Talk:List of Square Enix Europe games

Scope
, I know you worked on the main list—thoughts on this breakout? It will duplicate most (all?) of the main list as a subsidiary, but we wouldn't be able to get the breakout from that list alone (I also see it as a summary style split out from Square Enix Europe). czar 18:00, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I think this list is a good idea- there's certainly enough content for it. It may make sense to remove the SEE games from the main SE list, and only have them here, the same way as Taito games aren't included, and mobile games aren't duplicated. -- Pres N  19:01, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The thing about the main list is that (all of?) the games on the Europe list are published by Square Enix, so they do meet the criteria for the main list. This said, we have lists within lists, so it makes sense for the biggest list to have fewer details/columns, and so on. (I plan to make this Europe list simpler too—don't need more than the initial release dates and platforms, unless you see a rationale for adding region-based sorting (as most games are not region-locked anymore, but perhaps that's more relevant in a list with Japan-specific releases). Let me know if I'm missing any major devs/subsidiaries from the Europe list, though. czar  19:53, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Great idea for the article. I agree that it would be better to simplify this list by removing the region columns. The title, system, release date, developer, and reference columns should be sufficient. – Zntrip 07:10, 25 June 2016 (UTC)


 * So I'm not sure that many of these are SEE games. (1) I've never received clear word that the IGN/GameSpot game details pages are reliably sourced instead of coming from a wiki/GameFAQs/etc. We're better off not sourcing to that. (2) Several of the games are either sourced to Eidos or to Square Enix (not necessarily Europe). Unless there is a sign that it was a SEE project, I think we should consider them remnants of the Eidos deal and still published by Eidos if credited as such. czar  23:28, 26 June 2016 (UTC)


 * You bring up a very good point regarding which games are actually published by Square Enix Europe. It does not appear that any sources make a distinction. The only way to know for certain is to look at the copyright notice associated with the game. "Square Enix, Ltd." is the UK-based Square Enix Europe, "Square Enix, Inc." is based in North America, and "Square Enix Co., Ltd." is based in Japan. I'll go back and remove games that are published by subsidiaries other than Square Enix, Ltd.


 * I agree that game detail pages from IGN and GameSpot are not the best sources, I don't think there's reason to remove them unless their accuracy is in doubt.


