Talk:Dragon Age: The Veilguard

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

Requests for Comment

[edit]

Headings

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is no consensus regarding section 3.1. There is a consensus to use option F for section 3.3. (non-admin closure) —Compassionate727 (T·C) 15:01, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This RfC concerns subsection headings.

3.1 Early development and challenges
  1. Early development and challenges
  2. Early development
  3. 2015–2017
  4. Eliminate the heading entirely & start the 3. Development section without an immediate subheading
3.3 Staff turnover and completion
  1. Staff turnover and completion
  2. Completion and release
  3. Staff turnover and release
  4. Staff changes and completion
  5. Staff changes and release
  6. Staff changes and post-release

Breaking this off into a chunk to generate heading ideas; feel free to update above with suggestions. Hopefully we can come to a consensus on this but if not, I assume we'll be able to eliminate a few options & figure out how to structure a more formal discussion. Sariel Xilo (talk) 17:04, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vote

[edit]
  • Option 3.1 A or D A, C or D - I'm not seeing the issues with the word "challenges"; Project Joplin's development was challenging & then it was cancelled so let's call a spade a spade but we also don't need to start a section with a subheading at all so removing it could work.
Option 3.3 A or C-E A or C-F - It's a section almost entirely on staffing (15 out of 18 sentences are about staff changes) so the heading should include the subject. I don't think "turnover" is unneutral (again spade a spade) but would support swapping it with "changes" if people felt that was a more neutral word. I don't have a preference between "Completion" & "Release" besides not making that the only thing in the heading (if it is only 2/18 sentences then it shouldn't be the sole heading subject). Sariel Xilo (talk) 17:29, 19 May 2025 (UTC) Updated to include additional options based on ImaginesTigers argument below. Sariel Xilo (talk) 19:42, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Heading 3.1: Option B or C — This section has 200 words. I can understand why using two separate clauses to define this period would concern some readers / editors. Being descriptive and communicating purely a chronological timeline is the frictionless path. Anthem had a (thoroughly reported) nightmare development cycle, and even then it didn't warrant "challenges". We have quite a lot less information on Veilguard's early development. While I understand Sariel Xilo's point about calling a spade a spade, the section is already so short that I'd suggest, "let's not put a hat on a hat" (esp. on a controversial topic).
Heading 3.3: Option F or E — I concur that these headings are required, but "turnover" is a loaded word to use. I use "turnover" as part of my job in its classical definition—i.e., rate of natural attrition [and subsequent replacement] of a workforce. It is inappropriate to classify forced terminations (and a resulting lawsuit) as part of "turnover". Regarding "release", I feel less strongly about this, but there is only a passing mention of the release in this paragraph—With the game's release—so "Post-release" is more aligned to the content (i.e., "We are not releasing more content"; "More staff have been let go"; "The restructure is a permanent change"). "Turnover" feels morose and "release" seems wrong. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 18:20, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Heading 3.1: D or A - I would assume that the reader understands the section starts with the early phase of development. However, if I'm alone in this thought, option A is fine as well. "Early Development" alone feels a bit too general, and using "2015-2017" seems out of place, especially if it's the only time we use years as a subheading.
  • Heading 3.3: F - I don’t have a strong opinion on this overall, but staff changes should be mentioned in the subheading, as Sariel pointed out. To avoid ending up with a fourth one down the line (post-release), I prefer option F overall.Vestigium Leonis (talk) 17:46, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't have a strong opinion. Subheadings generally help with organization. For 3.1, I'd say "not C". For 3.3, I'd pick an option that says "completion" (I guess A or D), since we usually reserve the "release" heading for information about ports and regions and eventual re-releases. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:02, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • 3.1 B, 3.2 B Sufficient, lopsided headers aren't appropriate. Sections should also be expanded. BMWF (talk) 02:01, 1 June 2025 (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.

Content for lead inclusion

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Because they weren't explicitly raised during the discussion, I would like to begin this closing statement by citing the relevant policies. WP:BALASP states that an article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. Because this discussion is about the lead, MOS:LEAD also applies; it states that the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources.
Editors split roughly evenly on whether or not to include publisher expectations in the lead. However, consensus is not determined by polling, but by considering the strength of arguments as weighed by policy (WP:DETCON). Supporters of including publisher expectations argued that they feature prominently in outside coverage of this topic, and therefore belong in the lead. Editors opposing inclusion did not dispute this, and some even acknowledged that it was true; instead, they argued that the fact is not objectively important and its inclusion could make it seem more important than it is, especially because many other videogame articles don't include that information in their leads.
This is an interesting argument, and it is one I considered seriously. It is not, however, compelling in the eyes of policy. For one, the concrete part of that claim is disputed: editors presented several high-quality Wikipedia articles of video games with apparently similar circumstances that do include that information in their leads, and it is unclear if there is any general tendency to how this is handled. Moreover, the core contention is not a policy-based argument; WP:BALASP and MOS:LEADREL both only mention treatment in sources when instructing us how to consider whether to include something, and other parts of WP:DUE explicitly state that editors' opinions on the matter should not be considered.
We are left, therefore, with a policy-based argument to include publisher expectations versus editors' opinions that they should be excluded. The former is sound; the latter must be discarded. I therefore find a consensus to include publisher expectations (option E, although the consensus does not extend so far as to entrench the specific wording). What effect, if any, these considerations should have on other video game articles is unclear to me, but such a question is outside the scope of this discussion. (non-admin closure) —Compassionate727 (T·C) 14:36, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This RfC concerns what content to include in the lead, starting with the sales information.

Sales information
  1. Do not include Veilguard's commercial performance
  2. Include unit sales only; e.g., By year-end 2024, Electronics Art said the game had reached 1.5 million players.
  3. Include commercial performance in relation to publisher's expectation only; e.g., According to Electronic Arts, the game missed their commercial expectations by around 50%.
  4. Include unit sales and publisher expectations; e.g., Veilguard reached 1.5 million players by year-end 2024, missing EA's expectations by nearly 50%.
  5. Include unit sales, publisher expectations, and performance against previous EA releases; e.g., Reaching 1.5 million players by year-end 2024, Veilguard outperformed Electronic Arts' previous single-player games but did not meet the publisher's expectations.
  6. Other; provide proposed content alongside your vote.

