Talk:PUBG: Battlegrounds/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Infobox release

I thought break tags were what needed to be avoided? UBL is preferred per infobox documentation, the last time I checked; and there were more for removing WW when no other regions are mentioned than keeping it. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:47, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

As stated, it looks really terrible/weird on mobile devices. Have a screengrab. I feel like the consensus on WT:VG should decide how we handle this in general. Note that you can also use the Vgr template instead of line breaks (without params) to produce a HTML-conformant markup. Lordtobi (✉) 22:12, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Well the edit I introduced didn't have the WW tags, so could this be something else? Does the date rarely, if ever, just show on a single line on mobile? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 06:33, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 March 2018

Add Steam Page Link http://store.steampowered.com/app/578080 Add Facebook Page Link https://www.facebook.com/playbattlegrounds Add Twitter Page Link https://twitter.com/pubattlegrounds EvgenijBrozmann (talk) 12:10, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done. Per WP:ELNO, we only include the subjects primary online representation, which is their website. Social media links are acceptable if they are the primary targeted platform (though they are not in this case), while store links (like Steam, Microsoft Store) are never a good inclusion in an encyclopedia. Lordtobi (✉) 12:52, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Do they have a place in Wikidata? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 19:56, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Don't think so, but would have to check with their guidelines (do they even have guidelines?). Lordtobi (✉) 19:58, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Not sure, I've just seen Twitter accounts and such linked to games before (like it is here.) EDIT: Actually, there does seem to be a |Steam Application ID= parameter, so I guess that's where they should go. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 21:14, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

WP:ELNO doesn't apply to Wikidata. Wikidata has lots of data points that are considered inappropriate on enwiki. -- ferret (talk) 21:26, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm aware, I just didn't realize that one already existed there, as well as parameters such as subreddit. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 21:34, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 April 2018

In § Gameplay, it currently says "8 by 8 kilometres (5.0 mi × 5.0 mi)" (wikitext {{convert|8|x|8|km|mi}}), which has annoying excessive precision. {{convert|8|xx|8|km|mi|0}} reads better: 8 × 8 kilometres (5 × 5 mi). (You could also consider {{cvt|8|xx|8|km|mi|0}} → 8 × 8 km (5 × 5 mi), but I'm less sure about that.)

Thank you! 23.83.37.241 (talk) 08:58, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Lordtobi (✉) 10:32, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 May 2018

add an early access release date (March 23, 2017) above the 1.0 release date on the sidebar Ryburger77 (talk) 20:06, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Please provide a citation that that was the actual date of early access. —DIYeditor (talk) 20:28, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Actually, we do not include the early access release date in the infobox once the game leaves it. We can mention the start of Early Access in the body, but it can't be in the infobox. --Masem (t) 20:35, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Shorten Article

The article is too big and clunky. Too many unnecessary stuff. DAVRONOVA.A. ✉ ⚑ 16:11, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Would you mind outline why and how this fairly well-structured article is "too big and clunky", and which elements you consider unnecessary? Lordtobi (✉) 16:56, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Given the impact this game has had on the industry, this is probably the right size for this article. --Masem (t) 17:01, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Could you explain what's unnecessary to you? Like any large article, there could be a small cleanup that removes any redundant and overall detailed information, but other than that, it's comparable to other games that have had a large impact on the industry, like Final Fantasy VII and Dota 2. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 18:46, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

@Lordtobi, Masem, and Dissident93: Ok guys let me share some of my feedback here:

1. Second paragraph of the introduction section contains too much unnecessary information on release. The "best-seller" and "millions of players" in the first lines sounds like intentional advertisement placed well beyond necessity.
   The number of copies sold may suit way better I think.

• The lead you mean? If so, it could be condensed a bit, but including that it sold 50 million, which makes it one of the best selling games of all time, is a notable achievement and therefore should be kept. However, I do kind of agree that the Steam peak number count seems a bit strange in the section, even if it's notable. Perhaps merging it with the copies sold would make it read better? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 18:23, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

1. Windows paragraph of release section explains that the early players were top-streaming twitch users. It's ok but it can be described much shorter and somewhere else. Currently it takes about a half of the paragraph and describes early access which hardly corresponds to release itself, rather it is a pre-release adjustment of the game and probably should be shortened and moved into development section.

