Template talk:Resident Evil

The list of main games in the series contradicts the definition on RE's own website.

I just took another look at the official Resident Evil website and found that Requiem is explicitly described by Capcom as the 9th main series entry. Should we now remove all but the numbered games from the "main series" column? Solaire the knight (talk) 22:47, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

What to do about Code: Veronica and Zero

For some time, there has been a low-profile dispute with how we handle Resident Evil – Code: Veronica and Resident Evil Zero that I think should be discussed. Should these two games be listed alongside numbered entries in Template:Resident Evil and List of Resident Evil media as major releases? While the "...is the -nth main game..." phrasing in certain Resident Evil articles often prompts this debate, lets keep that issue to those articles to avoid overcomplicating this discussion.

The dispute has seen renewed interest recently because journalists and notably Capcom themselves are calling the upcoming Resident Evil Requiem the "ninth mainline game" in the series, implying that Code: Veronica and Zero are effectively not "mainline" releases.

I am of the opinion that these two games should be listed alongside the numbered entries as major releases (or "main" games, if you will). Consider the following:

• IGN lists out all RE games in this article and indicates with an asterisk which are mainline, includes Zero and Code: Veronica
• IGN calls Code: Veronica the "fourth mainline" game here
• USAToday includes Zero and Code: Veronica in their list of "mainline Resident Evil games"
• Eurogamer calls both Zero and Code: Veronica "mainline"
• Code: Veronica was possibly considered as a numbered entry (Resident Evil – Code: Veronica#Development)
• Zero is sort of a numbered entry?
• The games have all other qualities of major releases (full-length, non-episodic survival horror games with key series plot points)

I can't find many sources directly calling Code: Veronica and Zero spin-offs or sidestorys, though it could be my confirmation bias. But I really feel people are only coming to that conclusion indirectly via comments about Requiem's numbered status. I think Capcom and journalists intend to only inform that it's the next major entry in a series which has been fully numbered since RE4 twenty years ago, not to demote earlier games. Both Code: Veronica and Zero were released between RE3 and RE4 when the series was about five years old. It seems people are equating "numbered release" = "mainline" = "major release" as all meaning the same thing when there's some nuance here.

Pinging individuals who discussed this at Requiem's page: @Solaire the knight: @Popcornfud: @TheDeviantPro: @Ahriman the Exile: @TheHumanIntersect: Thoughts? TarkusAB^talk/contrib 00:11, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for doing this survey of the sources, that's really helpful and it's where we have to start.

I don't think we should care if a name has a number at the end. If sources report a game as a main entry (or "mainline" entry, to use the jargon) entry that's all that matters, not whether its title contain a number.

The problem is that sources contradict each other. Multiple sources describe Zero and Veronica as main entries. But multiple sources also describe Resident Evil Village and Resident Evil Requiem (not to mention Capcom) as the eighth and ninth main RE games, and that cannot logically be true if we also count Zero and Veronica.

We need to find a way to resolve this while keeping things concise and readable. Popcornfud (talk) 00:40, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

I 100% agree with 0 and Code Veronica being main entries. CV especially as the story to 5 makes no sense without it. It appears Capcom has tried to avoid confusion for new players in later years by saying "Main" and "Mainline" when discussing numbered entries only. There has also been a long time speculation that there was some animosity toward the team that made CV, as they were separate from the core team. So getting straight answer's directly from Capcom employees or spokesman is near impossible as they would just rather avoid the topic altogether. It's also difficult to track down all the instances where what's main and what's not have been discussed as we're pulling from sources 20+ years old. Ahriman the Exile (talk) 02:05, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

As you've said, CV and Zero have largely been considered mainline since their release, and it has only really become a debate since Village; Capcom dropped the numbers from the official title so they use "Xth mainline entry" to effectively say "this is RE8/RE9", it's the same reason the VIII is highlighted in Village's logo and the logo briefly changes to RE9 in Requiem's trailers.

Perhaps we could move the "commonly known as Resident Evil 8/9" bits out from the notes into those pages' lead sections, and then call them the 10th & 11th mainline games? For example...

Resident Evil Requiem, also known as Resident Evil 9, is an upcoming survival horror game developed and published by Capcom. It is the eleventh main game in the Resident Evil series, following Resident Evil Village (2021).

...Or something along those lines? TheHumanIntersect (talk) 02:12, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

That would directly contradict what multiple sources say about Evil and Requiem. Popcornfud (talk) 02:13, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

True. Is it actually even necessary to include "it is the Xth entry" in the first place? I know most game articles do it, but I can't find anything mentioning it in MOS:VG, and just omitting it would avoid this discussion coming up repeatedly. TheHumanIntersect (talk) 02:27, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Yep, the same thought occurred to me. It might work. Popcornfud (talk) 02:29, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Alternatively, we could follow the lead of several Fire Emblem pages (e.g. Fire Emblem Awakening) and just include a note about the numbering conflict. TheHumanIntersect (talk) 02:31, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

This is also a solid idea and has squashed a lot of Fire Emblem debate as a result. Ahriman the Exile (talk) 02:33, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

I agree. It may not please the more argumentative posters, but it would remove the need for the discussion to be had at all. Ahriman the Exile (talk) 02:32, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

