Talk:League of Legends#bloat)

{{edit semi-protected|League of Legends|answered=yes}}

The page notes 160 champions in the game as of 2023 - nearing the end of 2024, we are up to 168. Perhaps this can be updated more than yearly? Wording update to "as of last edit"? PlanQueue (talk) 00:07, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

:{{done}}, thanks. The cited source had already updated their article with the 168 figure, so I updated ours. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 14:09, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

{{edit semi-protected|League of Legends|answered=yes}}

Within the revenue model section, addition of an [https://www.leagueoflegends.com/en-au/news/game-updates/dev-exalted-skins-the-mythic-shop-and-nexus-finishers/ additional skin tier], named "exalted", introduces expensive "luxury goods" priced far above the usual skin value tiers addressed. PlanQueue (talk) 00:36, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

:{{done}} I was able to find a secondary RS, added a sentence. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 14:31, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

{{Edit semi-protected|League of Legends|answered=yes}}

as of 5.11.2024 league of legends has 169 champions, the latest release being ambessa. the source given in the footnote has not yet been updated

77.127.217.246 (talk) 15:40, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

:200 118.172.233.146 (talk) 07:21, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

{{reftalk}}

:File:Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Shadow311 (talk) 22:16, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

:X 118.172.233.146 (talk) 07:22, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

:: Additionally, this IP is incorrect. The latest release was Mel, who was the 170th champion. The article is at FA status and there is a higher barrier for source quality, and I have been unable to find a high-quality source stating this. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 13:10, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Onemillionthtree, "video game" is widely used parlance in English. You might want to consider raising the matter at WT:VG? Trying to enforce your preference on a single article seems a bit unreasonable, especially on one that's been through a fair amount of content assessment processes (i.e., FA), but I'd support the change with some stronger consensus behind it. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 17:46, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:So will go with this discussion VG (CG). "your preference" vs. "widely used parlance" - I agree many / most / everyone (I don't know the percentage of people) would know "video game" - and in other usages words became identifiers / word-locators of things/realities (I can't think of an example at this time) without the literal application of the exact word to the thing - but that here and in other areas non exact words are used could only be the same as Einstein thinkings on [https://www.azquotes.com/author/4399-Albert_Einstein/tag/stupidity human stupidness] so it would be futile to make everyone into Einstein - if most people don't think of the reality video cannot equal computer (guess: more creative writers / poets than physicists in "widely"). Let's look at the different permutations. I look at my computer it has LoL installed - there is no video insert...(except) "widely used" (so I look for a video) ...I have a video in another room - no possible insert (I've never tried) into computer - video is a meaningless usage (misdirection in - repeat error: because...[https://www.nintendoworldreport.com/forums/index.php?topic=32198.0 Why's it called that (video game etymology)] (www.nintendoworldreport.com): "Lots of things in video games have weird names for no reason." - would be like trying to convince people who aren't ruled by reason - the reason for some thing / change. This is one reason (i.e. Einstein - of which there was only one) I think extraterrestrial aliens would be better ruling planet Earth - because they're less stupid. I do understand the importance of consensus though. (𒌋*𓆏)𓆭 18:59, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:If I think: human consciousness maybe began with cave paintings - like Lascaux - it wasn't for creativity that the animals aren't realistic - it's because they didn't have the skill / knowledge - this is what humans are rooted into - like an identifier - being stupid. Perhaps in a thousand years try and make this change - by that time evolution will have made the necessary adaptions to this (terrestrial - terrorfyingly stupid=not interstellar thinking/travelling) species. I pass the torch of enlightenment like an Olympic athlete: computers aren't videos. If I save E I get mc (squared) I'll tell myself this - not waste my time=energy. (𒌋*𓆏)𓆭 19:39, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

::What... are you talking about? As far as Wikipedia is concerned, the common term is video game. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 19:47, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Yes - I realized subsequently while out walking - "video" could be Latin and infact it is: [https://www.etymonline.com/word/video Video - Etymology, Origin & Meaning] - so now I'm of the opposite opinion - this is because: computing is a numerical operation so it cannot possibly be "computer game". The answer of your question: I was thinking through what I should do as a response of: "You might want to consider raising the matter at WT:VG?" 17:46 - if it would be a worthwhile / good idea ... brainstorming - like an actual storm the thoughts go back and forwards blown in different directions: rough weather / thinking through roughly whether I should - I convinced myself I shouldn't which wasn't very easy as I was certain before the opposite direction.(𒌋*𓆏)𓆭 23:12, 23 June 2025 (UTC)