Talk:Red Dead Redemption 2/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Title change

The title of this article should be changed to "Red Dead Redemption II" (Roman numeral 2) as the new trailer has shown. Games with similar names (Kingdom Hearts II and Jak II) use the Roman numeral even when, in the case of Jak II, the next game uses Arabic numerals (Jak 3). Tenbeat (talk) 17:58, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Yep, the game's cover changed as well. Lordtobi (✉) 18:13, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I disagree with this; Rockstar (and practically every secondary source) refer to the game as "Red Dead Redemption 2"—only the logo uses the roman numeral. We should be using "2" per WP:COMMONNAME. (For comparison, the logo for Grand Theft Auto V uses the word "Five" and the roman numeral "V" but we use the latter as this is the common name.) This should not have been changed without consensus. – Rhain ☔ 01:33, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Agree with Rhain. Page should not have been moved without consensus, and I'd contend it should be moved back. Both the official website and secondary sources use Red Dead Redemption 2. CR4ZE (t • c) 01:41, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, uh, I probably overhesitated on that yesterday; apologies. Though, yet I believe that they are currently updating all their material with the new title, else I don't see any reason they would pay good money to change the type of number on graphical material. Either way, it appears that secondary sources are already catching up, making COMMONNAME to treat 2 and II rather equally. Lordtobi (✉) 06:04, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

No worries—it happens. This is an interesting change though; Rockstar seem to be changing "2" to "II" for the game's logo (and thereby the cover art) but keeping "2" for everything else: website name, video titles, etc. I'm partial to keep the "2" though, as this seems to be the official title (and "II" a stylistic choice). – Rhain ☔ 08:41, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

A similar case exists with Divinity: Original Sin II, with the Steam profile for it saying "Divinity: Original Sin 2", but promotional artwork having the II. In cases like this, where they are both used interchangeably with no clear preference, I'd say we should just keep status quo, which would be 2 in this case. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 02:20, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

• Follow the precedent in secondary sources. At a glance, based on the custom search linked above, "2" has an order of magnitude more hits than "II". Hits are generally an imprecise indicator, but an order of magnitude is telling. czar 18:34, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

@Czar: Does this also apply to Skull and Bones (video game) / Skull & Bones (video game)? You created the former, while I created the latter (based on the logo). I wouldn't oppose a move from & to and. Cognissonance (talk) 23:04, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, Wikipedia:Article titles applies to all articles, so that case would depend on whether its sources use the ampersand—a discussion for its talk page czar 00:01, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

A good thing to look for is the legal declaration of trademark or copyright, it's always written in plain text and in clear font style. - X201 (talk) 07:35, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Have just reverted a bold page move that either didn't know about or ignored the above consensus not to move without consensus. If it happens again a request for move protect may have to be mooted. - X201 (talk) 07:37, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

And now it's been moved back again. So much for Bold, Revert, Discuss. - X201 (talk) 07:44, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

All promotional material since the new trailer released Sept. 28 shows the game named "Red Dead Redemption II" not "Red Dead Redemption 2" that is the name of the game now.Snipershot325 (talk) 08:11, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

No it isn't. Even in Rockstar's own announcement of the second trailer they refer to it as "Red Dead Redemption 2" instead of "II" (see link) They also call it 2 on Twitter. The use of II is just style choice. To claim that II is the name of the game when even the developer doesn't use it is pushing it a bit. Stick with the consensus above to wait and see what reliable sources called it. - X201 (talk) 09:10, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it is, X201, and even Mafia II uses "II" (Roman numeral 2) in its title, trailer, manual and main menu as opposed to the Arabic numeral 2. --Fandelasketchup (talk) 16:00, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Every single first-hand mention of the game in text uses the Arabic numeral, only the logo does not. WP:COMMONNAME applies, as the Arabic numeral is the most common in secondary sources as well. Stylization is not grounds for a move. Lordtobi (✉) 16:51, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

A sub section of the new trailer.

