Talk:Portal 2/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Portal 2 timeline

As article says "Within the single player campaign, the player returns as the human Chell, having awakened from stasis after several hundred years." in-game things are different. For instance, GladOS once said that when she were killed in Portal 1, her mind and last 2 minutes of her life were written into black box and she had to watch her dead over and over again for few decades. Also, in Portal 2, Rattman dens (and his distant mumbling) and Turret Opera outro hinting that Rattman is still alive aswell which means that unlikelly hundered years have passed. --Suhov (talk) 14:48, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

We have sources external to the game from Valve that state "hundreds of years", while in game there are several unreliable and inconsistent sources. We go with what we can confirm. --MASEM (t) 14:50, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Random BBC film about how civilisation will die shows that wildlife will overgrown town in 10-20 years complitelly and same is suggested by fiction film "I am legend" - just like it did in Portal 2. Moreover, metal custruction parts will fail under load resulting in entire facility collapse (as seen in 50's parts of old Aperture Science facility). And the last factor is that nuclear reactor unlikelly will work uncotrolled by anyone for thousand years because (depending on costruction) it will run out of fuel or cooling component. --Suhov (talk) 15:09, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

We have to work within the fiction and the primary sources of the games; physically much of Aperture theoretically couldn't even exist as constructed, much less the effects of time and the environment upon it. Thus, while there are signs that point to a shorter period, there is no number that can be inferred without synthesis from the game itself. Instead, we have several interviews with Valve staffers and the like that give "hundreds of years", which is a number we can stick with without problem. --MASEM (t) 15:16, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

"her mind and last 2 minutes of her life were written into black box and she had to watch her dead over and over again for few decades". She actually said "forever", not "for a few decades". --Xyzzyplugh (talk) 01:39, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Original Storyline

The article says, "The story was envisioned to be a prequel for the first game, set in the 1950s before GLaDOS's takeover of the Aperture Science facility, with the player in control of Cave Johnson trapped within a computer. Eventually, Cave would have led an army of robots to rise to power within Aperture." but none of the sources listed afterwards actually say you would control Cave Johnson. In fact, this Kotaku article says the robot army was against the player,

http://www.kotaku.com.au/2011/04/portal-2-wasnt-going-to-include-portals-according-to-ipad-app/

"back when Valve was still making the F-Stop version and Cave was scripted to lead a robot revolution and put the player on trial."

So can we straighten this out?--Kingplatypus 00:58, 15 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingplatypus (talk • contribs)

"The Final Hours of Portal 2" has this. --MASEM (t) 01:15, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

..but I just double checked and I got it wrong. Will fix. --MASEM (t) 01:18, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! :)--Kingplatypus 18:39, 15 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingplatypus (talk • contribs)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Portal 2/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Oddbodz (talk) 16:27, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

In this review of Portal 2, the criteria that a good article needs. I am able to review this article bevause I have only added one fact and a picture to the article.

Well-written

I think that the article is well writen. The prose is clear an there are no major grammar or spelling mistakes at the time or writing this review. I also feel that the article meet part 'b' of this criterion including the good layout of it's sections.

Factually accurate and verifiable

The article has almost 200 diffrent sources which are used for in-line citations. Almost all of these are reliable. There is no content which is likely to be challenged.

Broad in its coverage

I feel that you would be able to learn almost all you needed to know about the subject from this article. However, this article only focuses on the game of Portal 2 and it's development. Anything else you would need to know has links to it.

Neutrality

This page dosn't advertise the game. There are no points which would be up for debate that this article takes a side to.

Stable

At the time of writing there is not - nor has not recently been any edit war(s) taking place.

Illustrated, if possible, by images

There are many images in this article where they are required. Some are free use and other images (which feature screen shots from the game) have fair use rationals. All images are relevant.

Conclusion

After reviewing this article, i feel it should be given good article status and with a bit of work, nominated for featured article status.

Copyedit May 2011

Hi

During the copyedit a few things came to light that may need attention:

Gameplay

• "One example is the direction of Excursion Funnel tractor beams or Hard Light Bridges through portals to provide surfaces or areas which the player can use to move the player-character or specific objects across obstacles." - the sentence is pretty muddy and could do with some clarification.
• "While early technology demonstrations included" - In general history or something to do with the game demonstrations? "Early demonstrations of the game technology or similar?
• "was not quite perfected by release." - How would releasing the game fix this? "was not quite perfected by its release." is possibly what was meant here.
• "The player will be required" - is this not already part of the gameplay?
• "in areas beyond the test chambers as they are reconfigured," - how do they become reconfigured?
• "Erik Wolpaw estimates each campaign..." - who is Erik Wolpaw? Perhaps use "Erik Wolpaw, writer of the game, estimates each campaign..."

Plot

• "Portal 2 suggests the ship was related as a result" - not sure what the word "related" is referring to.

(Convenience break save - back in the morning) Chaosdruid (talk) 19:53, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

• • I have addressed all of these points above, so further comments can be added below this. Thanks again for this! --MASEM (t) 22:21, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Starting again - apologies for the delay today, had RL issue that stopped me from editing. Chaosdruid (talk) 22:46, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Writing

• Quotes which do not italicise should not be in italics, MoS for italicising game names, films, books etc. should not be applied within those quotes. Though Wikilinking is fine, if the original is not in italics the quote should not be either (fixed the one in this section, check for others though).

Downloadable content

• "Some reporters believe" - some

General notes

• Is there a reason there is no "see also" section?

