The bulk update request #1035 has been rejected.

Reason:

BUR is still being organized into more readable categories. The explained section is not yet finished. I am not interesting in further feedback on this BUR as it is proving to be more of a distraction. Thank you all who participated in this early release of this BUR.

The BUR checking process is nearing completion. Minor things have been updated to make the BUR more consistent. There are still a few things left to do, and there are numerous games that are still not included in this list. I do still plan to extra the film stuff from the BUR, but I am saving this for last.

EDIT: The bulk update request #1035 (forum #312226) has been rejected by @gattonero2001.

I know you voted against the other video game BUR, but if that one is accepted, the created implications to video games in this BUR won't make sense.

I don't think we should be blanket-implicating studios and companies to video_games. Beyond that, it seems like this BUR is trying to do multiple unrelated things at once; implicating games to their respective series or franchise, implicating series and franchises to their owners, etc. These can/should be separate BURs, I think.

This BUR literally took more over 48 hours solid of research (actually more since I practically spent 5-10 hr periods working on it every day for two weeks straight) to make sure it was accurate, and get the system up to date, and there is still a ton more to do to fix the missing video game character implications. I know you are holding onto that other BUR and I'm sure you spent a long time making it, but I feel this BUR does a bit better at patching the holes in the tagging infrastructure, and does a lot to make the tags we do have more consistent.

Borrowing Watsit's eloquent comment from the other thread:

watsit said:
As it is, it's a fairly useless tag that covers distinctly separate topics (the actual physical games and depictions of games, vs non-game representations of characters or settings that appeared in a game), and seemingly arbitrarily applied (e.g. any depiction of a pokemon gets tagged video games, even though the Pokemon franchise has grown far beyond games, the games aren't even the biggest revenue source anymore, and the actual art isn't depicting a game-like setting; it's equal to images tagged because of a random character playing Pokemon Red on a Gameboy, or a poster advertising Pokemon plushies or a TCG tournament).

I can admire the time you put into the BUR, and just from a glance I don't have any problems with the rest of the suggestions. However, the video_games tag as it stands today isn't helping anyone, and creating more implications towards the tag does not solve anything.

IMO, video_games should be for posts that actually show a video game, or appear to be like a video game (e.g. a HUD apparent gameplay mechanics, etc), rather than anything relating to a company that has something to do with video games. The latter is too broad to be useful and breaks TWYS.

Separately, there's issues like this:

category square_enix_europe -> copyright
create implication square_enix_europe -> square_enix
create alias square_enix_ltd -> square_enix_europe
create implication tomb_raider -> square_enix_europe
create implication thief_(series) -> square_enix_europe

Why is square_enix_europe its own tag separate from square_enix? Should there be nintendo_of_america and nintendo_of_europe tags too? And why do the games implicate the European branch instead of their developers (who would implicate their owners)?

create implication warner_bros_interactive_entertainment -> warner_brothers

Do we need separate tags for separate divisions of the same company? Why?

These things may be worth discussing, but throwing them all into a single BUR like this makes it a mess. I'm having trouble just looking through it all to see if there's any mistakes or missing aliases/implications or things I disagree with or want to ask about.

watsit said:
I don't think we should be blanket-implicating studios and companies to video_games. Beyond that, it seems like this BUR is trying to do multiple unrelated things at once; implicating games to their respective series or franchise, implicating series and franchises to their owners, etc. These can/should be separate BURs, I think.

The goal was to get the system up to date. I have no plans on breaking it up as there isn't a point to doing so. There is simply too much work to do, and still yet to do to piece it together in smaller BURs. I still have lots of IPs that aren't in this BUR, and dozens of wikis that deserve not half assed wiki pages and that takes time. This BUR apart from some film tags I created while I had the opportunity to create them does nothing, but tie up loose ends by gathering video game copyrights from all over the site that have posts. Only a couple of these copyrights are empty.

Take things one step at a time

watsit said:
IMO, video_games should be for posts that actually show a video game, or appear to be like a video game (e.g. a HUD apparent gameplay mechanics, etc), rather than anything relating to a company that has something to do with video games. The latter is too broad to be useful and breaks TWYS.

Separately, there's issues like this:
Why is square_enix_europe its own tag separate from square_enix? Should there be nintendo_of_america and nintendo_of_europe tags too? And why do the games implicate the European branch instead of their developers (who would implicate their owners)?

Do we need separate tags for separate divisions of the same company? Why?

I mentioned it in my OP. Square Enix Europe is specifically for IPs that belong to Eidos Interactive after it went bankrupt and bought by Square Enix. People who are looking for only Eidos Interactive assets will use that tag. THQ is another tag I had to rebuild from its auctioned off properties. It wasn't as simple to just lump its tag into the division of another company.

thevileone said:
The goal was to get the system up to date. I have no plans on breaking it up as there isn't a point to doing so. There is simply too much work to do, and still yet to do to piece it together in smaller BURs.

Problem is, there's no reasonable way to check this BUR for correctness. Even ignoring the video_games tag debate (which is still a thing that needs to be handled, so everything here is now blocked on that even where it doesn't directly matter; and should that other BUR be accepted, this entire thing becomes invalid and can't be applied, even the tags that have nothing to do with video_games), no one can honestly give their okay that it all looks right. It's too big and touches too many separate things to ensure nothing was missed and there's no serious mistakes.

thevileone said:
I mentioned it in my OP. Square Enix Europe is specifically for IPs that belong to Eidos Interactive after it went bankrupt and bought by Square Enix. People who are looking for only Eidos Interactive assets will use that tag.

A company buying another company doesn't invalidate the former. Bioware was bought by EA, yet not only does Bioware still stay its own tag that the games it developer still implicate, EA is implicated separately instead of as a result of owning Bioware.

create implication baldur's_gate -> bioware

This is invalid as Baldur's Gate is a canon location in the Forgotten Realms which existed before Bioware was formed, and is used as a title for and featured in non-Bioware games and other releases. There's at least one Baldur's Gate tabletop campaign, and Baldur's Gate 3 is being developed by Larian Studios under license of Wizards of the Coast, which have nothing to do with Bioware or EA.

watsit said:
A company buying another company doesn't invalidate the former. Bioware was bought by EA, yet not only does Bioware still stay its own tag that the games it developer still implicate, EA is implicated separately instead of as a result of owning Bioware.

This is invalid as Baldur's Gate is a canon location in the Forgotten Realms, and is used as a title and featured in non-Bioware games and other releases. Baldur's Gate 3 is being developed by Larian Studios and has nothing to do with Bioware or EA (Wizards of the Coast owns the D&D franchise).

It still felt to me like Bioware was most well recognized for the Baldur's Gate series that is associated with that tag. It isn't really a tag used for the place, it refers to the game series. This is one area that I have scrutinized a lot, and it doesn't matter to me if I update this part of the BUR, but everything related to that game series (includes the first two main games and their expansions) apart from some spinoff titles was either developed by Bioware, or was developed by ex-Bioware employees (for the remake). The new game can be handled when it becomes relevant, it will likely have a brand new cast and references to the old cast of characters would still be best associated with Bioware.

It doesn't implicate EA, because Bioware is associated with an IP that didn't transfer to its new publisher when it got acquired.