— ImaginesTigers (talk) 12:50, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vote
[edit]
  • E - All three points were reported on directly by third party reliable sources. All points should be present to give the most accurate overview of the situation. There's no reason all three couldn't be summarized pretty concisely like this either. Sergecross73 msg me 12:59, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • E: It has a neutral statement (1.5 million players), a positive fact (surpassing other EA's single-player game), and a negative fact (missing EA's expectations), both of which give sufficient context to understand that number. All of them are supported by RS (no WP:OR or WP:SYNTH). You cannot possibly be more neutral than this (no WP:NPOV issue by giving WP:DUE weight to both sides of the picture). It is still short enough to give a general picture for the game's sales (a good, WP:PRECISE WP:LEAD summary). Given that the game's underperformance received significant RS discussion concerning the future of the franchise and the future of EA's single-player games,[1][2][3], it should be remarked in the lead paragraphs in some capacity. I don't think it is accurate to say it "outsold" other single-player EA games since when we only have Steam data. Maybe just say it has the biggest launch for a EA single-player game on Steam. OceanHok (talk) 14:12, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • E for the reasons outlined by the others above. I concur with OceanHok "outsold" was not the right word, and I've updated it to "outperformed". We can always refine further if consensus develops for this option, either on the Talk or via BRD. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 14:28, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of this is based on estimates so the term commercial performance is probably incorrect. I vote B or A. Normally I would consider E which is an improvement, but after reviewing around 200 major game articles and almost none of them put publisher expectations in the lead even though a majority of them missed expectations with RS coverage (like Life Is Strange: Double Exposure which is one of my favorite games) which tells me that the nuances of publisher expectations are generally not DUE in lead. Many games, like Metro Awakening don't only not mention it in the lead, but they don't even put it in the article at all. This leads me to believe the importance is being enlarged here in a way that suggests that Veilguard is being singled out. Wyll Ravengard (talk) 15:29, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As the user who wrote the disputed text (represented above as option D), I very much resent the baseless accusation. If your sense of a game being “singled out” is one wherein I vote for an option calling the subject successful, I pray the world will someday also be so charmed. It’s entirely appropriate include a product’s commercial performance in the lead if reliably sourced—it is much rarer to see such an inclusion disputed (for example, it has never been disputed on the previous game’s entry). When faced with the dispute, adding some positive context seems like a fair compromise that will only upset extreme positions (i.e, summarise only negative information or include no information). — ImaginesTigers (talk) 15:51, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    None of those examples are GA/FA, or any sort or reviewed, so its not clear to me why they would particularly be a standard to aspire to here. Its unfortunate that the game was review bombed by people off-wiki, but that really has nothing to do with writing the WP:LEAD of this article. Sergecross73 msg me 16:55, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option E followed by F: OceanHok outlines above why E is balanced, precise, & follows NPOV. There are other parts in the lead pulled from the Reception subsections (a good summary of the Accolades and a non-specific sentence on the Critical Reception) & E is the best at summarizing the Sales subsection. I mention F because I think the only thing missing from a MOS:LEADPROPORTION perspective is a similar sentence for the Critical Reception (assuming E is implemented). It currently states "The game received generally positive reviews from critics" – a previous (and debated iteration) was more robust: "The game received generally positive reviews from critics, who praised its cast, representation of sexual minority characters, graphics, and level design, but were more critical of the story, aspects of the writing, and combat". Sariel Xilo (talk) 17:06, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • E: The most balanced option for me. I agree with Sergecross73's and OceanHok's points and have not much more to add to that. Side note: We might need to split "Vote" and "Discussion" into separate categories, but for now it's fine. Vestigium Leonis (talk) 17:17, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • B followed by A per Wyll Ravengard. "Missed expectations" is nearly meaningless. Shareholder expectations of quarterly revenue growth are far removed from commercial success because publishers often expect a 10x return on investment, so this doesn't provide value to readers and is WP:UNDUE. Acceptable for the Sales section though. Recently, these sort of attempts to put opaque investor's call comments into leads has been isolated to games targeted by Gamergate which is a problem in itself. See Resident Evil 7 which is a GA and, similar to Veilguard, missed expectations with similar source coverage but does not put publisher expectations in the lead. NutmegCoffeeTea (she/her) (talk) 19:28, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Resident Evil 7 has sold 14M units, making it the 2nd highest selling Resident Evil game (https://www.statista.com/statistics/1241675/resident-evil-top-selling-games-units-sold/) and one of the highest selling games of all time. 61.8.155.233 (talk) 19:38, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't understand how the creator's own thoughts on how well it's product achieved their own goals is somehow UNDUE. It's the entire purpose of the creation of their product. They're a business, that's what they do. It can affect whether further entries in the series are greenlit or not. It can change the trajectory of the company's product, or even ability to function as a company. This was a major project in the company's history, and they weren't happy with how it went. That's important. I don't understand the personal opinion that this is "nearly meaningless". Comments like this show a complete lack of understanding of how the modern business world works. Sergecross73 msg me 20:06, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    One way to paraphrase this comment might be, Isn't it strange that we don't include the publisher saying 3.5 million sales was bad in April 2017, and instead we instead say it had sold 14 million units by November 2024?. If Veilguard sells 15 million copies, I will advocate for removing the publisher comment from the lead... because it would be synthesis to say it disappointed them with 15 million units sold. If something is undue, you need to prove it: you can't just point at another article and say "Well this doesn't do X". And as Serge notes above, there's nothing undue about it; the argument that only works if you ABF. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 09:12, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • B - The only scenario where publisher estimates are due for the lead is when the comments are tied to some sort of special notability, but in Veilguard's case they are not. Good Articles for games more similar to Veilguard have been offered, and none of them include publisher expectations in the lead despite them all missing expectations like Veilguard and having the same news coverage.
Super Mario Sunshine - According to reliable sources, A year after the game's release, CEO Satoru Iwata said sales did not live up to expectations. This is entirely absent from the peer-reviewed lead (Good Article):

