable table." The intent of the Article Size guidelines is to limit prose on a page, not create specific limits on page size. And as they specifically call out, it's not mean to be applied to tables like this. Bkellihan (talk) 22:30, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I would suggest a solution like we did for Complete list of downloadable content for the Rock Band series. There are subpages that are more manageable that are transcluded into that master list that if someone really does want to sort them all, they can, but for purposes of quickly navigating to a title, the smaller pages work better. This is a scalable solution in that if you need to take from the current 2 to 3 pages, it's just a matter of moving content around those pages and then changing the transclusion in a master list. --MASEM (t) 22:34, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Does this issue effect readers or editors more? Because a raw split like we've already done helps editing, but hurts readability. The Rock Band example you provided is the exact opposite. I prefer the article to be more easily read than edited, as it's only a core group of us (under 10, maybe like five) who maintain the list, as compared to the potentially 100s, if not 1000s of readers who don't make edits. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 23:12, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

A transcluded list can be built at the current redirect of List of Nintendo Switch games -- ferret (talk) 23:28, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

As a reader I am absolutely furious about this change. This list was the first place I checked for Switch release dates, upcoming games, etc. You have made it fundamentally useless by splitting it up into two pages. This change must be reversed. Wicka wicka (talk) 14:19, 5 December 2017 (UTC) I really am just baffled that anyone thought this was a good idea. It's one of the worst, most short-sighted changes I've ever seen on this dumb website. STOP MAKING THINGS WORSE. Wicka wicka (talk) 14:20, 5 December 2017 (UTC) And you know what's great? It won't get fixed. It never does. This website isn't about trying to make the best articles we can make, it's about rigidly adhering to poorly conceived regulations (which editors treat as if it they are the word of god) and using your superior knowledge of Wikipedia's Byzantine rules to ensure that YOUR edit stands and YOU win whatever today's slapfight is. This sucks. Wicka wicka (talk) 14:25, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Maybe tone down your hyperbole, and avoid the personal attacks. Disruptive comments don't help anything and certainly don't make me eager to assist. This isn't the only list like this, and it's hardly unique. I was already pondering the solutions offered by Masem but when you post vitriol like this, I'm happy to go work on something else. -- ferret (talk) 14:59, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Transcluded main table

@Masem: Could you review the transclusion effort I've done? Should a see also for the alpha-split pages still be in the lead? I added an edit notice as well. -- ferret (talk) 15:23, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

• I think this works well for both sides (readers and editors). Perhaps this method could become standard in all split articles in the future? The only thing I'd add to this is maybe change the wording on the two split articles to make it more clear that they are intended to be edited rather than read. So maybe instead of the "see also" template up top, perhaps it could read Due to this list's overall size, this page is a transcluded list consisting of two separate articles. To edit it, see Nintendo Switch games (A-L) and List of Nintendo Switch games (M-Z)? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 21:44, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm open to ideas, but I went with an edit notice for that. I checked a few places I'm aware of transclusion in use like this, and none of them had it directly in the prose like that. To be fair most don't even have edit notices, and I certainly was left pretty confused the first time I encountered it at the old horrendous List of best-selling video games, which mixed the two methods. -- ferret (talk) 22:06, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
    • The split looks fine. I would agree you should include a index of the smaller pages (and which then you can nix the hat) for the transcluded pages. As this list grows (eg adding another page), that will be much easier to maintain, and it can be included on each of the smaller pages. --MASEM (t) 22:43, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Labo on the list

Someone added Nintendo Labo on the list. Should it really be on there? To my understanding, it more of an extension of a type of games than a game itself.

In my opinion, I think the intro paragraphs should mention Labo and link to the article, but I think that's it for this page. I think Labo games (Or "kits" I guess they're called?) should probably be listed at that article too, or eventually maybe a separate games list. But not here.

Input? Best to figure this out now so we're in agreement in handling this. Thanks! Sergecross73 msg me 18:45, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I haven't really researched yet but it seems more peripheral than game? -- ferret (talk) 18:50, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, me neither, as it doesn't seem to quite by my thing, so anyone feel free to correct me if I'm wrong here. But to me, it feels somewhat comparable to putting DSiWare or the Wii Balance Board on their respective platform's game list. Sergecross73 msg me 18:58, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Somebody else originally added both of the Labo releases as separate games, which I then edited to only include the brand. Labo is different from your DSiWare and Wii Balance Board examples as it comes with (and requires) minigames that need to be used for it to even function. I think it should remain on the list for now as, but I wouldn't oppose any efforts to remove it or place into another section on the list, such as "List of software", where other non-gaming software on the Switch could go. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 07:12, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Automatic counting of exclusive games

This probably would be a good idea rather than manually do them ourselves (or myself, for that matter) I mean, it also serves as a good idea for the other lists as well (i.e List of PlayStation 4 games, List of Xbox One games). Zacharyalejandro (talk) 04:31, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

• I assumed it was already automatic. If it's just going to be a bother throughout the lifespan of the Switch, then it should probably be removed. Anybody who cares then could just sort by the exclusivity column and count it themselves. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 00:46, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Retail cartridges or download

Hi, just an idea. Personnaly, i would like to see what games on the list are available through retail and what others are exclusively sold through download. Could we add a row for that ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeklpa (talk • contribs) 10:06, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

The short version is no, that's not the sort of thing Wikipedia covers. If you'd like the long version, there's some very lengthy discussions in the talk page archives. Sergecross73 msg me 13:15, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Been discussed multiple times, with no valid argument (in Wikipedia standards) for adding this besides "It's helpful and I like it". ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 21:11, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

"It's helpful" seems a valid argument, doesn't it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeklpa (talk • contribs) 18:02, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Not really. People have just said "it's helpful" as a guide for buyers/collectors, which Wikipedia is not meant to be. The only valid argument I've seen thus far for this is how "rare" physical games for the Switch seem to be, meaning that it would have made way more sense to include here rather than the older consoles. But that being said, unless sources note this too (they haven't thus far), then there is no real way of judging it's notability (or verifiability) outside of people's personal opinions, and as of right now, the majority of people who maintain this page are against it. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:40, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

To all anonymous users and others

To all anonymous users, please update the Exclusive counts when adding games.

To all other users, when a release date is officially announced by the companies, please put them as Unreleased until then.

That is all. Thank you for your time. Zacharyalejandro (talk) 21:29, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Merging game titles to links

Okay. I've been a little busy linking some things up, and what actually got me thinking was, wouldn't it be possible if we could link game titles together? Like for instance, games have a specific name like Disney Epic Mickey and Disney Epic Mickey 2: The Power of Two. Well according to the step I took, linking Disney Epic Mickey and Disney Epic Mickey 2: The Power of Two redirects to plainly Epic Mickey and Epic Mickey 2: The Power of Two respectively, same way done with Disney Planes redirects to the film. Could we do this formula? Zacharyalejandro (talk) 08:15, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

• I don't understand what you are suggesting here. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 19:19, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Well some titles are being labeled with the company's name on the title of the game like check List of Wii games for example, titles such as Disney Princess: My Fairytale Adventure, have the word "Disney" in them, so I know this is the wrong talk page to discuss this in, but I just wanted to tell someone that's somewhat active. Zacharyalejandro (talk) 20:30, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

That's because they are officially apart of the name, which seems to be common with Disney games (going back to Disney's Aladdin in the early 1990s). That being said, we should just link whatever the article title (and thus what should be the WP:COMMONNAME) is. So in the case of Disney Princess: My Fairytale Adventure, leave it be. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:48, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Super Bomberman R on other platforms

I'd like to take a moment about Super Bomberman R being announced for the PlayStation 4 and Xbox One. From what I googled, PlayStation Lifestyle is reporting that the version for the console is releasing in Japan on June 14th, this is coming from a Japanese Twitter user by the name of Renka who runs a regularly-updated Game Schedule wiki site which granted, sounds very suspicious granted how other wiki sites are not deemed 'sourceful'. As I'm reading through, I'm noticing a confusing tidbit here regarding release, it says it releases in Japan on June 14, that's when an official listing of the Microsoft store goes up. Then it was said that a North American listing pops as June 12th and that given if it's a simultaneous release just like in Japan, it would release as June 12 in North America. Shouldn't we just wait until an official confirmation from the COMPANY themselves whether the game is coming or not? I swear Wikipedia is still a bad place for this stuff. Zacharyalejandro (talk) 16:23, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

More than enough secondary sourcing exists to show its no longer an exclusive. Eurogamer, Push Square, Comic Book, Nintendo Life, IGN, Siliconera, have all carried the story now. -- ferret (talk) 19:16, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, not sure what the problem seems to be. If it's about the dates being inconsistent from source to source, just go with whatever they report more of. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:49, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Why are the exclusivity tags removed?

Metalreflectslime (talk) 05:17, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games#Simplifying_the_exclusivity_column_in_video_game_lists -- ferret (talk) 13:15, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Oh my God! These edits are undoubtedly WRONG!

