![]() | 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 |
To avoid any edit warring I think this should be discussed here and settled as this affects games like Heavy Rain and Beyond Two Souls too. According to IGN, heavy rain is classed as an adventure game which makes sense, it's similar to a point and click adventure games of old, with a more up to date point and click. It has some action sequences scripted as they are, so I think action-adventure in its broad scope does cover this game and others like it. Linking to interactive movie on the other hand is, I feel, inappropriate. It's not a film with limited interaction ala one of those old VHS board games, it's a video game first and foremost, therefore interaction is implied if not mandatory and is covered by the "video game" labeling in the opening sentence. Drama, neo noir, any of these things are film genres or tones, applicable to discussing the story but not to classifying the type of game it is. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 09:58, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
This thing is appropriate to mention in the reception section I think. But still, I just wanted to see other opinions. Sebastian James ( talk) 18:57, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Is it wrong to show Famitsu review on the review template? I know that all the reviews must be mentioned in the body, but I've seen some good/featured video game articles that include Famitsu only on the template. Some of them mention it in the body, though not the review. Sebastian James ( talk) 16:21, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
The game has an underlying ideological or political message. -- 105.0.2.154 ( talk) 00:27, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Detroit: Become Human has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please do not close talk items until they have been at least responded to. If nobody wishes to dispute these edits I'll make the relevant changes. ( QuanticNut ( talk) 20:55, 22 July 2018 (UTC))
Adam Williams should be included in the writers section, as he was previously, not sure why this keeps being removed.
Many media sources quote him as Lead Writer, including Sony (the publisher): ( https://blog.eu.playstation.com/2018/05/23/how-detroit-become-humans-narrative-team-brought-a-world-of-androids-to-life/) ( https://www.gamereactor.eu/articles/611843/Detroit+Becoming+Human+with+lead+writer+Adam+Williams/) ( https://www.vg247.com/2018/04/23/detroit-become-human-lead-writer-quit-tv/)
He is also active on the Detroit Reddit, where he has appeared in an AMA beside David Cage as lead writer: https://www.reddit.com/r/DetroitBecomeHuman/comments/8n8b6p/hi_im_adam_williams_lead_writer_at_quantic_dream/
The edit history says he was removed because he is not lead writer in the opening credits. But in the credits he is credited as 'Additional Writing', so still a writer and still belongs in the Writer(s) category.
The fact Detroit was Quantic's first game not written entirely by David Cage was quite a big deal in the promotion so the page looks pretty out of touch by removing him.
Speaking here as a Quantic fan who is active on the Reddit. QuanticNut ( talk) 19:30, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. —
LeoFrank
Talk
06:14, 8 July 2018 (UTC)![]() | This
edit request to
Detroit: Become Human has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Synopsis section should mention that the story summarized here is just one of many possible iterations, depending on players' choices.
An IGN interview with David Cage mentions "1000 possible combinations" of ending but I haven't seen specific numbers elsewhere. https://wccftech.com/detroit-become-human-player-choice/ QuanticNut ( talk) 19:49, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. —
LeoFrank
Talk
06:13, 8 July 2018 (UTC)GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Adamstom.97 ( talk · contribs) 23:36, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
This is branching out a bit for me as I am not that familiar with video game articles, but I have plenty of film and TV GA experience so hopefully that serves me well. I have a good read through the article soon, and get back to you with some thoughts. -
adamstom97 (
talk)
23:36, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Sorry again for the delay. Here are some things that I would like to see fixed up before I promote the article to GA:
Let me know how you get on with those, or if you have any questions. - adamstom97 ( talk) 07:03, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Placing this here for the attention of the reviewer - a long-standing issue from the talk page that has not been addressed:
Adam Williams should be included in the writers section, as he was previously, not sure why this keeps being removed.
