Nier: Automata is a former
featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the
archive.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction articles
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
[[Shoot 'em up#Bullet hell and niche appeal|bullet hell]] The anchor (#Bullet hell and niche appeal) has been
deleted by other users before.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors
"...the game's fourth ending"
Given that the Nier page itself only has one possible ending (kill the shadowlord), followed by additional add-ons if you play through it a second time that end in one of two ways (kill/die for the female fighter), this needs a full clarification. What does the Japanese article think "the fourth ending" is?
Similarly, nothing on the Nier page remotely fits the description "...went berserk...", so those characters need a less opaque and more truthful descriptor.
I noticed that a certain User:ProtoDrake did a major edit with adherence to the sources as the reason given, but that was exactly the thing lacking.
For example, the
gematsu.com source does not substantiate the sentence "Other characters from both Nier and Drakengard 3 are mentioned." The source mentions 2B, 9S, A2, 042, 153, Commander, 6O, 21O, Adam, Eve, Pascal, Devola, Popla, Emil and ???. There are no other characters.
In addition, the new edit attributes the creation of the resistance to YoRHa, but the source says the opposite, which was in the article before:
The Resistance Camp is where the Androids that fell to Earth before the YoRHa squad are based. These Androids have organized their own resistance army
All official media refers to the game as NieR:Automata. As such, the title of the article, and all mentions of the game within the article, should be renamed to reflect it as such. This isn't just a formatting style; it's the official name of the game, in the same way "YoRHa" is not "Yorha".
Buh6173 (
talk)
17:43, 15 October 2018 (UTC)reply
@
ProtoDrake: I am so sorry I still haven't started this yet, real life has gotten in the way, and when I'm on Wikipedia I'm usually doing something else. I promise it will be done soon.
JOEBRO6417:47, 3 November 2020 (UTC)reply
Finally, here's my review, @
ProtoDrake:. Again, I am so sorry for taking this long. I did some copyediting on my own, because I thought it'd be easier if I took care of that on my own. Here's what it stood out to me:
I think we should refer to Square, Platinum, and 8-4 as "it"/"its"/"which", not "they"/"theirs"/"whose". E.g. "... English dubbing was handled by Cup of Tea Productions, whowhich had previously..."
Did my best catching these.
"... features additional costumes, elements from the , ..." Uh, something's missing here
Whoops! My bad.
In the "collaborations" I'd add when the collaborations happened.
ProtoDrake, alright, it's a pass! And yeah there weren't as many points as I was expecting either. Might be because I made changes I assumed would be uncontroversial. Anyway, I'm adding this to the GA list.
JOEBRO6401:57, 11 November 2020 (UTC)reply
Merger discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was to not merge. There's enough opposition here after it was fixed up to support keeping it as an article, and the conversation has since wore down, so I feel confident that's the proper consensus.
Kung Fu Man (
talk)
02:32, 7 August 2023 (UTC)reply
I am propsing to merge
The Nier: Automata Church to
Nier: Automata. This "hoax" feels like an
WP:ONEEVENT with limited lasting significance, and the article itself really does not give enough context for people to really understand it properly. And to be honest, it is an extremely
WP:TRIVIAL part of the game which really should not be spun off into a proper standalone article. A mere sentence or paragraph here in the main page is more than sufficient.
OceanHok (
talk)
15:14, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Looking at it, all of the sources, save for the further reading source, are within a couple-month period. It doesn't seem like it had much of a lasting impact, and I still feel it would fit cleanly. -
Cukie Gherkin (
talk)
16:39, 17 June 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Cukie Gherkin: It's clearly not a couple-month period -- there are sources from July, August, September, and October 2022, a period of four months, besides the year-later documentary. There's even
an article noting that the Nier anime may have referenced the mod.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ)
20:03, 17 June 2023 (UTC)reply
I don't think that the difference between a "couple" and four is vast enough for me to change my mind on the reception largely being mutual reactions to a piece of news. Also, that Kotaku source seems to only mention it in passing. -
Cukie Gherkin (
talk)
20:05, 17 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The reception is split between the mod being initially revealed as fanmade and being released to the public, so that's two separate pieces of news that it was mentioned regarding, with the latter being the cause of the articles months later.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ)
03:04, 18 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment Any defense of this article is probably a lost cause, but I figure I may as well try. I will just state the facts. Wikipedia has numerous articles about video game mods. This mod got a full article in WIRED magazine, Rock Paper Shotgun, and several IGN articles. According to
WP:NOTMERGE, articles should not be merged together if: "The topics are discrete subjects warranting their own articles, with each meeting the General Notability Guidelines, even if short." This article meets the General Notability Guideline beyond a shadow of a doubt and has potential for expansion beyond what is already here.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ)
23:48, 13 June 2023 (UTC)reply
A mod of a video game is absolutely not a "discrete subject" from its respective video game though. Absolutely not what NOTMERGE is talking about.
Sergecross73msg me23:55, 13 June 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Sergecross73: Added significantly more content to the article including a half-hour IGN deep dive documentary into the mod that was published around a year later as Further reading. I'm counting dozens of potential sources in gaming websites alone, not to mention both the producer and creator of the game acknowledged the mod.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ)
13:54, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Oppose As page creator, since I haven't officially registered my !vote yet. I was about to just declare it a lost cause, but in my search for sources in my expansion I discovered dozens of instances of SIGCOV from game journalists across the Internet as well as a 30 minute documentary from IGN (saying it "fooled the world") and accompanying 5 chapter article on the mod's development, which is more than most mods, or video games for that matter, will ever see. Said documentary was released the following year, demonstrating massive
WP:SUSTAINED interest that contradicts the nominator's assertion of ONEEVENT. The article has since doubled in size and could probably double once again with all the information available from interviews with the developers. As far as mods go, this got massive coverage and would not be UNDUE for a separate article.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ)
22:54, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Oppose. I've looked at the expansions by Zxcbvnm, and I think the issues of content and the presumption of an unnecessary split is addressed. I agree with their assertion that it isn't a
WP:ONEEVENT situation, because there is evidence of
WP:SUSTAINED interest, though I wouldn't describe the aggregate reception as "massive".
Haleth (
talk)
22:40, 17 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Oppose If there were a dozen other articles detailing hoaxes in video game modding communities like it, I would be inclined to believe that it wouldn't be notable, but it's one of a kind and received significant coverage precisely because of how unique it was.
HadesTTW (he/him •
talk)
15:04, 4 July 2023 (UTC)reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.