Finished, nice article. Seems well balanced and I would say that an FAC is definitely in order. Chaosdruid (talk) 02:30, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure if a See Also link section is needed. What would be closely related is already linked in the article, and there's no other immediate games that share similar mechanics as this. --MASEM (t) 12:35, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Portal 2 Soundtrack

Volume 1 of Portal 2's soundtrack was released here: http://www.thinkwithportals.com/music.php. This could be put into the article, but I'm not sure of how as there is already a Music section and moving it to the Marketing section might cause some conflicts. Maybe a seperate Soundtrack section? MissingNoLLL (talk) 01:30, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Generally, unless the individual songs (short of the two already noted, JoCo's and Nationals') are noted, and/or the soundtrack receives a physical release, a full soundtrack list is not necessary. The release of the soundtrack has been noted in the music section already. Now, if the soundtrack does receive any significant attention (critical commentary) we can likely make a new article but this is strongly not recommended now. --MASEM (t) 02:07, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Music of Portal 2

Perhaps we could make an article about the game's music? This would encompass a decent amount of coverage, and help to trim down the article. I know that Want You Gone got some reception, but not quite as much as I'd like; this would be a good way to get that split out (kinda). - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 02:27, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm a bit hesitant about that in that there's only a paragraph we'd be moving out of there, and you'd still need to leave some summary info behind. If the article was "Music of the Portal series", and would include Still Alive, it could easily pass notability, but as such, it would be difficult to keep it around (everyone talked about P2's soundtrack release, but no one has critically reviewed it, thus lacking the secondary sourcing). --MASEM (t) 13:46, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Copy Edit

I did some copyediting of the introduction. I am afraid I cannot devote more time to this at this time. I Removed extaneous content and information that would not make sense to people who had not played one of the games and generally reworded sentences. I also removed a portion of the last sentence in the second paragraph - I did not understand it. Please rethink. Quinxorin (talk) 00:59, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I've done some copyediting in response to TGilmour's request at the Guild. So far I've hit the Gameplay section and am planning to do more. The best thing I think we can do to get this ready for FA review is to work on making it more concise. Right now the article is just shy of 148 KB, and 100 KB is the usual threshold for splitting per WP:SIZERULE. I managed to cut out 1 KB just from Gameplay, and there must be more potential savings elsewhere. Lagrange613 (talk) 01:11, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I've now copy edited the Plot section. However, I must agree with Lagrange613, the article is way too long. While I've removed some spelling and grammar errors, and have improved the wording of many sentences, the whole section seemed to go into too much detail and to focus on the wrong things - then again, it is hard to discuss plot about test chambers. Quinxorin (talk) 05:12, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Quinxorin, this will go faster with both of us. Also I'm grateful you did Plot since (gasp!) I have yet to play co-op and that whole section is a spoiler for me. Thanks also to HereToHelp for excellent contributions. Lagrange613 (talk) 05:43, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

For those (like me) who are new to the article, a good discussion of the size issue (mostly related to P2) happened last month. Good points on all sides, in my opinion. At the risk of stating trivialities, we'll see where the copyediting process takes us and go from there. Lagrange613 (talk) 06:21, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Great to see we're all on the same page. I look forward to working with you. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 17:18, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

The word "often" rubs me the wrong way on Wikipedia, but on second thought saying Aerial Faith Plates launch you "often into portals" might be the best way to connect the plates to the central game mechanic. So, okay. Lagrange613 (talk) 18:16, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm okay with "sometimes into portals". HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 18:44, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I like it; thanks. Lagrange613 (talk) 08:12, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I just want to drop a quick note to those that are CEing this, because I really appreciate it. I won't try to get in the way, but if there's any clarification needed, please let me know. --MASEM (t) 13:29, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

The post-release section seems to summarize every review, which strikes me as overkill. I think we should cut both praise and criticism down to a handful of representative reactions and let the aggregator scores speak for the rest. I'd also like to remove a lot of the sales section as too granular and outdated. Since I'm proposing deleting sourced material (kudos for those 30+ inline citations) I wanted to bring it here first to seek consensus. Lagrange613 (talk) 07:57, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're seeing in the sales section as being too granular and out of date - we (as in, video games in general) don't have bulk figures to work from, so its a matter of pulling together data from whatever available sources we get. As to the reception, I'm not saying it can't be trimmed down but keep in mind two things: One: it is rare for a VG to get coverage from non-traditional VG media, so the reviews from general newspapers and magazines carry a great deal of weight in terms of reception. Two: because the game has been highly praised without any significant faults, it is important that its understood that pretty much every aspect of the game was raved about and only some odd quibbles here and there were talked in a negative light. If it not clear where the universal praise came from, readers/editors will assume that there's some negative feedback missing. In a more typical game review where there's pluses and minuses, this is less a problem. Also be aware there is a paragraph on user reviews, which is normally something ignored but since the press picked up on this and countered them, this also needs to remain in the article. --MASEM (t) 12:57, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

In the sales section, to take two examples, I don't see the benefit in breaking down first weekend sales in the UK by console or quoting Wedbush Securities' April estimate when we have the NPD number. On post-release the goal would be to retain the meaning while shortening the section significantly. At this point you could argue it's an enormous embedded list in prose form. The aggregate scores give an excellent summary of the relative positive and negative reception without paragraph after paragraph of reviewer quotations. The New York Times and other general-readership publications review high-profile games all the time, so I don't see that it's necessary to retain all their reactions, either. Some coverage of negative user reaction is probably warranted, but how extraordinary is it really? I can't think of the last game that didn't catch some user grief on the Internet. Lagrange613 (talk) 06:40, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Big thanks to everyone who copy edited this article. TGilmour (talk) 16:53, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Typo- change precluded to preceded

in potato sack section, precluded is a mistake. Should be "preceded by". 69.99.5.92 (talk)

Y Done; cheers for the heads up. Alphathon /'æl.f'æ.θɒn/ ^(talk) 12:45, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Sales

Only Masem responded to my post about sales, so I thought I'd be bold. Some of my changes are more than simple copyedits.