• I provided some fixes, but early access was a part of its overall release scheduling. I don't think it would be better off moved to another section. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 18:23, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

1. Problems with latency for Chinese players playing on European/American servers can be described much shorter. The The large Chinese player base had led to some technical and community problems with the game. - completely unnecessary. Specific problems already described below and they also can be shortened.

• Removed a number of sentences that explained too much detail. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 18:23, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

1. Other platforms — a lot of unimportant details about possibilities of releasing on Sony Play Station meanwhile nothing about →Android version.

• Android/mobile info is listed there, check again. But yes, the PlayStation 4 version section is a bit bloated and shouldn't have so much redundant info. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 18:23, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

1. Reception — detailed speculations of journalists about game performance after release. Can be shortened.

I also have to say even though the article is somewhat bloated it is rather difficult to read rather than big in terms of size.

Recently I have compared it to the BioShock Infinite and learned that this one is much smaller that the latter one lol. So may be I'm being wrong. DAVRONOVA.A. ✉ ⚑ 19:21, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 October 2018

02:22, 31 October 2018 (UTC)issues: in the new update there is lot of new things like new clothes,shoes,masks,guns so that is why it is a big update

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. -- ferret (talk) 02:36, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 October 2018

02:30, 31 October 2018 (UTC)issues: In the new update there is lot of new things like new clothes,shoes,masks,guns so that is why it is a big update so some bugs are there which should be removed by the game immediately.The new night is also there but many people say that when they play the game they do not get to see night mode so that is an issue,and there is a bug or something but there is a gun which is not introduced in the update but it is there in the game so the people are confused and angry about that situation.

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. -- ferret (talk) 02:36, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

And likely WP:NOTCHANGELOG / WP:VGSCOPE applies even if sources do cover it. At best it would be a combined sentence or two in development to mention all the larger updates. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 10:23, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

We should only add update info like this if they changed a major aspect of the game or if it introduced something notable. More cosmetics/guns doesn't fall into this. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 17:39, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Caution on PS4 port

While stories like this read as if PS4 is 100% confirmed, they really are not. We need to wait until a true announcement. --Masem (t) 14:43, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

And now , we have confirmation. --Masem (t) 16:14, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Maps List

Will it be appropriate to create a section to describe the different maps in the game and the features/stories behind each one? --Ramitau (talk) 01:25, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, actually, that would be fair. There's.. 3 maps now? I know there's fairly reasonable statements from Greene/PUBG on the approach they were taking to maps. --Masem (t) 01:28, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, they just announced a new one at the TGAs; Dave Curd, the world art director for PUBG Corp, was also there to talk about it. Lordtobi (✉) 07:18, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

The history and reception of each? Yes. Gameguide-y detail about them? No. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 08:10, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Definitely not in a gameguide-y way. There are currently 3 Maps, each has different characteristics of area size, landscape features and available arms. While fictional, they are heavily influenced by real life areas (there are videos online about the process of making each one and the teams actually used pictures from different places in the creation of buildings and terrain).

• Erangel
• Miramar
• Sanhok
• Vivendi

--Ramitau (talk) 10:45, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Right, I'm just saying that we should keep it to real-world impact only and not mention that a map has a popular spot on it where players like to gather and such. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 21:13, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

to which section of the article you think this should go into? Ramitau (talk) 11:51, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

"Development" if you're discussing design or planning or historical iteration, "Gameplay" is you're discussing gameplay or features, or "Reception" if you're discussing reviews and real-world impact. Or any combination. I mean, it really depends on what exactly the sources are talking about? —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 13:06, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Capitalize the title

As PlayerUnknown stated in an interview, the title should be all caps:

PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS

Leduyquang03 on 8h42 | 7/1/2019 UTC. —Preceding undated comment added 08:43, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

"As a designer, I think it just looks better in all-caps."

