![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
The title of this article should be changed to "Red Dead Redemption II" (Roman numeral 2) as the new trailer has shown. Games with similar names ( Kingdom Hearts II and Jak II) use the Roman numeral even when, in the case of Jak II, the next game uses Arabic numerals ( Jak 3). Tenbeat ( talk) 17:58, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Have just reverted a bold page move that either didn't know about or ignored the above consensus not to move without consensus. If it happens again a request for move protect may have to be mooted. - X201 ( talk) 07:37, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
All promotional material since the new trailer released Sept. 28 shows the game named "Red Dead Redemption II" not "Red Dead Redemption 2" that is the name of the game now. Snipershot325 ( talk) 08:11, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Hey editors, I have noticed that this page has not been updated regarding the second Red Dead Redemption 2 Trailer #2. This would be a good addition to the page. -- Miraclemitch ( talk) 15:49, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
WP does not encourage short sections, and at this point, with very little we can say about the plot beyond the character, timing, and setting, it should be combined with the gameplay as recommended by MOSVG. In time, once more about the overall story and/or gameplay elements, then the sections could be expanded. -- Masem ( t) 16:37, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
A short dev section is bad too, but in this case, the Release section should be presently inserted within it. If we didn't have the release section, and that's all that could be written on development, then yes, this entire article should just a be a stub article with no sections. -- Masem ( t) 13:43, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
{{ Unbulleted list}} (shorthand: {{ ubl}}) is a list template which is a son, daughter or other-gender child of its parent template {{ Plainlist}}. Let me explain from the very start. I used {{ubl}} here in this edit but it was reverted by User:Lordtobi in the shade of adding more descriptive alt in haste with clearly visible typo which breaks the template and didn't give any explanation for this. I reverted this with explanation and further expanded alt. He undid back with a clear nonsense reason of: template redirecting does not help anyone. Again I reverted this back with my good faith motive of concising the source code and asked him to be more specific. Instead of writing here, he showed up to my talk page boasting off his knowledge of WP policies and explained how I was illogical with my edits and tagged them as personal preference instead. I explained him back my reason of concising the source code and also gave an instance of how another editor did that. Again he came back with another policy in the lead and explained how my example was unrelated with the current discussion but in fact they were related with the matter. Again my edit was undone in the shade of removing caption. of concision. After which he posted a warning to my talk page. This led to edit war as seen by User:Anarchyte and finally to the protection of this page till May 6, 2018. Harsh Rathod Poke me! 11:33, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I agree with Lordtobi (who, by the way, is not required to "provide any specific detailed reason", because a) you have not done this either, and b) he is not attempting to change anything), simply because the change causes nothing, and isn't really improving anything besides personal preference. Even the argument that {{ ubl}} is "concise" is in poor standing; the difference of twelve characters is minimal. Continually breaking WP:3RR and ignoring WP:STATUSQUO certainly doesn't help your case either. – Rhain ☔ 14:52, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
I have re-protected the page as Lordtobi and Harshrathod50 resumed edit warring again. The only reason you both aren't being blocked is because you managed to fit it all into 75 minutes about six hours ago. Find a consensus or walk away, but consider this a warning for each of you. ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 15:35, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
It looks like that Harshrathod50 is still changing the Unbulleted list template without consensus after the page got unprotected. TheDeviantPro ( talk) 22:58, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
![]() |
I removed this entry because the dispute is between more than two editors. Consider opening a thread at WP:DRN. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 22:32, 14 May 2018 (UTC) |
[1] (I've already cited this in the article). Lots of details to expand out all sections. -- Masem ( t) 16:02, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Red Dead Redemption 2 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please incorporate IGN. 2A02:908:F35B:4FC0:1DCC:19EF:1B25:5C4A ( talk) 07:49, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
What's up with people editing the articly to state it will be available for Windows? If that is the case, surely there must be a reliable source that says so. Without a source, I don't see merit to including this statement. I'm all for a Windows version, but if turns out simply to not be true, it would be a big disservice to our readers to say it is. Digital Brains ( talk) 08:50, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
It seems like there has been an uptick in vandalism to this page the last few weeks and I can only see it getting worse the closer we get to release.