Super Mario Sunshine received critical acclaim, with reviewers praising the game's graphics, gameplay, story, soundtrack, and the addition of F.L.U.D.D. as a mechanic. The game sold over five million copies worldwide by 2006, making it one of the best-selling GameCube games. The game was re-released as a part of the Player's Choice brand in 2003. It was re-released alongside Super Mario 64 and Super Mario Galaxy in the Super Mario 3D All-Stars collection for the Nintendo Switch in 2020. The game is set to be re-released for Nintendo Switch 2 as part of the Nintendo Classics service on Nintendo Switch Online

Tomb Raider - According to reliable sources, Square Enix released a detailed explanation of its "shocking" financial performance today, Tomb Raider has sold 3.4 million copies, failed to hit expectations, and was short of the company's minimum forecast by a significant amount. This is entirely absent from the peer-reviewed lead (Good Article):

Tomb Raider received critical acclaim, with praise for the graphics, gameplay, Luddington's performance as Lara, and Lara's characterization and development, although the addition of a multiplayer mode was not well received. The game sold over 14.5 million units worldwide by October 2021, making it the best-selling Tomb Raider title to date. A remastered version, Tomb Raider: Definitive Edition, was released for PlayStation 4 and Xbox One in January 2014 and for Windows in April 2024, containing improved graphics, new control features, and downloadable content. A sequel, Rise of the Tomb Raider, was released in November 2015 and a third installment, Shadow of the Tomb Raider, was released in September 2018.

Resident Evil 7 - According to reliable sources, Resident Evil 7: Biohazard has failed to meet the sales expectations of publisher Capcom, the firm's latest financial report has revealed. This is entirely absent from the peer-reviewed lead (Good Article):

The game received generally favorable reviews and was considered a return to form for the series; critics praised the visuals, gameplay, story, innovation, and uses of virtual reality, but the boss battles and final chapter drew some criticism. By November 2024, the game had sold 14 million units.[1] It was nominated for several end-of-year accolades. A sequel, Resident Evil Village, was released on May 7, 2021.

Halo - According to reliable sources, Halo underperformed and had an insanely long tail sales rate below Bungie's expectations. This is entirely absent from the peer-reviewed lead (Featured Article):

More than six million copies had been sold worldwide by November 2005. A remaster of the game, Halo: Combat Evolved Anniversary, was released for Xbox 360 by 343 Industries on the 10th anniversary of the original game's launch. Anniversary was re-released alongside the original competitive multiplayer as part of Halo: The Master Chief Collection in 2014.

There are many more. Conclusion: We aren't being evenhanded here and none of us would even be having this discussion (which is a pretty big waste of time) if Veilguard wasn't involved in GamerGate (context). Why? Because it wouldn't even be a topic of discussion. It would be a brief mention in the sales section, which is fine and roughly the weight it deserves as investor expectations don't represent actual sales performance or provide useful information to readers. Only on games that are politicized do we see warring to insert this kind of undue commentary into the first sentence or the opening paragraphs. BMWF (talk) 02:51, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This argument only works if you assume bad faith: we cannot oppose the inclusion of content because you doubt the motivations of editors. I wrote option D, and some of my featured content is a frequent target for anti-"woke" nonsense. I agree that GamerGate is causing this argument, but it's not because of GamerGaters (who are, for the most part, quite easily slapped down): you are being paranoid and guessing as to why others have written content. Nobody here is trying to remove that the game won an LGBT+ representation award from the lead (we provide a list of the game's awards!). The majority of votes so far prefer an option emphasising the game's success compared to previous releases. Your argument here is basically "it's UNDUE because OTHERSTUFF and my mind-reading powers". When someone argues that content is UNDUE, they are saying a small, irrelevant view is being given precedence—in what world is the publisher's commentary on the game's performance an irrelevant view? It isn't, so you aren't arguing on the basis of DUE—you're just casting aspersions on the motivations of other editors and citing content we didn't work on as proof. It's a total non-starter. If you respond, we may be required, as someone suggested before, to split Discussion up from Votes. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 08:56, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2 of your examples, TR2013 and Resi 7, don't work because they ultimately met expectations. If DA Veilguard met expectations several years later, we can remove it. I brought 13 video game articles that directly mention they failed their publisher's expectation in the lead to GA (with Alpha Protocol, Bulletstorm, Ryse: Son of Rome, Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell: Blacklist being examples). The game being review bombed/dragged in cultural war has nothing to do with this particular dispute. This so-called "observation" that editors involved are pushing a pro-Gamergate POV is blatant nonsense. If you really believe this, I recommend you report to WP:ANI with evidence. OceanHok (talk) 12:27, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Resident Evil 7 never met its publisher's expectations. It hit all of its targets extremely late which from the publisher's perspective is failure. These have the same situation as Veilguard in respect to not meeting their publisher's expectations, and none of them mention it in the lead. >99% of games do not, despite it being a pretty common thing, because it's not useful information unless you are a stock investor curious about a temporary stock price fluctuation, nor is it linked to actual commercial performance. Maybe due for a mention in the body is not the same as due for the lead. BMWF (talk) 00:48, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
BMWF is right. No matter how much people want to read into the other circumstances around the release, it does not serve to connect it to sales without WP:EXTRAORDINARY evidence. We should document the business practices of EA at the EA article, but EA's quarterly earnings or expectations have little to do with the game. It's fine to document some of the more tangential circumstances around the publisher's business deeper in the article, but speculation doesn't belong in the article at all. Especially not the lead where it could mislead readers in a WP:SYNTH way. Archrogue (talk) 17:24, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • B per BMWF. It's unclear to me why this must be in the lead for in particular this game when it's misleading and isn't a common practice. BlackVulcanX (talk) 04:53, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • E - giving the full picture is the only thing that makes sense here. Only saying it "reached" 1.5 m players (what does that even mean, is it the same as sales?) but not whether it was a success or not is like stating a film's box office numbers but not its production budget. How someone would ever advocate for that is beyond me. Even not stating sales info at all would be better than that 2A00:FBC:EEE0:76E3:0:0:0:2 (talk) 05:36, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • B - This is closest to how this is typically handled. Most games miss publisher expectations and don't place in lead. 125.236.190.108 (talk) 12:16, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't feel strongly, but I'd lean "A or B", and definitely "not C or D". There isn't a clear data point here, and we shouldn't privilege one over the other. It did do better than other single player games for BioWare and for EA. EA did make comments during a shareholder call that also included other titles from the same quarter. Option E isn't bad, but even that starts to go down a slippery slope of how much context is needed to really understand what's going on. I would rather say less, and direct readers to the body. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:06, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • B Some type of sales metric is always appropriate for the lede. However, unless there were clear effects on the publisher, developer or the like (eg to take the case of Concord, the developer was shuttered a few weeks after the game was shut down), or the other way, a significant positive event like for Monster Hunter World, then there's no need to go into the publisher's take on how well it did. Masem (t) 00:29, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • E - When we have all this information, we should put it in the lead. That we haven't some existing good/featured articles is a problem with those articles. The facts of the matter can be summarised very succinctly, and contextualise the raw numbers. 1 million would be a big number for an indie title, but not so much for AAA. Publishers are the ones who fund these works, and if it is a failure in their eyes, it is as important to note their opinion as well as outsider (critics etc) opinion. While we may see publisher expectation as completely unrealistic, publishers have a legal duty to accurately report their financials. - hahnchen 20:47, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • E - Seems best practise when the information and commentary is there in the sources. Halbared (talk) 19:00, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • B - I agree with Masem. Koriodan (talk) 02:10, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include sales info in the lead. It's the main reason this game is talked about so much 2A00:FBC:EF1A:DB02:0:0:0:2 (talk) 15:37, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Including unit sales is already in several of the options given, but which option specifically do you want? Harryhenry1 (talk) 15:56, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry I meant to say the game's underperformance should be included in the lead. Option E works for me 2A00:FBC:EF08:8779:4478:AAA4:84:6415 (talk) 11:08, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • B - Clear fact and most important to readers. More specific nuance in both directions can be covered further down. 199.255.150.243 (talk) 02:38, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • B - Masem is correct about standard practice for the lead which is to document sales. Other editors haven't shown why it helps readers to selectively narrate other circumstances around the release in the lead. The other proposed framings all seem more misleading (whether by accident or on purpose) than just letting Wikipedia readers simply read the article. Archrogue (talk) 17:18, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If there is any "standard practice" for the lead, we would not need to have this discussion. Would you like to point out what exactly is misleading? OceanHok (talk) 12:52, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion
[edit]

