User talk:Rhain

talk

2011 · 2012 · 2013 · 2014
2015 (Jan–Jun · Jul–Dec)
2016 (Jan–Jun · Jul–Dec)
2017 (Jan–Jun · Jul–Dec)
2018 (Jan–Jun · Jul–Dec)
2019 (Jan–Jun · Jul–Dec)
2020 (Jan–Jun · Jul–Dec)
2021 (Jan–Jun · Jul–Dec)
2022 (Jan–Jun · Jul–Dec)
2023 (Jan–Jun · Jul–Dec)
2024 (Jan–Jun · Jul–Dec)

newsletters

... image: John Robert McPherson

It appears I got into a edit war over on the article for GTA VI. While I feel like I the changes I made to the article were pretty minor other editors may not feel that way. I hope you have a great day! Ric36 (talk) 22:32, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So article of Planet of Giants states that "a recreation of the original third and fourth episodes using newly recorded dialogue and animation based on the original scripts" this is sourced to:

pages 126-127 of Wright, Mark, ed. (2016) "The Sensorites, The Reign of Terror and Planet of Giants". Doctor Who: The Complete History

This claim is repetead in List of actors who have played the Doctor which attributes the narration for the Doctor to John Guilor without a source. I was wondering if you knew, or if you still had access to the book, could check the relevent pages of the source too see if John Guilor is mentioned by name, if so it could be used for the list so I can get it to FL status. I ask you as you were the one to add the information and source to the page. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 02:57, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@OlifanofmrTennant: Page 127 mentions Guilor's involvement in the recreation, but it doesn't specifically state that he played the Doctor. That being said, it's definitely true (see this video). Here are two other refs that specifically mention Guilor's role as the Doctor:

• Ainsworth, John, ed. (2016). "The Day of the Doctor and The Time of the Doctor". Doctor Who: The Complete History. 75 (10). London: Panini Comics, Hachette Partworks: 66. ISSN 2057-6048.
• Wright, Mark (September 2012). Spilsbury, Tom (ed.). "Planet of Giants". Doctor Who Magazine. No. 450. Panini Comics. p. 91. ISSN 0957-9818.

– Rhain ☔ (he/him) 04:15, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article The Daleks' Master Plan you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:The Daleks' Master Plan for comments about the article, and Talk:The Daleks' Master Plan/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Pokelego999 -- Pokelego999 (talk) 23:03, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

The template documentation says the nomination count excludes wins. Is it wrong to point that out? Also, isn't it normal to follow the template guidelines? Additionally, see this talk Wikipedia:Teahouse#Awards nominations count. Anoop Bhatia (talk) 23:21, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Anoopspeaks: If it's stated in the template documentation, then the articles should follow suit (though, notably, that was only added more than a year after the template was created), but many articles don't, so it would be contradictory to add it to all of them. If you think the note is necessary, perhaps it can be added as an optional parameter, so you can activate it wherever it's needed, but I think wider consensus is required before adding it to all 1,300+. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 23:30, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhain A note is necessary as the documentation says it excludes wins. Otherwise, it will be confusing to readers when they see different articles treating it differently. Also, I am surprised that the clause was not removed from the template documentation, considering the majority use it as you mentioned. Anoop Bhatia (talk) 23:45, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Anoopspeaks: I think different articles treating it differently is exactly the reason why it could be added as an optional parameter, so it can be activated on articles that follow the documentation. I'm surprised the clause hasn't been removed too; it might be worth starting a discussion about it, since it seems most editors miss that part. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 23:51, 6 July 2024 (UTC) [reply]

@Rhain I had added the notes as optional, but updating the documents requires discussion, I think. Anoop Bhatia (talk) 00:29, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! It was very nice to see how you improved the article about GTA: SA to GA. I'm from the Russian wikipedia and I'm very interested in where you got the following sources from:

"Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas". GamesTM (15). Paragon Publishing: 66–77. July 2004.

Young, Richie (July 2004). "And Then There Were Three". PlayStation 2 Official Magazine – Australia (29). Future plc: 35–50.

Pierce, Stephen (July 2004). "GTA: San Andreas". Official UK PlayStation 2 Magazine (48). Future plc: 35–49.

Best, Timothy C. (June 2005). "Welcome to the Jungle". PC PowerPlay (113). Future plc: 52–59.

Slate, Chris, ed. (August 2004). "Seeing Is Believing!". PSM (87). Future plc: 54–61.

McNamara, Andy, ed. (June 2004). "Rising in the West". Game Informer. Vol. 14, no. 134. pp. 42–51.