1. The U.S. figures should go first: Valve is an American company, and the U.S. is a bigger market.
2. As I said previously, I don't think the UK first-week platform breakdown or the Wedbush estimate add much.
3. The source for the first week of U.S. sales actually talks about the second week; I've replaced it.
4. The PSN outage source does not say Portal 2 sales were unaffected. At the end the guy speculates that software sales in general weren't affected, but I don't think we can jump from there to specific conclusions about any one game.

Lagrange613 (talk) 20:12, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

No problem on the US before UK issue and the breakdown in UK sales. As to the outage, the article does state that PS3 to 360 sales of P2 matched the ratio of PS3 to 360 installed base. That's a "fact" (as far as its a reliable source) and one I think needs to be kept, but I understand avoiding what may be the implication. Maybe we need to source the person as believing there was no impact to disengage from us calling it a fact. --MASEM (t) 20:16, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

How's this? I added the ShopToNews ref to provide UK flavo(u)r. I don't know a lot about gaming media, so I don't know whether they're reliable; feel free to revert if this is an issue. Lagrange613 (talk) 04:29, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Personality spheres, personality cores

Are personality spheres and personality cores the same thing? "Personality core" has a link but "personality sphere" does not, and at present it is undefined. Thanks. --Diannaa (talk) 19:36, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

The Sacrifice

Masem: I'm not terribly attached to one source or another if you feel strongly about it. However, given the flexibility of deadlines in these media (especially when Valve is involved) I think WP:BALL dictates that the article refer to plans for a November release rather than asserting that it will be released then. Your edit summary was cut off, so I don't know whether you intended to address this there. Lagrange613 (talk) 20:29, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, yea, its still "anticipated" plans (though this is Dark Horse now - and they're pretty much on schedule - unless Valve's making a new comic just for this which is doubtful). --MASEM (t) 20:46, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

"Grammar corrections"

I'll unpack my reasoning behind my changes here rather than edit further. I'd rather avoid even the appearance of an edit war, especially since this is a handful of pretty small things. As I wrote on the IP user's talk, my edit did not introduce the need for "grammar corrections" as the user claimed in the edit summary here. If the user would like to comment on the specifics of my changes I'm happy to hear it.

• As I wrote on the user's talk page, GLaDOS does not actually "reason" she and Chell can "put their differences behind them". If she did, she would not then call Chell "you monster." I'm fine seeing language other than mine used here, but the language as it stands isn't right.
• Children and people who aren't English fluent might not understand what shipping containers are, so I thought I'd link it. Moon, by contrast, is overlinking.
• We need to identify the neurotoxin as GLaDOS's; referring to "the neurotoxin" lacks context.
• We should define "core transfer" the first time it's done so that the reader has context when we use the term later.
• This is HereToHelp's contribution, but I don't like "increasingly newer" test chambers since a baseline of how old the chambers are isn't established.
• I'm pretty sure the rest of my changes fit under my holy war against this article's length, discussed above on this page.

Lagrange613 (talk) 19:00, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

• • Actually, on the last point we do have baseline in that we know that lower test chambers were completed earlier than higher ones based on the dates put on their sides (progressing from the 1960s to 1970s), coupled with the story procession. --MASEM (t) 19:26, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

That's not explained in the article, which is why I said we don't have a baseline. Lagrange613 (talk) 19:40, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

That's what I was getting at Masem, although it's actually from the 1950s to the 1980s. I tried to express it succinctly in compliance with your "holy war". I guess it didn't work, so try again. On to the other points. Shipping container should be piped to Intermodal container. We can go ahead and define "core transfer"; remember that a definition requires both a term an a meaning. I seem to recall us not using the term "core transfer" until the second time. The neurotoxin isn't really GLaDOS's such as it's Aperture's; let's mention its existence somewhere in the lead paragraph of backstory and use "the" later. I'm going to try to implement these changes. Naturally we can go through BRD as often as necessary. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 22:04, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I like Masem's changes and just made a few of my own. Revert and discuss if you don't like them. Lagrange613 (talk) 22:39, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

About the second core transfer: the additional cores don't really corrupt Wheatley himself, but the four-core system is seen as corrupt by the core transfer mechanism. I'm going to take a shot rephrasing that. Everything else looks good. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 22:50, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

As long as we're nitpicking, am I the only one bugged by describing Rattmann's artwork as "triptych-like"? It just does not seem factually accurate to me. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 13:15, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I believe that's Valve's word choice, not ours. (Actually, without checking, that might be the interviewer's words, IIRC). If it feels wrong, removal is fine - that was added before the game was released. --MASEM (t) 13:39, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Refactoring headers

Hi guys. I'd like to split the Development section into two top-level headers. Specifically, I propose merging the paragraphs in Hardware support and Downloadable content into other sections, and creating a "Release" section starting with the "Announcement" subsection. Thoughts? HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 04:21, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I would support creating a separate "Release" section. Where did you have in mind to merge Hardware support and Downloadable content? Lagrange613 (talk) 04:56, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Currently, I'm sticking them at the end of the new Release section, since it makes sense chronologically. As we move things around, hopefully they'll fall into a better place. The common thread is the experience of playing the game - it's played on this hardware, and I can buy hats and get new levels - but I can't think of a good header name for it. I bet a lot of the prerelease content is older than the plot, and is prime material to cut. I also think the modding community deserves a mention, for instance "240 community maps were submitted to the "Summer Mapping Initiate",[1] which received on official endorsement from Valve.[2]" Or something. Keep hacking away at it. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 13:03, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I could have sworn that I had originally laid this out before the CEs with a Release section - it certainly makes much better sense, regardless. --MASEM (t) 13:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree the modding community deserves a mention. Hardware support and DLC feel more like development to me. Lagrange613 (talk) 16:50, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I think there was something about PS3 support being a surprise announcement. It might be simple to fit the details all in one place, or it could be really disruptive to the flow and make the information hard to find. We'll see. We also can (should?) have a lead for the Release section, before the Announcement subsection. Due to length concerns, hopefully we can shuffle things around and not write a new paragraph from scratch. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 18:59, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