Perhaps it’s too soon, but I feel it may be time to apply semi or pending protection to the page. I don’t know how or if I can even do such actions so I was curious what the general opinion on the matter was. red sparta ••• talk to me 12:32, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Red Dead Redemption 2 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add Bill Williamson, Javier Escuella, Abigail Marston, and Jack Marston to the returning characters section. TheNicaraguan ( talk) 14:09, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
Such a blanket statement would appear to require considerably more sources than are provided. Furthermore, it smacks of weasel word. 67.80.188.124 ( talk) 05:08, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
Can I please get a consensus on when it's appropriate to use the term "minor criticism". In the article, I have used the term in respect of the complaints leveled against the game's controls, which is probably the biggest complaint against the game, yet remains a minority view as per the list of reliable sources I have come across. That, coupled with the fact all of the other major aspects of the game have received widespread praise (bar some comments about its "realism") have led me to label the criticism was "minor" in both the lead and Reception section. However, several anonymous users have contested this and reverted my edits specifically in Reception. Thoughts? Wikibenboy94 ( talk) 13:58, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
@ Wikibenboy94: I actually think the inclusion of minor criticism in the lede makes sense in this revision. The article is in a very different state than it was in November 2018, and the Reception section has two paragraphs dedicated to the criticism of the game's control scheme and player freedom (among its paragraphs demonstrating praise to story, characters, open world, graphics, music, and gameplay). In terms of weight, I think a brief sentence (or half-sentence) is warranted. – Rhain ☔ 23:26, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
I don't know if we can do much about this, or even if the whole thing's just sheer coincidence, but four times now an anonymous user or users with one of those really long random IP addresses has removed the paragraph detailing criticism of the game's controls (the criticism for the game's sense of authenticity on the other hand has always been ignored).
In each example, the user/users has given a comment along the lines of "This criticism is a minority view", "There are too few reviewers talking about this", or "These critics aren't reliable". In the second edit, the user began by saying "Again," and then gave their reason, despite it being a different IP address, leading me to believe it could be the same person. Also the third and fourth edit (the fourth being a revert) have been made by the same IP, but gave two different reasons for their removal of the prose (out of those example reasons I've given above).
Can we please keep an eye out for more of these. It seems very unlikely that we have two to three people simply copy-catting each other, and it always being the same paragraph removed is very suspicious. Wikibenboy94 ( talk) 00:14, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Should we make a mention of the controversy surrounding a player's killing of a suffragette in various ways, or is it not worth it? Wikibenboy94 ( talk) 13:24, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Be WP:BOLD. Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 11:03, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Was any kind of criticism leveled at the developers or the game itself in regards to this "controversy"? If not, I question how this one-among-a-million case of someone doing something dumb in a video game on YouTube is at all relevant to the game itself. Spartan198 ( talk) 01:43, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
What was the decision made to list this controversy? The controversy has to do with a YouTube user posting objectionable content that was produced within RDR2 - is there going to be a "controversy" section posted in every Wiki entry of the tools used to create the Objectionable content? For example, "The Samsung S20 was used to film police beating protesters in 2020..." would seem to be an absurd thing to list under a Wikipedia entry about the Samsung S20. It's like the Wikipedia editors were looking for some sort of controversy since RDR2 was made by the same company that makes the GTA series. Its just not a logically defensible controversy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.30.197.215 ( talk) 16:55, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
I believe there's no reason to label the plot summary as excessively detailed or too long; it is a sixty-hour story after all, [1] so has reason to be this long, and goes into detail about as much as the average Wikipedia movie synopsis, stating only necessary details. I can take steps to remove some of the most unnecessary details but I believe its length is adequate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quazarrr ( talk • contribs) 22:24, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
References
Change spelling from "Micha" in the second to last paragraph of Plot to the correct spelling, "Micah". Line in question: "Against Abigail's wishes, the gang pursues Micah after learning he is nearby. Confronting Micha, they learn that Dutch is again working with Micah." AeliusJS ( talk) 02:38, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
File:John Marston (Character).jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a non-free use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