I can take another look at this tomorrow. The video game series can be separated from the place quite easily. I just wanted to get the BUR submitted, and this was on my check later list.

thevileone said:
It still felt to me like Bioware was most well recognized for the Baldur's Gate series that is associated with that tag. It isn't really a tag used for the place, it refers to the game series. This is one area that I have scrutinized a lot, and it doesn't matter to me if I update this part of the BUR, but everything related to that game series (includes the first two main games and their expansions) apart from some spinoff titles was either developed by Bioware, or was developed by ex-Bioware employees (for the remake). The new IP can be handled when it becomes relevant, it will likely have a brand new cast and references to the old cast of characters would still be best associated with Bioware.

Baldur's Gate 3 is already out in early access, developed by Larian Studios and has nothing to do with Bioware or EA. Baldur's Gate: Descent Into Avernus is already out, created and published by Wizards of the Coast. Wizards owns the D&D IP, which includes Baldur's Gate and its assets, Bioware just created the games under the D&D license.

thevileone said:
It doesn't implicate EA, because Baldur's Gate IP never transferred to EA. Bioware is associated with an IP that didn't transfer to its new publisher when it got acquired.

EA owns anything Bioware owned. Just like Bethesda owns anything id Software owned (and now Microsoft owns anything Bethesda did). This isn't a second- or third-party working relationship, it's direct ownership. Bioware can't just leave EA and take its IPs with it, the Bioware name can only separate from EA if EA sells it, and any IPs Bioware had are EA's to sell or use, Bioware has no say as its not a separate entity anymore.

EDIT:

create implication mortal_kombat -> warner_bros_interactive_entertainment

Considering Mortal Kombat is both a game series and movie series, with Warner Brothers Interactive handling the games and Warner Brothers Pictures handling the movies, wouldn't Warner Brothers be the owners of the franchise? I still don't see a reason to have tags for separate divisions or subsidiaries of a company, since it's that company that ultimately owns the IP. If you care about the developers of specific games, that would be NetherRealm Studios for the more recent titles. So NetherRealm created the games, Warner Brothers owns the IP; Warner Brothers Interactive seems like an arbitrary middle-man to implicate.

create alias injustice:_gods_among_us -> injustice
create alias injustice_2 -> injustice
...
create implication x-com -> 2k_games
create implication x-com_2 -> 2k_games
...
create alias the_operative:_no_one_lives_forever -> no_one_lives_forever
create alias no_one_lives_forever_2 -> no_one_lives_forever
...
create implication metroid_prime -> metroid_prime_(series)
create implication metroid_prime_2:_echoes -> metroid_prime_(series)

What criteria are we using to determine whether a game series keeps separate entries or has them aliased to a single series tag? This seems rather arbitrary, as there's plenty of games aliased away despite having unique characters/creatures that first or only appeared in a specific game (Pokemon most notably). Also, injustice seems a bit of a generic word to use as a game tag specifically.

create alias 2k -> 2k_games

is ambiguous, as it can also refer to a resolution (half the size of 4k).

I'm sure there's more stuff I could question, but it's taking too long to keep looking through.

We should only tag series, not individual games. This BUR is a weird mix of both:

create alias no_one_lives_forever_2 -> no_one_lives_forever
create implication metroid_prime_2:_echoes -> metroid_prime_(series)
create alias tak_2 -> tak_and_the_power_on_juju
create implication final_fantasy_i -> final_fantasy

And you seem unable to make up your mind whether a game should only imply its developer, which in turn implies video_games:

create implication mass_effect -> bioware
create implication dragon_age -> bioware
remove implication mass_effect -> video_games
remove implication dragon_age -> video_games

Or whether a video_games implication should be added independently:

create implication bonk's_adventure -> konami
create implication bonk's_adventure -> video_games
create implication alex_kidd -> sega
create implication alex_kidd -> video_games

I also agree with all other points brought up in this thread, particularly the one about how video_games as currently defined violates TWYS, is inconsistent with our tags for all other forms of media, and causes mistags on a massive scale for cross-media franchises like pokémon. We should be eliminating the problem, not adding to it.

wat8548 said:
We should only tag series, not individual games. This BUR is a weird mix of both:

And you seem unable to make up your mind whether a game should only imply its developer, which in turn implies video_games:

Or whether a video_games implication should be added independently:

I also agree with all other points brought up in this thread, particularly the one about how video_games as currently defined violates TWYS, is inconsistent with our tags for all other forms of media, and causes mistags on a massive scale for cross-media franchises like pokémon. We should be eliminating the problem, not adding to it.

Whether you agree with it or not, individual games get implications every now and then. When two games are extremely similar, then they get aliased together. That's how the system works. I didn't half ass this BUR, and I would appreciate if you did not nitpick things that were done with very careful thought.

Umm Mass Effect and Dragon Age should imply both Bioware and EA. Both imply video_games, so they don't need to imply video games directly. I said this in the OP.

Eliminating the problem involves a tag that requires all of the IPs with images in an easily accessible place. We can't just get rid of it because it will leave a void. I disagree with half assed solutions by people who don't want to put any effort into correct solutions. I put solid days into this. It took no effort at all to say we should just get rid of something without a replacement.

I'm not even going to address all of your other complaints in previous messages as they are irrelevant to this BUR. You don't know how the system works currently. No, not everything BioWare developed transitioned to EA, the license for the Baldur's Gate trademark went back to Wizards of the Coast, and they were the ones who licensed Larian Studios to work on BG 3. Also I removed the implication to BioWare from this BUR, so there's no need to bring it back up. I'm not trying to be controversial here, and you are trying to find every little thing to bitch at me about when in many cases I have presented the absolute best way of organizing these video game tags.

thevileone said:
I disagree with half assed solutions by people who don't want to put any effort into correct solutions. I put solid days into this. It took no effort at all to say we should just get rid of something without a replacement.

thevileone said:
I know you are holding onto that other BUR and I'm sure you spent a long time making it

Hm.

strikerman said:
Hm.

That was part sarcasm, part me trying to be nice last night.

That's just needlessly antagonistic, dude.

I'm sorry for getting heated about this. I reacted badly to having to still explain things to others after mentioning that I have spent literal days thinking about this and doing research. Entire work periods were spent on this subject and yet there are users like watsit trying to act like they know better than me about the subjects here. That comes off as antagonistic and that sentence was directed towards him and not so much you.

I am literally paving the way for us to either keep the video games tag or deprecate with a better tag. We need all of the IPs in one place for either situation, and having them grouped into larger company tags makes them easier to separate from video games in the future.

thevileone said:
I'm sorry for getting heated about this. I reacted badly to having to still explain things to others after mentioning that I have spent literal days thinking about this and doing research.

I can appreciate the work you put into the BUR. Much of what I can see does seem to be good. But ultimately, the purpose here is to check the BUR for mistakes/errors and discuss whether or not certain changes are appropriate, and particularly when there's open questions elsewhere with no settled answer yet (whether video_games is over-used and needs to be scaled way back, and when/how various games get aliased to a series vs when they stay separate), those questions don't go away because you put a lot of work into a big BUR.

I can also understand why you feel this BUR is correct, but to us who are just seeing it now in it's full form, we have no easy way to check the whole thing for accuracy and make sure a mistake wasn't made somewhere. To me, it feels like you dumped this here and expected it to be taken as-is with no question. You spent days on it, it's perfect, just apply it. That's what it feels like. But part of having these BURs and alias/implication requests in the forum like this means having others check them over for errors, because no matter how much effort is put into making it or how obvious something may seem, especially when you've had your nose in it for days, flaws can be missed. I know full well that no matter how much work I put into something, it's inevitable that an issue I was completely blind to will turn up when someone else looks at it and points it out. If we can't meaningfully check over the BUR, it's not much better to having the aliases and implications applied in secret, and we know when that happens, at some point mistakes inevitably get made. And given the size of this BUR along with the way it touches on several different subjects at once, the statistical likelihood of that isn't small.