I think there is a need to clarify a few things, since quite a lot of editors are choosing that "A/B" option:

  • I think some of the editors do not understand that video games are a product/software whose sole purpose was to make money. The game missed EA (the company)'s expectations. Its shareholders/investors merely reacted to this news, and we are NOT documenting whatever happens to EA's spreadsheets, guidance, or stock price. Info from an investor call is relevant for the "general public" if they capture the attention of the press (RS coverage). Also, a game missing sales expectation is 100% linked to actual commercial performance. Each game comes with its own situation/baggage. An indie game selling 4 million copies may be a big success but GTA 6 selling the same will be a total disaster. You cannot form a full picture of a game's "actual commercial performance" if you do not account for the perspective of its creators who have exclusive access to a game's sales data in relation to its budget/marketing cost and data on industry trends.
  • OTHERSTUFF is comparing apples to oranges most of the time. Other articles don't have it because (1) they sold well (2) publisher did not share sales info (3) initial negative sentiment lost their significance over time because they sold well enough eventually. While the lead paragraph often have flexible wordings, it is a common practice to add publisher's commentary to lead paragraph (their significance is explained by the first asterisk, and it was evidenced by multiple existing GAs/FAs), so the opposing side is essentially arguing for changing the status quo or asking for an exception here. Both require compelling policy-based arguments, perhaps more than is typically needed. Their interpretation of undue is questionable at best.
  • The only consistent thing about the opposing side over the course of multiple discussions (also see here and here) is the argument/baseless accusation that editors are pushing some kind of pro-Gamergate POV. However, EA themselves blamed the game's poor sales on the lack of live service elements, rather than politics. The edit in question made no attempt to link the game's poor performance to politics, so all the culture war stuff is entirely irrelevant, and I strongly urge all of you to stop bringing it up unless you have evidence.

Editors need to attempt to find a middle ground to find a consensus. ImaginesTigers wrote option E, which included both positive and negative information in a single statement. Editors agreed to review the relevance of this statement if EA provide an update on sales in the future. I provided RS to demonstrate that EA's comment was more notable than run-of-the-mill sales announcement/investor call, as well as counter-examples that share a similar background to Veilguard. It was unfortunate that all of them are ignored by the opposing editors, who are keen on regurgitating the same set of OTHERSTUFF that do not remotely share the same situation as here. OceanHok (talk) 14:16, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, most of the people opposing including the content are using varied but weak arguments, ranging from "seems sus" (assumes bad faith), "it's not on THIS article" (it's clearly on several) and "this information from the publisher is bad info" (we don't judge what info from RS is "meaningless"). When every editor opposing inclusion has a different reason, but experienced editors in favour agree it's compliant, I don't there's too much to worry about. This is all very silly culture war shenanigans, and therefore attracting a lot of IPs or accounts with <20 edits whose primary contributions to the project are deleting sentences they don't like. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 17:35, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just a follow-up, this article from Bloomberg offers an in-depth analysis as to why the game may have failed commercially. This once again show that the game's commercial performance receive SIGCOV. OceanHok (talk) 15:04, 20 June 2025 (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.