The title of this article should be changed to "Red Dead Redemption II" (Roman numeral 2) as the new trailer has shown. Games with similar names ( Kingdom Hearts II and Jak II) use the Roman numeral even when, in the case of Jak II, the next game uses Arabic numerals ( Jak 3). Tenbeat ( talk) 17:58, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Have just reverted a bold page move that either didn't know about or ignored the above consensus not to move without consensus. If it happens again a request for move protect may have to be mooted. - X201 ( talk) 07:37, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
All promotional material since the new trailer released Sept. 28 shows the game named "Red Dead Redemption II" not "Red Dead Redemption 2" that is the name of the game now. Snipershot325 ( talk) 08:11, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Hey editors, I have noticed that this page has not been updated regarding the second Red Dead Redemption 2 Trailer #2. This would be a good addition to the page. -- Miraclemitch ( talk) 15:49, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
WP does not encourage short sections, and at this point, with very little we can say about the plot beyond the character, timing, and setting, it should be combined with the gameplay as recommended by MOSVG. In time, once more about the overall story and/or gameplay elements, then the sections could be expanded. -- Masem ( t) 16:37, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
A short dev section is bad too, but in this case, the Release section should be presently inserted within it. If we didn't have the release section, and that's all that could be written on development, then yes, this entire article should just a be a stub article with no sections. -- Masem ( t) 13:43, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
{{ Unbulleted list}} (shorthand: {{ ubl}}) is a list template which is a son, daughter or other-gender child of its parent template {{ Plainlist}}. Let me explain from the very start. I used {{ubl}} here in this edit but it was reverted by User:Lordtobi in the shade of adding more descriptive alt in haste with clearly visible typo which breaks the template and didn't give any explanation for this. I reverted this with explanation and further expanded alt. He undid back with a clear nonsense reason of: template redirecting does not help anyone. Again I reverted this back with my good faith motive of concising the source code and asked him to be more specific. Instead of writing here, he showed up to my talk page boasting off his knowledge of WP policies and explained how I was illogical with my edits and tagged them as personal preference instead. I explained him back my reason of concising the source code and also gave an instance of how another editor did that. Again he came back with another policy in the lead and explained how my example was unrelated with the current discussion but in fact they were related with the matter. Again my edit was undone in the shade of removing caption. of concision. After which he posted a warning to my talk page. This led to edit war as seen by User:Anarchyte and finally to the protection of this page till May 6, 2018. Harsh Rathod Poke me! 11:33, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I agree with Lordtobi (who, by the way, is not required to "provide any specific detailed reason", because a) you have not done this either, and b) he is not attempting to change anything), simply because the change causes nothing, and isn't really improving anything besides personal preference. Even the argument that {{ ubl}} is "concise" is in poor standing; the difference of twelve characters is minimal. Continually breaking WP:3RR and ignoring WP:STATUSQUO certainly doesn't help your case either. – Rhain ☔ 14:52, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
I have re-protected the page as Lordtobi and Harshrathod50 resumed edit warring again. The only reason you both aren't being blocked is because you managed to fit it all into 75 minutes about six hours ago. Find a consensus or walk away, but consider this a warning for each of you. ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 15:35, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
It looks like that Harshrathod50 is still changing the Unbulleted list template without consensus after the page got unprotected. TheDeviantPro ( talk) 22:58, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
![]() |
I removed this entry because the dispute is between more than two editors. Consider opening a thread at WP:DRN. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 22:32, 14 May 2018 (UTC) |
[1] (I've already cited this in the article). Lots of details to expand out all sections. -- Masem ( t) 16:02, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Red Dead Redemption 2 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please incorporate IGN. 2A02:908:F35B:4FC0:1DCC:19EF:1B25:5C4A ( talk) 07:49, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
What's up with people editing the articly to state it will be available for Windows? If that is the case, surely there must be a reliable source that says so. Without a source, I don't see merit to including this statement. I'm all for a Windows version, but if turns out simply to not be true, it would be a big disservice to our readers to say it is. Digital Brains ( talk) 08:50, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
It seems like there has been an uptick in vandalism to this page the last few weeks and I can only see it getting worse the closer we get to release.