 * With regard to the residual Eidos titles published in 2009, I think we should make note of the fact that they were published under the Eidos label, but I don't think they should be removed from the list since the Eidos acquisition had already taken place and the games were in fact being published by Square Enix Europe. – Zntrip 01:45, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Reference format
Would anyone have any objections to if I converted the reference format from list-defined references to in-article references? While list-defined references are very helpful with articles that have large bodies of text interspersed with references, for a list such as this I think it would be more cumbersome than helpful because each row requires its own reference, and each reference is essentially used once or in a sequential cluster. Additionally, it would be rather tedious to edit two sections when adding to the list. – Zntrip 19:37, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Go for it. It was using a combination of both to begin with—I generally prefer LDR but I think it's easier to move around/manage if in-line in this case czar  20:21, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Columns
The rowspan isn't too pretty in this format. I suggest putting the platforms into a single cell (alternatively, columns for the main platforms à la Square Enix Montreal) and only keeping the main release date. czar 20:25, 25 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure the alternatives would be any better. Putting all the platforms into a single cell would negate the utility of the column sorting feature. Having columns for platforms would also pose challenges. By my count, there are currently 14 platforms on the list, eight of which are major platforms. That means a minimum of eight additional columns. It would also make referencing more difficult because all platform references would probably have to be in one cell. Additionally, while the red-no/green-yes tables work nice when they are small on pages like on Square Enix Montreal, they are an eyesore when expanded (i.e. Ubisoft Montreal). I think the current rowspan format is the best option. It also has the benefit of being consistent with List of Square Enix video games and List of Square Enix mobile games. – Zntrip 20:42, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The use case for those who sort by release date to find which game was released for which platform is slim. I think it adds more clutter/confusion than clarity. Wouldn't have to use the same color scheme here. By the way,, GameFAQs, MobyGames, etc. are unreliable video game sources so I wouldn't include them czar  23:51, 25 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads up on the sources. I'll go ahead and replace them. My concern for sorting is that a reader might want to see a list of just PlayStation 4 games or just Linux games. That would not be possible if all the platforms are listed in one cell. – Zntrip 23:58, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * But I imagine the way it's currently set up would be bad for that sort of sort too. The alternative of having a column for major consoles (PS3/4, X360/XONE, mobile, Win, OS X, Linux) should be sufficient, but I don't have strong feelings on this. My main concern is that the secondary release dates are clutter, especially if it means that we're repeating Human Revolution three times in the table instead of showing that it was released on all those consoles in the same list entry. I could care less about the representation as long as we removed the extraneous secondary release dates czar  00:06, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I suppose we just see things differently, but I don't understand why the secondary releases are clutter or extraneous. – Zntrip 03:11, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Because the main interest of readers coming to this page is to see the progression of the games released by SEE, and instead they get five rows of Guardian of Light because the sort by release date is dividing the same entry into five rows because of its secondary platform releases. Few will be interested in the fact that the Android version came after the BlackBerry version or even that they were released separately. Wikipedia has a fixation with specific release dates, but most readers don't care—they want to know the details and context of the game. The most important date in this context is the original, and for readers to see the basic info: name of game, dev, platforms for which it released, the date of first release (the main release), and refs. czar  03:30, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I fail to see the downsides of including more information. How exactly is a reader burdened by information in which they are not interested? They are free to ignore it and find what they are looking for. – Zntrip 04:23, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm sure we have a guideline on it somewhere, but we could also add all kinds of stuff—staff credits to see continuity between releases, canceled releases, etc. It's a slippery slope that ends with drawing a line. Anything that takes away from the basic function of the list (seeing the games listed by order of their major release) detracts from its purpose czar  19:19, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * That's an entirely unpersuasive argument. I'm not advocating for the inclusion of extraneous information, I'm only concerned with secondary releases, which clearly fall within the scope of the list. However, I suppose the point is moot if can agree on the current organization of the list, which is to place all secondary releases immediately following the primary release. – Zntrip 19:32, 11 July 2016 (UTC)


