Talk:The Stanley Parable

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Seanyster1.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:15, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Comment

This article is a mess - it mixes up things from the mod with other things from the standalon release, and vice versa, and is in desperate need for a rewrite (Also taking into consideration that the standalone release is the "definitive" release of The Stanley Parable). I'd do it myself, but I am bad at Wikipedia. Would love it if somebody did, however. --87.241.82.82 (talk) 16:13, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I've been writing most of it and have assured the remake info is separate from the mod game, only up to the point where the success of the mod led to the remake version. (I will add the part about the name change and being "definitive", though. --MASEM (t) 16:18, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I got an account to reply with, because screw IPs - but sweet, that'll probably help. I'm one of the guys who worked on the game, so it's nice to see that somebody cares about the wikipedia article for it :D --Hideouss (talk) 12:26, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Great, good to know :) Just be aware that WP (particularly now after a large incident) is very careful on conflict of interest editing (eg: you making direct edits to an article about a product you likely have financial interest in), and thus you are feel and are welcome to drop anything you'd want to see changed or fixed (as long as we can back it up in sources) here on the talk page, and I or another editor can fix that up. --MASEM (t) 13:29, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, well aware. That's another reason I didn't want to edit the article myself, directly. That, and I don't understand citations at all. --Hideouss (talk) 13:58, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, don't worry about the citations - just a url pointer to any articles, and we can format them correctly. --MASEM (t) 14:24, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm gonna go ahead and add a review template with some reviews and scores that have come out today, along with the Metacritic overall scores. Silverseren^C 00:49, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

There should be a picture and slide showing who Stanley is Cr427d843 (talk) 12:23, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't know how to use this, but how can an article on The Stanley Parable not discuss the narrarator, Kevin Brighting? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Craig234 (talk • contribs) 22:39, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

All endings

Hello friends, I have compiled a complete list of endings in the 2013 remake. Do you think it's appropriate to add them on the article? There are discussions on the Internet, but there is no definitive list. Zen Light (talk) 06:42, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I suspect not, it goes beyond the scope of an encyclopaedia article and more into the area of game guides and game cruft. Both are things to be avoided. Яehevkor ✉ 09:52, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Unless, of course, the endings get significant critical coverage, which I haven't seen much of yet - all reviews acknowledge multiple endings and that all drop you back into the office to start again, but even specific endings haven't really been described. --MASEM (t) 13:54, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Ta-da!. Though I didn't know that playing the baby game for four hours was a real ending. Geez... Silverseren^C 19:24, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

My issue with that source is that it is, for all purposes, a user-submitted blog. See the site's about page: "The Las Vegas Guardian Express is different: We’re not tethered to any corporate or governmental interests as we deliver information to you because we’re powered exclusively by content from you, the citizens of the United States, as well as citizens of other countries that contribute to our publication." I'm not questioning the validity, but this is basically akin to a Gamefaqs guide. --MASEM (t) 20:03, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't even notice that. Are we sure James Fenner is just a user and not a journalist for the group? Silverseren^C 21:21, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

The way I'm reading their about, they have no journalist staff that write stories directly; they do have webmasters and admins to manage content, but not anyone creating content. Mind you, the way the press is working on this game, I would now gve a better change that such an article might be written by a true RS. --MASEM (t) 21:35, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Lead

@Masem: Currently, the lead describes the game as interactive fiction. I removed this since it's a graphical 3D game, not a text adventure, but was reverted because of "reliable sources" and because it's "fiction you interact with." On the first issue, I don't see any sources specific to that sentence, or any other sentence mentioning "interactive fiction" specifically. I'm not denying they exist. I just want to see them. On the second, any video game with something resembling a plot is "fiction you interact with" by definition so I fail to see the reverter's point. --NYKevin 18:54, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

• Sources that call this IF: [1], [2], [3], [4]. And I guess while IF is traditionally text-based games, the key here that just because the interface is in 3D, it doesn't disqualify it from being a work of fiction that contains player interactions. --MASEM (t) 19:13, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

  Fair enough, I suppose, though I'd still appreciate a citation somewhere in the article itself near the term "interactive fiction." I still don't agree that this is correct usage (I'd call "a work of fiction that contains player interactions" an adventure game or an action-adventure game depending on gameplay), but if sources are calling it that, we need to follow them. --NYKevin 23:10, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Inspiration for themes

The Stanley Parable has similar themes to the 1985 film Brazil. If Davey Wreden is on record as having been inspired by the movie, I think it would be a notable addition to the article.