Another issue with its size is that it greatly increases the risk that the system will fail to apply it because of aliases and implications made in the interim, which puts it in a clock to be applied fast before some other BUR or alias/implication request breaks it, meaning even less time and opportunity for us to check it over.

thevileone said:
Entire work periods were spent on this subject and yet there are users like watsit trying to act like they know better than me about the subjects here. That comes off as antagonistic and that sentence was directed towards him and not so much you.

I am giving my input based on my understanding of how the companies are structured, how this site seems to tag things, and what makes sense to me. As well as pointing out when it doesn't seem clear what the site's preference is for something, and when behavior seems inconsistent. If that's antagonistic, I don't know what to tell you. What would you have preferred me to do?

thevileone said:
I am literally paving the way for us to either keep the video games tag or deprecate with a better tag.

Thing is, it's unlikely the video games tag itself is going away. What's at issue is whether it needs to be redefined or not. If this goes through now, and it's determined video games is getting redefined, it would add a ton more posts that need manual checking/cleanup.

We need all of the IPs in one place for either situation, and having them grouped into larger company tags makes them easier to separate from video games in the future.

And that's perfectly fine. Getting games aliased to their creators/owners is something that needs to be done. But we can't check it easily when it's in a huge BUR with changes for completely different companies and games mixed together.

thevileone said:
I'm not even going to address all of your other complaints in previous messages as they are irrelevant to this BUR.

You appear to be under the impression that Watsit and I are the same person. I am not sure there is any other useful response I can give you in light of that.

thevileone said:
I'm not trying to be controversial here, and you are trying to find every little thing to bitch at me about when in many cases I have presented the absolute best way of organizing these video game tags.

I am not 'trying to find every little thing to bitch at you about'. For one thing, most of my qualms are rather minor, though relevant I feel (and if it can be dealt with now, that would be better than waiting until after it's applied and then realizing it could've been fixed). But because there's so much here covering multiple otherwise unrelated tags, that ends up being a lot of small issues that I have questions about, which all end up in the same place (the Baldur's Gate tag, for instance, was cleared up relatively smoothly, but since there's more here, that means I still also have questions regarding Mortal Kombat, and questions about why some series are being aliased away and others aren't; what could've otherwise been different questions for different BURs, answered or dealt with relatively easily, all end up here at the same time for the same BUR). Given the size and scope of the tags at hand, the probability of a serious problem isn't negligible, and as you're unwilling to break it up into more manageable chunks that are easier to look over, I can't do a good check that there isn't a problem here, so I can't give my thumbs up.

To clarify, my main two problems are the size/breadth of the BUR preventing me from being confident with a thorough check-over (smaller bites would be easier to check/swallow), and the added -> video_games implications given it's incompatible with the other BUR (its adding many implications of the type that one is trying to remove, and would result in many more posts needing manual checking/cleaning if it's ultimately accepted). All my other issues that I can enumerate are relatively minor, though would be best dealt with sooner rather than later where an actual issue is identified if possible.

watsit said:
Just like Bethesda owns anything id Software owned

If you're going for semantic correctness, Id and Bethesda are separate properties at the same level under the Zenimax Media shell company (and I believe the IP-chain still runs through Zenimax before it reaches Xbox Game Studios)

At the moment, the big issue with video_games is not its thoroughness. If it were, this would likely be an excellent addition once any kinks are ironed out (and there always are, no matter how careful one is; that's why we need fresh eyes to critique them, painful as that might be sometimes). I'm not well acquainted with video games, so I can't give you any useful feedback on any of these implications.

The big issue with this BUR is that the other thread hasn't been settled yet. Until it has, this BUR, despite being well-researched and full of effort, is preemptive and could end up being for naught. If you want to salvage it, I'd advise taking out anything regarding direct implications to video_games – save them to another file for posting when the other BUR is taken care of. Should the other BUR go through, those chains would be broken, making these direct-to-video (game) implications pointless. However, if the other BUR doesn't go through, the implication chains would be intact, and you could then make another BUR for the missing video_games implications.

The bulk update request #1134 has been rejected.

Reason: This BUR is taken from my larger video games BUR. It creates the video games branch for Warner Bros. It also compiles all of the Lucas Arts stuff in one place. The video games branch is created as well and includes several games I found with tags.

EDIT: The bulk update request #1134 (forum #314184) has been rejected by @Cinder.

The bulk update request #1150 is active.

create implication alyx_vance (53) -> half-life (672)

Reason:

Section 1

- Redundant video game implications. Darkstalkers through capcom. Ratchet and clank through sony.
- The half-life IP seems to be owned by valve, and most of the images seem to already have the valve tag added. It makes sense even though it wasn't originally published by valve.

EDIT: The bulk update request #1150 (forum #314437) has failed: Implication for darkstalkers not found

EDIT: The bulk update request #1150 (forum #314437) has failed: Implication for ratchet_and_clank not found

EDIT: The bulk update request #1150 (forum #314437) has been approved by @slyroon.

The bulk update request #1151 has been rejected.

Reason: All of these games are directly associated with EA, or a studio EA owns. Games EA has published or once owned, are included in this BUR, but do not imply EA in this BUR.

Section 2: Electronic Arts

- Includes series Electronics Arts is well known for as well as some more obscure titles from the past. Titles that EA published, but did not own or acquire have been left out.

- Bioware was acquired by EA in 2007. Most of its assets were transferred to EA, but one series Baldur's Gate was developed under Interplay entertainment and the rights to the games seemed to stay with Interplay until they were picked up by Atari. Due to conflicts with being able to separate different Baldur's Gate series (Dark Alliance, which was produced by another Interplay studio, and the third release in the franchise yet to be released), this title has been excluded from this BUR. Although because this asset could be associated with Bioware in the future, I suggest that Bioware not directly imply EA for right now.
- Most franchises associated with Bioware are firmly associated with EA otherwise.
- Origin Systems is an old school developer acquired by EA in 1992. Kept together for convenience. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_Systems

EDIT: The bulk update request #1151 (forum #314441) has been rejected by @Cinder.

The bulk update request #1152 has been rejected.

Reason: A big publisher tag will be more complete. Less floating entries in the video games tag.

Section 3: 2K Games

- Bring some of the 2K games together under one tag.
- Borderlands developer (Gearbox Software) was acquired by Embracer Group (Nordic Games holding company), but 2K games will remain as publisher for the series.
- Remove alias of Evolve game from _(copyright), so that it may be aliased to _(game)
- Create character and species implications for game. This took quite some time to format.

EDIT: The bulk update request #1152 (forum #314442) has been rejected by @Cinder.

thevileone said:

Section 3: 2K Games

Since I'm against having video_games apply to anything remotely related to a video game, instead of actually showing a video game or someone playing a video game, I would suggest removing

create implication 2k_games -> video_games

The BUR looks fine otherwise.

The bulk update request #1153 has been rejected.

