Talk:Image real-time scaling

Creation and Notability
I have added some sources at the bottom of the article that I believe show that this article meets Wikipedia's notability requirements for stand-alone lists. I would appreciate any clarification or help with formatting on this specific issue.

At any rate, I believe this article as well as this related article deserve to stay up as standalone pages due to the lack of online centralized resources providing this specific information, where Wikipedia is perfect for filling in that gap. Svetroid (talk) 06:19, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Where is Crysis Remastered? --80.108.14.198 (talk) 00:19, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Numerous games are missing from the DLSS list. Nvidia maintains a list: https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/geforce/news/nvidia-rtx-games-engines-apps/ And their blog has announcements and roundups that could be used as additional citation: https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/geforce/tags/?tag=nvidia-dlss You could likely also find things like Steam patch notes, UI screenshots, and other resources for further citation if required.

DLSS 2.1
I'm not sure what is used to decide which game gets DLSS 2.0 and which is getting DLSS 2.1 shown as supported version here.

From technical POV all games in which DLSS support was released after circa Oct 2020 are using DLSS 2.1 SDK.

DLSS 2.1 features are an extension on 2.0 but they are not required to be implemented. So a game may use DLSS 2.1 SDK but opt to not include 2.1 features. 2.1 features are: Ultra Performance preset (upscaling from 11% of target resolution), VR support, concurrency support on Ampere GPUs (capability to run DLSS tensor workload concurrently with shader and RT workloads).

Most games using 2.1 SDK seem to at least use the new Ultra Performance mode. Thus I'm not sure that it's correct to indicate that they are using 2.0.

Games in question here are: Call of Duty: Black Ops Cold War, Call of Duty: Warzone, Control (has UP preset now), Crysis Remastered, Cyberpunk 2077, Death Stranding, Ghostrunner, Nioh 2, No Man’s Sky, Outriders, The Medium and possibly others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr rus (talk • contribs) 11:06, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree that this is an issue. I think a viable solution is to simply list the major version number (1.0, 2.0, etc.) and put a footnote on the version number based on what sufficiently important SDK features that game supports. Existing footnotes can also remain in place in cases like Control where the game launched with an early version of a particular major-version SDK, if that information is deemed important. I will go ahead with the aforementioned changes, but let me know if you have a better solution or take issue with that and we can figure something else out! Svetroid (talk) 22:48, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Could we add the DLSS version number back into the table, we are currently at version 2.3, and with the vast difference between 1.0 and 2.0 and greater, it would be more beneficial to the end user. Also some games have been updated from 1.0 to 2 ie control, shadow of the tomb raider, and metro exodus. Psychosikh (talk) 23:31, 17 October 2021(UTC)

Page Movement Proposal
I think it would be appropriate to move this page to "List of games with support for high-fidelity image upscaling". Reasons include:
 * FidelityFX Super Resolution (FSR) has been released and is a direct competitor to DLSS, and it would be nice to include both on a single page rather than having two pages for them.
 * More competitors may crop up at some point, and it serves no purpose for them all to have their own page.
 * It would be easier to maintain the information on a single page.
 * It would become easier for regular people to see which games support which technologies.
 * The page would become brand-agnostic, which I think is always a good thing for Wikipedia pages.

Doing this would mean several changes, including:
 * Eliminating the RT support column. (Maybe not necessary?)
 * Eliminating or changing the column for what date DLSS was added, and instead just having a column for release date of the game itself. This may be a controversial change but the object would be to avoid having 3 or more date columns, so other solutions that preserve this information without the table becoming unwieldy are greatly appreciated.

I have contacted the creator of the FSR game list support page to ensure they would be okay with this first, but I don't foresee this being a major issue. Svetroid (talk) 23:11, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

There are a few things we have to confirm about this:
 * Whether or not FSR is a direct competitor with DLSS since one of them is an AI-based Image upscaling while the other is not, and
 * Whether or not AMD is going to use number versioning for future FSR upgrades.