58.7.78.239 (talk) 07:47, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I would add something interesting, too. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panopticon The "Mind controll Facility", is actually a general topic in philosophy's history. What do you think, should i add a linked note discribing the Picture? (Have a look at Focault regarding this topic - "discipline and punish") sincerely, v.

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Reviewer: Lee Vilenski (talk · contribs) 22:14, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I am planning on reviewing this article for GA Status, over the next couple of days. Thank you for nominating the article for GA status. I hope I will learn some new information, and that my feedback is helpful.

If nominators or editors could refrain from updating the particular section that I am updating until it is complete, I would appreciate it to remove a edit conflict. Please address concerns in the section that has been completed above (If I've raised concerns up to references, feel free to comment on things like the lede.)

I generally provide an overview of things I read through the article on a first glance. Then do a thorough sweep of the article after the feedback is addressed. After this, I will present the pass/failure. I will use strikethrough tags when concerns are met. Even if something is obvious why my concern is met, please leave a message as courtesy.

Best of luck! you can also use the {{done}} tag to state when something is addressed. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)}

Please let me know after the review is done, if you were happy with the review! Obviously this is regarding the article's quality, however, I want to be happy and civil to all, so let me know if I have done a good job, regardless of the article's outcome.

Immediate Failures

• It is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria -
• It contains copyright infringements -
• It has, or needs, cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid. These include{{cleanup}}, {{POV}}, {{unreferenced}} or large numbers of {{citation needed}}, {{clarify}}, or similar tags. (See also {{QF-tags}}). -
• It is not stable due to edit warring on the page. -

Links

• Could we add some archives? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:54, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Prose

Lede

• WP:LEADs are a maximum of four paragraphs. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:42, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
• walking simulator video game is a WP:SEAOFBLUE. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:42, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
• The word "mod" is used, without explaining what it is. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:42, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
• While both the mod and the remake use the first-person perspective common to other Source engine mods, there are no combat or other action-based sequences. - should comment that other mods are combat based. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:42, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
• Instead, the player guides Stanley, the game's protagonist, through a surreal environment while the narrator, voiced in the remake by British actor Kevan Brighting, delivers exposition. - puff. Instead "The gameplay involves guiding a silent protagonist named Stanley alongside narration by British actor Kevan Brighting." Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:42, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
• The whole part in the lede explaining the gameplay needs cutting, potentially say the game's focus is on the dynamic between the player and the games narrator. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:42, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
• Outside of Brighting's voice work as the narrator, Wreden built the modification "himself" - of course he did it himself. Should say "solely made" or similar. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:42, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
• The lede needs more wikilinks.Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:42, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
• More info on critical commentary is needed Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:42, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

General

• Some completely unsourced parts here. Whilst you don't need to source a story summary, that's now what is here. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:53, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
• We need some more background. Remember the lede is a summary of the article, not a prelude. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:53, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
• The story element seems pretty crufty to me. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:53, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
• All notes should be sourced. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:53, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
• Lots of sentences start "Wreden", perhaps reword or, use " he" Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:53, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
• Don't use "high-definition remake". Try "retail release", or "remake". Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:53, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
• Shortly after the release of the original mod, Wreden was contacted by William Pugh, a player who had experience in creating environments within the Source engine and had previously won a Saxxy Award for his work.. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:53, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
• QUite a few things are unsourced in prose. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:53, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
• Why are some images left aligned? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:53, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
• Steam link should be for steam greenlight. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:53, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
• One massive paragraph followed by a small one. Consider split/merge. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:53, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
• Given the unique nature of the title which is aimed at surprising the player and breaking their expectations, a traditional demo that would showcase some parts of the actual game would take away from the surprise in the full title. - is this a quote? Sounds NPOV breaking. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:53, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
• IGN's Luke Reilly listed The Stanley Parable's as one of the top six demos in video games, citing how the demo is "an entirely standalone exercise designed to prepare [the player] for the unique player and narrator relationship that forms the core of The Stanley Parable experience".[17] - this should be in reception. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:53, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
• The OS X version (requiring 10.8 or later) was released on December 19, 2013, with support for older versions of OS X expected to arrive shortly thereafter.[ - we don't comment on release dates of softwares. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:53, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
• Physical release - should be in development, or better it should be put into a "release section", with some info from the Development section. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:53, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
• COuld you remove the scores from the reception? If it's also in the table, we shouldn't also mention in the prose, unless very important. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:53, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
• The reception section needs to fix some paragraph breaks. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:53, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