Reason: h5. Section 4: Square Enix

- Creates a tag for Eidos Interactive under its new name Square Enix Europe. This division of Square Enix focuses on the assets acquired by Eidos Interactive exclusively. These assets are distinct enough to keep as a separate tag within Square Enix IMO.
Includes most of its franchises that have posts and most lack the video games tag.
- Includes lesser known IPs, which should still belong to Square Enix
- IO Interactive was a development studio acquired by Square Enix through Eidos Interactive. The studio is known for Hitman, and Kane and Lynch franchises, but lost the Kane and Lynch franchise to Square Enix when it separated to become an independent studio. This is a messy situation and I think the best course of action is to keep these franchises together with the developer tag.
- Drakengard and Nier are owned by Square Enix
- Valkyrie Profile, Star Ocean (already implies Square Enix), and Radiata Stories are developed by tri-Ace, a company not owned by Square Enix, but Square Enix seems to own the IPs. All exclusively published by Square Enix.
- Taito is wholly owned by Square Enix, but I left the implication out since it was a late stage addition to the BUR.

EDIT: The bulk update request #1153 (forum #314444) has been rejected by @Cinder.

create alias emet_(evolve) -> e.m.e.t

Should that be e.m.e.t. instead of e.m.e.t, since the t is part of the acronym?

The bulk update request #1154 has been rejected.

create implication legends_of_runeterra (69) -> riot_games (27956)
create implication valorant (50) -> riot_games (27956)
create implication teamfight_tactics (44) -> riot_games (27956)

Reason: h5. Section 5: Riot Games

- Riot Games only implies league_of_legends. This adds the other IPs related to this company.

EDIT: The bulk update request #1154 (forum #314446) has been rejected by @Cinder.

The bulk update request #1155 has been rejected.

Reason: h5. Section 7: Retro video games

- Mostly obscure games from antique video game platforms. There shouldn't be anything controversial in this section.
- Action 52 is a compilation of games. Only populated ones have been included. Haunted hills goes by two names hence the aliases.
- Berzerk and Centipede use the _(video_game) suffix. This is how the tags were when I found them. I will check to see if this is necessary.
- No One Lives Forever and its sequel are similar enough to be aliased IMO.

Atari

- Atari has been neglected. It doesn't have any implications.
- Console related copyright tags will now imply Atari. This structure can be improved at a later time.

Atari has a complicated company structure. Atari was acquired by Infogrames, which in turn rebranded itself as Atari SA. This BUR treats the new parent of the Atari brand as the new Atari. The Atari tag will now be used for any Atari SA assets, as well as video games developed and published by Atari for its consoles.

- Centipede had the (video_game) suffix when I found it, which matches the Wikipedia page for the game. The distinction is due to there being another game called Centipede .
- Blood is a game series published by an Infogrames subsidiary GT Interactive, and developed by Monolith Productions. GT Interactive retained publishing rights for the games, while the IP itself transferred over to Warner Brothers upon its acquisition of Monolith Productions. I suggest this property still retain the Infogrames / Atari relationship.
- Alone in the Dark and Act of War IPs were sold to THQ Nordic in 2018. Unless something significant happens with the Alone in the Dark series under THQ Nordic, I think it is best to keep the games grouped under Infogrames / Atari.

Intellivision

- Mattel created the Intellivision console.
- Game implications to mattel are games they developed for their own console.

Data East / Irem

- Arcade born publishers and video game developers. Data East also produced pinball machines, hence why it doesn't imply video games for now.
- Irem doesn't have a lot of populated games, but there are some. Some of these titles were ported by different platforms by other developers.

SunSoft

- Sunsoft has been a video game publisher and developer since the NES era. Some of these titles it no longer owns such as Aero the Acro-bat, but it still makes sense to group it under Sunsoft.
- Blaster Master is another game I think we should give to SunSoft. Inti Creates, the developer responsible for Mega Man Zero has made the remakes for this IP, and seems poised to make additional entries to the series in the future.
- Galaxy Fight and Galaxy Fight: Universal Warriors refer to the same game.
- Fur Fighters, Turok, and Vexx are all video games that once belonged to the defunct Acclaim Entertainment. The Aero and Zero games were developed by Iguana Entertainment, which was acquired by Acclaim in 1995. It might make sense to have an Acclaim tag for these old game series. I think though that Turok might be owned by Disney now, but I need to check this.

EDIT: The bulk update request #1155 (forum #314447) has been rejected by @Cinder.

The bulk update request #1156 has been rejected.

Reason: h5. Section 8: Capcom

- Completes the Capcom video game infrastructure that has uploads. See franchises https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Capcom_franchises
- Gargoyle's Quest is a spinoff Ghosts n' Goblins series. I wasn't sure if it should imply the series tag or not.
- Demento is the Japanese name for the Haunting Ground video game.
- Capcom owns the Dark Void IP, but the game was handled by an external developer.
- I wasn't sure if I should slap the _(series) to the Onimusha game tag. It is Japanese for Oni warrior. I checked and it is tagged correctly.
- Power stone is two games, and shares most of the cast.
- Sengoku Basara seems to be a large video game franchise with numerous games, and multiple animes. Might take a look at it later, but I believe Capcom owns the entire franchise.
- Steel Battalion is a mech game with a custom Xbox controller specifically made for the game called the Mega-Jockey-9000. I was unable to find the original manufacturer behind the controller, and I was unsure whether to have the controller tag be the actual name or alias it to steel_battalion_controller.
- The games at the end of the section, are games related to Capcom, but for one reason or another didn't feel comfortable suggesting the Capcom tag.
- I feel these versus games should be grouped under a tag, but for now they are separate. Not all of the games that feature Capcom characters are owned by Capcom.
- Unlike Marvel Vs. Capcom, Namco x Capcom is the correct name of this video game, and I believe Bandai Namco controls the IP.
- Project X Zone is a follow up game to Namco x Capcom, and contains a mashup of characters from Bandai Namco, Capcom, and Sega.
- Xeno series is not related to Capcom, but is related to Monolith Soft, the developer behind the Project X Zone games. Nintendo currently owns a majority stake in Monolith Soft.
-- The series is actually broken up into three series all owned by separate companies. I don't know a lot about the games, but it seems likely that there isn't much overlap between the series. You can find more information here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xeno_(series)

EDIT: The bulk update request #1156 (forum #314448) has been rejected by @Cinder.

The bulk update request #1157 has been rejected.

Reason: This will create better organization overall. Epic Games will be a more complete tags.

Section 9: Epic Games / Microsoft / Bethesda

- Removed the Too Human association, as it is unclear whether this IP still belongs to Silicon Knight or rights were transferred to the publisher (Microsoft). Read more about it here https://www.polygon.com/e3/2019/6/12/18663026/too-human-xbox-live-free-epic-games-marketplace
- Epic Games acquired all of these IPs through studios it acquired or owned.
- Dungeon Siege is currently owned by Square Enix. The first game was published by Microsoft, but it was owned by the developer at the time. It probably should imply Square Enix.
- Improve the compartmentalization of this group by moving Arkane Games IPs under the developer tag.
- Assign Rage, Commander Keen and others to id Software. id Software should imply Bethesda at some point.
- Quake and Wolfenstein are in a strange situation. Rights have switched from Activision, to Bethesda, and both have contributed games to the franchises. I feel these games are too closely associated with id Software to default to video games. Quake is not entirely developed by id software, but a significant amount of the series has been.

EDIT: The bulk update request #1157 (forum #314449) has been rejected by @Cinder.