MOS:CAPS + stylistic decision rather than acronym → no all-caps. Lordtobi (✉) 10:35, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Specifically MOS:TMCAPS, which states editors should "use the style that most closely resembles standard English text formatting and capitalization rules", which would be proper case. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 18:04, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 January 2019

Here it says that PUBG maps are generally in 8x8. This is wrong, since a new 6x6 map has been introduced and there is also a4x4 map in PUBG. pls change this into the maps are generally in 8x8, 6x6 and 4x4. 1.36.10.55 (talk) 09:25, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. – Jonesey95 (talk) 11:54, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

I added a mention and a source. I wonder what the best way to mention the size is though, as now it lists all three variations. We do in fact have enough reliable sources that discuss each map in details, so it might make sense to include a sentence or two on each. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 12:29, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Mapsize is WP:GAMECRUFT to me, even if sourced. At most, just have a general statement saying "maps range in size from 4x4 to 8x8" and never mention it again. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 02:48, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Well if you watch youtube youll know. h — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.36.10.55 (talk) 11:20, 10 January 2019 (UTC) To be more accurate the 6x6 can be found in Vikendi EP1 House Sets on the PUBG channel, and the 4x4 for Sanhok can be found on Gamepedia and Fandom. P.S.I also suggest that it should be stated that other than random airdrops, a super airdrop containing more loot can be summoned with a flare gun. Another thing I realised that was wrong is instead of random red zones as said here, red zones are possibly used to drive out potential campers, as said on Gamepedia. Also, the Training Island(Camp Jackal) should also be included, since it is a part of PUBG. The proof is on Gamepedia and the trailers in PUBG's official channel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.36.10.55 (talk) 11:33, 10 January 2019 (UTC) It's just that PUBG players such as me may feel unjustified since map size is a key factor to strategies. You should also included the way a game should be played for each map: long,sophiscated battles in the 8x8 Erangel where strategies are the key, sniping and camping battles in Miramar where there are tons of mountains, guerilla and intensive battles in 4x4 Sanhok where firepower is the key, and quick-loot and evasive battles in the snow-covered Vikendi where camoflauge is a key to survival. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.36.10.55 (talk) 11:52, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

1.36.10.55 (talk) 12:17, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

 Not done You didn't understand Dissident's response. It's not that we don't believe you. The sources for the information you provide (Fandom, gamepedia, youtube, etc) are unreliable for use on Wikipedia, but that isn't the issue. The issue is its viewed as trivial gamecruft. It belongs on sites like Gamepedia and Fandom, not Wikipedia. See WP:VGSCOPE for a deeper understanding of the kinds of content we avoid on Wikipedia for video games. -- ferret (talk) 12:58, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

To argue the other side though, why are we not including any information about maps because we deem it gamecruft even though there a good dozen of sources describing each map? After all, WP:DUE asks we include major viewpoints and sources discussing PUBG gameplay is the current bandwagon. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 13:53, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

WP:GAMECRUFT doesn't necessarily mean everything there should be avoided; it's more about how encyclopedic the information actually is and the way it gets presented. For example, the guideline says to avoid having cast lists/tables (even when notable) and instead write their involvement in prose. Thus, I think it's better to have a single large paragraph (or two) dedicated to the maps in general instead of each specific map receiving its own small paragraph, which is simply more likely by default to include things such as their meta and strategies and other actual gamecruft stuff that the above user brought up. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:35, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Article too long

Per guidance at WP:TOOBIG: an article bigger than 60 kB "probably should be divided"; over 100 kB "almost certainly should be divided". This article is 147 KB, as I write this. I posted a {{Very long}} template on the article which was reverted by User:Dissident93. Some things that could be done to make it more readable are:

• Remove redundant references, per WP:TOOMANYREFS. None of the statements in the article warrants two references. E.g. "the early access version for the Xbox One was released on December 12, 2017 in both digital and physical formats" is this so controversial it needs three refs?
• The info in the awards section is provided twice, once as prose and once as a table, and ref'd both times.
• Too much detail in the Development, Release, and Reception sections.
• Sales info could just be in a table rather than prose.

