Talk:Games Done Quick

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

Rename to "Games Done Quick"[edit]

Only the winter event is called Awesome GDQ. Website also drops the awesome, so that it can be used for both the winter and summer event. Maybe Wikipedia should too and redirect both Summer GDQ and Awesome GDQ?Ceremony64 (talk) 02:37, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was recently moved to "Awesome Games Done Quick and Summer Games Done Quick". I really don't think this is the best title for the article, as it looks rather awkward and long. @LowSelfEstidle: wouldn't the suggestion above ("Games Done Quick") be a better title for the topic? ~Mable (chat) 11:40, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this rename. All of the official channels are under the 'Games Done Quick' moniker. It's the name of their website, Youtube channel, Twitch, etc. Elzbenz (talk) 12:54, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 10 January 2016[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: Page moved on the spirit of WP:SNOW this seems rather uncontroversial. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:03, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Awesome Games Done Quick and Summer Games Done Quick → Games Done Quick – Per discussion on the article's Talk Page. LowSelfEstidle (talk) 13:21, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support ~Mable (chat) 13:22, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kill the animals. Also, support.  ONR  (talk)  13:52, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Elzbenz (talk) 08:51, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support for obvious reasons (i.e. those stated above). --TL22 (talk) 18:36, 13 January 2016 (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.

Master list of GDQ games[edit]

It would be nice to have a sortable master list of every game that has been featured at a GDQ event. It would take some time to assemble, but such a list would be a useful resource. Number3son (talk) 08:38, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Even us non-Wiki people would want some of that. Stop being a useless Wikislave and do it for both Wiki-masters and the general public. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.22.140.31 (talk) 09:25, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would love to see such a thing as well, but Wikipedia is not the place for it. Somekind of dedicated speedrunning wiki would be much better suited for such detail and searchability. The idea sounds really cool, though, so if someone is going to create a resource like this, I would love to hear of it. ~Mable (chat) 10:20, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
GDQ has a master list of past games already so there is no point in doing it unless we just link it, also I know this is a old talk but this is just to say this so people who want to have this later will see it Zebrazach20062 (talk) 19:03, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Other Marathons section[edit]

The events drop-down section for the SGDQ bid tracker (which is part of the official site) does not list the God Of War done quick event, but does list a "speedrun spooktacular". https://gamesdonequick.com/tracker/index/spook

121.127.211.161 (talk) 08:13, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Games Done Quick. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 15:25, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy[edit]

Can I add a section about GDQ controversy. I think their has been enough controversy and community talk about it to reason adding a section about this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TrainerRed4 (talk • contribs) 16:52, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A) Which controversy? Be specific. "Controversies in general" is super vague. Stuff like "in 2015 1 runner out of 80 got in trouble for some stupid argument and was kicked out" nobody cares about, in general. B) What reliable sources do you have on a specific incident? We're looking for something more than just "single Kotaku blog post". SnowFire (talk) 17:21, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair enough. There hasn't been a lot of verifiable documentation of controversy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TrainerRed4 (talk • contribs) 12:46, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough documentation? Except of several articles and videos covering it. For example banning somebody claiming he wore a MAGA hat and that they have a screenshot of it, despite the fact that the video shows he did not wear one and the screenshot never existed? --79.223.80.74 (talk) 12:58, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@79.223.80.74: It looks like there's a decent bit of coverage so the MAGA hat thing is probably something that could warrant a mention. However, we need to make sure we maintain a neutral tone and that we cite multiple reliable sources. –IagoQnsi (talk) 17:48, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think GDQ said it wasn't a MAGA hat and the dude who was wearing the hat took a picture and posted it online which showed that it wasn't a MAGA hat
-Zebrazach20062 (talk) 00:05, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One-Off Marathon[edit]

