Talk:2016–2017 video game voice actor strike

Rename

Suggest renaming to "2016 video game voice actor strike", which (without the date) is how it's known in the popular press (common name). But no one calls it "Video Game Strike of 2016" as a proper noun, especially as it's not a video game strike per se.  czar 22:40, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 13 April 2017

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: Moved to include the -17 but not the SAG-AFTRA per consensus — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:06, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

---

2016 video game voice actor strike → 2016-17 SAG-AFTRA video game voice actor strike – The strike has carried on into 2017, and the precedent for multi-year strikes shows that it should be renamed 2016-17; see 2007–08 Writers Guild of America strike and 1942–44 musicians' strike. Also clarifying that it is specifically a SAG-AFTRA strike, and not a more general game voice actor strike. Eldomtom2 (talk) 13:09, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I disagree about changing it to SAG-AFTRA. I understand that there is a potential for a separate strike action to be launched by members of SAG-AFTRA if current contract negotiations break down; while until that happens there is no conflict, we should avoid moving it that way too quickly; the current topic name captures the breadth of what is actually being struck even if it more precise to say SAG-AFTRA. I'm not against the year range, though I'd wait to see if this goes into 2018 or the like to make sure we don't have to move it again. --MASEM (t) 13:44, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

The strike's being going on for a long time now and contract negoitations broke down months ago. SAG-AFTRA is the only union striking. The lede agrees with me on this: "...an ongoing strike started ... by the Screen Actors Guild‐American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (SAG-AFTRA) union..." As for the year range, I don't see the (unlikely) potential of the strike reaching into 2018 as a reason to keep the title in an inaccurate state. Eldomtom2 (talk) 17:22, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

While it is true that SAG-AFTRA is the only union striking, other equivalent unions in other countries are also aligning with SAG and asking its members not to take work from those struck companies. They aren't striking per se, but its a wider effect than just SAG's role. Also I would consider WP:COMMONNAME, "video game voice actor strike" gets 800,000 gnews hits, "SAG-AFTRA voice actor strike" gets 3,000. --MASEM (t) 21:44, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

They're just asking, they're not actually striking. As for WP:COMMONNAME, see my first post. It's "Writers Guild of America strike", not the more commonly used "writers strike". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eldomtom2 (talk • contribs) 22:35, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

This is why we avoid the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument here. There are certain things for normalacy like the date range (which I don't disagree about just that I fear it is too soon, and we should wait until the end of strike-action to fix it), but other aspects depend on how it is covered, but the same logic the musicans' strike you mention should liked as "1940-42 American Federation of Musicians strike". That's why CN asks to use the term that is most common in sources, and most do not mention SAG-AFTRA in shorthand for the strike, though obviously the group arises when the details of strike is mentioned. --MASEM (t) 23:04, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS states that it can be a valid argument for article titles, and WP:COMMONNAME does not apply to vague or misleading titles. This is not a video game voice actor strike, it is SAG-AFTRA going on strike against video games. Eldomtom2 (talk) 09:26, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose, as that is simply not the common name of the strike in reliable sources, even if true. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 08:28, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose as nominated. I agree with Masem's rationale re: SAG-AFTRA, and already put my thoughts above on the common name. No prejudice against adding "–17" to the date for accuracy. I don't think that part is controversial and I don't think there would be an issue if it needs to be moved again in 2018. czar 05:54, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

---

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.

2017 Agreement NPOV

The following line: "Specifically, the failure to come up with residual payment model was an issue, as the union cited "fanatical refusal" from the publishers." clearly violates NPOV as it seeks to portray one side of the dispute as unreasonable with the use of weasel words. The fact that the word in general was taking from a SAG-AFTRA rep and used as a statement of fact within the article demonstrates a clear bias. This should be corrected. MLcausey (talk) 13:59, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

That sentence needs to be read with the preceeding sentence that starts "Voice actors..." as this then implies that the sentence in question is specifically from the viewpoint of the voice actors, and not an attempt to neutrally describe the negotiations. Masem (t) 16:13, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

The preceding sentence fails to add any context that would not make this a violation of NPOV. The section should be outlining the terms of the agreement in a neutral manner. The viewpoints should only be presented within the context of how each party reacted to the agreement and should certainly not be using intentionally inflammatory rhetoric provided by one party to describe the other. MLcausey (talk) 02:43, 5 September 2023 (UTC)