Both of them are crucial to know since It will cause a misinformation to readers about this. Kevinguava (talk) 01:51, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I think it is fairly obvious that they are direct competitors because, despite working very differently, they accomplish the exact same goal: Take a frame from a game of a particular resolution and upsample it to an image that is a higher resolution. I don't think that the way they work changes that. Svetroid (talk) 02:01, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Also, they explicitly label FSR as "FSR 1.0" in some of the games it is implemented in, as well as on GPUOpen itself. This implies that there will indeed be a versioning system. Svetroid (talk) 02:02, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

The creator of the FSR page agreed to move/redirect the page, and thought it made sense as well. I have made the above changes (except for the whole date added thing, still thinking on that. That will have to be changed somehow once a game on the list supports both DLSS and FSR). Svetroid (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 02:12, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

FSR Version
Put it in caution that AMD did not specifically mention any number versioning in their marketing. I would suggest to add it later when they announce a newer version. Kevinguava (talk) 02:27, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Would it suffice to simply put a footnote about it, rather than removing the "1.0" altogether? It's right on their GPUOpen page. I understand they didn't use it in their marketing, but how do you resolve the fact that they do version it on GPUOpen? I think it's more confusing to not have the version number there, personally. Svetroid (talk) 02:39, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

It's often used to tell third-party developers that there will be no breaking change for future revisions, while there's an architectural difference between DLSS 1.0 and 2.0, hence explicitly mention it in their marketing. Also, looking at their docs, they didn't update their spec that much and often stopped at either v1.1 or v1.2, hence why I would suggest to add it later on when AMD announce FSR 2.0, for example. Kevinguava (talk) 03:02, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough, I will make the edits. If that is the case, it may also be worthwhile to change all instances of DLSS 2.1/2.2 to 2.0 and instead place a note explaining that they use an updated SDK, as mentioned in another section above, since Nvidia has only officially referenced DLSS as 1.0 and 2.0 on their website. They did reference it as "DLSS 2.1" in a Reddit AMA but I'll just leave the minor versions as a footnote. Svetroid (talk) 03:09, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Technology Column Issue
On the technology column, what if a game supports both DLSS and FSR? Badhunter0303 (talk) 03:30, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

That column is actually 2 columns wide, if you look at the source, and all of the items in it are defined to be 2 columns wide right now, since each game only supports one or the other. I am currently thinking about what to do about the "Technology added" date column though, since that could be problematic for games that add FSR and DLSS on different dates. Svetroid (talk) 03:40, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

We can update it to use checklist and number version column, or create a separate table for games that support both of them. Kevinguava (talk) 03:38, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I've added an example on "Necromunda: Hired Gun" in the first table, so you can see what it looks like. Ideally, the two cells would have equal width, but I don't know how to do that or if that would be problematic. If another solution would look nicer, by all means, suggest it. Svetroid (talk) 03:50, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I've made some initial changes to make an equal width for the technology column. It uses fixed column width to make it equal, however. Further changes might be needed, but It works for now. Kevinguava (talk) 04:22, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! I'm going to add it here for now, so that I can keep the page consistent, and it can be changed when it's actually out.

If you have a solution regarding the "Technology added" date issue for titles with both DLSS and FSR, please edit the table or post a new version for consideration. -- Svetroid (talk) 10:52, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

What color should we use for games that support both DLSS and FSR? Should say say both or should we use the method Svetroid suggested? There are 2 games adding fsr support within the next 24 hours so I wil fix it to the format Svetroid put above until we decide. 7Prefix7 (talk) 17:17, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Oh also what colors should we use for Epic's TAUU upscaling Grey? 7Prefix7 (talk) 07:35, 16 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I think for now, Epic's TAUU should not be listed because it is a bit more generic of an algorithm and I don't believe it is Epic-exclusive, Epic just has their own implementation. For now, I think XeSS, FSR, and DLSS are sufficient to list.
 * Regarding colors...
 * FSR: #DD0031
 * DLSS: #76B900
 * XeSS: #0068B5
 * And here's an example of what that might look like.

