Talk:List of Nintendo Switch games/Archive 3

Physical vs. Digital Only Games
I've been told that the idea of adding a notation for games that have a "physical" release available (as opposed to games that can only be purchased digitally), has been 'talked' to death around here - be that as it may, I would like to resurrect the conversation at least one more time and perhaps help build a new consensus as to whether it is right and/or proper to have this type of data available on Wikipedia. I will be perfectly honest - I have not taken the time to go back and dig through the archives to note various points that have been made on this topic (whether they for or against it). That said, I'm still hoping to engage in a civilized discussion as to why this information should (or should not be) included in the games listings. I assure you, after I submit this post, I will go back and start researching the arguments that may have already been made - in particular, I will look for reasonings against this and try to find an argument that supports a new position on this. In the meantime, I would still like to start the conversation while the thoughts are still fresh in my mind, and perhaps even educate myself as to why this is not something that belongs here. If any of my points are considered "beating a dead horse", I apologize in advance - again, I'm fully open to educating myself here.

I don't think anyone can deny the fact that consoles are moving closer and closer to a "digital only" future - whereas, prior to the 7th Generation of gaming consoles (6.5 if we want to be honest, with the XBox Live launch), games (for consoles) were almost exclusively released on disc or cartridge formats, period. As we've moved through the 7th, 8th and now enter this 9th generation of consoles though, we are finding that less and less games are available on a physical format - and there can be little doubt that the future of gaming consoles will eventually be a "digital only" or perhaps even a Netflix-like streaming experience where no games are released on a physical medium, at all. In that regard, we can view these 7th though 9th generations as sort of "transitional" years, where gaming is ultimately moved from one media format to another. Because of that reason alone, games that are released during this period have a very definitive characteristic (and publishing choice) of being a "digital only" game or a "physical release" game.

I've heard some of the arguments against providing this information, in particular those in regards to sourcing (which I'll address in a moment) - but before I get to that point, I would like to provide my reasoning as to why this information should be included. Every single video game that has ever been created and released to date, has very specific characteristics attributed to it (eg. Release Date, Developer, Publisher, Platform, etc.). These are tangible facts that cannot be debated and they are very specific traits about a game. I'm not talking about "announced" games or "rumored" games or any other game that hasn't been shipped - I'm referring only to those games that have actually come out. Before a game comes out, release dates (and sometimes even publishers) can certainly change - but once that game is out, those traits do NOT change. And we assign those traits to games because they are factual descriptors - they are important to know about (especially when educating oneself about a particular game) as they provide an accurate, factual and top-down picture of a game (both in its current form and for historical purposes). They tell you nothing about what the game is about, what the genre is, how many players, etc. - they merely describe the most basic and low-level facts about a game. It is within this scope, that the concept of whether a game has a physical version available should be considered for inclusion. It is a descriptive fact that is no different than any of these other traits and it is a critical piece of information about the game, especially during these transitional generations.

Compare the media format trait to some of the other traits I just mentioned, such as the Publisher - why do we feel that knowing who published a game is important and should be included in a gaming list? Is it because people come here to find out who published a particular game? Is it because somebody may want to find a list of games published by the same company? Or, is it simply done for the sake of "completeness" in defining traits of a particular game? Most importantly, exactly what is it about knowing the publisher of a game that is so much more critical to storing here in Wikipedia and being made available for research, than storing the physical characteristic of the game itself? Each one of these same exact questions holds true for every other trait we currently store in a row for a given video game. Release Date, Developer, Platform - what is it about any of those traits that makes them so much different than knowing what media a game was released on?

I can't think of a single quality in any one of those traits that I just listed, that is so vastly different than knowing the physical characteristic of a game - and I would be more than receptive to learning and understanding what makes them so different. As best I can tell, each one of these traits (including the physical characteristic) are precisely the same. In fact, each and every one of these traits hold the same exact recordable fact; they are not fiction, they are not open to interpretation, and they are certainly not based on opinion. Once a game is released, these are factual traits that are etched in stone - sourcing be damned. Again, I'm not referring to pre-release games - I'm speaking solely about those games that have been shipped to retail and are available for purchase.

As to the specific argument regarding the availability of sourcing, I cannot believe that Wikipedia policies don't allow for the concept of a "generally accepted" fact - when a game is released, it is either available for physical purchase or it is not. It's as simple as that. There's no "maybe" or "sort of" - it either is, or it isn't. How much sourcing would be required to backup such an obvious point about whether a physical version is available? A link to Nintendo where they have a Categories filter for games that indicated "Retail" or "Nintendo.com"? A link to Amazon or GameStop that shows a game available for purchase? A picture of a game in it's box? I'm all for the requirement that all things Wikipedia are to be based on FACT - I totally get it and there is nothing more frustrating to learn about something on Wikipedia, and then find out the information is wrong. And I'm just not convinced that providing the proof of a games physical availability could possibly be all that difficult.

As I stated from the beginning - I'm very open to learning and understanding the opposition to storing and maintaining this information. During these transitional years of consoles, I firmly believe that this information absolutely needs to be stored. When the first "digital only" consoles begin to come to market in the years ahead, it will become very obvious to everyone that not having included this information (while the sourcing and general knowledge is more easily accessible) will have been a mistake - and it will be that much harder to clean-up and prove out in the future.

For those that managed to finish reading this entire essay - thank you! ALL opinions, suggestions, and options will be accepted - as will as criticisms. I think that you will find I'm very open to other opinions, so long as you are open to mine as well...  Patfass (talk) 02:41, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * We had a long discussion on this before, and there are a number of issues at play here:
 * 1) It clutters an already very busy list.
 * 2) Per WP:V, everything must be sourced by reliable sources, and sources don't always cover this.
 * 3) Most individual game main articles don't cover this consistently. So it seems weird to document here.
 * I know some people like to obsess over whether or not a game has a physical cartridge/disc or not. But that doesn't mean it necessarily needs to be documented at a general encyclopedia like Wikipedia though, much like we don't host cheat codes or walkthroughs either. Sergecross73   msg me  03:05, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, but speaking to each of these issues:
 * It clutters an already very busy list - Seriously? A simple yes/no column is going to turn this table into an unreadable mess? Believe me, before I found out about these "talk" pages, I had already made the bone-headed mistake of adding this information to the table (only to have the updates reverted) and I can tell you from visual experience, the table did not look any more busy or cluttered than it does today. In fact, a few times I had to do a double-take because I couldn't tell if my column was actually there or not.
 * Per WP:V, everything must be sourced by reliable sources, and sources don't always cover this. - Ok, now this I know is the crux of every argument that's going to be brought up, so I think I need to understand a bit better as to how "sourcing" works around here and what is (and what is not) good practice. I'll address this one below so I don't have to repeat myself to Ferret.
 * Most individual game main articles don't cover this consistently. So it seems weird to document here. - I'm going to assume the reason for that, is for the same reason I'm having a problem adding it to this list. There is this hangup regarding "sourcing" for this information, and so if I were to go to any individual game page and add this, it would just as likely be reverted there as it is being reverted here.


 * For the record - this is not about "obsessing" over the physical characteristic of a game. As I mentioned above, this is about documenting something that is unique to this transitional era of consoles. Before the XBox, all games were assumed physical - come generation 10 (or perhaps even later in generation 9), all games will be assumed digital. But right now, during this period in between, there is definite and obvious difference for any game being published - it's a trait that is no more important (or less important) than a release date, publisher, developer, etc. It is something that defines the basic characteristics of a game, which is the entire purpose of this list, no?


 * No change to my position currently. The column is difficult to source, even partially, and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. If there's a Nintendo Switch Wikia, I recommend that users who want such information build it there. -- ferret (talk) 12:48, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

So far, the biggest argument we keep coming back to is 'sourcing' - which is understandable as it's a big part of Wikipedia. I did ask about this up in my original post, but I know it was a very long-winded affair, so it might have gotten skimmed over. Regardless, I'm going to push forward with a different angle on this, and point out some things that currently exist in the Nintendo Switch List, and you tell me whether they are right, wrong, should be gone, or are ok (and for the record, I just went right to the bottom of the list and worked my way up).


 * Zombie Vikings - Clicked the reference link, which took me to a current Twitter status page that showed the game running on a Switch and people playing it. This qualifies as a source? Is there a better source somewhere that I'm not seeing?
 * Yooka-Laylee - Clicked the reference link which brought me to an article about the game, yet nowhere in this article did I find mention of a Publisher for the Switch release. Is it just assumed that because Team 17 handled publishing duties for previous platform releases, that they'll be doing the Switch one, too? That's definitely not a guarantee as different publishers can (and sometimes do) handle publishing duties for the same game on different platforms.
 * Yoku's Island Express - Same as the previous one - clicking the reference link brings me to an article about the game, but no specific mention of the Publisher.

I'm sure if I keep going, I'm going to find more than half of this list (probably even more than three-quarters) with the same problems - since the Switch is in it's infancy stage, there aren't that many games out and so most items in this list are 'announced' or 'rumored' or whatnot. And I don't get a sense that the sourcing I've been looking at, is all that definitive on any of this stuff. What's more - at least I know I can go to Nintendo directly, look at the games released for the system, and know that they have a filter which separates physical from digital-only. So as I asked before, why wouldn't this qualify as a source? Sure seems far more reliable than some of the stuff I'm currently looking at...? Patfass (talk) 17:16, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

And one last question to both Sergecross73 & Ferret (and anyone else that joins this discussion, later): Exactly who and how was it decided, that the columns we currently use in a video game list are the columns that need to be filled out? How was that decision ever arrived at? How were these columns chosen for inclusion, in the first place??? Patfass (talk) 17:22, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Alright, I lied - one last, LAST question, I promise: Why is that Wikipedia hosts a "Physical PS3 Games List" and "Download Only PS3 Games List", and yet for the Switch we have this stalemate? Patfass (talk) 17:29, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * You're moving into WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS territory. We don't claim the list is perfect. Imperfections are not a reason for more imperfections though. There may be other lists that include inappropriate information simply because no one has taken an interest to either merge them, clean up, or delete them, what have you. As for how columns are picked, someone started the list, and no one had opposition to the columns that they started with. It's pretty formulaic, after all. When the physical release column was added, it was opposed. It has been re-added by different new editors and then removed again repeatedly, which is why the talk page archives already have four discussions on this list. You aren't hashing any new ground, we're all well aware of arguments of this sort. As for whether or not Nintendo's own store is good enough as a source, the problem is it doesn't appear to be complete by any stretch. According to Nintendo, only 10 games have a retail release at all, which Amazon quickly disproves. And what happens if a game is discontinued, and Nintendo removes it from the store? We can no longer verify it. This is a big issue with using online stores for sourcing, among others. -- ferret (talk) 17:38, 16 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Well, since I keep getting pushed into this generalized, "Wikipedia policies dictate..." statement, I brought up the fact that a physical designation exists for PS3 games. If this trait satisfies the generalized statement regarding Wikipedia policies, then doesn't it follow that it would satisfy the same policy in regards to the Switch?


 * Actually, Nintendo is correct as there have only been about 10-12 physical games released to date - the games on Amazon that you're referring to are likely all pre-order. That said - since you just now referenced Amazon as an argument to invalidate the listing on Nintendo's website, does that mean Amazon is a valid source? Obviously, I'm of the opinion that Amazon (or any online retailer) is absolutely a valid source when it comes to this particular bit of information - if they are literally selling a physical version of a game, then it absolutely has to exist otherwise they'd be committing fraud. Again, I am not (nor have I ever been at any point in these discussions) referring to pre-orders or "future" games - I have been talking solely about games that are available for immediate purchase.