--Cornellier (talk) 13:36, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Readable prose is only 42k, well within allowed PAGESIZE. Additionally, given the importance of this game to the vector that the market took (eg battle royale games and Fortnite), the Dev, Release, and Reception sections are probably exactly where they should be. We avoid sales as tables as this encourages the use of bad sourcing (VGChartz and Steam Spy directly). Refs aren't counted towards prose. --Masem (t) 14:45, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Seconding on all points. Mainly that TOOBIG discusses prose size. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 14:56, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

However, I do agree that we should do something about the awards section. If it's repeated in prose, then it does not need to belong in the table (which is where a lot of the article size is coming from). This is an issue many articles share. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 17:19, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the feedback. BTW please use colons for indent, asterixes for bullets (fixed). So agreement (or not disagreement?) on WP:TOOMANYREFS? Nobody mentioned that. As for the length, aside from the numbers, I still think that the article has too much detail about history e.g. "Kim contacted and offered him the opportunity to work on a new battle royale concept. Within a week, Greene flew out to Bluehole's headquarters in Korea to discuss the options" is getting seriously bogged down in the nitty-gritty. I'm thinking the article could look more like Fortnite. --Cornellier (talk) 20:52, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

WP:TOOMANYREFS doesn't apply here. It's mainly focused on refbombing and cluttered individual sentences with multiple in-line citations. All citations in this article appear to be properly placed and no statements have more than 3. While some trimming might be possible, there's no actual issue here. Secondary to that, it's an essay, not a guideline. -- ferret (talk) 22:04, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

WP:TOOMANYREFS may be an essay but it's also common sense. Its first line is " adding too many [refs] can cause citation clutter, making articles look untidy in read mode and difficult to navigate in markup edit mode". That's we have in this article. Can anyone give a reason why the phrase "the early access version for the Xbox One was released on December 12, 2017 in both digital and physical formats" has three refs, when one is enough? It's very arguably WP:GAMECRUFT anyway. --Cornellier (talk) 22:31, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree that that sentence does not need three refs. I don't see it as a urgent problem but if anyone else does I don't see why they can't go ahead and remove at least one, this isn't a contested point and is unlikely to be challenged.

The other area I could see being cleaned up would be the awards section, I don't see the point in having prose and a table, one or the other is sufficient and the table is far more readable.

That being said I do not feel the article is too long, it seems about right. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:48, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

The multiple refs are likely (best that I can recall) from when we had extra information that each ref uniquely supported but then cut back on some text, so that all used refs remained. Partially my doing at least with trimming and leaving the refs behind (safe than sorry). But again, keep in mind refs don't count towards page size. --Masem (t) 00:26, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the info User:Masem. Sifting through refs is a pain. Guys, apologies for barging in here without first reading the talk page. I now see that length was discussed not so long ago. This is a high-quality article, a lot of thought and work has obviously gone into it. User:Beeblebrox on a personal note, I'm a player of PUBG (Windows). Was checking the article on the train on my phone ... you don't "see it as an urgent problem" but I'm sorry, it was just not fun to read. So much flicking through historical stuff. Tiny data sample I'll admit, but my experience FWIW. I'd like to have been able to read the whole article in about 10 minutes, but that's not possible, so a lot of jumping around and scrolling is required. --Cornellier (talk) 03:56, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

This article is not written with the reader in mind. It is written by people intent on showing how much they know about the game. It ought to be shortened by 3/5 or so in order to be readable. However it is semi-protected (likely by the same kind of person) so no one sane can help do this. Consider why people would read a wikipedia article about a game before writing a wikipedia article about a game. Thanks Gnostc (talk) 19:37, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

The article is currently at 44kb of readable prose, which per SIZE is fine. Keeping in mind that this is the key defining game of the battle royale genre, it got a huge amount of attention and thus most of coverage is on its reception. --Masem (t) 19:53, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

