Talk:List of PlayStation Vita games (A–D)

True Goddess Reincarnation

I changed the title True Goddess Reincarnation into it's japanese name Shin Megami Tensei because it's better known as SMT and there's currently no title in the series named True Goddess Blabla. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.217.157.129 (talk) 11:45, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Jak & Daxter

Who the hell keeps removing Jak and Daxter? It's been announced.

Actually, it hasn't been. I won't delete it (and am not the one doing it) but there has been no such title announced. You should source it if you feel otherwise. Also, don't use the main page to argue. Keep it on the talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.230.191.181 (talk) 06:26, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I took it down. Jak and Daxter has not been announced by High Impact Games and it most definitely wasn't announced by Naughty Dog. Running a search on Google for "A New Legacy Begins" brought up nothing.

What a garbled mess.

Does anyone wanna tackle this monstrosity? 99.246.249.112 (talk) 06:00, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Region free

Isn't the Vita going to be region free? If so, isn't the North America, Europe and Japan cells unnecessary?--81.233.90.31 (talk) 00:06, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's region free, but the different cells are still necessary, given the fact that a vast majority of gamers don't import games, and release dates are still different among regions. Sergecross73 msg me 01:42, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

There's also the problem of language support. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.5.207.205 (talk) 09:02, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone know what "[REGION] only" in the PSTV column exactly means? I thought it's region free, so that doesn't make much sense to me. Besides, do i need to have the game and/or the PSTV in the specific region, or is it just about the used PSN account? (This seems like patronizing / licensing issues to me anyways). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.139.13.131 (talk) 09:06, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Due to Sony's incompetence err I mean the way the PS Vita TV is designed, the device determines compatibility based on a system whitelist, and each different region manages the whitelist differently when adding games from their own region to the list. The PlayStation Vita (that is, the handheld) is region-free when it comes to games, and while theoretically the Vita TV/PS TV uses the same system software, the main difference is that it relies on a system whitelist to determine which games are allowed to run, something that isn't there inside the handheld. However, SCEJ maintains a different set of games to SCEA and SCEE, and in most cases SCEA and SCEE are often negligent in properly updating and maintaining their system whitelist with games from their own region. In other words, even if a game is perfectly compatible with the Vita TV/PS TV (i.e. SCEJ approves the Japanese-region game for the whitelist), if SCEA and SCEE do not add the EU and US version games to the list themselves, the game will not run.

Obviously, I'm not being neutral or fair in my assessment of the situation, but see this as spiteful and frustrated constructive criticism from someone who actually enjoys the Vita platform very much. Many different game developers and publishers have publicly stated that it is SCEA and SCEE who are responsible for adding new titles to the Vita TV/PS TV whitelists, and that often they have no power over the situation (case in point being official Tweets from Xseed Games and Idea Factory International), however if you contact Sony Customer Support, they come up with some excuse blaming the game publishers instead. It's up to you whose side of the story you wish to believe—Sony or the publishers—but keep in mind that more than one publisher has spoken out about this.

Essentially, what this means is:

• Any copy of Final Fantasy X HD will work on any Vita TV/PS TV device, using any PSN account.
• A Japanese copy of Hyperdimension Neptunia Re;Birth 1 will work on any Vita TV/PS TV device, using any PSN account. However, a US or European copy of the same game will not work on any Vita TV/PS TV device using any PSN account. This is because SCEA and SCEE are both negligent in adding the US and EU versions of the game to the system whitelist (SCEE is responsible for EU games; SCEJ will not add the game to the whitelist, as it is purely out of their jurisdiction).
• Any copy of Gravity Rush will not work on any Vita TV/PS TV device. This is because the game is purely unsupported, it is incompatible since it relies on touch and gyro controls.

