Talk:Q-Force

Too many citations in lead
The lead currently has too many citations. Facts that are cited in the article's body and are not controversial do not need citations in the lead. The lead should summarize content that appears elsewhere in the article. This like the names of producers and creators should be cited in the body of the article. See Manual_of_Style/Lead_section. Knope7 (talk) 20:17, 18 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Hmm, @Knope7, perhaps you have a point. Now there are only four citations in the lead, with everything else moved to the Production and release section. --Historyday01 (talk) 22:48, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 25 June 2021

 * 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: Moved to Q-Force per nom, and Q Force retargeted here. I find that the arguments for the move outweigh the concerns. Recentism notwithstanding, no other article of note claims the title "Q force" or similar, except the exotic toy from the 1980s. No disambiguation page currently exists nor has been proposed, and the hatnote can solve the issue per WP:ONEOTHER. Pageviews clearly indicate readers' increased interest and the primary topic status of the TV series. Disclaimer: I was asked by to close this, in a neutral manner (Special:Diff/1033705581). No such user (talk) 07:48, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Q-Force (TV series) → Q-Force – Unnecessary disambiguation. Q Force is an action figure entity passingly mentioned in Action Force and Ratchet & Clank: QForce is an alternate name of Ratchet & Clank: Full Frontal Assault. Both of these uses are relatively obscure and are already taken care of by the hatnote on this article. Q Force should also be retargeted to the TV series article. Lennart97 (talk) 19:34, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * According to the ever-reliable Wikipedia, the video game is "known as Ratchet & Clank: QForce in PAL and NTSC countries". So how does this qualify as an alternate name if it is used in both regions? Sophie Bechri (talk) 10:01, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't know! You could suggest a move for that article. But even then, I think these pageviews make it pretty clear that there is no significant number of people looking for that game under the name "Q Force", so a simple hatnote at this article would be more than sufficient. Lennart97 (talk) 12:33, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support this is the only article known by this name a hatlink can deal with the other possibilities if necessary. I also find the make it clear argument as unconvincing in this case.--70.24.249.16 (talk) 21:36, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * oppose - no criteria established for PRIMARYTOPIC, especially because this is an as-yet unreleased TV series. This request seems to be driven solely by RECENTISM. A better disambiguation page might be in order, until then the hatnotes are all that is needed. -- Netoholic @ 08:53, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I fail to see how the observation that there is no other article with the same name, and that disambiguation is thus not necessary, is recentism. Lennart97 (talk) 09:20, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with Netoholic, this request is wrongheaded and should be withdrawn.Historyday01 (talk) 13:15, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * This particular comment adds absolutely nothing to the discussion. I've provided a valid rationale and see not the slightest need to withdraw. Lennart97 (talk) 15:21, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I think it adds something, but I'll let Netoholic speak to its value, since it is their comment. Historyday01 (talk) 20:19, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I was referring to your comment of course, not Netoholics. Lennart97 (talk) 20:28, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, in that case, I was just agreeing with Netoholic, so it was, and is, a legitimate comment. Historyday01 (talk) 20:53, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not really getting this, what's your counter argument? What other topic goes by the term Q-Force? Mcguy15  (talk, contribs) 21:02, 29 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Support, there is no actual article titled Q-Force, and thus this article should live there, with hatnotes regarding the action figure. Recentism is not an argument against; see the recent move request for Star Trek: Strange New Worlds as an example. -- / Alex /21  00:05, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * A change to the page name could lead to further confusion and make it harder for users to distinguish the page from similar names. I still believe that the current name is a good one, but there should be a re-direct to Q-Force. Even so, if the consensus of users on here agrees with this change, then I won't contest it. Historyday01 (talk) 00:18, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Can you point me to any other article titled "Q-Force"? If not, then no disambiguation is required. It's that simple. -- / Alex /21  00:27, 27 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Agreement with Netoholic as this series has not been released and is driven by RECENTISM, along with an incorrect understanding of Wikipedia rules and procedures. I agree with Netoholic that a better disambiguation page would be a good idea, but that hatnotes are fine at the present. Additionally, changing the name at this current time and place would lead to confusion among users and make the page less accessible, which be a net negative. Furthermore, removing the "Q Force" redirect would be a bad idea as it could break existing page links, so I'm not sure why that is even being considered at all. --Historyday01 (talk) 00:38, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I support because it's just a redirect. — Ð W (T·C) 05:55, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Unnecessary damb. Mcguy15  (talk, contribs) 21:02, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