The article should be as long as it has to be. I'm sure we'll find the right solution. Lagrange613 (talk) 19:05, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

The more I think about it, the more I'm persuaded that DLC and Hardware support belong in Development, not Release. Release is all about marketing, and while DLC and Hardware have some impact on marketing they're essentially development topics. Lagrange613 (talk) 23:19, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Portal 2 pax prime 2010.jpg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Portal 2 pax prime 2010.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests July 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:49, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

The chronology between Half life 2 and Portal 2 has not been made clear by Valve yet

In the plot section, it states that "Portal takes place before Half-Life 2, while Portal 2 occurs much later.", wich can be interpreted as "Portal 2 occurs much later than Half-Life 2". The source of this statement does not specify any chronology between Half-Life 2 and Portal 2, it actually says:

' "Without getting into it too much, Portal 2 is further down the line." I asked if that meant that Portal 2 is, say, after Half-Life Episode 2. He didn't want to get into that '

Moreover, this source states in an interview:

Erik Wolpaw: I will define one [meaning for apocalypse], which is you blew up Aperture so in terms of the micro-climate of Aperture Science, it was an apocalyptic event. Everything got destroyed within Aperture. That's the sense we talk about it in.

Portal 1, I can state it clearly now, took place place just after the Combine invasion, which was in a sense an apocalyptic event. Half-Life is an apocalyptic game. Apocalypse doesn't necessarily mean last human on earth, though.

Eurogamer: This one's set quite a long time after the first game, though.

Erik Wolpaw: Yeah, a long time after the first game, without getting specific about how long.

Wich further reinforces the notion that, chronically, Portal 2 comes much later than Portal, but is undetermined where it is in relation to Half Life 2

Plaga701 (talk) 22:35, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Just going by simple math and these statements: Portal 1 and HL2 are separated by something on the order of 10 years, as your EG post points out, P1 is right after the Combine invasion which is nearly immediately after the events of HL1; given that Barney and the other returning characters aren't old and withered, we're looking at tops, 20 years between HL1(P1) and HL2. Now, you're right that the line between P1 and P2 is the one that's defined, and that's in the hundreds (or more) of years. But when you consider how close HL2 must happen to P1, they're effectively the "same" period in the larger time scale,

But even that, the statement above can be read "Portal takes place before Half-Life 2, while Portal 2 occurs much later [than Portal 1]" or event "[than either]", without the explicit qualifier. It's a fine statement as it is. --MASEM (t) 22:46, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

P1 and HL2 are in the "same" period if you accept the notion that P2 is hundreds of years after P1. Although the dialog of the automated voice at the beginning of P2 suggests that that is correct, it could also be attributed to a malfunctioning system, corruption of data due to power loss (remember that by the time Chell is awaken the second time, the auxiliary power has run out, as pointed out by Wheatley), lack of maintenance of the facility (since GLaDOS has a mild case of dead going on) or any number of other causes. The statement "a long time after the first game" made by Erik Wolpaw is way to vage to set a timeline, since it could mean 10 years or 100 years or even a 1000 years.

Since there is no irrefutable evidence (like a statement by a Portal developer or conclusive elements of either universe into the other) that P2 takes place more than 20 years after P1, I think the only safe thing to say is that the chronology between the two is unclear. Remember that is very likely that Valve wants to keep this relation a secret, so is not strange that no final conclusions can be made from the current evidence.

However I do want to apologize for making the changes (The first one and second one where I added a source) before discussing it here. I anyone have any objections please, roll back to a previous version until we come to an agreement.<br\>

Plaga701 (talk) 23:35, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

My one quibble with the content of your edit is that the source only says that Wolpaw wouldn't say in one interview back in March how Portal 2 fits in the timeline. See here for my solution. In general, "X is unknown" is a harder statement to prove than "Person A didn't say anything about X," which is why you see lots of statements that read like the latter on Wikipedia. Thanks for your (continuing, I'm sure) contributions; you needn't apologize for them. Lagrange613 (talk) 00:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I like this solution. However, in order to give as precise information as possible, could we say that a dialog from an automated voice and a dialog from GLaDOS in Portal 2 suggests that it takes place thousands of decades after Portal? My main problem with making this assertion is not its validity, since I know it to be true, but rather that citing a videogame is not standar practice, while the information that's contained in the videogame is valid for the effects of documenting the videogame itself. The closest thing to a standar source that I have found is this, but is poorly indexed, so although the information is there, is hard to use it to verify the wikipedia article.<br\>

More elaborated information about the portal 2 timeline speculations can be found here (I'm posting it not as a possible source, but as relevant information for this thread).

