| Revision as of 17:52, 12 March 2014 view sourceTechnical 13 (talk | contribs)37,142 edits →Proposed merge with Los Santos (Grand Theft Auto): no consensus← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:56, 12 March 2014 view source Gaijin42 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers20,866 edits →Proposed merge with Los Santos (Grand Theft Auto): edit conflict closureNext edit → | ||
| Line 135: | Line 135: | ||
| *'''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. - ] <small>]</small> <small>]</small> 08:11, 11 March 2014 (UTC) | *'''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. - ] <small>]</small> <small>]</small> 08:11, 11 March 2014 (UTC) | ||
| :''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a ]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a ]. No further edits should be made to this section.</div><!-- Template:RM bottom --> | :''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a ]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a ]. No further edits should be made to this section.</div><!-- Template:RM bottom --> | ||
| {{archivetop| | |||
| 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 ] and think we have way too much ] of this type, and would have !voted redirect - but there is not consensus for a redirect at this time. ] wins for now. | |||
| }} | |||
| {{archivebottom}} | |||
| == Update to iFruit App Section == | == Update to iFruit App Section == | ||
Revision as of 17:56, 12 March 2014
 | This article is a current featured article candidate. A featured article should exemplify Misplaced Pages's best work, and is therefore expected to meet the criteria. Please feel free to leave comments. After one of the FAC coordinators promotes the article or archives the nomination, a bot will update the nomination page and article talk page. Do not manually update the {{Article history}} template when the FAC closes. |
| Skip to table of contents |
| Please place new discussions at the bottom of the talk page. |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Grand Theft Auto V article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find video game sources: "Grand Theft Auto V" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk |
 | This page is not a forum for general discussion about Grand Theft Auto V. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Grand Theft Auto V at the Reference desk. |
 | Grand 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. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | Video games GA‑class High‑importance | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
 | The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future: |
 Archives |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 20 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
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)
- No, until the DLC is released, do not add the information. 11Block |talk 01:46, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
- 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)
I changed the wording of the mention of DLC. It is fine to include information like this in a Misplaced Pages 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)
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)
Useful sources
- http://www.mcvuk.com/news/read/gta-v-is-the-biggest-selling-entertainment-product-of-2013-call-of-duty-falls-to-no-5/0126323 , GTA V the highest selling entertainment item in the UK, including home movies. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 10:34, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Controversial PC version release
Hey, I just noticed user Mads698h updated the page with the possible PC version, citing a source. However, it is important to point out that there was no official statement or announcement BY Rockstar that there'd be a PC version. Even the source itself has nothing official by Rockstar. Even though the chance of a PC version is huge, considering all the hints, it's still a rumor, thus I don't think it would be true to write it in the page. I'm not there. Message me! 01:33, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
I agree that the reference to PC version is incorrect since Rockstar has not yet confirmed one.Also the source mentioned is an old one.It was published on October,2013 and eurogamer could not back up their claims later.So the platform section should not mention windows yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.194.224.96 (talk) 10:10, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Game of the Year
The starting paragraph of Gta V should mention Game of the Year awards won by Gta V. after all it has won all the award ceremonies till now namely- Spike VGX, Golden Joystick and Inside Gaming Awards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.60.54.123 (talk) 05:39, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
yeah bioshock's starting paragraph mentions its wins in inside gaming awards and vgx awards and similarly the last of us paragraph mentions it's win of publications but the game which has won all 3 award ceremonies till now has no mention of its accolades. gta V's first starting paragraph should mention it's top game of the year accolades. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.63.154.107 (talk) 07:50, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
| Toolbox |
|---|
A-Class Review
- Grand Theft Auto V (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch · A-class review
I'm putting this article up for A-Class Review because I feel it meets the criteria. I want to take the article to FAC, but I feel an ACR will help with that process and give important feedback on the page before I put it up for nomination. CR4ZE (t) 04:53, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
As the article has been sent to FAC I am withdrawing the request. CR4ZE (t) 10:42, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
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}} 17:52, 12 March 2014 (UTC) — {{U|Technical 13}} 17:52, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
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)
- 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)
- Strong Against Due to Improper Merge Request Los Santos exists in 2 GTA games not just GTA V but also Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas. Due to the fact the article exists covering both games. The only possible merge is to do a multi page merge to both here and the GTA SA Article and create a WP:DISAMBIG page on the Los Santos (Grand Theft Auto). I will possibly support a multi page merge but this is a improper merge requests per my reasons stated. Sawblade5 00:51, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
- There is nothing at all to merge to the other article, so there is no issue there. It being in two games is why I proposed redirecting it to Grand Theft Auto (series)#Setting, which is suitable to summarize it and link to the destination pages. TTN (talk) 01:12, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
- 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 21:43, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
- 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)
- Merge and redirect - Pointless article. --Niwi3 (talk) 13:32, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
- Care to elaborate on your Vote? Sawblade5 21:43, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Merge and redirect, may not be notable. 108.216.20.135 (talk) 20:35, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose, as San Andreas belongs to not only GTA V, but also GTA San Andreas and the original GTA.Brimspark (talk) 16:56, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
- 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)
- Keep per significant reception of the city, moreso than in Rapture (BioShock), for example. Some of the information that appears in other articles could be chopped in those articles for cleanliness; the GTAV article is incredibly long. Tezero (talk) 19:31, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
- After appraising the article and relevant game articles it's related to, I would agree with a merge. As a setting it can be explained rather perfunctorily; development info and reception info are more useful in the respective game articles than segregated. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 19:51, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
- Merge Per WP:FICT, the page isn't really significant in coverage, so the best idea is to merge it into this article where it settled best at. ///EuroCarGT 21:55, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
- Merge to the Grand Theft Auto series article, as it appears in more than just one GTA game. MrAdaptive343 (talk) 03:48, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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.
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)
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)
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)
- 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)