It's a nonsensical system, but it's pretty much how it works. --benlisquare_T•C•E 09:54, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Star Wars games

Will there also be Star Wars games be released?? 91.113.7.241 (talk) 15:59, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

PS3 Connectivity

What does this refer to? I would like to get rid of the remaining unknowns but I don't even know what I'm looking for. Memory Card is easy, says it on the box. But I don't know how a Vita title is supposed to connect to a PS3 to qualify for a "Yes" in that category. Anyone care to explain? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.230.191.181 (talk) 05:45, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Ultimate Marvel vs. Capcom had a feature that allowed you to use the Vita as a PS3 controller. MLB 2012: The Show allowed you to share save data between Vita and PS3 versions. I'm assuming it means something along those lines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.5.207.205 (talk) 09:03, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Flash Vs. Download

Anyone else think it might be beneficial to differentiate between those titles available via retail flash carts and those available via the PS Store? Maybe a column with the possible entries of Cartridge/Download/Both? TowheadJeff (talk) 20:40, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Fall 2012

Saw this under Europe release date "Fall 2012" Can someone please tell me what Fall is? Never in my life heard that before. Tcla75 (talk) 10:20, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Uhm, Fall comes after Summer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.79.2.203 (talk) 06:53, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Earth Defense Force 2017 Portable (Chikyuu Boueigun 3 Portable)

It has a release date of 27 Set. 2012 because it have enough differences with the game it was based of (Earth Defense Force 2017): new enemies, the inclusion of the PaleWing unit, online multiplayer and possibly more levels. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShiryuOfTheRain (talk • contribs) 01:51, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

oh was that what the other version was? I thought it was something else. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomastaz (talk • contribs) 02:25, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Saint's Row : Enter the Dominatrix for PS Vita ? Source please ?

Tried googling it and nothing seems to show up, is this info legit ?

Cheers,

83.9.140.63 (talk) 20:09, 7 March 2013 (UTC)Inquisitio

"Physical release" column

Please avoid marking this column as a "no" simply because there isn't a western physical release. Games such as Totori+ and Dokuro have physical copy releases in Japan and the rest of Asia. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 18:11, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I wrote a message on your talk page about this about the same time you wrote this. As I said there, please don't change it to say "Yes" either, as that is wrong as well. There's a "yellow" template to be used where we can say which regions are included or not included. Sergecross73 msg me 18:13, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

"Partial" template use

So, I think the "partial" is being over used. Here's how I see it

• We should use it, in cases like "Totori+" where the game is released physically in one region (Japan) but only digitally in another (NA).
• We should not use it in cases like Tales of Hearts R, where it is released physically in Japan, but not released in any English speaking regions at all. That should just be a "Yes" template - the fact that there isn't a date in the region box shows that it wasn't released at all, let alone physically. Otherwise, the chart is going to start be flooded with "partial"s every time a game is only released in one region.

Anyways, I'll probably start cleaning this up unless there's a lot of disagreement on this... Sergecross73 msg me 18:51, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

• Years later and outside of a few editors (who mostly wanted it only because "it's helpful"), there were many more who had issues with listing the availability of physical media on these game lists, per the List of Nintendo Switch games talk page. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 18:20, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Why did you do this to the Nintendo 3DS page as well???? Can you explain more on why you are continuing to mess it up even more? The eShop column should stay because some titles are not released on the eShop and some are exclusively on the eShop. Zacharyalejandro (talk) 19:11, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Did you happen to miss the multiple discussions about this on the Switch game list talk page? To summarize, WP:INDISCRIMINATE was brought up by many, on top of it the entire thing being hard to source (notice how its not even sourced here or on the 3DS page). The only thing preventing them from being removed at the time of discussions was how much manual labor it would have taken, but as the Visual Editor has the option to remove entire columns from tables (something I was previously unaware of, which happened to not work for others who attempted it as well, like Serge) I decided to go ahead and remove them. It doesn't matter if a game is eShop only, that sort of info isn't even always added onto the game's article itself. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 22:11, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, as Dissident says, this has been discussed endlessly at WP:VG and List of Nintendo Switch games, and I had meant to remove it here myself, but it was a ton of manual work to do in the basic editor, and while columns can be removed easily with the visual editor, it kept on crashing on me (probably due to the list's large size.) But yes, there was wide agreement that tracking whether or not there was a physical cartridge was veering into WP:NOTCATALOG territory. We're not a buyers guide. Additionally, while it's occasionally documented by sources, for a substantial number no sourcing exists, and the column was largely unsourced, so there's a massive WP:V issue there too. Sergecross73 msg me 20:17, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

List of games compatible with PlayStation Vita TV

Sony has announced the PS Vita TV at their pre-TGS press conference, which is a variant of the PS Vita full console without a screen which plugs directly into a television; not all Vita games will be compatible with the PS Vita TV, such as those that rely on touchscreen gameplay mechanisms. Sony has compiled an official list of games compatible with the PS Vita TV. Should we create another column within the table which represents PSVTV compatibility? --benlisquare_T•C•E 11:06, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Apps section

I honestly don't think this section is necessary.