Plaga701 (talk) 00:30, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

We've gone to great lengths to cite web stories in the Plot section of this article for some reason, but I think it's fine to refer directly to a video game when discussing its plot. I forget exactly what GLaDOS says in game so I'll refrain from adding this myself. Lagrange613 (talk) 01:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The length of time is irrelevent. Wolpaw's quote "a long time" is sufficient. Any attempt to quantify that time is going to be original research. --MASEM (t) 01:58, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Quantifying that quote is original research, either to say it happend 200 years or 10 years after P1, therefore, the argument remains the same, we don't know the chronology between P2 and HL2 from that quote. Also, I believe that citing a videogame and an external FAQ page does not constitute original research nor speculation. Plaga701 (talk) 02:15, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Gamefaqs is not a reliable source for anything. But again, the point is that this is making a big deal out of a simple fact - P2 happens much later, enough to cause the facility to fall into disrepair. There is no need to quantify the number of years, how much later it happens after HL2, or the like. --MASEM (t) 03:14, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Even if Gamefaqs is not a reliable source, the game itself is (like you're doing when you say that the facility fell into disrepair). Although P2 does happens much later than P1, this doesn't imply that it happens before or after HL2. When we state that P2 happens many years after HL2 we are already quantifying the number of years because we imply that P2 happend more than 20 years after P1, wich would be speculation. The fact that the facility fell into disrepair is still not enough to enough to justify a timeline since we don't know how the Aperture laboratories would be affected by years of abandonment (we don't know the specs of the facility to make a final conclusion), saying that plants_grew_in_the_facility = centuries is speculation. Also, I doubt that even Valve investigated the precise effects of abandonment in underground facilities, the plants are there just to add effect and to indicate a considerable amount of time has passed (one, two or a hundred decades). I personally think that not even Valve knows the chronology, I think they're just playing with the theme without making any commitments.Plaga701 (talk) 03:31, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I knew I read this somewhere: from "The Final Hours of Portal 2": "One way to further differentiate Portal and Half-Life was to set the game far into the future- at least 50,000 years." (The text earlier establishes P1 taking place between HL1 and HL2, so this is referring to P2) There's more on that point, but clearly Portal 2 is meant to be long after HL2 is done and completed. --MASEM (t) 06:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I was not aware of this source. My only quibble is that this is a behind-the-scenes book regarding the development of P2 (such material is generally not accepted as canon), therefore I would not be surprised if Valve is not following this to hearth. However the statement is pretty final. Someone already made some changes that seem pretty descriptive of the actual situation to me. I have no objections if you want to include this information. I do recommend that you clarify that is part of book about the developing of the game, wich means many the information presented there may have not been final. Plaga701 (talk) 08:30, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

We're citing an iPad app? Where does it get its sources? (It's not made by Valve directly.) And even if someone threw out a random length of time, is it canonical? Valve has very deliberately and clearly said that it's a lengthy but unspecified amount of time. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 20:21, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

It is made by Geoff Keighley, the host of GameTrailers TV, who was invited into Valve to document the development of the game, with the app/e-book published with Valve's blessing. It is based on his sitins and one-on-one interviews with Valve employees during his time there. He did this before with Half-Life in a more traditional book fashion but chose the ebook this time around for interactivity. Here is an article detailing the work.

But again, if you ignore this, other sources have stated an arbitrary figure of "hundreds of years" (I believe Game Informer's original reveal of the title had this quote). A long - more than a measurable number of human years - has passed - most sources agree this is is what it is or the only way to interpret what the game presents (those being review sources). --MASEM (t) 20:34, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Again, I have no objections if you include this (provided that you source it, even if it is to the iTunes store), I just suggested that you provided some background on the nature of the source, since during developing a lot can change very rapidly and some ideas may be tweaked over time, even after the release. However, I would like to know wich sources stated the specific timespan of "hundreds of years" and their authority on the subject, as I haven't found any of them. If you have this sources available, please include them in the article.

What the game presents is very mysterious (that's part of the appeal). Any suggestions based on the looks of the building are only speculations because P2 is not an accurate scientific treaty of the effects of prolonged abandonment on secret underground high-tech facilities. Common sense can easily become speculation when subject being considered is not fully understood (such as architectural maintenance of underground facilities). For example, any modern nuclear reactor would melt-down after 50000 years of abandonment, paper and potato batteries would disintegrate and even some steel structures would suffer structural collapse (specially after water gets in), however GLaDOS and The Final....P2 do mention the timespan 50000 years (GLaDOS does it when talking about her having to revive her death over and over and over, such a crybaby). Since I'm a computer scientist, not a biologist, or an architect, or an engineer, or an applied nuclear physicist, I have to go with hard cold evidence (such as Erik W. saying "yes, we decided to place P2 48901,23 years after P1, now get out of my house or I'll file a restraining order!!!"). Also, since most videogames are designed to be fun and impressive before accurate (simulators and certain FPS are an exception), the scientific fidelity of the images and physics shown are not to be taken too seriously (not that I don't love them, I think Aperture looks great worn down). As an empirical example, last semester I was in a class where we had to design a video game, many of us made games about a ball that had to be controlled to get from point A to point B; turns out that all of the ball games ended lying about the gravity because (as it turns out) gravity at 9.8m/s is really boring (damm thing just didn't jumped). Also, if you ever played NFS:Hot Pursuit, Jumped in GTA:Vice City of got hit by more than 3 assault rifle bullets and remained on you feet in _insert_FPS_here_, you know what I'm talking about.

Plaga701 (talk) 21:39, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The April 2010 Game Informer issue (sourced in the article) was the first authoritative source on the game, and that had the "hundreds of years" in it (here's a version of this article from about this time last year where we were still gathering information, which is where I know I got that "hundreds of years" figure.) --MASEM (t) 22:03, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

<br\>

How could Game Informer know (respectable as it may be) the actual figure when P2 nor TFHP2 (The final hours...) where out yet?? Are you sure it wasn't an abuse of interpretation of pics of the worn down facility (an educated guess if you will) rather than an actual canonical figure?? Maybe they did an interview that's not online, in wich case the source is extremely valuable for the article.

I think citing an Ipad App (and even the game itself for that matter) is acceptable in this case, since there is canonical information that is valid and can only be found in DCL and in the game itself.