I have updated both of the tables above to account for what I think is the best option for the tables to include XeSS. The total column width of the Technology column is 120pt. If you only have one technology, then colspan is 3. If you have two technologies, you set the first one to have colspan of 1 and the second to have a colspan of 2, then you set their widths to 60pt each. If you have 3 technologies, you just set their widths to 40pt each. If you need to see the markup for all of this, just edit this section. Svetroid (talk) 19:43, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Ray Tracing Support
I think we should add the ray tracing table back in because up scaling technologies are more important in games with Ray Tracing as Ray tracing has a linear scaling on peformance (4k is 4x impact of 1080p for being 4x the pixels) 7Prefix7 (talk) 02:38, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I understand that these technologies are often used in conjunction with ray tracing due to ray tracing's high performance cost. However, I do believe that ray tracing is simply out of scope for this article, and I'm the one who originally put the RT column there in the first place. This page already contains that information; why duplicate it? Svetroid (talk) 02:41, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

FSR list linked to from Reddit's /r/Amd
The article List of games with FSR support (currently redirected here and subject to a deletion discussion) was shared on Reddit by the article creator with the title "I have created the "List of Games with FSR support" wikipedia page." This happened about 9 hours ago. Please evaluate the discussions above and editing activity with this in mind. --Veikk0.ma 04:10, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Not entirely sure if I understand; I redirected that page with their permission. Hopefully all is okay? Svetroid (talk) 08:44, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Just wanted to say that I did not intend to do any harm and did not know that you could not redirect pages with ongoing deletion discussions (although I suppose this should have been obvious to me in hindsight). I apologize for that.

per your comment on the deletion discussion, I will begin the process of adding inline citations for every item in each of the tables. I should hope I do not have to reassert the notability criteria, but will defend that if needed.

I have also taken into consideration your comment on the deletion discussion regarding the possible proliferation of the FSR algorithm. At such a time when that may happen, I would be happy to revisit the notability and usefulness of this page.

-- Svetroid (talk) 09:04, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Iron Conflict
I am able to independently confirm that Iron Conflict does have DLSS in-game, but I cannot find a reliable source for it. Any help finding a source would be greatly appreciated. Svetroid (talk) 23:59, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I got in contact with a member of the team at Iron Conflict and they updated one of the Steam news posts for me so that I could use it as a source. Hopefully that suffices! Svetroid (talk) 10:09, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

DLSS/FSR Preset tables
I do not think these tables belong on this article. They would be better suited to go on the DLSS and GPUOpen articles, respectively. There also may be an argument that FSR deserves its own page entirely (TressFX has its own page here), but I will leave that up to others to decide. I think we should move those tables to more relevant pages, and once that happens, remove them from this page. Svetroid (talk) 00:10, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Additionally, the DLSS Preset table is missing the "Ultra Performance" preset added in DLSS 2.1. Svetroid (talk) 00:11, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

I have moved the DLSS/FSR preset tables to more relevant articles, which are linked to on the article. In doing so, I updated the GPUOpen page with much more accurate information, so any additional FSR information should go on the GPUOpen page. Svetroid (talk) 22:33, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Monster Hunter: World does not support FSR
The game only supports FidelityFX CAS, which isn't the same technology. 24.41.236.137 (talk) 00:03, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Crysis Remastered Trilogy & Metro Exodus Enhanced edition
The Crysis Remastered Trilogy should not be separated as they are sold as a trilogy set and I don't like the idea of putting these types of bundled remasters in a set just like if Halo MCC added FSR we wouldn't put Halo CE, H2, H2A, H3, H4, & Reach as a separate game.

And for Metro Enhanced edition and Metro I think the same thing as well.

Alternatively could just in the title put both Metro games in the title. And put all 3 Crysis games in the title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 7Prefix7 (talk • contribs) 09:26, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Seperate dates for DLSS and FSR addition
I think we should change the "Date Added" column to be able to account for the date of FSR, DLSS, and XeSS additions, possibly even updates to said tech (like DLSS 1.0 > DLSS 2.0+). Perhaps have the have column take two or three rows for each tech addition date, or make extra columns separate for each tech. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mine181 (talk • contribs) 19:02, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Proposal to merge to Image scaling
Per this discussion, there is a motion to merge this article into Image scaling and remove the table on the basis of WP:NOTDIR as an alternative to deletion. A number of "Lists of games with X feature support" were recently deleted so this list doesn't look like it would stand up to AFD scrutiny. I've already sketched out a short section at Image scaling, but feel free to expand on it. Axem Titanium (talk) 03:54, 12 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I think it is only sufficient to delete this list if all other lists on Wikipedia are deleted as well. This page has notability and usefulness to people, and it doesn't really make sense to delete it (because that is what you are attempting to do under the veiled "merge") when it is a useful resource not provided anywhere else. Either Wikipedia is consistent, or it is not. Lists are allowed, or they aren't. Thank you. Svetroid (talk) 01:16, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Pretty much all of these list articles have been deleted with little resistance, so we may as well operate on the premise that this one will do. It's really no different from the others. He's just cutting to the chase really. Sergecross73   msg me  16:21, 13 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I support this. The stand-alone list is unlikely to survive, but it's good to have some core examples to illustrate the point at the main article. Sergecross73   msg me  16:21, 13 December 2021 (UTC)