 * By the way, I'm well aware that this discussion has already been had - and because of that, I really do appreciate the time you (and anyone else) takes in continuing this conversation with me... Patfass (talk) 18:09, 16 July 2017 (UTC)


 * And speaking on the fact that this issue has been discussed several times already (as you've mentioned) - how exactly does one go about changing the decision? Do I merely have to convince you? Is there some "Grand Master Editor" that makes all final decisions or is it a group of editors? Who holds the final decision as to what changes and what stays the same? Saying, "This has been discussed and this is the conclusion we arrived at during those discussions", is definitely not a finite way of closing a topic or settling a debate for good. Just because a decision was made at one time in the past, doesn't mean that circumstances can't change or new opinions can't be accepted to include a new suggestion. Things change, as they say... Patfass (talk) 18:19, 16 July 2017 (UTC)


 * If the majority of involved editors would agree with you, and it doesn't directly violate any general policy or guideline, then it would be allowed. As the policy on this states, consensus can change over time, but right now, the majority of editors here, me included, do not agree that we should have a separate column for physical releases, with various reasons why. "As for how columns are picked, someone started the list, and no one had opposition to the columns that they started with" Yes, but again, consensus can develop against this over time, especially when it already potentially violates guidelines. And regarding the PS3 games article, yes it shouldn't have the column there either, its just that nobody has gone ahead and removed it yet due to the large amount of work it would take (unless a script/bot could handle it?). This article was started from scratch just a few months ago, so we are attempting to format it in a way that all future (and old) lists of this type would eventually follow. ~ Dissident93  ( talk ) 19:29, 16 July 2017 (UTC)


 * WP:NOTCATALOGUE has been cited as a reason against it too, FYI. Not sure if it was mentioned yet, with this the serious wall-of-texts going on here. Sergecross73   msg me  19:44, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * This was my main argument against it, actually. Sure, it's helpful, but so would be adding the publication years, catalog numbers, and eShop URL links. Just because it's helpful, doesn't make it encyclopedic, and that's not to mention the difficulty of verifying and sourcing all of this. ~ Dissident93  ( talk ) 20:02, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't know the best way to keep this thread organized - I'm trying my best though. I've tried inserting below other posts (and indenting, etc.), but still it looks like points are getting lost (on both sides) and I'm not sure I'm the only one having problems following here. I'm sure it's my fault and I know my initial posting was quite large, but please bare with me as I try to get through all of this:


 * 1) How many editors are responsible for making this decision? So far, three people have commented on this thread - all three (so far) have been adamantly against this. Are all three of you 'editors'? Is anyone that works on this list considered an editor or are there specific people labeled as such - and if so, who are they and/or how do I find this out?
 * 2) As for the PS3 one - it doesn't so much as have a column added, rather it has an entire page dedicated solely for the listing of "physical releases". Is that something that could be considered? I believe I asked this same question back on your (Dissident93) "talk" page, but it never got acknowledged.
 * So a separate List of Nintendo Switch games that were released physically article? ~ Dissident93  ( talk ) 03:33, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Correct - a completely separate page and perhaps provide a link in this page (top or bottom, doesn't matter) that sends people to the other page. That's how this is handled with the PS3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_PlayStation_3_games_released_on_disc Patfass (talk) 16:39, 18 July 2017 (UTC)


 * 1) None of those things (publication years, catalog numbers, and eShop URL links) describe a game in the same fashion as the concrete details that currently exist in the table (Developer, Publisher, Release, etc.) - those other items are flexible, can change, and are not set in stone the same way that a Developer is or the fact that a game was produced on a physical medium. Ten years from now, Mario Kart 8 will still have been developed and published by Nintendo, it will still have been released on April 28th...   ...and ten years from now, it will still have been made available on a physical format. Links, publication years, etc. do not even come close to the same standard of fact.
 * Valid points. However, I'm not sure if this has been mentioned yet, but consensus passed a few years ago that ended up removing this sort of information in every game's infobox, so why would we go against the core idea of that and mention it here? I think this is an argument that hasn't been brought up enough in these dicussions. ~ Dissident93  ( talk ) 03:33, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Fair enough - and I am bringing up this point now, even though I'm late to the party... :) Patfass (talk) 16:39, 18 July 2017 (UTC)


 * 1) I've asked this a few times as well, regarding the "difficulty of verifying and sourcing" - several paragraphs ago, Amazon was used as proof against the accuracy of the Nintendo website (which is incorrect, by the way - the Nintendo website is 100% accurate as to what has (and has not) been released in physical format). So, is Amazon considered a valid source if it's going to be used in an attempt to disprove something else? If so, then as I stated, they are absolutely a viable source and how can they not be considered for something like this? They wouldn't be able to sell physical copies of games that do not exist without committing fraud - it's pretty obvious, no? And if they are not a valid source, then I go back to the fact that Nintendo has this information published on their website - are they not a valid source? Why are you guys so entrenched on the thought that this is difficult to verify? I think this is where I'm having the hardest time understanding the problem with the whole thing. Honestly, I would rather accept the answer towards the top about the table being "too busy", than what seems like a cheap cop-out response to say this information is difficult to verify when the sources are right there for all to see if they're that interested.
 * Because we don't normally use Amazon as a source for anything else. Perhaps we could just for this, but that's something we would need a separate consensus for. Also, how would we considered something that has a physical release, but it's only for a digital download code, such as the collectors edition of Sonic Mania? ~ Dissident93  ( talk ) 03:33, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * There are exceptions to EVERYTHING with videogames - there are some games (I am Setsuna) that are only released physically in Japan, but released digital-only in the US. The fact that a physical version exists period, is all that matters - a separate footnote about conditional ones (Sonic Mania, I am Setsuna, etc.), could then be expanded upon if required. Patfass (talk) 16:39, 18 July 2017 (UTC)


 * 1) And for the record, I fail to see how this topic falls into WP:NOTCATALOGUE - that doesn't seem to really fit this, at all. Maybe I'm missing the point in that article, but I don't see how identifying another very specific aspect of a game (one that hits on a boolean response of yes/no) would fall into cataloging territory. This is something that's more than just "helpful" - it is a descriptive trait about the game itself. Just as who the publisher is. Knowing who published the game could be considered "helpful" as well, so exactly what is the difference between the two? It seems to me that the loudest argument I can take away from all of this as I read most of these responses, is a fear of somehow setting precedent - that by allowing this particular column to be added, the floodgates will suddenly be open to hundreds of other requests for additions to the table. And I don't see that being the case, at all. I would very much like to understand how the publisher of a game holds a greater "encyclopedic" value, than identifying the format that same publisher decided to release the game on - perhaps understanding this, will help me move on from the topic altogether.
 * This could be argued the opposite way though. Does it really matter in the long or short term if a book was only published in hardcover or paperback? Sources don't tend to mention this sort of thing, but they always mention the companies involved in the production of a game, so if they don't considered this as important, should we? ~ Dissident93  ( talk ) 03:33, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, it matters very much if a book is paperback or hardcover - not the least of which, the cost varies significantly. But for the same reason there are video game collectors who want to know this, there are book collectors who want to know this, too! The difference is, with books they follow a consistent publishing trend - they are published on hardcover first, and then paperback version is always made available. That is not true of games since it's a publisher's choice as to how they wish to release the game.


 * 1) One last point, (and I know this will get shot down with a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS comment, but I want to go ahead and make it anyway) - when a discography for a recording artist is posted here at Wikipedia, the format of the released album in question is absolutely noted in the table (CD, LP. Cassette, etc.). How is this so vastly different than what I'm hoping we can achieve here???
 * Patfass (talk) 23:06, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Different projects here have different guidelines, for example, articles about films can list the cast involved, but for video games, the practice is considered WP:GAMECRUFT unless properly written into prose. ~ Dissident93  ( talk ) 03:33, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I just read through the WP:GAMECRUFT article, which is very much appreciated - this goes back to my original point of wanting to educate myself about things around here, and this is absolutely helpful! That said, I still don't see where this applies (for or against) the concept of adding this information. In fact, the only point that I take away in this regard, is that it's really up to us as to whether we include this or not - nothing about this particular piece of data, falls outside the concepts or policies or mission statement at Wikipedia. In fact, this statement supports what I'm saying: "Lead section: The name of the game in bold italics, its gameplay genre, release date, platform, and other identifying information go first." So, it lists examples of what goes in a Lead Section, but not an exhaustive listing that states these are the only things that should be considered.
 * Is there something else in this article that I missed, that might address this? As I said, I definitely appreciate the URL - it helped me now and will help in the future, for sure. I don't think it resolves this in any meaningful way, though... Patfass (talk) 16:39, 18 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Question\Point #1 - Resolved
 * Just a quick reply on one point: "Editors" is anyone who edits Wikipedia. Whether they edit with a registerd account or anonymously, editors are just people who edit Wikipedia. -- ferret (talk) 23:14, 16 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Well that's what I was afraid you were going to say, and that just makes it all the more difficult to resolve this issue, doesn't it? The other day, you told me, "Understand that Wikipedia is not about voting. It doesn't get included just because enough people say "I want it, I think it's important"." - but then if anyone who makes an edit to this page is considered an 'editor' and we all have the same weight to our opinion as to what's in and what's out, then I don't see how you can possibly say that something like this wouldn't be decided by the masses. Unless there are people around here with a greater level of approve/deny control, then how does any one opinion gain traction over another?? Believe me, I understand the "why" of it all - I'm just saying, this sounds exactly like something that would have to be changed if enough people wanted it. Ugh... Patfass (talk) 23:25, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Policies and guidelines. Generally what happens in a long draw out debate with many voices is that a request for closure by an uninvolved third party is done. That person, the closer, reads through the various arguments and weighs it against policy. They decide the result (or lack of a result) and we all live with it. One of the biggest issues with this entire debate is that new editors pop in asking for this column. Experienced editors point out policy issues. This page ends up deadlocked, and the status quo remains ("No consensus", essentially is the result, and that means leave it as is). The experienced editors have often suggested that the new editors seek a broader audience, if unhappy with the discussion here, such as a request for comment or going to the Video Game wikiproject to have more voices weigh in that are not necessary watching this list or directly care about the outcome. This has been suggested to those wanting the column repeatedly, and no one ever does it. -- ferret (talk) 23:39, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * You need a WP:CONSENSUS to add your column to the article. If you can get a consensus, you can add it. If you can't get a consensus, you can't implement it. You can start a more formal discussion with an request for comment, but judging by how much opposition is here right now, and how recently the last discussion proposal failed, I wouldn't particularly recommend it. Sergecross73   msg me  23:47, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Excellent - thank you guys!! This is very informative, and MUCH appreciated! I was getting conflicting signals as to how any "change" could possibly ever get implemented, but the idea of an "uninvolved 3rd party" is absolutely the ideal preference for closure. Believe me, I'm certainly not looking to shut this down yet (and I hope none of you are, either) - I'm definitely still looking to you all for education on the topic, and holding out hope that I might be able to convince at least a few of you on the merit of changing this position. In the meantime, this at least resolves one of my many "open" questions as to how something like this would ever get resolved in a meaningful way. So again, thanks for this. I'm going to go back and "number" my most recent points, and hope perhaps it will make talking through this a little easier - for now, at least I can say that Question\Point #1 has been resolved!!


