Talk:TimeSplitters (video game)

Expand

This article needs to be expanded. Focus this article on the first game in the series, not the series as a whole. BishopTutu 21:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Wrong Media Type

I own the game, and it is on CD-ROM, not DVD —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.133.195.90 (talk) 08:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Reviews

I just put a headline about its reviews, please don't delete it. TK(film) (talk) 20:59, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Help improve our long-awaited Wikiproject!

Please join our project to upgrade this article to featured status.

Optical disc media

From the comment above, the game was released in a CD-ROM format, but not in a DVD-ROM. The bottom of the NTSC and PAL back covers of the game has the Compact Disc (CD) logo on them. Please take a closer look at the logo before changing the media type next time please. Hounder4 (Talk) 00:51, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:TimeSplitters (series) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 02:01, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 7 December 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: Procedural close with no moves performed. The move discussion at Talk:TimeSplitters (series)#Requested move 04 November 2016 has been relisted, and that discussion affects at least one of the pages listed below. So, closing his discussion to avoid fragmented discussions at two different talk pages. Also, pinging George Ho so that they notice this close. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 22:32, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

---

• TimeSplitters → TimeSplitters (video game)
• TimeSplitters (disambiguation) → TimeSplitters

– Statistics say that the first video game has more hits than the series. However, the numbers might have been inflated and may include those not wanting to read the whole article. Also, the statistics of this year may be the same as those of last year. An attempt to make the video game series the broad-concept article in the previous RM failed mainly because of statistics; maybe Time Splitters (professional wrestling)(?), which is not much of a challenger as its view hits are the lowest of three; and the possible ambiguity of the name. I created a dabpage, just in case. I propose that the dabpage take over the base name. George Ho (talk) 04:38, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Oppose per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. --The1337gamer (talk) 08:01, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

Can you elaborate what you mean, The1337gamer, rather than just cite the guideline? The guideline says that we, not the tools, historical factor, or anything else, decide the primacy of the name, though we use factors and tools as our influences. Also, if the video game is disambiguated, the number hits would go down. --George Ho (talk) 09:41, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Traffic statistics ([1]), Google search ([2]), Google book search ([3]) and Google news search ([4]) indicate that either the series article or the first game is the primary topic, the wrestling team certainly is not. If somebody searches "TimeSplitters" on Wikipedia, then they are very likely looking for the game or the series article. I don't think the DAB page should take the base name because 2 of the 3 pages on it are very closely related. The series is derived from the original game and there is only one other distinct page (the wrestling team) that the name could refer to. I don't think the DAB page is needed at all. Putting a hatnote on this article seems to be sufficient. --The1337gamer (talk) 18:20, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

The result in the previous RM was "no consensus", 1337gamer, meaning the series is not the primary topic by default. But choose whichever is the primary topic. Using the "or" (not the WP:OR) argument or arguing that searchers are searching for either one or both would imply no primary topic (or "broad concept"). --George Ho (talk) 18:30, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Being unable to determine whether the series or the first game is the primary topic applies to almost every video game series that shares its name with the first game. That's why #6 at WP:NCVGDAB exists. And per #6, the series shouldn't take the base name because it does not have "at least one other unrelated video game or related media item". Hence, I oppose the move. --The1337gamer (talk) 18:43, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the video game argument, aren't home console games that popular nowadays? The series hasn't had one handheld video game as of now. With the Nintendo Switch coming up, aren't we pleasing the video gamers (general and hardcore) instead of other non-gamers, on whom we should focus? George Ho (talk) 19:33, 7 December 2016 (UTC); (see below) 19:36, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Scratch that, maybe general gamers are not the "specialists" whom we refer to. George Ho (talk) 19:36, 7 December 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 15 February 2018

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: moved unanimously. Aervanath (talk) 14:40, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

---

• TimeSplitters → TimeSplitters (video game)
• TimeSplitters (series) → TimeSplitters

– The first game in this series is not the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of the name. Despite being at the base name, it receives barely more page views than TimeSplitters (series).[5] The second game, TimeSplitters 2, was much more high profile than the original, being released on several different consoles and making several times the sales.[6] BROADCONCEPT and the current wording at the video game naming conventions suggest it would make the most sense to move the series article that covers all the related topics to the base name. Cúchullain ^t/c 16:30, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

• Has anything changed since the Talk:TimeSplitters (series)#Requested move 04 November 2016 discussion where there was a consensus to keep the series article at TimeSplitters (series)?--72.0.200.133 (talk) 16:57, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes. WP:VGNC no longer has the odd condition that a series must have "three games and an unrelated media article". That wording was the reason the status quo was maintained, but it's out of step with the standard WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:BROADCONCEPT guidelines. The current wording follows those guidelines more closely (and as as I say, the first game is not the primary topic by the evidence).--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:14, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

• Support In ictu oculi (talk) 08:35, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support but will require a very careful evaluation of all the incoming links in order to separate those talking about the first game vs those referencing the features of the series. -- Netoholic @ 22:12, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support, with the same caveat as Netoholic. This exact solution has worked well for the Virtual Pool franchise, among others. It's common for the first game in the self-named series to be some obscure thing from the DOS, Amiga, or Windows 3 or Macintosh System 7 days, but for a franchise to later be a huge deal due to popularity of sequels.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:29, 23 February 2018 (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.