Talk:List of Nintendo Switch games: Difference between revisions

Page split for size and continued expansion

The list is growing at a fairly rapid clip and past 200kb. While perhaps a little early, I have gone ahead and split it by 0-9/A-L and M-Z, similar to List of PlayStation 4 games. I've done this WP:BOLDLY but if anyone strongly disagrees, follow WP:BRD. -- ferret (talk) 23:46, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

P.S. I know a few references are broken on both pages, I expect AnomieBOT to fix them shortly. -- ferret (talk) 23:49, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Personally not a fan of split pages, but there isn't really a better option for large lists like this. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 00:49, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

This has reduced the functionality of being able to see games in the region and release date quite significantly. Now a sorted list by date is spread across two pages. No idea what the thinking is behind this as web pages are designed to scroll vertically. Shepherdnick (talk) 14:10, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Not only games by region of release, also Switch exclusive games. Maybe a dynamic list made using a database would fix? --62.18.15.96 (talk) 16:00, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Larges lists commonly get cut down because, at a certain size, many people with (older) browsers have a hard time loading the whole thing. I'm not crazy about splitting the list either, but similar to Dissident's stance above...there really isn't a better option. List of 3DS games is surprisingly not split, but many similar ones are - List of Vita games, List of PS4 games, etc - It's a common approach. Sergecross73 msg me 14:30, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

The scary things about the Vita lists is they really need split again, over 400KB for each individual half currently. -- ferret (talk) 15:08, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Pretty surprising the whole 3DS list is just 367K too. Sergecross73 msg me 16:20, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

No, both of you are wrong, the PS Vita game list HAD to split because of the post-expand include size, not because of the scary number in page size. Right now you have the actual reason to split the Nintendo Switch list like just now, because it's really close to max out the post-expand include size. Rukario-sama ^ㅈ^ -(...) 10:27, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

The transclusion of the separate list was added after the list was split. The transcluded full list would clearly be over size (which is why we have the separate lists that stay under size), for those readers that need to see the entire list as one. --Masem (t) 14:36, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

If the Vita list was properly sourced through out, it'd almost certainly hit the limits and require splitting again. That said, I knew this would eventually have to be redirected again, just surprised at how quickly it came. -- ferret (talk) 15:09, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Unfamiliar with transclusion limits, but was it the final size that hit its limit, or one of the halves? If it's the second, would it even be worth it to split it into four pages? This whole thing is a mess with no real solution that would make everybody content. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 22:11, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

It was the combined transcluded main page. The limit is the total on any one page. Splitting the list will not allow for a complete transcluded table to work again. The only way to fix it is to reduce the number of templates in use. All the different colored cells, date cells, cite webs, etc. A lot of rows do have over-referenced issues, but even then it's just a temporary fix if duplicates refs were removed. In the end, every row adds 4-5+ templates. Neither of the current halves are over the limit on their own yet. -- ferret (talk) 22:26, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

That's what I thought. Could the transclusion limits be adjusted at all, or is this hardcoded in such a way that makes it impossible? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 00:56, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

(1 edit conflict later...) The data information is available below the edit window when you preview the page. Right now the first half of this article has

Post-expand include size	831,118/2,097,152 bytes

and the second half has

Post-expand include size	995,046/2,097,152 bytes

When the number reaches the limit the problem will pop up. Wiki will not parse any more templates, like you'd see at bottom in https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Nintendo_Switch_games&oldid=821119943. And oh, I wouldn't recommend creating a transclusion article primarily to combine large tables together again. {{:article}} will be treated as template and there will be several overheads going on. It's worse than the table that hasn't even been split yet. I think Ferret shouldn't have split the table in the past yet, but now's about the right time anyway. 831,118 + 995,046 = about 1,826,164 out of limit's 2,097,152 and considering that the Nintendo Switch is still early in its lifespan, I can still see many more games coming and there will be problematic going on in the near future. You will be correct to guess that the list of PlayStation Vita games will have the problem once their divided tables finally merged back together. WP:SIZESPLIT is meant for readable articles, so please never mind about the scary number you see of this page's size because this is a list page. The include limit is a true determining factor whether to split the table or not.

