This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Maryland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. stateofMaryland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MarylandWikipedia:WikiProject MarylandTemplate:WikiProject MarylandMaryland articles
I don't see how it's any different. The main logo for the profile is the same as here. The banner is the same, just colors reversed. -- ferret (talk) 16:35, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
aside from the colors,it also lists Maryland and Montreal,meaning logo applies to both studios/offices.Although i guess we should wait if Montreal gets their own logo.Timur9008 (talk) 20:49,August 29, 2016 (UTC)
That's not their logo, it's just a banner. Note that Linkedin is used for recruiting purposes so they're putting the cities up front and easily visible. The "profile avatar" is the same logo we have. -- ferret (talk) 18:07, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clearing that up,i was confused there.Timur9008 (talk) 21:17,August 29, 2016 (UTC)
I'm just gonna take this issue to the talk page. I really think it sends the wrong message to format franchise duration as "(1998-2018)" for example, when the franchise hasn't yet ended. I'm certain the reaction of most readers won't be that there's a new video game coming if it says "present" rather than the year of most recent release; Just that Bethesda is still holding on to these franchises and supporting them. You don't see the articles for TV shows saying "2010 to 2018" just because the next season hasn't come out yet; We know it's gonna keep going because it hasn't been cancelled. It might honestly be worth it just to remove those years in parentheses altogether, as it doesn't add much to the article, and most other video game developers' articles don't bother with this kind of thing at all. BruzerFox10:46, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
BruzerFox, TV shows cannot be compared well here, as many reliable sources point out that the series will continue production. For video game series it is a different story. Game series are hardly ever officially cancelled (12 years on and we are still waiting for Bully 2, Grand Theft Auto V has been five years ago, and Redneck Rampage hasn't released since the 90s although the developer and the publisher both still exist in some form), so saying something will come out because that is highly likely constitutes original research and is not verifyable. Lordtobi (✉) 11:02, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair. I see your point. What do you think about removing the years entirely, though? You've helped convince me that displaying the lifespan of a series like this doesn't matter at all. BruzerFox13:00, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
BruzerFox, in the infobox, maybe (neither opposed nor strongly supporting). Howver, on the main BethSoft article I feel as though the Games section would look rather empty and make the decade separation look weird and purposeless. Can you think of a compromise? Lordtobi (✉) 13:07, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This article was forked off TOOSOON; beyond a far-off release date, next to nothing is known about the game. Much of the article has little to do with the game's development itself, but instead details very broad context for the new IP dating back to the 90s. Nothing substantive here to hang an entire article off. The development of a game needs to meet the GNG for it to have its own page; we are not at that point yet. Article should be split off again when we have concrete information about gameplay and game design. — CR4ZE(T • C)03:38, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's an upcoming game from big studio, it will be notable either way. And this article would be updated when more info will be revealed by developers. Artem.G (talk) 05:37, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merger This one is a bit of a waste of time. This game is far too high profile and more than enough sourcing exists, even if not used yet. We're talking a year and some change till release, not "5 years" or anything. The game was announced a few years ago, and we held off on creating it, only doing so as new details emerged this year along with the release date and platform announcement. Masem does not mainspace articles without due consideration. -- ferret (talk) 13:21, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The game is a big production from a notable studio, less than 1 year and half from launch and considering this the coverage by sources looks pretty substantial. Expect more to come in the next months, with highlights during events like Keighley's The Game Awards, probably. At this point, we can definitely keep it. Lone Internaut (talk) 03:59, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per Ferret's comment. Timur9008 (talk) 09:51, July 9, 2021 (UTC)
Keep: Prior to E3, I would have been in favor of merging. However, we have enough information and notability that, to me, it is beyond question that this needs its own page now. BOTTO (T•C)18:54, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