Price, Tom (June 2005). Smith, Rob (ed.). "The Prodigal Gangster Returns". Official Xbox Magazine. No. 45. Future plc. pp. 36–45. ISSN 1534-7850.

Davison, John, ed. (October 2004). "Gangster Construction Set". Official U.S. PlayStation Magazine. No. 85. Ziff Davis. pp. 48–49.

Zuniga, Todd (November 2004). Davison, John (ed.). "GTA: San Andreas". Official U.S. PlayStation Magazine. No. 86. Ziff Davis. pp. 40–41.

Zuniga, Todd (November 2004). Hsu, Dan (ed.). "Upping the Ante". Electronic Gaming Monthly. No. 184. Ziff Davis. pp. 112–122.

Maybe not all the sources are here, but if possible I will write to you. M.lebedev (talk) 12:24, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@M.lebedev: Thanks for reaching out! I'm happy to help. I accessed a lot of these sources through the Internet Archive repository linked on the talk page. Here are the specific refs you're after:

• GamesTM
• Young
• Pierce
• Best
• Slate
• McNamara
• Price
• Davison
• Zuniga (OPM)
• Zuniga (EGM)

Please don't hesitate to reach out if you need anything else! – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 13:00, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's so nice to have these sources at your fingertips. I searched the Internet Archive myself, but to no avail.

I already wanted to take something from the Portuguese article, but in my opinion, 30-50% of the information there is superfluous. And you have everything straight from the most basic and plausible sources. M.lebedev (talk) 13:05, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give a link to this source? Reiner, Andrew; Miller, Matt (December 2004). "Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas". Game Informer. Vol. 14, no. 140. p. 170. M.lebedev (talk) 13:03, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that's it. I found it thanks to the link you sent earlier. M.lebedev (talk) 13:06, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rhain, have you completed your review of this nomination? The review isn't considered complete until an icon has been included indicating the status of the nomination; a tick is required to signal the bot of this completion so it knows to move the nomination to the Approved page, and so that promoters can tell whether it's a regular or AGF approval. Please return as soon as you can to continue (or complete) your review. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:17, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seems I forgot the tick—thanks for the ping. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 05:18, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Saying that Rockstar Games is developing Grand Theft Auto VI while it's developed by other studio which only belongs to Rockstar Games (to be strict, even this is not officially confirmed) is false. Eurohunter (talk) 13:37, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For this reason, there is no developer mentioned in infobox. Eurohunter (talk) 13:38, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We know is that the game is in development by Rockstar Games; this is both true and verifiable. If we discover the primary developer is one of its subsidiaries, the article can be edited accordingly. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 13:44, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

		Editor of the Week
		Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week in recognition of your great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)

User:TechnoSquirrel69 submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

This is one of those cases where I'm shocked the editor has not been recognized with this award before. Rhain (talk · contribs · count · logs) is a content creation veteran with over 70 GAs spanning the last decade, primarily relating to video games. Some of my favorite examples of his work are Hayao Miyazaki and Red Dead Redemption 2, not to mention The Last of Us (all Million Award–eligible, by the way)! I met Rhain when he reviewed my first GAN, and above even his considerable writing experience, I was struck by his attention to detail and his humble, helpful communication style — two things I'm sure will stick with me throughout my editing journey. This project needs more editors like him, and I hope you'll agree he deserves this recognition as a small token of the community's appreciation. Seconded by MPGuy2824.

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

{{User:UBX/EoTWBox}}

Rhain

Editor of the Week for the week beginning July 21, 2024

A content creation veteran with over 70 GAs spanning the last decade, primarily relating to video games. Some examples of his work are Hayao Miyazaki, Red Dead Redemption 2 and The Last of Us (all Million Award–eligible, by the way)! Has considerable writing experience, pays attention to detail and has a humble, helpful communication style. Always happy to help, he deserves the community's appreciation.

Recognized for

Submit a nomination

Thanks again for your efforts! Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 13:09, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

Nine years!