• This page is supposed to specifically deal with games, and not act as an indiscriminate repository of information regarding the Vita.
• Many of the app descriptions read like promotional company adverts.
• There are some duplicate entries with the table of games above.
• There are plenty of shovelware applications for the Vita on the Japanese PS store; including them all would create a huge list that is at odds with WP:NOT, but excluding them would negate the purpose of having a list of applications in the first place.
• The list is 100% unverifiable, unsourced, and borderline original research. The applications in question can also be argued to be largely non-notable.

Hence, I have removed the section. Feel free to revert if you seriously disagree, however I do believe that the section was out of place. --benlisquare_T•C•E 05:32, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Reply

• If you think about it, games are apps and apps are games (some anyway), I think that's why there are duplicate entries with the games table.
• If they read like adverts you could easily edit them to read differently.
• A lot of things listed in the games table actually does not have sources so the point about the sources not being posted is not a big issue.
• 100% Unverifiable?...Links below.

A few source links.
http://uk.playstation.com/psvita/apps/
http://us.playstation.com/psvita/apps/
http://uk.ign.com/wikis/ps-vita/Apps
http://www.pocketgamer.co.uk/r/PS+Vita/PlayStation+Vita/feature.asp?c=48522
http://community.us.playstation.com/t5/PlayStation-General/The-List-Of-Free-PS-Vita-Games-PSM-Games-and-Apps/td-p/39561293

The part about the launch titles which you removed, I think you should undo as I did see the list on the Vita page, but that list seems like its only for 1 region, and not really a lunch list if it's going to leave off the original launch titles, unless this is only meant to cover the states, which is why I put the information above the games table, so its clear for the different regions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zer0n9ne (talk • contribs) 08:15, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Consider making a draft table here within this section on the talk page. If you'd like, I can help with general improvements (such as rewording the text to make it more suitable for an encyclopedia). Before, the table consisted of text such as "Augmented reality app, merges the real word with the digital" and "Use it to do your Twitter stuff", which generally isn't appropriate on Wikipedia; usage of second-person pronouns and buzzwords are largely discouraged. The table should, at least largely, be referenced however; even if you can't reference every single one, at least a significant few should have citations. Once the table appears satisfactory, it can be then re-added to the page. How does this sound? --benlisquare_T•C•E 09:07, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok, didn't want to end up writing a paragraph on each app, I will just add back the table in the normal section and make it invisible, and we can make edits to it there, can keep you informed here if you like or in the notes where the table is being edited if you want, when it seems ok we can remove the hide code or whatever it's called.

Also added back the Launch Games info in the above the games table for the reasons stated earlier. - Zer0n9ne (talk) 09:52, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Canceled Games

Why is it important to track canceled games? They do not add anything to the list at all. The focus should be put towards games that are actually "Available" for the system itself, not games that don't exist and will more than likely never exist. This applies to the 3DS list as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.69.97.62 (talk) 03:23, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

@66.69.97.62: Games that were announced, partially developed, then cancelled do add some encyclopedic value if they are notable enough to be mentioned within third-party reliable sources. After all, Wikipedia also has articles such as StarCraft: Ghost which are dedicated to cancelled games. Keep in mind that what one person considers as noteworthy information may be considered not useful by another, however Wikipedia doesn't specifically caters to anyone's specific tastes. The cancelled games list at List of Nintendo 3DS software is there because there is community consensus that coverage of cancelled games is noteworthy enough for inclusion within such pages.

All in all, even if they will never see a proper release, a cancelled Vita game is still a Vita game, and this page is a list of Vita games. The purpose of this page is to document information relating to Vita games, and isn't exactly supposed to be a "buyers' guide" or anything like that to begin with, meaning that it should aim to cover what it needs to cover, rather than being a page that is specifically "useful" to consumers. --benlisquare_T•C•E 03:37, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

If Wikipedia doesn't cater to specific tastes then why did you delete all my work on making the PS Vita list more presentable? According to you Wikipedia doesn't cater to specific tastes and yet you chose to delete my work to cater to people who view wikipedia on mobile. Sorry, but that is glaring contradiction that I have to point out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.69.97.62 (talk) 03:53, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia needs to accommodate for the compatibility of all readers, however; it's a part of the Wikipedia Manual of Style. There are still people using Windows 98, 2000 and XP machines with 1024x768 displays, and they aren't disappearing anytime soon. Having the page accessible for legacy users doesn't detrimentally impact the reader experience for more modern users, however it isn't the case if you switch it the other way around.