I am very disappointed that this is beginning to be an even more of a disaster now. It was completely fine until you guys started to change plans instead of leaving it the way it was in the FIRST PLACE!!!!!!!Zacharyalejandro (talk) 21:47, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

• How exactly is it a disaster? Have you seen how most other game lists are? This has also been suggested for a while now and you've never given your opinion on it, so don't act like this was an overnight change on the whim. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 22:04, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
• Frankly, your bombastic responses to every attempt to work around the technical limitation faced by this list are tiring. Dropping colored cells in favor of being able to keep the list on a single page for as long as possible is, undoubtedly, the right call. -- ferret (talk) 22:09, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Which has enough consensus right now to just be removed entirely, but I'll wait on doing that for a few more days, just in case it garners last minute opposition. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 22:11, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
    • How does this differ from other competitive lists, hm? I don't know why we simply HAVE to choose the rules here. Bashinng!! Zacharyalejandro (talk) 02:04, 21 March 2018 (UTC)Zacharyalejandro
      • The discussion is on this very talk page, just a few discussions above. Go and read it. If you can't understand it, fine, but don't lash out at others when you're the one who doesn't understand. Ask questions, don't freak out and accuse. It makes zero sense to assume any volunteers here are trying to sabotage or ruin a list they're spending so much of their personal time maintaining. Please try thinking this through a little better. Sergecross73 msg me 02:55, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Okay, since I took some time off cause I think I needed it, I sincerely apologize to anyone for my unlawful behaviour and actions towards you guys. When producing via the 'edit' button, I've noticed these {{}} have not been removed and just replaced by TBA, 2018, and whatnot. I probably was just confused by that part. Zacharyalejandro (talk) 17:24, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

This is pointless

Is there seriously nothing we can do to fix this stupid split? This is yet another great example of poorly thought out, idiotic Wikipedia bureacracy getting in the way of what is obviously best for reading. There is no advantage whatsoever, from a user's perspective, to splitting this into two pages. It's a made up Wikipedia rule that no one dares question, even though it's literally indefensible. Embarrassing. Wicka wicka (talk) 12:55, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Maybe if you'd read the threads above, you'd already understand there is a technical limitation. -- ferret (talk) 13:01, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Oh yeah, surely, one of Wikipedia's biggest mistakes, making people click on a "M-Z" link to see the second half of a list. The world laughs at us while we fail to fix this atrocity! Get a grip on reality. Its a list split in two. No big deal. Seriously, tone it down, no one takes this sort of melodrama seriously. Sergecross73 msg me 13:26, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

It was done for technical reasons, most of us who maintain the pages don't like it either. There have been suggestions on how to fix it, but it never got resolved, with that being to eliminate sourcing on games with standalone pages, which would reduce the overall size of the lists to become at least transcluded into a single list again, I believe. Would it be fine if somebody were to just go ahead and do this? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 21:28, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

The page was split because ferret misunderstood WP:TOOBIG. Which clearly says sortable lists should not be split and that page size has nothing to do with whether an article should be split. It only applies to prose. The technical issue seems to be with transcluding the two lists back together as a work around. They should simply be merged back into a single list because splitting them was misguided in the first place. Frankly, this split has been disruptive and made the list useless for viewing a list of games by release date for almost 6 months. This is not a technical limitation, it's simply stubborness to admit someone made a mistake and put it back into a single list as it should be. Bkellihan (talk) 02:35, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

WP:PAGESIZE still exists; nobody is arguing that a single list can't exist due to technical limitations. It's more of a editing-favored thing, but as I mentioned when the split was first proposed, the majority of people who come to the page are readers and don't care about that. I'm still in favor of having it as a single list with source culling to help reduce its size, as we don't need games with 3-4 citations, simply one giving the release date would suffice. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 05:25, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

@Bkellihan: That's simply wrong, unfortunately. No, the list cannot exist as a single list. Whether we try transcluding the two lists into one, or put all the data together again, the template inclusion limit is hit. It IS a technical limitation that prevents the list from being whole. Anyone is free to test this and find out for themselves if they don't believe. Just copy the table data from M-Z into A-L, press preview, and scroll down. The template limit is hit, and all the references and templates at the end broken. -- ferret (talk) 12:11, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

I believe the user meant to merge them back without any transclusions, which is technically possible but not-preferred per my response. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 19:18, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

That's what I'm saying though. It's not technically possible. If the table is merged back together, the transclusion limit is still hit, resulting in all of the references, reflist and nav templates being broken. -- ferret (talk) 23:45, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

So I spent some digging through the article and playing with it a bit in the sandbox. The problem isn't only the {{cite}} transclusions, though it's a good part of it. The table is riddled with template transclusions like {{No}}, {{Unknown}}, ({dtba}}, etc. None of these are necessary and don't really add much to the table. But every one of them adds to toward the template inclusion cap. Along with the heavy citations, which aren't necessary. Even one citation probably isn't necessary in a list that links to the article about the game. That's why some of the other game lists have 2000-3000 entries with no issues and this one choking well under 1000. Bkellihan (talk) 04:37, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

There is also a recent push for removing the "exclusivity" column from these lists too over at WT:VG, which would free up even more space if it passes. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 06:42, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Yep. Just as was discussed up above in the original section. The closest we have to a proposal to solve this right now is to remove sourcing from those games that have a blue link with appropriate sourcing already in place. So far, just no one has tried to do the work yet to see if it shrinks enough. Otherwise, the cell shading templates are also a target for replacement. I'd be fine with removing them, but others have protested in the past. The date templates are also a part of the issue, but I think they serve a more concrete purpose. However, I personally think we'd be find with a single "first release" column. I believe others are opposed to that as well though. -- ferret (talk) 13:00, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't personally oppose any of the suggestions you brought up. My only issue with them overall would be if we would apply the same to every other games list. People seem to take exception if you try to do that and cite back to the discussions/consensus here, but I think they should all be as uniform in formatting as possible, with this list as the starting point. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 21:32, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Someone proposed the removing of the 3 release columns in favor of a "first release" column at WP:VG, and it got quite a bit of opposition, from myself included. That said, I could care less if we use template or plain text for that, but it seems like many editors obsessively add those sorts of templates for color and whatnot, so I would think that would be a difficult direction too. Sergecross73 msg me 23:29, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

The cell templates could be replaced with "subst:" versions (which expand out the template text and thus remove the template call). --Masem (t) 23:45, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, but I was one of the few who did support that, and it seems even more relevant now. We already merged the European and Australian dates into a single PAL column, placing whichever of the two dates came first. Doing a single date column would just be an extension of that. Games aren't region locked on the system and all of them are available digitally via the eShop, so it's not as big an issue as it would have been with the PS2 or something. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 01:23, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Im very against it. Region locking affects very few when it comes to actual general readers. Fanboys on the internet squawk about it all the time, sure, but the truth is, very few inport games from other regions, only a very small subset of the hardcore do. Their existence in specific regions is a defining characteristic to most. Sergecross73 msg me 02:54, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

The problem isn't the date columns themselves, it's that they're embedded in the {{dts}} / {{dtba}} templates. If the templates were ditched for most things and references limited to games without their own wiki page it would save a ton of transclusion space. Bkellihan (talk) 03:55, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the suggestion to use this as example for how other lists should be formatted. This is anything but a gold standard for how to do it right. There are some lists that are nearly as old as Wikipedia itself and work just fine and have for almost 20 years. Don't go messing with something that works, when you haven't even fixed this one. If anything, this list needs to figure out how to be a cohesive single list of games first. Starting with cutting out the extraneous transclusions that break it. At the rate this is going, by the time the Switch has 1500 games the current method would require 4 lists because of all the transclusions. (It's not possible to combine them as they are and there are only 850 games. When these split lists reach that threshold they'll have to be split yet again.) Bkellihan (talk) 03:49, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

You disagree that the other lists, in far worse shape than this, should not be edited in the future to reflect newly gained consensus here? I really don't understand this type of opinion. Why even bother with this list then? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 19:35, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I definitely disagree that other list are in "far worse shape." There are a bunch of single page, sortable lists of games that work perfectly fine and contain all relevant information. I've been using them for years. This is the very first one I've come across with issues, and I was quite surprised when it was split. This only thing this list is an example of is how not to do it. If anything, other lists would be the place to look for how to fix this one - starting with removing the template spam. Bkellihan (talk) 19:56, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

A major difference between this list and others is that this one was built and maintained from the beginning to be fully sourced in compliance with WP:V. Many of the other lists have globs of unsourced and unlinked entries, and that's a different issue. The fact they work is, in many cases, due to the fact they aren't in line with verifiability policy. The only real option here is to reduce sourcing, as responsibly as possible. -- ferret (talk) 20:00, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

What Ferret said. Also, I'm talking about more than just the split; others have had trivial bloat such as a trophy-support checklist, and others have been split based on if it was released physically or not (look at the list of PS3 games-forked mess, how can you say that is better?) ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 22:10, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Break

Sandbox it and remove sources from those games with dedicated clearly sourced articles. See if that lowers it enough. Unfortunately we will probably still get to the point of having to split though, so we're just compressing the how many splits. -- ferret (talk) 21:31, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

So, it's clear that getting consensus to remove date columns, cell colors, etc, is going to be a longer term goal. Is anyone willing to work on culling out sources from blue links that have proper sources in their article? This may be enough to recombine the lists (for now), but we won't know till someone takes the time. -- ferret (talk) 19:40, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I can start. So basically if a game has an independent article, cull all sources from it? Would a redirect be valid too? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 19:51, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

As long as the target is sourced, yeah. Might have to move sources to some of them, depends on the state. -- ferret (talk) 19:51, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I just got through #-C. It's faster than I thought it would take, this could probably be done today if somebody else does the M-Z page. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:01, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

The other option would be to subst the cite templates and go with hard-cite format. But you have to do it outside of the ref tags, which prevent subst'ing, so it's a pain. -- ferret (talk) 20:03, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Doing #-C was a reduction of 105516 bytes for template expansion. -- ferret (talk) 20:06, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

D-G was another 148359 bytes. -- ferret (talk) 20:11, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Would this be preferred then? If so, I'll stop/revert back to normal for the time being. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:13, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Let me give it a try. -- ferret (talk) 20:25, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

@Dissident93: There's no way to cleanly substitute Cite Web. So it's either continue as you've been doing, or rebuild the references by hand to not use the template. Maybe someone handy with regex and AWB could do it, but I am not great with that. -- ferret (talk) 21:10, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I'll just continue with the original plan. We can always revert back if needed. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 22:11, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I've finished with this page, but there are bound to be some errors and citations I shouldn't have removed that need to be re-added. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 22:56, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

For A-L, dropped from 1,112,777 to 745,219. Saved 367,558. If M-Z drops the same amount, we'll have about 500,000 breathing room after recombining for now. -- ferret (talk) 22:59, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I'll get started it on later tonight or tomorrow, if somebody doesn't beat me to it. I can also remove the other in-line templates (such as TBA/Unknown) for even more space, if that's wanted. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 23:15, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Finished. Now I'll go and create redirects for any links that used to be piped and don't have them, and add sources there if necessary. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 01:35, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Recombined

Hours of work by Dissident and myself working to try to resolve this by either substituting cite web or removing unnecessary sources, the list is recombined. I estimate we are fine at the current sourcing levels until around 1200 games. At that point, if the current trends hold, we'll have to do more sourcing clean up, address other templates, or split again. -- ferret (talk) 12:15, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

I didn't catch this was happening before it happened, but I would strongly caution against the removal of refs on bluelinked titles. If this got to FLC, it would not fly; they'd want sources for each item and not rely on bluelinks for verification.