The problem is that this conflict exists exclusively among the fan community and the media that share its opinion, while Capcom itself ignores it. We risk creating original research by elevating the significance of a secondary opinion to the level of original positioning.Solaire the knight (talk) 02:36, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Case in point. Ahriman the Exile (talk) 02:48, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

I didn't quite understand what you meant, but I specifically looked at the Japanese Wikipedia and it looks like they just list the games by release date, ignoring the concept of a "main series", simply mentioning that after the release of CV, the numbering of the games no longer corresponds to the order of the games' release. Solaire the knight (talk) 02:52, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Thirded to finding a way to eliminate the numberings. (I didn't mean for this discussion to go back to this topic, but I'm OK with it. I guess it's needed). TarkusAB^talk/contrib 09:49, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Regardless of our attitude towards this, Capcom considers only numbered games to be the main series. Solaire the knight (talk) 09:59, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Not going to read all of this messages but Zero and Code Veronica are canon, thus it should be included at the main list. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 12:48, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

We're not discussing whether they're canon or not. Revelation and Outbreak are also canon. But they're not mainline games. Solaire the knight (talk) 14:46, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Code Veronica and Zero are mainline entries. Them not being numbered as Resident Evi 4 and 5, respectively, doesn't change that. And with Zero being a prequel, how else could it be numbered if not 0? As Resident Evil -1? Is Assassin's Creed Brotherhood not the 3rd mainline entry in the franchise just cause it's not-numbered? Various sources clearly indicate that both CV & 0 are treated as mainline entries; not to mention Wesker's storyline in RE5 doesn't make sense if one hasn't played through/taken into consideration Code Veronica.--PanagiotisZois (talk) 01:23, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Only the official positioning of the creators themselves matters. And we have secondary sources that Capcom officially lists the game as the ninth main game in the series. The rest is original research based on secondary sources. I find the assertion that numbers mean nothing rather odd. We can claim that various sources expand the definition of the main series beyond Capcom's own, but ignoring the creators' own opinions in favor of the preferred opinions of secondary sources unaffiliated with the developers borders on a conflict of interest. Solaire the knight (talk) 02:14, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

That's totally backwards. Wikipedia is based primarily on reliable secondary sources. Incorporating information from reliable secondary sources isn't original research, it's the very thing Wikipedia is built on. See WP:SECONDARY. Popcornfud (talk) 02:18, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes, but it also shouldn't reach the point of absurdity when you suggest ignoring the official positioning of games by the developers themselves in favor of widespread beliefs among the gaming community. So what next? Should we remove the number 9 from the title because secondary sources ignore the game's official positioning? And yes, secondary sources have already quoted Capcom's press release stating that this is the ninth game in the main series, so that argument is pointless. Solaire the knight (talk) 02:24, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Right, so let's put aside any debate about what Capcom says as a WP:PRIMARY source. It's a distraction and it's irrelevant when multiple secondary sources have said the same thing. Popcornfud (talk) 02:27, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

We're currently in an absurd situation where you can't say water is wet until a chemist tells you so. But even if we're not joking, why does this topic even exist? As we've discovered, secondary sources already mention that this is the ninth game in the main series. We could write in an article about the series that various sources often expand on the main series more than Capcom themselves, but that's secondary opinion, not official fact. Solaire the knight (talk) 02:33, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

The problem is that secondary sources contradict each other about what counts as "main" RE entries. Popcornfud (talk) 02:34, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

This contradiction is an illusion. There are sources that cite Capcom's official positioning and sources that cite popular fan opinion. It's some strange version of Death of the Author, where first you need a secondary source retelling the author's press release, and then you ignore the author altogether in favor of secondary information in secondary sources. Solaire the knight (talk) 02:38, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes, that's how it works. Popcornfud (talk) 02:52, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Can you quote the rules that clearly and without any room for interpretation say that if a secondary source contradicts the primary official source, then we must use the secondary one? Solaire the knight (talk) 02:55, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

I don't think there's a rule that secondary sources always trump primary sources. However, primary sources are only good for uncontroversial, easily verifiable information. Anything else needs secondary sources. WP:PRIMARY says "any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation" and "do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. WP:PRIMARYCARE is supplemental to this idea. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 09:30, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

We literally have an official website and an official press release about Requiem's ​​announcement, which states it's the ninth game in the main series. And even if we wanted to double-check, we have secondary sources that cite this. What more do we need? The sources you cited simply cite popular fan opinion without providing any source or justification. Of course, these are still authoritative sources, so we can point out that a broader classification exists unofficially, but for obvious reasons, it can't replace the official one. Solaire the knight (talk) 09:59, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Capcom has never said that Code: Veronica and Zero are spin-offs. You read that they called Requiem the ninth game, then counted backwards. That is original synthesis / interpretation of a primary source on a controversial topic. Secondary sources, which I linked at the beginning, say directly and without interpretation that CV and Zero are main games in the series. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 10:16, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

That's just casuistry. They called Requiem the ninth game in the main series, and we wrote about it. The rest is original research. We're writing an encyclopedia based on sources, not on a personal desire to advance certain theses. These secondary sources have no connection to the developers of the original franchise and, judging by the lack of argumentation or explanation, simply repeat the common opinion among RE fans. Solaire the knight (talk) 10:20, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

UPD: Here's one Japanese source that says "since then, 8 numbered games and many spin-offs have been released". Famitsu simply refers to Requiem several times as "the new, ninth installment in the series," without mentioning any spin-offs or the total number of major games released. Tellingly, both sources are found in a Japanese article, which, without proper footnotes, claims there are 11 main games." Solaire the knight (talk) 03:02, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Vote

Based on the conversation thus far, here are the paths forward I see:

• Option A: Omit CV and Zero from main games lists in the template and media list. Use the game numbers as the -nth designator when not in the game's title as with Village and Requiem:

Example: Resident Evil Requiem is an upcoming survival horror game developed and published by Capcom. It is the ninth main game in the Resident Evil series, following Resident Evil Village (2021).