GA Review

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Comments

• Automated note - If you fancy returning the favour, I have outstanding GA nominations that require reviewing at WP:GAN. I'd be very grateful if you were to complete one of these, however it's definitely not mandatory. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)}
  • Placing on hold as per the above. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:55, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

• • A comment as an editor that had worked on this before , only that we know we have this Ultra-Deluxe version that is due out Real Soon Now, and while incorporating any additional reception related to that should not be too difficult, want to make sure that's not going to be an issue towards the GAC process (eg knowing there may be some changes coming). --Masem (t) 23:16, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
    • Leaving a message on this page too: I fixed some of the issues mentioned above. AntiGravityMaster (talk) 00:20, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
      • I'd rather you addressed the points individually, rather than dropping me a talk page message. I'm not sure as to some of the edits, for instance you've added citations to the lede (with enbolding, which isn't suitable in this case). You use some wikicode such as The Blake Robinson Synthetic Orchestra which is a little weird. There's information remaining such as " (requiring 10.8 or later)" I'm not sure why we refer to the game as "high-definition remake" in so many places, as it's simply a retail release of the game, which was based on a source engine mod.
      • We literally don't mention what a mod is in the prose of the article either.
      • As an aside, the fact another release is scheduled for the game, shouldn't effect it becoming a GA now. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:28, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
• Okay, I'll go through the significant changes in a bullet list, as well as my other responses to your critique (AntiGravityMaster (talk) 20:04, 2 March 2020 (UTC)):
  • Reduced the number of paragraphs in the lead down to 3 by restructuring and removing redundant info.
  • Fixed "sea of blue" issue.
  • Is it necessary to explain what a mod is when the lead contains a link to an article on Source engine mods? I'd like to make the case that defining it within the article would be redundant for this reason.
  • Fixed the "combat-related" sentence to be more clear.
  • Fixed the puff by using your suggested sentence.
  • Cut the gameplay lead down.
  • I don't believe I made this edit, but the "built the modification himself" sentence was restructured.
  • Added some links to the lead where I figured they'd be appropriate, although if those still aren't enough I'm open to suggestions.
  • Added sources to the story summary.
  • Unsure what you mean by needing more background, as I think the "Gameplay and story" section provides a fair amount.
  • Story is a pretty integral part to TSP, considering there's very little gameplay, so I don't personally see it as "crufty".
  • Sourced the note.
  • Replaced some instances of "Wreden" with pronouns.
  • "HD remake" has, iirc, been used in a few official sources, but considering I'm not too confident on that claim I'd be willing to change it over to "remake".
  • Cited Pugh's Saxxy award.
  • Sourced a few things in the prose, although I may have missed some.
  • Realigned images.
  • There is no "steam greenlight" page, so linking to it doesn't make much sense to me.
  • Rearranged paragraphs.
  • Fixed NPOV break.
  • Moved the demo review to Reception.
  • Missed the OSX bit in my first read through, I'll fix that shortly.
  • Moved physical release to development.
  • Did some minor edits to paragraphs in Reception, but I'll look over it again.