The introduction provides most of the info that people are looking for. The gameplay section is far too detailed. I was under the impression that Wikipedia was for readers. The development and reception sections are far too dense with too many unnecessary details. The information I came to the page for isn't even in the article (Miramar map release date). It isn't even mentioned. There is no e-sports section. There is no significant patch changes section, especially changes from alpha to release. The article needs to be unlocked and re-done. It is uninteresting and overwrought as-is. Gnostc (talk) 10:41, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

The stuff you seem to want is stuff that as a general encyclopedia we don't cover: We aren't going to cover patch information or specific dates of releases of new maps. Instead, we're coming at this article as if the reader is not a video game player, but needs to learn how this became a significantly important game and geared to that, not to the player who knows how to play and wants the changes (that's where gaming wikis are for). And there's a top level esports section, that's not missing at all. --Masem (t) 13:22, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't see how this page is written with a non-video game player in mind, for that, they would need to understand the evolution of first-person shooters from Doom/Quake to Counterstrike/other "realistic" shooters as well as the evolution of graphics technology allowing for huge maps, as was seen first in the GTA games. None of that is explained in the article even in a sentence, so it couldn't possibly be for a new video game player. I can't for the life of me figure out who the audience for this page is. PC gamers that have never heard of Battle Royale games or PUBG? Like you just said, that would be for a niche gaming wiki.

All it seems to me is as an information dump for people who want to show how much they know about the game without regard for any context. It's too bad there aren't satisfaction surveys for individual pages, so all the people who don't sperg out in comment sections and in edits can vote on how satisifed they are with the page as-is. No attempt is made on this page to centrally "place the game within history", which seems to me the best function of an online public encyclopedia, past any information it provides for research attempts. And if it is, it's all buried in the article.

Why is PUBG important? Why is/was it so popular? How was it first in what it did? What made it possible? And so on. Not even attempted. It's an information-dump, as-is, without much attempt to tie it all together. It's unreadable, I almost guarantee no one actually reads this page besides the editors. That could change. Gnostc (talk) 00:37, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 17 March 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: consensus not to move the page to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 05:19, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

---

PlayerUnknown's Battlegrounds → PUBG – See below for rationale. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:51, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Google "PlayerUnknown's Battlegrounds": 26,800,000 results. Google PUBG: 230,000,000 results. Per WP:COMMONNAME this article should be called PUBG. Also instances of "Battlegrounds" in the article should be replaced with "PUBG". Examples of usage: PUBG Corporation, PUBG Mobile, YouTube, most of the articles cited, etc. --Cornellier (talk) 15:19, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Cornellier, Google is not representative because it does not just list what we consider reliable sources. PUBG is the shorthand, PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS (wikipedified as PlayerUnknown's Battlegrounds) is the official full name. Both versions satisfy WP:COMMONNAME, so we go by WP:OFFICIALNAME. Regards. Lordtobi (✉) 15:51, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

You're saying the fact that PUBG gets an order of magnitude more hits than "PlayerUnknown's Battlegrounds" is irrelevant. Fine. Google was one example of many. Twitch streamers called it PUBG. YouTubers call it PUBG. It's called PUBG on Reddit. Fact is, the game is commonly called PUBG. It's WP:COMMONSENSE. --Cornellier (talk) 16:28, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

We have to remember that PUBG is an initialism, so it not a name (save for the copropration). --Masem (t) 16:38, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Irrelevant per WP:UCRN. It's FIFA and not Fédération Internationale de Football Association. Volkswagen Beetle, not Volkswagen Type 1. PUBG Mobile. PUBG Corp. at pubg.com. National PUBG League. PUBG Europe League. I'm gonna go play some PUBG, during which time I suggest people spend some time at Reddit / YouTube / Twitch and find out how people talk and write about this IRL. --Cornellier (talk) 17:23, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is for general readers, not the gaming insiders. The initialisms are used by those familiar with the subject. Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, World of Warcraft, Defense of the Ancients, League of Legends, etc. It is indeed irrelevant what Reddit, YouTube or Twitch users call it because we go by reliable sources that call the games by official name and then abbreviate for readability. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 17:46, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

