Talk:Colony Wars

Merge

I'd like to see this merged into Colony Wars (series), or vice versa. No sense having 2 topics for the same thing. Haoie 06:03, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Requested move 10 October 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Colony Wars (series) will be moved instead. (non-admin closure) © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 01:48, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

---

Colony Wars (video game) → Colony Wars – Colony Wars (series) was merged to this page so this is now the only article that is titled "Colony Wars". Colony Wars was an unnecessary disambiguation page that listed this page and the 2 sequels. It too is redirected to this page. Mika1h (talk) 22:23, 10 October 2016 (UTC) --Relisting. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:59, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose, and turn Colony Wars into a WP:CONCEPTDAB covering the series. A cursory look at Google Books shows plenty of good sources for the franchise.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:20, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I support Steel1943's proposal below to move Colony Wars (series) to the base name Colony Wars.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:23, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose and revert this merge. Video game series subjects should usually not be merged into an article about only one game in the series. In fact, since that merge was performed WP:BOLDly, I may enforce WP:BRD on that and allow anyone else to initiate the "D" in "BRD". Steel1943 (talk) 14:10, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

• Counter-proposal: Now that I reverted the merge, I counter-propose that Colony Wars (series) be moved to Colony Wars per WP:NCVG and per Cuchullain's comment about turning Colony Wars into a WP:CONCEPTDAB; a series article would be a great starting point to make such changes. Steel1943 (talk) 14:17, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 21 January 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move. Still stuck in the same place after a week of relisting. (non-admin closure) Dicklyon (talk) 05:38, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

---

• Colony Wars (video game) → Colony Wars
• Colony Wars → Colony Wars (series)

– Per WP:NCVGDAB: "The series page should reside at the primary name if the series possesses a minimum of 3 video game articles as well as at least one other unrelated video game or related media item. Otherwise, the first game in the series should occupy the primary name, and the series article should be disambiguated with "... (series)". There are only the three video games in the series and no other media articles, so the the first game should be the primary term. Mika1h (talk) 18:11, 21 January 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. JudgeRM (talk to me) 20:40, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

• I'm torn, really - Colony Wars (series) is a total mess and might need some cleanup. The argument about first video game as primary may have some benefits. However, the article about the first VG of the same name also has sourcing issues. No further comment about the proposal other than I'm won't object the bold change. Again, how would the page changes solve the maintenance issues? --George Ho (talk) 07:57, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Per Czar, support the switch. If that happens, merger shall be discussed afterwards. --George Ho (talk) 05:05, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

• Why is there a separate series article at all? If there isn't sourcing for a split, it should be covered as a section within the first game's article ("Legacy").  czar 20:25, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree with @Czar, there is no need for a "series" article. There are three entries in the series and the series' article just rehashes the articles. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 12:39, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

See the section above this one: I merged the series article to this article but it was reverted. --Mika1h (talk) 12:41, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. The nom is correct that WP:NCVGDAB does indicate that series should have an "unrelated video game or related media item", but this idiosyncratic rule is totally out of step with the wider WP:DAB, WP:BROADCONCEPT and WP:DABCONCEPT guidelines (and common sense). This needs to be changed. We shouldn't be asking whether something checks off the right number of boxes, but rather what serves readers. In this case there's little evidence that the original Colony Wars is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC over the series - when including the sequels, whose titles are only distinguished by subtitles, it receives only a fraction of the views.[1] In such cases, placing disambiguation at the base name is standard, and a WP:CONCEPTDAB page seems like the best solution. It's time to start a discussion at WP:NCVGDAB to get the guideline in step with standard practice.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:20, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

When a dedicated article or section already exists as an overview, a concept dab would be redundant czar 08:19, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

That's true, depending on how detailed the "overview" section is. But there's no such section for an overview now. Looking at sources the last time, there seemed to be enough for either an article or a section. It seems the better solution will be to cleanup either or both the franchise article and the legacy section at the first game's article and go from there.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:44, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

• Relisting comment: I've decided to relist this since 1) this move has been discussed in the past before, and 2) there doesn't appear to be a consensus as of yet. If there is still no consensus after one week, then I will close this as such (but I do hope a consensus is reached, so we're not back here in a couple months). JudgeRM (talk to me) 20:40, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Colony Wars. 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/20101127182239/http://www.ugo.com/games/colony-wars to http://www.ugo.com/games/colony-wars

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 20:47, 11 January 2018 (UTC)