Talk:Red Dead Redemption 2

Title change

The title of this article should be changed to "Red Dead Redemption II" (Roman numeral 2) as the new trailer has shown. Games with similar names (Kingdom Hearts II and Jak II) use the Roman numeral even when, in the case of Jak II, the next game uses Arabic numerals (Jak 3). Tenbeat (talk) 17:58, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Yep, the game's cover changed as well. Lordtobi (✉) 18:13, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I disagree with this; Rockstar (and practically every secondary source) refer to the game as "Red Dead Redemption 2"—only the logo uses the roman numeral. We should be using "2" per WP:COMMONNAME. (For comparison, the logo for Grand Theft Auto V uses the word "Five" and the roman numeral "V" but we use the latter as this is the common name.) This should not have been changed without consensus. – Rhain ☔ 01:33, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Agree with Rhain. Page should not have been moved without consensus, and I'd contend it should be moved back. Both the official website and secondary sources use Red Dead Redemption 2. CR4ZE (t • c) 01:41, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, uh, I probably overhesitated on that yesterday; apologies. Though, yet I believe that they are currently updating all their material with the new title, else I don't see any reason they would pay good money to change the type of number on graphical material. Either way, it appears that secondary sources are already catching up, making COMMONNAME to treat 2 and II rather equally. Lordtobi (✉) 06:04, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

No worries—it happens. This is an interesting change though; Rockstar seem to be changing "2" to "II" for the game's logo (and thereby the cover art) but keeping "2" for everything else: website name, video titles, etc. I'm partial to keep the "2" though, as this seems to be the official title (and "II" a stylistic choice). – Rhain ☔ 08:41, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

A similar case exists with Divinity: Original Sin II, with the Steam profile for it saying "Divinity: Original Sin 2", but promotional artwork having the II. In cases like this, where they are both used interchangeably with no clear preference, I'd say we should just keep status quo, which would be 2 in this case. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 02:20, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

• Follow the precedent in secondary sources. At a glance, based on the custom search linked above, "2" has an order of magnitude more hits than "II". Hits are generally an imprecise indicator, but an order of magnitude is telling. czar 18:34, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

@Czar: Does this also apply to Skull and Bones (video game) / Skull & Bones (video game)? You created the former, while I created the latter (based on the logo). I wouldn't oppose a move from & to and. Cognissonance (talk) 23:04, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, Wikipedia:Article titles applies to all articles, so that case would depend on whether its sources use the ampersand—a discussion for its talk page czar 00:01, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

A good thing to look for is the legal declaration of trademark or copyright, it's always written in plain text and in clear font style. - X201 (talk) 07:35, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Have just reverted a bold page move that either didn't know about or ignored the above consensus not to move without consensus. If it happens again a request for move protect may have to be mooted. - X201 (talk) 07:37, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

And now it's been moved back again. So much for Bold, Revert, Discuss. - X201 (talk) 07:44, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

All promotional material since the new trailer released Sept. 28 shows the game named "Red Dead Redemption II" not "Red Dead Redemption 2" that is the name of the game now.Snipershot325 (talk) 08:11, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

No it isn't. Even in Rockstar's own announcement of the second trailer they refer to it as "Red Dead Redemption 2" instead of "II" (see link) They also call it 2 on Twitter. The use of II is just style choice. To claim that II is the name of the game when even the developer doesn't use it is pushing it a bit. Stick with the consensus above to wait and see what reliable sources called it. - X201 (talk) 09:10, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

A sub section of the new trailer.

Hey editors, I have noticed that this page has not been updated regarding the second Red Dead Redemption 2 Trailer #2. This would be a good addition to the page. --Miraclemitch (talk) 15:49, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

@Miraclemitch: Thanks for the suggestion. I've added some information regarding the trailers to the 'Development' section. – Rhain ☔ 21:09, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Trailers aren't really development, though. They're more marketing than anything else. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:10, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Plot/gameplay

WP does not encourage short sections, and at this point, with very little we can say about the plot beyond the character, timing, and setting, it should be combined with the gameplay as recommended by MOSVG. In time, once more about the overall story and/or gameplay elements, then the sections could be expanded. --Masem (t) 16:37, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

@Masem: Isn't Development section short, too? So, keeping WP:MOSVG in mind I will merge it with the lead. You say WP don't encourage short sections then why this exception? I believe you got any definition of the term "short", please share it here. Harsh Rathod Poke me! 13:00, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

A short dev section is bad too, but in this case, the Release section should be presently inserted within it. If we didn't have the release section, and that's all that could be written on development, then yes, this entire article should just a be a stub article with no sections. --Masem (t) 13:43, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

@Masem: Don't you think the Release section should be renamed as Marketing? Harsh Rathod Poke me! 13:56, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Ubl

{{Unbulleted list}} (shorthand: {{ubl}}) is a list template which is a son, daughter or other-gender child of its parent template {{Plainlist}}. Let me explain from the very start. I used {{ubl}} here in this edit but it was reverted by User:Lordtobi in the shade of adding more descriptive alt in haste with clearly visible typo which breaks the template and didn't give any explanation for this. I reverted this with explanation and further expanded alt. He undid back with a clear nonsense reason of: template redirecting does not help anyone. Again I reverted this back with my good faith motive of concising the source code and asked him to be more specific. Instead of writing here, he showed up to my talk page boasting off his knowledge of WP policies and explained how I was illogical with my edits and tagged them as personal preference instead. I explained him back my reason of concising the source code and also gave an instance of how another editor did that. Again he came back with another policy in the lead and explained how my example was unrelated with the current discussion but in fact they were related with the matter. Again my edit was undone in the shade of removing caption. of concision. After which he posted a warning to my talk page. This led to edit war as seen by User:Anarchyte and finally to the protection of this page till May 6, 2018. Harsh Rathod Poke me! 11:33, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Just to be clear, Lordtobi did the right thing by leaving a message on your talk page, since you were the only editor trying to change the template. Furthermore, referring to WP policies is certainly not "boasting"—it's using established guidelines to support an argument. By ignoring these guidelines, you immediately fail to support your argument. Referencing my concision edit is totally unrelated as well; as Lordtobi mentioned, I was improving the grammatical flow, which is far from the same thing. Instructing Lordtobi to start a discussion is incorrect, since you are the one who is attempting to change the article, and per WP:STATUSQUO, you must gain consensus (and in the meantime, the article's status quo must be maintained). – Rhain ☔ 11:53, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I never said that I was ingnoring those guidelines. He didn't provide any concrete reasons for reverting in the Status quo but just explained the policy on the whole. Harsh Rathod Poke me! 12:40, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

In the long term, there is no benefit of concise source code. WP's got for all purposes, infinite server space. If we left it as ubl throughout the article up to the point that it starts to get to GA/FA territory, then it would be removed when automated tools run to improve articles would be used to remove linked redirects and so forth. Removing it now or later makes little difference. --Masem (t) 13:45, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Massive preview by Telegraph

[1] (I've already cited this in the article). Lots of details to expand out all sections. --Masem (t) 16:02, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm currently working on an article expansion from this and other sources, including the new developer interview courtesy of IGN. Should hopefully have something up in the next day or so. CR4ZE (t • c) 17:25, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 6 May 2018

Please incorporate IGN. 2A02:908:F35B:4FC0:1DCC:19EF:1B25:5C4A (talk) 07:49, 6 May 2018 (UTC)