Talk:Genshin Impact

MundoGenshinImpact – Self-published source?

Recently, a user named MundoGenshinImpact has added various pieces of information from a website called https://mundogenshinimpact.com. To MundoGenshinImpact, is this a self-published source? Meigyoku Thmn (💬🧩) 16:18, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Genshin Impact profile.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:07, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

miHoYo

With Genshin Impact apparently earning back its development budget in two weeks, there ought to already be a wiki page for its game developer and publisher miHoYo.

https://www.bloomberg.com/profile/company/1495326D:CH

Mihoyo Co Ltd Mihoyo Co. Ltd. operates as a game technology company. The Company develops, maintains, and supports online games and contents. Mihoyo also operates mobile games development, game technology consulting, and other businesses. SECTOR Communications INDUSTRY Media SUB-INDUSTRY Entertainment Content FOUNDED 2011 ADDRESS Putian Information Ind Park 700 Yishan Road Xuhui Dist Shanghai, 201103 China PHONE 86-21-6033-1122 WEBSITE www.mihayo.com NO. OF EMPLOYEES --

https://www.linkedin.com/company/mihoyo-co-ltd-/

″miHoYo was founded in the Spring of 2011 by several super OTAKUs from Shanghai Jiao Tong University.

Having faith in "Technical Otakus Save the World"​, miHoYo is dedicated to create anime-style moe games and related products, saves our fellow believers by shaping a series of miHoYo virtual idols.″

Official website: https://www.mihayo.com/

Soulrefrain (Talk) 07:47, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

References

Adding {{nihongo}} or {{zh}} to lead section of article...

Since this is a foreign-language game, even though there is an English-language title, it appears to be based on the Japanese title from reading the article. If that is true, then should we add either of these templates to the top or both to show the translation? Aasim (talk) 09:25, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Awesome Aasim, this is definitely an unusual situation. The reading for the characters 原神 would be genshin in Japanese, which would lend more support for using {{nihongo}}. Maybe it'd be easier to solve this by not using a template and just use (原神 in Chinese and Japanese)? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:04, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Love it. Thanks for the change. Aasim (talk) 20:20, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

The phrase "online-only" appearing on the opening sentence of this article

Hi, I'm relatively new here, and may not be aware of all of Wikipedias many rules, please excuse my breaking of the "3RR" rule. I am not also not familiar with the concept of several editors reverting a factual and critical portion of information which seemingly belongs exactly where I placed it within the opening sentence. I don't wish to make offensive assumptions, but it seems like this page is guarded by several individuals who may be particularly like-minded in their interest of this topic? I don't know how else to put it, please excuse me. May I ask why any of you may believe my edit is out of place and should be consistently removed, despite my reversal of your actions, which also have no valid excuse as to why my edits were removed in the first place? Again dont wish to seem offensive, but this seems highly unnatural and a bit suspicious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.82.51.145 (talk) 23:26, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

It also seems that people are specifically taking turns in some kind of coordinated fashion in order to not violate this "3RR" rule. This is only an assumption due to reasonable suspicion, and I certainly don't wish for anyone to take offense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.82.51.145 (talk) 01:12, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

I think you may be directing this comment in part at me and to be clear - I stumbled across these edits while doing anti-vandalism patrol. I reverted purely on the basis that the content was being repeatedely re-added that was clearly disputed without a discussion having occurred here. I have no opinion on the actual content dispute, nor do I believe I have interacted with any of the involved editors previously. I would suggest to remember to assume good faith when interacting with other editors.

The onus is on the individual who seeks to include disputed content to justify why that content should be included - the purpose of this talk page discussion should be to discuss the content, not the editors - so I'd encourage you to elaborate on why you feel that this content should be added. Best, Darren-M talk 09:57, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Ah yes, thanks for clarifying, I had thought the opposite for some reason with regards to justifying my edit. But anyway, there has been discussion to some degree about this matter, but done entirely in the comments section. To where a person reverting my edits provided an excuse which I would consider highly inaccurate. Again, reasonable suspicion. Also, if you pay attention to my previous comments here in this discussion, I do specifically ask why the edit has been consistently removed. What is the reasoning behind this? The excuse given in the comments section by a single editor also seems highly inaccurate to me. I would even say obviously inaccurate. So please, discuss. Do you wish for me to copy and paste the comments for you?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.82.51.145 (talk) 17:34, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Making comments back-and-forth in edit summaries isn't sufficient - if content is disputed, it should be discussed here on the talk page and not in a game of ping pong.

I would strongly urge you to assume good faith. Concepts like "reasonable suspicion" do not exist on Wikipedia. You should approach every interaction with another editor under the assumption that they are seeking to act positively and impove the encyclopaedia.

PS: I've reformatted this talk page as the formats of your comments are hard to read. You should start every reply with one more : than was used by the last replier so that the comments indent. Please don't add spaces to the front of the line as this causes it to appear as a quote block. Similarily, add ~~~~ to the end of your comment so that it automatically inserts your username and a timestamp. Best, Darren-M talk 17:03, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

@75.82.51.145: The introductory paragraph states that it is a gacha game. All gacha games are online only, so I fail to see how Genshin Impact is so unusual that it requires a 'Online only' NightFire19 (talk) 01:39, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Right, so why do you feel the urge to consistently revert a minor clarification of this games mechanics? This game shares similarities with other titles too, I also believe more people think this titles shares more similarity to "The legend of Zeldaa, Breath of the Wild" which I can source from multiple sites as proof of this similarity and popular belief. Zelda, and just about all other mainstream titles similar to Zelda, such as Skyrim and many others, all do not require internet access, so I certainly feel this clarification I added was needed. Im still not seeing why this needs to be consistently reverted in a such fashion where no reasonable excuse is given and which also still seems to be a coordinated effort to me. Why is this topic fiercely guarded? Is it a commercial interest? I don't wish to make offensive assumptions, but this certainly is what my logic dictates. Is it safe to ignore any assumptions of good faith at this point? This is a serious question, because Im actually not sure. How else would you explain this? My original edit seems like I was adding highly obvious information to this topic, being that I am gamer myself. But apparently, not just one, but several others disagree to this? Please explain — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.82.51.145 (talk) 17:39, 24 October 2020 (UTC)