Many media sources quote him as Lead Writer, including Sony (the publisher): ( https://blog.eu.playstation.com/2018/05/23/how-detroit-become-humans-narrative-team-brought-a-world-of-androids-to-life/) ( https://www.gamereactor.eu/articles/611843/Detroit+Becoming+Human+with+lead+writer+Adam+Williams/) ( https://www.vg247.com/2018/04/23/detroit-become-human-lead-writer-quit-tv/)
The opening credits also mention two more directors: Benjamin Diebling and Gregory Diaconu (cited in the above), the former of which is very active on Twitter/the community and streamed from the game's premiere. ( QuanticNut ( talk) 19:24, 22 July 2018 (UTC))
Respectfully noted. Many thanks for your input. ( QuanticNut ( talk) 21:23, 22 July 2018 (UTC))
Understand entirely. To give you the full background, the other editor registered an issue with me which has been addressed here: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Proposal_(User:QuanticNut). My contention is that the accreditation is plainly sourced and that the only grounds for dispute is cog's ownership of the page. I'll let the other party put their case in their own words if they choose to, though it's spelled out on my talk page already for your info. ( QuanticNut ( talk) 22:17, 22 July 2018 (UTC))
{{
ping}}
)
czar
02:14, 23 July 2018 (UTC)@ Adamstom.97: Criteria 5 says is it stable if "it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute". This is a small content dispute with consensus in my favour that is only going on because the editor disregards the consensus. Cognissonance ( talk) 02:31, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Williams in the end AND opening credits (the latter being much more prestigious) as well as dozens of articles before and after publication. The dispute is currently just about whether his name can be legitimately added to the writers' box. The guidelines and common sense say yes. The consensus is also between me and @ Adamstom.97:. Anybody who reads the sources and checks the credits ends up agreeing, you just obscure the facts by suggesting one or either source is missing his name when they are not.
What you have said is the definition of ownership: disagreements with you are not valid.
I never really understood why cog was so keen for it to be a no, but he often presents it as if the guidelines support his claims - they do not say what he thinks they say - but he takes it personally and he has been quite aggressive on my talk page about it. ( QuanticNut ( talk) 04:48, 23 July 2018 (UTC))
First, I'm glad you're actually talking to me now instead of threatening to ban me and telling me I'm just 'some random from a subreddit'. Thank you.
Second, the syntax guide doesn't need to positively rule IN every acceptable formulation of 'writer'. That would be endless. Respectfully (and I really mean this) I think you are being tripped up by the fact the style guide is listing alternative forms of 'Writer' formulation to ensure they get included. The style guide doesn't positively include 'Written by' either, we just understand that to be obvious :)
Source: Opening Credits: [ [1]
As for other editors, they take a view based on your representation of the style guide, which is incorrect as has been explained by me and others. Very few people also check the game credits. This is a minor issue that most people wouldn't exert this much energy on... but given your language on my talk page I can't help thinking this has become personal for you ( QuanticNut ( talk) 05:04, 23 July 2018 (UTC))
But there are others mentioned in the info box and not in the article? Surely adding a line to the article would be going further than we have for other credits? ( QuanticNut ( talk) 05:50, 23 July 2018 (UTC))
Wouldn't that require a new info category line? Don't you think 'listing in order of contribution' in the writer box, as per the guidelines, is simpler?
That being said, if he appears in that panel of credits I would be totally fine with him being specified as Additional Writer. ( QuanticNut ( talk) 06:03, 23 July 2018 (UTC))
We mention others in the infobox who do not feature in the body. Frankly it would be easy to add a section on Wiliams to the body but I think this would be overkill.