• Option B: Include CV and Zero in main games lists in the template and media list. Omit -nth designators but include unobfuscated "also known as" writing to deliniate the canonical number when not clear as with Requiem and Village:

Example: Resident Evil Requiem, also known as Resident Evil 9, is an upcoming survival horror game developed and published by Capcom. It is a main game in the Resident Evil series, following Resident Evil Village (2021).

• Option C: Same as option B, but add a footnote to explain numbering discrepancy:

Example: Resident Evil Requiem, also known as Resident Evil 9, is an upcoming survival horror game developed and published by Capcom. It is a main game (footnote: It is the ninth numbered but eleventh main game) in the Resident Evil series, following Resident Evil Village (2021).

• Option D: Same as option B, but use an -nth designator that accounts for CV and Zero.

Example: Resident Evil Requiem, also known as Resident Evil 9, is an upcoming survival horror game developed and published by Capcom. It is the eleventh main game in the Resident Evil series, following Resident Evil Village (2021).

• Option E (added by silviaASH): Split the difference between option D and option C, noting that Requiem is the eleventh main game, but having a footnote saying it is the ninth numbered main game.

Example: Resident Evil Requiem, also known as Resident Evil 9, is an upcoming survival horror game developed and published by Capcom. It is the eleventh main game (footnote: It is the ninth numbered but eleventh main game overall) in the Resident Evil series, following Resident Evil Village (2021).

Please vote below. If I missed an option, feel free to add above.

• Option B seems like the best compromise. I disagree fundementally with A, and I don't like options C or D because few sources are actually calling Reqiuem the "eleventh main game", or RE4 the "sixth game" and so on. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 20:26, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

As I wrote above, we could simply mention the major games, singling out spin-offs like Revelation or Outbreak separately. This would spare us the risk of original research and the casuistic debate surrounding it. I'm against point B, because by adding games that aren't considered main by Capcom itself, you're unilaterally questioning the games' ordering, which is confirmed by both secondary and primary sources. Biohazard and The Village are the 7th and 8th installments in the series, whether anyone likes that or not. The same applies to Requiem. At the very least, we could create one series for the main numbered series and an additional "extended" series for Zero and Veronica. At most, we'll list them in parentheses, as they were released as a prequel and a continuation of the original trilogy. Solaire the knight (talk) 20:47, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

You are starting to bludgeon. Every conversation thread here ends with your comment and you are repeating the same points. If you have something to say, write it above the vote section. I don't desire to engage with you anymore on this. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 21:25, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

I view B or C as the exact definition of compromise in this instance and either of those 2 have my vote. Additionally, however this goes, the majority should have it and this issue should be put to rest without further argument or escalation. Ahriman the Exile (talk) 20:52, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

A compromise version cannot contain an unsubstantiated statement that borders on original research and also contradicts official sources. At worst, we could write "a major game in the series as a whole." That really seems like a conflict of interest. Capcom doesn't consider the game simply a "numbered game." They literally consider only the numbered games to be the main series. Solaire the knight (talk) 20:56, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Ypur opinion is noted. My vote stands. Ahriman the Exile (talk) 20:58, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Consensus is not achieved by simple voting. Solaire the knight (talk) 21:00, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue with you. Ahriman the Exile (talk) 21:11, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

• Option B for myself as well. I'm not sure why on Wikipedia people need to know something is the "nth" film/game/book in a series. Most writing on media rarely discusses things in this this format, and when it does, its something that would easily be citable (i.e: the nth actor to portray James Bond or Dr. Who). With things as transmedial as Resident Evil, its not done as much. As for questioning a games ordering, I don't see this as a problem unless people are trying to follow the games from how they were released sequentially (which the article Resident Evil covers) or based on overarching narrative (which the main article also covers). Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:01, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

  This is significant because a) the creators themselves number it, to highlight the games that define the main game series b) the next game will be the 10th, and increased interest in the 9th as an anniversary game in terms of release time and a pre-anniversary game before the release of the anniversary 10th game in terms of number was widely covered in the press against the backdrop of the events announced by Capcom and a significant stage in the series. And if we're so unimportant about official categorization, then why does everything still hinge on designating certain games as the main line of games at any cost? Capcom denies this, and if we don't write that RE9 is the ninth game in the main series due to the lack of consensus, then why should we make an exception for RE0 and RECV, on the contrary, including them? If the purpose of this is to try to bypass the discussion of the desired order in the sources and indirectly conclude it with a template, then in that case I will put this as a separate discussion. Solaire the knight (talk) 14:40, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

