Talk:Pro Evolution Soccer 2019

Video games Low‑importance

This article 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

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks

AfDs

Purple Francis (6 participants)
Gilman Louie (2 participants)
Yoshimitsu (2 participants)
Dr. Wily (8 participants)
First Internet Backgammon Server (3 participants)
Emote (2 participants)
Stardew Valley Guidebook (2 participants)
Preston Arsement (6 participants; relisted)
Jackpot World (3 participants; relisted)
Melee (game terminology) (7 participants; relisted)

Merge discussions

Other discussions

No major discussions

Semi-protection

Can we possible make this page semi-protected? Numerous unregistered users are adding unconfirmed licences to the article, which is leading to mis-information being shared amongst fans of the series. N778899 (talk) 12:28, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Partnerships

What the back and forth conflictual edits evoked above have failed to do, is to point that club partnerships are actually an important element to highlight (and to my opinion, Celtics, Rangers and Monaco missing entirely from the article is far more detrimental than achieving preserving at all cost the 'ontological purity' of the 'Licensed club' section). Konami, video game reviewers and commentators have all communicated extensively about such partnerships, and their absence leads to mis-information (by omission). GulM 21:23, 3 August 2018 (GMT)

Agreed. The point I've made in my edit summaries is that the three clubs have the same licencing agreement as other clubs on the list - having their players having full face scans, stadiums reproduced in the game, etc. The suggestion that the club licences are the same as the league licences (made by N778899) is misleading, also it's misleading to suggest that no partnership deals shouldn't be listed in the section. If a partnership deal leads to the club being fully licenced in the game - which it does for these three clubs - then they should be listed within the relevant section. Other clubs may have the same deals at these three, but haven't been added either, but it's no reason to remove all clubs with a partnership deal that are fully licenced within the game. Clyde1998 (talk) 20:51, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But that's where the misinterpretation lies. Schalke, Barcelona and Liverpool being listed there isn't directly due to their partnership with Konami, it's because they're licensed in a league that isn't fully licensed.

This has been the position on here for many years whenit came to licensed clubs: list all licensed leagues under leagues and then any licensed teams in unlicensed leagues in a teams section.

I don't think partnerships shouldn't be mentioned in the article, however there is an entire section dedicated to the development of the game that talks at length about the Schalke partnership. Details of other partnerships should be contained in this section in a similar mannwr as the Schalke part.

The list of licences should remain consistent with the approach I've outlined. N778899 (talk) 21:27, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that the licences for Celtic, Monaco and Rangers are more detailed than the standard league licences. All of the licenced clubs have all their players with face scans and their stadium within the game - including Celtic, Monaco and Rangers; removing them from the section implies that their licencing within the game is the same as all other clubs in the league. I understand the point that you're making, but all of these clubs have the same level of licencing in the game. Having these three clubs not in the list implies otherwise. Clyde1998 (talk) 21:53, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't imply anything otherwise. As I have said, there is a section above that talks about the Schalke partnership which could easily be expanded to discuss Monaco, Celtic and Rangers.

If that's how you're doing it, which completely contradicts the stance taken in previous years' articles, then you should be listing Ajax, Sporting CP and Fenerbahce as their stadiums are in. You either list them all or list none. The middle ground between the two makes no sense. N778899 (talk) 22:45, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I need to point out that none of the previous five years (I didn't look further back than that) contain any lists of licenced clubs or leagues. I'm checking for suitable references for the clubs that you've listed to be able to add them in. Clyde1998 (talk) 23:15, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They did contain lists in the run-up to the game, which were since removed. N778899 (talk) 07:55, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Made amendments to the page to add in a specific Partnerships section where these can be discussed. The reason for this is the incoming number of licensed teams whose league isn't in the game at all. The section previously wouldn't have been suitable for these teams, as they aren't partners but they're licensed in game. The first confirmed is Red Bull Brasil who don't play in the Brazilian Serie A and we'll have numerous teams in the 'Other European Teams' and 'Other Teams (Latin America)' sections where they'll be licensed but will not be official partners.

That's good. It's worth noting that all partnered clubs are fully licenced, but not all fully licenced clubs are partnered. The 'licenced lists' will almost certainly be replaced by bodies of text (in place of the list) when the game is released (as all information will be easily verifiable), but while information is still incoming it's easier to maintain the lists as they are. Clyde1998 (talk) 08:09, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]