His contribution is as notable as most of the other names on that list in the sense that he is referenced in media and the game's two credit screens. I would prefer simply to list writers in order of contribution, but in the interests of consensus I could compromise by adding the label (Additional). Thoughts, Cog? ( QuanticNut ( talk) 06:13, 23 July 2018 (UTC))
Cog, look at the page you referenced... it lists 6-7 writers in order of contribution, not all of them leads and none of them relegated to a note like the Ubisoft one. Can you really not see the argument here? Shouldn't we just repeat their format? ( QuanticNut ( talk) 06:19, 23 July 2018 (UTC))
What would constitute proof? And must that further proof be provided for everybody else in the infobox? ( QuanticNut ( talk) 06:32, 23 July 2018 (UTC))
Cog, you 'fixed it' by deleting all the writers on that watchdogs page? Is that really helpful? Are you going to 'correct' every videogame page after that fashion? You will be deleting a lot of work... ( QuanticNut ( talk) 06:35, 23 July 2018 (UTC))
Williams interviewed on camera by Sony at the Detroit launch event, credited as Lead Writer: [2] Williams interviewed by IGN: [3] Sony crediting Williams as Lead Writer: [4] Williams interviewed by the Guardian, a national newspaper in the UK: [5] Williams and Cage interviewed on video together: [6]
A simple google search turns up 50+ results for Williams who seems to have done a promotional tour with Cage.
@ Adamstom.97: that surely makes him at least as noteworthy as the other people listed in that infobox? ( QuanticNut ( talk) 06:47, 23 July 2018 (UTC))
I'm not sure I understand your question. Are you asking if this info is in the articles I cited? Yes. In the wiki article you are reviewing? No but I can add it if there is consensus.
There is also no specific mention of other names in the info box, but their place is not questioned.
Have I met your criteria for proof? If not, what would meet it? ( QuanticNut ( talk) 07:37, 23 July 2018 (UTC))
@ Adamstom.97: Per Talk:Detroit: Become Human#Votes, I propose that you carry out the consensus as a neutral party. Cognissonance ( talk) 00:12, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
It is unfortunate that this review has become as messy as it has. Overall, I feel that this is a good article so I am going to go ahead and pass the review. However, I do still have some concerns. I believe the current resolution to the writer issue is the correct one, but if the discussion on it is to continue then that needs to take place at the article's talk page (do not continue it here or start a new edit war). I believe an eye should also be kept on the number of sources addressing each point, as was mentioned above. Other than that, congratulations. -
adamstom97 (
talk)
06:59, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
@ QuanticNut, Sebastian James, Wrath X, Only in death, and Czar: Pinging to gather consensus. My case against adding Adam Williams as a writer in the infobox is as follows: The infobox syntax guide says to include in the writer= parameter "The popular names of the video game writers", "lead writer(s)", or synonyms thereof. As Williams is credited with "Additional writing" in the finished product, whereas David Cage is credited with "Written and Directed by", Williams falls short of meeting the criteria. David Cage is both the "popular name" and lead writer based on the opening and end credits. Despite pre-launch sources saying Williams was a lead writer, we defer to the facts of the game credits post-release. Cognissonance ( talk) 02:26, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
{{
ping}}
)
czar
02:28, 23 July 2018 (UTC)Respectfully the logic would be sound if the detail were correct.
The style guide does not say what Cog seems to think it says...
"The popular names of the video game writers. The names can wikilinked. The writers should be listed in the order of their contribution, with those who wrote the game's scenarios/scripts listed before the game's story writers. If a single person is credited as "scenario director" or "scenario writer", list that person; synonyms for this position include "lead writer"; If there is a person credited as "scenario concept writer" or "[original] concept", also list that person here; List no more than three people in this field."
It doesn't rule out any kind of writer or specify only leads. It simply rules IN lead writers. It also says 'in order of their contribution' which is what I have done. It just doesn't say what @ Cognissonance: seems to think it says. This has been explained to cog a few times, not just by me, including on his own talk page.
Dozens of secondary sources have written about the one single other writer, including the publisher, plus he is listed in the opening AND closing credits. One of my 3 sources is also post-release, actually referring to Williams as Lead again (there are dozens). That's why I included it for those who read it.