 * I still believe that I have many other valid points outlined above that have not yet been addressed in any way, regarding the actual issue itself - Question\Point #2 - 6 - at least I now feel confident in the process though, as I was beginning to worry how balanced this system really was. I will pause my entries for a bit in hopes that you guys (or others) might address a few of the other points I outlined above (agreeing or disagreeing - I'd like to hear all opinions). I'm very much looking to avoid becoming one of those "hit & run" editors you referred to above - I've been collecting games and gaming knowledge for the better part of 30 years, and I really do believe I have a lot I can offer towards building and maintaining these pages. But if there was no room for new ideas, the acceptance of other opinions, or if a genuine "close-minded" approach to newbies in general existed, then I didn't want to invest my time...  Patfass (talk) 03:00, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

By the way - as promised, I started looking through the Archives for this particular topic and I do see around the March\April timeframe, this was discussed fairly deeply. That said, regardless of the number of "editors" who bring up this issue (new, old, or anonymous), from what I can see it is the same three people that are consistently against this, , and. And regardless of how many people join the discussion or point out the value of having this information available in the table, the same three people seem to be the only ones controlling what does (and does not) happen with this table - so I have to ask, has anyone requested a "closer" in any of these discussions? Or, do the three of you simply keep pushing the same "no" narrative until others give up and walk away? I don't see any real closure in any of those threads - the discussion just stops, for whatever reason. Not that I'm looking to bring a neutral party into this yet - I'm just curious if it's ever happened on this topic?

I would also like one of you to take a stab at least some of the points I made above. The issues that I raised are not fully (or even partially) addressed in any of the previous discussions on this, beyond the fact that the onus of proof of value in on the person(s) who want to add data. There's a number of repetitious and generic answers with anchors for WP:NOTCATALOGUE (which I highly disagree with any similarity here, and I mentioned as much in my points above) or WP:V (even though I've mentioned useful sources for this info, if it's so desperately needed to resolve this) - but nothing all that concise as to exactly why it is you three are so adamantly against this idea and furthermore, why it is that the three of you seem to be the only ones controlling this content.

Please don't take any of what I wrote as sarcasm or criticism - I'm just doing my due diligence as promised by looking back at the history on this topic, and what I've seen isn't all that inspiring as far as having an open mind to other people and their opinions. Some of the answers given (in particular, Dissident) seem downright dismissive, and that can't be good for anyone around here... Patfass (talk) 03:57, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * There's more than just us three, but some have not replied to every discussion. As both Serge and I have noted, we have often directed editors who want the column to branch out to other areas, such as WT:VG, for a wider opinion to see if the discussions would tilt the other way, and none have done so. -- ferret (talk) 11:19, 17 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Sorry if I didn't address something earlier, but your massively long replies are hard to keep track off and respond to in an clear way. No offense, but I see this massive wall of a text and figure that I could go ahead and deal with issues on other articles besides this one, and then forget to come back and respond. ~ Dissident93  ( talk ) 03:05, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah - apologies for the super-long posting. As I've mentioned, I have no idea how to properly thread this discussion at this point, hence the reason I went back and tried to separate this whole thing into numbered points. Ugh - I give up on trying to preserve some form of control over the flow here. I just went back and re-addressed your comments to my numbered points above (hopefully you can find them!!), and somehow I've managed to screw up the numbering somehow - this is just about impossible to follow!! I will keep trudging through this with you guys, so long as we're able to...  Patfass (talk) 16:39, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Alternative proposal
Offering this as an alternative approach. One of the complaints against a new column has been that it adds clutter and widens the table, for minimum useful information. Less than 4% of the list has a physical release, if Nintendo's own store is to be believed (Approximately 10 titles, versus 289 current list entries). This is one reason people have been against the column. Presuming that WP:V can be met, I proposal adding a subsection below the table simply listing the games with a physical release. Each entry in this will require a source, and I would further suggest that entries MUST have actually been released, no pre-order or announced entries. If this ever grows too large, or the percentage of list items that have physical release significantly increases (I expect it to decrease, actually), it could be revisited. Please note, this is simply an alternate way to present it, and does not directly address WP:V or WP:NOTCATALOGUE concerns. Sources still required.

Incomplete example without sources, which would simply be placed at the end of each entry:

Games released physically • Arms

• The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild

• Mario Kart 8 Deluxe

• Mario + Rabbids Kingdom Battle

• Splatoon 2

Thanks. -- ferret (talk) 11:19, 17 July 2017 (UTC)


 * This would ABSOLUTELY be acceptable! So long as there is some way to identify this characteristic in these games (regardless of placement or style), it would satisfy this request and I don't think anybody would have room or reason to revisit this topic again. This is an excellent compromise, and I would be most happy to help get it done.


 * By the way - it's less than 4% now, but that's only because the full list of 289 contains games that are not released or are rumored to be released (and may never actually happen). But as these games actually release, I fully expect the number of physical vs. digital only games to reach at least 35-40%. As of today, approximately 75 games on the list have been released - of those 75, 17 have made it to physical format which is a little less than 25%. But we are still REALLY early in the development cycle for the Switch, so most of the games currently out are indie\small development games that obviously wouldn't make any fiscal sense to go through the production of cartridges - that will definitely change, the further we get into this generation. Most games in the $40-$60 range will very likely continue to be published on a cartridge if for no other reason than to maximize the audience (believe it or not, there are still many people across this country who don't have access to high-speed internet and therefore, will only purchase physical versions of a game).


 * If preferred - another way to address this could have simply been a separate dedicated page as I had proposed a few times, as well (this is how it was done for the PS3). It could even be linked to, from this page. Honestly, I have from the very beginning, been far less concerned with the "how" we do this, so long as we do it - frankly at this point, the more subtle the design is, the better for everyone involved as it keeps the original table clean and yet, provides the outlet for the data that's been requested. However you guys want to handle this, I'm totally open to it!


 * One last question that I had asked a few times as well, is in regards to sourcing. Is the Nintendo "filter" I mentioned, good enough for this? Would an Amazon\GameStop listing be valid (not pre-order, mind you - I'm talking solely about games that are being sold for immediate shipment)?


 * On a separate note, regarding the current "busyness" you (and others) have mentioned, have you considered dropping the "exclusive" column altogether and perhaps just make use of cell\text coloring (ie. instead of dedicating an entire column to this indicator, color the cell of the game title either 'green', 'red', or 'yellow' and have a legend at the bottom of the table noting that green cells are exclusive, red are multi-platform, etc.)? Just a suggestion (probably one that has been mentioned already, anyway) - certainly not looking to get off-topic here!


 * Thank you for hearing me out on this - I mean that sincerely! Patfass (talk) 16:47, 17 July 2017 (UTC)


 * This is the best proposal thus far, but I still question if it's necessary. None of the sources that I've seen have made a note regarding how these games were released physically, so if they don't deem it important, should we? The list is pretty much only going to be first-party Nintendo titles (and third-party games that handles their IP, like Mario Rabbids). ~ Dissident93  ( talk ) 02:56, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't know why you guys keep making these generalizations regarding the physical releases (There won't be that many, they'll only be 1st party or cross-over, etc.). As I mentioned, 13 out of 75 released games (about 24%) have been physical releases so far - and they include Nintendo (Zelda, Mario Kart) as well as 3rd party (Street Fighter, Just Dance, I Am Setsuna, Disgeae, Cave Store, Lego City, etc.). The bottom line is, games that are in the $40-$60 range will very likely be on a physical format - but not always, hence the necessity for this information. Patfass (talk) 15:32, 18 July 2017 (UTC)


 * User:Patfass @Patfass, wyour suggestion for the dropping of the exclusiver column will make the page complicated for everyone because people will have to scroll all the way to the bottom to see the legend on the color codes, at least with the current exclusive column format, you will be eable to easily see the exclusivity of each and every game, without having to remember what the color codes actually mean. Nintendoswitchfan (talk) 04:49, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Was only a suggestion - wasn't looking to implement or change or frankly even discuss here (I definitely didn't want to get off-topic). Was only looking to help - but if the legend location was the problem, put it at the top of the page. You're talking about a total of three colors - if people can't remember what the three colors represent after seeing the legend the first time, then I'm not sure how they even managed to use the internet and find Wikipedia in the first place. Ha!! But again - I have no skin in this one and the column that's there is fine with me either way... Patfass (talk) 15:32, 18 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Also, @Patfass, regarding your suggestion for a physical/digital release column, I also think that it will just further complicate the page, since I believe that if a person really wants to know if a game is coming out in physical/digital format, he/she would do further research on his/her own on that game if he/she is really invested in obtaining said game. And that can be done outside this page, in places such as developer/publisher websites of games and the games' Wikipedia pages if ever. Nintendoswitchfan (talk) 04:52, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm of this mindset as well. Sergecross73   msg me  12:34, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * That would be correct, if we were only talking about people looking to purchase a game TODAY - but what about those who will come here ten years from now, and might be interested in what was (and wasn't) released physically? How about 20 years from now, when the concept of a physical cartridge might be so foreign to someone, they'd be fascinated in reading up on what they were, what games were released on it, and what it looked like?


 * And furthermore, why does somebody who's interested in this information today, have to be forced to visit multiple websites and do an incredible amount of research anyway, when they could just come here in the first place? How does that help anyone by saying, "Well, if you really care about this information, then go visit x, y, and z sites - Wikipedia isn't interested in providing this piece of information to you because it makes our page 'complicated'". Patfass (talk) 15:46, 18 July 2017 (UTC)


 * My concern is that the physical-only list is going to really bloat-out over time. I mean, it's speculative, but the system is doing very well right now, and Nintendo has always had a pretty strong retail presence, especially with sometimes catering to a younger audience that has games be bought for them by their parents. I feel like the physical releases are going to be pretty prevalent eventually. Sergecross73   msg me  12:34, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * So, right here - we've now had two completely different opinions about the volume of physical releases (Dissident thinks there won't be all that many, Sergecross thinks we'll be overwhelmed with them), and you guys still don't see why it's important to note this information somewhere?!?!? You two cannot even agree on exactly how many games will be affected by this, yet you're both positive that we're either wasting our time on something there won't be that many of, or that we're going to be cluttering up a page because there's too many of them.