Right - took a good look through - I'm happy with this now. Good job. As Masem stated earlier, with additional info coming from another remake, this will need to be updated to avoid it being GAR'd, but for now it's fine. Passing. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:49, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Release date redundancy

It says October 2013 twice. (Plus, it's ignoring the mod, released July 2011.) Tallaussiebloke (talk) 13:25, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Talking about in the infobox, not the article. Tallaussiebloke (talk) 13:26, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Because of the complexity of release (3 different versions) we're using the collapsible list so that the "first release" is shown. That first release is the full version which is NOT the mod but the remaster of it, but we can include the mod's release in the collapse. --Masem (t) 13:52, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

What would it take for The Stanley Parable 2 (I am kidding about the name - if you've played it, you'll get the joke) to get its own article? Or at least more information on what content was added, or a summary of the new story told? Dogman15 (talk) 03:07, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Plot summary of sequel

Ultra Deluxe has more of a linear story that it tells, with certain endings happening in a sequence: New content door, jump circle, Memory Zone, reviews, skip button, SP2 Expo Hall, collecting figurines among other bucket endings, and finally the epilogue. Would it be a good idea to write a summary of this plotline? Dogman15 (talk) 00:46, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Not to that level of detail but yes. --Masem (t) 03:38, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

I noticed no one replied to my message in the section above this one. Also funny is that I literally just listed a bunch of plot points, so any additional detail that might be implied from that is imagined by the reader. Dogman15 (talk) 22:16, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

"Gambhorra'ta" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Gambhorra'ta has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 12 § Gambhorra'ta until a consensus is reached. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 14:58, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

The Narrator (The Stanley Parable) merge discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was merge. While there was one objection, everyone else and even the original article creator want to merge it. This can also help with the active GAR. I see absolutely no reason to prolong things. Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:22, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

---

I do not think this article makes sense as a stand-alone from The Stanley Parable. I do not believe the Narrator can be separated from the game, in the same way that we wouldn't typically write an article titled Writing of The Stanley Parable. It is hard to find a sentence in these first two sections that doesn't describe how the Narrator structures the game. Nearly every sentence in the "Gameplay and synopsis" section of The Stanley Parable talks about how the Narrator directs the player. The narrator's manipulation, frustration, joy, and malice is the game. As a walking sim, The Stanley Parable is purely the method of interaction with the narrator. Even the world/"story" itself is designed by this character. The only exception is Kevan Brighting "reprising his role" in a Dota 2 expansion, but we don't have anything on that here. Of course, any reception of the game would be about its most important aspect (the writing and voice-acting), though I'm not quite sure what my thoughts are on the academic citations in the reception section.

An independent article on Kevan Brighting would seem reasonable to me. It's a man trying to make a career and his leading role in The Stanley Parable has indeed been much-praised. He does narration in a lot of games. If we had an article on him, I imagine this stand-alone "character" article would make even less sense.

@Pokelego999: Please share your thoughts. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:39, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

I do understand your concerns and believe they are valid given what you've presented, since it is true that The Narrator is a large part of the game. I feel The Narrator is able to emphasize individual notability via the fact that the character individually has received much analysis on his own individual character. His role in his game will obviously be analyzed given it's his main appearance, but I feel there's enough individual analysis on The Narrator's character to justify the split off. I can go over sources individually but I do feel your concerns are valid, so I'll likely leave the rest of this debate in the hands of more experienced editors who are more aware of guidelines in terms of whether a split is valid here. If we do merge, I do feel The Narrator could potentially justify his own section in the Reception given that, as you said, he's a large chunk of the game, but I also do feel tat entire section of The Stanley Parable's article could benefit from the sources used for The Narrator.

I will note on your other point that I don't think Brighting is meeting the notability guideline as an individual voice actor, as much as I wish he was since I'd love to have an article on him. I'm not too familiar with VA notability but there was little I could find on him outside of his role as The Narrator. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 13:05, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm going to agree with Mable here. This is interesting stuff that makes the most sense to present in context with the rest of the game, rather than split off into its own article, rather than forcing the reader to go back and forth between the main article and the character article. TSP feels like it's had enough academic discussion to warrant a "Themes" section. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:06, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Being honest I thought TSP already had a "themes and analysis" section before making the article- the fact it doesn't genuinely surprises me. Regardless of merge outcome I'm probably going to expand on that once I have time cause it feels like a waste not to bring up any of it here. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 01:09, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose Saying that the Narrator is not a character because you don't physically see him in the game feels a bit ridiculous to me. A character is a character, even if based solely on dialog and voice acting, so this deserves the same consideration as any other character article. Saying the Stanley Parable is only its story and not its gameplay also makes no sense to me. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:11, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