I realize Cog makes it sound like there is a dispute to be had here but he relies on people neither checking the guidelines, the sources nor the credits. (
QuanticNut (
talk)
04:44, 23 July 2018 (UTC))
The only secondary sources that interest WP are reliable, secondary sources (e.g., WP:VG/RS)— didn't see "dozens" on Williams czar 09:58, 23 July 2018 (UTC)Dozens of secondary sources have written about the one single other writer
The guidelines are quoted above and say writers should be listed in order of contribution. How could that be construed to mean only listing leads? Apologize for assuming lack of familiarity. I just don't see the debate: plenty of articles have more than one writer in the writer infobox. ( QuanticNut ( talk) 06:23, 23 July 2018 (UTC))
I am still amazed that @ Cognissonance: would refer to an external article, discover it supports the case for including Williams, then delete the entire 'Writers' field of that argument to make it fit in with his interpretation of the syntax with zero discussion on that article's talk page. ( QuanticNut ( talk) 17:28, 23 July 2018 (UTC))
The fact missing from the article was the mention of Williams' credit, which is in the articles and videos I cited. Many of the names on the info box do not come with specific additions to the article, they are credits. That is the fact that was missing and which we are discussing.
Given you threatened to ban me and told me I was 'just a random person from a subreddit' with no right to challenge you as an 'experienced editor' I think it's unfair to describe me as dismissing attempts at compromise. ( QuanticNut ( talk) 09:44, 23 July 2018 (UTC))
Thank you. Incidentally, in the discussion above (GA review) I have cited sources that include a video interview of Williams by Sony at the launch event, so even more recent. Assuming there are no objections I will add the information to the development section. ( QuanticNut ( talk) 09:01, 23 July 2018 (UTC))
If they are shown to have the same stature. If not, we only list the foremost credits in the role. czar 09:58, 23 July 2018 (UTC)This indicates writers other than leads can be listed.
♪♫Al ucard 16♫♪ 10:37, 23 July 2018 (UTC)Quantic Dream’s founder, David Cage, may have been central to Detroit: Become Human’s creation, but the tale of finding humanity within androids turning ‘deviant’ was a team effort. “David was very keen on making this the most collaborative – and interactive – thing he’s ever done,” explains Adam, who previously worked as a television writer, which also included producing pilots for the BBC. “I was brought in to help him finish and elaborate on the story.
I would think the 'reading too much into it' would cut the other way. The guide clearly entails listing writers of various level of contribution. You point to another article but there are many articles listing more than just one writer for creative works, that's why the guide refers to writers in the plural.
If you wanted a source that says he was more than just an additional writer, every single source I referenced above has him as lead, including the publisher. The publisher also interviewed him as lead writer during the launch event which he attended with Cage. So any of those.
Still I don't see how "varying levels of contribution" can be construed to mean "everybody listed must have equal levels of contribution (I.e be the single lead)". Even if he isn't considered lead he made a "level of contribution" and should be listed in that order. ( QuanticNut ( talk) 10:32, 23 July 2018 (UTC))
I offer this as a compromise; I still think Williams ought not to be included in the infobox, per everything that's been said on the matter. Cognissonance ( talk) 11:39, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Some notes here for those gauging williams' contribution (though I still maintain most of the people in that info box were not scrutinised in this fashion and listed simply because they were credited in the game, as was Williams).
He was interviewed by a big national newspaper in the UK on the core theme of the game, AI:
“It’s a more subtle threat to the sanctity of the human category,” he says. “Emotion is something we reserve for ourselves: depth of feeling is what we use to justify the primacy of human life. If a machine is capable of feeling, that doesn’t make it dangerous in a Terminator-esque fashion, but in the abstract sense of impinging on what we think of as classically human.” [7]
He commented on how the ending was designed and how interactive choices were designed and written in an interview with IGN:
"We wanted every play through to be as unique as a fingerprint" and the game features "thousands of combinations of ending" which were "difficult" to write (video in link) [8]
He summarized the five most important elements of the game for an interview with the publisher, discussing especially the fact "every character can die" and how difficult that was to manage but why it was "so important" to him and cage:
He explained his reasoning behind the setting and location of the game:
"2038 was the right mix between far enough in the future, that something like this could’ve happened, but near enough in the future that it would still feel like our world. It was really just a question of being near enough to feel real, but far enough to allow these androids stories to feel credible"
"Interestingly, Williams also explained the reason why Detroit was chosen as a setting. The city was the seat of the Ford Motor Company, and it’s where the car was born. The automobile is an example of how one piece of technology can change the world and even the way society is formed. When the car became commonplace families became more dispersed, people traveled longer to work… Cars changed everything."
