Talk:Doki Doki Literature Club!

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pricing information: WP:NOT?[edit]

The "development and release" section currently says:

Paying US$10 or more unlocks a bonus "Fan Pack" that includes desktop and mobile wallpapers, the game's official soundtrack, and a digital concept art booklet.

While true, I think mentioning the price is not what Wikipedia is about. I tried rewording it, but it was not expressed well enough by me:

I can agree with the revert reason. I'm not good at fixing it with a better description however, so may another editor look into this please? Pinging @CurlyWii. 84.250.17.211 (talk) 20:46, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I had the same problem. I was trying to come up with a way to still convey the information without mentioning the price, but the best I could think of was "users who pay over a certain amount unlock the fan pack," but if you're going to write it like that, you might as well just write the price instead of "a certain amount." CurlyWi (talk) 21:25, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Spoilers in Article[edit]

The plot section delves quite headfirst into the full of the game,which can definitely shy away a few people interested in the game who wanted to view the Wikipedia page before downloading it.Should the plot section be edited to be spoiler-free or do you think it's on the blame of the reader for reading the plot section for a plot-heavy VN? — Preceding unsigned comment added by QKpzw (talk • contribs) 08:34, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:SPOILER for Wikipedia's policy on spoilers in articles. CurlyWi (talk) 08:40, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Additional images?[edit]

The article is currently a lot of text without many images to illustrate things, especially the Plot section, any specific ideas on what to add, if anything? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AntiGravityMaster (talk • contribs) 18:30, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How many pictures do you think an article like this is supposed to have? If you look at a sample featured article like Super Meat Boy, the article body only has 2 pictures, one of gameplay and one of the devs. No need to have more pictures simply for the sake of having more pictures. CurlyWi (talk) 19:43, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It just seemed kind of empty for me, that's all, although adding images to the plot section is... debatable, admittedly. Also, if we're talking featured article examples of indie games, here's a counterexample: Fez (video game). AntiGravityMaster (talk) 23:31, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose you could add a picture of Dan Salvato to the development section, a lot of indie articles do that, but I think that's usually done when the creator has independent notability (their own article) which I'm not sure Salvato has. He's gotten some coverage outside of DDLC, but I'm not sure if it's enough for his own article. Might have to look that one up, and see if there are guidelines about adding images of "non notable" developers in cases like this. CurlyWi (talk) 08:01, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm contemplating adding one more image for the article's Plot section to better illustrate the game's "metafictional horror" aspect, since that isn't adequately represented anywhere else in the article. Spoilers be damned, I'm leaning toward an image of Sayori's suicide since that's the exact point of the game's shift in thematic genre, and certain visual aspects of it demonstrate the metafictional angle well enough. I'd just like some second opinions on the idea before I go ahead with it. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 02:44, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please be aware of our non-free content policy (WP:NFC). You cannot just use more images just because it looks empty. Fez has more images because we got them under a free license. also, the suidice images would be highly inappropriate under the principal of least surprise. This game is not easily seen as a horrific-imagery so it would be unsettling. --Masem (t) 02:58, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Very negative reviews[edit]

Recently an editor to this article added a paragraph to the Reception section showing two very polarizing and very negative reviews. I removed this section entirely due to it coming from two essentially unheard of sources and talking of a seemingly large amount of people who hate the game while only citing two sources (the paragraph was also somewhat messy and extensive). I suppose this could be added back in some way, although I'm not in favor of that. I think it's redundant to include the one or two people obscure publications who hate on something everyone else loves that will always be there no matter what. This is clearly an unpopular opinion, so until a major publication shares this "popular" opinion, I'm not in favor of adding it back. Thoughts? AntiGravityMaster (talk) 02:00, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's not really anything to discuss. The reviews added were NOT from reliable sources, so they should not be included in the article. CurlyWi (talk) 03:42, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly my point. AntiGravityMaster (talk) 14:57, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 31 December 2017[edit]