I don't think it's possible to lift the limit, but you can try clean up redundant template parameters, the major contributing factor to include size is citation templates. You'll be surprised how little include size this page will have once all the citations are wiped. Redundant parameter like |author |first |last |date, and others, they've got no real use-case, they're bloat. It's still good idea to purge them even if the table has been split, this will provide small performance regain. Rukario-sama ^ㅈ^ -(...) 01:22, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I disagree with all your suggestions. We shouldn't be removing citation info just to fit size limitations of something that was never even officially supported or preferred by the MOS. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 07:23, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Can you give me wikilink saying this shouldn't be done? Rukario-sama ^ㅈ^ -(...) 07:38, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

WP:V says we need sources, WP:LINKROT says its best if they're formatted. This is...very basic stuff. Sergecross73 msg me 13:52, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't know the solution that this provides yet, but it might be possible to consider using the subst: approach, which would copy the results of the smaller tables into the large one. The biggest drawback is that to keep the main table updated, the subst: code has to be reapplied at an editing level. That still keeps the dynamic editable split and an relatively up-to-date main table. --Masem (t) 14:15, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

The issue there is the main list looks to be a full and valid table, so users will just edit it. Their edits would be lost on the next subst. -- ferret (talk) 14:50, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm not following the tech side of all of this, so forgive me, but how is the List of PS4 games list, which has far more games to list, not having the same problems? When I created this article, I mirrored it off of the PS4 game list. I mean, there's been hundreds of edits and changes since then, so I suppose things have changed, but I'm surprised that this is having issues that the PS4 game list isn't... Sergecross73 msg me 15:16, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

It's the references. The PS4 list has only 80-sme refs (and technically should be a ref per game, but let's not go into that now), while this list has been strongly maintained with a ref for each announcement. That's 600+ refs. Those refs, expanded out via cite templates, expand the allowable byte size for template transclusion. --Masem (t) 15:21, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

When you think about the principle behind WP:LINKROT, they're to help other wiki editors to find the source again or, a new one, once the link is dead. This is especially true for the hard-to-find information, but this doesn't seem very true to this game list. I know about WP:V, sorry if I seem to suggest removing citations. I was just giving fun fact about them. Rukario-sama ^ㅈ^ -(...) 06:43, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

This split is silly and inconvenient. There are plenty of pages that are well above that size and are not split https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:LongPages 89.247.124.84 (talk) 08:59, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Linking to things that don't follow guidelines isn't a valid argument to not follow guidelines elsewhere. Sergecross73 msg me 14:16, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

This should be reverted back to a single list. You've broken the ability to see releases in date order by splitting this list. Also, I can't find other game lists done this way on Wikipedia. Playstation 2 is over 2500 games and it's all on a single page. Size isn't really a factor here. Even on a 56K modem (which is honestly absurd) a couple hundred kilobytes would download in a few seconds. Bkellihan (talk) 20:40, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

It's not about number of games, its about data size. The PS2 list is smaller data wise because it's almost entirely unsourced - not a good thing or something we should be aspiring for here. If it were done correctly, it would need splitting too. (Technically, according to WP:TOOBIG, it should even be split as is]].) What is it about the Switch fanbase that demands all titles to be listed in one place? I haven't seen people complaining about this at any other game list I've monitored over the years... Sergecross73 msg me 20:51, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

You should read that link again. In regards to the sizes "These rules of thumb apply only to readable prose [...] and not to wiki markup size (as found on history lists or other means)." "They also apply less strongly to list articles, especially if splitting them would require breaking up a sortable table." The intent of the Article Size guidelines is to limit prose on a page, not create specific limits on page size. And as they specifically call out, it's not mean to be applied to tables like this. Bkellihan (talk) 22:30, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I would suggest a solution like we did for Complete list of downloadable content for the Rock Band series. There are subpages that are more manageable that are transcluded into that master list that if someone really does want to sort them all, they can, but for purposes of quickly navigating to a title, the smaller pages work better. This is a scalable solution in that if you need to take from the current 2 to 3 pages, it's just a matter of moving content around those pages and then changing the transclusion in a master list. --MASEM (t) 22:34, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Does this issue effect readers or editors more? Because a raw split like we've already done helps editing, but hurts readability. The Rock Band example you provided is the exact opposite. I prefer the article to be more easily read than edited, as it's only a core group of us (under 10, maybe like five) who maintain the list, as compared to the potentially 100s, if not 1000s of readers who don't make edits. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 23:12, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

A transcluded list can be built at the current redirect of List of Nintendo Switch games -- ferret (talk) 23:28, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

