Jump to content

Talk:Borderlands 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Date format

[edit]

@Nihlus: According to MOS:NUM, "revert-warring over optional styles is unacceptable. If discussion cannot determine which style to use in an article, defer to the style used by the first major contributor." According to MOS:DATETIES; "articles on topics with strong ties to a particular English-speaking country should generally use the date format most commonly used in that nation." Video games are a global entertainment medium and have no such ties. Per MOS:DATERET, "The date format chosen by the first major contributor in the early stages of an article should continue to be used." Accordingly, please undo your revert of my edit in which I reset the article to the initially used DMY format. Sandstein 20:39, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sandstein, no. The other articles in the series correctly use the MDY format. The only other one that doesn't is Borderlands: The Pre-Sequel as that was developed by 2K Australia. This seems rather obvious. Your contributions are not major and by no means are enough to establish a set rule that the article will follow for its entire existence. Nihlus 20:44, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Nihlus: Well, I created the article, while all you did was change the date format, so the degree of the respective contributions seems to be clear. Consistency within a series is not required or desirable, as dates are largely a matter of individual preference or habit. Be that as it may, you reverted a revert of your change of the date format without discussion or consensus, which is revert warring and therefore, as mentioned above, unacceptable conduct. Please undo it or you may face sanctions as set out at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#cite note-1. Sandstein 21:00, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sandstein, do you normally start discussions with threats? I will take no part in a discussion with an WP:INVOLVED admin making ridiculous threats over a date format of all things. I've provided my reasons for doing so when asked. Will I edit the page further? No. Will I undo my edit? No. Nihlus 21:07, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's worth noting that those sanctions do not apply in this case. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:43, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sandstein Let's be clear here, there is no "first major contributor". The article consists of five sentences. Pbroks13 (talk) 23:39, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
With references. So that's a major contribution. --Masem (t) 23:48, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose you and I have different definitions of "major", then. Pbroks13 (talk) 23:51, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Using this diff (the last Sandstein worked on before anyone else touched the article after the expansion from redirect today), it includes references, an infobox, appropriate categories, and even a stub tag. That "major". If all Sandstein added was single sentence like "Borderlands 3 was announced on 28 March 2019." then you probably have room to argue that wasn't a major contribution, but collective edits resulted in an appropriate stub article for an AAA with all that is reasonably known about at this time. --Masem (t) 00:05, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If it was only one sentence, then I think I'd have more than probably enough room ;) Agree to disagree. Pbroks13 (talk) 02:41, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, Consistency within a series is not required or desirable is true and false, i.e. not required, but certainly desirable. The outside world needs pay no attention to the pathetic in-fighting that occurs on Wikipedia around such trivia, what our readers want to see is professional and consistent approaches to related articles. In the meantime, this appears to be getting completely overheated by the admin, let's not be so quick with the threats in the future. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:29, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Sandstein: Unbelievable. You are now edit warring in the middle of a discussion in which multiple people have agreed with my version of the usage of the dates after you tried to get on my case for doing the same thing (I wasn't doing the same thing, but this is the viewpoint you held) and after you threatened me with unrelated sanctions in order to get your way. Please point to the consensus that agrees with your version; otherwise, you are being disruptive at this point. Nihlus 17:45, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • You wrote above that "Will I edit the page further? No." I take this to mean that you have abandoned your interest in editing this article (which, to begin with, appeared to be limited to date formatting rather than actual content) and that there is therefore no longer a live disagreement between us. Sandstein 18:25, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Sandstein, that is incorrect. It was implied that I will not edit war with you (although I am having doubts on that at this point). I did not give permission to continue any edit warring as that is not something I can give. Also, please stop your continued uncivil remarks about my interest in the article. The extent to which I edit the article is irrelevant to the terrible behaviors you are displaying and have continued to displayed throughout this process. Nihlus 19:02, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
An edit war is an edit war as long as two or more people want to edit an article in a conflicting manner. You don't want to edit the article any more, ergo, no edit war. (Don't get me wrong, you're welcome to edit the article, but I'd welcome it if you contributed some content of substance.) Sandstein 19:19, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sandstein, the scope of my contributions to the article are irrelevant, especially considering there is barely any information out there currently. Again, stop with your uncivil remarks about the extent to which I have edited this stub. Your comments, again, are inappropriate and are detracting from the points I am trying to make. Nihlus 02:29, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Saw this posted at 3O earlier. Doesn't seem like it needs a 3O, but since I pulled it up this morning when I saw it, I might as well: My perspective is that as long as we have DATERET, the original format should be retained. "Major" is relative, but I have no trouble conceiving of the person who starts the article as the first major contributor (i.e. the first person to add a couple paragraphs and a couple sources). I don't see a video game played all over the world, which takes place on other planets, developed in both the US and Canada, to have "strong national ties" to the US just because the parent company is based in the US. If standardization across the series is desired, an RfC can address that. There's no inherently correct way to go here, so initial format should stand, for better or worse. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:53, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Rhododendrites, a couple sentences is not major. Further, DATERET allows consensus to change on the article's talk page which is what is trying to be done here. Everything doesn't require a a month-long RfC. Nihlus 02:27, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    You say it's not major. I say we have an article and someone has contributed most of the content to it. That person is, in my book, a major contributor. Down the road it might not be considered so major, but for the purpose of this little stylistic detail, sure, I consider Sandstein the first major contributor relative to where we are. But yes, consensus can change it without an RfC, to be sure. An RfC just seems like a useful way to coordinate a standard across multiple articles (the series). I did not mean to imply this thread cannot change the date format without an RfC. It certainly can. Absent a consensus to the contrary, though, as it does not seem to me that there is a compelling reason to change it, I'd stick with the original. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:33, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Rhododendrites, this article will expand to the size of it's predecessors. Comparing the size of those articles to what we have here now, it is obvious that it is not major and will not be in the long run. Nihlus 02:38, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said, down the road it might not be considered so major, but for the purpose of this little stylistic detail, sure, I consider Sandstein the first major contributor. If someone starts an article with more than a single sentence and at least a couple refs, they're the first major contributor to me. Are you saying that until someone drops X number of edits or Y bytes of text, that DATERET shouldn't apply because there is no major contributor, and thus anyone can change it to their preferred version? That seems like just the sort of scenario DATERET exists to avoid. There's got to be a reason to change it. Absent consensus that there's a good reason to do so, what's wrong with leaving it as is? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:42, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see my first comment in this thread for that answer. As for the first part, common sense should be used. Nihlus 02:47, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Nihlus is correct. I say later on we switch to MDY to at least be consistent. Borderlands has always been an American brand. It's not like we can use US format for a game like Life is Strange, which is French and uses UK format. It's one thing for Pre-Sequel to use UK format because it was developed in Australia, this game is in the same boat as Borderlands 1 and 2 and their days are already in US format. So we shouldn't deviate because OP wants to type in their native format and it doesn't really fit. So again, when the game is released, we should switch to the correct format like we did for the rest of the series, otherwise why can Life is Strange keep their UK format across the series (Since Before the Storm was developed in the US uet it's written in UK format), but not this game?Yamato_Revolver 12:15, April 5, 2019 (UTC)
    Meh. IMO I still don't see a convincing argument to consider this subject has having sufficiently strong ties to a particular country to override DATERET. That some other series does something a particular way isn't relevant to this series. Regardless, it seems worth noting that this user's entire purpose on Wikipedia looks to be changing spelling and dates to US format. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:20, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    DATERET does not apply here as there is no major contributor. Nihlus 22:38, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes there was, Sandstein's first additions added two reference, an infobox, and other materials to make a sufficient stub article. "Major" does not mean the most text, but something more than just a few bytes or the like. --Masem (t) 22:42, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it doesn't. Nihlus 14:39, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhododendrites Were you referring to me or Nihlus on the "User's entire purpose" bit? And i still see a bit of bias that one video game series can get away with one thing, but this can't. Yamato_Revolver 5:00 P.M, April 5, 2019 (UTC)