  Perhaps I'm looking at it the wrong way, but we honestly even the main Resident Evil article does not denote what is or is not a "main game" in the franchise other than they are placed in bold, but not backed up by anything. I don't see how the anniversaries market anything other than a birthday either. Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:41, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

  The next, ninth game, is being released during the franchise's anniversary year, so it's being heavily promoted both as part of the overall anniversary and in preparation for the release of the 10th game. Even if we ignore that Capcom themselves highlight the numbered games as the main series of games within the franchise, their focus on the franchise's anniversary and the upcoming 10th anniversary game still remains the focus. But beyond that, the problem is that even if we ignore the nuances of "main series" and simply refer to "major projects," we still run into the fact that the current official categorization ignores Code Veronica and Zero, not considering them major games in the series. It's similar to so-called political amalgams, where we include a non-obvious bill in one that is obviously going to pass, thus avoiding debate around it. So, I once again call for a direct discussion of this, but my suggestions to describe the categorization issues in a separate section or to analyze sources to further look at the essence of the problem are simply ignored in favor of voting as an easy way to achieve the desired result. Solaire the knight (talk) 22:57, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

  • "Even if we ignore that Capcom themselves highlight the numbered games as the main series of games within the franchise"
  • " the fact that the current official categorization ignores Code Veronica and Zero"

  Ignoring what? Can you offer a quote/source on this? because otherwise I'm not sure where we are coming from with this. Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:36, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

  I've cited several times, more than three or four times, that Capcom considers only the numbered games to be the main Resident Evil franchise. I even cited the official English-language Resident Evil Requiem website, which calls the game "the ninth mainline game in the series." This includes the extensive comments below, which you and others blatantly ignored. Please read them. So you don't have to claim later that you haven't seen anything and know nothing about anything. Solaire the knight (talk) 01:45, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

  The link you shared does share that that Eurogamer states that in a trailer for the game it does state that "Resident Evil Requiem is the highly anticipated ninth title in the mainline Resident Evil series." I consider taking a one off promotional blurb quoted from a single trailer as not really holding a lot of ground." Let's say we are coming at it from the angle of someone who knows nothing about this series at all. What is "mainline"? what are the other games? I feel attributing to how we organize this material in this to be undue weight. Are there any more in-depth sources that go into the series in a grander context? Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:43, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

  No. The link I provided directly quotes the official text from the official English-language website for Resident Evil Requiem. I've also quoted it below at your request. This is literally the content of the game's official announcement, which also serves as a cursory synopsis in official media. I don't know how they categorize these two games, but one thing is for sure: official sources and the secondary sources citing them only mention the numbered games, which speaks for itself. It's likely Capcom has completely forgotten about Code Veronica, as the official website only features the RE0 remaster, and previously released inside information suggests that Capcom has abandoned older games in favor of promoting remakes and remasters as supposedly "a more complete and superior experience." There are no sources with any analysis. I requested such sources from the OP at the very beginning, as the secondary sources they cited didn't provide any argumentation or sources beyond simply asserting in their guides that these games should be considered part of the main series (which led me to the conclusion that they were simply repeating popular fan opinion without any questions or analysis). But I didn't even get any kind of refusal or objection, my request was ignored by the OP and the users supported him, first in favor of continuing the formal repetition that "secondary sources are as valid as primary ones", and then, when that didn't work, in favor of a clean vote that ignored the questions I raised about the sources altogether. As a result, as you can see, even sources that claim in their guides that RE0 and RECV are supposedly part of the main series still cite Capcom's official press release, which says that there are only 9 games in the main series. I don't know if this is being intentionally ignored, or if OP and others simply didn't bother to research it in the first place like you before, but all this suggests is that we need to thoroughly research the sources and discuss this instead of ignoring the real situation and participating in a one-sided vote. Solaire the knight (talk) 03:09, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

  The source is a single sentence and hardly in depth. For all we know, they could be saying that because in a press kit, they probably don't want to get into intricies about why/how a title with something called "Zero" fits. Your arguments are all "maybe this, or maybe that". I think i've read the sources you've told me, but nothing is here is convincing me of that and I think as you said earlier, the conversation is another kettle of fish. As you aren't addressing my concerns, I can't really weigh in further with you on the topic. I hope you understand. Andrzejbanas (talk) 03:55, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

  This "single sentence" is more than enough to understand what's being discussed. And most importantly, it's an official source, widely cited by secondary sources. We don't need a full interview with the developers or a Capcom-sponsored documentary to understand that "the ninth game is the ninth game in the main series" means there are nine games in the main series. This is not rocket physics or ancient philosophy. Your argument are all "I don't like it, so I'll convince myself it's not true." Sorry, but that's not serious. Why exactly they excluded Zero is already a secondary question (the same “maybe this, maybe that” that you talked about), which does not cancel the very fact that they excluded it. I hope you understand. Solaire the knight (talk) 04:13, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Since they have been part of this conversation I'm curious on what @Popcornfud @TheHumanIntersect and @PanagiotisZois think about the voting idea. Ahriman the Exile (talk) 15:04, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