PS: At this rate, we're gonna end up with only one column for writing Plaga701 (talk) 22:22, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary edit point

My point is this: P2 takes place a loooooong time after P1. The relative time between HL1, P1, and HL2+eps is relatively small compared to this. We can't quantify it to an exact number; the game doesn't have it and even between reliable sources there's disagreement but there is agreement that enough time has passed to cause the facility to erode to a degree and be overground by vegetation. I realize that the only gotcha to all this is Wolpaw's statement that he didn't want to comment on the relative timing of HL2Ep2 and P2, which could imply something vastly different than what is visually apparent. And therefore, maybe that's the way to go: we can say P2 is believed to take place a long time after P1 due to overgrowth and decay, referencing the cumulative sources we have. If tomorrow, Wolpaw comes out and says "ha ha, GLADOS was just fooling you, Chell was only asleep for one hour", the wishy-washy statement saves our face. --MASEM (t) 22:31, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I think that's being overly cautious. I think Wolpaw didn't realize he wasn't being pedantically clear about the chronology. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 22:46, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

<br\> My points are:<br\> 1- The apparent state of the facility ("enough time has passed to cause the facility to erode to a degree and be overground by vegetation") is not enough evidence to justify the thesis that "The relative time between HL1, P1, and HL2+eps is relatively small compared to this[P2]", due to the fact that videogames do not generally follow scientific rigor when presenting facts because they are generally design to entertain, not to educate; so their ludic component precludes and takes priority over their factual accuracy. Because of the previous statement, the ambient seen in P2 may or may not correspond with the canonical number of years that the facility expended unattended<br\> 2- Common sense (however useful it may be in everyday life) is a poor scientific methodology when applied to unfamiliar topics. So our opinions on structural deterioration on any kind of facility are not to be trusted. Even if one of us happens to be an expert, it would fall in the category of independent research. Even if we were to find a scientific paper discussing the effects of prolonged abandonment of facilities that could be applied to the Aperture Laboratories, peer reviewed and globally acclaimed, as per point 1, our evidence is not to be trusted in the first place, so such source would be mute<br\> 3- Even if any of us can assure what's the agreement within the Portal 2 community ("there is agreement[who??]") regarding it's chronology, that doesn't costitute a reliable source.<br\> 4- Given points 1, 2 and 3, Wolpaw's statement is not the only gotcha in the thesis that you present. Interpreting Wolpaw's statements has to be left to the reader of the article, since we may only present facts<br\><br\> 5- Given points 1, 2 and 3, non of us, for the purposes of writing a verifiable enciclopedia, can affirm that P2 takes place long after P1 and HL2, at best we can cite Erik W. interview, describe the state of the facility at the time of Chell's awaking and cite the sources that suggest a prolonged period of time. Speculation on the exact order in relation to HL2 and P1 has to be left to the reader of the article. Whatever our motives are, I think we agree (given your previous post) that a definite statement cannot be made regarding the relative lengths of the timespan between P1 and HL2 and the timespan between P1 and P2. (ie. we can't assure that P2 takes place way after P1 and HL2).<br\> I like your solution of making a wishy-washy statement, however I would change the word "believed" by "suggests" as by Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(words_to_watch), and add as much sources as we have pointing to a very extended timespan between P1 and P2, as per your suggestion. I think this can be merged rather easily with HereToHelp version. Since you're way more familiar with this article than me, I would prefer that you do the modifications. Plaga701 (talk) 23:30, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

All fair points, but are they really necessary? All we say (currently) is "Portal takes place after Half-Life but before Half-Life 2, and Portal 2 is set "a long time after" its predecessor." I see three chronological claims in there, each of which is reliably sourced (right?). We make no claims about the relative time that HL2+eps and P2 take place after P1 - is it really necessary to point out there exists ambiguity to the truly nitpicky? (A casual gamer could play all the games under the assumption that P2 takes place a significant time after HL2, and not care or miss anything.) HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 23:49, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The posts in this section are getting to be so long that I'm having trouble keeping track of who's advocating what. I have no desire to save "face" by getting the "canon" exactly right. Deciding what's canon isn't our job; reporting what is stated in reliable sources is. Given the (apparently deliberate) ambiguity of the chronology, I see no need to change the account of it in the article. Lagrange613 (talk) 23:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I would say that Masem suggestion of stating the state of the facility would add relevant information about the game without getting overly detailed about the chronology. Plaga701 (talk) 00:19, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't love that most of that paragraph is devoted to a Half-Life crossover, but I don't see a better place for it in the article. I'm putting it in parentheses for now. Lagrange613 (talk) 23:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't love it either, and while I'm too lazy to see if MOS forbids parenthetical statements I don't love that idea either. It's awkwardly phrased and really a piece of fandom. I'm happy deleting it and putting the chronology with Half-Life into the first paragraph. As for tracking opinions, they've shifted as we've talked but never really settled. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 23:57, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Reliable sources have covered the connection; while trying to determine exact timing, etc. would be fandom, we should be reflecting that there is some coverage of the HL connect here. --MASEM (t) 00:01, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

The overlap of the P universe over the HL universe is important, and the overlap of the HL universe over the P universe is key to background story of P. I think the crossover in the plot sections is adequate and has relevant information regarding the game Plaga701 (talk) 00:19, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually I think that within the Portal games the HL connection doesn't rise any higher than an Easter egg. You can play through the whole game and notice exactly none of it. It's fun if you're a fan hunting for it, but what really defines the game's tone is the absence of context (who is Chell, how did she get there, what happened to Aperture, how long was she asleep, what's out beyond those amber waves of grain, what's up with those ankle things, etc.). I admit this is a bigger deal in the first game, but the difference in degree is not a difference in kind. Lagrange613 (talk) 00:41, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree, we could just mention that a crossover exists and link to the plot section of the HL2 episode 2 where they talk about the Borealis. Maybe even expand that section a little to mention that it was found in a seemingly impossible position. Plaga701 (talk) 00:51, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

It already mentions the "seemingly impossible position", so what expansion are you proposing? Since we're on the subject, I think we could do without the mention. Lagrange613 (talk) 01:03, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Since we wandered off topic, I opened another section in the talk page. Plaga701 (talk) 01:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Personality cores/spheres

I almost sure that this article is of FA quality, are there any issues? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JefffBeck (talk • contribs) 22:44, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Patience, we're getting there. There's the chronology issue discussion immediately above. The Release section needs some final polishing. I haven't looked at the Reception in much depth yet. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 22:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

