Template talk:Embracer Group

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks

AfDs

Godzilla 2: War of the Monsters (5 participants)
Purple Francis (8 participants)
Gilman Louie (2 participants)
Yoshimitsu (3 participants)
Dr. Wily (10 participants)
First Internet Backgammon Server (3 participants)
Emote (2 participants; relisted)
Preston Arsement (6 participants; relisted)
Jackpot World (3 participants; relisted)

Merge discussions

Other discussions

No major discussions

List of video games / List of acquisitions

The template has been rebranded to the Embracer Group. However, the list of video games and list of acquisitions in the header of the template refer to the lists for just the THQ Nordic GmbH subsidiary. Should we remove them from the header, create different, appropriate articles, or change/repurpose the current lists? In the first case, where do we include these lists elsewhere in the template without losing the clear structure that the template should provide? TheLegendaryN (talk) 11:17, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TheLegendaryN, I think the list articles themselves should remain unchanged and only address THQ Nordic [GmbH] as they are the prolific entity in the acquisitions and releases. Koch Media already has a releases article at List of Deep Silver games and Coffee Stain has a dedicated list on its article. Neither of these two has sufficient IP acquisitions that we would consider making a list article for them. I would suggest adding these two (and List of Deep Silver games, if appropriate) in a new 'Related' subgroup, or in parentheses in as part of the 'Subsidiaries' subgroups. Lordtobi (✉) 11:48, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lordtobi, I think a new Related subgroup sounds like the best idea in order to keep the current subgroups tidy. TheLegendaryN (talk) 12:33, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]