Hey editors, I have noticed that this page has not been updated regarding the second Red Dead Redemption 2 Trailer #2. This would be a good addition to the page. --Miraclemitch (talk) 15:49, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

@Miraclemitch: Thanks for the suggestion. I've added some information regarding the trailers to the 'Development' section. – Rhain ☔ 21:09, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Trailers aren't really development, though. They're more marketing than anything else. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:10, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Plot/gameplay

WP does not encourage short sections, and at this point, with very little we can say about the plot beyond the character, timing, and setting, it should be combined with the gameplay as recommended by MOSVG. In time, once more about the overall story and/or gameplay elements, then the sections could be expanded. --Masem (t) 16:37, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

@Masem: Isn't Development section short, too? So, keeping WP:MOSVG in mind I will merge it with the lead. You say WP don't encourage short sections then why this exception? I believe you got any definition of the term "short", please share it here. Harsh Rathod Poke me! 13:00, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

A short dev section is bad too, but in this case, the Release section should be presently inserted within it. If we didn't have the release section, and that's all that could be written on development, then yes, this entire article should just a be a stub article with no sections. --Masem (t) 13:43, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

@Masem: Don't you think the Release section should be renamed as Marketing? Harsh Rathod Poke me! 13:56, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

@Masem: Why, then, do some articles about video games contain the "Plot" and "Gameplay" section as two separate entities instead of combining them into one section, and I quote you here, "as recommended by MOSVG"? I ask this because, for example, if you look at the article, it just has the "Gameplay" section without the "Plot" section. --Fandelasketchup (talk) 00:36, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

@Fandelasketchup: This discussion took place before the game was released. The article now has separate sections for Gameplay and Plot. – Rhain ☔ 00:27, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Ubl

{{Unbulleted list}} (shorthand: {{ubl}}) is a list template which is a son, daughter or other-gender child of its parent template {{Plainlist}}. Let me explain from the very start. I used {{ubl}} here in this edit but it was reverted by User:Lordtobi in the shade of adding more descriptive alt in haste with clearly visible typo which breaks the template and didn't give any explanation for this. I reverted this with explanation and further expanded alt. He undid back with a clear nonsense reason of: template redirecting does not help anyone. Again I reverted this back with my good faith motive of concising the source code and asked him to be more specific. Instead of writing here, he showed up to my talk page boasting off his knowledge of WP policies and explained how I was illogical with my edits and tagged them as personal preference instead. I explained him back my reason of concising the source code and also gave an instance of how another editor did that. Again he came back with another policy in the lead and explained how my example was unrelated with the current discussion but in fact they were related with the matter. Again my edit was undone in the shade of removing caption. of concision. After which he posted a warning to my talk page. This led to edit war as seen by User:Anarchyte and finally to the protection of this page till May 6, 2018. Harsh Rathod Poke me! 11:33, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Just to be clear, Lordtobi did the right thing by leaving a message on your talk page, since you were the only editor trying to change the template. Furthermore, referring to WP policies is certainly not "boasting"—it's using established guidelines to support an argument. By ignoring these guidelines, you immediately fail to support your argument. Referencing my concision edit is totally unrelated as well; as Lordtobi mentioned, I was improving the grammatical flow, which is far from the same thing. Instructing Lordtobi to start a discussion is incorrect, since you are the one who is attempting to change the article, and per WP:STATUSQUO, you must gain consensus (and in the meantime, the article's status quo must be maintained). – Rhain ☔ 11:53, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I never said that I was ingnoring those guidelines. He didn't provide any concrete reasons for reverting in the Status quo but just explained the policy on the whole. Harsh Rathod Poke me! 12:40, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

In the long term, there is no benefit of concise source code. WP's got for all purposes, infinite server space. If we left it as ubl throughout the article up to the point that it starts to get to GA/FA territory, then it would be removed when automated tools run to improve articles would be used to remove linked redirects and so forth. Removing it now or later makes little difference. --Masem (t) 13:45, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

---

• After getting no clear consensus for using "ubl" or "unbulleted list". I'm using its parent template because I still don't agree with the current revision. Harsh Rathod Poke me! 08:00, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

  First of all, plainlist is not the parent template of unbulleted list, they act similarly but independent of each other. Secondly, it has been pointed out by multiple user that the change to ubl is unnecessary and possibly even unconstructive. Hence, there is no consensus to change which means that it should stay the way it was before (I believe I have linked the respective guidelines enough multiply already). Furthermore, 'no consensus' does not simply allow you to do something different to the concerned topic just because you feel like it is better, although it obviously disrupts the point made by multiple people not to change the existing format (WP:RETAIN) and is again qualified to be reverted. It also changed nothing visually on the page and just serves as a "my version is better" edit. Lordtobi (✉) 08:18, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

