Template talk:Metal Gear

message: jeez wikipedia  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.90.86.158 (talk) 01:48, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Where the hell is Solidus on this?!?

message: So why is the Snake's Revenge link being moved to "Related Articles" instead of "Spin-off Games"? Anyone looking for the article would most likely look in a section labelled 'games'. TH1RT3EN talk ♦ contribs 15:20, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The Phantom Pain is a game too and it's in related articles. And Snake's Reveng is not a spin off, it was a game release under an entirely different context. Oh yeah, and "MGA2" is labeled so in the same fashion as "MGS2", so please do not modify it. --Anddo (talk) 18:16, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The Phantom Pain isn't a Metal Gear game, yet (read: speculation), but the information in the article heavily attributed MGS hence why it was added to the navbox under the Related section. Snake's Revenge is a game that exists as an unofficial sequel. The Spin-off Game name was condensed awhile back to keep the header short; it used to say something like 'Spin-offs, expansions, and other games'. Most importantly, this is a navbox, not any official list of sorts. Snake's Revenge should be in the spin-off game section for ease of navigation. th1rt3en.talk.contribs 01:57, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: But it is no spin-off, so this makes the listing invalid. Also The Phantom Pain's status as a Metal Gear game has no relevance, but it is a game. A game that's in related articles, as Snake's Revenge will be. --Anddo (talk) 16:36, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, the use of "spin-off" in the header is to keep the box small otherwise it would be more descriptive, it's not saying the game is an 'official' spin-off, nor should it: this is for navigation purposes. Phantom Pain is a related article due to the notable rumors surrounding the game that relate it to the MG series (which makes up about half the PP article currently); the game is separate otherwise and has no story connection. th1rt3en.talk.contribs 16:55, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Snake's Revenge 

message: So I notice the template now places PO in the spin off section. I can understand placing MGR there, as it is considered a spin-off despite being canon, but why is PO there? It's not a spinoff and it is canon, so it belongs in the main games section. 134340Goat (talk) 17:42, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The consensus was, that Hideo Kojima directed games should be seperated from the other games as anything official from Kojima productions recently has done the same (legacy collection, various timelines during the 25th anniversary, etc.). The section was called Kojima Games. I don't know who changed this or why. 91.23.163.114 (talk) 08:06, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Portable Ops... again 

message: I don't see why Metal Gear Online should be listed next to MGS4. As the article on Online mentions, it is a multiplayer only game, with no plot. Moreover, it is no longer available to play on the PlayStation 3. Just because it was initially part of MGS4 does not necessarily mean it should be listed there. Further more, a new version of Online will become available for The Phantom Pain. --Soetermans. T / C 10:37, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: As I explained beforehand, while yes, the multiplayer component of Metal Gear Solid 4 was ultimately sold seperately and is now shut down, this applies to any (if not most games) who had an online component who had shut down since then, including Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater. It's not like we're treating, for example, Uncharted 3's or Killzone 3's multiplayer as their own entity either, despite them being available seperately and on their own later on as well - Albeit, they don't have their own pages. Not only that, but the page for Metal Gear Online only refers to the MGS4 version, while the previous versions of (as mentioned before) Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater and Metal Gear Solid: Portable Ops are simply intrigated into the games' pages. And the same seems to go for the new version of MGO as well. This is why I think it makes the most sense for it to be listed together with MGS4. Plus, any initial confusion about which version you're about to click on would be gone. --Kyo~ (talk) 22:07, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: While I don't agree with what you're saying here, my arguments don't have any more weight than yours. This edit however, is WP:OR. Metal Gear Solid V consists of two games, they both carry the title. Sure, The Phantom Pain is the biggest part of V, but Ground Zeroes takes place before The Phantom Pain, so plot-wise it doesn't make sense to put Ground Zeroes after The Phantom Pain. Ground Zeroes and The Phantom Pain were announced as two separate games and, more importantly, reliable sources see it that way too.  --Soetermans. T / C 10:41, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I saw this post after I reverted the edit, sorry; The reason I chose to also edit this is because the game, while a separate release, acts as the MGSV's prologue, akin to Dead Rising 2: Case Zero, with The Phantom Pain clearly being the main release. On top of that "Metal Gear Solid V" redirects to The Phantom Pain on Wikipedia, while Ground Zeroes' is mentioned as the games' prologue - But I do see your point. I reverted my edit. Kyo~ (talk) 11:01, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Metal Gear Online 

message: Why should David Hayter be there? He did not write any game. He only voiced two characters and was replaced by another one for the V games.Tintor2 (talk) 22:19, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Then the other actors would need to added with that sort of idea leading to a lot of undue weight.Tintor2 (talk) 15:41, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  I disagree. How is adding two voice actors that voice the main protagonist for the majority of the Solid series undue weight? But then you had no problem with Ashley Wood who only did illustrations for two adapted comics? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 18:13, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't add Wood. By the way, with the idea of Hayter being there, Sutherland would count. However, you forget that none of them are present in Rising.Tintor2 (talk) 18:54, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Never said you did add him, just that you didn't remove him for undue weight when Hayter has way more of a connection to the series than Wood does. And Sutherland only voiced the protagonist of MGS5, not 1, 2, 3, 4, and various other spinoffs like Hayter (and Otsuka) did. And Snake is not even in Rising, so how is that an argument? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 18:57, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

text: You missed the point. There is no reason in putting the voice actors when we have characters article who talk about them.Tintor2 (talk) 19:00, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

text: Except there is a point to putting in relevant and notable people related to the franchise, regardless of their role. If you ask others, they will most like say the same. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:17, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

text: Okay, I'll request a third opinion.Tintor2 (talk) 22:22, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:   It is unclear what article you are referring to. I went to a couple of metal gear articles with no history of your activity there. Please move this discussion (copy & paste) to the article's talk page and resubmit your request for a 3rd opinion using that talk page. Before doing so, it might be wise, for argument's sake, to find other gaming articles which do or do not follow this style in their infobox. Dig deeper  talk 01:27, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: It's this very navbox, not sure how you missed that... ~ Dissident93 (talk) 18:32, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

text: I think he should be included. Normally I would agree that voice actors aren't important enough for inclusion, but Hayter's involvement is pretty notable. I think this is due to the cinematic nature of the game, adding weight to the importance of the voice acting. TarkusABtalk 02:37, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I also think Hayter's relationship to this series is strong enough to warrant inclusion. As always, the purpose of navigation boxes is navigation. The probability that someone reaching the end of an article about Metal Gear wanting to navigate to Hayter is relatively high and that's the only consideration that matters. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:01, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. Not sure why Tintor2 disagrees with this. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 22:11, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  I already said my reasons. It's like putting Mark Hamill in the Star Wars template. Or any other major character like Campbell. Besides, none of Snake's articles say anything about David Hayter's works like his experience with the character or whether or not he liked him. Consider he was even replaced for the V games by another person. It would mean adding more actors.Tintor2 (talk) 20:45, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: But I'd argue that Hamil should belong in the general Star Wars navbox, or at least in so. And how does the fact that Hayter has to like the character have anything to do with how he is primarily associated with the series? Nobody said anything about how we should add every actor, that's something only you keep bringing up. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:50, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  David Hayter