FIFA and NASA have decades of usages to be able to judge. This game is barely two years old. Maybe in five years? It's far too soon to decide that PUBG is the common name. --Masem (t) 18:34, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

I guess I can see both sides of this argument. I agree we aren't writing for gaming insiders, but I can also see the argument that it is routinely referred to as PUBG all over the place. I don't think this is a matter of dueling policies as I don't see either "trumping" the other one.Upon further examination, COMMONNAME quite clearly does "trump" OFFICIALNAME. I also do belive that for naming decisions Google hits are in fact a halfway decent metric. I think what we need here is more evidence one way or the other and maybe a formal WP:RM so that the broader community will be aware of the discussion. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:21, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose Keep official name. PUBG redirects here anyways, so no one is going to be lost. -- ferret (talk) 20:12, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
• I've gone ahead and made this an official RM and notified the video games WikiProject of this discussion, I think this discussion would benefit from some previously uninvolved input. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:51, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per ferret. We usually keep the full name over abbreviations, even when they are more common (like NHL, NBA, NFL). ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 04:41, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose If we know the full title over an abbreviation, we use it (Call of Duty over CoD; Counter-Strike: Global Offensive over CS:GO, League of Legends over LoL, etc.) And this is younger than any of those examples. As long as PUBG is redirected, and the initialism established in the lede, we're fine. --Masem (t) 06:07, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. Lordtobi (✉) 09:25, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per my above comment. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 11:02, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support per WP:COMMONNAME. PUBG is a game made by PUBG Corp at pubg.com. It has a spinoff called PUBG Mobile. You can discuss it at the PUBG subreddit or on many of the PUBG content creators on YouTube.--Cornellier (talk) 13:23, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

The URL is a bad example, the original URL (held for several years) was "PlayBattlegrounds.com". Content creators and especially Reddit or not reliable, so as I already stated, we don't take those into the equation. Lordtobi (✉) 12:43, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Google pubg site:forbes.com 732 hits; "PlayerUnknown's Battlegrounds" site:forbes.com 195 hits. How about this at Business Insider "... Players, tired of saying/typing such a long and bizarre name, have taken to calling it 'PUBG'..." Or this at Vice "PlayerUnknown's Battlegrounds has a tongue-twister of a name that is unnatural to say and a pain to type out. This has led its players to shorten it to a simple acronym: PUBG." What more is needed to take "into the equation"? --Cornellier (talk) 14:08, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Again, abbreviations are usually one of the exceptions to WP:COMMONNAME, so PUBG needs another valid policy-based reason to become the article title. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 16:23, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Dissident93, the examples NHL, NBA, NFL and initialisms, and not analogous. WP:COMMONNAME says "Abbreviations and acronyms are often ambiguous and thus should be avoided unless the subject is known primarily by its abbreviation and that abbreviation is primarily associated with the subject (e.g. PBS, NATO, Laser)". In this case there's no ambiguity as stated at Acronym Finder and at abbreviations.com, and "primarily associated" is demonstrated above. So WP:COMMONNAME is a "valid policy-based reason". --Cornellier (talk) 22:53, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I'll stress what I've said above: every example like this or FIFA or NASA has decades of evidence to recognize that that is how those agencies are commonly called. WP avoids neologisms, and asking us to say that a 2-year old game should be called something different falls into that. --Masem (t)

• Oppose - a short abbreviation like this does not generally aid the reader in recognizability. Sergecross73 msg me 14:34, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

How about keeping both?

