Talk:Project X (series)

Original research/notability concerns

Can anyone provide a single source defining the "Project X" games collectively as an actual series? I've never seemed it defined that way, and Wikipedia shouldn't be the only place coming to that conclusion... Sergecross73 msg me 02:27, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

The link is provided right in the opening section. I've linked it here as well stating that Namco X Capcom is a followup to Project X Zone but isn't titled as so because it is thought of as a "dream crossover" bringing much more than just Namco and Capcom characters. Osh33m (talk) 14:02, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

That source calls it "an all new title" and another crossover game. My concerns remain - no one collectively names these 3 games as the "Project X series". This appears to be a name you made up. Beyond that, even if it was established as a series, there's very little present beyond these character lists and a few sentences that are almost the same as what established in the respective individual game articles. Best case scenario, this is half-baked and should be a WP:DRAFT until there's more content. Sergecross73 msg me 14:52, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

It also essentially names it a followup. I mean, isn't that the definition of "series"? First there was Project X Zone, and then Project X Zone 2. The second game in a series, but the third in a series of crossovers that started with a game called Namco X Capcom. Osh33m (talk) 15:07, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I've notified WP:VG for more input in the matter. Sergecross73 msg me 15:22, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Can you link the discussion please? Osh33m (talk) 18:28, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

It's here, but asked them to comment here. Sergecross73 msg me 18:34, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I added another source that refers to Project X Zone as a followup to Namco X Capcom. The term "pseudo-sequel" was used. Let's discuss it more ourselves while waiting for others to arrive. There are original characters who debuted in Namco X Capcom, that were also featured in Project X Zone and Zone 2. Doesn't that signify that they're a part of the same series? Osh33m (talk) 18:40, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

My problem is no ones refers to the series as the "Project X series". Not Namco, not other sources. It's original research for Wikipedia to coin this term. Sergecross73 msg me 19:03, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I understand that but think about the definition of "series" to yourself for a second and then decide for yourself if these 3 games fits that bill. Are these games literally a series, or not? Osh33m (talk) 19:05, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

If they don't even have a name? No, not really... Sergecross73 msg me 19:19, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Rocket League is a sequel to Supersonic Acrobatic Rocket Powered Battle Cars. Different name but same series. The same can pretty much be said about Project X. Osh33m (talk) 19:25, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

And is there a series article for that? Sergecross73 msg me 19:28, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

No, but there wasn't one for the Souls games and there wasn't one for the Valkyria franchise, both of which I was responsible for. I decided to create one for Project X, and I've been considering creating one for Rocket League too. Osh33m (talk) 19:38, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Definitely wouldn't recommend the Rocket League one. There's a consensus that two titles isn't enough for a series article, since just about every bit of information could just be put on one article or the other. 3 is the bare minimum, and even then... Sergecross73 msg me 19:44, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Well now we're just veering off topic but if you want to do that, why does one exist for the red dead series then? Osh33m (talk) 19:49, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not real familiar with the Red Dead games, but I'm seeing three titles present, all clearly with "Red Dead" in the title. That different from this article and Rocket League. What are you getting at? Sergecross73 msg me 21:47, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

So Namco x Capcom is here because Tsukanaka mentioned Namco and Capcom worked on a collaboration before? That's it? It seems like that article is what Metro is referring to as well. Just specifically going on those sources, at best Project X Zone is a spiritual successor. I wouldn't keep "Project X (series)" until we have something explicitly calling it that. « Ryūkotsusei » 21:35, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Precisely. If no one else is defining it as this series title, neither should we at Wikipedia. Sergecross73 msg me 21:47, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Take into account that there are original characters that appear in Namco X Capcom that also appear in Project X Zone, and so forth. Moreover that the gameplay styles are consistent going from the first game to the next. Lastly, even if, at best it is referred to as a "spiritual successor" that is what red dead redemption is called in relation to red dead revolver, and a series article exists on wikipedia for it. Osh33m (talk) 23:15, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