I don't know if it is going to be redone, but I would strongly suggest that at least one ref is kept for each bluelink ( as needed) but that the various table cell templates, like dts, can be subst: to replace the template call with the actual text, which cuts down on subsequent template call count. This particularly should be done for any 2017 title (the data is not going to change); future titles can keep the templates until the release date is passed. --Masem (t) 13:45, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

A large portion of the template size is from CS1 templates. These cannot be cleanly subst'd. The only real option to keep full sourcing would be to abandon cite web and have someone rebuild each ref into a hand-written style, or to continue to split the list. Honestly, starting to feel a bit ambivalent on the topic. Someone isn't going to be happy either way we go it seems. I am not opposed to reverting to full sourcing until more discussion can happen. -- ferret (talk) 13:58, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Pretty much what I think too. And not to use this as an excuse or whatever, but game lists like the PS4 and Xbox One have a similar referencing structured (although it's more random what is and isn't sourced), and nobody has apparently cared enough to bring that up as an issue in the past. Not everything is going to always qualify for featured status, and more people view the split as the bigger issue than the list not having sources for every entry. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 17:33, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Wouldn't it also be better if we could remove the last= |first= things from citations, making more room that way and preserve space? Zacharyalejandro (talk) 05:40, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Those make no difference. It's how many template calls, not what is in the templates. --Masem (t) 05:54, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

It's size of the data that matters. I am caution about removing first/last though. We should have at least url, title, first, last, date. I really hope no one comes along and runs IABot though as added archiveurl to everything would explode the size. -- ferret (talk) 10:41, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Hrmh. I seriously think this is not going to be a sustainable solution for both general MOS principles (something I can overlook but there are MOS hawks out there) and for WP:V/citation requirements. Trying to be a useful fully sortable list as more games get added (Even if we restricted them to only notable games) is simply not going to be possible unless you hard-code everything, and that's far too much work for little benefit. --Masem (t) 13:41, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, this is definitely a stop gap. The only solutions as the list grows is to either split it or hard-write the references. -- ferret (talk) 13:45, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I've went ahead and simplified references to have only the release date and relevancy of one citation to help with the transclusion. Hopefully this helped a little bit. Zacharyalejandro (talk) 07:17, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Should we be using piped links?

I firmly believe that there are some game titles that would be able to link up just by the title itelf, but some titles are not able to handle a redirect. Is there a reason why we can't redirect some game titles? And to note, typically this refers to a title that's coming in a form of Lumines Remastered, redirected from Lumines: Puzzle Fusion. Zacharyalejandro (talk) 23:31, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

What do you mean they cannot handle a redirect? We should avoid piped links, especially if they have a section link. Create a redirect if one doesn't exist and there is a suitable target. Lumines Remastered is an example of a GOOD redirect. It should not be replaced by a pipe (We've explained this to you before). -- ferret (talk) 01:02, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Exactly what Ferret said. I don't conceptually understand a situation where a piped link would be required or somehow better. Like with the Lumines example. Why would a piped link be better? Sergecross73 msg me 01:13, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Because it requires less work. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 01:32, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

...How/Why is writing [[Lumines: Puzzle Fusion|Lumines Remastered]] easier than writing [[Lumines Remastered]]...? Sergecross73 msg me 01:39, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I was giving their most likely reason for doing it, as people may not be willing or even aware of how to create a redirect for a redlink, as is the case with Zachary. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 00:17, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Because if I leave a wikilink by itself, it creates a redlink. Zacharyalejandro (talk) 02:47, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

It shouldn't. Someone created Lumines Remastered as a redirect nine days ago from writing this. Sergecross73 msg me 03:00, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

For future reference for anybody reading this, to make a redirect simply go to the article you wish to redirect and add #REDIRECT [[TARGET ARTICLE NAME]]. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 00:39, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

One thing I probably need to discuss. And that is are capitalizing on titles okay on the page size? I've went ahead and unlinked the piped D/Generation HD game from the list as it freaked out in red letters. If someone could provide a redirect to that, I'd be most pleased. Zacharyalejandro (talk) 17:11, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Edit: Just forgot that Dissident posted an explanation for redirect, sorry, please regard that part. Zacharyalejandro (talk) 17:15, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Keycase should have no effect on page size as far as I know, but it's prefered we don't use the stylizations on most of them, per MOS:ALLCAPS. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:12, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Unreleased/unknown usage

I also want to talk about the Unknown and Unreleased table. Why can't we keep it the way it was? Zacharyalejandro (talk) 19:43, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Because every colored cell template pushes us closer to having to split the list again. They were a noticeable contributor to the size issue. If the choice is between splitting the list in two, or having colored cells, it should be obvious to favor keeping a single list for now. -- ferret (talk) 19:45, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Then I don't see why this hasn't been implemented in other lists as well. I got confused with looking at how we have the Nintendo Switch list like that and how other lists don't have that. Currently working on the List of Nintendo 3DS games to replace that. Zacharyalejandro (talk) 21:43, 9 April 2018 (UTC)Zacharyalejandro

Some lists don't have the size issue yet. Some do. Some have already been split. We are striving here to avoid splitting the list as long as possible. Once we cannot prevent that any longer and the list splits, I'd have no issue to returning the colorized templates. -- ferret (talk) 21:48, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Okay. Well I already started to do it on the Nintendo 3DS list. I haven't posted my edit yet, I just think it would be a wise decision considering that the 3DS has twice as many games then the Nintendo Switch's library. And the Nintendo Switch is still growing at a very great pace, that I don't see why we can't do it now. Zacharyalejandro (talk) 22:05, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Harvest Moon

Okay, can anybody tell me, what in the heck came up with removing the Harvest Moon (the Natsume series) from Wikipedia's existence??? Zacharyalejandro (talk) 06:31, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Maybe read the talk page for those series, where a weeks long discussion on the series names and articles was going on. -- ferret (talk) 11:55, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Read this discussion for more information too - the series has a long, confusing history with its naming. They're just renaming some articles. Not sure how you came to the conclusion that it was being deleted from existence... Sergecross73 msg me 12:38, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Okay, now I know what was what was going on. Should I go ahead and move that game to that article until the game's article is created or have you guys already done that? I already read the talk and knew why the page has been retitled. Sorry about that Zacharyalejandro (talk) 15:32, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Single sources for every game

I feel this needs to be addressed. Not saying names, but somebody keeps removing sourced content that needs a source. I was okay with keeping sources for every game if I find one reliable, but keeping them unsourced should be removed altogether per my request. Zacharyalejandro (talk) 16:49, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

• For games with wikilinks? Are we not supposed to continue doing what we decided from the last discussion? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 16:55, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
• My preference is generally to source every entry too, as per staying in line with WP:V, and making it easier to spot hoax/fake/unconfirmed entries. However, I think one of the discussions was, in order to keep page size down, that they were not requiring sources for games that had their own article, and at that separate article, had a source verifying their existence. I could be wrong though. There's been endless tweaking and discussion, and I've been working on other things, so I don't recall where we landed on all that... Sergecross73 msg me 17:17, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
  • No, you're 100% right in your assessment. Unless consensus has changed since then, this is what we are preferred to do until/unless the list gets large enough that it needs a split again. It's not ideal, but it's still better than other game list pages which barely have any sourcing at all. Does WP:V require that wikilinked entries on a list be sourced, even if it can be verified by checking the link? If it doesn't directly state that, then I don't think we are violating it. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 18:22, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
• I've been trying to add games with sources. Okami for the Switch still needs a source of it appears on the list Dissident refers to the game as "the same game" and then removes a reliable source of the game. And that is something that really ticks me off is either somebody referring to the game as the same type of game just with HD graphics, or just removing the source/not putting a source when games get added. It always seems like I'm the one that leaves no game unsourced, and that's something I love doing is either touching up on sources or adding sources to games. Zacharyalejandro (talk) 17:55, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
  • See above. You were also apart of the original discussions, so I'm not sure why you seem to be confused. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 18:27, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
  • In the example of Okami, Dissident is saying that we would not need a source for Okami on this list, because there's a source at the actual Okami article that confirms the Switch version. (At the Okami article, look at sources 81, 82, and 83 at this link.) This is not my preference of doing it, but there were so many people getting weird about splitting the list into 2 when the article size was getting too big, that this appears to have become the consensus on how we're handling it right now. Sergecross73 msg me 18:39, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Subjective Tone of Header

The introduction paragraph of the article features two comments that sound like they were written out of angst (to describe the clearly negative phrasing) rather than for the purpose of informing the reader. Commentary feels out of place in a reference article like this and is more at home in the main Nintendo Switch article.

Despite its portable nature, retail games for the Switch usually sell at a standard console MSRP listing price of US$60.[4]

This line belittles the fact that the Switch is intended to be both a portable and home console. Nintendo markets the device as a home console that is portable and the Switch lives as a competitor to the PS4 and XBox. Previous generations of distinction between Nintendo's portable console vs their home console (a la NES to GameBoy) don't apply to the Nintendo Switch. This sentence sounds like modern games retailing for the same established standard price that they do on other consoles is unexpected just because the game is on the Switch. Can we consider rephrasing to remove the bias?