The bulk update request #1158 has been rejected.

create implication heavenly_sword (3) -> sony_interactive_entertainment (16539)
create implication resistance_(series) (0) -> sony_interactive_entertainment (16539)
create implication wipeout_(racing_game) (8) -> sony_interactive_entertainment (16539)
create alias wipeout_(video_game) (0) -> wipeout_(racing_game) (8)
create implication lemmings (38) -> sony_interactive_entertainment (16539)
create implication shadow_of_the_beast (7) -> sony_interactive_entertainment (16539)
create alias sony_online_entertainment (0) -> daybreak_game_company (1)
create implication everquest (406) -> daybreak_game_company (1)
create implication planetside (8) -> daybreak_game_company (1)
create implication vanguard:_saga_of_heroes (0) -> daybreak_game_company (1)
create alias vanguard_saga_of_heroes (1) -> vanguard:_saga_of_heroes (0)

Reason: Some missing Sony IPs. Wipeout launched with one of its consoles. It also better separates IPs no longer associated with the brand. None of them were implicated to Sony anyways.

Section 10: Sony

- Include assets acquired by Psygnosis (I want to group the assets under Psygnosis, but I don't think Ecstatica carried onto Sony. The IP stayed with the developer.)
- Lemmings is the most publisher diverse series, but I can assure you that Sony owns the franchise, and has made mobile games for it.
- There are two copyrights called wipeout, the racing game series, and a televised game show. The game show also had a series of video games. This is why this series has an extra specific title.
- Sony sold off its Sony Online Interactive subsidiary, which worked on mainly MMORPG games. These games shouldn't be associated with Sony, so associate them with their new company name Daybreak Game Company instead.
- Shadow of the Colossus is associated with Sony, but the IP still seems to be with the developer.

EDIT: The bulk update request #1158 (forum #314450) has been rejected by @Cinder.

The bulk update request #1159 has been rejected.

create implication advent_rising (0) -> majesco_entertainment (0)
create implication bloodrayne (17) -> majesco_entertainment (0)
create alias bloodrayne_(game) (0) -> bloodrayne (17)
create alias bloodrayne_(video_game) (0) -> bloodrayne (17)
create implication rayne_(bloodrayne) (10) -> bloodrayne (17)
create implication drake_of_the_99_dragons (1) -> majesco_entertainment (0)
create implication drake_(drake_of_the_99_dragons) (1) -> drake_of_the_99_dragons (1)
create implication psychonauts (35) -> double_fine_productions (42)
create implication brutal_legend (15) -> double_fine_productions (42)

Reason: Section handles some obscure titles and some less obscure ones.

Section 11: Majesco Entertainment

- Majesco isn't know for any extremely popular IPs. This tag would serve to represent the few IPs that I could associate with the company that don't belong to other companies.
- Ziggurat Interactive acquired man of Majesco's IPs including Advent Rising, and Bloodrayne.
- Psychonauts was published by Majesco, but I don't believe they owned the game. Ownership belongs to the developer Double Fine Studios. Since this developer has another game connected to them, I figured it wouldn't hurt to keep them under one tag.
- The video games following this section are related to Majesco in some way.

EDIT: The bulk update request #1159 (forum #314451) has been rejected by @Cinder.

The bulk update request #1160 is active.

create implication bloody_roar (201) -> konami (5150)
create implication bonk's_adventure (0) -> konami (5150)
create implication coded_arms (1) -> konami (5150)
create implication contra (27) -> konami (5150)
create implication suikoden (33) -> konami (5150)

Reason: This BUR might be updated later since it was separated from the larger BUR. Bandai Namco is definitely missing implications.

Section 12: Konami / Bandai Namco

- Konami is missing several classic video game titles such as Contra, and Bonk's Adventure.
- Hudson Soft was acquired by Konami. It makes sense to include the games under Konami now.
- Not focusing on Bandai Namco video games in this BUR. This will be part of a later BUR. Enslaved: Odyssey to the West is one of those games belonging to Bandai Namco post merger.

EDIT: The bulk update request #1160 (forum #314452) has been approved by @slyroon.

The bulk update request #1161 has been rejected.

create implication blazblue (2385) -> arc_system_works (2805)
create implication guilty_gear (413) -> arc_system_works (2805)
create implication kunio (1) -> kunio-kun (15)
create implication river_city_ransom (5) -> kunio-kun (15)
create implication river_city_girls (13) -> kunio-kun (15)
create implication river_city_girls (13) -> arc_system_works (2805)
create implication river_city_girls (13) -> wayforward (2984)
create implication skullmageddon_(rcg) (13) -> river_city_girls (13)

Reason: This will be mainly fighting games.

Section 13: Arc System Works

- Arc System Works acquired the IPs for double dragon and kunio-kun, and has released new games for each. Both of these franchises once belonged to Technos Japan Corporation, and that company is still associated with these game series. Both Double Dragon and Kunio-kun have existed since the NES era and become cult classics. At the moment both default to video games, but I think we should imply arc system works, technos or both at some point.
- Kunio-kun series is quite messy. Fortunately the NES released River City Ransom, and its more modern sequel and spinoffs have allowed for a consistent tag. River City Girls is another spinoff series that is different enough to make for a consistent tag.
- WayForward Technologies is the developer behind the 2019 River City Girls game and has announced at E3 2021 will be the developer for a sequel game and a port of the original River City Girls.
- Skullmageddon is a boss character from Double Dragon Neon, and the model in RCR is very different. Double Dragon Neon was developed by WayForward Technologies, and published by Arc System Works. We can definitely give both the developer and publisher credit for both of these games.

EDIT: The bulk update request #1161 (forum #314453) has been rejected by @Cinder.

The bulk update request #1162 is active.

Reason: A lot of time has been put into accumulating a comprehensive list of Sega IPs.

Section 14: Sega / Atlus

- This BUR includes some of the lesser known Sega IPs, and various other missing one such as Puyo Puyo. There shouldn't be anything controversial in this section.
- Sega acquires Company of Heroes from acquiring Relic Entertainment from THQ. However Homeworld series went to Gearbox Software instead.
- Atlus is owned by Sega. It should imply Sega at some point.
- Game gear is a Sega handheld. There isn't anything special about that alias.

EDIT: The bulk update request #1162 (forum #314454) has been approved by @slyroon.

The bulk update request #1163 has been rejected.

Reason: h5. Section 15: Game Arts / Vanillaware

These two gaming studios I discovered were associated with several IPs tagged on the site. Most of the IPs associated with vanillaware seem to be popular for furry artwork.

- I took the time to handle the Lunar game series. The series had the original series remade twice. The aliases refer to games with the same characters and plot. The tags have already been organized into their proper groupings on the site.

EDIT: The bulk update request #1163 (forum #314455) has been rejected by @Cinder.

The bulk update request #1164 has been rejected.

create implication fatal_fury (247) -> snk (254)
create implication art_of_fighting (7) -> snk (254)
create implication samurai_shodown (309) -> snk (254)
create implication the_king_of_fighters (33) -> snk (254)
create alias king_of_fighters (293) -> the_king_of_fighters (33)
create implication metal_slug (117) -> snk (254)
create implication ikari_warriors (2) -> snk (254)

Reason: This is another fighting game focused developer / publisher.

Section 16: SNK

- This tag is already populated, and the wiki is organized.
- SNK created the Neo Geo brand, which includes two home consoles, two arcade cabinets, and three handhelds. I had the implications in place, but this part of the BUR got lost, and I will have to remake it. The relations should be listed on the wiki.