 * I agree with you - I think that while the list is small right now, it will eventually cover about 40% of the library. And if some 300 games are released in it's lifetime (we know it will be will more than that), then we're already looking at over 125 games in a separate list. This is why I wanted to add the column - BUT, if it will get the issue addressed today and allow for us to change in the future, I'm totally fine with Ferret's proposal. I would much rather return to this topic in the future when there are 40-50 games in the list and revisit the column, than do nothing today and keep fighting the same battle about WHY this is important... Patfass (talk) 15:32, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, believe it or not, two completely separate people have differing reasons for being against your proposal. I don't know why you would find that so baffling. Also, please re-read what I actually said - I didn't necessarily shut it down, merely mentioned a concern. Additionally, I believe you've already been told, but I'll say it again: These massive responses you keep posting are not conducive to good discussion. They're too long. You're saying too many things at once in too long-winded of a fashion. It's overwhelming and not helping you make your point. Sergecross73   msg me  16:49, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * What's baffling is, you guys are totally against the idea for the same exact reason - but making an argument under completely opposite presumptions. You don't find that in itself, a little conflicting? One says, there will be so few of them we're wasting our time - the other says, there will be so many of them, we'll be making the page a mess.
 * I didn't suggest you were shutting down the conversation, at all - in fact, I was agreeing with you in the size of the list and how unwieldily it will likely get (which again, is why I wanted the column in the first place). All I said was that I would rather go with Ferret's suggestion and revisit the column in the future, than do nothing and come back to this "why" conversation again.
 * I'm fully aware of how BADLY this thread has gotten as far as trying to sort through it - nobody "told" me, I pointed it out myself with several apologies already. And I've done everything I can to try and clean things up and make them easier to follow, but it's just impossible when people can go back and insert a comment some 200+ lines above me without my knowing it actually happened. Since my initial post, I've done everything I can to try and make small and direct points\responses to any replies here (I even tried a numbered summary of points, which has also now gotten out of whack!) - it's just difficult to follow, and I have no idea how best to clean it. I'm certainly open to suggestions on this point, too. Patfass (talk) 17:54, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It might be best if you have any direct policy/guideline style questions, which are not directly about the list but general statements to work on your argument, to ask on your own talk page. Feel free to ping me and I'll try to answer as I have time. Then once you feel a policy or guideline is a good argument here you can come back. In particular, you might read through WP:VG/GL, which are the video game project's guidelines. VGSCOPE is a sub-portion of it. -- ferret (talk) 18:04, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the offer - right now, I just want to survive this conversation!! If you think it might be best to close it, summarize where we currently are, and try to move forward with a "cleaner" go at this, I'm more than willing to start over. Patfass (talk) 01:27, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, at the very core I still don't think this is any sort of must have information. Personally, to me, it's more like trivia. If a game isn't released physically, is that going to stop or slow sales by only being an eShop title? The massive success of digital only storefronts such as Steam suggests that people will get a game they want no matter what type of media it was released in. A separate list for this could work, but I still see problems with it. If the list never really grows and remains under 15% of all the games on the system, then I have to wonder if we should even care to document such a minor thing. And if the list grows, let's say over 50% or so, then it becomes unwieldy and highly redundant having half the list repeated. And all for what? Just so some people can find out it was published physically even when the game articles themselves don't mention this? ~ Dissident93  ( talk ) 18:32, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes - but what about any of the pieces of information we currently provide, is considered "must have"? I believe that was one of the very first points I made, even back on your own "talk" page when we started discussing this - what is it about knowing who the publisher is, makes it any more (or less) trivia-like, than knowing what format the publisher released the game on? As I said before, believe it or not there are still MANY people in this country who do not have broadband service, and any publisher who wants their game to reach as wide an audience as possible, will definitely release the game on a physical medium. That is an absolute and undeniable fact - games in the $40-$60 range will very likely be released on a cartridge, but not always (even some cheap games will make it to cartridge - Has Been Heroes - $19.99).
 * If a game has a high development cost, you can be sure the publisher wants as many people as possible to be able to purchase the game. You can't compare Steam (and PC users) to console owners, those are two completely different beasts! Most PC gamers have hign-end machines and with that, have made sure to have access to broadband service (heck, I would even argue that some stock computers are shipped without a CD-ROM today - it's now optional!) - definitely not the same as console users, which is the "poor mans" PC. I definitely don't want to travel down this debate path though, as I think we're going to get into some highly opinionated (read: passionate!) points of view which have nothing to do with the topic at hand. Just know that for at least the start of this 9th generation and definitely with the Switch in general, there will be more than sufficient volume released physically to justify inclusion of this information - as I mentioned, the rate is currently at about 24% and we're only 4 months into the cycle with very few "big name" games out. As more regular (and high quality) games are released, you can be certain there's more than a good chance that a physical version will be found... Patfass (talk) 01:25, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Alphabetical Order
If a game's title starts off with a symbol, for example, '90s Super GP, does that go before the numbered video games or after the numbered video games? Nintendoswitchfan (talk) 10:09, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I would sort it under 9, and write it as '90s Super GP.--IDVtalk 10:22, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Nintendoswitchfan (talk) 11:06, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Acts of vandalism, requesting page protection.
Can we start adding a page protection template against future vandalism? I see that this IP has made a useless edit and this has been reverted as an act of vandalism. I still see myself as editing the page from time to time, by continuing to persue more unnecessary edits as well as adding games that are announced that were added since said announcement with a respectable source. I'm just stating a fact that I'm willing to very much continue to keep the page (as well as others) up-to-date with the latest information.

EDIT: You may have to view the change via the view history tab, cause oddly the link I pointed out says that the link seems to be pointed to the current revision with no such change, and the other says that the UP is not found. So my apologies. Zacharyalejandro (talk) 07:31, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Zachary, you've been told before that protection requires on going persistent disruption. A single set of edits by an IP is not grounds for protection. On top of that, this is definitely not vandalism. It may not be data we want here, but it's clearly a good faith edit to add reception information to the table. You need to give a good solid read to WP:Vandalism and WP:AGF. You should not be reverting edits as vandalism if you don't understand what vandalism is. -- ferret (talk) 12:01, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Seconded. Zachary, you were right to remove those additions, but not every bad edit is "Vandalism". Sometimes people make mistakes. That IP address thought it would be a good idea to add review scores. I agree with you that it's not a good idea. But that person seemed to be acting in good faith, so it's not vandalism. Vandalism would be more like purposefully adding fake games that no one would believe would be real (Uncharted 4 for Switch) or deleting half the chart for no reason. Sergecross73   msg me  12:53, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Physical vs. Digital Only - Part 2
Since the original posting became more than a bit unmanageable, I thought it might be in everyone's best interest if I just started anew and see if we can pick up the discussion where we left off. So far, the reasons against this idea are:


 * 1) Difficult to source. (WP:V)
 * 2) Too few games will qualify for the designation, so it's not worth the effort.
 * 3) Too many games will qualify for the designation, so the list will become unwieldy.
 * 4) Table\page is too "busy" already.
 * 5) WP:Wikipedia is not a directory / WP:Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information

Did I miss anything? Please add to this list, if I missed any of the 'cons' in providing this information - I'd like to try and work through each reason together, in a civil (and legible!) manner and come to a consensus. Ferret has already offered an alternate path for accomplishing this which we can address later - for now, I would just like to see if it's possible to assuage any of distrust or negativity towards adding this data. We can always have a separate discussion on "how" we want to do this, and include Ferret's proposal at that time but let's just settle on the necessity of this, the value it adds to the list (and Wikipedia in general), and whether and to what extent adding this data might possibly disrupt what is currently being built. Patfass (talk) 05:49, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I've added WP:V to the sourcing bullet, as this is solidly based in policy, while other bullets may be subjective. I've also added two links to What Wikipedia is not, which is also a policy and an argument that has been stated. -- ferret (talk) 12:05, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

 Please use the sub-sections to discuss these various points - if I've missed any or anyone feels they need to add a new one, feel free to do so above but also make sure to start a new sub-section below for the actual discussion. Hopefully, this presentation will allow for a more constructive debate on the topic and help us find a resolution...

1. Difficult to source - (WP:V)
In Wikipedia, verifiability means that other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source.


 * I have proposed two possible sources of information to satisfy this requirement:
 * 1) Under the Switch Games section of Nintendo's website, there is a filter than can be applied to the game listings to show "Retail" or "Nintendo.com" - is this a valid source?
 * 2) Links to online retailers such as Amazon or GameStop - only for games that have been released (no rumored or TBA games). I know these particular sources have been turned down for use in verifying the existence of games in development, but they ought to be considered valid for the specific use of determining whether a physical distribution has occurred. This is not to be used for pre-orders - only for immediate ship games. Are these valid sources for this particular information?
 * Does anyone have a good reason as to why either of these options would be unacceptable or why they wouldn't satisfy the verifiability issue? Patfass (talk) 03:14, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Option one would be valid, as we already use Nintendo's website as a source for some of the games on the list. But since we don't use Amazon or any other online retailer as a source, then option 2 would not currently count. Does Nintendo's website always mention if a game is released physically? Because we'd need it to be so in order to verify the entire list. By the way, this is a much nicer format than the previous walls of text. Hopefully now more editors will feel more obliged to respond. ~ Dissident93  ( talk ) 07:54, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with :User:Dissident93, we don't use retaliers as a source as seen in how editors who have added games with GameStop as their sources have gotten their edits reverted because retailers almost always change their information on games and don't necessarily provide accurate information on games. Though you mentioned that Amazon is to be used for released games alone, it helps to be consistent with our other sources, since if we were to use Amazon, then that would mean that we could also use GameStop and the like. Nintendoswitchfan (talk) 09:47, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * We don't use retailers for the listing of unreleased or 'rumored' games, because it's been proven that their information is (for whatever reason) inconsistent in this particular area - whether it's because they're trying to inflate numbers by accepting pre-orders or simply because they don't have adequate QA for the unreleased games they post, the data is unreliable.
 * That said, in this instance (for the purpose of indicating whether a physical copy of a game exists or not), the information they are posting absolutely has to be 100% accurate otherwise they'd be committing fraud. They cannot sell a game that's ready to be shipped to your house, if it doesn't exist - which makes this an infallible resource for the purpose of this discussion. Again, I'm definitely not advocating that we rely on them for pre-order games or rumored games at all. As a point of fact, I have been arguing solely for providing the physical/online indicator for games that have been released only - and in this way, we can be sure that the information we are providing is without a doubt accurate and verifiable... Patfass (talk) 00:58, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

2. Too few games will qualify for the designation, so it's not worth the effort.

 * Having too few games meeting this designation (whether that's true or not), doesn't seem like a good argument for not doing something. We shouldn't base the information we provide, on whether a lot (or a little) will be affected by it. Regardless, I still stand by the fact that we are a little more than four months into the Switch lifecycle, and already nearly a quarter of the games released were released on cartridge - this percentage will absolutely rise. But even if it didn't and a physical game were never released again, there are already 13 such games in existence (with another coming out tomorrow), which should already be enough to surpass the "too few to matter" argument. Does anyone really believe this is a good reason not to provide this information? Patfass (talk) 03:14, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