Include description on fan-made mods such as http://www.monikaafterstory.com/ and justmonika.wixsite.com/justmonika Onceanidiot (talk) 15:13, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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. Zhangj1079 talk 17:58, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Mail[edit]

Reversion. I am unsure as to why the Daily Mail is an unsuitable reference here. Axl ¤ [Talk] 15:35, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article will probably help explain this. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:27, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thank you for the link. I found Wikipedia's RfC here. (Incidentally, The Daily Mail's medical information is absolutely terrible.) Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:35, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. That's part of the reason we're passing on it as a source. Was quite the big deal when it went down. Shame really as apparently it wasn't this bad (apparently) in the past! Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:07, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Likely misidentified by parent in article (Reference #25)[edit]

Britton, Paul; Yarwood, Sam (June 26, 2018). "A 15-year-old boy was found dead. Now his dad, and a coroner, have warned about the 'horror' online game he was playing". Manchester Evening News. Retrieved June 28, 2018.

The article states; "He said the game was linked with his mobile phone and would be contacted by text message during the day and at night, often waking him up."

This is impossible to be associated with this game.

Shouldn't a note be added for this?

The game is also not an "online" game, though that can be ignored as semantics.

It's not really our place to insert commentary/analysis on a source. That would fall under WP:OR which isn't allowed on Wikipedia. A source is either reliable or it isn't. If it seems dubious, we should probably just remove it/try to find a better source to replace it. I can't even look at the article to review it, because it's gated behind a bunch of popups and bs, so I certainly wouldn't object if someone removed it. CurlyWi (talk) 00:53, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Or, better yet, we just remove it entirely to avoid any confusion at all. In fact, it's not even been confirmed that any game has been directly linked to his suicide, there're are many other factors than just what game he had played. I say that we keep this out the wiki page until it has been confirmed 100% that this was a major role in his suicide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arminkaric (talk • contribs) 02:25, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There may be WP:BLP implications and other than making the news, there indeed is no conviction or court case. You may be right, I don't contest your move. —PaleoNeonate – 07:48, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 26 October 2018[edit]

When it is in the possible endings change the "if monika's file is prematurely deleted." if ANY Character is deleted Skrrito (talk) 11:08, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what do you want. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus 09:34, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 24 December 2018[edit]

Change: "there is no happiness" in it. to "no happiness can be found" in it. An error message then pops up informing the player that a script file is missing or corrupt and that the game needs to be reinstalled. Without reinstalling the game it will keep prompting the player to reinstall.

The "no happiness can be found" in it is the specific way it is put in the letter and immediately after that is the error message. HoodedH (talk) 04:58, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm not against the change, do you have a screenshot of that point in the game suggesting that this is the case? Hiàn (talk) 04:14, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
​ Done. There was no opposition, and plot sections don't need inline citations (MOS:PLOTSOURCE). — Newslinger talk 09:47, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Character List[edit]

Should there be a list of characters in DDLC article? 184.155.146.26 (talk) 01:51, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there should be a list of the characters in DDLC, which should include the protagonist character as well. Morphine2 (talk) 23:15, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The characters are not notable enough outside of the context of the narrative to justify any more coverage than what is already included in the article. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 17:28, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Suicide Tendencies[edit]

So this news article popped up from Chicagoland: Gary middle school issues warning about popular online game. Should there be text added concerning that the game may cause suicidal tendencies? FunksBrother (talk) 17:28, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The text should be included either in the reception column or a separate one titled “Controversies”. Morphine2 (talk) 23:17, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is not widespread enough to be worthy of note. A single middle school's memo doesn't cut it. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 17:28, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request, 3 May 2019[edit]