EDIT: The bulk update request #1164 (forum #314457) has been rejected by @Cinder.

The bulk update request #1165 has been rejected.

create implication guild_wars (4532) -> ncsoft (0)
create implication lineage_(series) (19) -> ncsoft (0)
create alias lineage (0) -> lineage_(series) (19)
create implication lineage_2 (0) -> lineage_(series) (19)
create implication trickster_online (15) -> ncsoft (0)
create alias trickster_(game) (1) -> trickster_online (15)
create implication city_of_heroes_(series) (0) -> ncsoft (0)
create implication city_of_heroes (10) -> city_of_heroes_(series) (0)
create implication city_of_villains (1) -> city_of_heroes_(series) (0)
create implication wildstar (862) -> ncsoft (0)

Reason: h5. Section 17: NCSoft

- Guild Wars is a very big tag (~3K images). We can safely group together numerous other fairly well populated video games related to this company under one tag if we have this.

EDIT: The bulk update request #1165 (forum #314458) has been rejected by @Cinder.

The majority of these all have the same flaw. Adding more -> video_games implications that we're trying to remove with topic #29801. Please remove those for now until that BUR is dealt with. You can always add implications later or make another BUR if they're decided to be kept, while it will be a much bigger mess to clean up if these go through now and it's decided they're to be removed. There's no point adding more here when there's still an open question as to whether they should be there, as it means these BURs all implicitly have to wait until that is handled, possibly requiring changes even then before they can be accepted, rather than allowing the uncontroversial parts to go through now without running into that issue.

The bulk update request #1166 has been rejected.

Reason: h5. Section 18: THQ

- The fallout from THQ going bankrupt left a mess behind. This tag wont be accurate in reference to newer releases, but someone may still want an easy way to find THQ properties since it was a large video game publisher at the time.
- It doesn't need to be a tag. The video game assets are also associated with their new owners, and I have listed THQ properties on their wiki page.

Companies that received assets from THQ include Sega, Nordic Games (THQ Nordic), Koch Media, Gearbox Software, and Deep Silver.

- The Metro 2033 video game series IP once belonged to THQ and now belongs to Deep Silver. However this property appears to be a novel and video game franchise. This is why I suggest aliasing to the less specific metro_(franchise) to align with the Wikipedia page about the game, and not have this tag imply either company. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metro_(franchise)
- Tak and the Power of Jujus is a joint venture by THQ and Nickelodeon to make a game, and television series based on this IP. Normally only one media source will get the credit, but in this case I feel both parties created this IP.

- Gearbox Entertainment, Koch Media, and THQ Nordic are all owned by a holding company called the Embracer Group (formerly Nordic Games AB). Most of THQs assets are now owned by companies that are part of this group. I didn't feel it was necessary to have the group as a tag just yet.
- Volition (developer behind Saint's Row and Red Faction series) was acquired by Koch Media from THQ and became part of Deep Silver. Deep Silver is a subsidiary of Koch Media. Read more about Volition: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volition_(company)

Deep Silver and TimeSplitters

- Free Radical Design, a development studio created the TimeSplitters franchise and has been behind every entry to date. In 2009, the studio was acquired by Crytek under which it became Crytek UK. No new TimeSplitters content was released under Crytek, and the studio was closed down in 2014 with most of its employees forming Dambuster Studios, a division of Deep Silver. Koch Media acquired the TimeSplitters franchise from Crytek in 2018, and has reformed Free Radical Design as a division of Deep Silver to create a new TimeSplitters title.
- As of right now, no content is directly associated with Deep Silver yet, and past TimeSplitters titles have been published by Eidos Interactive (1,2), Electronic Arts (3). With the original development team, original studio, full ownership of the franchise at hand, it seems likely that this new title will come to fruition. In the not so distant future, we may see a unification of the franchise through rereleases under the Deep Silver name. It might be too soon to associate the franchise with Deep Silver right now, but that seems to be the relationship this franchise will need eventually.
https://www.polygon.com/22445448/new-timesplitters-sequel-announced-deep-silver-free-radical-design

EDIT: The bulk update request #1166 (forum #314460) has been rejected by @Cinder.

Are you even able to see and respond to any of these responses being made in your flood?

The bulk update request #1167 has been rejected.

remove implication gameboy_advance (13) -> nintendo (638811)
remove alias gameboy_advanced (0) -> gameboy_advance (13)
remove implication gameboy_advance_sp (1) -> nintendo (638811)
remove alias gameboy_advanced_sp (0) -> gameboy_advance_sp (1)
create implication arms_(game) (56) -> nintendo (638811)
create implication excitebike (6) -> nintendo (638811)
create implication ice_climber (119) -> nintendo (638811)
create implication the_legendary_starfy_(series) (35) -> nintendo (638811)
create alias the_legendary_starfy (1) -> the_legendary_starfy_(series) (35)
create implication starfy (23) -> the_legendary_starfy_(series) (35)
create alias starfy_(character) (0) -> starfy (23)
create alias starfy_(the_legendary_starfy) (0) -> starfy (23)
create implication starfy (23) -> the_legendary_starfy_(series) (35)

Reason: h5. Section 19: Nintendo

- Handle some floating Nintendo IPs missing implications. I'm sure this is not a complete list.
- Unimply duplicate handheld implications, so that they may be aliased to the proper tag. The actual game boy tag have a space. These gameboy tags are duplicate tags.

EDIT: The bulk update request #1167 (forum #314462) has been rejected by @Cinder.

The bulk update request #1168 has been rejected.

change category type-moon (4006) -> copyright
create alias type_moon (0) -> type-moon (4006)
create implication fate_(series) (2933) -> type-moon (4006)
create implication tsukihime (1077) -> type-moon (4006)
create implication melty_blood (97) -> type-moon (4006)
create implication chocola_(sayori) (49) -> neko_para (0)
create implication vanilla_(sayori) (46) -> neko_para (0)
create implication coconut_(sayori) (32) -> neko_para (0)
create implication maple_(sayori) (8) -> neko_para (0)
create implication cinnamon_(sayori) (5) -> neko_para (0)

Reason: h5. Section 20: Visual novels

Nothing controversial here. This handles neko para and type moon content. This was a late stage addition to the BUR, so it is not as complete as the other sections.

EDIT: The bulk update request #1168 (forum #314464) has been rejected by @Cinder.

The bulk update request #1169 has been rejected.

Reason: Various independent studios and video games tags that are missing implications.

Section 21: Independent and Misc video games

These are all games that do not fit that well in the other sections. Nothing controversial here.

- Amnesia could use a series tag at some point, but all of the content is from the first game. Justine is an expansion to the first game.
- We Happy Few can probably go to Microsoft if they release a new game for it. The game is still associated with its publisher Gearbox Publishing, which is now owned by the Embracer group even though Microsoft acquired the developer Compulsion Games in 2018.
- Some of the games appended to the end of this section could possibly be associated into other groups, but I am not prepared to make the suggestion yet.

EDIT: The bulk update request #1169 (forum #314465) has been rejected by @Cinder.

The bulk update request #1170 has been rejected.

Reason: h5. Section 22: Final Fantasy / Metroid Prime

- Final Fantasy and Metroid Prime are games I feel we should have infrastructure for. Final Fantasy is an ongoing project and I have already organized the Prime games into their respective tags already. for Final Fantasy this would just be filling in missing game implications anyways.

