Talk:Forspoken

Alright @Axiom Theory, please explain why the following information is not suitable for the sales section (either as a standard sentence or as a note): "As of February 12, 2023, physical sales on PlayStation 5 totaled 35,056." This is something so simple and neutral that I can't wrap my head around why it would be a reason for a dispute. Vestigia Leonis (talk) 11:29, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

There doesn't need to be an update for week one and week two plus it wasn't reported on. Week two is going to be trivial in any game that isn't live service until the expansion and the DLC. Axiom Theory (talk) 04:35, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

This isn’t about the number of weeks. It’s about the total number of copies sold since the game’s release. Providing the most recent figures is quite normal, so I still don’t see any good argument for leaving this out of the article. Vestigia Leonis (talk) 09:18, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

I kept this open for a while in case anyone wanted to add to the discussion. I consider the matter resolved now and have reinserted the note per WP:SILENT. Vestigia Leonis (talk) 20:00, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

WP:SILENT does not apply when the lack of consensus has been made evident. It says "You can assume there is consensus until you hear otherwise." But anyway I don't see that anything has changed that justifies a week one and week two update. It's trivial and misleading to the readers. Axiom Theory (talk) 16:38, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Well... you haven't brought up any arguments for roughly a month, and neither has anyone else. So yes, WP:SILENT did apply here. This is not considered as a week two update, as I already explained above. Honestly, you’re now verging into WP:IDHT. If the total sum of copies sold is considered trivial, why is the debut sum not trivial? And what exactly is misleading about providing the exact available sales data? Vestigia Leonis (talk) 18:12, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

The arguments I brought up are still relevant, and you're verging into WP:IDHT. It's a week two update, because it's the data from week two when week one is already there, making it the difference of a trivial amount of time. Debut week has some relevance because sources at least broadly talked about it a little Week two isn't relevant at all because of how sales tales work, which is why no sources bothered to talk about week two in the context of this game. You used direct primary sources to try and piece it together but that doesn't make it not trivial. Not only that but it's misleading because it frames it as cumulative to readers, otherwise there would be no reason to include it. But it isn't cumulative. Axiom Theory (talk) 23:17, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

VGChartz is an unreliable source, so it should not be used for relevance claims. Gematsu is listed as reliable, and per WP:PRIMARY it's fine to use since we are not interpreting the provided cumulative sales number. The date in the disputed note also clarifies the time frame. Vestigia Leonis (talk) 23:42, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

The information is repeated in other sources. You are missing the point which is that secondary sources didn't report anything about the second week at all or consider it worth mentioning. Axiom Theory (talk) 05:01, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

Axiom Theory what is your policy argument for non-inclusion? Vestigia Leonis, what is your argument for inclusion of this specific week? That is the most recent citable sales number? Is there a reason it shouldn't be included in the following paragraph, particularly given: "[i]n February 2023, during a financial results briefing, Square Enix president Yosuke Matsuda said sales of the game had been 'lacklustre'[...]"? We openly discuss sales in February 2023, here, so actual numbers would seemingly contextualize this a bit better (even as a gamer myself, I have zero idea what "lackluster" means in-regards to sales, at least in-terms of numbers) MWFwiki (talk) 23:32, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

@MWFwiki Information on sales for the game is limited, which is why I want to keep it. In fact, the Japan sales figures are the only available numbers. Debut week sales are important, but any cumulative figures that exist (regardless of the time frame) are also relevant. So yes, it is the most recent citable sales number. If the game only charted for two weeks, then that's all the data we have.