I haven't been here long so sorry if I'm doing this in the wrong manner but, Under the History tab, we list One-off Marathons like Japan Relief and God of War games. I was wondering if we should get rid of that portion because it's in the note of those events so it is sort of redundant. Or maybe add more to it like we talk about GDQ Express and/or Harvey Relief. Again sorry if this isn't the right way to ask this I'm new to how you guys do things here and I want to help you guys make this Wiki be as good as possible. Thanks for reading this by the way Zebrazach20062 (talk) 20:30, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Zebrazach20062: Saw your ping on the talk page. Having some redundancy between "prose" and "list/table" is generally harmless, IMO. Don't really see it as a big deal. For example, Gen Con both has a prose introduction that talks about early conventions, changes, and so on, as well as a full table toward the end. That said, if you're willing to help, great! SnowFire (talk) 23:38, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Any way to lock the Wiki[edit]

I just just wondering if we can lock the wiki to users only so us or you guys can fix the wiki without the potential of fighting other edits Zebrazach20062 (talk) 06:30, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cause we would need to redo or copy and paste the fact/Notes for all of them I would do it but mobile sucks and I'm going to bed :P Zebrazach20062 (talk) 06:39, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nvm on this I'm just being stupid Zebrazach20062 (talk) 15:51, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Was pinged on this by Zebrazach. All of the old revisions are in the "history" tab so nothing was lost. That said, I don't think I agree with @Neverrainy:'s refactoring of the tables to One Big Table. Maybe I can see combining Summer & Awesome, but I definitely think that the "special" marathons are their own thing and should be separated from the main list. Additionally, the "Notes" sections on the Special marathons were a little more important than random footnotes to hide in a Notes section; they explained why a special marathon was held at all, they're more like prose sections. SnowFire (talk) 18:29, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can see the Main GDQ's together cause I've been looking at it a while and it doesn't look that bad but I feel like all of them separate would look the best for both Computer and Mobile because currently the Table is Sortable so it would work out on the Computer side but not on Mobile because currently we can't sort its just who and I Agree with Snow on the special Tab Zebrazach20062 (talk) 20:22, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Update I have done a temporary Table that we can make look nice later or decide to change all the GDQ's to their own table like how it was, again if you have some other idea please ping me and hopefully I will get a email about it and we can calmly talk it out Zebrazach20062 (talk) 22:28, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Must entirely disagree with making both main GDQs their own chart. I loved using the site as a way to see the developing nature of both AGDQ and SGDQ, which now can't really be done. The new chart looks awful, and merging the two might seem like no data was lost, but it actually loses quite a bit. For example, someone looking at the new chart will simply see an organization that fluxuates between more/less money to charity, and constantly moves from place to place, rather than seeing it as an organization that has 2 major events that have both gained money every year (with 1 exception), and mostly stayed stationary in their locations. Leaving them as two tables shows GDQ as a progressing series of 2 major events, rather than 1 long stream of confusion. Cannot support such a change, and would ask it be changed back as soon as possible 13akoors (talk) 21:38, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comparing the before and after, I have to agree with SnowFire and 13akoors - it's easier to read and interpret with Summer and Awesome in their own separate tables. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 22:34, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I will break them off into their own charts in a couple minutes thank you everyone that spoke their mind
Also another thing should we talk about is putting back the How many day or months or years it's been since the event started, been, or how long till the next one. It was originally where like the venue thing is Zebrazach20062 (talk) 20:26, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion Board[edit]

