Talk:Devil May Cry 4: Special Edition

Merger proposal
I propose that this article be merged with the the original Devil May Cry 4. I feel that the content of this article can easily be added to the original page on the "Devil May Cry 4: Special Edition" section, as I don't see the content of remaster changing the game in a significant new way. There doesn't appear to be a standard regarding remaster having their own pages, see List of video game remakes and remastered_ports. You can see which games have their own page or not by seeing if there is a link to the remaster game's page.

See also: Merging, namely the Reasons to Merge section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noel Low (talk • contribs) 14:24, 9 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I created the remaster article because the original Devil May Cry 4 was poorly organized as it combined the original 2008 game's contents with the Special Edition, confusing the reader. Besides, for some reason the original article's prose was quite biased like when comparing Vergil with Nero. I already had to trim the plot section twice due to this type of content. If the article were a stub, I would agree to merge it but there is already a lot of real world information about the Special Edition's making and its reception besides its own content.Tintor2 (talk) 18:43, 9 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose It's a valid WP:SPINOUT of the main article that is very long already. WP:NOTPAPER also applies, where "there is no practical limit to the number of topics Wikipedia can cover or the total amount of content". Since this Special Edition passes WP:GNG effortlessly and the article is in a nice shape as is, I see no reason to merge this. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:08, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak support: I do not think that a page split is necessary, and the information here would serve better as a section of the parent article. Keeping everything in one place seems to be a better idea in this instance. OceanHok (talk) 05:24, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak support: DMC4 is not at a SIZE issue to really need this to be split, but I can see why there might be concern. This current article does a good job to avoid dup content so keeping it separate is not too bad. --M asem (t) 05:32, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The article contains very little duplicated content from the main DMC4 article and is very well-sourced. Dedicated RS coverage is abundant. Phediuk (talk) 08:46, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Article is lengthy enough that merging it into the main game article would be unnecessarily cumbersome for readers. AntiGravityMaster (talk) 22:59, 30 April 2020 (UTC)