Nintendo requires games that are sold both digitally and at retail be priced the same, creating a "Switch tax" on digital titles which typically results in games costing US$10 more than they are on other platforms.[5]

Commenting on the different pricing of games on the Nintendo Switch serves little purpose in an article intended to list what games are available. Switch Tax is definitely a thing and deserves a mention (it is already mentioned in the primary article for the Nintendo Switch) it just feels out of place in what should be a flat list reference article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xenwall (talk • contribs) 16:51, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Mostly agreed and done. -- ferret (talk) 16:54, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This page is largely maintained by, from what I can gather, Nintendo fans, so I don't believe there is any intended bias here. I'm fine with tweaking the wording, I'm just saying, I don't think there's any grounds for suspecting any bad faith here. Sergecross73 msg me 16:55, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Also agreed. I see what Xenwall sees, but don't think it was intentional. -- ferret (talk) 16:59, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, and I guess I never changed it because I never really know what to say in intros to article's like this besides "Here's a list of Switch games". It all feels extraneous to me, but I know its preferred to have a paragraph or two of prose, so I guess I've never really challenged the info unless it was factually wrong. Anyways, I'm fine with your changes. Thanks for doing it. Sergecross73 msg me 17:10, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Physical Game Indicator

It's sensible to indicate if the game has a physical version, this sort of data is useful to both normal consumers and collectors. I'll add a column for it. This is whether a physical version exists at all, regardless of region. It's mainly to differentiate from the large number of digital-only games. I can't guarantee the data will be exactly correct from the first iteration, but collaboration can fix it up. Vortiene (talk) 15:18, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

We had a lengthy discussion on this a few months back. The consensus was that it fell out of the scope of what Wikipedia covers per WP:NOTCATALOGUE. Additionally, per WP:V, every entry would need to be sourced, and in practice, we've found that while sources cover this sometimes, working on a whole list shows there's a lot of gaps in coverage. Sergecross73 msg me 15:21, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

In addition, "this sort of data is useful to both normal consumers and collectors" is not a valid argument for adding information to Wikipedia, as it's not shopping guide. Sources may at times mention if a game had a physical release or if its eShop only, but it's not comprehensive for every game; the last person who tried to add a column for this had a number of entries being "unknown", which is no more helpful than not listing them. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 22:43, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

I suspect the same answer would be regarding adding fields whether the game has 1) motion control, 2) local multi-player, or 3) online multi-player, correct? Valerei (talk) 22:48, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Correct. Sergecross73 msg me 23:29, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

I know we certainly beat this topic to death a few months back, and I really don't have the constitution to revisit that entire debate again - but I would like to just ask what the purpose of this page is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Nintendo_Switch_eShop_games

If there is a "Category" for listing "eShop games" - can there not be a "Category" for listing "retail games"? Could this be the answer that finally resolves this conflict?? Patfass (talk) 04:12, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

To better understand what that list is, you may want to read up on WP:CATEGORY. Basically, if you add a category to an article, it'll show up in the respective category list. To address you question: The use of categories to document physical/digital would likely fall into the same issues as discussed as before. One of the main standards for using categories is WP:DEFINING - that is - a category must be a defining concept of the subject in order to be applied. If a source doesn't cover an aspect of a game, then it can't be included in the article, and if its not in the article, its not going to be considered a defining trait. So connecting all the thoughts here, without a source or mention of it in the article, the category shouldn't technically be applied to the game, making it so the game wouldn't show up in the category list. So much like in our discussions before, while you could, for example, quite easily find a source that says that Breath of the Wild has a physical and digital versions, it's much harder to do the same for the loads of minor indie or shovelware titles that get very little coverage in general.

Additionally, in order to show up on a category list like that, a game would need its own article or a WP:REDIRECT. (For example, the first item on the list, the #Breakforcist Battle game, couldn't be listed, because there's no article or a valid redirect to be created, as far as I know.)

So in short, it could document this some, but probably not as a complete, comprehensive list. Sergecross73 msg me 13:22, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

I've suggested to get rid of these categories, because most of the time we don't even mention eShop in the article. The WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument being brought up again shouldn't really be used as an defense here. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 08:51, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

TBA vs Unreleased

I've seen a few edits where a game has a release date and a "TBA" in one of the other regions. Usually this is changed to "Unreleased" to denote that the game has not been released in that region, but it has been released in another region. Is this correct?

Next, if a game has no release dates in any region (not even a far future date of "2019", for instance), what should all the dates say? I've seen quite a few games where they have a mixture of "TBA" and "Unreleased". I was thinking it might be more consistent if an unreleased game with no date information has "TBA" in all three regions. What do people think?

Finally, are there any guidelines for new editors to this page? I've been editing PAL dates for a little while, but it's easy to miss a guideline or get something wrong. I don't mean general Wikipedia docs - it's a bit much to read everything :) Just wondering if there's somewhere where a potential new editor to this page - and possibly other game lists - could go to see all of the best practices on one page. At least the ones that are relevant if you're editing this list. JamminBen (talk) 21:31, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

• TBA is meant to be used for regions where it was announced, but no specific date was mentioned. Unreleased means it won't release in that region, or hasn't been officially confirmed. As for specific guidelines here, there are a few. The primary one being that if a game has a valid wikilink (either to its own article or a sectional redirect) and has a source that it's being released on the Switch there, then it doesn't need a reference here. This was done to prevent/delay a page split, which many objected to, due to page size limitations. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 21:40, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Erroneous release dates on nintendo.co.uk

I've spotted a few anomalies on nintendo.co.uk with release dates, where the eShop on the Switch itself is different to what appears on nintendo.co.uk. When editing some of the PAL dates in the list, I've been using the eShop itself as the "source of truth" - but in a recent edit I was asked to use nintendo.co.uk. I guess it's handy to be able to link to pages there, which you can't do with the eShop.

I was going to add "Space Ribbon" to the list, as I found it on the "Recently released" list on nintendo.co.uk (see here). Viewing the page for that game suggests that it was released on August 15th (here's the game page). But when I open the eShop on my PAL-region Switch, Space Ribbon shows in the "Coming soon" section with a release date of August 24th.

It's not a huge difference, but it's quite noticeable when N.co.uk says the game has been released, and the console eShop doesn't have it available for purchase. As of right now, it's definitely not available to buy yet. Note that the game is available for preorder on the console eShop. On N.co.uk, the game page says "Content not playable before the release date: 15/08/2018", so the website still recognises it as a preorder.

On that basis, is it best to go with the information on the console eShop? I can't fathom why Nintendo wouldn't pull the data for these game lists from a single central source... JamminBen (talk) 21:53, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• I think we should go with Nintendo Europe's site, cause Nintendo of America's website displays the correct release date being the 2nd of August, so I assume that the release is the same for Europe, sometimes. We should go with what the website says. I'm doing it for the North American and Japanese releases. Zacharyalejandro (talk) 18:20, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for replying - it's been a few days and it would be good to get some views on this. However, I don't understand why you went for the website. Surely we should go for the date when the game actually comes out?

I have a US eShop account as well as a European account. I've double-checked just now, and the date for Ayakashi Koi Gikyoku is 2nd August on the US eShop, and 1st August on the European eShop.

It's less of a concern when it's one day out (although it's still incorrect), but what about the example of Space Ribbon given above? Going with the .co.uk website in that case would give a release date of August 15th, which is 9 days out. Space Ribbon does show August 24th on the US website, though. JamminBen (talk) 19:01, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Honestly, it's not that big of a deal either way. For the most part, we're just trying to give more of a vague view on things - was it released in a region, is it out yet, etc. It's not like we need to be a buyer's guide or a catalogue or something. It depends on the game and the situation, but generally I'd just go with whichever date is user more frequently used by reliable sources. If it ends up being wrong, we can update it with the other source that ended up being right or something. Its no big deal, it's more of a minor aspect of the list anyways. Sergecross73 msg me 19:17, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Erroneous edits discussion

I think this needs to be addressed. Dissident93: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Nintendo_Switch_games&diff=prev&oldid=855937443

Masem: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Nintendo_Switch_games&diff=next&oldid=855937310

Are this put in by mistake? If so, please remember to check your edits to make sure there are no letters or erroneous words in the section. This applies to anyone else here. Thank you. Zacharyalejandro (talk) 00:01, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

That is an error on my part. The page is so long that it takes a good while for the editing window to respond, and so it likely caught stuff before I was in the right place. (This is a reason we need to split sooner than later) --Masem (t) 00:06, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, the page does take a while to process and should need a split I think. Zacharyalejandro (talk) 00:01, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Zacharyalejandro - there were quite a few issues with your latest edit, some of which broke the table. I've fixed these. I'd suggest previewing before saving. JamminBen (talk) 17:55, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Page size

I know this list used to be split, and it was merged a couple of months back (I can't remember exactly when). I've noticed it takes several seconds to do most things with the page: editing, previewing, saving, comparing changes in view history. Does anyone know how far away we are from the page size limit on Wikipedia? Is anyone else finding it quite slow to edit the page? JamminBen (talk) 07:13, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it's long been slow to edit. The page is at 76% of its technical limits at this time, before it will have to be split in order for template transclusions to continue working. The apparent previous consensus is that editor hardship on large pages does not out-weigh reader convenience of a single sortable table, until a technical issue forces it. It is hard to predict when we'll reach the limit, just depends on how quickly items are added. -- ferret (talk) 14:00, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

So why can't we just do a split now? Don't get why the split should've stayed in the first place, hence why we're having so many technical issues/discussions about said topics for months now. We should split it and stop whining (This is also why I hate doing this rather than just keep complaining about how the page should stay) If this keeps up, why can't we make our own pages, with our content? Curse you, Wikipedia, for making things difficult. Zacharyalejandro (talk) 18:41, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

I’m all for splitting too, I have no issue with it, but that wasn’t the last consensus. However, consensus can change, so maybe things will play out differently eventually. Sergecross73 msg me 22:32, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, if not for the transclusion limits, it would still be split but shown as a single list. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 19:27, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

I personally think at this point, we need to eliminate any game that does not have a standalone article or not part of an existing series/sequel. We have far too many games that likely will never have articles. We are not a games catalog. --Masem (t) 19:53, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

What? Are you suggesting purposefully making it an incomplete list just we can keep it all on one page? I’m not aware of any precedent of handling things this way on “list of games on platform x” type articles. Why would we do that when we can just split it into multiple articles? I just don’t understand the importance of keeping it all one one list, especially going to the length of lowering the quality of the list. Sergecross73 msg me 20:50, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Because this does start to edge on NOT#CATALOG if we are using primary Twitter notices of release for the details. While the Nintendo eShop is not an open storefront like Steam, it still draws a lot of games that simply don't get covered. --Masem (t) 20:58, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Are there really that many titles that are only through Twitter? Even most obscure game’s existence can at least be sourced by your Nintendo Lifes and your Siliconera type websites. I don’t think there’s going to be support for this. We dont employ this at a single platform list currently, and the whole reason half the editors support not splitting the list is because they want an area where they can see every single game - your approach is a third option that doesn’t make either side of the argument happy. Sergecross73 msg me 22:04, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

There's at least 60 on this list, plus I see a number of unsourced (no blue link, no ref) titles too. And the reason this matters here is that up until the 7th gen, games had to be published, when meant there was clearly a practical barrier to entry. Even with 7th gen, MS and Sony and Nintendo to some extent controlled what titles got digitally downloaded. With the Switch, Nintendo has been extremely loose in what they allow; it's not the free-for-all of Steam, but it is nearly there. An additional point is that while games can be announced using Nintendo Life or Siliconera, that doesn't make them notable in the long run. --Masem (t) 22:48, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