 * This page has valuable information. The page suggested for the merge is about methods for image scaling which does not fit the topic of this article. DLSS, FSR and other GPU based image scaling APIs use several of the methods in the image scaling article.  If your issue with this article is the table of games a better solution would be the removal of the table but the article without the table should not be deleted with a redirect to the Image Scaling article as this topic does not fit with that article.  This article is about real time image scaling APIs not the image scaling algorithms that they use. 47.208.103.244 (talk) 22:54, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

@Sergecross73 did you just make the post then agree to your own message then delete it? 7Prefix7 (talk) 04:53, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:INDENT. My comments are responding to different people. I didn't delete anything though, so not sure what you mean there. Sergecross73   msg me  13:20, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Why is this deleted, ludicrous CDLLBOSS (talk) 03:26, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

This decision is really a bad idea. This page provided something that is nowhere to be found in a concise way on the whole internet. It was extremely useful, but is now redirected to a page that has nothing to do with. what about : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_directors_who_appear_in_their_own_films ? What about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wikis ? There are many pages makings list of thing. This one definetely had its use.Sorcierombre (talk) 00:33, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Garbage decision User:Sergecross73 Badhunter0303 (talk) 12:54, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Why are you singling me out? It wasn't my proposal and I wasn't the one who carried it out. I merely pointed out that these sort of articles aren't surviving deletions discussions carried out recently, which is factually true. Many similar articles have been deleted lately. Sergecross73   msg me  13:20, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Because you made a post suggesting to delete the article then make a post agreeing with yourself then deleting it. There was no reason to delete this list other than to go on a power trip and its laughable that you post posts saying you agree with yourself forgetting to logoff. 7Prefix7 (talk) 20:43, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I did not do these things. Please link to the times you think I did this. Sergecross73   msg me  11:25, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Seems to be strong resistance to this change from the community, recommend change is reversed and information left alone as long as people find it useful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.66.180.130 (talk) 06:47, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:USEFUL. Sergecross73   msg me  11:25, 23 March 2022 (UTC)