Furthermore, there were structural formatting problems with your most recent edits as well: As an example, you made the Genre and Developer columns very large, while the title column was smaller - why should the Genre column take up so much space and form a large proportion of the table, when the text contents at most consist of a few words which would hardly fit the entire column? In addition, the Genre is hardly the most important aspect of a game - the title is - and so due weight needs to be given to the columns based on necessity.

Finally, the PS TV compatibility column needs to meet verifiability standards, hence the citations to SCE Japan and SCE America; "presentability" should not gimp verifiability, a cornerstone Wikipedia policy, in any way. The citations which were removed actually serve a purpose relating to policy. --benlisquare_T•C•E 04:04, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Exclusive? Yes/No column?

All of the other current consoles/handhelds have their exclusivity column, why not PS Vita? --Bronyman87 (talk) 02:33, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Please no, that would just add unnecessary and convoluted clutter to the table. Do you want the page to completely and utterly unreadable and ugly? What other pages does is irrelevant, there is no rule set in stone that all pages must follow the same template. This page should only feature useful and meaningful information, as opposed to the console exclusivity bravado that permeates a small number of other articles. What purpose would such a column have, other than extend console wars circlejerking? Console exclusivity is hardly a pressing issue. The overwhelming majority of similar articles (e.g. List of Super Nintendo games) do not feature exclusivity columns. --benlisquare_T•C•E 19:22, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Vita, PS4 cross-play

An extra column has been added to List of PlayStation 4 games in order to identify games that have cross-platform play between PS Vita and PS4. If knowledgeable editors could help fill-in the blanks, that would be great. — TPX 23:31, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Playstation Plus IGC

I think it might be of benefit to include a column or icon on games that are in the IGC, so people can look back and see the titles they have already, would benefit people who have just purchased a Vita TV to be able to see what of their collection they can download onto the console, and that which they can not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.25.33.186 (talk) 15:10, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't know, I honestly already think the list is too busy/cluttered with columns as it is... Sergecross73 msg me 15:13, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

As a Playstation Plus member (and Vita TV owner), I totally agree. Keenout (talk) 08:20, 5 February 2016 (UTC) Furthermore, we should use the PS4 games template that is much more confortable to read. The width of the date columns is too big on the Vita page! Keenout (talk) 08:34, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, and not a consumer's guide. "It's useful" isn't a really strong reason for PS Plus collection status to be included, since it isn't something crucial to the page, and constitutes feature creep. Wikipedia isn't supposed to cover everything a consumer needs or wants, there are dedicated specialist websites out there which already fill this niche (and if there are not, it is up to someone else to fill that gap, not Wikipedia). --benlisquare_T•C•E 05:07, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Seconded, this is basically the detailed version of my above comment. Sergecross73 msg me 05:10, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Lego Star Wars The Force Awakens

I can't find the official press release but many sites have it and the Vita version is clearly stated. We can see the Vita box at the end of the official trailer on Youtube. And the game is pre-orderable on Amazon.com... Keenout (talk) 08:31, 3 February 2016 (UTC) Same on the official twitter of the game: https://twitter.com/LSWGame — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keenout (talk • contribs) 14:54, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

PSTV compatibility

Since Sony is not updating anymore the compatibility official page, one way to be sure is to test by ourselves. Even the descriptions of the games on the store do not always indicate the information. Nonetheless, Reviews2Go compatibility page seems to be a reliable source (for NA games) --> http://www.reviews2go.com/playstation-tv-compatible-games-north-america/ Keenout (talk) 08:13, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Unreleased games table?