You’re moving the goalpost now though - no one is talking about notability, we’re just talking about inclusion criteria, and you are the one that mentioned first party social media sources as a talking point. Look, feel free to start a new discussion on this proposal, but I can’t support it with no precedent and as easy as a resolution as “splitting the page” being available, and your solution addresses zero of the requests of either side of the dispute. I think it’s not only a terrible idea, but one that would be an enforcement nightmare. Sergecross73 msg me 00:04, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

It's only an idea. I can understand splitting the page, but I do think that's a short term solution. --Masem (t) 00:06, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't see how this helps at all, in fact it makes it worse because it would just introduce edit warring by newer editors who don't understand why we are removing select games from the list. But let's say we do this, would we still omit sources for games with links to keep the page size down? If not, then the page would probably be even larger than it currently is, making this moot. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 12:46, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

So split it up, its simple to do. THIS is the exact same reason why I hate Wikipedia. Wikipedia is based on false information based on links like Nintendo Everything, Facebook, (which there are some that ultimately need to be removed and replaced, not removed entirely), and My Nintendo News. Again, who came up with the #NOTCATALOG crap? And can we make our own pages with our own content, however we choose? Zacharyalejandro (talk) 20:43, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Guidelines and policies like that come from years of discussion on how to build a better encyclopedia; if you hate it so much, then you are free to stop. Also, the page was split before, but discussion on this very talk page (that I'm pretty sure you were apart of) reached consensus to have it merged back to the current way, so I'm not even sure what you are trying to argue here. And what do you mean by "own content"? If you are trying to create pages that don't follow guidelines and policies, then you are better off starting your own fansite/wikia. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 22:02, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

If you're unhappy with Wikipedia's guidelines and rules, you could always spend your time at the Nintendo Wikia instead. -- ferret (talk) 22:33, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

We generally discourage Nintendo Everything type websites, so I’m not quite sure who you’re directing those comments at. The rest of your comment kind of devolves into unconstructive complaining, which has historically devolved further into comments that get you blocked, so please...try to stop with the idle complaints now. Sergecross73 msg me 02:00, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

How many "TBA" titles are there - as in, no release date for any region? Perhaps splitting these to a list of unconfirmed games is one option. It might save a bit of space (though perhaps not a lot).

In practice, how do these get on the list in the first place? Does a developer or publisher announce a game as a "coming soon" and someone adds that to the list? I'm curious what other editors think about adding games at such an early stage. JamminBen (talk) 08:38, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Games are simply added whenever we've got a reliable source that verifies its existence. WP:VG/S would be a good reference as to what sources are generally considered usable or unusable. Primary sources from game developers/publishers themselves are generally okay for this sort of thing too, per WP:PRIMARY. I think managing two separate lists would be a real pain to manage with how often clueless people try to cite fake or placeholder release dates, and the fact that game's often release at different dates in different regions. Sergecross73 msg me 12:30, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

SPLIT, SPLIT, SPLIT! I have had enough of everyone not doing a single thing on that list except for maybe one or two non-game additions from @Dissident93: and @Sergecross73:. Trying to get games added is a complete nightmare the way it is now. I just need either a definite split or more contributors to help with adding games and references. You guys should've understood this by now. Zacharyalejandro (talk) 00:15, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

I’ve made it clear I’m strongly in support of splitting. It seems like many opposed are passerby people just stopping in to complain too. Sergecross73 msg me 00:42, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

I mean, I know there have been a lot of clamoring for it for awhile, do you know what page limit comes out to now? Zacharyalejandro (talk) 04:13, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

The first time I split it, I got slammed for it, including by you Zachary. I'm not doing the split myself until there's a definite technical reason to do so. Here is the current technical stat: 1,568,280/2,097,152 bytes. This is approximately 75% in use. It probably dropped recently when you removed several citations for blue linked items. -- ferret (talk) 11:55, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

I've forgotten if this was discussed or not, but would a 3 or 4 way-split transcluded page have the same issues as the 2 way one we previously had it? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:06, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes. It is based on the final size of the transcluded content. -- ferret (talk) 21:20, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Would a non-transcluded format still be split two ways (vs three or more)? And would removed citations for wikilinked games have to be brought back? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 05:02, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

I'd say any split starts at 2 way. As for citations, there isn't a reason to change how we're handling per say, but we definitely did a heavy culling to avoid splits. -- ferret (talk) 14:15, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

If we are going to split (and we need to split soon) we should probably do 3 pages, to give space as to avoid a major split in the near future (eg at the current pace of game releases, we'd give ourselves ~2-3 yrs to determine a new split) --Masem (t) 18:44, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

How to address Sega Ages

I recently updated this list to reflect the release of Sega Ages: Sonic the Hedgehog and Sega Ages: Thunder Force IV, but it was reverted as "Sega Ages is a compilation". I don't think you can count the Sega Ages as a compilation. A compilation would be several different games put together in one package, as Sega Genesis Classics release is. Sega Ages is a re-issue programme in the vein of Hamster's Arcade Archives series, not a compilation. Additionally, why are Sega Ages and Sonic the Hedgehog listed on the Switch page as a separate releases? It makes no sense as there is no game/individual release called Sega Ages; it's a brand name for a reissues programme. The SEGA AGES releases should either be individually logged as separate releases (if I wanted both Thunder Force IV and Sonic the Hedgehog, I buy and pay from them separately, they are not a compilation), or they need to be separately linked to, as is the case with the Arcade Archives re-issue series.

AnOrdinaryBoy (talk) 11:48, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

• We already handle this sort of thing for the Arcade Archives, which are available as individual entries released under a brand banner. Since we already have consensus for doing that, we shouldn't make an exception for Sega Ages unless we agree to a new one. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 18:12, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Games to add

Can someone add these games?

• Catan Universe (coming out in 2019)
• The Gardens Between (already out, it came out last month here in the UK)
• Zarvot (coming out later this month)

I'd add them myself, but I don't know all the details like Japanese release dates etc. Kidburla (talk) 12:49, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

• I added the last 2, but couldn't really find a real third-party source for Catan Universe, so I omitted it for now. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 18:27, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Proposal: Non-notable entries require secondary sourcing

Masem has brought up similar topics before, so here's my "official" proposal: If a game does not have an article of it's own (I.e. WP:GNG is not met, or a valid redirect with sourced content doesn't exist), then it must have a secondary reliable source to be added here. Simply, if the only source is the developer/publisher themselves, or the store front, then don't include it. If not even a questionable reliable source like Nintendolife covers the release, it's not important enough to be listed here. The basic premise for this restriction being WP:NOTCATALOG. There's a ton of entries already on the list sourced to twitter, youtube, kickstarter, etc, which may never even see release. -- ferret (talk) 16:29, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

I do wonder how much this will make a difference though - Nintendo websites that we deem usable (Nintendo World Report, NintendoLife, etc) cover just about every single little indie game announced under the sun, and websites like Siliconera, Gematsu, and Famitsu, cover just about every Japanese game in existence. I'm afraid this may lead to a lot of wasted time - trimming them out just to have them added right back in with an influx of those sorts of websites. I also have a hard time reconciling this approach with WP:PRIMARY, which basically says first party sources are okay for purely objective facts (like existence). I also wonder if this will bring across the same ire from the random passerby's who whine so much about having every title all in one place. Sergecross73 msg me 16:44, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

If PRIMARY stands here, then we are just reproducing the store pages for each region. WP:NOTCATALOG would seem to frown on that. -- ferret (talk) 17:15, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

I actually agree with this, as first-party sources (Nintendo/developer/publisher game pages) pass WP:V but not WP:N. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 17:21, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Well, that would mean we’ve been breaking NOTCATALGUE here up until now, and virtually every single “List of X games” article in existence. This hasn’t been enforced here or anywhere else ever. If we’ve been wrong, so be it, but much like Masem’s proposal for trimming items off the list as well, if we’re going to change inclusion criteria beyond WP:V, it should be done uniformly across all these sorts of lists, or it’s going to be an unintuitive maintenance nightmare to explain and enforce. Sergecross73 msg me 17:25, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

I've argued before it needs to be universal for the PS4/Xbox One and other lists where the digital storefront has minimal inclusion restrictions. This should be considered different from, say, the NES games, as there was a very restrictive hurdle there (physical medium, getting Nintendo's seal of quality, rate limited initially), so there's only a limited/fixed number of titles. --Masem (t) 17:33, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, and while I don't agree with this approach, if its pursued, it should be a large WP:VG discussion, not here. Sergecross73 msg me 18:24, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Which I also support in principal. My only issue with it is the manual labor needed to cull the lists (and then enforce the decision). A bot may be able to target and remove games that only include first-party sources, but it won't be able to tell if they actually have unused third-party sources that they need to be replaced with. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 17:51, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Just as a comment on this, this needs to be an RFC for WT:VG, not just here, to decide on "List of (platform) games" whether we are requiring notable/non-primary sourced games or not. --Masem (t) 18:22, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

For sure. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 18:30, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

This more relates to the large number of games removed than the secondary sourcing rules, but thought I'd add my views. I'm not sure I see the value in this list if it's not complete. Sure, Wikipedia is "not a directory / catalogue" but as others have stated, it needs to be a large WP:VG discussion to determine a consistent approach. Fine to trial it here, but has anyone started a discussion? What happens if there is general disagreement to the approach used here and people are in favour of cataloging games, despite the "not a directory" rule? (Rules can surely be broken/changed.)

Since the change, to the average user (I'm including myself in this), the criteria for inclusion doesn't seem very clear. It seems like "a list of games with Wikipedia articles, that satisfy notability rules, and have sufficient sources to justify inclusion". Frankly that seems a bit bureaucratic and not particularly useful for people visiting the page. What exactly is the purpose of this list?