Congratulations to Editor of the Week, - seems about time ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:26, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm following up about your recent reverts of me, where I classified Characters of The Last of Us Part II as a list, which I was quite confused by. Just to be clear, you don't think the items included at List of The Last of Us characters are lists? Additionally, you also nominated and helped promote Characters of The Last of Us to featured list status. Hey man im josh (talk) 01:20, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Check the edit history and WP:NVGC. There's also a relevant discussion here. In short, it was loosely determined that character lists with significant individual development and reception are article-class, whereas plain lists are list-class. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 01:41, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The edit history you cited is just someone else changing it, that's not particular relevant. As for the classification, why are Characters of The Last of Us (a featured list you promoted) and Characters of The Last of Us (TV series) classified as a list while Characters of The Last of Us Part II is not? This doesn't make sense and they should be consistent with one another. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:55, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The TV series article was classified as article-class until you changed it back. The first game article was promoted almost a decade ago and was maintained for simplicity and legacy. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 22:09, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi thanks for good article - can we discuss hook at Template:Did you know nominations/The Daleks' Master Plan please Chidgk1 (talk) 10:09, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On 3 August 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article The Daleks' Master Plan, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that three-quarters of Doctor Who's longest story are missing? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Daleks' Master Plan. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, The Daleks' Master Plan), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Z1720 (talk) 00:04, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, I decided to do some additional work on a few articles on the subject of The Last of Us, and ended up nominating Music of The Last of Us Part II for good article status. I see you've been the overwhelming contributor to the article, so I thought I'd give you a heads up.

Take care! BarntToust (talk) 19:16, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your useful contributions to these articles! However, I have undone the nomination as it is technically classifiable as a "drive-by" per WP:GAI. I intend to improve all Part II articles to reach GA quality soon before nominating. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 23:00, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that point stands even though I'm the second-biggest contributor to the article. Hey, if I end up contributing at least 10% of the article I'll just re-nom it myself. But if not so, I'll be eligible to review it.

Thanks for going back and undoing a bunch of my Guardian Media Group added cites stuff. I undid two of them myself that you missed. Also, thank you for seeking out all of those filming photos for The Last of Us season 2. All your evident, tireless work on this subject deserves a barnstar. I'll attach one below. BarntToust (talk) 00:17, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For being a massive contributor on The Last of Us (TV series) who does some of the most insane hunting for free-use content and general article-building. BarntToust (talk) 00:23, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page List of video game soundtracks considered the best, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 23:00, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See line 595. In the English language, a phrase with a comma is spelled with a space following the comma. The rest of the changes are AWB default general fixes, meaning that they have been designated as general improvements. BD2412 T 03:10, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of how commas work, but that is how the original reference is formatted (though there might be an argument to correct the punctuation per MOS:CONFORMTITLE). I'm also aware that the rest of the changes were AWB default, but most were unnecessary and introduced inconsistencies. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 03:30, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The poor formatting of the original reference can permissibly be maintained, but comma spacing errors tend to be a distraction and an eyesore to the reader, even where they reflect the original source. I use the AWB defaults because they are generally understood to bring the encyclopedia as a whole into greater consistency, even if they may be countereffected in a specific article from time to time. Where that happens, the better outcome is probably to bring any remaining inconsistencies into conformity with the defaults. BD2412 T 03:39, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Generally speaking, I'm a fan of consistency between articles, but when it comes to references (and especially ref names), I value internal consistency over conformity to a bot-defined "default". – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 04:00, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, a publisher of resources often used in the scope of the Last of Us project has a Wikipedia page now, and I'd thought I'd let you know about the task of hyperlinking these, since you might be able to come up with a bot that does the hyperlinking.

Have a good one! BarntToust (talk) 16:43, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up! I've been waiting for that article to be created—I appreciate your work. Bots aren't really my forte, but I'll definitely look into linking to the article where relevant. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 22:51, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind creating an FAQ for this article? Something similar to your previous Talk:Sweet Baby Inc./FAQ would be appreciated Trade (talk) 01:24, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure it needs one for the moment, since the discussions seem mostly tame and not too repetitive. Happy to revisit if things get worse though, and of course others are always welcome to create one if they deem it necessary. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 01:56, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, could you explain your changes to the infobox references in the article? Hovering over the reference numbers in the infobox shows me "Red Thread Games (August 20, 2024). Dustborn. Spotlight by Quantic Dream. Level/area: Credits." What is "level/area: Credits"? Is there a set of WP guidelines related to this? Genuinely curious! Daisy Blue (talk) 02:22, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Daisy Blue: Thanks for reaching out. I just changed the reference to cite the game's credits directly, rather than a YouTube video. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 02:42, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, bother! If only they had come to some happy arrangement which encompassed the original recording and caused the payout of massive, humongous royalties to, say, the – er – second trumpet player on there. Oh well. Back to doing the national lottery I guess... cheers DBaK (talk) 12:22, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Rhain, I'm writing to you after you reverted my last edits on Neil Druckmann's wiki. the fact that he supports the Gaza genocide occurring ight now in Occupied Palestine is real, and it's on all his social media, and I'm inviting to you to check out by yourself, and though, avoid being a collaborator in this genocide (even recognized by the United Nations) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ineam (talk • contribs) 08:05, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a means for advocacy. Adding unsourced statements to the Wikipedia article of a game developer will not stop the genocide, just as removing said statements does not indicate support for it. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 08:51, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Rhain. In regards to FiveM it seems logical to think that Fivemscriptspl and MpFizic are throwaway accounts. Do you have any idea who could be operating them? Sam Sailor 09:53, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They certainly seem connected to each other, but I'm not sure of anyone beyond that—possibly just a new user looking to promote the service, or a fan who got lost on their way to Fandom. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 10:35, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SPI opened at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Fivemscriptspl. Sam Sailor 11:38, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CNET, a source used sometimes in the scope of the Last of Us, has been acquired by Ziff Davis, as of October 1, 2024. So, publisher perams for sources from that company should be filled with Ziff Davis from there on out.