EDIT: The bulk update request #1170 (forum #314467) has been rejected by @Cinder.

Making thirty different BURs and stuffing them into the same thread one after the other after the other is no different than making one giant BUR. It's chaotic.

thevileone said:
Reason: h5. Section 22: Final Fantasy / Metroid Prime

I don't think separate tags for Metroid Prime 1, 2, and 3 are necessary. Not even sure a separate Metroid Prime tag is necessary, since it's not terribly different from the base Metroid (series).

watsit said:
The [2k] BUR looks fine otherwise.

Semantics time
x-com_2 shouldn't be a valid tag. The franchise is x-com but only the original series game titles are hyphenated, making the reboot's sequel xcom_2 whereas the original game's sequel would be x-com:_terror_from_the_deep

Massive BUR spam aside...

I just disagree with this whole thing entirely. I do not see the point it company-based copyright tags, much less tags for their holding companies.
Can someone "in the know" explain to me the benefit of being able to search for both dragon_age, mass_effect, dead_space, dungeon_keeper, battlefield_(series), and red_alert_(series) all at the same time? Who is searching for all content made by electronic_arts?

Things change, IPs change hands, companies get acquired and dissolved. Keeping this massive web of pointless tag becomes a huge pain in the ass.

bitwolfy said:
I just disagree with this whole thing entirely. I do not see the point it company-based copyright tags, much less tags for their holding companies.
Can someone "in the know" explain to me the benefit of being able to search for both dragon_age, mass_effect, dead_space, dungeon_keeper, battlefield_(series), and red_alert_(series) all at the same time? Who is searching for all content made by electronic_arts?

Honestly the biggest excuse for this would probably be having everything together in the hypothetical scenario where one of these companies shows up to request takedown
I mean to my knowledge it hasn't happened beyond Paddington but it seems to be site policy to comply with that

bitwolfy said:
Massive BUR spam aside...

I told them to split the original BUR down into parts so that it could be more understandable and not choke the site if approved.

millcore said:
I told them to split the original BUR down into parts so that it could be more understandable and not choke the site if approved.

Yeah, I know. Vile told me.
I'm not sure if this helped readability much, but not breaking the site is a plus.

I think, I might have preferred having separate threads for at least a part of these. Ex. a separate thread for Metro 2033 implications, a separate thread for visual novel implications, and so on.
I feel like we are gonna get bogged down in arguments about whether or not the video_games tag is need here again.

Speaking of which, I would move the proposed video_games implications into a separate BUR, so that they aren't coming as a package deal with non-contentious implications.

Edit: Also, some of these implications seem to be... unnecessary. Ex:

category owlboy_(game) -> copyright
category the_behemoth_(company) -> copyright

Those are empty tags. The category can be set manually, without having to inflate already gigantic BURs.

magnuseffect said:
Honestly the biggest excuse for this would probably be having everything together in the hypothetical scenario where one of these companies shows up to request takedown
I mean to my knowledge it hasn't happened beyond Paddington but it seems to be site policy to comply with that

Interesting.
Yeah, I can see how that would help in those circumstances.

millcore said:
I told them to split the original BUR down into parts so that it could be more understandable and not choke the site if approved.

I did too. But I kind of expected them to do a few at a time so that there could be proper discussion, since the problem was there was too much at once for us to meaningfully go over, but a flood of smaller BURs that ultimately contain all the same implications/aliases not only doesn't make it any easier to do that, it makes it harder since there's a couple dozen to vote on individually. Especially since that they left in parts to it that are incompatible with BUR #982, making some okay and others bad.

millcore said:
I told them to split the original BUR down into parts so that it could be more understandable and not choke the site if approved.

I agree with you on the understandability front, but I disagree with how it was executed. Even 22 separate threads for each BUR would... still be chaotic, but it'd be more legible than potentially trying to discuss 22 separate topics in one thread. Least of all because I'm not sure everyone has the patience to read every single BUR when they're presented like this.

bitwolfy said:
Speaking of which, I would move the proposed video_games implications into a separate BUR, so that they aren't coming as a package deal with non-contentious implications.

That was one of the first things they were asked to remove by both me and Strikerman, and which there was a lot of back and forth on with them. As they're also one of the few voting against the other video_games BUR and didn't expect this BUR to get much push back, it seems like they really want those implications to stay in. Which kind of ruins the whole set, unfortunately.

The Vile One has done some good work and definitely put quite a bit of effort into researching out this BUR, so it pains me to complain. Chopping the original BUR into bite-sized chunks is a good idea because it means we can focus on each chunk one at a time and discuss each one seperately.

Unfortunately, there's always kinks that need to be ironed out – separating out the direct-to-video_game implications into their own BUR until the other Video Games BUR is settled one way or another, and spreading some of these BURs into maybe two or three per thread at most. That would effectively spread these bite-sized chunks out so they can be bitten.

...And there goes the conversation without me.

The Vile One is being stubborn, apparently with quite a bit of emotional investment in keeping the video_games tag as it is now. You can pretty much infer it from their initial posts here. I can understand that resistance to feedback from my own Years BUR, but it just gets in the way of the BURs being good ones we can support.

So, I went through all of those BURs, and through other peoples' comments. And these are the results.
Besides the obvious issue with video_games, this thing is alright, although it does have some recurring issues.

This is just for the benefit of whoever is going to try and clean up these BURs.
TheVileOne has already made it very clear to me that he does not care for other people's input on his BURs.

I'll try to keep this list up to date if any other suggestions come in.

bitwolfy said:
If there is a developer, the game should implicate their tag, with publisher implicating tag the developer. I don't like the whole concept of tagging publishers, but if we are doing it, let's at least credit the developers.

If you mean the developer's tag implicating the publisher (e.g. Bioware implicating Electronic Arts), that can only work for publishers that wholly own said developers. It's otherwise entirely possible for a single developer to use different publishers for different games (or even for the same game in different regions), so publishers could only be implicated by the games in those cases, if the publisher is to be tagged.

Personally, I'd consider more tagging/implicating the actual IP holder(s) of a franchise where such is known, along with the developer of a given game. No need to tag the publisher if it's not also one of those.

watsit said:
If you mean the developer's tag implicating the publisher (e.g. Bioware implicating Electronic Arts), that can only work for publishers that wholly own said developers. It's otherwise entirely possible for a single developer to use different publishers for different games (or even for the same game in different regions), so publishers could only be implicated by the games in those cases, if the publisher is to be tagged.

Personally, I'd consider more tagging/implicating the actual IP holder(s) of a franchise where such is known, along with the developer of a given game. No need to tag the publisher if it's not also one of those.

Sorry, it's pretty late, and words fail to form into coherent sentences sometimes =P
I meant the parent company / IP holder, not specifically a publisher. And only making this implications structure for games with a consistent developer and IP holder throughout the entire series.

I'm just trying to keep the number of implications being created down, for practicality's sake.

bitwolfy said:
I meant the parent company / IP holder, not specifically a publisher.

Maybe, though I considered implicating the IP holder as a form of copyright attribution, which may be a legal requirement in some places and a good thing to do in others. But with developers there's also the issue of dealing with series tags, which many individual games are aliased to. Obviously it would be good to have games implicate their developers where they can, but I still don't know what the line is for keeping individual game tags vs aliasing them to the series/franchise tag (it's difficult to know which games have had alias requests rejected and why, vs which simply haven't been thought about).

It's a tricky and messy issue.

bitwolfy said:
Although, TheVileOne already made it very clear to me that he does not care for my input on the matter.