I don't mind how it would be added. The note format was used by another user, and I agreed to use it in a previous discussion as a middle-ground solution. Unfortunately, that wasn't enough, and the dispute continued. Honestly, a standard sentence would be sufficient. Vestigia Leonis (talk) 00:10, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Okay, I'll see what the other editor has to say. But barring a good policy argument, I'm not certain one could or even should redact this information. Is there some agenda or ideological bent to including/not including these numbers that someone might accuse other editors of? That's the only concern I have, though the section is very neutral, anyways. It's important to remember, as well, that many people have zero idea if 53,000 copies sold is good or bad. Point being, even if there is some controversy with this game, our stating the sales of the last citable week is not inherently non-neutral. MWFwiki (talk) 00:37, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

@MWFwiki I don't have a particular opinion on the game but there are neutrality concerns and per WP:V I don't see a justification to include things that not a single source thought was important. There are no secondary sources that focused on the how the game did in the second week in any shape or form, good or bad, it's from primary source scavenging. We already include the sales count for the first week, so it doesn't make any sense to include the sales numbers for the first and second week simultaneously. The secondary sources didn't consider either number important enough to comment on, but if any is for inclusion it would be the debut week as the debut week itself actually was discussed in secondary sources in more broad terms. MOS:VG says "When documenting sales, avoid creep; you do not need to document every single sales milestone a game has surpassed". This is exactly that "sales creep". It does suggest "debut sales figures" and "cumulative", but when the cumulative is days apart it's completely redundant.

Most importantly, however, is that the framing of the note is inadvertently misleading/borderline deceitful, because through presentation it suggests to readers that the current cumulative available is the "current" cumulative when it's actually 3.5 year old data that is only a few days different from the data it is caveating. Otherwise there's no reason to attach a caveat note to the debut week total. The current cumulative for physical copies on that platform may very well be 200,000 -- we don't know. I see it as (to no one's fault) a form of lying with statistics -- the article is much more neutral if we simply stick to secondary sources and avoid misleading creep. Personally I think it'd be sufficient to add something when data with a meaningful time interval (more than a few days) compared to the current data is released, preferably without needing primary sources. Axiom Theory (talk) 04:53, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

@Vestigia Leonis — TL;DR: The content in-question should be re-inserted. I do not feel that it needs to be "hidden" in a note. However, additional context should be provided. Something like "By the second week, physical PS5 sales in Japan numbered 1,932, for a cumulative total of 35,056." I would actually encourage a note of something like "No further sales data has been released," though this is not a citable statement backed by RSs (to my knowledge), so I will leave it to you two whether or not this should be included, and if so, how. As this is not a wildly contentious topic nor is it an extraordinary claim, @Vestigia Leonis should feel free to claim consensus, for now. @Axiom Theory is welcome to dispute this, though I would recommend doing-so either at the relevant WikiProject page, via an RfC, or DRN, and to avoid further alleged "edit-warring."

@Axiom Theory Just so I'm clear, you are taking issue with this source? For the purposes of this reply, I am going to assume it is. I apologize for the length of this, but I wanted to address each of your points.

1. "There are no secondary sources that focused on the how the game did in the second week in any shape or form, good or bad, it's from primary source scavenging." First off, when I see "35,000" copies sold (up to the second week), it means nothing to me, good or bad. I say this as a lifelong gamer in my 30s. If you pushed to have an opinion and I had a moment to think about it? I would probably argue that it is indicative of poor sales. But otherwise, whatever context you are placing around that number is context you are seemingly asserting, yourself. Merely stating "X copies sold" is not inherently non-neutral. Secondly, Gematsu is seemingly a reliable source per the relevant project's own, specific collection of sources. For our purposes, they (Gematsu) are reporting the sales number. You'd be better-off challenging/discussing Gematsu's reliability at the project page or at perennial.

2. "This is exactly that 'sales creep'." This is a guideline which I would contend requires reading the into the spirit of the law, not simply the letter. Indeed, MOS:VG is intentionally vague in its wording regarding discussing sales figures, as we generally rely upon consensus to carry the day, as I'm sure you are aware. However, I would also call your attention to the last sentence of the "sales" guidelines, which I will note you did not include: "It is recommended to limit sales information to the debut sales figures, which indicate the game's initial impact, and the cumulative/most recent figures." [emphasis added] If the most recent cumulative data we have is from February 2023, that is what we say, as long as the date is made clear. Besides, I hardly think we can call this "sales creep," when, as of this diff, sales numbers are mentioned what, once? That is, apart from some vague statements regarding sale placement (which, quite frankly, is worded a bit FLUFFY for my liking, but I'll get to that).