Perhaps it’s too soon, but I feel it may be time to apply semi or pending protection to the page. I don’t know how or if I can even do such actions so I was curious what the general opinion on the matter was. red sparta ••• talk to me 12:32, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Red Dead Redemption 2 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add Bill Williamson, Javier Escuella, Abigail Marston, and Jack Marston to the returning characters section. TheNicaraguan ( talk) 14:09, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
Such a blanket statement would appear to require considerably more sources than are provided. Furthermore, it smacks of weasel word. 67.80.188.124 ( talk) 05:08, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
Can I please get a consensus on when it's appropriate to use the term "minor criticism". In the article, I have used the term in respect of the complaints leveled against the game's controls, which is probably the biggest complaint against the game, yet remains a minority view as per the list of reliable sources I have come across. That, coupled with the fact all of the other major aspects of the game have received widespread praise (bar some comments about its "realism") have led me to label the criticism was "minor" in both the lead and Reception section. However, several anonymous users have contested this and reverted my edits specifically in Reception. Thoughts? Wikibenboy94 ( talk) 13:58, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
@ Wikibenboy94: I actually think the inclusion of minor criticism in the lede makes sense in this revision. The article is in a very different state than it was in November 2018, and the Reception section has two paragraphs dedicated to the criticism of the game's control scheme and player freedom (among its paragraphs demonstrating praise to story, characters, open world, graphics, music, and gameplay). In terms of weight, I think a brief sentence (or half-sentence) is warranted. – Rhain ☔ 23:26, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
I don't know if we can do much about this, or even if the whole thing's just sheer coincidence, but four times now an anonymous user or users with one of those really long random IP addresses has removed the paragraph detailing criticism of the game's controls (the criticism for the game's sense of authenticity on the other hand has always been ignored).
In each example, the user/users has given a comment along the lines of "This criticism is a minority view", "There are too few reviewers talking about this", or "These critics aren't reliable". In the second edit, the user began by saying "Again," and then gave their reason, despite it being a different IP address, leading me to believe it could be the same person. Also the third and fourth edit (the fourth being a revert) have been made by the same IP, but gave two different reasons for their removal of the prose (out of those example reasons I've given above).
Can we please keep an eye out for more of these. It seems very unlikely that we have two to three people simply copy-catting each other, and it always being the same paragraph removed is very suspicious. Wikibenboy94 ( talk) 00:14, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Should we make a mention of the controversy surrounding a player's killing of a suffragette in various ways, or is it not worth it? Wikibenboy94 ( talk) 13:24, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Be WP:BOLD. Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 11:03, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Was any kind of criticism leveled at the developers or the game itself in regards to this "controversy"? If not, I question how this one-among-a-million case of someone doing something dumb in a video game on YouTube is at all relevant to the game itself. Spartan198 ( talk) 01:43, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
What was the decision made to list this controversy? The controversy has to do with a YouTube user posting objectionable content that was produced within RDR2 - is there going to be a "controversy" section posted in every Wiki entry of the tools used to create the Objectionable content? For example, "The Samsung S20 was used to film police beating protesters in 2020..." would seem to be an absurd thing to list under a Wikipedia entry about the Samsung S20. It's like the Wikipedia editors were looking for some sort of controversy since RDR2 was made by the same company that makes the GTA series. Its just not a logically defensible controversy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.30.197.215 ( talk) 16:55, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
I believe there's no reason to label the plot summary as excessively detailed or too long; it is a sixty-hour story after all, [1] so has reason to be this long, and goes into detail about as much as the average Wikipedia movie synopsis, stating only necessary details. I can take steps to remove some of the most unnecessary details but I believe its length is adequate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quazarrr ( talk • contribs) 22:24, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
References
Change spelling from "Micha" in the second to last paragraph of Plot to the correct spelling, "Micah". Line in question: "Against Abigail's wishes, the gang pursues Micah after learning he is nearby. Confronting Micha, they learn that Dutch is again working with Micah." AeliusJS ( talk) 02:38, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
File:John Marston (Character).jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a non-free use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.