Monika appears and apologizes to the protagonist for the "boring" weekend he had spent, and begins a display of compensation -- The word "compensation" makes no sense here. Should it be "compassion"? 109.246.123.214 (talk) 16:33, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Compensation" means "making up for something", which makes perfect sense in this context. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 17:06, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

wrong artist credited[edit]

ref: Kagefumi https://ddlcwiki.net/wiki/Kagefum

Initially handed assignment, personal reasons caused a replacement artist assigned.

https://doki-doki-literature-club.fandom.com/wiki/Satchely

https://www.deviantart.com/satchely/journal/Free-Game-Release-Doki-Doki-Literature-Club-705810669

106.71.241.36 (talk) 02:44, 30 May 2019 (UTC) I never saved a password; in fact I'm not sure what screen name I used, maybe novista. I'm not game to mess with the article itself.TY. Update: now Xae-chan registered, before that did the edit request— Preceding unsigned comment added by Xae-chan (talk • contribs) 01:39, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately the sources you're linking aren't considered reliable by Wikipedia standards. However, for what it's worth, Satchely and Velinquent are credited for character art and background art respectively in the ingame credits, while Kagefumi is listed in the "special thanks" section. CurlyWi (talk) 02:27, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Appears that the artist data was changed on April 1 2019 [1]. Satchely is Credited as ″Character Art″ on both [2] and [3]. Velinquent is credited as background art in those same two sources. Request is to update "artist = Kagefumi, VelinquenT " to "artist = Satchely, VelinquenT " 2406:E006:400F:EE01:C8C5:2B03:8C7F:7B3F (talk) 07:56, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Doki_Doki_Literature_Club%21&type=revision&diff=890408571&oldid=890398294
  2. ^ ddlc.moe
  3. ^ http://teamsalvato.com/team/

Semi-protected edit request on 1 June 2019[edit]

The artist entry for Kagefumi is incorrect Satchel (on Twitter) was the final artist. When I discovered the entry, I messaged her and came to see what to do. Here is the source info: The Concept Art Booklet in DDLC Fan Pack After Dave, another amazing artist by the name of Kagefumi was briefly involved with development for a couple months. She helped further set the character designs in stone. She was originally going to illustrate the entire game, but unrelated personal difficulties resulted in her having to step down. The Final Sprites After Satchely came on board, the sprites progressed fairly quickly. I first had her sketch all the sprite poses so that I could finally update my in-game placeholders to something that would be closer to the final art. 106.71.241.36 (talk) 01:08, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 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. NiciVampireHeart 22:05, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

About Satchely[edit]

Lately Satchely’s artist credit has been repeatedly removed from the article, despite the fact that she is the one that drew the character sprites and other related art for the game. To reaffirm, Satchely and VelinquenT are the character and background artists for Doki Doki Literature Club. Kagefumi was originally going to be an artist for the game but dropped out early on due to problems, according to info in the official DDLC fan pack. I would like to ask why Satchely’s credit is being removed for seemingly no apparent reason. MaRoFu (talk) 14:18, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 20 June 2019[edit]

Scrat987 (talk) 12:48, 20 June 2019 (UTC) A sequel is now in development, Under the name Project Libitina.[reply]

  •  Not done I can see in forums and social media that there's talk of a sequel but we need a reliable source to confirm, of which I don't see any from a first-pass search. --Masem (t) 13:37, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Section about soundtrack[edit]

I added a section towards the end which features the track listing, along with some information regarding the soundrack. VirreFriberg (talk) 20:51, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A few things to clarify: Per MOS:VG, unless the soundtrack is licensed music, we do not include the tracklist (the individual track names mean little to non-game players). Also, the cover art for the soundtrack is unnecessarily duplicative of the game's art, and thus not appropriate to include per NFCC#3 and #8. Otherwise the section is fine to mention the soundtrack release. --Masem (t) 21:11, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2010s fads and trends[edit]

I see no reason why this shouldn't be included in this category. Similar to other "fad trending games" (FNAF, Among Us, Fall Guys etc), a lot of notable and popular YouTubers played DDLC (e.g. PewDiePie, Markiplier and Jacksepticeye). DDLC's popularity online was a trend. Yes, it still has a fanbase and active subreddit, but the FNAF fanbase is also still active (Dawko still mnakes FNAF content which gets hundreds of thousands of viewws), and yet that's still in the fads and trends category. DDLC's popularity when it was trending isn't any different, so it should remain in "2010s fads and trends".