3. Too many games will qualify for the designation, so the list will become unwieldy.

 * This one, I happen to agree with - if we don't properly determine "how" we ultimately provide this information, the table\page will definitely get out of hand. That said, much as the "too few" argument doesn't make sense not to do something, I don't believe the "too many" should ever be a good reason not to do something, either. The validity of the data and its importance to the subject matter are what should be considered in any argument for change - not the volume. Forget the "how" part of getting the information out there (assume that we'll present it in a way that's not "busy" or distracting), this discussion is solely about the "why" - and in that way, does anyone believe that because there might be too many games matching this profile, that we shouldn't provide the information? Patfass (talk) 03:14, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Having too few entries is indeed a problem if you want it to be a separate article. If the separate article is small enough, then it would probably just be merged back here. And on the other hand, if the majority of games were released physically, then would mentioning such a common fact even matter? ~ Dissident93  ( talk ) 07:46, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Hence, the dilemma we find ourselves in. It's damn near impossible to predict what the final Switch library will look like, but two things I can absolutely assure you of:
 * The entire library will not be released on cartridge.
 * The entire library will not be released in a digital-only format.
 * Ever since the release of the original XBox, we have found ourselves in these "transitional" generations where some of the library is released physical and some only online. Before the XBox, everything was physical so there would be no need for this information - after the Switch, it's quite likely that consoles will move to an online-only distribution where again, this information will be unnecessary. But right now as of today, it's just not that black & white. There are more than enough games being released on cartridge to justify the data, while not even close to the amount required to simply assume a cartridge is available. Cartridges currently make up about a quarter of the library, and could very likely hover in the 40-60% range by the time all is said and done. That definitely sits at discernible amount that would make this information valuable to know.
 * But back to my opening question, though - I am avoiding the "how" at the moment, and focusing only on the "why" (we'll get to the "how", if/when we ever move past accepting the data) - if something is important (regardless of what it is, forget the "physical" designation I'm raising in this discussion and just imagine some other request in the future), would you dismiss it out of hand because there are too many or too few to qualify? Out of 300+ games currently listed, you all thought it was important enough to indicate eight Nintendo games, with a 'yellow' indicator - eight! I have no idea on earth why they are even marked in 'yellow' like that in the first place, as there is nothing on that page that notes the purpose of doing this (exactly what is the difference between "exclusive" and "Nintendo exclusive"?), but the point is that somebody obviously felt it was important to point out less than three percent of the games with this coloring... Patfass (talk) 01:48, 21 July 2017 (UTC)


 * We did this marking mainly because some Switch games are also releasing on the Wii U/3DS, hence the title of Nintendo exclusive. This is seen in how The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild is on the Wii U and the Switch, how Blaster Master Zero is on the 3DS and the Switch, and a few more. This noting just makes exclusivity details a bit more specific, which is important. This is similar to you saying that physical and digital formats are important now and the years to come whereas in this scenario, not everyone can afford a Switch, so they may be enticed to look for Switch games that are already out/coming out on the Nintendo console/handheld devices that they own; in this case, the Wii U and the 3DS; hence the importance of noting Nintendo exclusives. Nintendoswitchfan (talk) 05:52, 21 July 2017 (UTC)


 * So then, you're proving my point? Just because something only affects a very small percentage of games, doesn't mean it's not worth inclusion - correct? I'm firmly of the belief that it will absolutely not be a small percentage of games that will have the physical designation, nor do I believe it will be so far-reaching that the majority of games will fit this category - it's definitely going to fall somewhere in between (I'm sticking with the 40-60% range as my prediction), five or six years from now. But even if the 13-14 games that are currently out are the only ones that ever have a physical release from this day on, it still doesn't mean that we shouldn't consider including the data simply because so few are affected - that was my only point on this particular sub-topic... Patfass (talk) 17:08, 21 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Patfass Sorry for the late reply, just got back from a trip. Well, even though the Nintendo exclusive marker only comprises of a small number of games, the fact that it was agreed upon and still is agreed upon still stands. No matter how insignificant it may seem to you, it has been there since the beginning and no one has opposed its inclusion in the article whereas physical and digital release columns, though they may be significant to some, their inclusion has been disagreed upon since the beginning and is still being disagreed upon so to this day. Nintendoswitchfan (talk) 17:28, 24 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Fair enough - for the record, I wasn't opposed to the existence of the exclusive marker. I was merely pointing out the fact that it affects an extremely minute number of games (and in reality, the number of games it affects is unlikely to grow all that much - the Wii U will be phased out entirely very soon, and so the number of games this applies to will stagnate permanently), and so to use the argument that "it only affects a few" is something that should never be considered as a disqualifying reason for not including data. That's all.


 * I get that you and a few others "don't like" including the physical/digital indicator, but I don't think any of you are being all that fair with the decision making process if it is just going to come down to a "We don't like it, so that's that." position. I feel I have gone above and beyond answering each and every concern that's been brought up, with fair-minded and logical facts - nothing that I've written so far, has been disputed with fact or policy, only this generalized opinion of not liking something. And that's a terrible way to handle these types of conflicts.


 * You "don't like" it, a couple of others "don't like" it - fine. But that doesn't mean it isn't valuable, that it doesn't pass all of the policy tests presented, and that it isn't deserving of a place on this page. And until somebody around here rebuts any of my responses with something a little more than, "[it] has been disagreed upon", I don't see how we possibly conclude this discussion in any fair and meaningful way. Patfass (talk) 19:45, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The same could be said about you. All you're doing is slamming this talk page with these long "This is important guys!" and "This must be tracked here on Wikipedia" arguments. We hear you. We just don't agree. I think it's becoming clear that the editors currently participating don't agree with you, and aren't being swayed by your arguments. Rather than continuing to badger them point by point like this, you should probably either attempt to get the input from outside editors through something like an WP:RFC. Or you should drop it, and/or take your efforts elsewhere. Surely there's a "Nintendo Switch wikia" or a "physical video game wikia" to contribute or start up or something. Sergecross73   msg me  20:45, 24 July 2017 (UTC)


 * That is absolutely, 100% untrue!! I have taken each and every one of the arguments you guys have presented, I spent the time reading and researching the various policies that were pointed out, and I've even gone so far as to provide examples from the current page, that contradict some of the 'reasons' that were provided to me as cause for not adding this. In response, I've gotten zilch. You call that fair and reasonable debate? Where have I stated, "This is important guys!" as a sole argument for doing this? I've gone point by point, debunked every single reason posted, and not one of you has even bothered to dispute what I've said.


 * I honestly think you guys are being stubborn for the sake of being stubborn at this point. You're not even giving valid reasons anymore - it's become just, "We don't like it, so move on". Give me a reason why, beyond your personal opinion! Debunk just ONE of the points I've made, just one! My bet is you can't, and so as your last resort it's now become this smug, "go away, you write too much" line - regardless of how much thought and effort I've put into having a constructive conversation here. Do we really have to get a neutral party involved in this? Is this such an outlandish request, that no matter what I state from here on, you'll just belittle my responses based on your self-centered criteria of "I don't like it."??? Patfass (talk) 01:57, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * People have valid arguments against inclusion, you're just not acknowledging it. I still stand by WP:NOTCATALOGUE - Wikipedia is not a means of showing readers how one can purchase a product. Whether or not a cartridge exists falls into that. Beyond that, there's still a massive WP:V issue. Sources don't always document this, and Wikipedia doesn't consistently document this in individual game articles. That's a major problem here. Feel free to ignore my points and keep pushing forward, telling us how it's imperative we document this on Wikipedia. But if you haven't noticed, it isn't convincing people. Sergecross73   msg me  02:38, 25 July 2017 (UTC)


 * No - it's not convincing the same exact two or three people, but that doesn't mean there aren't others who want this. You are well aware of the archived discussions on this, but since those people don't sit on this page and actively monitor it's every update, I guess their opinions are no longer valid? And when the next person comes here and brings up the same exact point again (as you know they will), you same people will once again shout that person down as though they are the only one who wants it. You'll continue to ignore the cumulative opinions, for whatever reason.
 * Now that you've actually raised a REAL point regarding the cataloguing (instead of the same "I don't like it"), why didn't you actually discuss it in the sub-section I created for it? Or, was my "wall of text" that I tried very hard to make reasonably easy for anybody to be able to navigate and converse, just too difficult for you to bother with? If you read what I wrote on this topic below, NOBODY had the common decency to even explain exactly what it was about either of those polices that was at issue - all you did was drop a link and act as though that answers everything. I read both pages several times, I couldn't figure out what it was you were trying to get at, and I asked for context - again, nobody (including you) could be bothered to respond on that point.
 * The bottom line is, your arguments are weak at best - and I mean that sincerely, not sarcastically. So where do we go from here? Obviously, I'm not just going to drop this as much as you wish I would - because I don't think you've made a single compelling argument against adding this, other than a personal bias and some extremely thin attempts to vaguely connect this to a policy. Do we have to get somebody else to make the judgement on this? Can I go ahead and just make a new page (like I had suggested over a week ago) in hopes of replacing this one, some day? Since it's obvious that none of you are inclined to ever add anything to this table, why don't you just go ahead and lock the table up for good and I'll go create a new one where people can actually have their opinions heard? Because at this point, I see no way to even attempt reasoning with you - I'm sure you probably despised Ferret's compromise as well, which would mean there is simply no pleasing you. Patfass (talk) 03:15, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * In merely trying to speed things along here, and "cut to the chase" after watching you prolong these arguments for over a week. Feel free to keep arguing, and feel to create ideas in the WP:SANDBOX and WP:DRAFT space. Sergecross73   msg me  03:47, 25 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Just answer one question, if you can: How does marking 8 games (out of over 250 entries) as "Nintendo Exclusive" (something I had no idea what it was even supposed to represent, until it was explained in this discussion), not fall into every single one of the points you all are attempting to pin as supposed reasons for not including the physical/digital indicator? If you can answer that one question (beyond a cop-out, "it was done and nobody debated it" type of response) and explain to me exactly what is so vastly different about this request, I'll drop it. Please, explain. Patfass (talk) 03:59, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Your question assumes I support that column. I'm not particularly a fan of those columns either, but somewhere along the way, they started to be the norm. If they bother you, start up a discussion on removing it. Sergecross73   msg me  10:58, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

We've reached the usual stalemate. There's nothing to gain from continuing the discussion here. As I told Patfass when this began, and has been retold to them at least 2-3 times since, a third party venue is required if you want to try to break the status quo. Head to WT:VG. If not, you might as well drop it, because there is no change in the general opinion that it should not be included. Long impassioned arguments and attempting to deconstruct people's opinions isn't going to change views here. Get outside opinions at WT:VG, and accept where they lead you. -- ferret (talk) 11:21, 25 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Sergecross73 - The column doesn't bother me, it never has. I was trying to understand what level of "consistency in policy" is actually applied to this page - apparently, there is none so thanks for that.
 * ferret - How does WT:VG actually work? Obviously, more people are involved in an overall project than are on a single page - but it feels counterproductive to move from a conversation on a specific page, to a site-wide discussion about video games in general. I don't mind doing the leg-work here, but I'd like to understand how that project relates to this one and how a conversation like this might be handled in that environment. Are editors inclined to discuss a single page like this, over there? These are legitimate questions and I'm just looking for understanding...? Patfass (talk) 12:56, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * WikiProject Video Games essentially oversees this article in a general sense. Topics of this nature, if they cannot be resolved (or you're unhappy with the resolution), locally (at the article), are often taken to the project for a broader view. You have two options on how to tackle it, roughly. Simply post asking for more opinions here, and link back to this discussion, or start a new discussion on the general concept of the importance or need to denote "Physical release", referencing this discussion as well as the PS3 list that exists. For the former, editors come here to add their thoughts. For the latter, a broader discussion might be generated that decides all of these lists (Or at least those that have both physical and digital distribution) need to denote this, or that none of them should. -- ferret (talk) 13:08, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you - this helps... Patfass (talk) 13:22, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * ferret One last question - and one I've asked at least a half-dozen times, and have yet to see answered: Can I just go create a new page, perhaps adding once sentence to the summary on this page that links to the list of physical games? I'm directing the question towards you, because up to this point you seem to have been the only reasonable minded person that's commented on this discussion and I'm hoping to resolve this today and not drag this on for another week... Patfass (talk) 17:21, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * If there's no consensus to add a physical game column to this list, there certainly isn't a consensus to create a whole new article about it. Sergecross73   msg me  17:29, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The short answer is, "Yes, you can." The longer answer is as soon as another editor sees it (which will happen in this case) and disagrees, they will probably request deletion or redirect it back to this article. Then you will fall under WP:BRD. That is, you boldly made a change (Split/duplicated an article in this case), another editor reverted or contested it, and you now have to discuss and achieve consensus. That's the best result. The worst case is you get warned for deliberately editing against what appears to be an established consensus. -- ferret (talk) 17:30, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * So, back to square one - wow. Fine - I will start a discussion on this in a third location now, because for whatever reason while a feature is available for other consoles (including other Nintendo consoles, I should point out) we can't seem to come to a consensus on what we do with the Switch. Seems crazy to me and I still don't understand how some people can be so inflexible, but whatever. I'll keep plugging along. Thanks again for the info, ferret - you've been a big help, and I appreciate it. Patfass (talk) 17:39, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