3. You further assert "[...]when the cumulative is days apart it's completely redundant." Normally, I would agree. However, when it's all we have, it becomes the de facto cumulative total (again, as long as we provide the date).

4. There are no other RSs that proffer even estimates of the game's sales? We could add those in, assuming they exist, and provided that we explain that it is an estimate (or however the source describes it).

5."Most importantly, however, is that the framing of the note is inadvertently misleading/borderline deceitful, because through presentation it suggests to readers that the current cumulative available is the "current" cumulative when it's actually 3.5 year old data that is only a few days different from the data it is caveating." Firstly, I do not find the wording "As of 12 February, 2023, physical sales on PlayStation 5 totaled 35,056" overly problematic, though it needs some polishing. I would suggest more context; "As of the second week of sales, in February 2023, Japanese physical sales on PlayStation 5 totaled 35,056".

6. "Personally I think it'd be sufficient to add something when data with a meaningful time interval (more than a few days) compared to the current data is released, preferably without needing primary sources." You are more than welcome to do so. It has, however, been nearly three years since these numbers were first reported. If Square Enix was going to be more forthcoming with sales numbers, I think we'd have seen them, by now. If this were within the first few months of sales I might otherwise agree. I will further note that you have been asked at least twice to produce a more recent sales figure from an RS.

7. Quite frankly, the way the "sales" sub-section is currently worded is... odd, now that I have more context. The first paragraph of the sub-section would lead you to believe that this was a reasonably successful game, at least to more casual readers. I'm not advocating adding this to the article, obviously, but consider; According to Gematsu, the game experienced a 93% drop in sales from the first to second week, and didn't even chart the third week. Yet the sub-section uses "best-selling" quite liberally. Neutrality does not mean "you cannot say anything bad." It means that "views must only be described to the extent, to the degree, and in the sense they are covered in reliable sources, and only in a neutral and impartial tone." Up until now, I had refrained from searching anything so as not to color my opinion, but consider: "has not sold well;" "very, very bad" -Forbes, "a sales flop" — TechPowerUp... not sure I'd call the latter an RS, but still, I think you get my point. A quick search shows that the general consensus among sources is not positive and they massively reported on SE's assertion that sales were "lackluster". But then, we round-out the sub-section with some praise from... the Square Enix CEO? At the very least, let's include the full quote, rather than cut-up. But, I digress.

Again, I apologize for the length, and I don't wish to seem as-if I'm picking on you, Axiom Theory. I just wanted you to see that I put as much thought into analyzing this as you two seemingly have. I could also be totally off my rocker, and you're welcome to dispute my opinion. But, as I said in the opening, I would strongly recommend you do so elsewhere, lest you be accused of edit-warring. MWFwiki (talk) 07:22, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

@MWFwiki Thanks for the detailed answer - the neutral opinion of someone uninvolved was necessary. Your suggestion to polish the wording and move it to the paragraph is fine for me. I just checked the sources though, seems like the game was actually 3 weeks on the chart: Week 1, Week 2, Week 3. Based on that, would you mind bringing up a final suggestion for the wording?

The neutrality issues are a different concern. Whether the CEO's praise will remain depends on the close of the RfC. Vestigia Leonis (talk) 09:51, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I thought the third week was the second week. I got it. Regardless, I would just say something like "According to the last available sales data, as of the third week of sales in February 2023, Forspoken had sold a cumulative total of 35,xxx physical PlayStation 5 copies in Japan." Given that the SE president's statement is up to an RfC, let's leave that paragraph alone. Again, the "last available" statement is subject to being challenged, but it is a good-faith compromise to ensure that context is provided. If anyone objects to that part, then we're left with "As of the third week of sales in February 2023, Forspoken had sold a cumulative total of 35,xxx physical PlayStation 5 copies in Japan." MWFwiki (talk) 20:47, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

@MWFwiki Just a heads up - one of the edit requests got included in your RfC close. Or did you consider it part of it? Also, I take from your closing comment that we should remove the disputed sentence for now and form a new consensus on what should be included from the Matsuda statement?