For clarity, at a minimum I think it would be good to update the text at the top of the page to briefly explain what the list is, as a "list of Switch games" doesn't clarify the criteria. JamminBen (talk) 08:23, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

There's been no change to the inclusion criteria yet. If you mean the large number I removed, that is simply due to lacking both sources and articles, which is required period, to meet WP:V. -- ferret (talk) 14:59, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

So we are not splitting the page then, correct? If so, then I'm just going to create my own list if we're technically all 'volunteers' on Wikipedia. Also, who in the heck invented the not catalogue? Can I just make my own list, hm?Zacharyalejandro (talk) 18:44, 6 October 2018 (UTC)Zacharyalejandro

@Zacharyalejandro: Since you aren't interested in following Wikipedia policies and guidelines, let me make this clear. If you make your own "list", I'll go ahead and block you for disruptive editing and WP:NOTHERE issues. It's been explained to you too many times. -- ferret (talk) 19:09, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Addition of games added overtime

I know I've seen a majority of you (including admins, not saying who, though) not paying much attention to the page and adding games/references to the page, and I approve of continuing to add games, but I'm not going to stay glued to my phone/computer to add any up-to-date things to Wikipedia, but if we could get more contributors to help with this situation, I'm fine with that. But with Nintendo's respected websites getting games regularly, (even on a daily basis) and nobody willing to do it except myself, I'm getting sick and tired of it. It's sort of taking a toll on my health, and for my wellbeing, I'm going to take a few months out of my 'Wiki Time' and focusing on other stuff. I know some of you have other things in life too, but when I come back and take a look that nothing has been added, it will furiate (if that's even a word) me to no end and I start (again) come here and complain. I would like everyone here to please contribute to the page. I'm just trying to help get Wikipedia pages on track here, not ruining them. Thank you. Zacharyalejandro (talk) 04:43, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Firstly, sorry to hear it's taking its toll, but thank you for all that you do here. It does take time to add games and I've mostly been focusing on updating the PAL release dates. The hardest part is that there are so many games coming out, and the time it takes to add a game with an appropriate reference adds up quickly.

I'm torn between knowing the need to include references, vs. the time to add them, and whether references are needed for games that are in the Switch eShop (on the console) or on Nintendo.co.uk/com. Also, wrt page size, do we need to keep references for games that are now released? I think references are more important for upcoming games, but are they needed for games once they come out? It's a slightly different point as it won't really save time when adding games.

Another thing to consider, to keep the list tidy and maybe save a little bit of work, would be to not include games until they have some kind of release date. I'm unclear whether this is supposed to be a comprehensive list of every Switch game that's available to buy along with every upcoming release announcement, including those that are a year or two away - or worse still, are "TBA" in every region. We already know the page is slow to edit (which surely doesn't help with the time it takes to make updates). I think it's worth looking at anything that we could change about what's included on the page. Just my opinion :) JamminBen (talk) 09:33, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a volunteer effort. Many of the people who contribute to this list article, it is just one tiny list of all the things we are doing on Wikipedia. If it stresses you out that we do not spend all of our time dedicated to this one page, you may need to take a break and focus on other things. No one is going to amp up their focus on this list because you are upset we don't add enough games. -- ferret (talk) 13:17, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate the work you do to the article, but no ones asking or requiring you to work on it. If it stresses you out, don’t do it. If you feel motivated later on, feel free to resume. But you have no right to be angry at anyone about what happens to it while you’re gone either. If you come back “infuriated”, your rage will be ignored, and if you make a really big scene, you could get blocked again, considering your past blocks for being disruptive. Sergecross73 msg me 15:19, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

I know that some do not like the idea of only including notable games or games documented by RSes (and not social media), but this is the problem if one is trying to make an exhaustive list of games on a platform that is nearly allows for self-publishing. This is verging on being a catalog, and trying to keep it 100% up to date is nonsensical. We can always acknowledge this as a partial list of Switch games, those that are notable already or covered in sources, and then there's no stress to keep it up to date because it's identified as not wholly inclusive. --Masem (t) 17:16, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

I think you’re misreading the situation here. Zachary has had similar complaints in years past, when the Switch list was much smaller. Pretty sure he had a similar tirade on the list of 3ds games too. He does this every so often - complaining that not enough people are helping him. It’s what he does. Like I said, I appreciate what he does, but I think he ends up doing so much work because of the fact that he obsessed over it so much. He simply adds entries faster than anyone else cares to. If he leaves, the list will keep on growing all the same, it’ll just be people adding games days after they’re announced, insteas of hours after like with Zachary. Which is fine, we don’t have to be that fast. Sergecross73 msg me 17:30, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

I readded some games with the sources from Nintendo.com. Zacharyalejandro (talk) 23:54, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Nintendo.com is, for these purposes, just a store page and thus not appropriate to use for sourcing. --Masem (t) 03:48, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

...Seriously. Then why do you guys always consist on incompletely removing released games when you guys don't cite stuff yourselves? I thought administrators are supposed to monitor that stuff. Quite ridiculous if I say so myself. Zacharyalejandro (talk) 04:21, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

The whole discussion here is if games can only be sourced to Nintendo.com/their publisher's website and lack any real third-party coverage, then they fail WP:N and should probably be omitted from the list entirely. No offense, but do you even pay attention to the talk page here? You make almost no real contributions to active discussions, then randomly post a complaint once something on the list is done differently due to them. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 21:04, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Honestly, no. I really have a hard time remembering things so much that I completely forget everything. I do a tremendous amount of time finding and adding games. When you guys produce an incomplete list, no matter what rule happens to be, then I don't know why the hell I can't make my f***ing game list. What don't you admins get? Zacharyalejandro (talk) 02:39, 5 October 2018 (UTC)Zacharyalejandro

No, it's pretty much you who doesn't "get it". Wikipedia has policies and guidelines that you simply refuse to take in and understand, including editing through consensus and a lack of ownership of articles. -- ferret (talk) 12:07, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, if you aren't willing to make more effort to properly contribute to discussions, then you don't really have the right to complain if they become consensus (as you clearly come back and make posts after them, meaning you acknowledge their existence in some form). Just mass adding non-notable games (defined by the lack of third-party coverage) goes directly against the ideals of WP:N. We've just generally accepted them anyway, but if you go back and look at the state of these game lists over the years, you will see that they used to include tons of unnecessary details that have been cleaned up in recent times to follow more of Wikipedia policies. This is just another potential step in that direction. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 18:19, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Could you provide ANY fucking advice for reliable sources so that I can figure out what to add and what NOT to add. You guys make pages USELESS!!!!!!!! All I ask is that admins need to add sources for games as well. All this is just laziness monitoring and contributions. Zacharyalejandro (talk) 23:31, 5 October 2018 (UTC)Zacharyalejandro

The WP:BURDEN is on you to source your edits. We're not going to do it for you. Most of us are far more active and busy than you, watching and evaluating edits on hundreds, thousands, of articles, reversing vandalism, adding content and sources outside of basic list maintenance, and other admin tasks. Vetted reliable sources for video games can be found at WP:VG/RS. -- ferret (talk) 23:37, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Well let me just say that people are just going to add games with sources whether you admins like it or not. Is that something you guys always seem to keeping reverting games even with sources that are reliable? If so, are we still not getting over the absolute fact that a split needs to be back in place cause of slow process editing? Zacharyalejandro (talk) 03:49, 7 October 2018 (UTC)Zacharyalejandro

I've no idea what you're even talking about. No one has said sourced entries can't be added. The only entries that have been removed were unsourced. The split will happen when technical limits require it. -- ferret (talk) 13:10, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Voting to split the page

Starting this as a new discussion so it's at the bottom of the Talk page.

Is it worth voting to see who's in favour of splitting the page? If so:

Yes to a split. Justification: list has become very slow to edit. It feels like having a split list would be less inconvenient than the slowness experienced when editing the current list.

Suggest we get a few votes cast before going ahead. i.e. don't split it as soon as you read this. How many votes do we need, considering the number of regular editors of the page? Say 5? JamminBen (talk) 08:21, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

We don't generally "vote to a certain number" or anything like that, we just work towards getting a rough consensus. Than being said, I'm a Yes to split. Lists are fine to split when they get very large, most of the counter-arguments have just been people complaining "I want all games together on one list", which isn't particularly necessary or encyclopedic rationale, its just a personal preference of a few passerbys. There's basically no real obligation to keep it on one page at all. And as mentioned, it being huge makes it unwieldly/difficult/slow to edit and maintain. Sergecross73 msg me 12:31, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

The one argument against the last split I performed was essentially that (Barring an actual technical limitation such as template limitations), editor comfort is not a consideration against reader comfort. I find that I really can't mount a defense against that. There are dozens and dozens of readers who see one list against the handful of us who are impacted by the list's slowness to edit. I'm neutral on this. I simply won't perform the split myself unless we've actually hit the technical limit or there is a clear obvious consensus to do so. Been burned already. -- ferret (talk) 13:47, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I personally think that there should be a split if not soon. Cause, regarding Nintendo shifting its primary focus on the Switch, and at this rate games keep growing at a fairly high pace, I would assume we would reach the limit at 3000 games, if this keeps up. Just my thought. But what if it would happen, would we need a split then? I see a few weblinks from Facebook, which I believe should be updated with new information and a reliable source than that. Zacharyalejandro (talk) 14:46, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Agree with ferret. I'm neutral on this and wouldn't oppose consensus for splitting it again, but readability should be preferred over editability, as the list is only really edited by a group of five or so people, while being viewed by 100s/1000s. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 00:46, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

...Is splitting a list in 2 such a burden on readability though? Sergecross73 msg me 00:58, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

According to the original consensus that brought it back to a single page, yes. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 01:06, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, sure, but that was just random passerby editors whining that they could not see all the games on one loaded screen all on one page at once. That’s not particularly anything Wikipedia tends to prioritize historically. Sergecross73 msg me 01:54, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

That's true. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 05:01, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