As a reader I am absolutely furious about this change. This list was the first place I checked for Switch release dates, upcoming games, etc. You have made it fundamentally useless by splitting it up into two pages. This change must be reversed. Wicka wicka (talk) 14:19, 5 December 2017 (UTC) I really am just baffled that anyone thought this was a good idea. It's one of the worst, most short-sighted changes I've ever seen on this dumb website. STOP MAKING THINGS WORSE. Wicka wicka (talk) 14:20, 5 December 2017 (UTC) And you know what's great? It won't get fixed. It never does. This website isn't about trying to make the best articles we can make, it's about rigidly adhering to poorly conceived regulations (which editors treat as if it they are the word of god) and using your superior knowledge of Wikipedia's Byzantine rules to ensure that YOUR edit stands and YOU win whatever today's slapfight is. This sucks. Wicka wicka (talk) 14:25, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Maybe tone down your hyperbole, and avoid the personal attacks. Disruptive comments don't help anything and certainly don't make me eager to assist. This isn't the only list like this, and it's hardly unique. I was already pondering the solutions offered by Masem but when you post vitriol like this, I'm happy to go work on something else. -- ferret (talk) 14:59, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Transcluded main table

@Masem: Could you review the transclusion effort I've done? Should a see also for the alpha-split pages still be in the lead? I added an edit notice as well. -- ferret (talk) 15:23, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

• I think this works well for both sides (readers and editors). Perhaps this method could become standard in all split articles in the future? The only thing I'd add to this is maybe change the wording on the two split articles to make it more clear that they are intended to be edited rather than read. So maybe instead of the "see also" template up top, perhaps it could read Due to this list's overall size, this page is a transcluded list consisting of two separate articles. To edit it, see Nintendo Switch games (A-L) and List of Nintendo Switch games (M-Z)? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 21:44, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm open to ideas, but I went with an edit notice for that. I checked a few places I'm aware of transclusion in use like this, and none of them had it directly in the prose like that. To be fair most don't even have edit notices, and I certainly was left pretty confused the first time I encountered it at the old horrendous List of best-selling video games, which mixed the two methods. -- ferret (talk) 22:06, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
    • The split looks fine. I would agree you should include a index of the smaller pages (and which then you can nix the hat) for the transcluded pages. As this list grows (eg adding another page), that will be much easier to maintain, and it can be included on each of the smaller pages. --MASEM (t) 22:43, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Labo on the list

Someone added Nintendo Labo on the list. Should it really be on there? To my understanding, it more of an extension of a type of games than a game itself.

In my opinion, I think the intro paragraphs should mention Labo and link to the article, but I think that's it for this page. I think Labo games (Or "kits" I guess they're called?) should probably be listed at that article too, or eventually maybe a separate games list. But not here.

Input? Best to figure this out now so we're in agreement in handling this. Thanks! Sergecross73 msg me 18:45, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I haven't really researched yet but it seems more peripheral than game? -- ferret (talk) 18:50, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, me neither, as it doesn't seem to quite by my thing, so anyone feel free to correct me if I'm wrong here. But to me, it feels somewhat comparable to putting DSiWare or the Wii Balance Board on their respective platform's game list. Sergecross73 msg me 18:58, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Somebody else originally added both of the Labo releases as separate games, which I then edited to only include the brand. Labo is different from your DSiWare and Wii Balance Board examples as it comes with (and requires) minigames that need to be used for it to even function. I think it should remain on the list for now as, but I wouldn't oppose any efforts to remove it or place into another section on the list, such as "List of software", where other non-gaming software on the Switch could go. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 07:12, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Retail cartridges or download

Hi, just an idea. Personnaly, i would like to see what games on the list are available through retail and what others are exclusively sold through download. Could we add a row for that ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeklpa (talk • contribs) 10:06, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

The short version is no, that's not the sort of thing Wikipedia covers. If you'd like the long version, there's some very lengthy discussions in the talk page archives. Sergecross73 msg me 13:15, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Been discussed multiple times, with no valid argument (in Wikipedia standards) for adding this besides "It's helpful and I like it". ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 21:11, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Automatic counting of exclusive games

This probably would be a good idea rather than manually do them ourselves (or myself, for that matter) I mean, it also serves as a good idea for the other lists as well (i.e List of PlayStation 4 games, List of Xbox One games). Zacharyalejandro (talk) 04:31, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

• I assumed it was already automatic. If it's just going to be a bother throughout the lifespan of the Switch, then it should probably be removed. Anybody who cares then could just sort by the exclusivity column and count it themselves. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 00:46, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

This is pointless

Is there seriously nothing we can do to fix this stupid split? This is yet another great example of poorly thought out, idiotic Wikipedia bureacracy getting in the way of what is obviously best for reading. There is no advantage whatsoever, from a user's perspective, to splitting this into two pages. It's a made up Wikipedia rule that no one dares question, even though it's literally indefensible. Embarrassing. 12:55, 9 March 2018 (UTC)