  @Lordtobi: Actually, it is you who is being unconstructive here. Let me correct you that ubl is a derivative of plainlist but with a different format, which makes plainlist the parent of ubl. About other editors, Masem's reply is neutral and Rhain talked about other matter. So, it is still you and me here. Also, till now you didn't explain anything about viability of full-hand version of ubl. Harsh Rathod Poke me! 08:31, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

  It appears to me that you have not yet understood the concept of status quo and consensus. You are the one to gain it, not me. No one here supported you changing it so you feel like the code is tidy, so it should not be done. Please WP:DROPTHESTICK. Lordtobi (✉) 08:33, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

  You are wrong with your second statement. It is not like anyone don't wanna support me, they just don't wanna get involved. That's all! All I am asking for the account of viability of full-hand version of "ubl". I don't need to drop my stick just because someone asked me to. Harsh Rathod Poke me! 08:55, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

  'Not supporting' does not mean that they enforce you not to do something, but simply do not ask you to do it (it's a binary choice). Either way, Masem has clearly pointed out that bots (and several AWB users too) will automatically change template (and other) redirects to their pure form. While this might have many reasons, one of them is likely server load, which, if you have thousands of visitors, will sum up to a lot. That's a one technical side on the matter. So far your only statement for "ubl" is because it is "concise", but not presenting how anyone besides your opinion would benefit from that change. Lordtobi (✉) 09:07, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

  Please stop reverting and effectively breaking status quo over and over and over and over again. There is no point in your change, no reason, no need. There is no problem with the full version, a minor problem with the concise version. Changing unbulleted list -> plainlist literally only has code-style impact as they both produce the same table formatting. This is purely your POV on how code should look and not a constructive edit. Lordtobi (✉) 09:12, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

  Now it is getting very painful to read here. No problem. As for concising, you too didn't provide any specific detailed reason for the use of full-hand version of "ubl", besides imposing statusquo over and over and over and over and over like crazy. Harsh Rathod Poke me! 09:23, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

  You can probably guess why I impose status quo: Because it's an established guidline and I think that guidelines should be followed. That is not to say that you stil reverted after I pointed out my point in clear detail. I believe this discussion can end right here, just to prevent us from wasting each other's time. Lordtobi (✉) 09:30, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

  No, I'm preparing my list of more technical details. Harsh Rathod Poke me! 09:46, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I agree with Lordtobi (who, by the way, is not required to "provide any specific detailed reason", because a) you have not done this either, and b) he is not attempting to change anything), simply because the change causes nothing, and isn't really improving anything besides personal preference. Even the argument that {{ubl}} is "concise" is in poor standing; the difference of twelve characters is minimal. Continually breaking WP:3RR and ignoring WP:STATUSQUO certainly doesn't help your case either. – Rhain ☔ 14:52, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

I have re-protected the page as Lordtobi and Harshrathod50 resumed edit warring again. The only reason you both aren't being blocked is because you managed to fit it all into 75 minutes about six hours ago. Find a consensus or walk away, but consider this a warning for each of you. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:35, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

@Amorymeltzer: How can I find consensus if nobody wanna get involved? Even those who are involved are neutral. Harsh Rathod Poke me! 03:10, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Nobody agreeing with you ≠ no consensus. – Rhain ☔ 03:11, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

It looks like that Harshrathod50 is still changing the Unbulleted list template without consensus after the page got unprotected. TheDeviantPro (talk) 22:58, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Third opinion

Response to third opinion request:

I removed this entry because the dispute is between more than two editors. Consider opening a thread at WP:DRN. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 22:32, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Massive preview by Telegraph

[1] (I've already cited this in the article). Lots of details to expand out all sections. --Masem (t) 16:02, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm currently working on an article expansion from this and other sources, including the new developer interview courtesy of IGN. Should hopefully have something up in the next day or so. CR4ZE (t • c) 17:25, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 6 May 2018

Please incorporate IGN. 2A02:908:F35B:4FC0:1DCC:19EF:1B25:5C4A (talk) 07:49, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Also the page is not protected anymore so you can make the changes yourself Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:08, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Windows version

What's up with people editing the articly to state it will be available for Windows? If that is the case, surely there must be a reliable source that says so. Without a source, I don't see merit to including this statement. I'm all for a Windows version, but if turns out simply to not be true, it would be a big disservice to our readers to say it is. Digital Brains (talk) 08:50, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

