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. I am no longer watching this page—ping if you'd like a response czar 22:40, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]


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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[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.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

SAG-AFTRA in title?

Currently, the phrase "SAG-AFTRA" appears in this article 50+ times, which most likely makes them the core of this article, and makes me think that the article title may not be WP:PRECISE enough. Even though there were other organizations supporting the strike, their influence on this article is limited to just 1 paragraph in the lead, which I don't think has enough leverage to prevent "SAG-AFTRA" from being in the title. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 00:39, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 20 March 2025

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: no consensus. While very little participation was present in the RM, I don't see how relisting it a fifth time is going to meaningfully change that result. I do not presently see consensus to move the article from the current title. The other editor commenting on the RM expressed concerns about the usage of SAG-AFTRA as part of the title. While the editor in question did not specifically mention it, this argument is consistent with the principles of WP:COMMONNAME, and thus with policy. (closed by non-admin page mover) EggRoll97 (talk) 01:25, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2016–2017 video game voice actor strike → 2016–2017 SAG-AFTRA video game strike2016–2017 SAG-AFTRA video game strike – See above for my argument. I am also fine with it moving to 2016-2017 SAG-AFTRA video game voice actor strike. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 01:49, 20 March 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 03:49, 12 April 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 17:25, 19 April 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 15:57, 26 April 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 03:14, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think using acronyms in titles is generally more confusing and the union's full name is rather lengthy. Also wouldn't it be SAG-AFTRA strike for video games? IgelRM (talk) 17:27, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Using SAG-AFTRA in the title would be the best way to convey what this article is about, given that the majority of the content is about SAG-AFTRA and its involvement in the strike. Also, this would follow WP:CONSISTENT too, given that both the 2023 strike and the ongoing strike has "SAG-AFTRA" in their titles. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 02:42, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Video games has been notified of this discussion. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 03:49, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting comment: Please... somebody else comment on my RM.... please.... Jeffrey34555 (talk) 03:14, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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.

The title of it is being the longest SAG-AFTRA strike ever is now disputable

Even though the 2024-2025 SAG-AFTRA video game strike significantly toned down strike activity in June 2025, the picketing only ceased under the guise of being "suspended" rather than officially over. Personally, I find that this can be interpreted as picketing still being free to continue if the deal failed. Unlike the 2016-2017 video game voice actor strike, workers in the 2024-2025 video game voice actor strike were also some able to picket for two days after the tentative deal was reached, which implied that picketing was still not forbidden by the terms which led to the deal. The picketing was in fact only "suspended," and not barred until the deal was approved for that strike. The 2024-2025 strike in fact lasted 348 days altogether. Since the "longest ever SAG-AFTRA strike" title for the 2024-2025 strike is disputable and not confirmed, I put in a compromise by claiming that the 2016-2017 was the longest such strike "at this point in time." MyGosh789 (talk) 18:20, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you take the period from onset of strike action to ratification of new agreement by members, this one lasted over a year, the recent one fell just short of a year. Masem (t) 18:36, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't cease officially in 2025 until the deal was ratified though. SAG-AFTRA voice actors were also somehow able to still picket for two days after that tentative deal was reached too.MyGosh789 (talk) 18:48, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The deal in 2925 was ratified on July 9, 11 months and some days after the strike was announced. Here, the strike started in October 2016 and the ratification happened in Nov 2017 with more than twelve between those dates. Same end points to measure by. Masem (t) 18:54, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The 2024-2025 strike, however, wasn't officially over until the deal was ratified.[1] The ability to return to work on June 11 was also somehow only regarded as a "strike suspension" rather and official end.[2] The end of the 2024-2025 strike was perhaps done in the same fashion as the 1945 Surrender of Japan, where, despite Emperor Hirohito declaring the war over, the end was not immediately official and could only be made official when the surrender terms were signed. Just like the official Surrender of Japan, it took longer time for the 2024-2025 video game voice actor strike to officially end.MyGosh789 (talk) 19:34, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unless we have sources that said the strike by the union officially went past July 9, a d not just a few straggling members continuing to strike on their own, we can't change that narrative. The union suspended the strike on June 11 when it got the new contract, but was officially ratified and the strike ended on July 9 with the members' vote. Masem (t) 19:45, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Never argued that it went past July 9. However, they didn't get the new contract until it was ratified, and it was still in tentative form on June 11. The strike was also only "suspended" and not officially over. The Surrender of Japan timeline is similar historical comparison. Some argue that the end of World War II's Pacific theater happened when Hirohito declared the war over, but the official V-J Day was not until the instrument of surrender was signed weeks later. Same with 2024-2025 video game strike.MyGosh789 (talk) 19:48, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
By July 9, the recent strike had the final contract and was ratified by members. That's the strikes end, whatever happened in June a prelude to that. So the strike ran from late July 2024 to July 9, 2025, a total of eleven months and change. Using the same events for this earlier one, the start of the strike action to the ratification of the new contract, was over 12 months. That's all straight forward. Masem (t) 19:58, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unlike the 2024-2025 strike though, SAG-AFTRA unfortunately opted to declare the 2016-2017 strike over two months in advance of the ratification though. They shouldn't have done that.MyGosh789 (talk) 20:23, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, going by the endpoints of "start of strike action" and "suspending strike", then yes, the latest strike was longer.
FWIW, i haven't touchee the addition you made and now that seems fair to keep since it does depend what you define as the strike endpoints. Masem (t) 20:44, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
allikas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2016%E2%80%932017_video_game_voice_actor_strike