Talk:Doki Doki Literature Club!/Archive 1

Archive 1

Pricing information: WP:NOT?

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:

• Special:Diff/811810062
• Special:Diff/811813256

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)

• I meant to ping @CurlyWi. 84.250.17.211 (talk) 20:47, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

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)

Spoilers in Article

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)

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

Additional images?

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Very negative reviews

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)

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)

Exactly my point. AntiGravityMaster (talk) 14:57, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 December 2017

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)

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)

Daily Mail

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

This article will probably help explain this. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:27, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

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)

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)

Likely misidentified by parent in article (Reference #25)

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)

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)

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 October 2018

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)

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

Semi-protected edit request on 24 December 2018

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)

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)

​ Done. There was no opposition, and plot sections don't need inline citations (MOS:PLOTSOURCE). — Newslinger talk 09:47, 22 January 2019 (UTC)