Talk:High on Life (video game)

Discussion

@47.144.150.224: I didn’t see your edit as constructive because it removed a reference that described the game. I hope we can talk this further. Khrincan (talk) 06:15, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

The 'Plot' section only describes the 1st mission. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shmann (talk • contribs) 04:22, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 4 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: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) {{ping|ClydeFranklin}} (t/c) 04:12, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

---

• High on Life (video game) → High on Life
• High on Life → High on Life (disambiguation)

– Clear primary topic here by pageviews compared to the 2018 song. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:55, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose as WP:RECENTISM. The views for the game are on a clear downward trajectory. Give it another year and if the page views for the game are still significantly more than the others, it may be worth reconsidering. older ≠ wiser 11:09, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

  That chart is misleading. Go to a more recent pageview chart for the last month, and you will see that the views of the game have in fact already stabilized at far higher than anything else. The "downward trend" already happened. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:44, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

  The downward trend continued into earlier this year — and to say something is "stable" in Wikipedia based on just one month of data is laughable. older ≠ wiser 14:35, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

  The article has fulfilled the primary topic criteria since this time last year, even before its huge rise in popularity upon release. It's safe to say that this article is stable at ~600 views/day based on that pre-release interest, even if it has not had much time post release to settle into the same pattern. That is far beyond typical primary topic criteria. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:19, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose: While the game may be the primary topic, the song isn't an obscure topic. Its music video amassed more than 219M views, which is way more than that from the game (e.g. views from trailers, gameplay etc). I agree we should wait for a year or two before making a decision. OceanHok (talk) 05:16, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

  Does that matter at all? People are clearly more likely to need an encyclopedia article to describe a game than a music video, regardless of the video's views. Views of a video do not indicate primacy of the subject on Wikipedia, only Wikipedia pagegviews do that. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:52, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

  I still agree with Bkonrad that WP:RECENTISM is the issue. It is kinda unfair to pit a song released five years ago against a new video game released just four months ago. OceanHok (talk) 16:54, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose I looked at Talk:High on Life, and there, the song was judged to be primary. Obviously the video game didn't exist, but it shows the song did have enough renown to be considered primary at one time. So I agree, I would wait a little while, in my opinion. --Quiz shows 11:58, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

  You said it yourself, that was in 2018 before the game existed. I would have agreed back then. Now it's simply not, hence the new RM. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:53, 5 April 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.