First paragraph

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
At first glance, there is a consensus for option A. However, several people who voted for option A expressed support for some minimal amount of comparison; therefore, it seems to me that the true consensus is to reject option C (mostly for the last sentence), and that there is no immediate consensus on the larger question of comparison. Normally, a "no consensus" outcome should be respected like any other outcome, but I think, in this case, that there was no consensus because people didn't find any of the presented options great and that editors should feel encouraged to return to this question and workshop further proposals. (non-admin closure) —Compassionate727 (T·C) 14:55, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This RfC concerns what content to include in the lead's first paragraph:

Previous game comparison
  1. No comparison; e.g., The player character is controlled from a third-perspective perspective, uses discrete levels accesses by fast travel and combat includes a combo ability systems.
  2. Comparison of traversal or combat only
  3. Comparison of traversal and combat to previous game; e.g., Like its predecessor, the player character is controlled from a third-person perspective, but Veilguard foregoes Inquisition's open world in favour of discrete levels accessed via fast travel. Likewise, tactical elements were deprioritized over a new combat system emphasizing combo abilities.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by ImaginesTigers (talk • contribs) 12:05, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vote
[edit]
  • A or B. A minimal amount of comparisons can help, though it shouldn't be written from the perspective of another game. "Likewise, tactical elements were deprioritized" is a bit strange. NutmegCoffeeTea (she/her) (talk) 17:30, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • C - its a bit hard for me to pick 1 of the 3 options above, but generally speaking, I believe its fine to discuss both, but that it should be kept pretty brief. Sometimes editors get carried away extended tangents and it starts to sound like a compare/contrast essay, and we don't want that. Sergecross73 msg me 17:55, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • C, with the disclaimer that I wrote that version as it existed on the article for the past half-year. I based it almost exclusively on the first paragraph of Dragon Age: Inquisition (a Good article). Agree with NutmegCoffeeTea that "deprioritized" isn't the best word, so would support a tweak to that. I think removing all comparison with the previous game is a straight downgrade/less useful to readers, though. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 19:31, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option C - Highlighting how games in a series change is pretty standard and it contextualizes the description of gameplay. If there are concerns about the exact phrasing of the second sentence ("deprioritized"), maybe something like this would work (pulled parts from the Gameplay section directly): Instead of the tactical strategy approach of earlier Dragon Age titles, Veilguard has a new real-time action-based combat system which emphasizes combo abilities. Sariel Xilo (talk) 17:32, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I like this suggestion and it dovetails nicely with Masem’s suggestion of utilising content from the main body. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 12:59, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • A - Simple and to the point. BlackVulcanX (talk) 04:53, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • C - the combat system was changed dramatically compared to previous entries in the series and readers should be informed of that. There's no need to save space here 2A00:FBC:EEE0:76E3:0:0:0:2 (talk) 05:29, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • A - Or the other option without the last line. 125.236.190.108 (talk) 12:16, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • A - save the comparative stuff for any summary of the game's development. Initially, just describe how the game is. Less is clearer. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:07, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • A but can lean C - For C to be better supported, there should be discussion from either a development statement or reception to explain why this change was done or how this was received by critics. To use a similar example Monster Hunter World's lede discussed the transition from zones to open world, which is discussed why they did that in the development section within the body. If it is just a comment on a gameplay change without showing a why or how it was taken, it feels close to OR in the lede. Masem (t) 00:33, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it is worth comparing Veilguard to Inquisition when discussing the game's structure (linear vs. open world). I don't think we need to compare combat to Inquisition or other DA games because Inquisition itself is not very tactical, and Dragon Age II is a very straightforward action game. The franchise has never been consistent in terms of gameplay. OceanHok (talk) 11:13, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • A if the gameplay section gets reworked and the comparison parts / changes are moved to development. Otherwise C if we want to accurately summarize the lead (based on the status quo of the gameplay section). There seems to be too much focus on comparing this game to previous entries. My opinion here: When I read a gameplay section, I want to understand what this game, on its own, is about. Vestigium Leonis (talk) 19:28, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • A It's the Veilguard article so main focus on Veilguard. 199.255.150.243 (talk) 02:52, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • A Yes this article is about Veilguard. Comparisons and development history belongs in the body of the article, and only if they are cited in reliable sources. I could maybe see the lead adding some element of the design direction where it briefly summarizes the game's development, but there may be other major parts of development that would be more accurate in its impact. Archrogue (talk) 17:27, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bumping thread. Closure request added on 18 June 2025. Sariel Xilo (talk) 15:44, 19 June 2025 (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.

Last clean version should be restored

[edit]

Now that the disruptive editors were blocked, I think it's time that the last clean version is restored, which is this one: Link. The blocked users were the only ones advocating for the changes 2A00:FBC:EEDA:C0B5:CD26:6130:3C4B:D6D0 (talk) 11:33, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In my view, consensus has basically emerged for changes to the last clean version, so reverting to them is both inflammatory and a bit pointless. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 12:19, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dragon_Age:_The_Veilguard#Vote_2 there's a pretty clear consensus for Option E, so that means the game's underperformance should be mentioned.2A00:FBC:EEDA:C0B5:38F6:FD11:DB39:343B (talk) 12:39, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, and it can be when the RFC is over. There’s no rush. Let content processes play out. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 13:15, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Soetermans: Why did you make this revert (Personal attack removed)? Why didn't you explain the revert? How is the article improved by doing this?61.8.153.113 (talk) 16:41, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The RfC has not been closed so these changes should not be made until a consensus has been determined. Sariel Xilo (talk) 17:03, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The edit protection was just lifted and already anonymous IP user(s?) jumped in, going straight for a previous revision. Considering all the edit warring and talk page discussions, this certainly isn't the way to go. And calling me "worthless subhuman" isn't helping your case at all. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 21:17, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to add my voice to the outside editors who are trying to enforce some sanity and process on this. The RFC should run its course. When it's done, we can implement any changes that have consensus, and leave out anything that doesn't. Anything on the edge can be discussed further. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:02, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article is a joke 2600:100A:B03D:9A0:640C:BDFF:FE4B:17D4 (talk) 22:27, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear wording

[edit]

