Talk:The Last of Us (series)

Necessary?

This article seems totally unnecessary to me. The Last of Us is the only current game in this "series"; Left Behind is DLC, Remastered is the same game, and Part II is unreleased (and there is very little existing information). Currently, the article relies on trivial in-universe details (setting, period, main character), and has no references to support the information. All of the information is already sufficiently covered in the article about the first game, so I don't see the point for this. – Rhain ☔ 07:02, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Definitely. In my opinion, a series article should not be made until there are three, distinct games in the series, and the second game hasn't even been released yet. I say just delete the article, no sense in merging since all the info from this article is in The Last of Us article. Famous Hobo (talk) 07:13, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Premature. Get rid of it. --The1337gamer (talk) 07:47, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Agree with the others. The common policy for this is to have three full games before a series article can be seriously considered, and right now, we only have two (and one of them we know next to nothing about). ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 08:04, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Agree, too early to have a page. TheDeviantPro (talk) 09:31, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

• The three full games standard is arbitrary and harmful. Series articles are only needed when necessitated by sourcing, almost always suitably covered in the parent article. Otherwise they will be magnets for original research and fancruft (uncharitably, just as this brief series article was) czar 11:25, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
• Yeah, usually three titles is see as a bare minimum requirement, which this fails. There's no need for it yet. Not to mention, there's so little known about LOU2, if there was a series article, there'd probably be discussion on merging that back into the series article. There's just not enough content known on these releases to support so many articles. The series should be the first to go in this case. Sergecross73 msg me 13:33, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
• For what it's worth, I also agree, and would support any deletion proposal. Time and influence are more important things to consider than the number of titles imo, because that's one of the few things that series article can do better than a well written parent article or list because it can provide a little more context. Scribolt (talk) 14:09, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Bringing it back?

It has been almost a year since the release of TLOU2, and the series has definitely influenced the industry in some capacity. I'm in favor of restoring the series article. --Osh33m (talk) 17:57, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

@Rhain: I want to avoid another edit war. Can we at least discuss whether it is worth bringing it back before shutting it down for good? I disagree that it is premature. The series has had an impression in the industry which makes it worthy to have an article. --Osh33m (talk) 22:33, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Seems like the common consensus above is to wait until there are three, distinct games in the series; The Last of Us has two. I'd argue that the games have influenced the industry, but the series as a whole has not. I fail to see how the series itself meets the threshold of notability (not to mention that this version has an excessive amount of unsourced and trivial information, though that's fixable). – Rhain ☔ 22:34, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

That consensus is from four years ago. Why not reignite the conversation now? @Czar: even said that the reliance of the 3 game rule is harmful. The fact that the games have been influential gives credence to the need of an existence for the series article. What do you find trivial in that version of it? I just added missing pieces and copy/pasted the adaptations section. None of it was OR. You admit it is fixable, and of course I wouldn't leave it as is; I would have asked assistance in filling in more of it. --Osh33m (talk) 22:40, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Sure, the conversation should be reignited now, but wait until a conversation actually occurs before making the change. I don't believe the series is independently notable; any information is about the first game or second game, not the series as a whole. The trivial and unsourced information include information like "described as largely influential" in the lead; "released late into the life cycle of the PlayStation 3", "deuteragonist, Abby", and most of the table (generation, setting, main character, period) in Releases; and, of course, the entire Reception section, though at least that was tagged. When I say "fixable", I mean "removable"—this discussion should be less about the content of your article and more about the necessity of the article itself. – Rhain ☔ 22:51, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Alright, now we're getting somewhere.

• I am working on wikipedia on a restricted amount of time. Just like you I have other responsibilities and don't have the time to fill in all of the blanks. There are articles that exist about the series that make it notable, I just didn't have the time to cite them yet.
• As I said above, the Last of Us definitely has been largely influential. I suppose I should have tagged it with since I didn't have time to cite it yet, I just wanted to get the article going.
• It is a fact that the first game was released late into the Ps3's life cycle. Again, there probably are articles that exist explaining its release time frame as a reason why the remaster came out so quickly, I just didn' thave time to cite it.
• A deuteragonist is essentially the second most important character in a story, which is what a lot of sources will describe Abby as.
• The table wasn't added by me, it was made by the original editor @URunICon:. It came through when reverting the page, I just filled in the blanks.
• The reception section was just empty, I wouldn't say it was trivial. Everything written there can be backed up by sources. --Osh33m (talk) 23:03, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I understand that you have limited time and other responsibilities, but if that's a concern then you should have started the article in draftspace and built it up first; there's no time limit on Wikipedia, so there's no need to rush.

• "there probably are articles that exist" is not a good reason to include information; as far as I'm aware, no such information exists, and certainly not on the Wikipedia article.
• Words like "deuteragonist" should be avoided, no matter how many sources apparently describe her as "the second most important character".
• I understand that you didn't create the table, but that doesn't mean it couldn't have been changed.
• I meant that the reception section was unsourced, not trivial. As I've said above, there was no reason to create this article so hastily; the sources could have been added before publication.

In any case, this discussion should be about the existence of the article itself, not the content of your version, so this is unnecessary. – Rhain ☔ 23:24, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough, but it seems like we have made up our minds here. We need other editors to come in for consensus. --Osh33m (talk) 00:40, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

• Wait until there are three distinct entries. As is, anything can currently be relegated to the first or second game's articles. Sergecross73 msg me 00:47, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
• Agree. It's an undeniably influential series but a series page at the current time largely duplicates stuff from other articles. I don't see a compelling need for a hub page yet. Axem Titanium (talk) 00:56, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
• Two games is not a "series/franchise" as a distinct separate topic. What would be included here that could not be integrated with due weight in either games' article? -- ferret (talk) 00:57, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
• Without any context of this discussion, agree with the above. Games get sequels all the time, and that doesn't make them official series. Is Mario Teaches Typing a series because it has two entries? Panini!^🥪 01:47, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
• Given that we know there's going to be a show on HBO, if anything a "(franchise)" page makes sense once a decent article on the show can be made. But I wouldn't call the VG side a series, yet. --Masem (t) 16:22, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
• Same as before, the idea that three titles in a series then warrants a series article is a heuristic, not a rule. If there are three titles to discuss, then there should be citable source material about the impact/importance of that series. Same as last time, a split is only warranted here when an overabundance of source material exists and does not fit in existing articles. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 18:46, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Thanks for clarifying. Osh misread your prior comments as being more lax than our stances, when in reality, you're probably even more strict than us. Sergecross73 msg me 21:54, 8 May 2021 (UTC)