Jump to content

Talk:Portal (series)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Merge with Half-Life (series)

[edit]

Hey, shouldn't this technically be merged with the half-life series since it's technically a spin-off / offshoot of the same universe as opposed to its own thing? Just curious and wondering. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.40.171.48 (talk • contribs)

From a narrative/story stance, you're right, but the elements of gameplay and development and its reception are far different from Half-Life, so a separate article makes much more sense. --MASEM (t) 22:07, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Lab as a Portal series game

[edit]

I'm not sure why we keep insisting on The Lab as a main series Portal game, and not as a spin-off/tech demo re-using assets from the games. The game also includes non-Portal related stuff, such as the Secret Shop (Dota 2) and other original content. It should belong under the Spin-off and other media section, as that is where it fits best. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:55, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Portal Pages on Wiki are proudly bought to you by the Portal Marketing Team!

[edit]

WOW I have never seen such a self serving media release on wiki before! Overly Pro Portal and clearly not written by unbiased people. Articles way to big aswell.--TobyWongly (talk) 05:32, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article size is not a problem in itself, but yeah, you wouldn't normally write a long "Setting and characters" section without citing sources discussing the settings and characters. Parts of the article could definitely do with some reworking, and it especially needs a reception section that discusses both what critics liked and disliked about the series.--IDVtalk 07:22, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Portal (series). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:19, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Portal (series). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:36, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 12 February 2018