 * , do you have a take on this? I personally find the table much harder to read with the dates not listed in order, but that would be even worse in this case for reasons explained above... And thoughts on splitting the consoles into their own columns? czar  01:52, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Do I have opinions on list structure, you say... So, yeah, I do prefer to have the games grouped together, especially when (like most of these games) there's an initial release, a gap or two, and more releases. Now that they're together, though, we can see that there's 30 releases. List of Square Enix video games has 200-250: the choices made for that list may not make sense here. And indeed, that list has a billion single-platform releases, while almost every single one here is a multi-platform, so maybe the straight wikitable isn't the best choice. List of Looking Glass Studios video games, with 23 releases, goes in an entirely different direction- no sorting, bigger boxes, easier to read.
 * I don't think the LGS list is the way to go: Looking Glass had a very clear chronology, due to being a developer, and a non-sortable list (that will never grow) fits them well. SEE, on the other hand, publishes all sorts of stuff, made by 5 different subsidiaries and other companies, and the list will continue to add a few games every year, so a sortable table feels better.
 * But now that the list is laid out with the releases sorted out... it does feel like there's a bunch of extra information that's not important cluttering it up. I mean, look at Mini Ninjas- "IO made the game, Magic Pockets did the mobile/handheld ports" becomes 4 different, different-sized cells. We have 3 different release dates, and 8 consoles. Maybe it would make more sense to be "Name | System(s) (nonsortable) | First release date | Developer (with notes) | Ref(s).", e.g. "Battlestations: Pacific | Xbox 360, Microsoft Windows, OS X | May 12, 2009 | Eidos Hungary (note-ref that says that Robosoft Technologies worked on the OS X port) | [2][3][4]" You'd lose sortability on systems, but they all come out on so many that I'm not sure that's important. You'd lose all but the first release date, but that should be in the article anyway, and it could be in a note as well if we really want it here. -- Pres N  03:32, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Test edit of the first 5 games here. -- Pres N  04:22, 13 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Is there a compelling reason for not following the format of List of Square Enix video games and List of Square Enix mobile games? Both are featured lists and this one logically compliments those two. – Zntrip 06:01, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I know they are; I wrote them both and got them to FL. The reason would be (as above) that the main SE video game list has ~230 games in it, and the mobile list ~180. This list has only 30, and unlike those two lists almost all of them are multi-platform. I see this list as more of List of Eidos games Part 2; I'm thinking right now that I'm not going to remove these 30 games from the main SE lists. -- Pres N  13:46, 13 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I understand why the number of games should be relevant to how the table is structured. Are you suggesting that a longer list warrants a more complex structure? And even if that were the case, this is a dynamic list that will probably double after six years or so.
 * My ultimate concern is the utility of the list, which is why I'm partial to the List of Square Enix video games format. A reader can easily find all the information with the sort feature: the list can be sorted to be chronological, alphabetical, or by platform (which necessarily means that "major releases" would be easily apparent by just going to all the Xbox or PlayStation games). Grouping all the platforms into one cell removes one of the major advantages of presenting information in a sortable table. It might as will just be an alphabetically- or chronologically-ordered bullet point list at that point. – Zntrip 16:48, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Inclusion Criteria
Hey,, I started working on the article a bit with the aim of taking it to FLC at some point, but the more I poke at it the less I'm sure it should exist at all. my main problem is that I don't know of any canonical "Square Enix Europe" games list that this can be based on- this list is really more "games published in franchises that Eidos used to be the publisher for". Hitman: Sniper is in this list- it's made by new studio, and published by "Square Enix" worldwide, so why is it SEE? just because Eidos published the original Hitman? Deus Ex: Mankind Divided is made by a former Eidos studio, but there is again no proof that SEE was the publisher as a separate entity from Square Enix itself. And of course the list is excluding all of the Square Enix-developed games that got published in Europe in the last 7 years, presumably by SEE, so I guess we're going with the idea that games are only in the list if SEE is the "primary" publisher? I'm just not sure that's provable for most of these. -- Pres N  19:05, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * My understanding of the org structure is that Square Enix Europe is accurate—those studios report through SEE and thus they would be "SEE games". I'm not sure it matters whether they are SE- or SEE-published as I see the list as more of a summary style split from Square Enix Europe. My 2¢ czar  19:17, 11 July 2016 (UTC)


 * The only cogent criterion for listing a game in the list, in my opinion, is if it is published by (i.e. the copyright holder is) Square Enix, Ltd. If you take a look at the copyright notice for games like Hitman: Sniper and Deus Ex: Mankind Divided you will the a phrase such as "published by Square Enix, Ltd." or "© 2016 Square Enix, Ltd." – Zntrip 19:21, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. Alright. I'll need to do a lot of reference hunting, then, I think. Seems like the IGN etc. refs are going to be even less useful that usual- maybe fine for developer/release date, but not for publisher and therefore inclusion in the list, so most lines will need at least 2 cites. Anyways, thanks you two! -- Pres N  19:59, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Is that really something that needs its own citation? The publisher of a mass-produced work is inherently verifiable by the work itself. – Zntrip 21:32, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll at least want to verify for myself that they're correct, rather than assuming that everything currently in the list is fine, and I would prefer when possible to have a reader-verifiable citation. The developer/publisher may be verifiable from the work itself (usually), but that's not a strong argument when some random IP editor jumps in and says that such-and-such a game is/is not a SEE game because their copy just says "Square Enix". -- Pres N  21:44, 11 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, true, better safe than sorry. The easiest sources I can think of are primary sources, such as the Steam pages for games or PDFs of the game manuals. – Zntrip 02:35, 12 July 2016 (UTC)