 * No 'support' for this DLSS, FSR and XeSS all meet WP:N. It's an important article that covers a very popular technology and was regularly exceeding a thousand views a day and exists under the remit of WP:L Joshposh70 (talk) 07:31, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Citing WP:L makes zero sense in this discussion. Not even close to a valid rationale. Page views isn't a valid rationale either. Sergecross73   msg me  11:25, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree to this heavy heavily. This article is the only place u could realistically find this information easily and many people look for it and there are lots of lists of things on wikipedia. It fits wikipedia rules perfectly fine. As above posted many other list of random things appear. 7Prefix7 (talk) 08:24, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * How does it "fit Wikipedia's rules perfectly". I'm interested to hear, as so far no one wanting to keep things so far have correctly cited any policy or guideline. You can't just WP:VAGUEWAVE it like that. Explain what you mean. Sergecross73   msg me  11:25, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * According to WP:NLIST, informational lists are "often" kept regardless of notability. This list would appear to be informational and thus tend towards a Keep. Sakkura (talk) 11:57, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * If we allowed for that sort of cherry-picking of NLIST, virtually every list with 2 items wouldn't ever be deleted. That's simply not how it works. Sergecross73   msg me  13:36, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Lots of such lists would fail WP:LISTPURP. Sakkura (talk) 13:55, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Great, feel free to nominate them for merger or deletion too then. See WP:OSE. Sergecross73   msg me  14:09, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * You were the one making the whataboutist argument. Sakkura (talk) 14:17, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * No, there's a difference between citing precedent through prior WP:CONSENSUS developed through discussion, and vaguely alluding to "other lists", alluding issues occurring there, and somehow trying to rationalize that since other issues occur, this one would be allowed to occur as well. Sergecross73   msg me  15:08, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I did not allude to other lists, vaguely or explicitly. I cited wikipedia policy in response to your allusion to other lists. Sakkura (talk) 15:46, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see now. We're arguing different points than I thought. My point was that NLIST would effectively do nothing if we allowed your interpretation of it. If it were as simple as you proposed, it would virtually allow for the existence of every single list with wiki-links. It was not meant as an OSE argument, but just as a practical application to illustrate that your interpretation was incorrect. I'll leave it at that. Simply put, if you were correct, we wouldn't have like 7+ experienced editors advocating for supporting a merge.  Sergecross73   msg me  16:05, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Feel free to actually address the argument they made but simply saying "that's not how it works" isn't a valid argument. 47.208.103.244 (talk) 22:55, 25 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Support merge, and points made by Axem and Serge are valid reasons. As per citing WP:NLIST, this applies to articles where all subjects on the list are discussed by sources in relation and are discussed broadly. With this list, all the games listed are one-off updates and some primary and unreliable announcements from critics, and have nothing in common beyond, well, supporting high-fidelity image upscaling. Panini!  • 🥪 12:20, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * No, WP:NLIST does not only apply as you claim, it just mentions that is one situation where it can apply. It explicitly goes on to state that stand-alone lists are often kept regardless of notability. Since the list also seems to fulfill WP:LISTPURP, you would need to instead show how this list fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Bullet points 4-6 are obviously not applicable. There's probably too much context for 1 to be applicable, and I don't see how it's enough of a cross-categorization for 3 to apply. That leaves only 2, but that actually mentions that reference tables and tabular information is included in Wikipedia. Overall, I see no valid argument for this pseudo-deletion being in keeping with Wikipedia guidelines. It also seems to be a problematic end run around the WP:AfD process. Sakkura (talk) 13:54, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Merging (again)
