Talk:Mass Effect 3 ending controversy

BBB statement

I agree overall with the outcome of the recent edits regarding the BBB. The last editor stated that they don’t think it is “misleading” but if one reads the title and the previous format of how we cited it, one would be led to believe that the Better Business Bureau had essentially made a policy statement against ME3 instead of a single directors blog post arguing that it was misleading advertising. This difference is actually quite crucial. I think it’s still important to note, however, and my initial removal was to find a different source, not to erase it forever. I don’t think the source is unreliable as a whole, but that specific article could have been better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WesPhil (talk • contribs) 13:06, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 19 April 2023

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 discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Mergers can be discussed separately. (closed by non-admin page mover) CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} (please mention me on reply) 06:14, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

---

Controversies surrounding Mass Effect 3 → Mass Effect 3 ending controversy – This article reads as a list of grievances about a game that is generally frowned upon on Wikipedia. The ending issue is indisputably notable, but regarding the others: Day-One DLC is a standard practice, not a controversy, and any negative reception about that can be discussed on the DLC page. Tali is already mentioned in her own article. It doesn't need to be said that the idea of gay content being controversial is WP:FRINGE to be given an entire section. Shepard's redesign was largely embraced and only drew criticism from a small group. And a game journalist having a cameo as a journalist journalist is somehow horrific? I would argue the article be refocused solely on the ending. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:00, 19 April 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 18:48, 27 April 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 04:32, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

• Comment Is RM the correct venue to be bringing this up at? As-is, the article goes over more content than just the ending, so a move to a title that only mentions the ending content would be misleading until the article is refocused. If the article is refocused, then yes, the title should be changed (and I think the proposed title would be fine in that case), but is this the venue to gather consensus for refocusing the article? Skarmory (talk • contribs) 02:40, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

  @Skarmory: I would assume so, given that it's a simple removal of data if the page is moved. I don't think changing an article's scope somewhat via RM is unheard of as long as it doesn't become something entirely different. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:56, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

  Fair enough, I guess there isn't really an official venue for refocusing an article. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 20:16, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Video games has been notified of this discussion. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 18:48, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

• I agree: I don't believe all of these controversies/criticisms are related to deeply enough to belong in a "Mass Effect 3 controversies" article, and a lot of the individual ones can be merged into Mass Effect 3, Commander Shepard, and Jessica Chobot without much bloat. I also agree that the weight this article puts on homosexuality is undue and fringe-focused. Probably deserves two lines in the main article, which can use a bit more bulk. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 11:36, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
• Merge per WP:CSECTION and per ZXC and Mable. With the benefit of 10 years of hindsight, I think it's clear that this article is far too long and in-depth. Yes, there was a lot of contemporary coverage of the breaking news variety and there are demonstrable lasting impacts, but it's not so much to the point that a spin-out article is warranted. CSECTION and WP:POVFORK are the relevant guidelines here and I don't think this article's coverage outweighs them. Axem Titanium (talk) 03:23, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

  @Axem Titanium: Sorry, but I have to disagree the ending is unworthy of an article itself. When there are massive articles like 10 years later, the Mass Effect 3 ending controversy still haunts gaming culture (PC Gamer), you know it's extremely important. Everything else in the article is flash-in-the-pan stuff that was quickly forgotten but the ending controversy stands alone as long-lasting. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:04, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

  I agree that it's important, but not all important things warrant an independent article. The tale of the ME3 ending controversy is best told in the context of the development and reception to ME3, which exists at Mass Effect 3. Large swaths of this article are just recaps of content from the parent article, which wouldn't be necessary if it was placed in the proper context of said parent article instead of spun out here. Axem Titanium (talk) 04:09, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

  This "ending controversy" article will look nicely as a stand-alone, especially now with the paragraphs Zxcvbnm added. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:53, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support move as proposed. Subsequently, I don't have a lot of opinion on whether the controversies fit in WP as a whole, but having an entire article dedicated to controversy is only going to give editors an opportunity to highlight issues that may otherwise not deserve inclusion. If any are significant enough to fit elsewhere, they can be merged with attribution. ASUKITE 14:35, 19 May 2023 (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.