• (1) Where is the textual evidence that our reliable sources treat this as series? (2) Unless the sources additionally treat the series as an independently notable concept, this series should be covered as a section (merged) in one of the developer articles or related lists. czar 23:33, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Okay, maybe naming the article Project X (series) wasn't proper. Would it be acceptable to move it to Project X Zone (series)? I think it should be fair to count Namco X Capcom as the predecessor for reasons I already stated...the gameplay is consistent, it is referenced by two sources in the article, and there are original characters that debuted in Namco X Capcom that reappeared in the Project X Zone games. Osh33m (talk) 23:45, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

That wouldn't address anyone's concerns... Sergecross73 msg me 00:06, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Why not? Are you saying what I stated is wrong? What issue do you have with my proposal? Osh33m (talk) 00:11, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Neither name or neither sources cover the 3 games as a series. Sergecross73 msg me 00:25, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

To break it down further for you: You need a source that literally states "Namco X Capcom, Project X Zone, and Project X Zone 2 make up the ______ series". You don't have that with either name. Or any name. That's the issue. Sergecross73 msg me 00:28, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't see why that is necessary. These 3 games fit the bill for the definition of "series". It seems as though you've ignored my explanation of it before, so I'll keep doing it until you get it.

• The gameplay and presentation of Namco X Capcom is consistent with Project X Zone, which would make Project X Zone befitting as a title for "successor" to Namco X Capcom.
• Even though this is a series of crossovers, there are original characters that were specifically created to appear in Namco X Capcom that also appear in Project X Zone and Project X Zone 2, exclusively in that order - keep in mind that the developer is the same as well, so this also befits calling Project X Zone a successor to Namco X Capcom.
• At least two sources present in the article refer in some sort of semantic regard, that Project X Zone is a continuation of what Namco X Capcom was. Whether it be a pseudo-sequel, a re-representation or collaboration between Bandai Namco and Capcom (as well as other companies later) which suggests some sort of connection between the two.

Keeping these bits of information in mind, frankly it is nonsensical to not recognize that these games have a connection. If there is a definition of this connection, it is that they are a series of video games. And the purpose that this wikipedia article serves, is to provide comprehensive information on that connection. Just like the Souls series, and just like the Valkyria series, two video game series articles that I was also responsible for that have had iterations for 5 years that didn't have their own articles. If you want to know what I think, I think wikipedia's guidelines and definition of original research are flawed. Osh33m (talk) 00:45, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Your reasoning is WP:OR, and in order to get around that, you'd need to get a consensus to change what OR is first. You can just disregard the current definition because you don't like it. Sergecross73 msg me 00:49, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

My reasoning is not WP:OR. This is getting redundant but because I'm patient I'll do it again.

• It is not original research that the gameplay and presentation of Project X Zone are consistent with Namco X Capcom, that is a fact.
• It is not original research that there are original characters in Namco X Capcom that are also present in the Project X Zone games. That is a fact.
• Two sources refer in some sort of semantic regard that Project X Zone is a followup to Namco X Zone. That is a fact, but are you gonna say those sources are presenting their own original researches as well?

In order to be progressive with this thought process you need to ask yourself if these games fits the bill for the literal definition of series. Osh33m (talk) 01:04, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Like I said, you need a reliable source directly defining the name of this "series", or there's no way you're going to get a consensus in your support. It's that simple. This is not a casual argument among friends or a message board argument, it's Wikipedia, with defined policies and guidelines. Sergecross73 msg me

I didn't say anything about this being casual. I'm taking this quite seriously. And yet, you're ignoring everything that I say. Osh33m (talk) 01:13, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

It's because nothing you're saying addresses the core problem here. Sergecross73 msg me 01:18, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Then maybe the core problem is wikipedia. I believe in what it stands for and the purpose it is supposed to serve, and that's why I created this article. If you understand me then you should understand what I did it, too. Osh33m (talk) 01:20, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Again, if you have issue with policy, you need to change that first. We go by current policy. Sergecross73 msg me 01:43, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