Let's use this place as a Discussion Board so we can talk about what we can do to make this Wiki better and Hold a vote on what we think looks better if a major edit has happened. Also, remember to Ping me so I can talk about it as well. I will get rid of things done or what we have talked about and Fixed it Let's make this Wiki the best wiki :D Zebrazach20062 (talk) 18:19, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the inaugurated, most recent, and next event info is up in the infobox, which seems like a good place to keep it to me. It's easy to reference without cluttering anything up.
And hey, don't worry about long comments and having a lot to say, it's great to see such enthusiasm! :D NekoKatsun (nyaa) 23:13, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Zebrazach20062 (talk) 00:29, 30 January 2019 (UTC) Ok so I was thinking we should start adding information about HotFix and The Sprint soon, I will eventually start helping but I'm busy doing other things irl at the moment Zebrazach20062 (talk) 19:31, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any independent, third party sources that talk about Hotfix or Sprint? My suspicion is "no" based on a quick Google, so there shouldn't be any coverage here either. (Hotfix & Sprint certainly exist, but they aren't really encyclopedia-relevant, it'd be like talking about a business that has a Christmas Party or Tuesday sales or the like.) SnowFire (talk) 19:39, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Woah that was fast, ok thanks for replying so fast, that was one if the reason I asked that because I didnt want to put the work in if it was going to be useless thanks again SnowZebrazach20062 (talk) 19:52, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A good overview video with plenty of sources[edit]

Might work on including some of the news from this video later, as it seems GDQ has some controveries over the years, that might warrant inclusion. LaceyUF (talk) 06:22, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, random angry YouTube videos are not reliable sources. You need a "real" author or journalist with a reputation for accuracy to cite. SnowFire (talk) 06:50, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Plus those Controversies usually are just people complaining about someone being banned or in the "Case" of the possible MAGA hat it was just a red GDQ hat, but since people thought it was a maga hat people started freaked out over it.Zebrazach20062 (talk) 15:29, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of Interest?[edit]

I just realized I should state this but as of right now I'm a volunteer ChatMod for GDQ and I'm wondering if that would be considered a CoI, if it is I'll try to follow Wiki's rules for that sort of thing, if not I'll delete this Thread. Please ping me if you leave a answer :P Zebrazach20062 (talk) 15:44, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Handled. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 17:12, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Huh what did you do? Zebrazach20062 (talk) 17:47, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like they added a note to the top of the talkpage noting that you've declared a possible conflict. :) NekoKatsun (nyaa) 18:03, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
While an abundance of caution is a good thing... volunteer Twitch chat mod is not generally gonna be the kind of thing to give someone a "real" conflict of interest. Thanks for sharing but it's totally fine. (If you were an organizer or promoter or a charity recipient, that'd be more cause for caution.) SnowFire (talk) 18:20, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok! I just wanted to be sure thank you all! Ah yes now I see it I had to go to Computer mode for my browser Zebrazach20062 (talk) 18:21, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note section for SGDQ - first SGDQ to set a record?[edit]

