Jump to content

Talk:Grand Theft Auto V

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kandyce 2013 (talk | contribs) at 11:07, 24 March 2014 (→‎{{edit semi-protected}} Bafta's: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Good articleGrand Theft Auto V has been listed as one of the Video games good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
In the news Article milestones
DateProcessResult
November 26, 2007Articles for deletionSpeedily deleted
June 13, 2008Articles for deletionDeleted
September 24, 2013Good article nomineeNot listed
November 4, 2013Good article nomineeListed
March 11, 2014Peer reviewReviewed
In the news A news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on September 22, 2013.
Current status: Good article
WikiProject iconVideo games GA‑class High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
GAThis article has been rated as GA-class on the project's quality scale.
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:
WikiProject iconVideo games GA‑class High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
GAThis article has been rated as GA-class on the project's quality scale.
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

GTA V DLC

Would it be too early to add this to the article? Given that there's no solid information, but it is official confirmation that there will be DLC with a tentative release date. CR4ZE (t) 00:56, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, until the DLC is released, do not add the information.  11Block |talk 01:46, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A bit late to chime in. I've written it into the article. What's your standing for the information not being included? It's cited directly from an RS. CR4ZE (t) 11:46, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the wording of the mention of DLC. It is fine to include information like this in a Wikipedia article, but it mustn't make predictions about the future, like "DLC will be released in 2014" or even "DLC is likely to be released in 2014". Instead make factual statements about things that have already happened, such as "Rocksteady have announced that they plan to release DLC in 2014". Note that the announcement definitely has happened, so even if for some reason their plans change, the article still had accurate information. Quietbritishjim (talk) 00:43, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I guess adding in DLC would be fine now, with the Beach Bum pack and the Valentine's Day Massacre Special. Anthony is Muso (talk) 00:14, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge with Los Santos (Grand Theft Auto)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: (non-admin closure) no consensus to move, merge, or redirect this article, which appears to be TOOLONG to move anyway and makes a suitable SPINOFF article. — {{U|Technical 13}} (t • e • c) 17:52, 12 March 2014 (UTC) — {{U|Technical 13}} (t • e • c) 17:52, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article is largely the same from the AfD. The majority of the important content already exists in GTAV, while anything not included is pretty much just selective comments from reviewers that don't really add anything. You could easily take such comments from any review and have enough to make an article on pretty much anything mentioned more than once. They don't have the necessary weight to properly hold the article in my opinion. Really, the only unique thing I would consider relevant is the comparison to the copies sold outnumbering the real life city. That single sentence should be merged, while the article gets redirected to the Grand Theft Auto (series)#Setting. TTN (talk) 15:59, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge and redirect - Per last AfD. There just isn't any information unique from the GTA V page to hold this page up. The New Yorker's article is mentioned in the GTA V article in a different context already, but Sweet's point about the copies of the games sold versus LA's population could be an interesting note to add to the Sales section. CR4ZE (t) 02:04, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you would had mentioned Grand Theft Auto (series)#Setting as a merge target I would had been more understanding about it, but you hidden that target article in your reasoning for the merge to here. This confused me as I was thinking with your merge proposal you were gonna turn the Los Santos page into a Redirect to here instead of the other place when it exists in the 2 games. Also there is something on GTA SA's version on that article even if it's just 1 sentence, it should still be listed as a merge target. Also don't forget about the consensus from the recent AFD for that article. With all that in mind I am still Opposed to the merger. Sawblade5 (talk to me | my wiki life) 21:43, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is 80% redundant info that already exists here in some form, and the rest is plot info unsuitable to merge into anything. The only thing worth salvaging is the sentence mentioned above into this article. There is nothing that needs to be added to the other game or the series article, so marking them as such is pointless. If you think it needs more discussion for whatever reason, feel free to slap tags on those articles. I just see it as irrelevant because there is literally not a single sentence that needs to be added to either. TTN (talk) 22:33, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As TTN previously said, there's no need for a separate article since the majority of its content already exists in GTAV. Therefore, the article does not have its own notability other than the Districts section, which I consider fancruft. --Niwi3 (talk) 10:59, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose due to upholding the consensus at the AfD. We had a proper discussion, there were some votes for merge, but keep was clearly the consensus. We should not be having a local discussion to overturn that one, without at least notifying the voters of the last discussion. Not to mention the issues with the article that have been brang up here can easily be fixed if someone took time to do some research. Obviously there is information online about GTA:SA version of Los Santos too. STATic message me! 15:34, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
At the AfD we had back in September, I !voted weak keep because the sources were there but the content wasn't. The problem is that the article has remained largely the same since then, and almost all of the information can be found in Grand Theft Auto V#Setting instead. Because the city exists in two major Grand Theft Auto entries, notability may be there, but the article doesn't offer up any information GTA V's setting section doesn't. Thus I don't feel we need to have a separate page, at least at its current length. CR4ZE (t) 11:16, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the Grand Theft Auto series article or delete, not enough information to be a article although not appropriate for the Grand Theft Auto V article as the article features information from all the games that the city is present in. Merging to the series article seems unnecessary as the series article does have a reasonable amount of information about the city and the San Andreas state, so either redirect the article to the series article or delete the article completely. TheDeviantPro (talk) 12:29, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Los Santos isn't just based on one game but several actually and has been mentioned numerous times over the years. Not to mention that San Andreas was the most popular game thus giving the name "Los Santos" a notable status. CloudKade11 (talk) 09:24, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Los Santos also appeared in GTA San Andreas, and this article has enough sources for it to be it's own article. TJD2 (talk) 17:54, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Article does not present itself as a necessary split. I'm all for articles about fictional locations, and kudos for putting the effort into trying to make the article more complete, but it feels like something that could be summed up in a few sentences with respect to reception, and outside of that, the rest of the content can or already is be summed up in the Grand Theft Auto V article. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 08:11, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Edit conflict on closure, including comments for posterity and to endorse correct decision by Tech 13.