Is there any doubt that he had significant involvement? Why would media be interviewing him otherwise?
If Sony, the guardian, IGN and Quantic Dream all considered him a significant contributor, why wouldn't we?
[[[User:QuanticNut|QuanticNut]] ( talk) 13:01, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
@ Czar: I remember seeing an article about the game's premiere where they attended together and asked questions together about the writing, but can't find this just now. I did find these however:
"The initial script – penned by Cage alongside lead writer Adam Williams – shown to the design team was apparently between 2,000 and 3,000 pages long." [14]
"Cage and lead writer Adam Williams (it’s no coincidence that Cage’s best and most human sounding game is his first with a co-writer) have created not just a world, but a society and a cast of characters that read and play as people whose stories we want to see play out." [15]
The first uses 'alongside' which sounds quite collaborative to me. The second calls him a 'co-writer'. ( QuanticNut ( talk) 20:09, 24 July 2018 (UTC))
I'm sorry... a 'handsome face'? @
Cognissonance: are you serious?! You are contending that Williams' presence in those interviews is not because of his contribution to the project but because of his appearance. Can you really be saying that? What evidence do you have for it? I am a girl and if somebody discounted my contribution on the basis of my appearance I would consider it ugly prejudice. This after calling the guy a 'glorified script doctor' on the basis of...? Do you think that is what @
Canterbury Tail: meant when he politely asked you to take some perspective on this debate?
@ Alucard 16: @ Adamstom.97: you very fairly asked for proof of Williams' stature and contribution. I provided these from reliable secondary sources. Cognissonance is dismissing them on the basis, not that they don't show evidence of statue, but that it is probably all just a conspiracy theory on the part of Sony/Quantic Dream. That must be true because he has a 'handsome face' (apparently?) Is that really the burden of proof in this case? Isn't the straightforward interpretation that a writer who is credited in the opening credits, spoke at length about the process of writing and was interviewed internationally for his involvement is probably just... what the sources indicate him to be?
As for the November thing, November 2017 is a long way out for release. That's a long time to have somebody marketing the game who had no involvement. I don't see many interviews with Cage or anybody else about the substance of the game (outside of hype) from before then either.
It's not our job to speculate that all these media outlets were mislead by some devious marketing strategy. What evidence could we possibly have for that? And why believe it? They all point to a significant contribution. Now we are questioning them because it would be 'easy' for Williams to just be lying about his involvement? Because he's 'handsome'? It is absurd that the argument against requires us to believe this.
I really feel the goalposts are shifting on this. ( QuanticNut ( talk) 17:17, 23 July 2018 (UTC))
For what it's worth, I'm seeing a lot of reliable sources call him the lead writer from as recent as two months ago, and also a Reddit AMA where he uses that title. I doubt Sony PR would allow someone speak on the record like that with the wrong title in so many places. It's not directly sourced to the game credits themselves, but I don't believe it's worth nothing. Also remember that game credits are subject to office politics. Williams is credited with "Additional writing" for reasons we don't and probably can't know. Axem Titanium ( talk) 05:41, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Unfortunately that was the main thrust of your argument. Your only reason for dismissing the sourced was speculation that it's all a hoax. For that, you offered only 'a handsome face' by way of speculation. Anything not to take the sources on face value.
You don't have consensus. You have a vote which is non-binding on Wikipedia and even then it's 2-4. Yet still you insist on seeing your change made. I think there is a perfectly good case for me reverting the edit to how it was before you opened this talk point.
