Talk:The Last of Us Remastered

Why is this an article?

Shouldn't this all be in The Last of Us? I think this article should be deleted redirect to the main article (like it originally did) and all the necessary information be put in the main game's article. It isn't a separate game. No other remasters have an article. —DangerousJXD (talk) 08:36, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

The point is that it is a notable remaster. A merge would simply not make sense, as it does suffice an article in itself. It's not the only remaster, as there's also Borderlands: The Handsome Collection. If a remaster is notable enough, it can suffice its own article. --George (Talk · Contribs · CentralAuth · Log) 09:14, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

But how is it notable enough, George? Because it is a good game? —DangerousJXD (talk) 09:18, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Certainly not! It has more than enough coverage to pass notability requirements. --George (Talk · Contribs · CentralAuth · Log) 09:20, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't agree with it, but I understand. —DangerousJXD (talk) 09:25, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I respect that :) If you so desire, feel free to start a merge discussion, maybe others will share your point of view. :) --George (Talk · Contribs · CentralAuth · Log) 09:29, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't know how to start a merge discussion, but yes, this should probably be merged into The Last of Us. 72.185.156.62 (talk) 22:09, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

I know I'm late to the party, but I came here just after replaying the game specifically to ask the same thing. I am a little hesitant to start a merge discussion, simply because of its status as a good article, but yeah. This should all be covered at The Last of Us. DarkKnight2149 01:22, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

As for Borderlands: The Handsome Collection, that article is pretty bare bones, it isn't a good article, and I don't think it does enough to justify it's existence (especially with only 15 citations). For those reasons, I would say that it would fall into the category of WP:OTHERSTUFF. DarkKnight2149 18:21, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Proposed merge with The Last of Us

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Per discussions at WT:VG (see here and here), remastered video games should only get articles if there's extraordinary reasons to split, such as significant differences from the original and notable development processes/reception. I don't think this article meets that criteria. The only real differences between this version and the original was the addition of DualShock 4 support, the photo mode, and developer commentary, while the development and reception sections could easily be condensed and integrated into the ones at the parent article (or, in the former's case, at Development of The Last of Us). I understand this is a good article, but notability is not a requirement for the GA process. JOEBRO64 21:59, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

• Support - Same exact game with just dedicated development and reception sections. Those should be culled down to two or so paragraphs each and put back into the original game's article. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 22:25, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

• Support At first glance, it looks like it has a lot of info. After reading carefully, the content is stretched out and can be shortened and merged.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 22:29, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose - The info (content and sourcing) in the development section is enough to warrant a separate article. I alternatively suggest that we probably don’t need a dedicated Development article and that should probably be used to bulk up each individual article. Sergecross73 msg me 22:45, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose - Per Sergecross73's comment, the development section here should be enough to warrant a separate page for. It would be real cumbersome to try and merge all of that into the Last of Us article. Namcokid47 (talk) 00:04, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
  • @Sergecross73 and Namcokid47: Have you guys actually taken a good look at it though? To me the majority reads like trivia padded out to look like content. For instance, look at the first paragraph of development: the leaks aren't notable since stuff like storefront leaks are extremely common, the upgrades to gameplay are mentioned above, and virtually every game nowadays runs at 1080p and 60 FPS. It really wouldn't be hard to condense this all into the parent article. JOEBRO64 00:14, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Reading through the article thoroughly I can start to see your point. At first I thought the info such as the 1080p resolution could simply be removed without affecting the article, but reading it further does indeed look like it's just being padded out to make the article look longer than it really is. This could easily be condensed into a paragraph for the main page, as could the reception. As such, I change my vote to Support. Namcokid47 (talk) 00:57, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

• Support - The content can be condensed into three paragraphs and merged. Two paragraphs are enough to discuss the development, and a third paragraph to discuss the reception. The reception in particular is really stretched out in the current article. Lots of the comments are just repeating the same bland opinions that the remaster looks better, without adding much interesting commentary. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 00:52, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

• Support – Honestly didn't think this needed a separate article since day one. It's like with God of War III Remastered, there just was not enough substantial info for a separate article and it was instead added to the main article (a sub-section under Release and Reception, respectively, each dedicated to the remastered version). --JDC808 ♫ 02:31, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support merging with TLOU and Development of TLOU where relevant. We needn't be precious about GAs if they are not warranted to begin with. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:18, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support – The only difference between the remaster and the PS3 original is minor graphical improvements nothing else. Gameplay section is a copy and paste from the original article and most of the specific information on the remaster can be easily be merged. TheDeviantPro (talk) 09:41, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support per TheJoebro64's reasoning. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:12, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
• Strong support – To create an article on a subject or anything about it, one must be able tp answer the three questions: "Is the subject notable?", "How does it 'stand out' from the parent subject, if applicable?", and "Would the article turn out to be a WP:CONTENTFORK?". Certainly the remastered version is notable, but it neither stands out nor can have its own article without forking its parent article. The big surprise is that the article has a GA status, and you would have to be deathly intoxicated to even think that this fork could become a featured article. We may as well create a professional article about Donald Trump's hair. Gamingforfun³⁶⁵ 22:21, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support the game is practically a port, it does not require 2 separate articles._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:27, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose The article has different information in it than the other one. It is large enough to be on its own. The other article you wish to merge it to certainly doesn't need to get any longer. It already has its content split out into other articles for size reasons: List of The Last of Us characters, Development of The Last of Us, The Last of Us: Left Behind, and this one. The coverage the remastered version gets easily passes the general notability guidelines. Dream Focus 23:03, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

• It seems to me that some people have only glanced at this article when providing their vote ("Gameplay section is a copy and paste from the original article") while others have forgotten their manners ("you would have to be deathly intoxicated to even think that this fork could become a featured article"). That said, the consensus is clearly to merge the articles so, as the original writer and GA nominator, I've gone ahead and done that myself (as I was apathetic anyway). Gameplay information has been merged with The Last of Us, development to the development article, and reception to the main article. Let me know if I missed anything or if you have any concerns. – Rhain ☔ 03:35, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

@Gamingforfun365: I think you owe Rhain an apology for your comment here. No one else resorted to personal attacks in stating their position. I would ask that you be more civil in the future when interacting with other editors and commenting on their work. There are people on the other end of the screen. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:59, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

What exactly did I say to offend anyone? Gamingforfun³⁶⁵ 22:13, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Okay, come to think of it, my comment may have been too dramatic. It is the type of statement that is very bold and is not afraid to describe situations as they are. On the bright side, I did not call out anyone specifically, nor did I even use swear words. I am incidentally much more wholesome than that, but I do recognize that not everyone is comfortable with such language. After all, it is straightforward and not tame, so I suppose I will apologize to @Rhain: for that. I would not say that I personally attacked anyone, and my language could have been much more aggressive (e.g. by gloating on how the article could make it past the Stub-class, by deriding the editors as alcoholics [a big no-no, obviously], etc.). However, if it helps, I could cut the level of drama to make it less ostentatious and more focused on the discussion. Gamingforfun³⁶⁵ 22:42, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

@Gamingforfun365: I appreciate the apology, and I understand it wasn't intended as an attack but as a fun remark. I have been attacked far worse than that on here, so I certainly don't hold this against you personally, but I appreciate your self-reflection and promise of restraint in the future. Happy editing. – Rhain ☔ 03:34, 11 August 2019 (UTC)