Have a good one! –BarntToust^(Talk) 23:24, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I understand your concern but as I said people looking for basic information on the show will just look at the infobox and therefore give the wrong episode count when wanting to tell someone the total amount of episodes. Spectritus (talk) 20:50, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Naming a story that isn't included in the total number seems like the opposite of "basic information" to me, as it requires more context for the reader to understand. The episode count is not wrong, so I'm not sure I agree with your concern. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 20:55, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You said Shada was later broadcast, so why is it not included in the episode count ? Spectritus (talk) 14:00, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources don't count it, so it's excluded regardless of broadcast. The same could be said about the pilot recording of An Unearthly Child, or something like "Time Crash": they're essentially supplementary episodes, regardless of the original intention. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 14:09, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You mentioned that I deleted 20 movies from Tom Holkenborg's filmography, but that's not accurate, at least not in the latest revision. My initial edit did overlook some films due to an error in my script, but I added them back later. Please avoid reverting changes just because you see big red numbers; even a removed space counts as a character. --LordRapture (talk) 00:44, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@LordRapture: I reverted the edits because you initially removed almost 20 films from the table (and a number of other incorrect/poor changes), not because of the "big red number", but thanks for restoring them. While you're here, please feel free to review MOS:LQ regarding the placement of quotation marks within quotation marks, MOS:PMC regarding any alteration of direct quotes, and WP:BOTTOMPOST regarding the placement of new topics on talk pages. I would also recommend frequently previewing edits to avoid errors, as in the infobox here. Thanks for reaching out. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 00:52, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just today extensively rewrote and expanded Minecraft: The Story of Mojang, and I'd love an opinion on it. If you can find the time, I'd really appreciate some pointers about what I can do for the article (other than wait for the internet archive to unf**k itself so I can start adding archive urls). Hope you're doing well! BarntToust 00:07, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BarntToust: Good to hear from you; hope you're well. Good work on the article! Ideally, I would recommend trying to write a "Production" section about the creation of the documentary, but unfortunately sources seem lacking in that regard. Otherwise, consider expanding the "Content" section with specific details about the film, its content, and its interviews; the Eurogamer review seems like it might be particularly helpful for this. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 01:25, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for taking care of the archiving! Saves me a lot of time to work on other stuff, like the == Content == you suggested. Thanks for working out some of the finer copyedits on the article and bringing up some since-dead Joystiq refs to flush out the release. I really appreciate that, Rhain! Have a wonderful day. BarntToust 12:28, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhain Hey, I noticed you know how to find the original Joystiq pages on the wayback from an Engadget repost, might I ask if you can find the same from this one? It's something for the == Production == section, where the rest of the Kickstarter info is.

https://www.engadget.com/2011-03-21-see-whats-being-crafted-for-minecraft-documentary-donors.html

Thanks for helping out. I truly appreciate it! BarntToust 18:23, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BarntToust: It's actually surprisingly easy once you know what to look for:

• Change engadget to joystiq
• Replace the date's hyphens (2011-03-21-) with slashes (2011/03/21/)
• Remove .html