Simple vote count 8 merge, 6 keep. Recent AFD results 5 unique keeps, 2? unique redirects. Notably CR4ZE !voted keep in the AFD, but redirect here. Total : 10 redirect vs 11 keep.

Closing as no consensus, defaulting to keep due to recent AFD which should not be lightly overturned and the closeness of !votes even within this discussion.

I personally give strong consideration to WP:FICT and think we have way too much WP:FANCRUFT of this type, and would have !voted redirect - but there is not consensus for a redirect at this time. WP:STATUSQUO wins for now.

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.

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.

Update to iFruit App Section

This article should be updated to mention that the iFruit App was released for Windows Phone on November 20th, 2013. As such, it only mentioned the iOS and Android release dates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.237.177.148 (talk) 17:51, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

iFruit on Windows Phone? If you get sources, like the page on the Windows Store or something. That will most likely be enough of a source to add it to the iFruit section. Anthony is Muso (talk) 00:24, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article readability

I think we need to cut this baby down. I've been writing away at the Development section but it's just getting too big for the page. So I'm suggesting we split this off to its own new page, titled "Development of Grand Theft Auto V". CR4ZE (t) 13:01, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Boldly decided to split it off myself. There's an executive summary of the development process here, not too long, but not too short either. I think we're good to go for FAC. CR4ZE (t) 06:08, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling Mistake

In the Plot section, at the end, someone misspelled FBI. They said FIB.Football1607 (talk) 15:27, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's deliberate. They are referred to in the game as the "FIB". CR4ZE (t) 07:02, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

==

Bafta's ==

Hi, I'd noticed that you have put that GTAV won 4 Bafta's, but haven't specified what Bafta's it actually won. GTAV won Bafta's for Best British Game, Best Game Design, Best Multiplayer and Rockstar themselves won a Fellowship award. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/video-games/video-game-news/10694122/Bafta-video-game-awards-2014-The-Last-of-Us-cleans-up.html

--Kandyce 2013 (talk) 11:07, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Grand_Theft_Auto_V&oldid=601015624"