And about the Japan sales sentences, I tried to create a final version of both now: In Japan, Forspoken's PlayStation 5 version sold 29,055 physical units in its first week, making it the third best-selling retail game in the country. It reached a total of 35,056 physical copies sold within three weeks of its launch. This would include debut and most recent sales data and clarifies that it is limited to the first three weeks. But if you don’t think it fits, I’m fine with your version as well. Vestigia Leonis (talk) 22:18, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

@Vestigia Leonis — Yeah, kind of an accident, I fixed it, though those requests were both closed. As to how to address the RfC wording, I would go with some variant of the version I proffered. I would probably just add that verbatim, or close to it, and then allow consensus to develop naturally on the precise wording (just make sure the citation goes at the end of the paragraph). As far as the sales wording, I think that your version is fine. MWFwiki (talk) 22:33, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

@MWFwiki Alright, I added the version in. The Matsuda statement is still not fully correct now, as this part along with the rest of the Square Enix portfolio that month is not covered in any source. I tried to solve this here, but got no answers anymore. If we now add the positive feedback part, it would all be covered:

In February 2023, during a financial results briefing, Square Enix president Yosuke Matsuda described Forspoken's sales as "lacklustre". Its underperformance, along with that of several smaller titles released by Square Enix in fiscal year "FY2023/3", contributed to the company's uncertainty about meeting its year-on-year financial growth targets. However, he also noted that it received some positive feedback.

The Eurogamer source summarizes this more clearly, noting that the issue concerns the underperformance of smaller games over the past year, rather than the performance of the portfolio in a specific month (see paragraph 2 of the source). If this version is included, we got this resolved as well and properly supported by the sources. Vestigia Leonis (talk) 10:55, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

I disagree. The assertion that Matsuda or VCG (which mentions the month) is wrong is original research. Koriodan (talk) 05:12, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

The assertion that something is wrong ... is original research? What? I literally explained that the claim about a specific month cannot be confirmed. If you think I am wrong, please provide the direct quote that supports your claim. Nothing in the VGC source mentions a specific month for other releases. Vestigia Leonis (talk) 08:38, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

It isn't the role of editors to "correct" reliable sources. VCG says and while the performance of new titles with February and March release dates will be the ultimate determinant which is where the month portion comes from. Koriodan (talk) 10:14, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

The way it is worded now in the sales section is not entirely correct. The part you quoted includes "will be" as Matsuda (on February 3, 2023) was referring to newer releases in February and March. They were considered as possible determinants of the final outcome, but did not contribute to it yet (at the time). Meanwhile, Eurogamer handled this better by focusing on parts that were already final. Forspoken did underperform, as did several smaller titles in FY2023/3, which is why the latter is preferable to something that "will be" which we never got an answer to. Eurogamer also put this in their own words in the second paragraph, which is usually preferable to citing full quotes. @MWFwiki If you don't mind adding your opinion here as well, that would be helpful, since it's connected to your wording suggestion of the RfC closing. Vestigia Leonis (talk) 10:02, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

@MWFwiki Before you go - this concerns the RfC text. A brief answer would be appreciated. Without a comment it will probably just get reverted again. Vestigia Leonis (talk) 20:28, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

@Vestigia Leonis — Sorry, I didn't see your original tag from a few days ago. I'm not clear what the other user is advocating for, in this case, though I'm clear on what they're arguing against.