This should have been asked at the very beginning. Because, in essence, the OP didn't discuss or consult with anyone about the content of the options, simply drafting them at their own discretion based on their first attempt at discussion. In other words, we're essentially re-discussing the same topic, but this time under the OP's conditions. The issue is not trivial and options that suggest ignoring the issue of sources through voting only make it worse. Solaire the knight (talk) 15:22, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

I disagree completely, the vote was a logical place to start. Additionally we are not ignoring sources, we're considering all sources as a whole, primary and secondary. I'm not sure why you feel compelled to reply to every comment here, but you've made your opinion very clear. Repeatedly. To the point that it now feels like bludgeoning. I'm trying to get the opinion of other editors to gain consensus. Ahriman the Exile (talk) 15:37, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

The issue under discussion is too opaque and complex to be resolved by a simple vote. Moreover, we don't need to "start" anything with this. The OP already opened a more detailed discussion above, but for some reason stopped it when we began to analyze the issue he raised in more depth Especially when all the proposed options were drafted by the OP without any consultation with others. Already compromise option ignores sources, since it relegates games that Capcom ignores to the category, while simultaneously removing their opinions from articles. So, by choosing this option, you're essentially voting on whether you'll consider official sources and the secondary sources that cite them. If you need an example of non-obviousness, just look at this quote from The Gamer, which the OP previously cited as supposed proof of his point: "We have our direct entries that no one would argue about, Resident Evil 1 through Village. That comprises eight mainline games. If you're willing to be a bit more lenient (as this article you're reading is), then we can count Code Veronica and Resident Evil Zero. That brings us up to 10 mainline entries.". Consensus in such non-obvious cases that require detailed study should be achieved through discussion and healthy debate based on rules, rather than pure voting, which in fact creates the risk of substituting consensus on a complex issue for a superficial vote. Solaire the knight (talk) 15:51, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

There is nothing opaque or complex about it. In fact it's incredibly simple. You're just arguing wording at this point. No information changes by stating that Requiem is the next main/big game in the series. It does however change, and resolve, this foolish argument. Curiously you recently changed the wording of Code Veronica on the other Resident Evil page to the literal exact thing we're talking about here. I find that interesting. Ahriman the Exile (talk) 15:42, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

You recently accused me of arguing for the sake of arguing, so please refrain from doing the same yourself. Simply saying "you're wrong" without responding to my arguments adds nothing to our discussion (I wrote a long post, but you tried to refute it with a banal denial of the first sentence and nothing more). I've raised certain points and argued them, citing references I consider important. If you consider them incorrect, please provide sufficient counterarguments. If there are none, then we have nothing to discuss. P.S. Personally, I find it more interesting that you, in turn, haven't made a single edit to the articles related to the series, and judging by your edit history, you registered an account solely to participate in these discussions. Solaire the knight (talk) 15:55, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

I said that because you are writing these overly long, overly complicated comments, replying to every single person, and just saying the same things. Then instead of having a little self awareness and taking a step back to reevaluate, you immediately jump into No You. The discussion is about the wording. Why do you keep trying to over complicate and redirect it? Ahriman the Exile (talk) 16:03, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

I once again warn you about the inadmissibility of personal insinuations instead of discussing the matter at hand. I don't want to repeat our previous discussion on ANI, but if you continue making such comments, I will have no other choice. Solaire the knight (talk) 16:08, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Solaire. I'm not making this personal and I'm not trying to insinuate anything. I'm genuinely, with every fiber of my being, trying to reach a consensus that everyone here appears to have agreed upon in some fashion except for yourself. Ahriman the Exile (talk) 16:14, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

I ask you for the last time to discuss my arguments, not my personality, and to avoid making any hints or insinuations about my behavior. Especially when you yourself previously complained about the empty discussion. This will be the only reasonable solution if you truly want to reach some kind of consensus with me. If you just want to have a heart-to-heart talk, then the article discussion is not the place for it and I will ignore further such messages. Solaire the knight (talk) 16:19, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Done. Check your talk page. Ahriman the Exile (talk) 16:38, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

You blanked the talk pages discussion without trying to discuss things at all. Would you like to go ahead and escalate this to the admins or would you like me to? Ahriman the Exile (talk) 20:22, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

A user has the right to delete messages from their discussion page if they've made it clear they've read them. Which I've done explicitly. But if you truly intend to continue to harass me, constantly seeking my response to comments about my personality and behavior, then I will indeed address admins. This is my final response to you. Solaire the knight (talk) 20:34, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

I never said you couldn't delete the comment, I clarified that it had been done. Additionally this is not harassment in the slightest. I'm literally following what you asked me to do. You instructed me to have the discussion about your conduct on your talk page, which I did. Then you chose to ignore it. I have followed policy and attempted to reason with you, which you have made clear you have no desire to do. Please go ahead and address the admins, as I would like to discuss it with them as well. Ahriman the Exile (talk) 20:44, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

My opinion is closest to Option C but instead of the footnote claiming outright that it's the eleventh main game, I think it should just explain the situation like in the Fire Emblem articles I mentioned earlier (e.g. Fire Emblem Awakening). Something like this:

Resident Evil Requiem, also known as Resident Evil 9, is an upcoming survival horror game developed and published by Capcom. It is a main game (footnote: Sources disagree on whether Code: Veronica and Resident Evil Zero are main entries, making Requiem either the ninth or eleventh main game.) in the Resident Evil series, following Resident Evil Village (2021).