A number of IP editors have been restoring this list (or maybe one editor with multiple IP addresses). Looking back, I realize now that the original consensus mostly took place across multiple other pages so, once again, I propose that this list be redirected to Image scaling. The context of the original proposal was that six other similar lists (see 1 and 2) were in various stages of deletion and have since been deleted with near unanimous support. I proposed the merge (which has been completed) and redirect to preserve the history of this page on the grounds of WP:NOTDIR. The page has since been transwiki'd to the PC Gaming Wiki, where it is being maintained with regularity by the audience that this information is actually geared toward. Axem Titanium (talk) 12:10, 23 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Support merge, per my reason stated above. Panini!  • 🥪 12:21, 23 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Support protected redirect to Image scaling + Transwiki to "List of games that support high-fidelity upscaling" on PCGamingWiki – There is extensive community consensus that this type of list topic (list of games which support XYZ technical spec) is unsuitable for inclusion as an exhaustive standalone list per Wikipedia's policies (chiefly WP:NOTCATALOG). Arguments such as "WP:ITSUSEFUL" are not valid rationales for preserving the content on Wikipedia, however it is highly encouraged that enthusiasts maintain the list in a more suitable location such as "List of games that support high-fidelity upscaling" on PCGamingWiki. Ben · Salvidrim!   &#9993;  12:33, 23 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Support It would be expected that as time progresses, image upscaling will become a norm, not a unique feature (compared to, say, cross-platform play), so its simply better to discuss the technology. --M asem (t) 12:48, 23 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Support Nothing much to add, except the restore reasons in edit summaries are simply flawed. "Repeated restorations" does not indicate a consensus, simply a lack of understanding of processes at Wikipedia. -- ferret (talk) 13:02, 23 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Support - per argument here and in the section above a couple months ago. This isn't the sort of high level tech stuff Wikipedia documents, nor is it the sort of things that is going to be source-able to Wikipedia standards. Every keep !vote so far has been severely flawed, and painfully obvious that they're from a Reddit group with a single purpose. Fully support the trans-wiki move. Sounds much more appropriate for a tech enthusiast wiki. Sergecross73   msg me  13:33, 23 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Support The transwiki to PCGamingWiki seems to be a better place for it, as it's a more enthusiast Wiki and this is a general encyclopedia, so it should be expected to have more technical things Wikipedia doesn't. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:26, 23 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is full of similar lists and tables, and by consensus they remain, e.g. the list of Linux distributions, or the Lists of countries and territories, which is a list of lists. There appear to be thousands of these lists that happily reside on Wikipedia without issue.
 * Furthermore, why take it upon yourselves to "transwiki" this list to PC Gaming Wiki, a niche source that's poorly maintained and only has reach due to SEO spam? Kronix1986 (talk) 15:57, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * First of all, those are very different lists conceptually. Secondly, can you please point to the discussion that showed a consensus support for keeping list of Linux distributions. Sergecross73   msg me  16:09, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The thing about List of Linux distributions is that it has a navigational purpose within Wikipedia. It's linked to a ton of related articles that are related due to their intrinsic nature. Lists of countries and territories is the same. This article just shows a single aspect of a game and one that is not relevant to a general audience at that. High fidelity image upscaling is not something I'd use to decide what game I want to buy, just something I'd notice after the fact and say "oh, neat". It's not defining. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:54, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I'm not trying to delete the Linux list, I just wasn't seeing any active discussions on it. It's obviously an apples to oranges comparison, but I was also seeing if it was additionally a WP:OSE violation. Sergecross73   msg me  21:18, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The spirit of WP:OSE is that it is unproductive to the discussion at hand to get distracted by needing to justify the existence of other pages. Maybe they are appropriate, maybe they aren't. They will get their day in court if it is warranted. What's not warranted is litigating it on a completely separate page as if the outcome had any bearing on this discussion here. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:48, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * So you keep getting proven wrong that only you want this gone and everyone else shows keeping it and he debunked your claim about list of linux distributions then u just move goal post and say well i am not trying to remove it. Well why remove either? 67.253.26.77 (talk) 01:00, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not entirely clear to me what you're saying or who you're even talking to, but my point was meant to be that the Linux article is both irrelevant and has no prior discussions confirming or denying it's appropriateness either. It's just another random "what about". Sergecross73   msg me  12:14, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support it is perfectly compliant with wikipedia rules and this list was highly supported and was up to Wikipedia standards for sourcing as well it was a great article that was not a violation. 7Prefix7 (talk) 01:03, 10 April 2022 (UTC)