Change "and emphasizes a new combo ability system" to "and COMBAT emphasizes a new combo ability system" cause it's not clear what it refers to otherwise 61.8.152.71 (talk) 01:17, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Dahawk04 (talk) 12:18, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SYNTH/WP:OR violation in lead, must be removed regardless of RfC

[edit]

Hi, I don't know how this managed to slip through an RfC, but the line "Reaching 1.5 million players by year-end 2024, Veilguard outperformed Electronic Arts' previous single-player games but did not meet the publisher's expectations." used in the article lead is a complete violation of WP:SYNTH/WP:OR. There is not a single source that says Veilguard outperformed EA's previous single-player games across the first two months of release. What there are is two sources saying that on launch day it was either the second or third highest ever concurrent player peak for an EA single-player game (failing to top The Sims 4 and possibly even Need For Speed Heat[4][5])

The sentence as written incorrectly suggests that 1.5m players is the highest any EA single-player game had reached in two months, a claim that should've immediately raised eyebrows given that would mean it outperformed Mass Effect 2, which is already sourced to have sold 2m in less than a week over on that series' article[6].

This claim needs removing immediately. Rambling Rambler (talk) 19:33, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Nangears tagging for your awareness given your reversion. Rambling Rambler (talk) 19:34, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, the RFC was more about how much detail was appropriate for the lead. I was commenting on the assumption that someone had verified the sourcing, or otherwise it wouldn't have escalated to the point of needing an RFC in the first place. Not 100% certain I understand the urgency of the bolded-immediately in this scenario, but can someone provide the sources in question? Its a lot easier to evaluate if we're following WP:STICKTOSOURCE if there's...sources to crosscheck...Sergecross73 msg me 19:59, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sergecross73 relevant sources are already linked in my first post. The two sources about player counts on launch day are linked at the end of the first paragraph (relevant quotes below):
It’s also one of the higher peaks for any single-player EA game, beating out the Star Wars Jedi games, but so far it falls short of Need for Speed Heat (which had a maximum peak of 86,196) and The Sims 4 (which had a peak of 96,328).
Publisher EA is probably chuffed since The Veilguard is now its one of its biggest single-player launches on the platform, narrowly passing Star Wars Jedi Survivor's peak concurrent numbers, which were already impressive a year ago, but not quite reaching The Sims 4's 96,000 peak record - and who can blame 'em? It's The Sims. Rambling Rambler (talk) 20:09, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So do we just need to soften the wording here with a different quantifier or something? It does appear that we have the sourcing that shows it had a strong debut of sorts, though not quite as strong as the original wording implied. Sergecross73 msg me 20:24, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sergecross73 initially that's what I thought this would be, because originally the issue was seemingly just WP:SYNTH in confusing "best single-player EA game on launch day by concurrent players" with "best-performing across the first two months". However it turns out someone at some point in the subsection for sales had essentially just lied and wrote that it got "higher peaks for any single-player EA game" which is the opposite of what's stated in the sources and nobody else checked.
At this point the lead really needs to be reduced to "Reaching 1.5 million players by year-end 2024, Veilguard failed to meet Electronic Arts expectations" because that's the only thing that's notable here. It's hard to justify lead inclusion for the concurrent players figure because at the end of the day it's not setting a record but saying "hey, this game came third at best, on only a single platform out of the several it released on." The only possible noteworthy mention for the lead would be that it was Bioware's highest-concurrent players total on Steam, but that still cherry-picks Steam as a platform. Rambling Rambler (talk) 20:40, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, outside of a more generic "despite indications of a strong start" in front of the "reaching 1.5 million" line, there probably isn't a good line that can be used that isn't hyper-specific for the lead. Sergecross73 msg me 20:48, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think even that generic descriptor is useful because the game was released on so many platforms that we don't have any hard numbers for. It'd be like declaring the Pyeonghwa Pronto GS as the best-selling in the world because you only used North Korean sales figures as a data set. Rambling Rambler (talk) 21:01, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sergecross73 I think we’re left with two facts: that Veilguard is one of the best-performing EA titles on Steam, or, if we step slightly away from RfC consensus, the best-performing BioWare game on the platform. Not really sure if we should pick either of those, since it is limited to Steam performance only. Maybe someone has a better idea? Vestigia Leonis (talk) 20:49, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Vestigia Leonis it's also not great because it's also only by concurrent players, which is a relatively sensationalist metric that doesn't really convey general success or failure that well (ironically, what this game is an example of). Rambling Rambler (talk) 20:58, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I agree it's not the ideal metric. I'll wait for suggestions by others and if there is nothing to add it just needs to be removed completely. Vestigia Leonis (talk) 08:36, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games. Sariel Xilo (talk) 19:51, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do concur that Reaching 1.5 million players by year-end 2024, Veilguard failed to meet Electronic Arts expectations alone is fine. In my vote on the RfC above, "outsold" was not the correct description and we should at least change it to something like biggest launch for a EA single-player game on Steam. OceanHok (talk) 01:14, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@OceanHok I also checked this, and it should be fine as a quick fix, since The Sims 4 has a higher peak, but Veilguard had a better launch. We could use this source to support the claim: [7]. However, it's a very specific stat tied to a single platform compared to the more general figures, like the 1,5 million global players and the publisher stating that it didn't meet expectations. This might get some pushback later as well. Vestigia Leonis (talk) 08:57, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can’t use Kotaku as a source, that era under G/O Media has been regarded as generally not reliable due to it becoming a content farm and use of AI. Rambling Rambler (talk) 09:19, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Rambling Rambler Oh wow, I wasn't aware of that. So 2023 onwards Kotaku should be generally avoided, per WP:VG/S. The only other one I found to support the claim would be Push Square. Vestigia Leonis (talk) 09:35, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Vestigia Leonis the problem is we already have multiple sources that demonstrate the “biggest launch” claim is wrong, so we can’t really justify it for the lead. Seems like a couple of publications got a bit excited at Veilguard’s numbers and forgot the Sims existed.