Though additionally, I'll repeat that I don't think including "Xth entry" in the lead is needed at all in the first place.TheHumanIntersect (talk) 16:01, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

I've already proposed creating a separate section or footnote clarifying all categorization issues. Numerous times. But users have stubbornly ignored this in favor of continuing the debate over whether secondary sources should ignore Capcom's opinion, which, in my opinion, only complicates the search for consensus due to its subjectivity. But either way, I think, we still have to clarify that this is still officially the ninth game, in the main series or not, because otherwise it creates a paradox ("it's the ninth game, but maybe the creators are wrong"), which makes Capcom themselves and, indirectly, the article look silly. And again, this option creates a paradox, because even though we note in a footnote that there's no consensus on these two games, we unilaterally add them to the template as the main ones anyway. Without discussion or analysis of the sources. This seems like a loophole. Solaire the knight (talk) 16:13, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Seems you and I see it quite the same. I agree C seems to be the best, I don't believe it needs "Xth entry" and I like your re-wording of the footnote. Ahriman the Exile (talk) 16:28, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm afraid the debate has become too exhausting to follow. Popcornfud (talk) 18:15, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Because, like the original two or three discussions, it quickly became too personal and eventually went in circles again. Without detailed study and discussion of the source, as well as curation by a neutral third party user (administrator), any such discussion is stillborn. Solaire the knight (talk) 18:56, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

• To my mind there seem to be two major questions at play in this discussion. 1) Are Code Veronica and Zero main games that should be counted, and 2) If so, should it be clarified for readers that Requiem is in fact the eleventh main game, despite being numbered as RE9? I believe the answers to both questions is yes. To that end, I have added an Option E to the vote representing this stance, and I support option E as I believe that describing both opinions on where Requiem stands in the "main series" should be represented, with precedence given to how secondary sources describe the main series. silviaASH (inquire within) 23:01, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

  In that case, it would directly contradict the entire official numbering system, including the official press release and its cited sources. Similar proposals have been made before, and even the OP himself, despite his enthusiasm for these games, found them to be overly bold and lacking sufficient authority. This is clearly not obvious and goes beyond what can be resolved by a simple vote. Not to mention such "trivial" things as original research, as I have yet to see any sources that would objectively call Requiem the 10th or 11th game in the series, not to mention the fact that the game itself is officially numbered as the ninth. We genuinely need sources that research the topic and explain the motivation behind including Code Veronica and Zero in the official chronology, while simultaneously ignoring the official one, rather than simply sources casually naming certain games as "main" without any explanation (I've asked many times for at least 2-3 such sources, but so far all the secondary sources cited either also cited the official press release like IGN and EuroGamer, directly mentioning that this is a fan choise "broader version" like Gamer or didn't explain their words about other games in any way).Solaire the knight (talk) 23:11, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Once again about the source base

A new era of survival horror begins in 2026 with the ninth title in the mainline Resident Evil series. Technological advancements combined with the development team's depth of experience combine in a story with rich characters and gameplay that's more immersive than ever before.

— Official English website

So, I re-examined the sources cited in support of the alternative categorization after making the boldest proposals not only to include Code Veronica and Zero in the list, but even to conduct original research by changing the original numbers. A quick review revealed that NOT A SINGLE one of the cited sources explains the logic behind declaring these games mainline in any way. They don't even cite the source of this categorization. They simply state it as some kind of generally accepted fact without any argument. I won't even mention that 99% of these sources will lead you not to some kind of analytical articles, but to superficial guides at the level of "what order to play in" or "the best games in the series." Furthermore, most of the cited sources (IGN, EuroGamer, and Gamer, which I cited, along with the Japanese sources below) either cite Capcom's official press release, which directly calls Requiem "the ninth game in the mainline series," effectively demonstrating that this is the official targeting and that they either have no specific position or that their categorization was the journalists' personal opinion (In fact, you can easily find a bunch of other sites by quoting this press release). That leaves only USAToday, which, firstly, isn't a gaming publication, and secondly, also advocates counting remakes as entirely separate games, which makes their method even more specific. So, what are we even talking about here, and how long are we going to pretend that the secondary source base promoted by the OP and the user group is large and detailed enough to compete equally with the originals and the official sources cited in those secondary sources? Or maybe someone will finally please me with a source that thoroughly explores and explains this issue, something I've been waiting for for a long time without success? And no, speculation like "zero is also a number" and "Code Veronica was originally a rejected plan for a second game" isn't sufficient. By the same token, we can include the first Devil May Cry, too; it was also a RE game in the planning stages. If rules and their enforcement are truly so important to us all, then maybe we shouldn't forget that according to them, controversial and non-obvious things require additional sources. Right? Solaire the knight (talk) 00:00, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

P.S. A couple of weeks ago, a various sites claimed that Capcom allegedly admitted to wanting to position modern remakes/modern games in the series as the most complete and superior experience from the series, so I wouldn't be surprised if, at least until some updates about the rumored remakes of Zero and CV (If they happen, it will also be interesting to see how Capcom will position them), Capcom officially ignores any games before the original RE4. Solaire the knight (talk) 00:27, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Characters vs. Monsters

Something I was wondering is the distinction between the "Characters" and "Monsters" sections of the template. A figure like Jill or Leon being included in the former while Zombies and the Tyrants are listed under the latter makes sense. While talking about individual Tyrants, both Mr. X and Nemesis are speechless "monsters" that are only encountered as enemies.