All that said, I'm not sure we should include "underperformance" without it being being directly attributed. If you can offer some alternative wording variants I'll be happy to look at them. As far as the concern about the current "portfolio" statement... I suppose I agree that it isn't really supported by the sources. If you wanted to replace it with your proffered "[...]along with that of several smaller titles released by Square Enix in fiscal year "FY2023/3", contributed to the company's uncertainty about meeting its year-on-year financial growth targets" I think that would be more accurate. But yeah, just be cautious with the wording of the "underperformance" comment. You could go with something like: "Variously described as having 'underperfom[ing]'^[1] and 'disappointing'^[2] sales[...] " MWFwiki (talk) 20:46, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

@MWFwiki I see, I honestly will just remove the unsupported part for now without the descriptive wording so we can move on: In February 2023, during a financial results briefing, Square Enix president Yosuke Matsuda described Forspoken's sales as "lacklustre" following "challenging reviews". He noted that the game, along with several smaller titles released by Square Enix in fiscal year "FY2023/3", contributed to the company's uncertainty about meeting its year-on-year financial growth targets. However, he also noted that it received some positive feedback. Vestigia Leonis (talk) 09:39, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, probably for the best MWFwiki (talk) 09:46, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

I still see this as WP:OR. If the month portion wasn't relevant Matsuda wouldn't have said and while the performance of new titles with February and March release dates will be the ultimate determinant. There is no distinction between "will be" and "at that time" because the quarter only closes once. Koriodan (talk) 10:02, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

The claim that the whole portfolio posed a risk that month is the WP:OR part. Matsuda saw a risk from Forspoken's performance and only said that the rest of February and March would be the ultimate determinant. He did not say that the whole portfolio posed a risk, neither in the primary report nor in the secondary coverage. Matsuda only refers to Forspoken and the potential impact of upcoming releases. This is why the second paragraph of Eurogamer is better for this. Vestigia Leonis (talk) 10:33, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

The performance of February and March release dates will be the ultimate determinant, which is in the primary source and VCG, is him plainly stating that the Feburary and March titles factor into the earnings. It isn't "I am certain about those other titles I'm mentioning, however based on Forspoken we see uncertainty", it is "Based on Forspoken, as well as these other titles in which performance is not certain we see uncertainty". Koriodan (talk) 23:23, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

It isn't really good or bad. Gematsu is a direct source. Direct sources are not forbidden in this scenario, however indirect sources give us a good indicator on what week is notable especially when it comes to avoiding redundancy. I addressed the cumulative portion with my comment "It does suggest "debut sales figures" and "cumulative", but when the cumulative is days apart it's completely redundant." To drive this point home the example given is 8 months apart in calendar time, which is normal for situation where you'd want to include a cumulative update. A few days is not. It doesn't particularly add anything to the article.

I'd be curious if anyone here can showcase a game where both the first week cumulative and second week cumulative sales estimates are included, without any secondary source notability conferred to the second week to make it worth a mention. I doubt anyone will find one due to the obvious creep that would be. Axiom Theory (talk) 17:58, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

I'm the editor who added the note. I don't fully agree with Axiom Theory on the note (the note can be clarified more explicitly that it's old data if that is misleading). Though I'd lean toward it being out rather than in on account of WP:RAWDATA. Both should certainly not be in the prose though. I'd suggest picking one cumulative or the other. Koriodan (talk) 19:20, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Then we go with the latest cumulative, as long as it is noted what the timeframe is. MWFwiki (talk) 20:38, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

I now realize that one or the other won't work well because the sentence is framed around the debut week milestone. The desire to add second week data is so inconsequential, but between the two the note is a better way to handle it. If the note is re-added by someone here I'd support your wording in it e.g According to Gematsu in 2023, as of the third week of sales in February 2023, Forspoken had sold a cumulative total of 35,056 physical PlayStation 5 copies in Japan as good wording. I overall lean against though. Normally you'd want something longer than a fiscal quarter, a month at the shortest, while sub-month is effectively pointless. And I haven't seen anything presented to justify WP:WEIGHT. Koriodan (talk) 05:12, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

The weight comes from the fact that it is the only number we have. Otherwise; "I now realize that one or the other won't work well because the sentence is framed around the debut week milestone." As I noted above, per MOS:VG:

"It is recommended to limit sales information to the debut sales figures, which indicate the game's initial impact, and the cumulative/most recent figures." [emphasis added]