• The optimal way of a split would be to have 2+ separate pages, using the includeonly feature, for the actual data, and then on this page to transclude those tables up into one so that we have ease of editing, but the availability of the full table. But as I read back, the issue is between refs, dta and dtba templates, we have too many transclusions. If that is correct, then the way around this is to use "subst", ideally on all firm "dta" that are in the past (since these should not change. "Subst" expands out templates on saving the page, so you lose the ease of the template class in the future but have the result of the template hard-coded, and it is not like dta is going to change. That could also be done for all ref templates (cite web, etc.) I'd not do this for dtba since those are subject to change in the future. This would significantly cut down on transclusion, and so we will not hit any transclusion limit for the combined page. --Masem (t) 14:45, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Won't work. It's the total size of the transcluded data. If you include two large lists, or even 3 or 4, into one page you will hit the limit. Also I did try to substitute citations once with very limited succes. CS1 just isn't built to be subst'd. Someone could try manually doing it though. -- ferret (talk) 18:24, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Hrmm. We are going to have to split soon anyway. We are 1.6M of 2.0M for postexpansion size presently, meaning that while we can add 400-ish more games before we reach it, but at a rate of 10-20 new games each week, that's going to be within a few months. Splitting is unavoidable, and we're going to have to be ready to tell disgruntled readers wanting to see the full list that we simply cant support that through WMF's softwre limits. --Masem (t) 21:10, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm willing to do it with a clear consensus, but won't boldly do it otherwise until we're close to the limit (95%?). It's definitely inevitable, but it was last time too and I got too much heat for planning ahead. We only made it this far by culling out references for blue links, removing cell templates, and other tricks. -- ferret (talk) 21:23, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

I have no problem dealing with disgruntled editors over this. I’ll be here. Sergecross73 msg me 23:04, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

If this includes keeping the continuous amounts of games and not removing them, then I'm all for this. Zacharyalejandro (talk) 01:49, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

There is no way to keep that automatic count of games. --Masem (t) 02:29, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

The automatic counter can work with split pages. -- ferret (talk) 12:03, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Sure, the counter can list the number of pages on the split page, just not the total across those pages if we cannot reassemble them to a full table. --Masem (t) 14:22, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

No, we can actually count all the pages on one. We had it before. -- ferret (talk) 15:01, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

I asked before, but would we continue to have the same practice of omitting sources for wikilinked games following a split? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 18:32, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

In theory, the omission is a violation of WP:V by strictest definition. A blue link is using Wikipedia as a source which fails WP:USERG. I myself disagree with that in general, as I feel it wastes a lot of duplicated effort to source secondary pages that link to primary topics. But WP:V is WP:V. -- ferret (talk) 19:51, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

So re-adding them would be preferred, but probably unlikely to be done due to the work needed? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 19:59, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

I would say that if/when we split, that someone should regularly once a month make sure that all blue linked games that have been released have the needed reference to confirm release date(s). Blue-linked games that are not yet released even if the date is known should wait until we get the source to confirm. This is all assuming that a reference wasn't added when the game was added. --Masem (t) 21:05, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Just pointing out that tonight I'm seeing approx 30+ second load times when saving the current list. I understand not making a split for editor convenience, but when it's this slow to make changes, it gets to the point of not making the changes at all. For now I'm rolling up changes into fewer edits - unsure what others think, but I prefer making small edits to avoid a larger revision being reverted if only one of the changes has an issue. JamminBen (talk) 17:40, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Before the split is done, someone should at least take a moment to remove all black link entries that lack a source (There's a lot), or provide the source. Removing them could improve the list's speed for a little longer, or sourcing them could tip the balance so I can go through with the split. Clean up first, essentially. -- ferret (talk) 21:37, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

I've removed all non-notable unsourced entries from the list. This is a reduction in size of 34KB and 140kb post-expand template limit. See also proposal below for further inclusion restrictions. -- ferret (talk) 16:31, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. Now that you've got that down to zero, I'll try to keep up on maintaining and enforcing it. Sergecross73 msg me 16:49, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Would getting rid of last= first=, reduce the size limit as well? Zacharyalejandro (talk) 02:30, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Author names are essential elements of citations. We can't get rid of those. --Masem (t) 02:40, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I mean, you could, but at that point why bother using the template at all? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 21:22, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

The template can go fine without them. What template cannot go without are |title= and |url=, all else are optional. I think there's policy against leaving reference with bare urls, so I think at least go with this cite template and use the required template parameters should be fine. I'd rather use only limited set of parameters that are actually needed for this type of article like |title=, |url=, |website=, and |accessdate=, everything else are just bloat that ain't good for the template limit. Rukario-sama ^ㅈ^ -(...) 11:11, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

But at this point, why use the template at all? Either it should be properly filled out, or just a bare ref tag. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 18:13, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Accessdate is still relevant. And besides I don't know why the cite should be filled out as much as possible (if that's what you mean) as many are irrelevant to this type of article. Rukario-sama ^ㅈ^ -(...) 21:23, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Fix parse error

Please fix "Expression error: Unexpected < operator" error. Not sure how that edit could have passed.

I would do it myself but I have no idea how. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.162.207.144 (talk) 02:30, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Where are you seeing that error? JamminBen (talk) 10:40, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

It was for the "There are currently N games included in the list" counter, which seems to have been fixed since this post was made. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 17:21, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Concern over the removal of sources

So, I noticed that reliable sources (i.e a review of a game that mentioned its release date) are being removed simply because another Wikipedia page exists for it? Im pretty concerned with that, seeing as I can't seem to find any discussions on the talk page about it. It seems especially odd considering the List of PlayStation 4 games seems to still include it. Excuse me if i'm wrong but shouldn't we cite sources for everything (that isn't blatantly obvious like 1 + 1 = 2)? --TheAwesomeHwyh (talk) 22:05, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Just re-read what I wrote and it seems a little unclear as to my meaning so let me explain a bit more... so say we have a page on "AWESOME GAME BUY IT PLEASE" and it already has another Wikipedia page dedicated to it, someone seems to remove a reliable source to "GOOD FAMOUS MAGAZINE THAT YOU LOVE TO READ THAT REVIEWS STUFF" that had all the info like the games name and release date... it gets removed. That's my concern so sorry if I wasn't clear. --TheAwesomeHwyh (talk) 22:09, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

It's buried in the talk archives. In an effort to avoid having to split this page due to technical limits (Template transclusions), we've allowed sources to be removed for entries that lead to a parent article that contains that information. It's certainly a shakey ground, and may have to be revisited in the near term. -- ferret (talk) 22:24, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Suggestion, for guidelines specific to this list that aren't listed elsewhere on Wikipedia, is it possible to have these listed somewhere? JamminBen (talk) 07:54, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Do we list games with sources that contain online shopping websites? Guides about games releasing this month should not contain links to online shops. @Sergecross73:, @Dissident93:, any thoughts on this? This citation: https://web.archive.org/web/20181012214712/http://www.nintendolife.com/news/2018/10/guide_upcoming_nintendo_switch_games_and_accessories_for_october_and_november/ is acceptable for inclusion, right? Zacharyalejandro (talk) 01:14, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

It's published by a reliable source (Nintendo Life), so this is fine. We just can't link to Amazon or GameStop, because they fail WP:N. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 04:11, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

So does this mean we're ignoring the one source per entry rule as to not clutter the list with a bunch of citations? Zacharyalejandro (talk) 17:08, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Was there ever such a rule? If one source covers NA launch, and another covers JP launch, you'd need both. The only time you'd have a single source is if it covered all regions. -- ferret (talk) 17:36, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Like for example, if all three regions (JP, NA, PAL) receive release dates in the same reference, we should include it? Another example, is that if one reference contains a release date for NA/PAL, and one separate reference for JP, then we use both, correct? Zacharyalejandro (talk) 21:20, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Correct. All three regions need sourced. If 1 source covers all three, great. If not, we'll need to use more than one. -- ferret (talk) 21:23, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I have a suggestion, would you guys be opposed if we made wiki pages for every game on the list and transferring the sources over? Maybe removing the Genres section, cause I see no real need in putting it there when genres are listed in some of the pages themselves. Zacharyalejandro (talk) 01:03, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes. Massively opposed. Articles must pass WP:GNG to be created. Most of these games will never be notable. The genres column also doesn't contribute to the template limits. -- ferret (talk) 01:10, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Forcing the creation of articles for non-notable games for this purpose should be 100% avoided. We already can barely find sources for some of the games included here, so what makes you think they would work as standalone articles? As for the genre column, I don't think I'd oppose removing it in principal, but it would have to be a site-wide policy for all of these similar game lists, which I don't see passing. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 17:19, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

And do we really need to archiving every single source? I think it's a little bit time consuming for me. Suggest to remove? Zacharyalejandro (talk) 21:22, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Given how many old vg websites have gone AWOL, absolutely we need archiving.--Masem (t) 21:26, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Though you don't need to worry about doing it with every edit. Someone will get to it via the IAbot console. -- ferret (talk) 21:42, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Eh, you’ve got to remember the context here too though. We are just documenting basic facts of a game’s existence though. It’s not like we need to worry about losing some juicy development commentary or something. If Eurogamer goes under, it’s not like we’re going to require it’s release date article from the archives. We can just add the equivalent article written by GameSpot, Polygon, NintendoLife, etc. Sergecross73 msg me 21:49, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

That's fine on the standalone, not good for the entries whose only existence is by sources on this list. --Masem (t) 21:58, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Slightly off-topic, but is there any reason why IAbot doesn't work for me anymore? I'll get a page analyzed and it will claim it worked, yet the edit never actually goes live on the page. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 17:11, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't use it. @TheAwesomeHwyh has been though. -- ferret (talk) 17:37, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

@Dissident93 the only reason i'm able to use it is because I try it multiple times. Most of the time it just stops halfway through and wont archive anything; it seems to be a issue with every large page now. TheAwesomeHwyh (talk) 19:36, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Hm, explains why I've been having issues then. Thanks. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:20, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Reference clean-up

Why do we need to include archived information in every single source known to Wikipedia? It's just a bit more time consuming and clutters the list even moreso. And again, if you admins think I'm constantly complaining about things need fixing, say something nice or just don't say anything. Isn't that simple? Zacharyalejandro (talk) 18:38, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Please dont pre-emptively complain about people complaining about you before anyone does it. That’s not going to generate a constructive discussion. The rest of your sentiment is equally puzzling - you yourself do not follow your own “be nice or don’t say anything” rule - you’re constantly complaining about others, and frequently in the wrong about it. Why would you ask others to practice something you don’t follow yourself? Sergecross73 msg me 18:51, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

And in regards to the archiving of links, why do you view this as a bad thing? Weren't you the same one who wanted to remove most of the info the citations because it was "cluttered" too? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:19, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