I think PUBG is better than the full name but keeping it like PUBG( PlayerUnknown's Battlegrounds) would be great. skyleet 13:51, 22 March 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skysunil (talk • contribs)

No one is proposing that the redirect PUBG be deleted. Both will remain regardless of which is the primary. -- ferret (talk) 13:53, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

One of the major reasons WP:REDIRECTs exist to keep us from using confusing hybrid names like this. Sergecross73 msg me 15:10, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 April 2019

In April 2019, Iraq banned both PUBG and Fortnite, due to the "negative effect" of these games on the youth. 176.198.200.136 (talk) 07:49, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

 Done ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 16:09, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 May 2019

Could you add the fact that a new Chinese mobile version for PUBG which roughly translates to "Lost Island Operation" has been published and is in testing mode? 119.236.11.97 (talk) 10:56, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Jonesey95 (talk) 11:23, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I cannot find any sources for this. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 11:46, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 May 2019

Hi! I'm requesting two changes to this article. The first thing is the fact that regular care packages do not require the use of flare guns. Instead, planes will fly over the map regularly and drop a package randomly. A flare gun, though, can summon a super airdrop with double the loot or an armoured car if fired outside of the safe zone. The flare will travel for about 200 metres before coming to a stop in the air, allowing all players to see it. While the armoured car has no features to alert players to its presence, the super care package emits yellow smoke visible to everyone. So you should change the bit about care packages to something like this. I know this is what you call "Gamecruft", but I guess this should be added, or at least a simplified version. The second thing is that I think you should make Mobile a separate pages, due to some content, gameplay and graphic differences. Thank you for your attention! 119.236.11.97 (talk) 11:59, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

• I can't speak on the first suggestion since I don't play the game, but a dedicated PUBG Mobile page has the potential to be created. Somebody could start a draft and see where it goes. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 16:33, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. As for the second idea, feel free to write a second article, and at that point the content would be removed from here. DannyS712 (talk) 22:42, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Caution on addiction

Update request for news update "Hyderabad Boy Suffers a Stroke After Playing PUBG for Hours at a Stretch" https://www.news18.com/news/buzz/hyderabad-boy-suffers-from-stroke-after-playing-pubg-for-hours-at-a-stretch-2295809.html Amitized (talk) 13:21, 4 September 2019 (UTC)Amitized

Vice source. I think this might be more related to video game addiction overall, not just PUBG. Lordtobi (✉) 13:28, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Fromt he news 18 story: "countless incidents have been reported where individuals have died from playing PUBG too much." As we say on Wikipedia, . Beeblebrox (talk) 19:46, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

News18 is not a reliable sources, but Vice is. It is not the first case of severe medical conditions resulting from playing PUBG, as Vice reports, but I believe that this is not exclusive to PUBG. Lordtobi (✉) 20:07, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Who told News 18 is not reliable source? It is reliable source in India. PUBG addiction has caused deaths, due to is violent content, which should be mentioned in this article, to give correct picture. Donot overprotect the firm which released PUBG. Rayabhari (talk) 05:59, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't think a single death (of which PUBG itself is the dubious cause) should be pointed out here, unless merged into already existing content. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 15:20, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Still feel stating it in a generic way may serve as caution for curious readers who may come to read about the game before they start playing Amitized (talk) 07:53, 12 September 2019 (UTC)Amitized

If it's kept to a brief mention, ideally merging into an existing sentence, then I have no issue with it. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 16:27, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Vice is at least a better source, News18 is obviously biased on this issue and doing some very shoddy reporting. However, I also think this is more about video game addiction in general. Fortnite works by essentially the same rules and is played even more by younger gamers so I'm curious as to why PUBG is being singled out. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:39, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Payload mode

Addition of the new release of payload mode for season 9 that will include helicopters and rocket launchers [1]

Amitized (talk) 07:57, 12 September 2019 (UTC)Amitized

• Is this notable? We don't need to document every single update that adds a new weapon. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 16:23, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Peacekeeper Elite

Peacekeeper Elite is the Chinese mainland version of PUBG Mobile. It surpassed US$1bil (RM4.33bil) in revenue in 2019. [2]

Peacekeeper Elite, Tencent’s replacement title for PUBG Mobile in China, currently has over 50 million daily active users and has grossed an estimated $600 million (¥4.2 billion) in H1 2019. [3]

So I think Peacekeeper Elite should have a section or at least it should be mentioned inside the article. Avram25 (talk) 18:37, 24 April 2020 (UTC)