It might be frustrating that all we have is the third week's sales, but that is what we have. As Vestigia Leonis I'm sure attempted to find, there are no other numbers as of yet available. As long as it is duly-noted what the time-frame was, which it was, I don't see any justification for consigning it to a note, much less leaving it out entirely. As a compromise, what I would not object to is either adding outright or in a note something noting that this is the most recent data available or that no other data is currently available, and we could possibly use this for a source, though it's probably a stretch.^[3]

Otherwise, the argument that it is "sales creep" is itself a stretch when it is two data points. There seems to be an attempt to contextualize the numbers — at least the other editor was, seemingly asserting with their comment that there "[...]are no secondary sources that focused on the how the game did in the second week in any shape or form, good or bad[...]" — when they are just numbers. Indeed, the other editor also claimed the issue was that the numbers were "misleading" (and I realize you disagreed with this), but one can make the same argument, here. Only including the first week's data might lead the reader to believe it sold 29,000 copies per week, which obviously we know it did not.

And again, anyone is welcome to update the cumulative total if they locate an RS with more recent numbers. MWFwiki (talk) 01:16, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

The weight comes from the fact that it is the only number we have.

That makes it verifiable, but that doesn't give it any weight. I've yet to see any source coverage to justify why this second week data for a subset of a subset needs to be highlighted.

Only including the first week's data might lead the reader to believe it sold 29,000 copies per week, which obviously we know it did not.

I think most people know debut totals are going to be higher. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to document what sources consider important. Not prove or disprove unsaid hypotheticals that someone might think, which could come across as agenda pushing. Koriodan (talk) 09:16, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

What "agenda" is pushed by including the most recent sales data of a reliable source? Vestigia Leonis (talk) 10:28, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

There's no useful difference between the first week and second week to justify both, and Wikipedia is not based on primary sources. And the act of trying to correct a hypothetical record that someone could possibly think (in either direction), to the point of disregarding how weight works, could be interpreted that way. This is as simple as all just following WP:BALASP. Koriodan (talk) 04:43, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

WP:PRIMARY clearly states that primary sources can be used, as long as they are used for simple statements of facts (like sales data) and are not interpreted. The aspect of weight was also addressed by @MWFwiki, so I don't see anything left that would justify excluding this information. Vestigia Leonis (talk) 09:42, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Primary sources can definitely be utilized for minor, uncontroversial statements of fact. However, what source are we calling a primary, the Gematsu one? Why are we referring to that as a primary? Am I missing something? It's good to go per the project's curated perennials page MWFwiki (talk) 09:56, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

@MWFwiki Wait, you are right, I am getting a bit lost in this discussion now. Gematsu regularly reports Famitsu sales as an independent news site, so it is a secondary source. That makes the whole primary source aspect irrelevant. Vestigia Leonis (talk) 10:22, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Can does not mean should per WP:VNOT. As for Gematsu, thank you I assumed it was the same entity as Famitsu. That doesn't change the lack of weight though. The overall debut week performance got a lot of press, as is quite normal for games, while the second week was essentially ignored as a topic. This is again as simple as all just following WP:BALASP. Koriodan (talk) 00:45, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

There's nothing in WP:BALASP that says we can't include the most recent sales figure from a reliable source, and it doesn't need the same level of press as the debut week. Gematsu is reliable, and MOS:VG recommends listing both debut and the latest cumulative sales. Also, as stated below, WP:WEIGHT is about viewpoints, not straightforward facts like this. Vestigia Leonis (talk) 11:41, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT applies to all verifiable material written in the encyclopedia. Koriodan (talk) 19:37, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

It needs to be proportional and giving equal weight isn't proportional, which is why I don't agree with this proposal. BlackVulcanX (talk) 13:28, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

If anything, we are giving a disproportionate amount of weight to the first/second week's sales, rather than the cumulative total. You don't want to include the current cumulative total, so you feel it doesn't have weight. We do. Weight really has more to do with viewpoints and ideologies rather than whether to include one relatively straightforward point or not; this is governed by other policies and guidelines. In the question of including a cumulative total or not; There is neither opinion nor argument here, no counter-framing, no debate within the proffered numbers. They're just... numbers.