IP address - since you're technically breaking 3RR here if you're the same person - and I don't want to do the same, your reference you added shows exactly why this "note" is trivial OR and shouldn't be added. This purported fact is not actually mentioned in the article you link to. What the article does talk about is that it's 3million+ and sets an overall record, which is fine. The fact that it was the first summer GDQ to set the record and the others were set by the winter GDQ is not mentioned. This is WP:SYNTH - this is a true but non-notable fact, of which there are all sorts of true-but-irrelevant facts out there. Imagine if the marathon was annual instead of semiannual, and the record was set in even numbered years normally, but the record was set in an odd-numbered year one time. This is numerology - it's just a coincidence, it doesn't matter, it's no more interesting than first home run leader with a different starting letter of their first name, or birthday months of charting singers. There isn't a significant difference between the summer & winter marathons, they're just both GDQs. SnowFire (talk) 07:49, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the same person; I have no idea who the other person is, but I agree with their opinion for what its worth. It's significant because AGDQ is the flagship event. 108.28.233.115 (talk) 07:57, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Great, do you have a reliable source that says this? "AGDQ is the flagship event and it was impressive and unusual that SGDQ beat it out in 2019?" SnowFire (talk) 08:23, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As for flagship, Yes. https://www.polygon.com/2016/7/10/12139236/summer-games-done-quick-sets-another-record-for-charity "Games Done Quick...the flagship Awesome Games Done Quick..." We're also not talking about how SGDQ 2019 beat out AGDQ 2019, that's already been done - no need to mention that again. What's significant is that an SGDQ event has set the new total donation record for GDQ events. 108.28.233.115 (talk) 08:44, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that's something for the first part, but it's a passing reference in a hype-y context. It doesn't explain or expound upon it at all, just says "yup flagship ADGQ up next." Quite a few of the GDQ events set new records. At risk of demanding a shrubbery, I'd like to see reliable sources that cover the second aspect - or hell, primary sources even, GDQ itself saying that the summer event is an unimportant runt that they don't expect much from. SnowFire (talk) 09:04, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is really becoming a case of moving goalposts. Of course GDQ isn't going to come out and say that their summer event is unimportant. As for 2019, the event only ended 3 hours ago, so the media, especially from reliable sources, is still being written. There are others from less noteworthy sources such as: https://www.greenmangaming.com/newsroom/2018/07/02/summer-games-done-quick-raises-record-2-1-million-for-charity/ "the organisation’s flagship event is Awesome Games Done Quick..." and https://www.a90skid.com/agdq-2019-schedule-recommendations/ "Awesome Games Done Quick...the flagship event in GDQ’s lineup..." Although these two are not as notable as Polygon, taken together they do suggest that AGDQ is the flagship event. 108.28.233.115 (talk) 09:15, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(de-indent) If we agree that sources are still just coming out now, then great, we can add this first-SGDQ fact to the article after it has a reference to its notability and worthiness for inclusion, not before. I agree that it's ridiculous that GDQ would ever say that the summer GDQ is a minor event or anything, but that's exactly the point I'm trying to make: SGDQ is not a minor event, it's an event just as big as the winter AGDQ (which might well be "flagship" just from being first), ergo it's not "surprising" or interesting that it's the first summer event specifically that set the record, in the same way that a first odd-year event being the first to set a record isn't interesting or surprising. SnowFire (talk) 17:28, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just a update Polygon came out with new article calling AGDQ a companion event with SGDQ https://www.polygon.com/2019/6/30/20538871/summer-games-done-quick-2019-highlights-fundraising-total?utm_campaign=polygon&utm_content=chorus&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter

Zebrazach20062 (talk) 20:04, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's finally been mentioned on an official Games Done Quick Talk Show. https://www.twitch.tv/videos/447466835/ (occurs at 15:40) in the video. 108.28.233.115 (talk) 05:59, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's a step forward, but the video quote doesn't have any context or significance - it's just mentioned as a cool side fact, a bit of trivia. I was hoping for something more like a Kotaku blogpost that talked about this. That said, it's clear that you're very passionate about this fact, so I won't remove it - that said, let's revisit this in a year or so and see if it still seems relevant after the 2020 SGDQ, which might well set a new donation record itself (and thus show that 2019 doing so wasn't really unusual). Sorry if I seemed like a stickler, just the "Notes" section can easily become a ramble of disconnected facts if not careful. SnowFire (talk) 15:23, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if I'm making things worse but I watched the video and they said that it was the first time SGDQ out raised all the events(setting a new grand total record) and after that it says something along the lines of SGDQ has raised more money than the AGDQ before but it's never raised a new grand total , it doesn't mention AGDQ as a flagship event and imo they are both the flagship events and gdqx is like a side thing, I think we should look at AGDQ and SGDQ as 2 main events because that's what they are, anything that raises over a million dollars for charity should be considered a main event imo, that's just my thinking in this :P again sorry if I made this worse I was just putting my opinion out there.