The best claim we have is it was Bioware’s highest concurrent player count on Steam, which isn’t actually that useful a metric. Rambling Rambler (talk) 11:11, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Rambling Rambler No, I mean something else. The Veilguard launch period, referring to the time frame around its official release, is EA’s biggest launch. The Sims 4 has a higher peak of concurrent players, but that came years after launch period. But as I said above, it’s a very specific stat and might also be a bit confusing. Vestigia Leonis (talk) 11:35, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Vestigia Leonis It’s also a very artificial stat, how do you define “launch period”, how do you compare it with only a singular platform out of several it launched on? Rambling Rambler (talk) 11:45, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I say we'd be fine if we only keep the player count (1.5 million) and the part about the game underperforming. Calling it best launch for a BioWare game on Steam is kinda silly, because the last original BioWare game that was released on Steam at launch was Mass Effect 2 nearly 15 years ago. I don't think it is inaccurate to say that Veilguard had the biggest launch for a EA single-player game on Steam, but EA barely released any single-player-only title these days and they only came back to Steam in recent years, so that statement is not really that helpful. OceanHok (talk) 16:47, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@OceanHok I agree with this. The stuff about the Steam launch has too many caveats and asterisks to be suitable for a lead summary, however the aspect about "players reached" and how that tied in to EA's expectations should remain. I believe that's the only way to meet the previous RfC given the issue this relates to. Rambling Rambler (talk) 17:12, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree as well. I just wanted to check the options, but there's no strong argument to put Steam performance in the lead. Vestigia Leonis (talk) 17:32, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can’t say that, as it wasn’t EA’s biggest launch as shown by cited sources. Rambling Rambler (talk) 09:16, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping @Rambling Rambler. I reverted as I read the RfC as focusing on WP:BALASP, so as not to give one part undue weight, and the consensus was to keep the comparison to other EA games because of this - specifically the decision was that the lead should "Include unit sales, publisher expectations, and performance against previous EA releases". But if this comparison isn't supported by sources then I agree that it should be reworked, but the consensus of the recently concluded RfC seems to rest pretty heavily on all 3 elements being included, so I think if it is going to be changed so soon after the RfC closed, that we should look to how to keep the point about it's early signs of positive performance, but with EA being underwhelmed by the sales at year's end. Nangears (talk) 03:12, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Nangears the problem though is that the RfC conclusion was based on a false proposition. We can’t keep the element around its initial launch if we don’t have any good sources to support it.
Because it was based on what is essentially a fabricated claim, we can’t be beholden to it. Rambling Rambler (talk) 11:13, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While the wording of it at a blanket statement that it outperformed Electronic Arts' previous single-player games I think is too vague so can be viewed as misleading, sources do support that the game had initial signs of success, in part pointing to the Steam sales, so including that does not seem to be a completely false proposition. For example, in a source from the article: "After an excruciating development cycle, they had finally released their latest game, Dragon Age: The Veilguard, and the early reception was largely positive. The role-playing game was topping sales charts on Steam, and solid, if not spectacular, reviews were rolling in."[8] Nangears (talk) 13:25, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The issue for me will be that while such a statement would be fine for the sales subsection, basing it on just a singular platform would be too hard to justify for the lead with such a wooly statement.
The justification for mentioning the publisher underachievement in the lead is that it’s EA stating it themselves, while sales figures (even for Steam alone) is mostly based on reporter guesswork in respects. Rambling Rambler (talk) 13:31, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that calling something reported by reliable sources as "reporter guesswork" veers into WP:OR, as that is not something the sources indicate so relies on your own ideas of the significance of Steam sales. If you follow what reliable sources indicate, they place significance on the games early performance on Steam sales charts, so it would be appropriate for the article to indicate that. I think changing the wording of the lead to make it clear it is only referring to Steam sales makes sense, but I don't see the need to remove it entirely. Nangears (talk) 13:45, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's doesn't "veer into WP:OR" at all, it's a statement of basic fact. The reporters are effectively guessing the overall success of a game released simultaneously on PS5, Xbox, EA Play, and Steam via a singular data point (Steam's "top selling chart") that doesn't actually disclose how it calculates said metric or over what period of time.
I have no issue discussing the mention of Steam player counts or placement on their sales chart in the relevant section of the article's main body, but it's inappropriate for the lead given it requires too many caveats to be a summarising statement. Rambling Rambler (talk) 14:09, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Even if it is something that you perceive as a "basic fact" that these sources are guessing, if there is not a reliable source to support that, that would be WP:OR. It looks like the general consensus of the above is to remove the reference to Steam sales from the lead, so I won't argue further about it though. Nangears (talk) 18:41, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Even if it is something that you perceive as a "basic fact" that these sources are guessing, if there is not a reliable source to support that, that would be WP:OR.
The point is that is what the sources are saying. They're saying "the game seems to be selling well based on this one data point". I may be wording it more bluntly than the sources do in surmising them, but that is the core argument. If the sources however were reporting that EA stated it sold x many units in the launch period then it'd be a different story and likely worthy of inclusion in the lead. Rambling Rambler (talk) 19:35, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to note that Rambling Rambler has substituted "option D" from the RFC after it received no actual support. The RFC had a 9–9 split between option B (sales only) and option E (more information). Option D even had anti-support, compared to the others. There has been no consensus on this issue and there continues to be none. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:29, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Shooterwalker There is consensus in the above follow-up discussion, isn't there? We tried to find alternatives that would be closest to the RfC result, and this is what we came up with. Vestigia Leonis (talk) 09:39, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not really great for a few people to override a larger consensus from a few weeks ago. I see only 5 participants. With me, that's six. A lot of people checked out, compared to the RFC that got nearly 20 participants. I'm going to go ahead and revert until we can come up with something that accounts for the RFC. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:31, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Shooterwalker no, you quite simply don't get to go "well you had less people" and revert the results of discussion that clearly established a new consensus. Remember consensus can change, most of all after it turns out the basis of the recent RfC was based on claims that weren't actually evidenced in the sources.