There is another issue also. What is "personality core", "personality sphere"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JefffBeck (talk • contribs) 23:57, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Diannaa brought this up before but I don't think we ever quite resolved it. I've just taken a stab. Lagrange613 (talk) 00:25, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Couldn't we rephrase the beginning of the article to say something in the lines of "reactivated GLaDOS, an artificially-intelligent computer that first appeared in Portal, where it was composed a primary AI program and several personality cores". Then define personality cores in the GLaDOS article?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plaga701 (talk • contribs) 00:31, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I prefer not to use "personality core" in the lead since it's in-universe jargon. The first use of the term in the current article is linked to a section in another article that provides some context. Lagrange613 (talk) 06:46, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Crossover section

I don't love that most of that paragraph is devoted to a Half-Life crossover, but I don't see a better place for it in the article. I'm putting it in parentheses for now. Lagrange613 (talk) 23:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't love it either, and while I'm too lazy to see if MOS forbids parenthetical statements I don't love that idea either. It's awkwardly phrased and really a piece of fandom. I'm happy deleting it and putting the chronology with Half-Life into the first paragraph. As for tracking opinions, they've shifted as we've talked but never really settled. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 23:57, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Reliable sources have covered the connection; while trying to determine exact timing, etc. would be fandom, we should be reflecting that there is some coverage of the HL connect here. --MASEM (t) 00:01, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

The overlap of the P universe over the HL universe is important, and the overlap of the HL universe over the P universe is key to background story of P. I think the crossover in the plot sections is adequate and has relevant information regarding the game Plaga701 (talk) 00:19, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually I think that within the Portal games the HL connection doesn't rise any higher than an Easter egg. You can play through the whole game and notice exactly none of it. It's fun if you're a fan hunting for it, but what really defines the game's tone is the absence of context (who is Chell, how did she get there, what happened to Aperture, how long was she asleep, what's out beyond those amber waves of grain, what's up with those ankle things, etc.). I admit this is a bigger deal in the first game, but the difference in degree is not a difference in kind. Lagrange613 (talk) 00:41, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree, we could just mention that a crossover exists and link to the plot section of the HL2 episode 2 where they talk about the Borealis. Maybe even expand that section a little to mention that it was found in a seemingly impossible position. Plaga701 (talk) 00:51, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

It already mentions the "seemingly impossible position", so what expansion are you proposing? Since we're on the subject, I think we could do without the mention. Lagrange613 (talk) 01:03, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I meant expand the HL2 episode 2 article, it's not mentioned there. That way we just mention that the games share a universe, that there is some slight crossover and link to the HL2 page. This way we reduce the amount of clutter and don't loose information. Plaga701 (talk) 01:33, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Just be careful that the lack of information doesn't provoke the reaction "well, aren't you going to tell me what that crossover is?". Also, good point about lack of context, Lagrange613. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 01:52, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I like Masem's solution. Lagrange613 (talk) 06:41, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
I like it too. Plaga701 (talk) 07:12, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I broke up and revised the sentence, but I like the placement. Also I merged the character subsections, hope you like it. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 21:10, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Reliability of FADE

Regarding this edit, is FADE a reliable source? The Google search "forecasting and analysing digital entertainment" site:wikipedia.org returns no results. That's not to say it's necessarily unreliable, but it seems at least that the question has never been asked. Does anyone here have some knowledge of this outfit, or should we open a discussion at the video games sources talk page? Lagrange613 (talk) 19:11, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I opened a thread at the sources talk page. Lagrange613 (talk) 22:40, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Nobody at the Sources talk page has come forward to endorse FADE as reliable, so unless somebody wants to make a case here I'm planning on removing the citation (and the content it supports if I can't find an alternative source) in a few days. Lagrange613 (talk) 22:09, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Composer

Typhoon966, care to explain this edit, which I've reverted? {{Infobox VG}} says the field is for "composer(s)", which seems to explicitly allow for the contributions of multiple people. Lagrange613 (talk) 16:14, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I think the (s) is for when multiple people collaborate on most of the score. I'm actually okay with just Morasky, since it makes the infobox shorter and tighter ("Want You Gone" taking up two lines especially bugs me). This is, in fact, how Portal does it. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 19:39, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Soundtrack listing

I agree with Masem's revert of the soundtrack listing. StingerP32, per WP:BRD you should have discussed it here instead of re-reverting, and you definitely should have included an edit summary. If no one wants to argue here in favor of the soundtrack listing, I'll be re-re-reverting it out of the article. Lagrange613 (talk) 22:11, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

That said, I'm trying to see if we can justify a separate soundtrack article. I know that the existence of the soundtrack is notable (sites commented on it), but there's no much critical commentary on it. If and only if vol 3 comes out and includes both Exile Verify and Want You Gone (such that we can push that stuff into the article), then it clearly can be called out there. --MASEM (t) 22:34, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Or perhaps Music of Portal 2? Or Music of the Portal series? Lagrange613 (talk) 00:14, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with everything said here so far. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 01:40, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Re-re-reverted, as promised. Lagrange613 (talk) 06:21, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Archivist's note: If we ever want to bring back this content, perhaps in a separate article, it can be found here. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 18:31, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

As an update, we're still waiting for Vol 3 of the soundtrack to be released, and if it has both songs on it, I strongly intend to create the split article. Even without it though, we could call it "Music of Portal 2", instead of the "album" name, "Songs to Test By", as [3] this article has critical discussion on Portal 2's bg music. (There's probably enough there already, but I'd rather wait to affirm if we're organizing it by soundtrack or game music). --MASEM (t) 13:07, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Third volume is now out, and I think I've got enough secondary to cover the music ok. However, I need a quick opinion: The soundtrack does NOT include "Exile Verify" but does include "Want You Gone". Ergo, I would favor that a separate article "Music of Portal 2" as opposed to "Songs to Test By" would be the most appropriate article, though "Songs to Test By" can certainly be a redirect to the main body section of this article. --MASEM (t) 18:21, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