Edit after like 4 months: Also, https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fv6onLXnn1g&feature=youtu.be this video is of the games committee talking about how the selection process happens and during the Q&A at the time of 30:29 ShadowWraith says something along the lines of that while SGDQ was smaller than AGDQ at the beginning they [I assume he means the viewers and the committee] now see it even footing of AGDQ so and I assume that since none of the committee disagreed that means that they see the two events the same way. Which means that we should give the facts like they are 2 equal events regardless of what we personally think.Zebrazach20062 (talk) 19:11, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Frame Fatales[edit]

Now that Frame Fatales announced that they are going to raise money (this upcoming February),would we add them to the main or special events or just wait till enough info comes out to write a separate Wikipedia? Zebrazach20062 (talk) 16:01, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not. See WP:GNG: "a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." There's lots of speedrunning marathons that don't have independent, significant coverage in a reliable source. Like, as an example, RPGLimitBreak is pretty cool, but there's just no coverage of it whatsoever outside of speedrunning circles. Basically, a better way to think of it is: what sources do we have? Then, based on those sources, we can figure out whether it's nothing, a section of this article, an entirely new article, etc. SnowFire (talk) 18:52, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah Ok thanks Zebrazach20062 (talk) 17:05, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bgiesing: Note: I removed the FF & Hotfix section with this diff. Not saying these two sections can't come back, but it needs to have secondary sources that show notability, not just Twitter links. Tons of streamers and organizations with streams have scheduled shows and the like. It's not generally notable enough for Wikipedia; you need stuff like Kotaku blog posts on the subject. If you can find some reliable secondary sources, then let's check again. SnowFire (talk) 17:52, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SnowFire: Hey, I've added sources from The Verge, PC Gamer and Paste Magazine about Frame Fatales, and there's additional coverage such as Destructoid (1, 2), Dot Esports (1) and Eurogamer ([1]). Is this enough to reconsider readding the FF section? Hotfix stuff still seems to be bare CiphriusKane (talk) 02:09, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hey CiphriusKane. There's definitely more material now, which is good. However, all of those articles are very short and basically attest to only the existence and theming of the marathons. I would lean toward "probably not" for inclusion of an entire section, but there might be cause to include more in the "Notes" section of the Special Marathons table than just "dedicated to female speedrunners" now. Maybe even a separate sentence on it? It does seem like that, to the gaming media, the marathons are more notable than the weekly Twitch streams, which are just too common I guess. SnowFire (talk) 07:37, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@SnowFire: The Paste Magazine article explores the reasoning behind the marathons (should probably have linked this in my first message, sorry) and I feel does more than just confirm its existence. Could the original 2 Femme Fatale marathons be readded as well? There's a few passing references to the May 2019 marathon in secondary sources but zilch for the August 2019 one CiphriusKane (talk) 23:17, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Paste magazine article is certainly a solid source. Can definitely cite that (and I see it was already added), although I'm a bit skeptical you can get TOO much out of it - Wikipedia tends to be very facts & figures driven, and a lot of the Paste mag article is a bit of a "human interest" story on specific runners / organizers, which isn't a great fit. (For example, the article goes into essentially no detail on Mike Uyama, Sumichu, etc. for the "main" GDQ.) The article certainly attests to the notability of the Fatales events, though, which is good.
The first two marathons can be added via the same criteria mentioned last year - if reliable, secondary sources cover 'em. SnowFire (talk) 23:15, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Expelled Speedrunners[edit]

Do we to mention the speedrunner who got expelled in the article? It feels like if we have that it should also talk about the other people GDQ has expelled as well, otherwise it just seems like it was brought up for no reason, thats my opinion and I could be wrong but thats what it seems like to me. Zebrazach20062 (talk) 17:59, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In general, I agree - I'd be happy with removing that sentence. That said, there is a difference between the Luzbheim case and others, in that the 2020 incident got coverage in blogs like Kotaku. Most of the other expelled runners didn't generate such controversy because their expulsion was over more boring matters. So the choice should be 0 or 1 expulsions, not 1 or many. SnowFire (talk) 19:25, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Move SGDQ 2020 Online into its own Category?[edit]

I'm thinking that we should consider moving the current SGDQ 2020 event into its own category, or at the very least make a note of its second moniker. It sounds like GDQ is both marketing this as SGDQ 2020 in addition to SGDQ 2020 Online due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Looking to see what others think. Rapmanej (talk) 17:11, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Primary topic of "GDQ" redirect?[edit]

GDQ currently redirects here, but it's not clear to me that this should be a primary topic based on the "long-term significance" criterion. The hatnote lists two other topics that share the same abbreviation, and I see nothing in WP:PRIMARYTOPIC that gives simple abbreviations priority over IATA or ISO 639 codes. A disambiguation page could in theory be created, by doing either:

  1. Create GDQ (disambiguation) with the information in this article's hatnote.
  2. Change this article's hatnote to {{redirect|GDQ}}, removing the other parameters.