 * There is an existing discussion for this merge request. Per the Wikipedia talk page guidelines this should be removed or merged with the above discussion.
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Good_practices_for_talk_pages 47.208.103.244 (talk) 22:47, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The prior discussion is over 3 months old. It's also muddied down with a bunch of contributors that don't know how to format responses. There's nothing wrong with starting a fresh discussion for age and readability reasons. Sergecross73   msg me  01:17, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The prior discussion started over 3 months ago but was never resolved and is still active. Starting a new discussion while an identical one is still active directly violates the above linked Wikipedia guidelines. 47.208.103.244 (talk) 22:32, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The section heading is just for ease of editing/navigation. You can take it away if you like but that doesn't remove the comments from a half dozen editors in support of the merge. Quibbling over procedure doesn't have a good track record for winning arguments on Wikipedia. Axem Titanium (talk) 08:11, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to edit anything or discuss anything within this section. Feel free to merge these with the actual discussion above, my comments here have nothing to do with my support for or against the merge.  I made my position clear in the correct place above, doing an end run around an existing discussion is not how you build consensus. 47.208.103.244 (talk) 22:51, 25 March 2022 (UTC)


 * !vote I want to preference this stating that as a current moderator of PCGamingWiki, I will not be casting a formal vote due to the potential conflict of interest. As a occasional Wikipedia editor and avid Wiki editor in general however, I did still want to share my opinion on the matter having recently become aware of it.
 * Based on my time interacting with Wikipedia on and off over the years, I have to agree that the format of a list does not fit the general purpose of the site, due to it's often specific nature of a singular topic that would much rather be suited to any other kind of specialty site, wiki or not. The problem I see is that a list such as this being as specific as it is, lives almost completely devoid from the rest of Wikipedia existing solely for its own purpose while not providing value to the rest of the site, while it could be argued that that much broader and generalized lists (such as those Kronix1986 mentioned) still serve a purpose and thus should be kept, while this list does not.
 * No one can argue however that this list serves no purpose at all, which is evident by those trying to restore it and has ultimately culminated to this (repeat) discussion. As the information in the article still exists but just on a different website, then I view this to be a non-issue due to the resolution (that has already taken place) being an acceptable compromise for all parities. Dave247 (talk) 15:02, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Which is why I dislike and tend to avoid "it's useful" and "it's useless" arguments. Usefulness depends on the user. Nothing is useful to literally everyone or no one. There's a common misperception that if something doesn't have a Wikipedia article, or its article gets deleted, the thing's worth is diminished, which is patently untrue. I edit a lot on Fandom wikis and other sites on topics that I have no interest in trying to get covered on Wikipedia. That's what they're there for. Every wiki has its own community developed rules for what is and isn't within the scope of their site. I fully support transwiki'ing material to more specialized wikis. No one's work is "going to waste". Axem Titanium (talk) 08:11, 25 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Support - As others have pointed out, this is fairly niche information that we really don't need to be cataloging, particularly if it can be maintained elsewhere.DocFreeman24 (talk) 05:40, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * "Nicheness" isn't a relevant argument here, nor is whether the information is available elsewhere. Sakkura (talk) 13:23, 5 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Alright, are we about all set here? Discussion has been open for almost two weeks and has slowed way down in recent days. I'd offer to ask for an outside third party to gauge a consensus and close it, but quite frankly I'd feel silly doing it - the consensus is abundantly clear. Sergecross73   msg me  23:11, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * There is a clear majority of votes in favor, but we're supposed to look at arguments pursuant to policies. There has been little effort to engage with the policy-based arguments so far. Sakkura (talk) 15:27, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's, uh not exactly my take away. I see almost unanimous support for merging from long-term, experienced editors citing policy and precedent, and a ton of completely invalid stances from a bunch of people who appear to be recruited by Reddit, be WP:SPA's, and/or inactive/inexperienced accounts. Sergecross73   msg me  18:58, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah there are a lot of votes, but the majority of them are ignoring policy. Whereas arguments from the other side, based on policy, are ignored. Also, if you suspect people of acting inappropriately on WP, you should know there are proper ways to address that. Sakkura (talk) 17:38, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Your take away from all of this is that citing WP:NOTDIR isn't policy-based, yet the likes of the comments citing WP:ITSUSEFUL and WP:L (???) are policy based? (Most of the "keep" stances didn't even cite anything at all, just random anger that the article was deleted for reasons they didn't understand.) The closest thing to a policy-based thought on the keep side was you cherry-picking that but from NLIST about keeping lists for navigational purposes, but that doesn't address any of the scrutiny here. Sergecross73   msg me  13:01, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I already went through WP:NOTDIR above, with no response. As for WP:ITSUSEFUL, sure that's not an argument, but that goes both ways - arguments that it's useless are not valid grounds for deletion. You yourself cited that invalid argument in your vote, along with ad hominem and WP:AGF violations. Your behavior here is strange - first asking if the discussion should be closed, then immediately closing it in your own favor once opposition was voiced. Why even ask? Sakkura (talk) 20:22, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Whoops, that was User:Axem Titanium rather than you. My bad. Sakkura (talk) 20:40, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I find it extremely bizarre/suspicious that multiple opposing editors here have confused myself and Axem, despite the fact that our names and signatures are entirely different. Both of us have been editing for over a decade and this is the first discussion where it's occurred, let alone multiple times... Sergecross73   msg me  21:48, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 May 2022
Revert article deletion and redirect

This page has valuable information. The page suggested for the merge is about methods for image scaling which does not fit the topic of this article. DLSS, FSR and other GPU based image scaling APIs are implementations of image scaling methods from that article which does not contain any other implementations or information about them. The redirect also does not contain any of the information contained in this article, it's a single paragraph and removes all the relevant information about these APIs. If the issue with this article is the table of games a better solution would be the removal of the table. The article itself without the table should not be removed and redirected to an article that is at best tangentially related. This article is about real time image scaling APIs not the image scaling algorithms that they use. 47.208.103.244 (talk) 22:04, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:13, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Consensus was not established for the deletion of the article and redirect to an unrelated article. This article needs to be restored. 47.208.103.244 (talk) 16:57, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Correction: Consensus was found, you just dont agree with it. Which is exactly why we have outside, neutral parties close discussions and decide on a consensus, rather than participants like yourself - you can't see past your own stance to see there was a pretty rock solid consensus on the matter. Sergecross73   msg me  17:07, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * See the section immediately above. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:07, 24 May 2022 (UTC)