FAC

Isn't it time for FAC? 50.17.45.35 (talk) 22:25, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

No. --MASEM (t) 22:40, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Just so we're all clear, can we make a list of what's left to do before FAC since we are geting close? I think the Release section needs to be reorganized slightly to include a lead before the first subsection and eliminate sub-subheaders. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 16:15, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

The largest piece is that I think I need to rewrite the reception section to cut that down by at least half without losing salient features. I'd also like to wait to see on both the upcoming DLC (mid-Sept) and to see if Vol 3 of the soundtrack features Exile Vilify and Want You Gone, as to determine if a separate soundtrack article could be made. --MASEM (t) 16:27, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I've taken a swag at culling the reception section, and feel that its about as short as I can make it without losing any of the key elements that the reviews went on (when a game gets >90% aggregate, we better be ready to explain why...). After "Peer Review" is out and its features affirmed, I would like to start moving this to FAC, since the rest of the article has had a thorough runthrough. If anyone can review the recieption and trim/clean that up more that would be great (I don't want to lose any of the cited reviews, so they can be grouped in bulk if we don't quote them directly.). --MASEM (t) 18:43, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

No. This article is ridiculously long with redundant information left and right. If the game didn't have such a rabid following, I'd edit it down myself. However, given the immense number of passionate contributors and editors, I won't even attempt it. Someone with an established history dealing with this article *really* needs to trim it down. VietGrant (talk) 10:58, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Reverting Lab Rat edit

I've reverted this edit despite the dire warning. Mentioning Oeming and Wickland in a caption to a game screenshot is not redundant because the article's body only identifies their role in the comic. I've also fixed this edit's spelling error. Lagrange613 (talk) 15:54, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

And per how we write fiction, we treat it as out of universe: "Rat Man" did not draw those from the POV of the WP article, that was Oeming and Wickland, in the style of the ingame character Rat Man. --MASEM (t) 15:56, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

DLC download date

Every article I see about the DLC says that it will be out on all 4 platforms (and irrespective of region) on Oct 4. The claim that DLC for Xbox comes out on Weds is factually wrong: DLC can come out any day of the week on that system (I get my Rock Band tracks on Tuesdays), only the arcade games come out regularly on Weds. In addition, per the way we handle video games as an encyclopedic topic, once one region gets DLC for any console, that is considered released. If there is a major delay (such as weeks or months) between release, that can be discussed, but one day (as being suggested by the IP edit warring this) isn't enough to change that: the DLC comes out on OCt 4th, not starting on. --MASEM (t) 12:54, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok, the IP may have something here - in that the date has shifted one day to Weds, as this is (now?) what thinkwithportals.com says. I was going to put that the PC Gamer article was wrong (which claims the 5th) as nearly every other source says 4th, [4] but if we take thinkwithportals.com as official, they have have Valve Time'd the release by one day. I need to see if this is picked through more channels.

That said, the IP is still wrong on how XBL DLC releases work. They can come out at any time; it is most commonly Weds. but it doesn't have to be. Nor again, we only worry about the first day it happens, not that it is released "starting on". --MASEM (t) 13:04, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

And to the IP's latest change - we don't worry about disappointing people who use WP as their news source for release dates. Given in a few days it won't matter, we write towards the longevity of the information, not the short-term. --MASEM (t) 13:35, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed on all counts so far (although if there is evidence for it, I see no reason not to mention multi-region/-platform dates). Incidentally though, where on thinkwithportals.com does it mention the 5th? I can't find it anywhere (or mention of the 4th for that matter). Alphathon /'æɫfə.θɒn/ ^(talk) 14:05, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Final line of [5], "Oh yeah, by the way, before we forget, the first Portal 2 DLC, "Peer Review" will be out next Wednesday. For free." But I could have sworn that Friday, that was "Tuesday", but there's no way to check that. As to release dates, if they are separated by only a few days, one release date is fine. It's different if it were, say, Xbox today and PSN/PC next month. We're only trying to establish a point in time for further research help. --MASEM (t) 14:08, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Its out now the dlc 62.249.244.141 (talk) 11:48, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Why is Portal 2 as a Good Article listed under "Video games people and miscellanea" and not "Video games" like the other video games?

It's the only Good Article video game listed under that subsection; is this a mistake?; should it be moved?-SCB '92 (talk) 10:52, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Likely a mistake. Clearly its a game article. --MASEM (t) 13:00, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Plot section for DLC

An anon added a paragraph on the Art Therapy DLC plot to the main plot section of the article. For one, we already have text in the part about downloadable content that briefly covers the plot; because we have no idea where they are going with that, we can't give undue weight for it. There's also some fallacies with it (for example we have no idea if there will be more plot-based scenarios in the next DLC). But more importantly, in general, we don't include the plot of DLC within the game's main plot sections unless for some reason that DLC plot expands on the story in a manner to make it clearer. Otherwise, most of the plot should be about the game as released and not the addins for it. --MASEM (t) 00:16, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Memes

The "Space Core" and Cave Johnson's "Lemon Rant" are definitely memes. Pick a source:

---

Lemon Rant
•google - About 3,150,000 results
•http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/cave-johnson-combustible-lemons

---

Space Core
•google - About 911,000,000 results
•http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/portal-2-space-personality-core

NickNackGus (talk) 02:57, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

We can't use know your meme - it's a user contributed site. And the number of google hits doesn't matter, we need a source for that. --MASEM (t) 03:14, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, self-published sources are not outright forbidden (except in BLPs) but are "largely unacceptable sources" (emphasis mine). I think Know Your Meme is as credible as meme information comes, and I vote for IAR. But if you insist... HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 05:52, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

The article wouldn't stand a chance at WP:FAC with a Know Your Meme source. Яehevkor ✉ 11:25, 12 December 2011 (UTC)