I suggest if you have an issue you actually discuss it rather than revert to reinclude what is a WP:OR claim. Rambling Rambler (talk) 19:37, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have an issue with the lack of consensus from this discussion. You have a responsibility to seek consensus to overturn an RFC, when the leading options were to include maximal context, or to simplify by allowing readers to get context from the body instead of the lead. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:42, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Shooterwalker Consensus is clearly present here, what you are doing however is demanding that you be satisfied. As you are probably aware consensus does not require unanimity.
Discussion was open to clarify the best way to deal with a clear WP:OR issue in the lead that resulted from an RfC a handful of months back (which frankly deserves a mass WP:TROUT for not checking the sources prior to taking part in the issue). Given the outcome of the RfC was to include as much information as possible that was adhered to. Therefore both the apparent player figures and EA's reaction to this was included. The claims about outselling can not be accounted for due to no reliable sources actually present to support it. Rambling Rambler (talk) 19:48, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are multiple sources that refer to the game's strong launch on Steam.[9][10][11][12][13] If there is an issue with the exact wording to summarize the sources, then we should fix that while still respecting the RFC.
(A personal note, my preference from the RFC was option B, which was to keep the lead short and concise. I felt that would avoid exactly this kind of edit warring about context where people would argue about how much to cram into the lead. The "minimalist" position was shared by half of the nearly 20 participants of the RFC, but the third party closer felt that the "maximalist" choice had a stronger argument. While not my preference, I could accept that the RFC had run its course.)
There's a major process problem if a small set of contributors can come in after an RFC and override it, especially by selecting option D which had virtually no support.
I'm tagging Compassionate727 to see if they are willing to play neutral bystander again, unless someone else steps forward. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:02, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Shooterwalker of the five sources you've just shared not a single one actually supports the claim that's been removed (Reaching 1.5 million players by year-end 2024, Veilguard outperformed Electronic Arts' previous single-player games but did not meet the publisher's expectations) (bolded for emphasis). At best you have an IGN source dated November 1[14] stating it was their highest single-player game on Steam alone by concurrent player count but this is contradicted by the second VG247 source as well as the GamesRadar source which highlights it was still below The Sims 4[15][16], along with the VGC source already in the article[17]. The provided Forbes article doesn't even actually say what record in regards to EA it's meant to have broken that it claims in the headline (which per WP:HEADLINE we shouldn't go by), which is exceedingly unhelpful. So in reality what's likely is that the IGN source made a mistake and remains uncorrected.
You raise the idea the sources still referring to the game's strong launch on Steam, but as can be seen above there wasn't a consensus to introduce that new claim for a number of reasons. In fact there looks to be a stronger view towards not introducing material solely related to Steam performance in the lead.
Now you highlight the RfC and suggest this is a case of a handful of editors "selecting option D which had virtually no support" but I disagree strongly on this. We have an RfC that was closed saying there was consensus for a maximalist position and that is what our discussion and consensus of is an extension of given it only removes the bare minimum that is unsourced and leaves the rest. To "override" the RfC would be for us to decide to go to a minimalist position and remove more than is necessary to meet our core policies simply because one small part of it was unsupported, or for us to have removed the line about Veilguard outperforming EA's previous games if there were good sources to support the statement. Rambling Rambler (talk) 20:48, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How is this discussion still going?? Honestly, as someone who's only somewhat familiar, if indeed this newer, smaller consensus is aiming to implement a change that defies the larger consensus against it, that feels like it's just attempting to brute force a preferred result. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 21:16, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Cukie Gherkin it's not about forcing a preferred anything, a singular element of a larger RfC conclusion was removed because regardless of the RfC result there was no source to actually support the material. An RfC result doesn't overrule WP:OR and WP:V, in fact the two sources present in the article disproved the claim. Rambling Rambler (talk) 21:28, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm only going to comment in my capacity as a closer of the previous discussion.
That RfC shouldn't prejudice the outcome of this discussion. The consensus there was to include how the game disappointed EA's expectations in the lead. Editors took for granted that some counterpoint highlighting how the game did well commercially should also be included. The specific wording was never discussed, and if there is a problem with it, it should be changed. Presumably some suitable alternative exists, but if one doesn't, or if there's a consensus in this discussion to just remove that whole part, it should be removed.
I'll note that I haven't read this entire discussion, so I may have missed relevant parts. Feel free to ask further questions. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 21:22, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also surprised to see this discussion re-opened so soon after the RFC. Even worse I see an option with no support at the RFC inserted into the lead. Trying to WP:AGF, one or few editors should refine, not defy a wider WP:CONSENSUS.
Compassionate727 closed the RFC and said it best. If no suitable alternative exists, it should be removed. Archrogue (talk) 14:45, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Trying to WP:AGF, one or few editors should refine, not defy a wider WP:CONSENSUS.
That's literally what happened... we didn't "defy" the wider consensus, we maintained it by maintaining the maximalist position arrived at in the RfC and only removed a small section that had no verifiable source to support it.
To defy the RfC would've been to remove all the material and instead go for a minimalist position that made no reference to the wider sales/player reach or EA's response to that. Rambling Rambler (talk) 15:01, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Considering the pushback I do not see how your proposal has consensus. Best regards. Archrogue (talk) 15:15, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The "pushback" being from two editors, both of whom voted for the minimalist position that was found not to be the consensus, who are trying to suggest the consensus of this follow-up discussion is circumventing the RfC decision even though the closer of that RfC has now commented and stated how the consensus of this discussion is not circumventing their closing comments.
The RfC was closed with the consensus supporting a maximalist position as can be defined under our policies. That is what has been maintained by only removing the absolute minimum material violating core policies of WP:OR and WP:V and not changing any material that was supported by reliable sources. Rambling Rambler (talk) 15:30, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hugo Award Outcome

[edit]

The 2025 Hugo Awards "pending" should be changed to "nominated". The awards happened August 16 2025 and "Caves of Qud" won. PrinceSourdough (talk) 04:33, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Used the source & format from G. Willow Wilson#Awards. Sariel Xilo (talk) 04:52, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]