I don't like bad-talking people, but that really makes it sound like this broken up BUR series was done in bad faith. Aside from the Baldur's Gate change in the initial BUR, which took arguing for even after acknowledging the ->bioware implication wasn't accurate, he's rebuked all concerns about individual game vs series tags and not backed down on controversial implications, issues that could easily be resolved by making a separate BUR, and expected it to be accepted as-is without critique. Despite the relative lack of positive feedback, he refused to make separate and more manageable BURs when we've asked, until an admin asked him to do exactly that. But even then, the BURs were all dumped at once with minimal changes. And despite making separate BURs anyway, he still kept the questionable and controversial implications in the individual BURs, ensuring they can't be applied without them, and is still refusing to work with us to get the uncontroversial parts in. With the initial BUR, I could just see it as him being stubborn about changing it (we all can be that way sometimes about things we put work into), but when an admin then pokes him to do one of the things we had been asking and needs to change it anyway, he does the bare minimum to comply and purposely not in a way that would make it less controversial. I really can't see that as being a good faith attempt at making an acceptable BUR series.

watsit said:
Maybe, though I considered implicating the IP holder as a form of copyright attribution, which may be a legal requirement in some places and a good thing to do in others. But with developers there's also the issue of dealing with series tags, which many individual games are aliased to. Obviously it would be good to have games implicate their developers where they can, but I still don't know what the line is for keeping individual game tags vs aliasing them to the series/franchise tag (it's difficult to know which games have had alias requests rejected and why, vs which simply haven't been thought about).

It's a tricky and messy issue.

I don't think that there is an official policy regarding game series.
So far, series with a cohesive connection between games seem to be merged into a single tag (ex. mass_effect), while games that have little to do with each other have separate tags (ex. final_fantasy).
I think that that's a decent enough system.

In my opinion, if a cohesive series has changed owners or developers, it should imply the current, most recent developer and copyright holder.
Perhaps, the previous developers and copyright holders could be listed on its wiki page?
A more disparate series could have each game imply its own developer.

Not an ideal solution, but one that works within the constraints of the tagging system.
I'm open to other suggestions, though.

bitwolfy said:
I don't think that there is an official policy regarding game series.
So far, series with a cohesive connection between games seem to be merged into a single tag (ex. mass_effect), while games that have little to do with each other have separate tags (ex. final_fantasy).
I think that that's a decent enough system.

That's generally the way I look at it too. But then you have the Metroid Prime games, which I would consider cohesive at least within themselves, if not to the larger series (despite being first-person, it's generally seen as a faithful take on the Metroid series in 3D, basically it's Mario 64 moment). The Elder Scrolls I'd consider to be a fairly cohesive setting, too.

The Legend of Zelda is kind of weird, as some games are more similar than others. I can see why a single series tag may not be sufficient for some people, but individual game tags also seems a bit much. Though given that Donkey Kong Country is aliased to Donkey Kong (series), maybe I should further loosen my concept of what's "similar".

bitwolfy said:
In my opinion, if a cohesive series has changed owners or developers, it should imply the current, most recent developer and copyright holder.
Perhaps, the previous developers and copyright holders could be listed on its wiki page?

Well, when it comes to Metroid, at least, this is what wikipedia has to say:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metroid
The first Metroid was developed by Nintendo R&D1 and released on the Nintendo Entertainment System in 1986, making Samus one of the earliest female video game protagonists. It was followed by Metroid II: Return of Samus (1991) for the handheld Game Boy and Super Metroid (1994), developed with Intelligent Systems, for the Super Nintendo Entertainment System. The first 3D Metroid game, Metroid Prime (2002), was developed by Retro Studios for the GameCube, and was followed by two sequels. Following Team Ninja's Metroid: Other M (2010), the series went on a hiatus, before returning with Metroid Prime: Federation Force in 2016.

And most recently, Samus Returns (the Metroid 2 remake) was done by MercurySteam, who are also helming the up-coming Metroid Dread releasing later this year. Additionally, Metroid Prime 4 is in development by Retro Studios, with a TBD release. On top of that, some of the same developers from Nintendo have been involved with the various games since the beginning, despite its developer-hopping, so Nintendo could be considered a co-developer even when they're not officially listed as such.

Since certain game series are still being produced, having a series' developer implication changing as a result of the latest release being done by a different studio sounds like it'd make for messy tags.

As far as using separate tags for individual games, I’d say it has less to do with how dissimilar the games are from one another, and more to do with continuity of characters. While the Elder Scrolls series definitely has a very consistent setting, there is very little continuity of character since they’re all set in different places and at different times. This may be why separate tags for Skyrim and Oblivion are commonly used. This seems to be more useful for tagging in this case, since most major Skyrim characters belong only to Skyrim, and not to the other games. Metroid, on the other hand (correct me if I’m wrong), pretty much always features Samus Aran and often includes many of the other things familiar to other games in the series, regardless of how distinct each individual game is. From that perspective, there may not be much use in tagging individual games unless an individual game in the series features distinct characters or species unique to that game that would distinguish a piece of art from art of any other game in the series.

I would personally much rather that 22 different threads had all been created at once, instead of trying to cram all discussion on a huge variety of topics into a single thread. Most people won't feel qualified to comment on all or even most of these games, and the wall of text makes it much harder for them to pick and choose which parts they can give feedback on.

Of course, as others have mentioned, making it difficult to give feedback might not have been entirely unintentional...

watsit said:
The Elder Scrolls I'd consider to be a fairly cohesive setting, too.

Isn't TES known for having massive differences, especially in visual depiction^{I guess e621 wouldn't want to care about that would it?} between its games???

magnuseffect said:
Isn't TES known for having massive differences, especially in visual depiction^{I guess e621 wouldn't want to care about that would it?} between its games???

Is it? The only example I can think of is with Khajiit, and that was justified in-universe with having a million subspecies based on when they were born.

strikerman said:
Is it? The only example I can think of is with Khajiit, and that was justified in-universe with having a million subspecies based on when they were born.

Argonians have similar treatment of their appearance being determined by which game they're in that's explained away with similar excuse-lore (notably both Khajiit and Argonians are fully humanoid in TES: Arena)

magnuseffect said:
Isn't TES known for having massive differences, especially in visual depiction^{I guess e621 wouldn't want to care about that would it?} between its games???

It depends on what exactly you mean. The games all have Argonians, Khajiit, High Elves, Dark Elves, Daedra, etc, the gods are pretty consistently present, and there are occasionally recurring characters or their families. With Skyrim's Dragonborn expansion being a massive throwback to Morrowind's Bloodmoon expansion (and to a lesser extent, Morrowind itself), and with Elder Scrolls Online trying to put in as much fan service as it can to the previous games (even when it means breaking or seriously bending lore), I'm not sure it's worth trying to figure out what actually is game-specific.

Sure the visual design can change between games, some games being more different than others, but if Donkey Kong Country can be aliased to Donkey Kong (series), and if Super Mario Sunshine, Super Mario 64, Super Mario Bros 1/2/3, and Mario Brothers can be aliased to Mario Bros, I don't think visual design is considered a strong metric (funny enough, Super Mario 3D World, Super Mario Galaxy, and Super Mario Odyssey implicate Mario Bros instead of being aliased to it, so who the heck knows the logic behind this mess).

The bulk update request #1035 (forum #312226) has been rejected by @gattonero2001.