Talk:Metroid Dread

GA Status
I've initiated a discussion on the article's GA status on the nominations talk page. Feel free to contribute. DMT biscuit (talk) 16:48, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

 * (citation of decision) The current criteria this is a procedural keep. We cannot expect the current article to have information about gameplay, release, reception, etc., as the game currently has not been released. It does not lack such coverage, because such coverage does not exist. I think a good time to reassess on those grounds would perhaps be November, giving some time for reliable sources to process the game and for this article to reflect those. CMD (talk) 03:13, 15 August 2021 (UTC)(ends citation)
 * Status to be reviewed again in November 2021. --Whiteguru (talk) 05:48, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I did not participate in the GAR, but I agree with your closing determination. The game is scheduled for release in October 2021. By November 2021, I'd expect there would be enough coverage about sales and critical reception for editors to work with, so that is a good goalpost for interested editors to work towards. Haleth (talk) 09:55, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I think it's time to revisit this. The article's been stable for a few weeks now but there hasn't been enough work since the game's release. There's no question it's short of the criteria now and this needs to be addressed by the major contributors. For the record, I didn't agree with how it was closed: is it technically possible to close a GAR as "No consensus" with retention of status quo? Ostensibly the same as a procedural keep but with the notable distinction that the discussion is unresolved pending future review. Courtesy ping,, , , ,. —  CR 4 ZE (T &bull; C)  13:33, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Doesn't look like a GA to me - not enough coverage of reception, and there's a whole lot of stuff out there about the development crunch that isn't covered. For the record I still think it was weird to maintain a GA on an article that was going to have to be drastically rewritten - we should prioritise articles, not badges. Popcornfud (talk) 13:41, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * This was the exact point raised by myself and many others at the GAR (17 of us versus 10 in opposition—not that consensus is a head-count), but the final verdict was made on a whim by a select few editors. —  CR 4 ZE (T &bull; C)  13:54, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm honestly confused on how we should approach this. I was hoping that the "Reception" section I added would've enticed more people to discuss changes made to the article (not just the "Reception" section but the article as a whole), as I knew that I probably wouldn't be able to contribute as much as I wanted mostly because of school and actually trying to play the game first. But alas, no one replied to it. :( However, there's still a week left until the one-month anniversary of the game's release. Maybe between now and the 8th, we could try to add/fix parts of the article before reassessing it? I'll leave it up to the other editors on this one. PantheonRadiance (talk) 19:58, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm all for delisting. Most of the "keep" votes failed to take into account the fact that the page was bound to change almost entirely once the game was out. There's not much else I can add that's not been said. JOE BRO  64  20:37, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The community close was correct and not on a whim. We are not in the business of predicting the future. The article has to be judged on how it stands at the time of the assessment. It either fails the WP:GACR at that time or meets it. This has played out exactly as the process is meant to play out. As to the questions, some GARs get closed as no consensus if editors can't agree on whether the criteria are met or not and the closer can't differentiate the merits. They always defer to keep as that is the status quo (you can't actually enter a "no consensus" result into the article history so it literally defers to keep at the article talk page). All articles can be reassessed at any time (although obviously disruptive reassessments are dealt with as a behavioral issue) so there is no need for pending future review. Aircorn (talk) 05:10, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You are entitled to your own view just as much as I'm entitled to disagree with it. Should an upcoming release be a GA? Of course not. Not just for the sake of completeness, but that any claim made by RS about the gameplay cannot be verified as the product is still in development. In the case of a video game that moves from cancelled to upcoming, I fail to see the distinction and, like many on the first GAR, felt that a delist would best serve the article to give editors time to continue working post-release without need of a second review. Popcornfud put it best when they said we should prioritise articles, not badges. It serves no end to debate semantics of the last GAR; I hold that the assessment was improper, but alas that is behind us now. Now look where we are; as predicted, we have a GA that falls well short of the criteria. Given there's been no challenge to the current GAR, and with major contributors stepping away, I will move to close and delist the article shortly. —  CR 4 ZE (T &bull; C)  07:02, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Reception
Hello everyone. A couple of days ago I wanted to make a thread here asking for permission to edit the Reception section for this article, but I decided not to because I felt it wasn't necessary. However, after seeing that the reviews for the game have come out, I think adding this discussion here will be beneficial; seeing as how this article has maintained its GA status for over 5 years, perhaps one good way to preserve the quality of the article is to discuss changes made to it directly beforehand, especially on the Reception section as it has the most potential to change within these next few days. Perhaps we should talk about our intentions for editing the section - identifying reliable sources, what constitutes due weight, copy editing, and so on. This way we make sure that this Reception section has the same level of quality as the other sections of the article.