To you. As far as I can tell, literally all of your edits over the past year are to do just that. That's not necessarily against the rules, but it's hard to evaluate your opinion as just another disinterested Wikipedian. Meh. I would be more concerned if this were something that mattered more. :) Regardless, what do you mean by "bias"? We have WP:DATERET. That's the guideline. There's no guideline that video game series must be treated the same way. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 00:06, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Darling, you are exaggerating when you say my entire purpose here is to ONLY change dates. I changed a few when appropriate, but I still believe in consistency. And it's hard to take your opinion seriously when you try to dismiss this like in your words "another disinterested wikipedian". And the point of me bringing up another series is to show that one is consistent and another isn't. So while this issue isn't the end of the world, it still warrants discussion, that's all ;).

Yamato_Revolver 6:22 P.M, April 5, 2019 (UTC)

Heavy vandalism

[edit]

We need to protect the page as there's been a lot of vandals hitting the page. TheBuddy92 (talk) 06:01, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The vandalism appears to have stopped for the time being. If it picks up in the next couple days I'll submit a request to RPP, but right now it doesn't appear to be an issue. QueerFilmNerdtalk 04:57, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gender ideology propaganda

[edit]

Shouldn't there be mention that this game promotes the far-left anti-science gender ideology agenda? In the game, there is a robot character that is repeatedly referred to as a "they," and it even claims to be "non-binary," which is a Marxist term for androgynous that the Marxists use to indoctrinate people with transgender ideology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hackyyens (talk • contribs) 11:11, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Non-binary in this case is a robot / programming / number system joke that's poking fun at the gender version, if anything. If there's ever been an appropriate time to refer to someone as "they" for gender reasons it would be a robot that isn't capable of having a gender. Keep your campaign for Fl4k's pronoun to be made non-neuter alive though, I'm sure the fictional robot with a 30 second audio recording for backstory in a video game will appreciate your efforts on their behalf. A Shortfall Of Gravitas (talk) 22:23, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:36, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done This image has been tagged by 173.244.138.194, it was vandalized. Regards, Jkg1997 (talk • contribs • CA) 19:50, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Award nomination

[edit]

---Another Believer (Talk) 00:32, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Return of the Revenge of the Cartels

[edit]

Updated the post-release section to include the announcement of the return of Revenge of the Cartels to the game in late June. TheLobsterCache (talk) 04:54, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Borderlands_3&oldid=1200194659"