@Digital Brains: From my experience, such edits are usually the result of people hoping that changing this would make Rockstar Games release the game on that platform, or just people trolling others into thinking that Rockstar would do that. However, there has also been a "leak" where the LinkedIn profile of a programmer at Rockstar Leeds (the studio that ported L.A. Noire to PC) showed that they were working on RDR2 for PS4, XOne and PC. VG247, a reliable source for our project, also reported on the matter with the tagline "Red Dead Redemption 2 is coming to PC", which did not help the case. Lordtobi (✉) 08:59, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

It is still more just like a rumor, despite the title in the news introduce it as a true or certain thing. As long as Rockstar Games doesn't confirm it, I would never trust. However the news is useful if (whenever it will be) a release on PC comes, to reconstruct the backstory of its development and release. Lone Internaut (talk) 18:06, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

And I'm still getting confused about why articles with multiple systems listed for games refer to "PC" as "Microsoft Windows" even when the box art reads "PC DVD-ROM" or "PC CD-ROM" without the specific "Windows DVD-ROM" or "Windows CD-ROM" (the latter two of which are used exclusively for the OS's installation media, as in the message "Please insert the disk labeled 'Windows 95 CD-ROM' and click OK".) I mean, let's be clear and differentiate "Microsoft Windows" (operating system) from "PC" (the actual game platform) --Fandelasketchup (talk) 00:48, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

PC would include Windows, mac and linux desktops. We need to differentiate these. --Masem (t) 00:51, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

No, you're wrong, Masem: "PC" only includes Windows. If you want to include Mac you'd write it (for example on an eBay item) as "PC/Mac" NOT "Windows/Mac". Linux is a whole different system. Please wrie 500 times: "PC is for Windows. Mac is for macOS" --Fandelasketchup (talk) 15:56, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

"PC" stands for "personal computer"; Macs are PCs, Windows machines are PCs, Linux machines are PCs. Wikipedia is not eBay, we list the family/families of operating systems a game is supposed to run un, just "PC" is too unspecific. Lordtobi (✉) 16:49, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Page-protection proposal

It seems like there has been an uptick in vandalism to this page the last few weeks and I can only see it getting worse the closer we get to release.

Perhaps it’s too soon, but I feel it may be time to apply semi or pending protection to the page. I don’t know how or if I can even do such actions so I was curious what the general opinion on the matter was. redsparta ••• talk to me 12:32, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree, several editors quickly revert the damage each time, but it seems like effort better spent elsewhere. Digital Brains (talk) 12:40, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

@Redsparta: Consider listing this page at WP:RPP. Lordtobi (✉) 12:41, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Done. redsparta ••• talk to me 14:22, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 October 2018

Add Bill Williamson, Javier Escuella, Abigail Marston, and Jack Marston to the returning characters section. TheNicaraguan (talk) 14:09, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

 Not done. Neither did you provide a reliable source to back up your claim, nor do we have such a section here. Lordtobi (✉) 14:16, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

"greatest game of all t ime"

Such a blanket statement would appear to require considerably more sources than are provided. Furthermore, it smacks of weasel word.67.80.188.124 (talk) 05:08, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

"Minor" criticism

Can I please get a consensus on when it's appropriate to use the term "minor criticism". In the article, I have used the term in respect of the complaints leveled against the game's controls, which is probably the biggest complaint against the game, yet remains a minority view as per the list of reliable sources I have come across. That, coupled with the fact all of the other major aspects of the game have received widespread praise (bar some comments about its "realism") have led me to label the criticism was "minor" in both the lead and Reception section. However, several anonymous users have contested this and reverted my edits specifically in Reception. Thoughts? Wikibenboy94 (talk) 13:58, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, I fear this is actually two seperate issues here. The lede, and the reception. The reception, should be WP:BROAD; meaning it should show both positives and negatives. Even if only one RS has an issue with one part of a game, we should include this. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:32, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

The lede is a different issue. I'd support a simple change to say that "some publications criticized the title's controls..." as the word "minor" in this case is a little subjective as an overview. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:32, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 15:14, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