4. Table\page is too "busy" already.

 * This is a subjective opinion and again, one I believe should be reserved and handled within a future "how" discussion. Still, has there ever been a time that somebody determined that a given piece of information couldn't be provided in any manner, because a table\page was too busy? That sounds like a lazy approach - simply turning something down because it will be too difficult to make presentable on a page, seems rather short-sighted. I get the argument about trying to keep things neat, but that's not what this discussion is about - this is merely about whether the data is valid and necessary. Is this a valid reason to prevent change? Patfass (talk) 03:14, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * has there ever been a time that somebody determined that a given piece of information couldn't be provided in any manner, because a table\page was too busy? I can't think of any specific examples, but I'm pretty sure we have in the past. If you mean outside of list articles however, then parts of WP:GAMECRUFT and other similar guidelines would fit. ~ Dissident93  ( talk ) 07:50, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, frequently. People often try to add far many columns to tables, making it overwhelming, hard to read, difficult to edit/maintain, and making it veer into WPNOTCATALOGUE and WP:GAMECRUFT territory. It happens all the time. Just the other day a person tries to add like five columns for documenting review scores. It's too much. Sergecross73   msg me  15:19, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * True - I did see the update with the review scores, but I'm not sure that information is quite at the same "informational" level that we're currently discussing. Review scores have no business in a listing of games as they're based entirely upon opinion, with not an ounce of fact. I guess I did a really poor job in my opening statement on this issue, so let me take another stab at it:
 * If an idea for adding a piece of data was found to be worthy of addition, would the fact that the table/page is too "busy" ever be the determining factor for its inclusion? Wouldn't we strive to figure out a way to present data so that something new could be added, rather than dismiss the whole thing due to a lack of imagination or effort?
 * If tomorrow, Editor X came on here and asked to include Item Y in the table and you guys both thought it was important - would you allow it to get shot down because the page is too busy? Wouldn't the default answer have to simply be, "The table is too busy." - thereby locking anyone and everyone out of it for good? If it's too busy for a simple boolean column today, how could any future idea ever pass this particular test? I would hope the answer is you would look to huddle together with the rest of the editors and try to figure out a way to display it all and not have it thrown out just because there's too much information. Patfass (talk) 01:21, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

5. WP:Wikipedia is not a directory / WP:Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information

 * Ok - so I've spent the better part of two days now, reading and re-reading both of these links and I'm having a very difficult time finding the connection between the data I'm requesting we add, and understanding how it falls under one or both of these policies. The WP:Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information in particular, seems way off base to me and I can't see how any of this happens to fall into that category. The WP:Wikipedia is not a directory policy I guess has the potential to be used in an argument here, if you really want to stretch things a bit - but the other one honestly, makes no sense to me. I would be happy to discuss either of these policies with you guys, if you provide me with some specifics as to how you think displaying whether a game has a physical release or not, falls into one or both of these policies. From what I've read, there is very little to connect this request to those policies - simply throwing a link at somebody as the basis of an argument without adding any original context around it, isn't very thorough or constructive... Patfass (talk) 16:56, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Exclusivity status
It may not matter much, since it seems like the column may end up being removed in the long run anyways (based on some of the sentiments in the discussions about standardizing these "list of" articles), but where do we draw the line on some of this stuff.

For example, obviously, something like Sonic Forces is an obvious "not exclusive", and something like Xenoblade Chronicles 2 is definitely exclusive, but what about some of the other ones. Stuff like Mario Kart 8. Do we really consider that a "Switch Exclusive" when the same basic game is available on Wii U? I would think this would get the "Nintendo Exclusive" tag that is used on games like Breath of the Wild.

Input? Sergecross73  msg me  19:47, 1 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I'd say Switch exclsuive because as mentioned before, the Switch version of a game is different from its Wii U/3DS version because of the added content. And you can't get the same experience. gameplay-wise because of it, hence the need for enhanced ports to be labeled as Switch exclusive in my opinion. Nintendoswitchfan (talk) 20:33, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Are we talking about Mario Kart 8? There isn't a 3DS version of it, and its the same primarily the same game as the Wii U version. Its the same core gameplay on the same racetracks. All they did was add a couple extra characters and expanded the battle mode, as far as I'm aware... Sergecross73   msg me  20:37, 1 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, we're talking about Mario Kart 8, but I kept the example general since some 3DS games may become enhanced ports in the future. Nintendoswitchfan (talk) 20:41, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah gotcha. Just confirming that you were confusing it with Mario Kart 7. Anyways, it's not that I feel all that strongly about this, but I just wanted to get input so that we're applying it correctly. I always thought if it was largely a port/remaster, then it was just a "company exclusive". Like how the List of PS4 games shows The Last of Us Remastered or Beyond: Two Souls as "Sony exclusive". But if not, so be it. Sergecross73   msg me  20:54, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Aren't those games you listed simply the same game but in a higher resolution on the PS4? Mario Kart 8 Deluxe has gameplay features not seen in the Wii U version. I don't disagree with you nor would I contest it if consensus agrees with you as well, but I think that you could make a valid case that it's a Switch only game too. ~ Dissident93  ( talk ) 21:58, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * They are, but I feel like that makes the two 'Mario Kart 8s all the more similar by comparison - the Switch version isn't even a remaster or anything. Virtually the same graphics. It just seems like the ability to play as a Squid girl in a new battle mode doesn't really make it an exclusive game. And as you say, I don't really care either way. Just discussing conceptually. Sergecross73   msg me  01:01, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * New features/modes/characters/resolution bump makes it a new "revision" of the game at the very least. A Super Street Fighter II versus a Street Fighter II Turbo.Froo (talk) 12:28, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Hamster arcade ports
I know we've discussed this in the past, but I think it's time we decide on what to do with them, as there are more and more being included here. As far as I know, they are simply standalone, emulated arcade ports that act no differently than Virtual Console titles. And if this is the case, they don't belong. Can somebody who has a Switch and played these games chime in? Are there any newly included features in them? ~ Dissident93  ( talk ) 17:39, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree, if they're nothing but mere ports, then they do not deserve a place in this list since if they did, then that would mean that Virtual Console games deserve a place here which they don't. The main argument for its inclusion however is that these ports are all part of this game service, Arcade Archives, so in a way, they can be considered as part of a game since Arcade Archives is in the list of other consoles' games. My personal suggestion would be to just use Arcade Archives like we originally did and simply edit the main Arcade Archives article to include details on their Switch releases. Nintendoswitchfan (talk) 15:54, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Remove them and add a sentence linking to the Arcade Archives list. -- ferret (talk) 16:06, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It might be easier to keep them around, and then whenever Nintendo gets around to announcing their Virtual Console equivalent, move them to a special subsection of that respective list article. It might make long-term maintenance easier. Just a thought though, don't let it get in the way of a consensus or anything - I don't feel strongly either way. Sergecross73   msg me  16:38, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * They don't belong on a Virtual Console article though, they are third party releases that aren't part of that service. There is already a list at their main article with platforms denoted.-- ferret (talk) 16:39, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Just got done removing all of them. ~ Dissident93  ( talk ) 00:11, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Can we get a count in the article for how many of those titles are on/announced for Switch?Froo (talk) 20:37, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * 34 games at Arcade Archives list Switch. -- ferret (talk) 20:57, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Zacharyalejandro I undid your addition of Magician Lord because we are no longer going to add Arcade Archives games in the list. Please see the above for more details. Nintendoswitchfan (talk) 08:38, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Yoshi, Kirby and Monopoly labeled as for Nintendo Switch
I would take this further and ask that anyone list the Yoshi, Kirby, and Monopoly with for Nintendo Switch as Nintendo sites report these as titles for the Nintendo Switch. Anyone is welcome to clarify if this should be named as such. Currently titles such as the recently released Gunbarich and Strikers1945 use for Nintendo Switch. So I don't have a clue as to why nobody wouldn't be listing titles with those that are released on the Nintendo Switch. Super Smash Bros. were released for the Nintendo 3DS and Wii U as Super Smash Bros. for Nintendo 3DS and Super Smash Bros. for Wii U respectively. Super Mario Maker for the Nintendo 3DS was a port from the Wii U version. And as such receiving the title for Nintendo 3DS. So what's anyone's thoughts on the idea? To me, if games receive a title with for Nintendo Switch, we should start listing them as said. Pretty sure I made quite a point as to why we should be listing titles like that. Zacharyalejandro (talk) 03:30, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * "For Nintendo Switch" is how every game is listed on Nintendo's site. Just look at Splatoon 2's or Super Mario Odyssey's. ~ Dissident93  ( talk ) 04:14, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

I think it's redundant to say that it's for Nintendo Switch when it is understood that the game itself is for Nintendo Switch, but this is unless Nintendo themselves makes a game similar to Super Smash Bros. 4 wherein two games that have different features are differentiated by their platforms. Nintendoswitchfan (talk) 11:06, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Where does it say on the labels For Nintendo Switch? The only titles I'm seeing are Gunbarich for Nintendo Switch, Strikers1945 for Nintendo Switch, etc. But until Yoshi and Kirby have official titles in the future, I suggest leaving it as for Nintendo Switch. I'm going according to Nintendo's websites. Everybody should too. Otherwise, I'm going to start editing the page the way I need to see it as. Or, unlike the list of 3DS games, the way the list will get large as time goes on and that editors are not interested in editing it anymore, I will continue to be able to work on it. Zacharyalejandro (talk) 19:40, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The name of the page, check the top of your browser. Their official title for now is simply "Yoshi" and "Kirby". "Otherwise, I'm going to start editing the page the way I need to see it as" So you will ignore previous consensus here and try to take ownership of the page once interest in it drops? Not sure what you are trying to say here. ~ Dissident93  ( talk ) 21:32, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * You know what, I'm just going to leave the page to you guys and I'll update the 3DS and Wii U pages from now on. If the Nintendo Switch games page starts to slow down from new games being added when they get announced, then I will step in and add games that are announced from sources depicting said games are announced. I'm not going to keep arguing about the fact that games aren't added when they're immediately announced by official sites and such like that. Zacharyalejandro (talk) 23:41, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Futhermore, I'm not trying to ignore consensus of any kind, I'm just trying to update pages with currently and recent information on games, apps, and the like, with information about them when I do some research here and there, of course when I get time from my busy schedule that is. So hopefully this provides an answer to your question.