As of writing this, I just cited a Destructoid review on the section; you may check and edit it if you wish. I also left a comment in the Reception section for anyone to add criticism of the game, specifically the EMMI system. GameSpot and Destructoid both talk about them in detail, and I'm sure plenty of other outlets have also talked about it as well. I would add more, but I have schoolwork I need to take care of.

Anyway, have a good day Wikipedia editors. It's only two days from now, but I can't wait until Dread comes out! PantheonRadiance (talk) 19:13, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Request
Hello, I think Vaporware Video Games Category must be removed because the game released.--أبو الشاي حليب (talk) 06:15, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Proposed split
LucianoTheWindowsFan suggests to split Metroid Dread into Metroid Dread (cancelled video game) and Metroid Dread (2021 video game) as the latter has now appeared. Please discuss the proposal below, and LucianoTheWindowsFan, please also provide your reasoning for the split. Felix QW (talk) 19:38, 20 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I don't remember suggesting a split for Metroid Dread. Was it some confusion? LucianoTheWindowsFan (talk) 19:41, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It is listed with your signature at WP:Proposed splits; however due to a lack of volunteers the backlog there is now 2 years, so you actually proposed it in June 2021. Unfortunately, the template that used to be provided at WP:Proposed splits did not actually ask the proposer to list a reason for the split, making it very hard for me now to moderate a discussion on the proposal independently. Felix QW (talk) 19:51, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, I did it during its announcement months before the GA reassessment nomination. LucianoTheWindowsFan (talk) 00:28, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Support splitting of both articles. Considering that the version of the article that talked about Dread as a cancelled game already reached GA status before it finally got announced as a new game, there shouldn't be any doubts or uncertainties about its notability and/or lack of information about it. I'd also support even turning "Metroid Dread (cancelled video game)" into a fully-fledged Development of Metroid Dread article to touch upon how the game was in development hell for a decade and a half. PantheonRadiance (talk) 02:50, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose I navigated to the previous version of the article before the new game got announced, and it's all just geeky speculation and no substance. There needs to be more than that in order to justify a separate page. I think something like Resident Evil 1.5 meets that bar easily, but there's no clear evidence that the original Metroid Dread does, especially since Nintendo is such a secretive company. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:57, 21 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Not sure how much appetite there is from the nom for this idea now, but I think all the info can be comfortably covered in a single article as we have it now. Popcornfud (talk) 15:37, 21 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The project has been referred to as a "revival" after it was revealed in 2021, and most of the development section for the game lists key details that would go onto appear in the final product. Anonymouseditor2k19 (talk) 21:44, 23 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose - I've been meaning to give my opinion on this subject after coming across with it. No, i oppose to split the page. All of the info regarding the previous incarnations of Dread can be introduced here without issue. Roberth Martinez (talk) 02:02, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Now that the game is made after years of development hell the info regarding the game before its revival are not significant enough to warrant its own article, and it can be relegated to being mentioned in this very article. NanaOn-Sha (talk) 12:28, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Add a release section
Just noticed this game has special editions and amiibos released specifically for this game. Why don't we put a release section and mention those because ALL other Nintendo games do that. Even Samus Returns! NakhlaMan (talk) 05:31, 4 March 2024 (UTC)