While I agree with its inclusion in the body, I disagree with its inclusion in the lead. Viewpoints from a small minority do not deserve coverage there. Also, you have to be careful with the term "some" per WP:WEASEL. Unless it is properly attributed to a reliable source that directly supports it, that term should be avoided. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:20, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Ok, if you're sure. It's times like attributing "some" as a possible weasel word that Wikipedia can get a bit confusing! I've also seen articles like Horizon Zero Dawn where there are three criticisms of the game across three reviewers (one for each) and they're all mentioned in the lead, despite originating from just one source. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 15:37, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

While we're on the subject, as per the complaint about the game's level of realism, could the term "a few critics also felt that..." be classed as a weasel word and should it be changed? Wikibenboy94 (talk) 16:19, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Often times (but not always), the use of "some" causes a numerically vague expression that invites challenges. If it is in fact a very small number, then it would probably be easier just to mention the sources/publications/editors directly by name using in-text attribution. As for your "few critics" concern, it's pretty much in the same boat. Instead of quantifying with the use of "few", explicitly name the critics and what each one said. If you're trying to limit the amount of coverage, narrow it down to two examples in one sentence. My 2¢ anyway. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:03, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

---

@Wikibenboy94: I actually think the inclusion of minor criticism in the lede makes sense in this revision. The article is in a very different state than it was in November 2018, and the Reception section has two paragraphs dedicated to the criticism of the game's control scheme and player freedom (among its paragraphs demonstrating praise to story, characters, open world, graphics, music, and gameplay). In terms of weight, I think a brief sentence (or half-sentence) is warranted. – Rhain ☔ 23:26, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

@Rhain: Thanks for your input, however I personally would change the wording of "lack of player freedom" to something like "an emphasis on realism" (or slightly extend this phrase if necessary). While neither wording is particularly self-explanatory, saying an open-world game limits freedom comes across as contradictory. -- Wikibenboy94 (talk) 23:57, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

@Wikibenboy94: Fair enough; I think a lot of the criticism was directed at the fact that, despite being an open world game, the critics felt that their freedom was limited in regards to the narrative. I think "emphasis on realism over player freedom" gets the point across. I've made the change, but please feel free to make adjustments. – Rhain ☔ 00:06, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Anonymous user(s) removing criticism

I don't know if we can do much about this, or even if the whole thing's just sheer coincidence, but four times now an anonymous user or users with one of those really long random IP addresses has removed the paragraph detailing criticism of the game's controls (the criticism for the game's sense of authenticity on the other hand has always been ignored).

In each example, the user/users has given a comment along the lines of "This criticism is a minority view", "There are too few reviewers talking about this", or "These critics aren't reliable". In the second edit, the user began by saying "Again," and then gave their reason, despite it being a different IP address, leading me to believe it could be the same person. Also the third and fourth edit (the fourth being a revert) have been made by the same IP, but gave two different reasons for their removal of the prose (out of those example reasons I've given above).

Can we please keep an eye out for more of these. It seems very unlikely that we have two to three people simply copy-catting each other, and it always being the same paragraph removed is very suspicious. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 00:14, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Page protection has been requested. Hopefully that goes through. --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:41, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Wikibenboy94 - Wikipedia articles follow WP:BRD practices. So, in this case, the first time an IP is being WP:BOLD, you (or other users have reverted the changes), and then above a discussion has been initiated. If a user then doesn't participate in the discussion, but still re diverts; this is WP:Disruptive editing. In the case of a registered user, I'd comment on their talk page, before taking it further if drastic; but in the case of a non-registered user (Which, by the way have no less rights than a registered user in terms of content); we simply ask for page protection. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:46, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I understand the basics, but I'm still a bit bemused on when it's deemed necessary to protect a page, or alternatively undo its protection. I've seen articles like this, and others I think like the PS4 game Spider-Man, where the page is protected, but this is reversed as soon the game is released, which in my mind is when the article is probably at its highest risk of vandalism (unless of course as you say you're inviting all users to participate freely as they would now have greater knowledge of the game?).