[edit]
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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. While a majority of the participating editors are in favor of the move, it is also clear that a significant number of editors remain unconvinced. Chief amongst the disagreements is that the disambiguation guideline for video game series,which advocates simply "series" as a disambiguator, is inconsistent with the disambiguation guideline for TV series, which advocates "TV series" as the disambiguator. Until this conflict is sorted out in a wider forum, this requested move is unlikely to reach consensus. Aervanath (talk) 22:16, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Portal (series) → Portal (video game series) – This is a procedural move request after reverting the same move by Netoholic. While there are certainly grounds for moving the article, it's pointless to do so so long as Portal (series) continues to redirect there, as anyone who types in, clicks on, or Googles that construction will still be redirected here. Portal (series) should either redirect to the dab page Portal, or left alone. The rationale for a move is that Portal (series) is incomplete disambiguation due to the existence of Portal (TV series). Since neither is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of the term "Portal", the guidelines do indeed recommend additional adding (video game series) to the title, with Portal (series) redirected to dab. Cúchullain t/c 17:02, 12 February 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. ToThAc (talk) 15:59, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose The only immediate conflicting title is the short-lived TV series from 2002-2004. Meanwhile, Portal the game series still makes the news; when speaking of "series" it is clear that Portal the video game series is the primary topic. DAB/NC rules are otherwise not exact on this situation, so this is an IAR type issue. --Masem (t) 17:48, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Masem. How can one say the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of the "Portal series" is not the game franchise? No need to move the page. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:50, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose TV series seems non-notable and I have half a mind to bring it to AfD.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 20:59, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. This is not a PRIMARYTOPIC debate - PRIMARYTOPIC refers only to undisambiguated titles. For that reason, the relative popularity of the two series is unimportant. At issue is only the title "Portal (series)" which could refer to either the game or the tv series. We disambiguate to remove ambiguity in page titles. I ask closer to ignore the oppose votes trying to argue for popularity. They are either innocently or willfully ignorant of the issues around article titling and disambiguation. -- Netoholic @ 22:58, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see that Netoholic is unjustified in using the word flaw there. There have been WP:LOCALCONSENSUS issues arise in other projects. A couple of years back the pop music project had a guideline promoting WP:PRIMARYSONG which editors were implementing until it was noticed. Years before that one of the sport projects decided to strip their hispanic bios from Unicode to accent-free "English names". The Eagles (band) thing however is an extreme example of a single article consensus, there are probably about a dozen famous articles in the project of that kind ignoring all rules. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:39, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support because I do believe that just the title alone "Portal (series)" makes it ambiguous as to what kind of series it is about, even though Portal the video game is very popular. Coming to visit this page just a moment ago and seeing the title "Portal (series)" made me think of television on the spot. "Portal (video game series)" seems like a logical choice, in honesty. WinterSpw (talk) 23:56, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Only as a note, there was a previous discussion about why video game series end with "(series)" when TV series have "(TV series)" and all that, and the potential that we should possibly drop "TV" from "(TV series)" and soforth, or should we expand to "(video game series)". There's been no resolve from that discussion at all, just noting it existed and related to this comment. --Masem (t) 00:11, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Masem – Nixinova ⟨T|C⟩ 03:44, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - sorry but oppose votes should be disregarded by closer, which will need to be an admin, as those !voting do not all seem to have read WP:PRIMARYTOPIC carefully, as nom states it is impossible to have a (disambiguated) primary series, primary footballer or whatever. This has to move. In any case the dab "(series)" only makes sense to video games editors per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. It is not English, it is not clear per WP:CRITERIA, it is not even used by video games magazines which use "video games series". Even if Portal (TV series) did not exist, this (series) title would still fail WP:AT. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:28, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fail the other four parts, 1,2,3,5, all of them. I believe it also fails Criteria 4. Every time I see WP:CONCISE cited on its own it is a misreading of what Criteria 4 says. In ictu oculi (talk) 19:19, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as the game series being WP:PTOPIC and WP:INCDAB not being necessary. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 12:14, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Per Masem and Hellknowz. -- ferret (talk) 12:39, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Current title is insufficient to distinguish from the TV series. In fact, it seems to me that using "series" is insufficient for disambiguation. WP:NCTV uses "TV series" for TV series, so video games series should use "video game series". --woodensuperman 12:45, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The disambiguator "(series)" is ambiguous. Per current standards that supersede WP:NCVGDAB, considering that Wikipedia is about more than just video games, the move as proposed should be executed. Steel1943 (talk) 15:18, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Additional comment: See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Portal (TV series). If Portal (TV series) is deleted, my position on this move defaults to "oppose". Steel1943 (talk) 23:54, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant Support - All the opposers are WPVG editors (thus, gamers), so of course the primary topic seems to be the game series by miles and miles, but I'm trying to imagine the perspective of a non-gamer, someone who's never played a video game... for a majority(CN) of readers, there cannot be any argument made that the game is somehow more prominent than the TV series. Portal (series) is simply not precise and should be retargetted to Portal the dab page. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 15:19, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do agree there's a fair argument to be had that if we had Portal the VG series, and Portal a series of wholly unrelated sci-fi books - where the chance for a person knowing of both series was very low - that the lack of overlap between those areas would make sense to fully spell out the type of series, since there's little chance that someone looking for the books would be aware of the game series, and vice versa. But here, the TV show was on G4, a network aimed at video games (the show itself was video game based). There is a very large overlap of people that knowing one would likely be aware of the other. A non-gamer is likely not going to know about either, and given how little notability there is for the TV series, it is very unlikely that someone is only aware of the TV series. Hence, why this is the type of case where (series) is fully reasonable. --Masem (t) 15:27, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - per Masem's arguments. Sergecross73 msg me 14:11, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Regardless of the fate of the TV series, it is vastly, vastly overshadowed in importance by the Portal video game series. Like we're talking 10000:1 or more in terms of words spilled on them. One of these has had multiple academic papers on it, another was forgotten filler mentioned in maybe a few TV Guide writeups. This kind of difference has been used to justify "ignoring" one of the contenders for a disambiguation title in RMs before, a standard which does gain consensus. SnowFire (talk) 20:51, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, There is a need to differentiate between the tv and the video game series. Artix Kreiger (talk) 15:49, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Even if this is the most popular series named "Portal", it still needs to be disambiguated on the off-chance that a reader who has never heard of this series before and is looking for a different "Portal" series ends up here. ToThAc (talk) 15:59, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's where hatnotes come in. And that points out the fact that another issue that if this was moved "Portal (series)" should likely then redirect to Portal (the term's disambiguation page), meaning that a reader searching on "portal series" is still going to require two clicks to get to either the video game or TV series; given the fact pointed out that the video game series is much more well known than the TV series, "portal series" should get readers to the video game version faster; and if they were looking for the far lesser known TV series, the hat note would serve that second required click. --Masem (t) 16:50, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – current disambiguation is frankly ambiguous. Series is not a good descriptor. A series of portals? Proposal is clear and concise. CookieMonster755✉ 16:52, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support 'Series' is a very poor disambiguator whether we are talking about video games, TV series, films or anything else. It really should not be used at all. Shadow007 (talk) 23:57, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Should we use that vide on the History of Portal?

[edit]

Couldn't the video used in History be considered a secondary source? I guess making a video from this information would also be a secondary source, and I like the video nevertheless, but I'm still not entirely sure whether a short run-down could be trusted entirely. TophatGuy14 (talk) 01:14, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lightmatter

[edit]

That game is also set in the portal universe.

See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mV3ZQwMWm4A 95.114.23.233 (talk) 15:16, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Portal_(series)&oldid=1201634760"