  I never quite claimed that he was not a character. In fact, every aspect of this gameworld is designed by this character in conflict with the player. I'm not sure what you mean with Stanley Parable being in part its gameplay. Sure it's the base system on which it functions, but also it's pretty much just WASD and looking around. Could you meaningfully write more than a paragraph on Stanley Parable's gameplay without mentioning the narrator? ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 16:37, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

  No, but that doesn't mean the Narrator isn't worthy of separate notability as the game. I don't think we could write more than a paragraph of Super Mario's gameplay without mentioning Mario, either. This doesn't prove anything, really. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:36, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

  Mario is a hard comparison because he's in so many works, but for a similar comparison, I still doubtful that our article on Madeline (Celeste) is appropriate for the same reason. If you can't write a single paragraph about something without mentioning the other thing, chances are the two are intrinsically related and best discussed together. This is also why it took us so long to have an article on Rayman (character) separate from Rayman, something I'm also really unsure about. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 10:06, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

• Weak support After long thought, I do feel a lot of the content could easily just be slotting into this article (especially the reception) without going into WP:UNDUE territory. I think a big decider is he doesn't feel quite separate from the work in terms of design or analysis, and by comparison would strengthen this instead.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:21, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
• Support - per WP:MERGEREASON - it makes far more sense to cover in the context of the game article than it does split it out like this. Its a subject that's largely impossible to explain outside of the context of the game itself. Sergecross73 msg me 17:10, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

  I can explain it in a single sentence: "The Narrator is a disembodied voice who guides Stanley and tries to keep him on the path he deems correct". Saying it is "impossible to explain" is simply overblown. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:34, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

  You've got to read the entire sentence before you attempt formulate a response. The statement continues to say "outside the context of the game". That part is crucial to the entire critique, and your explanation entirely fails to address it. Sergecross73 msg me 01:20, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

• Support besides the fact that the narrator is significant in context of the game, most of the reception on the narrator page can be worked into the article without too much work, though may need so, E bit of trimming as it's size on the separate article seems to be to fluff up the narrator's notability. Masem (t) 17:17, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Comment per other comments, I feel a bit more confident in saying that this is likely better off being merged into the parent article. Independent notability necessitates it can be separated from the parent subject. While The Narrator is definitely notable, he's moreso notable as an aspect of his parent game more than just a thing on his own. Thus, I feel I can Support this fully, as creator. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 00:18, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

• Support I dont think it make sense for a non-existing character to have their own article. Its just a narrator. Also, the arguments above should be enough by merging some of its content from the targeted article. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 08:14, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
• Support per my agreement with Mable above, if it wasn't clear. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:04, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA Reassessment

The Stanley Parable

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Kept. Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:50, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure how this article got so out of hand, but you can pretty clearly see something went very askew here. There are wayyyy too many fair use images now, the formatting's broken, a two year old expansion template...this article is in dire need of some weed trimming when compared to the version that passed GAN in 2020. Kung Fu Man (talk) 07:47, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

I'd be interested on improving the article in the spots where it is broken. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 12:58, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

I think the biggest issue is the lack of reception for the new release. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:47, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

There's also a lot of academic analysis that hasn't been included that I found while researching The Narrator (The Stanley Parable), for example, and a lot of things mentioned in the nomination to clean up. I've been busy the past few days but I intend to hit this up soon. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 00:34, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

@Kung Fu Man I've expanded the Reception to account for the Narrator's existence with additional Analysis, and I've also added reviews for the Ultra Deluxe game. I've tried reformatting the images per my discussion with you, but the infobox physically will not let me have no image there and it is confounding me. In any case, bar that image debacle (Which I will need some help with) is there anything else that needs patching up? Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 00:45, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

I think the only thing left is to remove the infobox from the dev section, it's kinda superflous. But we should have the original release date mentioned in the body...kicker is I'm having a hard time finding a good cite for *when* that happened.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:23, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.