Talk:Red Dead

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived 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. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Not moved Mike Cline (talk) 15:51, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Red Dead → Red Dead series – As this article is about the Red Dead series of games, as opposed to an individual game called "Red Dead", I believe the proposed name is clearer. Note that the template associated with the series is already Red Dead series. The Bushranger One ping only 01:48, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If moved it should be red Red Dead (series) which is the standard. Also no individual game in the series is actually called Red Dead so I am question if someone typing in Red Dead would actually looking for one games in particular.--70.49.81.140 (talk) 18:37, 20 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Support per the ip's change. The current name feels awkward, not to mention confusing. Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 21:10, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Believe me; you don't see Harry Potter as currently Harry Potter series, do you? Also, we don't have any other topic with the exact name "Red Dead". "Red Dead Exemption" doesn't count. --George Ho (talk) 09:39, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose I think its a needless disambiguation. Videogame articles are only disambiguated if there is a clash with a game is the series (usually the first game). There is no clash in this case, so there is no need for disambiguation. A quick look at links to Template:Infobox video game series shows that either the name on its own or a "(series)" suffix if there's a clash, are the accepted standards for naming formats of series articles. - X201 (talk) 09:49, 25 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Series?
Is this even a series? There are two titles with the same name, but even Rockstar sees them as distinct (or not having continuity). What kind of sources do we have on Red Dead as a series? czar 12:41, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I added 5 sources that refer to it as a series. 2 of them referred to it as one without a confirmed third installment, and the rest were post Red Dead Red2 reveal. Osh33m (talk) 00:33, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Fewer than five reliable sources in this case, but the main point is that the remark is offhanded. We still don't have any sources that discuss Red Dead as a series. Anything that needs to be said about the legacy of the games as a group (and the quote above is evidence that Revolver isn't even seen as generally associated with Redemption) can be said within the Sequels/Legacy section of the existing articles. If and when the sources do discuss the topic so as to warrant a separate expansion, sure, go for it. czar  01:11, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Since when are the PlayStation Blog and Gamerant unreliable sources? Osh33m (talk) 01:57, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, the reason why Revolver is considered separate from Redemption is because it spiritual successor, as stated in its article, with a source. Osh33m (talk) 02:00, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Q3/Q4?
I understand or am guessing that "Q3/Q4" means third or fourth quarter, but is that an acceptable and practiced way of dating something. It seems like needless jargon to me. Either way, it's a non-specific time frame and doesn't Wikipedia prefer to keep things simple. Jargon isn't simple. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:3D4B:E600:2C2E:3530:4D1:37B6 (talk) 17:08, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It's the best time frame that is currently available; "Fall 2017" isn't acceptable, per WP:SEASON. – Rhain  ☔ 07:49, 6 January 2017 (UTC)