Hello. I was hoping if we could get a template for the game's that weren't released for the platform. There are probably some games that have a release date on its wiki page that wasn't put in with the game on the list. But overall, could we add a table for the number of games that are labeled 'Unreleased'? And this goes for the M to Z list as well. Zacharyalejandro (talk) 16:34, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of PlayStation Vita games (A–L). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6FkryLhJf?url=http://www.gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2013/04/09/may-cover-revealed-batman-arkham-origins.aspx to http://www.gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2013/04/09/may-cover-revealed-batman-arkham-origins.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:43, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Non-existent physical versions

Some games are listed as having physical versions in regions where they weren't ever released physically. It can be hard enough to find a source explicitly stating this for a relatively well-known game, but it's proving near impossible in the case of International Snooker, a more obscure game. Searching for pictures of the physical cartridge or box on Google turns up no results whatsoever; searching for it on eBay and other marketplaces also yields no results. It's very clear this game was never released physically, but, since I can't find an explicit source, my edits keep being reverted. What can be done about this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.246.86.206 (talk) 23:30, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of PlayStation Vita games (A–L). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170220011400/http://senpaigamer.com/ratalaika-games-plans-for-spring-and-summer-vita-version-plantera-and-more-18022017 to http://senpaigamer.com/ratalaika-games-plans-for-spring-and-summer-vita-version-plantera-and-more-18022017
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://store.playstation.com/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170312045649/http://senpaigamer.com/ps-vita-version-karumaruka-%EF%BC%8A-circle-release-on-june-29-in-japan-09032017 to http://senpaigamer.com/ps-vita-version-karumaruka-%EF%BC%8A-circle-release-on-june-29-in-japan-09032017

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:26, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Removal of physical versions column

Why did they removed it? I used to access this article quite a lot only to see if there were physical versions versions of the games i wanted to buy, since the memory card is limited. In fact, i only made an wikipedia account to complain about this. HSARG (talk) 01:11, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't know but now this list is very bad and useles, if we can't know which game got a physical release or not... MrSushi95 (talk) 18:40, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

• It was removed due to being unsourced, as well as violating WP:IINFO. This info was almost never even mentioned on the game's article, so why would it be mentioned here? If this is such a huge issue for people, you can always view the older revision via the edit history and/or start your own list elsewhere. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 21:14, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Unsourced is something that can easily be fixed, and I don't see how its in violation. Nearly every game release on the vita mentions physical or digital release, so it is mentioned in game articles. If it such a huge issue then clearly it was being used here and doesn't need to be removed.

@Dissident93:, is it OK if I create separate lists for physical games (like the PS4 list)? Sillent DX (talk) 09:53, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

+1 With Sillent DX, i'm near totally retired from editing Wikipedia but this article is one of the few i'm still watching. The point of sourcing such separate list won't be much an issue as in Japan near only publishers website explicitly tell the price of the physical version & the one of the digital edition as their prices differ and for the West the PS Vita community put pressure on publishers for physical release that they have to explicitly tell if there is going to be a physical release. Now about why "knowing what exists in physical format is important" in details this matter the most to anyone collecting physical PS Vita games and in macroscopic view this matter to anyone studying how dematerialized gaming affect or not the PS Vita you can do statistic per regions, genre, release year etc. Thanks for reading the comment of an old timer of Wikipedia. --KrebMarkt (talk) 15:07, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

• No, because the same issues of it being unsourced (you say it easy, then why hasn't it been sourced in the past?) and "it's helpful, therefore it needs to be allowed" (WP:ILIKEIT, WP:IINFO) pop up. If you want to see the larger discussion of why these fields are being removed, check here and here. If you want to bring up this issue (again), then start a discussion on WT:VG. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:13, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Why is this list splintered into ten sections?

Why? It's not the case for other games (like the NES). Splitting up the table like this severely reduces usability, as it's not possible to sort all games by release date etc. And why so many sections? 0-9, A-D etc. Cortador (talk) 07:33, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree. There is no need to have more than three sections. I suggest 0-9 - H, I - R, S - Z NPI WOL (talk) 13:01, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Proposal to combine lists into a single list.

According to WP:Splitting the guidelines of when to split "[...] apply less strongly to list articles, especially if splitting them would require breaking up a sortable table."

The current definitely breaks a sortable table, it's not possible to sort by release date, genre, etc.

I know it's not of particular importance that this be combined, but I don't particularly see why it *shouldn't* be either, considering the list of SNES games has 6 more entries and manages to be on one page just fine.

I will start working on a draft, but as an inexperienced editor, I am willing to listen if someone has a good reason this shouldn't be done. It'll probably take me a while to figure out standards to follow and how to properly merge pages so links redirect and whatnot.

Seeking input. CaidenBlock (talk) 14:29, 20 November 2024 (UTC)