Conversely, I've seen a few articles that receive frequent vandalism, often for a common reason, and yet they're not given page protection. Would this be because they weren't a high priority? Wikibenboy94 (talk) 09:10, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Not really, it's pretty much down to who puts the request in, and who forfills this. Page Protection is almost always temporary. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:35, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I requested 3-day semi-protection, but it looks like the page has been protected for a month. Protection will be automatically removed when it expires. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:03, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Killing of suffragette controversy

Should we make a mention of the controversy surrounding a player's killing of a suffragette in various ways, or is it not worth it? Wikibenboy94 (talk) 13:24, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

What is the sourcing? If publications simply say that players are doing this, I don't think there is a lot that can be said. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:20, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Basically, although it received criticism from feminists/activists, and just general audiences. YouTube removed the videos for the player breaking policy rule, who it seems then tried to get support from several other internet celebrities/gamers, but within the past day YouTube decided to restore the videos. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 17:23, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

There's plenty of sources related to the YouTube issue eg BBC that can be used to talk about it. --Masem (t) 15:25, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Oppose. Who cares? Calidum 16:52, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Unlike the crunch time ones, the developers aren't really brought up into the subject other than that it happens to be their game, and from the looks of it they won't be commenting anytime soon. Oppose. 197.128.196.133 (talk) 07:42, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

I think the sheer fact that YouTube has had to weigh in for this means it's notable. The important thing is probably the removal of videos, and not really what caused it. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:56, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

In that case, wouldn't it belong to the YouTube page?197.128.196.133 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:10, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. It makes it more tricky, there are discussions now surrounding YouTube's decision and their stance on such matters. I suppose it's not really necessary though getting it into the article. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 09:15, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

YouTube's algorithms are historically broken. They admitted their mistake and took the channel back online. A short mention is probably justified, but we shouldn't put too much weight on it. Lordtobi (✉) 09:23, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Indeed. It would be a bit off (And completely remove the chance of being WP:BROAD enough for a GA) if we didn't include it at all. Simply mentioning that certain RDR2 videos were removed from YouTube due to their content; but were later deemed to have passed seems like enough to me. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:46, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Shall I write the prose or was someone else intending to? Wikibenboy94 (talk) 11:00, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Be WP:BOLD. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:03, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Done. I don't know if you think it needs some slight trimming or not. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 14:25, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

I've removed the various subsections. These seem a little excessive. We don't need a section for individual paragraphs. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:45, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, that's great. I think the paragraph about the killing works well now in a shared Controversy section. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 16:24, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Was any kind of criticism leveled at the developers or the game itself in regards to this "controversy"? If not, I question how this one-among-a-million case of someone doing something dumb in a video game on YouTube is at all relevant to the game itself. Spartan198 (talk) 01:43, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

I removed this section. Unless I've missed something, it doesn't seem to me like a controversy over the game itself; the controversy was over Youtube and their moderating policies. It belongs in a YouTube controversies article rather than this one. Robofish (talk) 22:09, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

What was the decision made to list this controversy? The controversy has to do with a YouTube user posting objectionable content that was produced within RDR2 - is there going to be a "controversy" section posted in every Wiki entry of the tools used to create the Objectionable content? For example, "The Samsung S20 was used to film police beating protesters in 2020..." would seem to be an absurd thing to list under a Wikipedia entry about the Samsung S20. It's like the Wikipedia editors were looking for some sort of controversy since RDR2 was made by the same company that makes the GTA series. Its just not a logically defensible controversy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.30.197.215 (talk) 16:55, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Synopsis length

I believe there's no reason to label the plot summary as excessively detailed or too long; it is a sixty-hour story after all, so has reason to be this long, and goes into detail about as much as the average Wikipedia movie synopsis, stating only necessary details. I can take steps to remove some of the most unnecessary details but I believe its length is adequate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quazarrr (talk • contribs) 22:24, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

References

Quazarrr, plot summaries should be less than 700 words according to WP:VG/CONTENT and 400-700 words per WP:FILMPLOT. The current summary is 899 words and will need to be trimmed. I understand you believe it only contains essential details, but if that's the case, then some essential details will need to be cut. Keep the most essential in those situations. --GoneIn60 (talk) 14:12, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 November 2018

Change spelling from "Micha" in the second to last paragraph of Plot to the correct spelling, "Micah". Line in question: "Against Abigail's wishes, the gang pursues Micah after learning he is nearby. Confronting Micha, they learn that Dutch is again working with Micah." AeliusJS (talk) 02:38, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

 Done Prefall 02:49, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:John Marston (Character).jpg

File:John Marston (Character).jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a non-free use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

-- Marchjuly (talk) 21:53, 30 November 2018 (UTC)