Edit: And also another thing, I go by what Nintendo sites and other official sites, I don't care about the names on the top of the browser. The title which Nintendo provides at the moment as a tentative title of Yoshi and Kirby for Nintendo Switch. For now, games like Yoshi, Kirby, and Gunbarich for Nintendo Switch are listed like that on Nintendo's sites. Even the eShop has Gunbarich listed as Gunbarich for Nintendo Switch. Again, I keep saying this over and over, keep the names with for Nintendo Switch intact until more information about the title comes to light. I don't know what else to tell you guys. Zacharyalejandro (talk) 23:46, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * But do reliable sources also include this? And why claim to only go by what Nintendo's website says, but then ignore what I pointed out? ~ Dissident93  ( talk ) 05:12, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

I added WildKid that you removed with this edit as it contained the small publisher/team publishing the game made by a Chinese developer which is unknown at the moment. I want to continue in saying that I do a little bit of my research if there is not a specific reliable source for said title coming to Switch. I have My Nintendo News that I'm subscribed in my email. If they announce a Switch title, I find official information about the title, if supposedly Twitter would be the source if need be for the time being. Care to explain why you don't look before trying to undo an edit, cause that edit was seemingly redundant in my case. Zacharyalejandro (talk) 01:40, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Because it did not look like a publisher's account at first glance and more like a fan's. Anyway, there is no need to discuss this further, as the edit was already reverted. ~ Dissident93  ( talk ) 03:19, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Video Game Retailers
Our common consensus on video game retailers is that they should never be used as sources right? 'Cause Zacharyalejandro used Game Stop for Party Planet which wasn't opposed up until I removed it. Nintendoswitchfan (talk) 00:15, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I think Zachary's rationale - that the game is actually being published by GameStop - is both true and a valid reason for using it as a source in this particular instance. Sergecross73   msg me  01:11, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Zachary's source, the Game Stop website, states that the game is self-published by its developer, Mastiff. So I don't think the game being available only at Game Stop makes Game Stop a good source. Nintendoswitchfan (talk)
 * Every source, blogger or not, are reporting that the game is in fact a GameStop exclusive. Maybe I could find a reference like to Nintendo Life (could be possible) and that will be a perfect source for something like that. What's your say on this, Sergecross? Zacharyalejandro (talk) 03:33, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I thought I had read that in passing in my newsfeed too, but it seems like most of the websites reporting that are not reliable (GoNintendo, MyNintendoNews, etc.) or tracing back to a Reddit thread (not usable on Wikipedia). I can't tell if its GameStop published, or just a "GameStop exclusive". It doesn't help that the game isn't getting much coverage at all due to being such a minor title. Anyways, back to the original comment - yes, in a general, its best to avoid online retail listings. They use placeholders and placeholder release dates rather commonly. Sergecross73   msg me  12:27, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Sergecross73, according to Zacharyalejandro's source, it is just a Game Stop exclusive, not Game Stop published as I mentioned earlier. Nintendoswitchfan (talk) 15:12, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Right, I got ya, I was just getting at the fact that I had read what Zachary was saying, but it wasn't ever by RS's. And you're right. And they've since released official PR that makes it a little more clear too. We can just use the PR for now - usually, you want to be very careful with using PR as a source, as to not be overly promotional, but considering this is just a list article without any prose, it's find for just sourcing minor details, or its existence. Sergecross73   msg me  17:04, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Retail vs. eShop release date
What is the rule on this list for eShop release dates vs. physical retail release dates? Unbox: Newbie's Adventure is a good example, it just recently released digitally in the eShop, but will arrive in retail as physical version later in November. Currently I don't see the November release date anyway, but I can imagine many people would like to know when and if a game becomes available as a physical copy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.149.38.181 (talk) 13:40, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Earliest release for the region is all we need here, whether its eshop or physical. More specific detail could be covered at the game's article if its notable. -- ferret (talk) 13:41, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, exactly what ferret said. Sergecross73   msg me  14:50, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Election Exile and Root Double
According to this Siliconera source, it looks like they're saying that both Exile Election and Root Letter Root Double have been announced for Switch in Japan. Am I reading the source right though? I just find it odd that no one else has run stories on this, nor do they even really say it in this source's headline. Am I missing something? Sergecross73  msg me  19:22, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Scratch that. Reading it over again. It's not saying they are developing ports of both games, it's saying they developed both of those games, and will be developing ports and original games in the future for the Switch. The wording doesn't exactly confirm those games, it was just giving examples of their previous works, and then saying that ports in general will be developed. Alright, nevermind, answered my own question for right now. Sergecross73   msg me  19:31, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Social media citations.
I know we have Twitter as some sources that are deemed reliable, but does Facebook count? Facebook sometimes links them to its primary source. So this got me wondering, could we just replace Facebook sources to a more reliable web source (Nintendo Life, IGN, Twitter, etc)? Should Facebook even be a source when there are more sources other then Facebook technically? Zacharyalejandro (talk) 03:51, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Official/verified social media accounts (Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, official blog/website) are basically the last resort we should use when adding a game here, and should always be replaced with proper third-party articles once/if they exist. ~ Dissident93  ( talk ) 06:30, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I see. Just wanted to clarify on that, hope that's ok. Zacharyalejandro (talk) 06:36, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure is. ~ Dissident93  ( talk ) 20:25, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Super Mario Odyssey
I'm surprised this isn't even mentioned on the list. Also Mario + Rabbids. Dilute13 (talk) 19:10, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Please see List of Nintendo Switch games (M-Z). Perhaps we need to make it more clear that there's a second article about the second half of the alphabet's games. Sergecross73   msg me  19:12, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I think the TOCs and the list ending at L is pretty clear myself :P -- ferret (talk) 19:20, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It's easily missable. I'd at least add a link at the top of the page that mentions it. (which I thought was standard for page splits) ~ Dissident93  ( talk ) 19:29, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * PlayStation 4 didn't which was my model. Done. -- ferret (talk) 19:39, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It probably should too then. ~ Dissident93  ( talk ) 23:01, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I came back to this page and noticed it right away, came to this talk page and saw your comments, so yeah it's more noticable now. I feel like it would be easier to just have everything on one page since there aren't a lot of Switch games? Dilute13 (talk) 17:12, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It's about the size of the page and the impact it has on mobile readers, Visual Editor, etc. Additionally, the list is rapidly growing with several titles added every week. -- ferret (talk) 17:22, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, and its only going to keep expanding. We're not even a year into its lifespan, and multiple massive companies (Namco Bandai, Square Enix) have recently announced with their financial results that they plan on increasing game support for the console. Sergecross73   msg me  17:39, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Can anyone fix the reference errors?
I don't see this page being dead as it is right now. I tried adding some information other than the Zoink Games on Twitter <--- Example of the actual title

So if the numerous errors can be fixed across this page and the other page while I finish adding games, thanks so much for helping! Zacharyalejandro (talk) 05:28, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what you're talking about. I'm also completely baffled by this edit. Sergecross73   msg me  13:37, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * All of the citation errors currently in the article were caused by your edits. Please remove the new lines you added. -- ferret (talk) 21:31, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

I thought about finding other resources for those that are maybe out on the internet, such as IGN, Nintendo Life, just maybe for the ones that have those errors. Would that work or no? Zacharyalejandro (talk) 22:05, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * As opposed to the Twitter and FB posts currently in use? Yes, secondary sources like IGN, etc, are preferable. -- ferret (talk) 22:06, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * They are preferred over social media anyway, which has been said on this very talk page a few times by now. ~ Dissident93  ( talk ) 01:58, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Removal of GoNintendo.com as a citation
Maybe I was a bit too WP:BOLD with this, but I've gone ahead and removed all the games that were supported by a GoNintendo.com citation, which isn't a reliable source per WP:VG/RS and seems to follow the general Nintendo news-site-run-by-fans that we've all agreed that aren't good sources. Is there anybody who would disagree with this? Outside of Zacharyalejandro, who seems to use unreliable sources as a last resort. ~ Dissident93  ( talk ) 19:44, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Definitely not too bold, there's a consensus for it not being a usable source, and there have been many discussions on this very talk page about not using all these Nintendo fansites, which have been making factual errors in a number of these game announcements. Sergecross73   msg me  20:27, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, just making sure. I'll try and see if actual RS reported on these games, and re-add them case-by-case if so. ~ Dissident93  ( talk ) 20:40, 27 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Technically I was doing a great job with adding games and such. You guys are starting to ruin it (and maybe that's why I'm always pissed about it). Like literally when I try to add games, I see you guys rarely pull it from the list, but there are some sites that are reliable. I don't seemingly get why admins don't try and do it themselves if my edits get pulled. Again, I'm really trying my best, but really, its that very same reason that I keep reminding you guys about which and which is not a reliable source. Zacharyalejandro (talk) 20:49, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * We are ruining it by insisting you (and everybody else) should use reliable sources, maybe the most fundamental tenet of Wikipedia? While your contributions are appreciated, if they can't be verified, it doesn't belong on the list. Have you ever read the WP:VERIFY policy? And what do you mean "why don't admins remove it"? I'm not an admin, and just did. Since this article is pretty large and games get added often, some of these sites get added without anybody noticing, so this isn't a valid defense. ~ Dissident93  ( talk ) 21:00, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually what I meant to say was (and this typically goes to non-admins as well) why can't anybody change sources of games that seemingly being added over time? I have no idea why people can't just change the sources (if its not a reliable source) when a game is announced. Zacharyalejandro (talk) 21:13, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:BURDEN. Wikipedia operates on this concept - if you want to add a game to the list, then its up to you to provide the sources necessary to include it on the list. Look, Zachary, I appreciate your efforts, but you're entirely wrong if you think "removing entries with poor sources" is "ruining the list". And the page history doesn't even show this happening all that often to begin with, so I don't really follow why you'd "always be pissed about it" anyways... Sergecross73   msg me  21:37, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * That's exactly what I did... The games that didn't get re-added didn't have RS covering them, as far as I could tell. ~ Dissident93  ( talk ) 03:33, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

For me, it's simple really, if the game added has an unreliable source, then I'll try to look for a reliable source, but if there's none, then I'll remove that game from the list. It's that simple really. So there's really no need to get mad at removing games with unreliable sources when you can just readd them once a reliable source has been found. Nintendoswitchfan (talk) 15:33, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Earthlock
In the past, Earthlock was debatable for inclusion because only the iffy Nintendo fan sites were reporting it. But according to their Kickstarter update about the revised version of the game, it's coming to Switch. Sergecross73  msg me  01:21, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think so, bro. --156.209.24.149 (talk) 18:59, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * What? The post states that they are canceling the Wii U version and releasing it now on the Switch. What are you disagreeing with? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 00:59, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't follow the objection either. Seems pretty clear cut to me. Sergecross73   msg me  01:20, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Game Card exclusivity?
I really think we should not have the Game Card/digital-only format on both pages as opposed to this edit, this edit, and this edit by Oneirist. Zacharyalejandro (talk) 06:58, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * This goes directly against past consensus on a similar topic, so yes, it should not be added in unless consensus on it has changed, which it hasn't. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 10:39, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

are you people stupid?! I came to this page exclusively to learn how many Switch games are available physically!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.170.86.132 (talk) 07:18, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