Then throw that link into the Wayback Machine to find out if it worked—hey presto! – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 22:53, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

awesome, thanks for the knowledge! Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime :) Thanks again for the wisdom! BarntToust 23:23, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Rhain, I personally haven't seen your name in a while. Just saying hi! I appreciate your early help when I was new, especially on Mario 35. I hope you don't mind me mentioning that (retrospectively) positive experience in my essay on making mistakes. And I would like to thank you for your excellent work on articles relating to Red Dead! I've been playing Red Dead II recently. For a guy who's played exclusively Nintendo stuff my whole life, this game, is like, nuts. Arthur, Dutch, Hosea, and Sean especially are portrayed so beautifully. There's just so much to see and do! Shooting people in their head has never been more fun! I'm losing so much money in poker! I bring that up because I've been reading the articles you've done as I play (steering clear of the plot of course). I love reading the development info on games and that's definitely one of your strong suits. Panini! • 🥪 19:15, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Panini!: Thanks for the cuppa! It's good to hear from you. It's great seeing how active you are throughout the WikiProject—your comments often bring levity where it is needed. I'm honoured to be mentioned on your essay too; it's an insightful read and should be beneficial for new editors.

Glad to hear you've been enjoying Red Dead Redemption 2 ! There's certainly a lot to see and do—it's been almost seven years and I'm still not sick of it yet. Thanks for your kind words too—I enjoy writing most parts of game articles at this point, but I won't deny that development sections are my favourite. There's something about breaking down the creative process that I find particularly fascinating to write about—and doing so on Wikipedia provides a great opportunity to share our discoveries with others. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 23:20, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Current media consensus is to call the collection accurately with its actual term, "remake" rather than "remaster":

• "...the Crash Bandicoot N. Sane Trilogy in 2017, a remake of the first three games." - The Gamer
• "...the trilogy of Crash remakes will be joined by fellow platforming remake trilogy Spyro Reignited Trilogy." - Gaming Bolt
• "As does Crash Bandicoot N. Sane Trilogy, which is another collection of impressive remakes." - T3
• "...the dynamic difficulty adjustment that was previously only present in Crash Bandicoot 2 and Warped to its Crash Bandicoot remake." - IGN
• "...Crash, will return soon with the N. Sane Trilogy remake." - WCCF Tech
• "... a remake of Crash’s first three games," - VICE News
• "...Vicarious Visions-developed Crash Bandicoot N. Sane Trilogy remake." - Eurogamer
• "in recent years, with the complete remake of the first three games..." - Screen Rant
• "...is a remake of the first three games." - Yahoo! News
• Even NASDAQ calls it a remake when announcing Activision's sales milestone
• Even Activision themselves quoted an Attack of the Fanboy review calling N. Sane a "remake"

Chuck Bartowski (Charles Carmichael) (talk) 02:01, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Chuck Bartowski (Charles Carmichael): Sure, but current Wikipedia consensus is to call it a "remaster", hence the phrasing both here and here. The navbox should imitate the articles. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 02:04, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But the basis for said consensus is what's said prominently in the media. While there was confusion in the beginning due to the nature of the trilogy's announcement ("remaster plus," a term from eight years ago which didn't even catch on), it became clear over the years that they are, indeed, remakes. Chuck Bartowski (Charles Carmichael) (talk) 02:07, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Chuck Bartowski (Charles Carmichael): You don't need to convince me; this sounds like a discussion for here and/or here. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 02:12, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I responded to the talk page. Thank you. Chuck Bartowski (Charles Carmichael) (talk) 02:28, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "Re-release reception doesn't need its own section": Then why is there a whole paragraph about it? The original game's reception information suddenly jumps to the re-release as if it were still ongoing. Although shoddily written, at least making a distinction here with a sub-subsection is more convenient for readability.
• "there's no reason to remove the title from the first review table": It's called redundancy. Literally what is the point of putting a title there as if the PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360 reception is something different? It's already clearly stated what the reception is and on which platforms the game is released.

ภץאคгöร 21:57, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Having its own paragraph does not mean it needs its own section; the same could be said about most paragraphs in the article. One could argue that the information "suddenly jumps" to the re-release just as it jumps from music to multiplayer; it's just another aspect of the critical response, and a separate section for a single paragraph feels unnecessary. I'm not sure I see the redundancy in the table; besides the title, it doesn't clearly state the platforms at all, and the prose doesn't mention them until the third line. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 22:27, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if there is more than one "jump" it just indicates the poor state. Are you implying that the reader won't know the platform info until reading the table title in the reception section? It is contradictory to consider it unnecessary to split an entire paragraph and not to consider it unnecessary to add a completely unnecessary title. ภץאคгöร 22:42, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that every paragraph is a "jump" if one wants to view it that way. I think the prose makes the platforms clear enough, but it's useful (and consistent) for the table title to specify them too. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 22:47, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]