The article wad awarded GA WITH Williams in and you still removed him? ( QuanticNut ( talk) 19:18, 24 July 2018 (UTC))
Tallying up votes, as is customary in consensus-seeking discussions (those who have not replied yet are excluded). Neutral parties are not counted. Cognissonance ( talk) 14:49, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Thank you Dissident93. You ask the obvious and right questions. They have yet to be answered except to say all the sources are lying or misled by a marketing conspiracy.
Thanks Axem Titanium, really helpful to have the principal of the guidelines come in and clarify what they actually say. ( QuanticNut ( talk) 19:17, 24 July 2018 (UTC))
Thanks Alucard 16 After writing these messages I discovered that the article was awarded GA with Williams IN, but then Cog removed him right after the award was given. Given the lack of consensus I've reverted the page to the state it was when GA was awarded as I don't see that Cog had a consensus to change it... ( QuanticNut ( talk) 19:32, 24 July 2018 (UTC))
Okay Alucard 16. I thought if it had passed GAN and there was no consensus to change, reverting a change was just enforcing the guidelines. I'm sorry I misunderstood that. If his name is removed yet again and no consensus is reached on this page, do we default to inclusion of Williams (as when the page was GAN) or keep that inappropriate reversion? ( QuanticNut ( talk) 20:31, 24 July 2018 (UTC))
That's really clear, thanks ( QuanticNut ( talk) 20:56, 24 July 2018 (UTC))
(Non-administrator comment) The article has passed its GAN review while this discussion is still ongoing to reach a consensus in regards to Adam Williams being listed in the infobox. I'm asking everyone to be mindful of Wikipedia's guidelines and policies that come into play here. In order to avoid violating WP:EDITWAR and WP:3RR I am asking that the infobox be left alone at the time it was passed as a Good Article which includes Williams' name in the infobox. [16] Based on previous edit patterns of this article it seems that any change to either including or removing Williams' triggers reverts I am asking it be left alone for now. [17] I'm also asking everyone to be mindful of WP:CIVIL, WP:CON, WP:DISPUTE and WP:TPG and keep all discussion on target and not stray away from Wikipedia's gudelines & policies and what the reliable source say. ♪♫Al ucard 16♫♪ 20:04, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
My honest apologies to everyone on this page for when and where I have failed to meet the WP:CIVIL guidelines. ( QuanticNut ( talk) 20:20, 24 July 2018 (UTC))
@ QuanticNut and Alucard 16: Now that the discussion is the size of a novel, further debate would be of no use and a consensus will never be reached; in fact, it will leave Williams in the writer parameter as a default, which I'm sure none of you took advantage of at all. I am going to add a note beside Williams' name describing the contradiction between his credits so this can be ended and I can get back to writing good articles, hopefully without my time being wasted or nominations intentionally endangered. Cognissonance ( talk) 13:04, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
@ Cognissonance: I agree with @ Alucard 16:. The note itself is a nice bit of housekeeping (so thanks for that) but the language is, in my opinion, strangely pejorative. We have no evidence that it was a 'demotion' and given Williams is posting on the Reddit page as Lead Writer post-release it would have to mean he had been promoted again. Alucard's suggestion is much more editorial in my view.
Regarding your other comments, we didn't 'take advantage' of anything we just had an honest disagreement based on the evidence. Nobody forced you to spend time on this issue so it's a pity you feel you wasted it.