"The purpose of an encyclopedia is to document what sources consider important. Not prove or disprove unsaid hypotheticals that someone might think, which could come across as agenda pushing. " ...right, which is why we should include the only verifiable cumulative total we have. Besides, I clearly framed that hypothetical as a response to the other user's assertions, not as a reason to include the cumulative sales, so I'm not really sure what you're getting at. Indeed, what "agenda" are you alleging is being pushed by doing so? MWFwiki (talk) 09:50, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

This is because sources give disproportionate weight to the debut week of games. Koriodan (talk) 00:26, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

What sources? Which sources? OceanHok (talk) 10:37, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

I know, you've said that. We disagree. I will ask again (for the second time, myself, and for the third time total, actually); What "agenda" are you alleging is being pushed by inclusion?

I will also note that inclusion of the only known cumulative total is hardly UNDUE, particularly given the framing, position within the article, and context, all of which aligns with the relevant policy: "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to the depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, juxtaposition of statements, and use of imagery. — This is a minor mention of a sourced fact (not an opinion or otherwise contentious statement) that you seemingly object to because of an un-clarified concern of an "agenda". If you were objecting to it being placed in the lead or otherwise more prominently, I would agree with you. MWFwiki (talk) 20:34, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Already answered. I said that the hypothetical motive you gave would amount to agenda pushing, not that you or the inclusion itself is.

This is a minor mention of a sourced fact (not an opinion or otherwise contentious statement)

You misunderstand how Wikipedia works. There is no concept of fact or an opinion (we are not WP:!TRUTHFINDERS), and thinking this way makes one at risk of both violating both WP:NPOV and weight policy. There is no policy carve-out for giving increased weight to something that doesn't have it simply because you believe it is a "fact", that would be editorial bias. If you concede that it is a minor detail, which it is, then this is as simple as following WP:BALASP.

If you were objecting to it being placed in the lead or otherwise more prominently, I would agree with you.

Yes, I agree, though this second week is so truly insignificant that even Gematsu didn't even mention it in prose. The term "Forspoken" occurs once in the table. Koriodan (talk) 06:31, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

No one needs to "believe" it is a fact. It simply is a fact. It is sales data reported by a reliable source and has no issues, as explained multiple times by @MWFwiki. Also, accusing the editor of not understanding Wikipedia is honestly a bit odd. Vestigia Leonis (talk) 10:35, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

First "agenda"-pushing and now I don't "understand how Wikipedia works?" I strongly recommend you retract these accusations, as they are personal attacks and not permitted under policy.

Regardless, your arguments have not changed, and neither have ours. Your assertion that minor facts cannot be included in an encyclopedic article are interesting, but not compelling.

I will no longer be interacting with you. MWFwiki (talk) 19:45, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not have the concept of a fact, and individual editors do not get to judge what is a fact and then give increased weight. This is how WP:NPOV gets violated. Wikipedia is simply based on the sources, and the sources near entirely ignored the second week as is the case for most games. Koriodan (talk) 02:59, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

I don't really have a strong opinion on the issue. However, why is weight suddenly an issue for second/third week sales and not an issue for debut week's? I mean, if the bar for inclusion is "what sources consider important" (aka WP:SIGCOV/meaningful commentary), then I've yet to see any source coverage to justify inclusion for even debut week sales. All of the sources in the paragraph allocated their weight to Dead Space remake and debut sales of Forspoken only had passing mentions that is not much better than the sources for week2/culmulative. I will have to ask people pushing this weight argument to at least be consistent in how you are weighing stuff. OceanHok (talk) 11:13, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, exactly. And as I just pointed-out, the weight argument doesn't hold much water with me, given the position of the content in-question, the length of the content in-question, the factual nature of it, and the fact that it is covered by a secondary source. The argument against inclusion has gone from "it's a primary source" (it's not), to "WEIGHT/UNDUE," to allegations of "agenda"-pushing. As I laid-out extensively in my THIRD opinion, I can justify inclusion all day, particularly given context and position in the article. MWFwiki (talk) 21:11, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

