Talk:Saints Row

Video games Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks

AfDs

Jackpot World (1 participant)
Bejeweled Stars (5 participants)
Melee (game terminology) (5 participants)
Godzilla: Monster of Monsters (4 participants; relisted)
Godzilla 2: War of the Monsters (4 participants; relisted)
Crazy Bus (13 participants; relisted)

Merge discussions

Other discussions

No major discussions

when is this game coming out?

when is this game coming out? i just got saints row 2 and i almost beat (3 missions) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trevor515 (talk • contribs) 01:06, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stilwater Merge

The article Stilwater has been recreated again, despite the previous AFD. However, now that this article (the SR series article) has been created, there's plenty of room here to contain a decent discussion of Stilwater. While I know other GTA cities have their own article, they are in bad shape and also being considered for merging to their respective games. --MASEM 18:17, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with this merge. Are you sure this is what you want to do? Really make a whole section devoted to Stilwater on the Saints Row series page? Why not just break it off. The problem with putting it into the Saints Row series page is that, like some plot sequences for certain movie Wikis, it would be far too long to compare with the rest of the article. If we keep adding to the Stilwater page it could be a smart move. All it needs is expansion and referencing. Last time, you said that there wasn't enough detail in Stilwater to have an article for it. That was in Saints Row. Besides, you agreed yourself you might consider recreating it when SR2 came out. There is a lot of detail in the city and there's lots to write about. It shouldn't be merged. 60.242.127.62 (talk) 19:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The key issue is that the amount of detail out-of-universe for Stilwater is very small; we can still claim the resemblance to Chicago and Detroit, and there's likely some reviews that cite how Stilwater's been improved in SR2. However, the way this article is structured is still a virtual tourist guide of a fictional city, something that is not appropriate per our coverage. Right now the series article is very small, so there's plenty of space to have it there and redirect Stilwater to that; from what I've seen of SR2 coverage, it really cannot expand much beyond this. --MASEM 20:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I support the merge and think it's a good idea. This article can and should be summarized. There's a lot of original research such as how the city "appears to have a high crime rate", and a lot of redundant information with the main article. The problem is a lack of reliable third-party references, making this article completely non-notable, and at risk of deletion. It's better to write properly sourced information at the main article, and split it off if you have enough properly sourced information that it (1) can't fit in another article and (2) can meet WP:N and WP:V's standards for a new article. Randomran (talk) 01:44, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, why don't you help us make the article acceptable, instead of trying to remove it? There is a ludicrous amount of information in the city of Stilwater- there are many, many landmarks and places of interest, there's a lot of history behind the city, there's plenty of detail to write about without it being a "virtual tourist guide". And if you want, then I can find references. 60.242.127.62 (talk) 06:52, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An article cannot solely exist talking about a topic only from it's in-universe perspective; it needs to describe the city from an out-of-universe approach: how the developers created it, any influence its design had on other games, how the city was critically received. The aspects of the city, within the confirms of the game, are nice to have but only serve those that may have played the game and thus alone are not encyclopedic. If these can't be provided in significant amounts, then basically it fails content policies for WP (see WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:N and WP:WAF). That doesn't mean we can't briefly cover the fictional aspects of the city in an article about the game series that it appears in, which is the point of this merge. --MASEM 12:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are always references out there. But are they reliable? Are they independent? Do they verify a significant amount of the information in the article? Finding those references might take a while, and I'm not confident that they exist. A better strategy is to clean-up and merge this into the main series article. Once you find more sources and expand the Stilwater section in the main series article, then discuss a split. Randomran (talk) 15:51, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Maybe a merge is best. For now... 60.242.127.62 (talk) 19:37, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this merge with the condition the page is currently in. It needs more information, especially out-of-universe information, such as how the developers created it, why the developers named it "Stilwater", and how they came up with creating all the landmarks, etc. However, if some more sourced information can be added to the page, especially out-of-universe information, I disagree with a merge. Other video game cities have their own pages. One example is Liberty City (Grand Theft Auto). MOOOOOPS (talk) 03:12, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These are undergoing the same scrutiny for the same reasons.--MASEM 03:23, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like there's consensus for a merge, at least on a temporary basis until reliable third-party sources about Stilwater can be found. I'm sure a solid Stilwater section will improve the Saints Row (series) article, even if it's only sourced to primary sources. So I've decided to be WP:BOLD and go ahead with it. (And we're looking at those other articles too. If someone thinks they fail the same standards applied in this case, they should raise that issue. I personally think Vice City might need a merge too.) Randomran (talk) 05:03, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Saints Row (series)

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Saints Row (series)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "IGN":

From PlayStation 3: "Sony announces 27 playable titles for the September Tokyo Game Show". IGN. 2006-08-16. Retrieved 2006-08-16.
From Saints Row (video game): Perry, Douglass C. (2006-08-28). "Saints Row Review". IGN.com. Retrieved 2007-07-06. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:06, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stillwater section need more work

Couldnt someone put more information to the city? Such as description, timeline, etc. and include the map? Coolman1250 (talk) 17:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

THIS PAGE DOESN'T EVEN SAY WHETHER THE GAME IS FIRST-PERSON, THIRD-PERSON, OR WHATEVER. fOR christ's sake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.172.93.243 (talk) 08:57, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ready to split Saints Row 3?

I would like to hear your arguments for and against splitting off Saints Row 3 into its own article. I believe that since the game has now been talked about a lot by THQ, and that there are now plans for a "massive transmedia blowout" of the game, it merits its own article. Discuss. CR4ZE (talk) 07:13, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should wait until more information now. If they decided to announce anything at E3, i would say yes, but unless they release anything thats somewhat important by the Spike Video Game Awards, I say wait. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.228.8.227 (talk) 03:25, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Characters and Gangs

Where are the articles for the gangs and characters? They should be up here too. The King Gemini (talk) 21:47, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Saints Row IV

Why does Saints Row IV not it's own article yet? The game has an official release date and we know enough info about it. I think it needs it's own article. Mattseay3000 (talk) 04:08, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, I think the first google result for "Saints Row IV" is fine how it is. ;) -User452 (talk) 15:29, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the only reason is that no one has bothered making a page yet. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 18:50, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't mind, I will make the article for Saints Row IV. Mattseay3000 (talk) 03:37, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At the FUTURE section

"A new game was confirmed..."etc., citation needed

Rewrite

I'm rewriting this article from scratch. Is there any opposition if I use mdy date formatting (which is easier for me) instead of the current dmy? czar ⨹ 13:19, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Santo Ileso

Is someone going to add Santo Ileso to setting? 2601:806:C300:D280:E97B:7709:195D:FA4C (talk) 15:08, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]