 * I think the fact it is a TV series is fine. I see no reason to retarget it at this point. I wouldn't mind keeping Q-Force as a redirect, but I think it is important to make clear this is a TV series and not something else, as to avoid confusion. --Historyday01 (talk) 20:01, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * But that is very much not the point of disambiguation. The point is to distinguish articles with the same name, but in this case there aren't any other articles called Q-Force or Q Force. It does not have to be inherently clear from the title of the article that it is a TV series, just as, for example, it isn't clear from the titles of Seinfeld or Game of Thrones that those are TV series. Lennart97 (talk) 20:07, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I see that, but personally I think it would be fine to leave it at its current name, not only because of the other similar names, but the possibility something else will named Q Force in the future. Historyday01 (talk) 13:15, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Just FYI, the possibility something else may have the same name in the future has no bearing on disambiguation at all. Lennart97 (talk) 15:21, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, we will see how this discussion concludes. Historyday01 (talk) 20:19, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , what on Earth was that? "I personally don't think it should change, and nobody else is going to comment, so this should be withdrawn"? That is textbook OWN behaviour, extremely uncollaborative behaviour, and literally defeats the point of opening an RM for a community view. I don't know if you have personal issues with the opening editor, but keep it at the login page, not here. -- / Alex /21  00:09, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I have no issues with the editor who started this, and I even revised my comment above to be more clear. I still believe the suggestion should be withdrawn. I don't know why you are getting into histrionics about this, as you are the one who is creating drama where there isn't any. My comments were relatively mild. I never said those words "personally don't think it should change, and nobody else is going to comment, so this should be withdrawn," so it is false for you to put them in my mouth. Historyday01 (talk) 00:24, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * And why should this discussion be withdrawn, when the sole purpose of it is to gain a wider array of views from the general community to gain a clear consensus? What section of the latter part of that do you specifically disagree with? -- / Alex /21  00:26, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * As I said earlier, this suggestion should be withdrawn because it is wrongheaded and makes no logical sense. When I created the page, I purposely added "(TV series)" at the end so as to distinguish it from other similar-named pages. I'd say that is still necessary at the present, especially since the show won't begin airing until early September. I don't know who the heck "Donald 21" is, so I'm going to ignore that unsigned comment entirely. Historyday01 (talk) 00:35, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * To you, yes. But again, the sole purpose of it is to gain a wider array of views from the general community to gain a clear consensus, not just one or two people. (Also regarding the other comment, I've had a sock stalking me for months, problem's been solved, sorry about that.) -- / Alex /21  00:45, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Uh huh. I am not surprised by that sockpuppet, as it did seem a bit strange. Otherwise, all I can say is that I hope more people respond to this discussion, even though I am very doubtful anyone cares enough about this topic to contribute. Historyday01 (talk) 03:49, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Historyday01, your opposition is noted, now maybe just sit this one out, instead of continuing to insist my proposal is wrongheaded and makes no logical sense. You yourself have already shown a misunderstanding of disambiguation (I think it is important to make clear this is a TV series and not something else - no, that is not necessary when there are no other articles with the same name; the possibility something else will named Q Force in the future - no, that is never a consideration) as well as a misunderstanding of the requested move process itself (your opposition does not mean that I should withdraw, or even that you should suggest that I withdraw - Alex21 has explained this quite well already) - so who's really being wrongheaded?
 * I'll also reply specifically to the notion that changing the name at this current time and place would lead to confusion among users and make the page less accessible, which be a net negative. Because it is the current setup that is leading to confusion. Just look at the pageviews for Q Force: . It used to get virtually none, but once the trailer for the TV series dropped, it started getting 10s to 100s of views. That means all those readers were looking for the TV series, but ended up at the page about the action figures - even though no one was looking for that in the first place. So the rename would make the TV show more accessible, not less - a net positive, wouldn't you agree? And then there is removing the "Q Force" redirect would be a bad idea as it could break existing page links, so I'm not sure why that is even being considered at all. Well let's see, how many links to Q Force would be broken if it were retargeted to the TV show? Zero. So that doesn't factor into it at all. Lennart97 (talk) 01:42, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Even if I wanted to "sit this...out" as your suggest, it would not be possible to sit this out entirely as I'm already tied into the discussion enough as it is. An as the person who created the page in the first place, it only made sense to say something. If I could go back, then I probably wouldn't have said anything in the first place, but it would be dishonest to that at this point. Whatever the decision is up to the person who closes this and who responds to this discussion, which I imagine will be a small number despite the hullabaloo around the trailer online, with not many caring enough about matters like this to say anything. Apart from that, I see no reason to respond to your verbiage about what I apparently do "not" understand, because that's a waste of my time. Trying to convince you is also a waste, so I'm not going to try that either, as clearly you are stuck in your ways like a stubborn mule. I'm sticking with what I said, and I'm not going to say any more than that. Historyday01 (talk) 03:49, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Disappointed but not surprised to see you jump to insults. Other than that, I perfectly agree with your sentiment that this discussion is a waste of time, so let's leave it at this. Lennart97 (talk) 12:26, 27 June 2021 (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.