Or:

  1. Overwrite GDQ with a disambiguation page.
  2. Create GDQ (disambiguation) as a redirect to GDQ to allow for WP:INTDABLINK uses.
  3. Remove this article's hatnote.

Is either of these options worth pursuing? --SoledadKabocha (talk) 23:32, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First option. GDQ is also used as a proper name for some of their other show GDQ has (such as the GDQ Hotfix) and I don't think Gondar Airport is close enough to the primary topic. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 00:27, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, the first option assumes Games Done Quick qualifies as a primary topic, while the second assumes there is no primary topic. I'm not sure why you're singling out the airport over Mehri language. --SoledadKabocha (talk) 00:48, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Games Done Quick is definitely the primary topic. GDQ is frequently casually referred to as just GDQ, and is a surprisingly relevant topic (there's a burst of stories every 6 months or so in the media). The airport and language can be referred to by their abbreviation, yes, but it's a fraction of their main usage. ISO language codes in particular are mostly used by computer scientists and linguists only - nobody in the wider public is in the habit of referring to languages by their ISO codes, even really major languages. Casual readers will just use Mehri if they want to look it up. Airport codes are used by the wider public, but the airport seems to be extremely small and minor, so it's a small slice of a small topic. SnowFire (talk) 03:21, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, not right this minute, but I will go ahead and create the disambiguation page as I described in the first option. I did not mean to display any significant bias. --SoledadKabocha (talk) 06:58, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There's no need for a disambiguation page either, IMO. If you create it anyway, then let's just keep the current hatnote on this article until there's a 4th meaning for the page, save readers a click. SnowFire (talk) 12:55, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I will draft the disambiguation page in userspace and not take any action in mainspace unless someone else wants to revisit the issue later. --SoledadKabocha (talk) 17:06, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Location of the Hogwarts Legacy content[edit]

Currently, the Hogwarts Legacy issue is in "History." Maybe it might be better for "Controversies", for all that it's an awkward fit there, too? The "problem" is that it's describing something that did not happen (i.e. a Hogwarts Legacy speedrun featured at a GDQ), so it's more like a hypothetical controversy. But it just doesn't feel "important" enough to go in History, either - GDQ is under zero requirement to "have to" feature runs of any game, so it just doesn't seem that significant to call out "Here's a game, one of many many many games, that isn't / won't be featured." It's really under, idk, "Notable policy actions?" if such a section existed, but it seems silly to create a section just for this one addition to the "will not accept" list. Which is why I'd be inclined for "Controversies" as the next best place to put it. Thoughts? SnowFire (talk) 19:02, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with "Controversies", not necessarily because it's a GDQ controversy, but the game's controversy that's spilled over to GDQ. That section also includes banned runners - including ones banned for (likely) similar reasons, like MAGA hats and Luz's whole thing - so makes sense to me to put a banned game/franchise there too. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 21:13, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Halo run[edit]

@Electricmaster: I removed the part you added, but I think it might still be worth including in the article. Maybe we need a new section, like "Notable events" or something? A run going very, very poorly isn't a controversy exactly. (Maybe it'd have been a controversy if GDQ knew Cody Miller had cheated and invited him anyway, but they didn't know.) https://dotesports.com/culture/news/history-halo-speedrunning-gdq-sgdq-15510 is an article that calls that run a "disaster", although more in the context of Halo speedrunning than in the context of GDQ, and is maybe more usable than a YouTube link. SnowFire (talk) 16:24, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Games_Done_Quick&oldid=1206440332"