But what about Lady Dimitrescu? She is capable of human speech and communicating with Ethan and others. Granted, she's only ever encountered as an enemy in the game, but in that case, shouldn't the Baker family listed under the "Monsters" section as well? With the exception of Zoe, all of the Bakers are enemies that stalk Ethan and he has to fight them (or Chris, in Lucas' case). PanagiotisZois (talk) 13:26, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

I think it would be easier to call this category "opponents" or "enemies" to avoid such confusion. Solaire the knight (talk) 15:32, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Suggestion to lock template

People keep adding Zero and Code Veronica to the "Mainline games" section even if the discussion isn't settled yet. I suggest locking the template temporarily towards registrered users, at least. ~2026-16603-18 (talk) 15:59, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

There is no "mainline" section here. After several discussions, a compromise was reached to change the name to "major original releases" and keep there games that were original and released as major titles. Solaire the knight (talk) 18:32, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

"Major original games"

Can't we just say "Mainline" and have the remakes portion as a sort of subsection in it? PanagiotisZois (talk) 12:00, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

No, because the term "major" was chosen as a compromise to avoid endless debates over what constitutes a mainline. And the line was chosen based on the principle "major releases that aren't remakes or spinoffs", not what considered mainline games. Otherwise, it would simply overturn the entire previous consensus and reignite this endless debate about defining a mainline. I gave you a link to the discussion on the basis of which this criterion was chosen, did you watch it? Solaire the knight (talk) 12:05, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

I think "original major" is fine, "major original" does come off a biased somehow. My two cents. I'll send you an invoice for my hard work here today. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 12:09, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Another option is (original) core or main games, but if you are satisfied with original major, I am happy. Solaire the knight (talk) 12:15, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

"Mainline" is gamer jargon and should be avoided per WP:JARGON. The same goes for "core". We need to use plain English. Popcornfud (talk) 12:25, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

So, do you think the "original major" should be left as the most universal option? Solaire the knight (talk) 12:39, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

No, it isn't going to be clear what is meant by "original". Our goal should be to make things simpler, not more complicated. I would propose "main series" as the most plain-English and understandable option. Popcornfud (talk) 12:46, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Agree. "Main series" would be the better option, while including the remakes as a subsection. alternatively, the remakes could be listed within a parenthesis like this: "Resident Evil 3: Nemesis (remake)". PanagiotisZois (talk) 12:52, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

It's subjective, but I think remakes are best left in their own niche, as they're visually simpler and we're still not sure if Capcom actually considers them new canon. Solaire the knight (talk) 12:58, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Do you suggest that this should be removed because adding a word based on discussion is too non-obvious to readers outside the community wiki? Regarding the main series, although I'm not sure how Code Veronica qualifies as such, Zero is clearly part of the main series as a prequel, so I suggest putting this option up for vote on the video game project page and then simply setting the chosen option in the template. Having just pointed out that although the current option is a consensus compromise, we decided to hold a vote between these options since the chosen criterion seems too non-obvious. So, either "major games" or "main series", right? I'm not suggesting "leaving the old version" as I understand many agree that the word "original" creates confusion. Solaire the knight (talk) 12:58, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

The question about which RE games are "main series" is a separate question, and has to be decided based on what sources say. It doesn't really have anything to do with what we call the "main series" in the template box here. Popcornfud (talk) 13:04, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting we resolve this, especially right now. I wanted to ask you to bring the issue of major games vs. main series into the project discussion, so that we don't end up rewriting the old consensus among just two or three of us. Plus, if we resolve this jointly, it will potentially reduce further attempts to unilaterally rename the column again. Or I will bring it up myself with your permission, indicating why this topic has come up again. Solaire the knight (talk) 13:11, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

I might be wrong, but didn't a user link to an image by Capcom themselves where they very much treated both Code: Veronica and 0 as part of the mainline entries? I remember that the image was quite recent, as it also included all four remakes, while also having a separate category for the two Revelations titles. PanagiotisZois (talk) 13:17, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

This image didn't have any clear context and was taken by one of the guests, so I don't think it could be used as an authoritative source. Especially considering that their own press release only mentioned nine games. But then again, I agree with the user that we can take the "main series" as a universal option and resolve this issue separately somewhere later. For example, we could create a section on the nuances of categorization if we have enough good sources, but not as part of the navigation template. The main thing now is to resolve the main issue. Solaire the knight (talk) 13:24, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

So, are we going to organize a vote? Or are you suggesting replace the current version with the "main series" right now? Solaire the knight (talk) 13:57, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

June 2026

What's the general preference for the first group header here: "Major original games" (or simply "Major original") as suggested by Solaire the knight and Johnn Francis, or "Main series" as proposed above by Popcornfud and PanagiotisZois? – Rhain ☔ ^he
_him 12:55, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