 * On the first few titles currently listed: I didn't originally include Battlestations: Pacific through Championship Manager 2010 because I didn't see anything convincing of their Square Enix Europe identity. Yes, Eidos was purchased in April 2009, but the games were released under the Eidos label and not as the reorganized SEE. Unfortunately, the first SEE game appears to be Pony Friends 2 based on the sources. That article actually has a Siliconera ref that credits it as a Square Enix game, unlike its predecessors. So I'd recommend removing the current first four from the list czar  13:13, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Mmm, I disagree. Yes, those 4 games were "Eidos", because the transition from Eidos to Square Enix Europe was not instantaneous - even without the merger with SE's European office, it would have taken time to get the letterhead and press release templates changed, and with the merger it clearly took a while. On the flip side, SEE is clearly the continuation of Eidos, so it makes more sense to me to set the break point at the acquisition, not when they got the internal changes finished. List of Eidos games is all games up to the acquisition; despite the name of the article, this list should be everything after the acquisition, in the same way that List of Square Enix video games is all games after the date of the merger, not after when they fixed the logo on the box art. If you cut it to when they started using the SEE name, where does that leave those four games? "List of Eidos games after acquisition and subsequent renaming to Square Enix Europe" doesn't work too well, after all. -- Pres N  02:06, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Square Enix Europe games. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6aYZmpJA9?url=http://miranda.hemscott.com/ir/seg/pdf/AnnualReport07.pdf to http://miranda.hemscott.com/ir/seg/pdf/AnnualReport07.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:11, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Square Enix Europe games. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160818175431/http://www.develop-online.net/press-releases/io-interactive-unveils-hitman-absolution/0160125 to http://www.develop-online.net/press-releases/io-interactive-unveils-hitman-absolution/0160125

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:22, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:37, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Square Enix Europe.png

Requested move 28 February 2023

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky (talk) 17:20, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

List of Square Enix Europe games → List of Square Enix Western studios games – I believe scope and inclusion criteria of the list are sufficient but the style breaches WP:original research. Square Enix's Japan headquarters, US, Europe branches/subsidiaries operate as a group, attributing primary publishing to one part in a standalone list may be research. This list contains games developed by Western studios (Beautiful Game Studio, IO Interactive, Square Enix Montreal, Eidos Montreal, Crystal Dynamics) then managed by Square Enix Limited and Square Enix London Studios/External Studios games (London Studios's name appears dropped around the 2013 restructuring consolidating their European and American branches, but readopted around 2018 as External Studios). The Square Enix America branch has primarily published games like Murdered: Soul Suspect, but their effort operated differently, was not branded and can be noted in prose (See Steam bundle Square Enix Eidos Anthology; Note Square Enix America still distributes third party games). The reason for the split of this list is Eidos Interactive's legacy, but I believe renaming it Square Enix Western studios games reduces the research question. IgelRM (talk) 16:16, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Square Enix Europe is an already established article, so the scope perfectly matches the article. If you think the article is based on original research that is a matter for a cleanup or AfD, not a move. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:50, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * No reasoning against the move. The Square Enix Limited article does not state the subsidiary itself publishes its own games, so the list title is misleading. I believe this list title and lead style are attribution research, not the list scope. The list's inclusion criteria match the new title. IgelRM (talk) 13:53, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose "Square Enix Western studios" is not a thing, so the title does not make sense. Agree with Zxcvbnm that the title of this should match the Square Enix Europe article. That article is currently a little messy, since it has SEE as the title but then Square Enix Limited in the first sentence. I get what you're trying to get at here- that the entity SE Limited, which used to operate under the trade name Square Enix Europe, is now no longer the "stuff that used to be Eidos" publishing arm but instead a conglomeration of Square Enix External Studios and Square Enix Collective, neither of which have anything to do with Eidos, especially since the old Eidos studios got sold to Embracer, and which also don't use that trademark. I think we should go the other way, though- instead of trying to find a name that encompasses SEEurope and SEExtStudios and SECollective, we should just not include the SEExtStudios and SECollective games here. End the list with whatever the last one was (Marvel? Looks like LIS remastered was SEExternal), and put the ones since in the main Square Enix and Square Enix mobile lists. The games published by this entity no longer have a cohesive enough identity to be in this list, as it's changed too much. -- Pres N  14:09, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Square Enix Europe is virtually not a thing too. But Square Enix Western studios is used in headlines by reliable sources, for example this GI.biz opinion piece. Square Enix Limited is the current official name, SSE was kept as a disambiguation colloquial name (see move discussion on SEE talk page). Not following the Eidos point, Square Enix External Studios is the legacy of Eidos's publishing team. If we move the External Studios and Collective games for some reason, we might as well move all (I recall you were previously against that).