I've been learning more about Wikipedia thanks to Alucard's reading list and came across this, which we should both try to remember whenever we feel a sense of ownership over content that belongs to everybody: "Our vision is about more than providing universal access to all forms of knowledge. It’s about creating an inclusive culture. It’s about inviting others to join in and thrive with us. It’s about embracing human diversity. It’s about saying, “We see you and you belong with us.” ( QuanticNut ( talk) 20:01, 26 July 2018 (UTC))
Just a friendly notice I've set the page up to be archived by Lowercase sigmabot III bot for the first round I've got it set up to archive all threads but 1 that haven't had replies in 15 days to give the talk page a fresh start. After the first archiving I plan on updating the settings to archive threads with no replies after 30 days and keep a minimal 4 threads here. If anyone has any objections to this or wants to change the bot's settings feel free. ♪♫Al ucard 16♫♪ 16:41, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
I found the first sentence of the "Sales" section to be a bit long, especially with the inline citation hanging there in a weird place. That version:
Detroit: Become Human reached fifth place on the UK chart after two days of release and, [1] in one week, made first place in overall sales, as with console sales alone; though fewer than Beyond: Two Souls and Heavy Rain in that region, Cage and executive producer Guillaume de Fondaumière claimed it was the studio's most successful launch yet. [2] [3] [4]
Since that seemed like a lot of ground for a single sentence to cover, I re-wrote it as three, which had the happy side-effect of placing that first inline citation at the end of a sentence. My version:
Detroit: Become Human reached fifth place on the UK chart after two days of release. [1] In its first week, the game topped both the overall sales and console sales charts. Though it sold fewer copies than Beyond: Two Souls and Heavy Rain in that region, Cage and executive producer Guillaume de Fondaumière claimed Detroit: Become Human was the studio's most successful launch yet. [2] [3] [4]
References
Dealessandri-Jun2018
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Phillips-May2018
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).DeMeo-May2018
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Barker-Jun2018
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).My changes were reverted, with the summary "there was nothing wrong with the sentence". I wouldn't even necessarily have disputed that claim (something that there's "nothing wrong with" can still often be made better), but since the changes were undone (implying that at least one editor feels the rewritten version was not an improvement), I'll point out the issues that I felt needed addressing:
So, those are the things I felt could be improved about the sentence. Can anyone explain why my rewrite made the article worse, and therefore needed to be reverted? Perhaps I'm just not seeing it. -- FeRD_NYC ( talk) 23:46, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
The changes are spot on. The original version actually has a needlessly subjugated clause, which is something you often see in people for whom English is not their first language. ( QuanticNut ( talk) 15:30, 7 August 2018 (UTC))
An editor reverts a change simply because the editor finds it "unnecessary" without claiming that the change is detrimental. This has the effect of assigning priority, between two equivalent versions, to an owner's version.
So, yesterday Cognissonance silently (in terms of this discussion) reverted their own revert, restoring the text to the version I'd written, with the edit summary "much ado about nothing". Which I guess is meant to be the end of it.
And I suppose it has to be, at least from my perspective. I wasn't involved in any of the previous issues that QuanticNut mentioned. And in terms of the edit in question, my goals were reached, and my concerns regarding the content of the article have been addressed.
But I can't shake this feeling that this latest revert represents more of the same: Cognissonance taking it upon themself to make unilateral decisions about the article. Cognissonance feels there's nothing wrong with a sentence, reverts changes to it. Cognissonance decides the issue isn't worth discussing, restores edit. It has the appearance of following consensus, but without having to bother engaging with other editors. If I were more heavily involved with this article, I'd feel that was still cause for concern.
However, I'm not. So as I said, that's that. My thanks to all who shared their insights and observations. -- FeRD_NYC ( talk) 17:19, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
I can't change it because of the protection but "The game takes place on November 5, 2038." is incorrect. The first chapter takes place on August 15, 2038, and the last chapter takes place on November 11, 2038. For sources, all these dates are seen in-game. DrTeatime ( talk) 17:28, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
Since the actors did both the voice acting job and motion capture, and seeing how almost all of the actors who participated in the making of this game have standalone Wikipedia pages, what do you guys think about adding a Cast section similar to ones we have on articles about movies? On my part, I'd say it would make navigation for new readers far simplier. I myself discovered this game only a few weeks, and had to resort to using IMDB to check who played which role (I only discovered that Clancy Brown played Hank yesterday, and that by accident). I think I can take the time and add this section if we approve it here. Openlydialectic ( talk) 03:08, 1 February 2019 (UTC)