WP:RAWDATA and primary are extensions of the weight policy. My fundamental view for why this isn't appropriate hasn't changed. Koriodan (talk) 06:40, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

But it was already shoved below as a note, while debut sales got four full sentences, so it was already covered in significantly less proportion (following due weight). I still failed to see what's the weight problem is, or any argument for outright removal. I don't have a strong opinion on the issue (the article is fine with or without it because the data is only three weeks apart from debut week), but WP:PRIMARY, WP:WEIGHT and WP:INDISCRIMINATE are not applicable here, and pulling out WP:NPOV and WP:FALSEBALANCE on hard, uncontextualized numerical data is absurd. Numbers have no meaning unless you give it one. You may have some subjective WP:OR feelings on that number, but the article had made no effort in guiding how people think about it through contextualization. OceanHok (talk) 08:29, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

This is getting absurd. @OceanHok, if you would support inclusion, I would argue that we have met the requirements of ONUS, particularly given that our policy arguments have remained steady and haven't changed from "it's a primary source" (it's not), to "WEIGHT/UNDUE," to allegations of "agenda"-pushing, to now my "not understanding how Wikipedia works." Since this user has resorted to personal attacks, I am not going to interact with them any longer.

I would then recommend @Vestigia Leonis re-add the content, given the apparent consensus. The other user may feel free to challenge the content via other venues. MWFwiki (talk) 19:41, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

No policy based argument has been presented for inclusion, besides the assertion that it's a fact which Wikipedia has no concept of (WP:!TRUTHFINDERS). WP:BALASP covers near exactly how to handle these situations and I'd recommend all here simply follow that. Koriodan (talk) 02:59, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

But WP:VNF is talking about "unsourced" truth. And what you are saying here is "we should remove the truth because it is a truth, as it is not our job to find truth", and that's very bizarre. Because ideally everything documented here should be both sourced and truthful if possible, and the info here meets that requirement. OceanHok (talk) 04:01, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

VNF isn't about that (see WP:VNOT). It's about weight and this is explained in the second paragraph. Koriodan (talk) 05:34, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

(the article is fine with or without it because the data is only three weeks apart from debut week)

Yes, frankly this is my view as well, though I'm against per no clear reason given for a departure from how policy normally handles this. This isn't a discussion particularly worth having on account of how trivial it all is. Koriodan (talk) 02:59, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

Then this is the argument you should start with. Focus on the content, you do not need to be condescending about other editors, accusing someone of having an "agenda" or using policies/guidelines in questionable ways to justify your rationale. OceanHok (talk) 04:01, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

I did not, as explained above. Please focus on content. Has there been any policy based reason presented to justify a large amount of weight toward the second week? Koriodan (talk) 05:34, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

The reasoning has already been laid out several times above, and the discussion seems to be going in circles now. If the multiple explanations and WP:3O are still not sufficient for you, I will request a closure by someone uninvolved at WP:CLOSE. Vestigia Leonis (talk) 16:42, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

I don't see a consensus here for your additions. If you aren't satisfied, please feel free to put it through a RfC. Koriodan (talk) 23:23, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

No on the basis of irrelevance and sources not picking this up. I'd highly recommend a more fruitful use of time than arguing about the smallest aspects of this game. BlackVulcanX (talk) 04:21, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

To Axiom Theory's point, Monster Hunter Wilds dropped by 65% of players in the first few weeks. Cyberpunk 2077 by 80%. Elden Ring by 70%. The request to add multiple weeks of the same month, without some kind of significance, is both abnormal and overlap. It's how basically all offline games work. To Koriodan's point there haven't been any milestones positive or negative reported, to justify WEIGHT. BlackVulcanX (talk) 12:03, 22 December 2025 (UTC)