 * Besides, adding the "published by Square Enix's European subsidiary" wording was disputed on most game articles. The current article should in anyway not be featured status anymore. IgelRM (talk) 14:32, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Procedural oppose. "Square Enix Western studios games" is misleading as the list contains several games not developed by Square Enix' Western studios, including all Square Enix Collective titles. If separating Square Enix Europe as a publishing entity from Square Enix proper feels OR-ish, a deletion/merger discussion, not a move, would be in order. (The article is not in the best shape either, relying in large parts on IGN's autogenerated overview sites.) Speaking only in terms of renaming, if anything, Square Enix Europe should be renamed first for this article to simply follow suit, as the two clearly belong together.
 * IceWelder &#91; &#9993; &#93; 22:11, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreeing my proposed title has syntactic issues, I should have suggested something like "List of video games by Square Enix Western studios" or "Western Square Enix studios". My reasoning is that Square Enix External Studios and Collective may technical count as publishing studios, although I admit it's still sub-optimal. I went with a move proposal because I feel it's the most practical way to resolve the attribution research question.
 * Detaching the Square Enix Limited article and the this list is my primary intention. The games on this list aren't directly published by SEE as an entity, which cannot be resolved by renaming the SEE article. The list is notable because of Eidos' legacy related to all of the Square Enix group, I do not see a clear belonging by reliable sources.
 * I realize I have not worded the request well, but I still feel the move to a similar title would be better than the status quo of this list (the current title and style is more game cruft to me). A merger is certainly to be discussed if this move gets opposed, but I join PresN that there is value in preserving this list of games perceived different from Square Enix's main titles. IgelRM (talk) 14:13, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all the replies. Upon second thought, I like to suggest a compromise keeping Europe in the name but adding studios. Like List of Square Enix Europe studios games, although probably needs proper wording. IgelRM (talk) 15:18, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * That name seems similarly misleading as the list is indeed about games published Square Enix's European business. It includes several games developed by external companies. The current article name is apt for what it contains, relative to the name of the company's article at the moment. I would not oppose merging this list into the main Square Enix list, but that would need a different venue. IceWelder  &#91; &#9993; &#93; 16:37, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Merger proposal

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Withdrew move request, other solution preferred and lack of support. IgelRM (talk) 17:33, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Proposing merger with List of Square Enix video games as already debated at length above. The split of games related to Square Enix Limited from the main Square Enix list poses undue weight etc. (And above change of the list's name and topic failed). Instead I suggest a sufficient note column on the main list when un-original attribution is possible, e.g. with Square Enix External Studios. I recall list length was cited as a factor for the split, but this should instead be resolved with a split by year if necessary. IgelRM (talk) 07:38, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - quoting myself from 2.5 years ago, when you proposed the same merger: "the "purpose" of (List of Square Enix video games) is not to simply be a games catalog, but to collect the games associated with the company- and despite being bought by SE a decade ago, the post-Eidos games are quite distinct from the SE games". Despite the shift from "games by Eidos studios" to "external/indie games", they remain distinct from the games that SE main develops/produces. -- Pres N  13:19, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, but "quite distinct" does not justify the exclusion from the main list. The WP articles of these games list Square Enix as the publisher, therefore there is the expectation that they are on the main list. Just linking to this list on the main list is undue. This distinction is not clearly defined like mobile games and video games, it appears original to this WP list. Also, the article attached to this list was changed significantly since it was created.