A few trolls hate Wikipedia, so they spend all day trying to get articles deleted and articles trimmed down to become as useless as possible. Unfortunately, they have a stranglehold on this page. They hide behind all sorts of rules and excuses (oh dear the page "looks" bad, oh no 20 out of 500 entries isn't sourced!!!), but really they're just trying to destroy the site, so they should be ignored. Wikipedia would be much better off if they all decided to go play in heavy traffic. At one point I considered making a tool that a bunch of us could use to re-patch the page every time it was reverted... basically an automated edit war app, where we could overwhelm these anti-information trolls, but of course the page would get protected, and that'd be even worse. 70.190.181.241 (talk) 03:40, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Please assume good faith. It doesn't make sense to label the people who don't want to list whether or not a game was printed onto a cartridge or not as "trolls". They're some of the most prolific editors on the website in relation to video games. And not just in being the bad guys, but in writing and creating articles. If you don't like the rules here, go create a master physical game list somewhere else. Sergecross73   msg me  04:16, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

So, here I am
Dissident has forced me to discuss about the changes I want to apply to tables, okay. template:abbr and sometime template:vgr do tooltips that iOS devices can't view. There are rules against template:abbr such as WP:NOSYMBOLS. Apparently non-abbreviated regions in column headings won't increase column width so I've turned them into full region name. I've removed template:vgr and template:ubl and stated my reason in edit summary, inline is better. They do linebreak which isn't good for the long table and sometime readibility issue. Shouldn't using of these templates be discussed instead? Rukario -sama  ^ㅈ^ -(...)  08:48, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I didn't force you, I reverted and suggested that you discuss these large-scale edits on the talk page first. I actually agree with getting rid of linebreaks for genres, somebody else added them all at once a few months ago and I've never had the motivation to go and remove them. The region headers were abbreviated as they used to increase column width in the past I believe, so not sure why they don't anymore. As for VGR, I don't see any reason to remove that because they are used on 1000s of articles and nobody to my knowledge as ever accused them of being broken on iOS devices before. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 09:32, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Right, sorry, I didn't want to discuss and yet I felt I had to. So, vgr also does linebreak. I think just region in superscript is perfectly fine. The tooltips were never implemented for iOS, maybe other touchscreen devices, and nobody seems to care. I don't really either. You'd be correct about region going no abbreviated would increase column width in other game list such as PS4 game list where the date cells have month in three letters. Rukario -sama   ^ㅈ^ -(...)  11:04, 22 January 2018 (UTC)


 * From a purely technical point: Vgr neither uses tooltips or bare linebreaks (BR tag). It outputs an underordered list (UL/LI) of Wikilinked regions and data pairs, which is the correct method, as mobile clients do have issues with BR tag. Same story with UBL. No comment or opinion on Abbr, which is for tooltips and seemingly don't work on iOS. On a non-technical point: Horizontal lists probably work better in a table like this, agree on that point. -- ferret (talk) 11:53, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that UBL has the same issue as BR tags on mobile devices or am I misunderstanding? ~ Dissident93 (talk</b>) 18:31, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Misunderstanding. I'm saying that VGR/UBL don't use BR, so don't cause issues on mobile. MOS specifically says to use UBL/plainlist (Which create UL/OL lists) rather than BRs, due to mobile readers. -- ferret (talk) 19:13, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Just making sure, since that's what I've always replaced raw BR tags with. ~ <b style="color: #660000;">Dissident93</b> (<b style="color: #D18719;">talk</b>) 23:40, 22 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Also curious, is region wikilink unnecessary too? Rukario -sama   ^ㅈ^ -(...)  12:20, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Like linking to Japan and North America? I don't see how it hurts to link to it, as it only appears in the list once. ~ <b style="color: #660000;">Dissident93</b> (<b style="color: #D18719;">talk</b>) 18:31, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, but I want to get rid of vgr and ubl templates first. Is it okay if we don't give them wikilink anymore and wait for someone else to figure out? Rukario -sama   ^ㅈ^ -(...)  02:56, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * What do you mean? And I still don't see any reason to get rid of the templates, they exist for a reason. ~ <b style="color: #660000;">Dissident93</b> (<b style="color: #D18719;">talk</b>) 04:54, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * For the fact that they don't do inline. Is it that wikilink as the only "reason" you're getting at, right? Rukario -sama   ^ㅈ^ -(...)  05:24, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * We can always including a wikilink in the superscript. VGR just does it automatically, that's all. Otherwise, I'm on board for removing UBL/VGR due to their multi-line nature. -- ferret (talk) 16:26, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * *sigh* I really disapprove of doing this. Doesn't matter if anyone else doesn't like that, I do. And its a reason I have to butt in in this conversation. I was doing so well with that page as well as the Wii U one (well, honestly I try when I have time), but at this rate now that this has been added again I don't want to continue anymore. I appreciate working here but at the same time, I really hate to leave. Zacharyalejandro (talk) 16:06, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Sometimes you're just going to have to accept things you don't like. -- ferret (talk) 16:25, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Why do you hate doing it this way? You didn't even give a reason, you just complained a bunch. Sergecross73   msg me  17:00, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I've done a little work to take this another way, using HLIST and a new version of VGR that does HLIST. This maintains the basic functionality we had from UBL and VGR without going multiline. -- ferret (talk) 17:04, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, we haven't discussed about should we use template again in this large table. It looked okay to me but I still think superscript approach is better. It's more conservative in cell spacing, typing labors, and the include size. The include size as my reasoning is because we'd rather to avoid any more table split. Many readers complained about the last split. Rukario -sama   ^ㅈ^ -(...)  23:22, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Using superscript is not more conservative in typing labor, as it actually has the be typed out, while VGR has fewer characters to type and is a familiar template to many editors. The small number of HLIST and VGRH (Less than 20) uses here are not going to meaningfully reduce the include limit either way, which is primarily driven by the cell coloration, date sort and cite templates. We would save drastically more space by forgoing cell-coloration entirely, without any real impact to the data or its sortability. The table is in a bad need for citation pruning as well, where new sources have been added with more information than old ones, without removing the old ones. -- ferret (talk) 23:32, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Apparently we really only need to enter commas to separate developer/publisher rather than making use of Template:hlist. The HLISH consume up to ~10,000 in include size and that doesn't seem meaningless. They can be freed for 5 more games, sourced each. What's another negative impact of superscript approach that'd make template:VGRH better? I think typing labor between them is similar. I'd be on your side on purging out the cell coloration. The color of "No" cells are the very eye-catching in this game list, you can understand me better when you read this . The yes/no is very emphasis in this table so much it's as if the table is about exclusivity. We can definitely strip the colors out and the table will be a lot better! The table will regain ~25,000 in include size, which means they'd freed up for ~12 more games. Rukario -sama   ^ㅈ^ -(...)  02:36, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm simply providing tools and methods to address the original complaints: That UBL and VGR were using multiple lines in the tables. I've provided a horizontal solution to that complaint. The template include issue I think is above and beyond that. We WILL have to reorganize and split these list again. A few HLIST/VGRH aren't really going to save us from that. Even removing all the color cells (Or just No?) only gives room for 12 more games, and we're not even a year into the console's life just yet. If a second split is inevitable, I'm not sure we should bother removing typically used formatting that readers have come to expect. I'm personally OK with no color, but the readers clearly make arguments all the time "But these other List of Video Games have that!" and expect it. Those types of complaints from readers we can address by continuing to use that formatting. Splitting the article unfortunately is a simple technical issue we can't avoid, and they'll just have to live with that. One option: A table with reduced columns for an "all games" list, such as a single "first release" column, dropping publisher, simplified "yes/no" exclusivity etc. -- ferret (talk) 12:32, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd argue if we even need the exclusivity column anyway, but that's another debate. At the very least, do we need the Nintendo value? It's either exclusive to the Switch or not, this seems more like trivia that forgot to be removed in the last exclusivity cleanup. And if we ever did your suggestion, I'd drop the developer over the publisher, as it's probably more important to know who funded and owns the rights to the game, in contrast with the group paid to make it. ~ <b style="color: #660000;">Dissident93</b> (<b style="color: #D18719;">talk</b>) 16:38, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * When I created the article, I only added the exclusivity section the way I did because I was merely mirroring the the equivalent PS4 list. I don't personally think its important to denote the exclusives at all - it strikes me as fanboy/"console wars" type junk, but I've never made an effort to remove it because I felt like it'd be an uphill battle with all sorts of people whining about its removal (similar to the "I'm so mad and inconvenienced by this large list being split in two - now a single click on a link is required to see the second half of it! frequently seen on this talk page.) I fully support removing it if there's a consensus to do so.  Sergecross73   msg me  16:56, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Ugh, the PS4 one is terrible, six different values including two "timed" ones. I realize this is an issue with another page, but that needs to be simplified. ~ <b style="color: #660000;">Dissident93</b> (<b style="color: #D18719;">talk</b>) 17:01, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Ugh, yeah, that ones gotten even worse since in the last year and a half since I used it to start this one. I don't monitor/maintain that one, so I hadn't noticed... Sergecross73   msg me  17:07, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, you've just killed my reasoning with these templates not inline. I was hoping to see templates reduced but, oh well, you guys seem to fight for them to stay. You may be right that we will see split again in future, but I want to tackle down optional templates first, I think they're less important and alternative approach exists. The only templates we cannot go without are DTS and CITATION and that's it. Also, hey, the developer/piblisher/genre, other information outside of template are fine, they don't impact the include size.
 * Dissident, I've seen your edit summary saying "file size", I think you're looking at wrong information again? It's not about scary number of page size, it's about the (post-expand) include size, I've showed you where to find it. 2MB is a hard limit, and the templates take up the include size fast (A-L is currently at ~900,000 bytes and M-Z at ~1MB). Rukario -sama   ^ㅈ^ -(...)  22:38, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The single biggest REAL difference we can make (Removing VGHR, HLIST, every cell coloring, DTBA, unknown, no/yes/partial, etc only saves like 80-90kb, barely 10%) would be to cut down on citations. Some rows have 3 or 4 sources. One thing I do dislike about WP:V is the hard concept of requiring the inclusion of sources on every page that references a given topic. For any game that is notable and blue linked, with release dates noted at its article, we could consider removing the sources from this article. Any redlink or blacklink though would require sourcing here at this list still. This is in a way akin to how we normally exclude citations from the lead, becuase the body is generally assumed to contain sources. A valid bluelink row has the sourcing for developer, publisher, genre, release dates, etc, so could be seen as unnecessary here. -- ferret (talk) 23:00, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * This does bring up that a potential way to to cut this list and keep the information is to limit only to notable games (or games in a series), where the blue-links serves to provide references for release dates and other dates. No twitter/facebook announcements, no non-notable games, etc. It may seem drastic but it's also more appropriate, keeping in mind that we're not a catalog. --M asem (t) 23:15, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I feel like this approach would just be a permanent cause for edit warring. WP:NOTCATALOG could techically be applied to this whole list really. ~ <b style="color: #660000;">Dissident93</b> (<b style="color: #D18719;">talk</b>) 00:04, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd be down for this. Perhaps we could get rid of the column too and just add citations to the games that need it to their title/release date, saving more space? A ref column half-filled would just look odd. ~ <b style="color: #660000;">Dissident93</b> (<b style="color: #D18719;">talk</b>) 00:02, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Japan TBA's
Until a Japanese release date is announced for a specific game, can we leave the numerous templates as Unreleased for now? Zacharyalejandro (talk) 17:54, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Hasn't this been consensus for months? If you ask me, it's just more of a reason to go for the single, initial release date per game. ~ <b style="color: #660000;">Dissident93</b> (<b style="color: #D18719;">talk</b>) 01:24, 4 February 2018 (UTC)