Talk:Metroid Prime 4: Beyond

Kotaku article should be left out or other sources should be added.

Nintendo and Kotaku have had a bit of a feud ever since Kotaku published an article on how to pirate Metroid Dread. Since then Nintendo has refused to give Kotaku review copies of games. I don't think they should be the only article giving impressions on the game given the history between this news outlet and Nintendo. 108.6.192.110 (talk) 08:49, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Kotaku is indeed a potentially unreliable source for Wikipedia these days, but not for the reasons you gave. See WP:VG/S. I've removed the info cited to Kotaku for now. It can be re-added when better sources emerge. Popcornfud (talk) 11:28, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Removal of reliably sourced development info as not "meaningful"

Eurogamer is a WP:RS in this context and included for other statements in the article. Eurogamer states that Nintendo producer Tanabe stated information on the initial suspected development time-frame and development start window. This information is self-evidently relevant to development. Please substantiate the reason why it's supposedly meaningless beyond WP:I just don't like it. Thanks. Blushmallorn (talk) 00:14, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

The sentence you last added was this:

Tanabe suspected it would take around three years to make if development were to begin in 2015.

This isn't useful or interesting. Why? Because with hindsight 1) we don't know if development began in 2015 and 2) we know development didn't take three years. It adds nothing to the article and doesn't inform the reader of anything.

Please remember that you need consensus to include stuff in articles, per WP:BRD. If you keep re-adding stuff without consensus, that's disruptive. Popcornfud (talk) 03:20, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

It tells that development would have begun some point after 2015 and the producer suspected around a three year development time. If we're removing content on "hindsight" then we would be removing the paragraph on Bandai Namco's development since we know their work didn't become the game.

Your "hindsight" argument isn't backed by any Wikipedia policy so I struggle to see how that opinion betters the article over including WP:RS information relevant to development.

You initially said "we already know the game is on Switch", so I took your concern into account by changing it to "suspected it would take around three years" per WP:BRD, emphasizing the time-frame instead of console, but you still reverted. Are there any wording changes to the sentence that would be satisfactory, for including the reliably sourced development information? Blushmallorn (talk) 06:30, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

My objection isn't around the wording, but about whether any of the information is valuable from an encylopedic perspective. I don't think it is — it's just Tanabe speculating very vaguely about stuff that didn't happen and doesn't matter.

If other editors disagree with me and a consensus forms to include it then I'll respect that. Popcornfud (talk) 08:01, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

This still seems WP:I just don't like it as "doesn't matter" isn't constructive or policy. Bandai Namco's plans "didn't happen", but are still included in article. I maintain that the development window starting after 2015 and the producer suspecting around a three year development time at the time, is relevant to development. Even producer comments on there not being a team or resources to start on the Wii U at the time offers insight. We both agree we're at an impasse and agree that more comments would be welcome, so I've requested WP:3O to assist us. Blushmallorn (talk) 16:09, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

3O Response: I believe the speculation should be omitted per WP:SPECULATION. The sentence would have been out of place before 2018. Retro Studios did not publicly announce the expected release. There has been no notable outlash against Retro Studios for failing to meet this prediction. Therefore, in my opinion, the prediction does not belong in the article. Closetside (talk) 23:55, 23 June 2024 (UTC)