 * If this distinction can be sourced outside WP, then the style needs to different from a major distinction like mobile and video games. IgelRM (talk) 09:55, 9 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose - This will make things going on with SE Europe -> Eidos main article move even more confusing. This list serves its purpose well. Merko (talk) 17:13, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * How does this merger make things confusing, it would just change the link on that article to the main SE list? Whether the list has a purpose is beside my issues here. IgelRM (talk) 10:20, 16 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose per PresN. WP:SE has a pretty well-thought out organization for their game lists, which makes sense to me. I don't see this proposal as an improvement, but more a "solution created for a non-existent problem". Sergecross73   msg me  16:41, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Messaging WP:SE might be a good idea. My question is whether this current list article reads as original to WP in an undue way. Maybe I should have first restated opposition for excluding SEE titles from the main list there. This merger proposal is a result of the discussion with IceWelder above if that makes sense. IgelRM (talk) 18:37, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose I think the idea is novel but the Square Enix Europe game list may require more cleaning up and expansion. For one, it doesn't seem to include games as part of the "Square Enix Collective". I think both lists are prominent enough to be standalone.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 17:46, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It does include for example Circuit Superstars, which is a Collective title. But as PresN said above, one does not clearly identify that game with Square Enix Europe. To remove it, this list would need to only be about games associated with Eidos' legacy. If someone has a better idea how to make that happen, I am withdrawing this proposal immediately. IgelRM (talk) 19:07, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I was thinking of reorganizing the list into three subsections: SE Collective, Eidos-legacy studios/published and a general all in-between like Life is Strange, Just Cause, Outriders.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 19:33, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * But having these as sections under a generic SEE list would be quite original. If we are transforming this list into Eidos legacy studios, then for example Just Cause and Circuit Superstars would need to be moved. And then it a standalone instead of split list, with the expectations of these titles to also be on the main Square Enix list. IgelRM (talk) 17:46, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @IceWelder, if I may tag you again (btw thanks for coming up with the legacy section idea on the Eidos page): Since it looks like salvaging this list is preferred over merger, do think a standalone Eidos legacy list viable without being original? IgelRM (talk) 20:38, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's necessary to make a separate Eidos-legacy list, just create a sub-list of it in this current one. Plus, we already have list of Eidos Interactive games. It may be too confusing.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 01:04, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think a sub-list style would be permitted, a list may only be about one thing. And it doesn't resolve the undue or original issue I see with it. The remade list would be "List of Square Enix games by studios under Square Enix Europe" or better somehow shortened, so not more confusing than now. IgelRM (talk) 21:19, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of list articles that have sub-list. Just look at List of Final Fantasy video games. The Eidos legacy titles are still video games that Square Enix (Europe) published, so I don't see why it wouldn't be permitted. I don't see the need to split off a smaller list when we already have List of Square Enix Europe games and List of Eidos Interactive games. And since the main Eidos Interactive article is being treated as a defunct company that was re-purposed into SEE, then it makes sense for the legacy games to still be part of this article. i'm very confused by your reasoning.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 07:33, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The Final Fantasy list uses the brand, but Eidos legacy studios isn't defined by one. So I think this sub-section would be too original for this list. My idea for the new list would be to supersede this one. Then commit to the merger as "general all in-between" and SE Collective don't have a clear association with SEE. Hopefully that is understandable, I should give up on this topic. My current main issue is that Square Enix Europe games are still Square Enix games. Interested to see how your idea will look. IgelRM (talk) 15:12, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Mini Ninjas publisher info
D of WP:BRD: Hi IgelRM, why do you think splitting Mini Ninjas mobile publisher info is bizzare? Merko (talk) 21:16, 3 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi again, thanks for starting the talk page route. Attributing one platform of the same game to one branch is certainly novel. Regardless I think you are going by the SE Inc store page profile, but listings are not reliable and games such as Life Is Strange are also under the SE Inc profile. Checking the credits in MobyGames, SEE is certainly present (not to say that SE Inc couldn't have been involved), so changing this after all this time seems original. As for the second edit, mobile games were split to a standalone list. Regards IgelRM (talk) 13:13, 4 June 2023 (UTC)