That's never going to work and you know it. It's my word against everyone else's. Osh33m (talk) 02:02, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Then you need to reconcile your stance with current policy. Sergecross73 msg me 02:37, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Like I said, that is pointless and you know it. It is my word against everyone else's. Osh33m (talk) 22:58, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but the "changes" to current policy you seem to want are unfeasible and won't happen. Wikipedia guidelines exist for a reason. We already have a large problem with agenda-driven, biased, and tendentious editors on the project, and allowing original research (as you seem to be suggesting) would make the problem far, FAR worse. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 11:16, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

• I concur with Sergecross73 and Czar. There still hasn't been any reliable sources posted here that confirm Project X is indeed a series, and I'm having trouble finding any myself. Original research is explicitly forbidden as it is inherently subjective and your views on how it is a "series" may (or, in this case, is) different from the views of others and the community. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for you to push an agenda or to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, we document neutrally what sources say and that is it. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 11:16, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
• Should this page be redirected or deleted? czar 18:04, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

• I had it redirected a few days ago - last week when I started up discussions, no one answered for a few days, so I just went ahead and did it. I'm fine just re-applying that - I feel like it's a viable search considering there are two Project X games, and if another one or two were ever made, and sources start talking more about strictly those being a series, maybe a series article could be warranted. We've got a pretty good consensus here on that now, so I feel like we could do that just about whenever... Sergecross73 msg me 19:20, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

And what of the rest of the information I've provided here? All of that counts for nothing? This is ridiculous to say the least. No, there isn't a consensus but obviously wikipedia's flawed method is the one to have its way. Osh33m (talk) 12:25, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

You haven't had anyone side with you (while there's 4 against), and even you concede that your stance isn't based on policy. When you have neither consensus nor policy on your side, no, things don't usually go in that direction. (And there's still the fact that this article is composed about about 50% empty sections, and 50% character list information that is already found in the respective articles, so virtually no actual content is lost in the redirect.) Sergecross73 msg me 12:30, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I also haven't had anyone acknowledge the information and data that I have provided in this conversation numerous times. It's been ignored despite me bringing them up again, and again, and again. The fact this article is half empty is irrelevant. My Valkyria article is still half empty too, but no one questions its legitimacy. Osh33m (talk) 13:55, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

You can write up any number of theories about how you observe how gameplay or characters or whatever are similar, and according to you, that makes it a series, but if you don't have a reliable source defining the subject of an article, that's violating a major foundation of Wikipedia. Your theories have been addressed - addressed as being not a valid approach to arguing your point. It can't be a series according to you. It needs to be a series according to sources. It goes back to what I was saying prior in the conversation - your stance could maybe win an argument over at Gamefaqs, or a casual conversation with friends...but its not valid in the context of Wikipedia. And yes, the small size of content is very relevant to redirect/merge discussions. Small size/lack of content is frequently and correctly cited as a reason to redirect/merge articles. And much like your Red Dead example, the reason the incomplete Valkyria series article hasn't been challenged is because its a series of 4 titles, with similar naming conventions, and sources that define it as a series. Again, not the same. Sergecross73 msg me 14:11, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I didn't write up theories, I wrote up facts. If you refuse to acknowledge them as facts that is a problem for me and one I'll have to just have to deal with. There's simply no convincing you what is very obviously true. Osh33m (talk) 22:04, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

The problem is that you stated a bunch of facts...and then synthesized all those ideas together to make a new point (that all those facts put together means that they're a series). That's a WP:SYNTH violation - that's WP:OR. I don't know anymore ways to break this down for you. Judging by your talk page, you've been notified of this sort of things lots of time...do you really not understand Wikipedia's original research policy? Sergecross73 msg me 00:14, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

No, the problem is wikipedia's policy and its unchallengeable status amongst editors like yourself. Judging by my talk page, I've been notified about things like this (because I didn't agree then, and I don't agree now) but I have also made solid contributions to wikipedia as well. I guess that means nothing as long as there are people disagreeing with you here. Osh33m (talk) 12:24, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Either you follow the rules, or you get consensus to change them. If people don't notice you not following the rules, it can't be helped, but in situations like this, when you're caught, then no, you really have no path forward. Sergecross73 msg me 12:30, 25 March 2016 (UTC)