While main series would have my preference of those two, why wouldn't it be an option to not have a name in the field? It's the first listed, doesn't that communicate those are the main ones. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 13:04, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Good point—this is what it could look like, for those interested. – Rhain ☔ ^he
_him 13:42, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Honestly I think that'd be a better option; either that or "Main series". PanagiotisZois (talk) 15:10, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm happy with the current version, especially since I promoted a similar one, so I won't pursue this topic further. But I VERY IMPORTANTLY request that this endless saga of casuistic renamings, devaluing the previously reached consensus, or attempting to circumvent it, be stopped. This is truly becoming very alarming. Consensus isn't eternal, but that doesn't mean it can be overturned by anyone who doesn't like it with a few comments. Solaire the knight (talk) 16:25, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Popcornfud (talk) 18:44, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Done. – Rhain ☔ ^he
_him 21:17, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Result

You've once again made significant changes without waiting for any opinions other than those that agreed with you. But given that you were lucky and no one either had time or wanted to oppose you, and I simply don't want to get involved in this obsessive saga again, I think this can be formalized as a result. I hope that at least this will end and we won't see a seventh attempt to revise result based on someone else's personal opinion. Solaire the knight (talk) 22:15, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by agreed with you, since I didn't even propose this change to begin with. There was at least one opposing opinion (yours); I just saw the consensus clearly going one way. Anyone else is more than welcome to share their thoughts, and I'm more than willing to self-revert if others feel this discussion needs more time. – Rhain ☔ ^he
_him 22:22, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

I made no comment whatsoever on your proposal to delete the text entirely. Moreover, by explicitly agreeing to treat my example of disagreement as theoretical, you essentially confirmed it yourself. As well you mention that there was any consensus in the section, as you referenced different options in your first post, and it fizzled out halfway through after I proposed a vote to avoid further debates. That's why I pointed out that you're rushing to change the article as soon as someone agrees with your version, and that this could create misunderstandings. But then again, I have neither the time nor the inclination to discuss this again, as the trigger text has now been removed entirely, and I hope we won't have to debate yet another proposal to rewrite it for the seventh time. Solaire the knight (talk) 22:41, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

your proposal—again, it was not my proposal. You expressed your (real, not "theoretical") preference for "Major original", while all others seemed to prefer removing entirely, so I actioned the latter. Again, if others disagree or feel I have rushed to change, I urge them to say so. Thanks. – Rhain ☔ ^he
_him 22:52, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Do I really need to prove that favoring one option before you've even proposed a new one of your own can't be considered an automatic sign of disagreement with you? Especially in the absence of any clarification from me on this matter. Moreover, your response and actions themselves suggest you didn't see any objections from me. Solaire the knight (talk) 22:59, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what you're trying to say. Your comment seemed like an opposing opinion to me, though I may have misunderstood. Regardless, whether your comment was an explicit objection or not, my change followed the majority, however rushed it may have been. – Rhain ☔ ^he
_him 23:04, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

With such a short window of time, it's not surprising. But then again, you're wasting your time; I've summed it up on your version and the matter is settled. Solaire the knight (talk) 23:10, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

It already seemed settled to me, but thanks for summarising as well. – Rhain ☔ ^he
_him 23:14, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Full names of games or abbreviations

I ask everyone involved to reach a consensus on whether to use the full game names or abbreviated versions. I'm tired of seeing names being changed periodically, either one way or the other, or done arbitrarily, for example, replacing the names of unnumbered games with a single word. Naturally, this happens without consulting or discussing it. I won't advocate for one option or the other, I'm simply asking you to choose the only one. Of course, no slang or jargon, as has been stated repeatedly above. Solaire the knight (talk) 00:18, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

At the very least, it should probably be consistent; this version is a little confusing since Resident Evil 7: Biohazard is written in full, whereas Village and Requiem are shortened. I think using the full titles is a bit excessive; the shortened versions are much cleaner, in my opinion (or you could take a page from Kingdom Hearts's book and include years, but that seems unnecessary too). I understand Yeoutie's reasoning in this edit—full title if it's just a number, shortened if it has a subtitle—but I dislike the inconsistency; the shortened versions would be my pick (even if the single-character links aren't ideal for some) followed by full titles. – Rhain ☔ ^he
_him 02:01, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

I support using full game names. Wikipedia isn't paper, we can spare the space to alleviate confusion. I also commonly hear it referred to as "Resident Evil 3" for example, not "3: Nemesis", in fact "Nemesis" seems like an unpopular thing to call it in my experience. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:33, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Compare {{BioShock}}. The titles aren't shortened. There's the first, BioShock, the sequel, BioShock 2, and the third entry, BioShock Infinite. Shortening the sequel to 2 is a small character to see and/or click on. Shortening the third entry becomes an WP:EASTEREGG. Assume the general reader has no idea what BioShock is, if the third article listed by its subtitle, that suggests it's its actual title. Back to this navbox: Resident Evil has so many more entries. Numbered entries, with and without a subtitle, spin-offs with its own sequels, remakes, you name it. For consistency's sake, just use the full title every time. It's easier and doesn't require using Easter egg links. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 06:24, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

In the past, part of the debates stemmed from attempts to standardize the style according to the Silent Hill template. Perhaps people this time taking a cue from the Persona template, where games are also designed around numbers and keywords. Solaire the knight (talk) 07:54, 11 June 2026 (UTC)