WP:LINKROT. -- ferret (talk) 22:14, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't see it as time consuming at all, its completely optional and even if one person forgets to archive someone else will do it eventually, sometimes before the link dies, sometimes after. TheAwesomeHwyh (talk) 22:29, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Just a heads up, do we really need to include every genre to every game that exist? This builds up to #notcatalog I believe. Zacharyalejandro (talk) 22:56, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Do we really need this list at all? -- ferret (talk) 22:58, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Well, I don't think so, I mean, we don't have it for the 3DS's list. Not to mention, I would think we wouldn't need it for the other lists, (PlayStation and Xbox lists) as well, but I'll leave that for you guys to decide. I'm all for it for removing it. Maybe it would reduce the size limitations. Zacharyalejandro (talk) 23:08, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm also in agreement that genres could be removed, but for another reason. Some of them (usually for the more obscure games with less coverage) are just editor interpretations of what they think best fits with no source directly backing it up. That being said, I don't feel too strongly about it, but doing so would save around 40,000 bytes. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 05:06, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

The genre column has no affect on the technical template post expand size limit, as no templates are involved in that column. Wikilinks don't contribute to that limit. -- ferret (talk) 12:25, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

I see, but that still doesn't change my opinion on them being mostly unsourced/WP:OR. Other lists do lack this as well, so there is some precedent. But like I said earlier, I don't care too strongly about it. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 18:42, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Date sorting

Just a quick question. Why are we using Template:Dts for date sorting instead of the standard way with "data-sort-type=date" as defined by WP:SORT? ~ Arkhandar ^{(message me)} 15:15, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

@Arkhandar: Dts outputs a formatted date with a correctly-sortable sort key. It's the correct choice here and is used in over 27,000 articles. Note that WP:SORT covers using of Dts. The template's benefit is not having to manually handle and constantly adjust the hidden keys. (Note also WP:SORT is a how-to, which covers manual ways as well as automated ways like DTS. It is not a MOS or guideline) -- ferret (talk) 15:29, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

@Ferret: Thanks for the reply! I know that, but reading the Dts documentation, it seams that "data-sort-type=date" is enough to cover the needs of this list (and most others). Like the documentation says: "Default date sorting does not work for spelled-out month–year or year–month combos and dates before the year 100, but it works in most other circumstances. Furthermore, this template litters the text content of tables, and data-sort-value should generally be preferred." So what problem does the Dts template solve in this article exactly? ~ Arkhandar ^{(message me)} 16:28, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

We don't have solely MDY dates in this table. There are unknowns, unreleased, and also {{Dtba}}, which is capable of formatting sortable partial dates such as "Q1 2018" and so forth. That is, we have spelled-out month-year in the table.-- ferret (talk) 16:31, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

@Ferret: So shouldn't we just use the DTS and DTBA templates for those cases which we don't have an exact MDY date? ~ Arkhandar ^{(message me)} 18:15, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

@Arkhandar: Exactly what problem are you attempting to solve? Dtba does not output valid dates, just valid sort keys. I don't think you can mix MDY and data-sort-type with sort-keys that aren't MDY? -- ferret (talk) 19:56, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

@Ferret: The problem stated in the MOS: "this template litters the text content of tables" and unnecessarily bloats the article's size. That alone should be an enough reason to not use them where we can, particularly in games lists as big as these. ~ Arkhandar ^{(message me)} 20:29, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

@Arkhandar: WP:SORT is not MOS. The template documentation says to make sure you need it, because of its downsides. IMO, if you're sure it'll work with out, then sandbox it, check, and do it. You'll need to make sure Dtba, "Unknown" and "Unreleased" sort correctly. -- ferret (talk) 20:36, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Unreleased vs {Unreleased}

(Edit: The section name should be Unreleased with two curly brackets on each side but it looks erroneous when I had that.) @Masem: Thanks for the heads up, but I am still confused why Unreleased boxes aren't grayed out like in most every other List of Games that I've seen. Refer to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nintendo_Entertainment_System_games, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Super_Nintendo_Entertainment_System_games, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wii_games, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wii_U_games, etc. This looks better in my opinion and to not do it just for Switch games would be inconsistent. What are your thoughts? Thanks. Bchill53 (talk) 18:03, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Basically, the issue is that WP has a limit of how many template expansions can be made on a page. See past discussions, but we have stripped out as many template uses outside dates and references to avoid that limit. While your addition of the Unreleased template doesn't hit the limit, we'd hit it a lot faster than without it. (That is, those other lists are nowhere close to the template limit problem)

It is possible to put in the CSS code for each Unreleased cell to mimic how it is on the other tables. That would only increase page size but not beyond any WP technical limit. --Masem (t) 18:07, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Ah, @Masem:. I believe I see your point. I'm new to editing to Wikipedia, but I'm familiar with coding. I'm picturing Wikipedia templates as an analogy to header files in C or other programming languages that you can include in your main file, is that correct? So you can only include so many in Wikipedia's case it sounds like. Just trying to understand everything. Thanks for any clarification. Bchill53 (talk) 18:17, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

This was all done to avoid splitting the list into two parts, as many people opposed that when it was done a while ago. Somebody else could explain the technical details about this more in depth. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 19:06, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

The analogy to C headers is on point: There is basically a maximum number of template expansions, including templates within templates, that WP's media engine will do when you save the page so it can write into its cache (partially to avoid recursive template loops); once that is exceeded, it will stop trying to parse the rest of the wikitext, leaving that part of the article off. So when we have exceeded it in the past (when we had multiple references for every game) we hit that easily. We have previously determined that the most essential info that is best given by template is one reference for non-blue linked games (those without stand alone articles) , and for the dates so those columns can be easily sorted. --Masem (t) 19:30, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining, @Masem:. That's probably frustrating on your end having to deal with certain limitations from Wikipedia when we're trying to upload the best content we can. Depending on just how many games end up releasing for the Switch over its lifetime, maybe the list will have to go to A-M and N-Z again and I can squeeze in the {Unreleased} then. But in the mean time, I can accept the inconsistency. It's exactly the same as DK Jungle Climber not having a colon. It'd be a nicety but the technical limitation doesn't truly limit the knowledge there. Thanks again, hope to see you around. --Bchill53 (talk) 19:52, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Resident Evil: Revelations Collection

@Zacharyalejandro: If I undid your edit, it was accidental. Are you reverting my edit to RE: Revelations Collection intentionally? If so, that was released as a bundle with the two games. Promotional art showed them separately before the game released but once they hit shelves, they only came together in a bundle as of my knowledge. The bundle should be listed, not the individual games. Let me know your thoughts. Thanks. --Bchill53 (talk) 23:27, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

• Are they produced as individual games and bundled together like that to save production costs, or are they a single game separated into parts? If it's the former, then they should be listed separately, like we list Star Fox Zero and Star Fox Guard. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 23:57, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
  • @Dissident93: Researching up on this, both titles were available to buy separately when bought digitally and it was like Mega Man Legacy Collection where buying the collection had the first game on cartridge and a download code for the second. So I agree breaking them apart is more correct. I'm a stickler for physical (like some voices around here that you've seen haha) so that's the release name I am familiar with, but I prefer how you currently have it for the sake of accuracy. --Bchill53 (talk) 01:36, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Useful list

I found a full list of every single Switch game released so far, probably quite helpful: https://www.perfectly-nintendo.com/nintendo-switch-list-of-all-the-games-available-all-regions. Apparently we're missing about 500 games. L ke (talk) 13:58, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

This is unfortunately not a reliable source and should not be used directly. It might be useful for finding unlisted games but you need to then locate a reliable source to back it. -- ferret (talk) 14:22, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

What about Nintendo's sites hmmm?? I have an inkling (get it? Inkling, from Splatoon haha), that compared to each of the sites across North America, Japan and PAL regions, there's about 500 games listed in each. Again, if Wikipedia articles don't meet the total amount of games from Nintendo's sites, this #notcatalog crap needs to not be in effect. We need to keep adding games, and there's a TON missing, if a reliable source requires it. I don't really care about arguing anymore. I'm still going to keep watch on that. Personal preference, I don't care. If you guys block me, fine, go ahead, see if I care. I'll just keep coming back and doing this until you guys do stuff right, which is not possible. Nintendo Life posted something about there being more than 1,800 games on the market. Wanted to point that out.Zacharyalejandro (talk) 00:22, 12 February 2019 (UTC)Zacharyalejandro

I’d like to remind you that you’re close to being blocked for numerous reasons, so you may want to rethink your attitude and approach here. This comment sounds a lot like announcing your attention to edit against consensus and guidelines. Not a good idea. Sergecross73 msg me 00:32, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

He's done this consistently for long time. I won't/can't tell you admins how to do your duties, but I think its time to at least discuss a block. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 05:23, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

@Zacharyalejandro: Please don't get yourself blocked, bud. Your intent is awesome, I know you just want to make sure everything is added and nothing is left out. But remember that Wikipedia is not an attempt to catalogue every game that exists. Like when my uncle says he's a reputable band doesn't mean he should get his own Wikipedia page just because he knows how to play the recorder. I don't think literally every game needs to be recorded in the same sense. If you see it discussed by a secondary source, feel encouraged to add it with the reference. But games that haven't been mentioned anywhere but Nintendo's own site likely aren't noteworthy to the typical Wikipedia reader. I say you should feel free to add as much info as you want, but don't be angry if it gets taken down if it isn't notable content. --Bchill53 (talk) 16:18, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

The problem is he has been told this by multiple users for years and still brings up the same arguments when something does not go his way. Nobody is questioning his good intentions, but rather his attitude and ability to work well with others. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 05:27, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Catching this before it gets too far...

Rumor has it that Xbox Game Pass is coming to Switch. If this is true, we should not include those games in this list since what's on XBGP can vary. On the other hand, native ports that are mentioned are fair game. --Masem (t) 14:31, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. If there’s a Gamepass list, it’s probably something that could be covered there too. Sergecross73 msg me 19:03, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

We should at least mention it in the lead, like we do for Arcade Archives and Sega Ages. The list of games (unless its every XGP game) would be in a separate section on the Xbox Game Pass article or something. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 04:48, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Black screen and not loading when publishing an edit.

Why do I keep getting a black screen when trying to show changes or publish my changes? Is it because the page takes longer to view with how much games are on there, with a ton being added over time? If so, it needs to be addressed and looked at. Anyone have any problems like this? Or is it also because I'm on my phone too much with doing things other then here? Thanks for helping. Zacharyalejandro (talk) 22:42, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Editing problems are inevitable with an article of this size, particularly saving the edits. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:39, 9 March 2019 (UTC)