I don't want to have an edit war though, so I thought I'd discuss this here instead. --ThisIsSparta2007 (talk) 12:39, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Personal observations aren't enough. There needs to be explicit sourcing that defines this property as having been a past fad or trend. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 18:18, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Where's the explicit sourcing on the FNAF page? Or the Among Us page? Or the Fall Guys page? ThisIsSparta2007 (talk) 18:52, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If there's no sourcing for those either, they should be removed too. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 21:03, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

About Satchely - 2[edit]

diff A

diff B

According to those diffs, correction has been made but not finished. I mainly contribute to zh-cn so if anyone would like to finish this correction I would be greatful.

Source:

Tweet from Satchely - 1

Tweet from Satchely - 2

(Someone said that tweet isn't an authentic source so here you are)

Team page from Official site

”After Satchely came on board, the sprites progressed fairly quickly.“ [1]

EL File4138 (talk) 02:35, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Salvato, Dan (2017) Doki Doki Literature Club! Concept Art Booklet, p. 13

Semi-protected edit request on 30 January 2021[edit]

Change "Salvato then handed visual development over to Kagefumi, who created the final versions of the characters, their sprites, and the background images over the course of a few months." to "Salvato then handed visual development over to Kagefumi, who created the initial versions of the characters, then subsequently to Satchel, who created the final editions of their sprites."

Source: Salvato, Dan (2017) Doki Doki Literature Club! Concept Art Booklet, p. 12 JasonDaemon24 (talk) 04:41, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Already done. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 02:55, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can we give Monika a wikipedia article?[edit]

Monika has garnered a lot of attention from the fanbase, so can we create an article for her? Dangervest69 (talk) 05:26, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The character doesn't have enough independent coverage from reliable secondary sources to warrant an individual article, so no. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 06:48, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a Doki Doki FNF mod?[edit]

Yes,there is a Doki Doki FNF mod,there is also a "VS Monika" mod,but there is a spoiler which features Jade senpai. 76.112.212.53 (talk) 23:44, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is relevant to the article how? QuicoleJR (talk) 23:44, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is the minigame the best screenshot for this game?[edit]

It seems odd that for a game that is intentionally trying to parody a visual novel, the screenshot shown doesn't give the game an accurate idea of how its played.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 06:32, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Blue Pumpkin Pie: Just updated the image to something more adequate. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 23:26, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hypocrites[edit]

I'm just gonna post something here to vent my frustration.

So, I wanted to add the "A little bit of Monika" meme from YouTube right? The meme was mostly only prevalent on YouTube so it's basically the only place I could have cited from. Nope, YouTube isn't a reliable source (even for meme for some reason). Fine I went looking and the only places I found outside of YouTube were:

  1. Soundcluoud. Didn't work, fair enough, it's very similar to YouTube.
  2. Know Your Meme.

Know Your Meme wasn't trustworthy because it was a user generated website?! Wha- WHAT?! Wikipedia is a user generated website what kind of hypocritical logic is this?!?!!?

I don't know why I'm getting so mad about this, it shouldn't matter yet I feel so F***ING mad about it! The Mining Pickaxe (talk) 12:26, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While our content is user generated, we want to only include material that has been reported by reliable independent sources such that we don't gather a bunch of trivia and fancruft to our topic.. That is, we are not TVTropes where that type of content is more widely accepted. We are trying to be an educational reference, so aspects like memes or popular fan creations rarely get covered by us unless a more mainstream source covers it. Masem (t) 13:12, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Doki_Doki_Literature_Club!&oldid=1217207278"