Jump to content

Talk:Grand Theft Auto IV/Archive 16

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16

Why not mention "GTA IV"

This edit [1] is following the invis comment advice, but I do not understand why omitting the initialism "GTA IV" from the lead is needed. This might have stemmed from the GA review where it was pointed out inconsistent use of the full and initialized title, and that's fine, but it is still normally the case that if there is an industry abbreviation for a title, that should at least be mentioned in the lead so readers know they're at the right page. "Grand Theft Auto IV (often abbreviated GTA IV) is a...." is very commonplace language, even if the "GTA IV" moniker isn't ever restarted. --MASEM (t) 19:19, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply, but excluding the "(commonly shortened as GTA IV)" from the lead actually stemmed from a discussion at the Grand Theft Auto V talk page. As you've mentioned, "GTA IV" is never used in the article, so there's no need for it in the lead. Additionally, the acronym is very straightforward. If readers want to know that they're at the right page, then they should work out that "GTA" means "Grand Theft Auto". -- Rhain1999 (talk to me) 02:53, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Remember that we are not targetting gamers but a general audience here. "GTA IV" (and GTAV for that matter) are used often enough in mainstream literature that we should be sure people are aware they landed on the right page (that's why we include those at the start even if not used). This lead-mention of a common acronym, even if never subsequently used, is common WP practice. --MASEM (t) 03:14, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Dimtri spoiler

Isn't captioning a picture of Dimitri Rascalov as the main antagonist just an unnecessary spoiler? It's not like saying Bowser is the main antagonist of Super Mario Bros., it's an actual spoiler. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eruul2012 (talk • contribs) 15:40, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not label content as spoilers. If there's a major plot point that is necessary to explain the work, as Dimitri being the antgonist, we don't hide it. --MASEM (t) 15:54, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

GAN?

This article's in much better shape than it was a year ago. Rhain1999, do you have any plans to go for another GAN any time soon? I'd say if you fixed up the mess that's been made of the plot section you wouldn't have much trouble taking the article to the next step. CR4ZE (t • c) 02:21, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

CR4ZE: Thanks for the suggestion. I haven't been keeping my eyes on this page recently; the plot section had really become a huge mess. Now that I've fixed that up, I think I'll take one last look at it before taking it to GAN. I have a little over a week of school remaining, and I'm planning to be a lot more active on Wikipedia over the holidays, so I'll definitely go for GA on this article (and probably a number of others) when that time comes. -- Rhain1999 (talk to me)
Just let me know when this is ready, I'll be happy to review it. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:45, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Technical issues on the PC Port.

Many reviewers and publications on the web (or, say, forums and stuff) noted that the game runs poorly on the PC, even when the machines surpasses the system requirements published by Rockstar itself. That's why there's a kind of consensus in labeling GTA IV for PC as "a bad port".

Should this be added somewhere? It sounds like me saying it, but seems that a lot of users experiences this poor run worldwide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.220.233.212 (talk) 15:54, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

I know what you're talking about; the game was reported to run terribly on PC. The article actually does touch on this already, in the "Microsoft Windows version" section, along with other features of the PC version. -- Rhain1999 (talk to me) 22:24, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

What the heck happens with me. I didnt see it.201.220.233.207 (talk) 22:31, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Grand Theft Auto IV. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:18, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Soundtrack track listing

Instead of having to go thorugh even more "undo's" I'll just refer to this post here in hopes that it will settle things. So the track listing of the Soundtrack (The Music of Grand Theft Auto IV) keeps being removed from the article. One user in particular is referring to a WP:GAMECRUFT #15 where it says "do not include tracklists." The "do not" is a hotlink to a discussion discussing this issue; this one Wikipedia_talk:VG/A106#Soundtrack_listings. One would think that the rule comes from what is in the discussion. That's not the case. More on that in the next paragraph.

Now first I'd like to say that the rule on the GAMECRUFT page isn't precise enough at all. What is the soundtrack? Is it all the songs in a game, the original score, the licensed music, what if there is a CD of the soundtrack, what if the CD is distributed with the game, what if there are original songs and licensed songs inlcuded on that CD? Where do we draw the line between which type is acceptable and which is not acceptable to have a soundtrack listing in a main article? Just reffering to the GAMECRUFT ""do not" include it" line doesn't do it justice because the rule there is obviously flawed and whoever wrote that did not at all read the discussion it is reffering to. It should however be noted that the rule says "Non-notable soundtracks" which is nice, but it doesn't say what can and what cannot be considered a notable soundtrack by wikipedia standards. the discussion it's based on does that in a way but it's never really a definitive rule that can be used. So this means that it has to be decided on a case-by-case basis best based on other similar articles and in the case of this article I think it's evident enough that it is notable.

So now I'm gonna throw a lot of quotes in here and my views on it regarding this article, even though the quotes are already very clear (which is why I suggest reading the linked duscussion ans skip this paragraph). In the linked discussion to it says: "Basically, if the soundtrack could be a notable article per GNG or the music notability guideline, the soundtrack listing should be included, even if included on the article about the video game. If the soundtrack doesn't have stand-alone notability, like for example that of VVVVVV, then yes, the tracklist should be omitted." It is notable as it came with an edition of the game and represents the variety of music in the game as well as original songs made specifically for the game. It also says: "I support it as well. It seemed like soundtracks always muddied up the article I clean up, and as Masem says, they're typically just random titles without any explanation, meaning, or reference to them in the rest of the article." There is enough context to justify featuring the tracklist for this game. Two other quotes read: "If it's using licensed music, that would be excluded from this idea (that is, it would be reasonable to include particularly if there's commentary on the soundtrack)." and "Agreed, also because licensed music would commonly have wiki-links to the bands name and/or songs used, providing some background or context. (Opposed to the song titles from a random JRPG, which would largely be random engrish words strung together.". Both apply for this article so they even say that it SHOULD remain. They then discuss a game where the tracklisting should stay and another one where it shouldn't showing that the "do not include it" rule doesn't apply to all articles. The last quotes I'll mention is a short discussion about which type should not be and should be included "I'm going to stand over here with my tracklists in FAs and disagree- I certainly don't like lengthy tracklists in non-music articles, but that's exactly why I fought so hard to keep the "collapsed" option on tracklists earlier this year- so it ends up taking one line of text. --PresN 03:26, 6 June 2014 (UTC)", "In each of those three cases, I suspect that you could make a standalone article on the soundtrack if you wanted that would easily meet WP:N (from what I remember on general reception). Because I would consider these notable, I would not target that type of soundtrack for removal - they are fine as is. (and no, I'm not saying you have to separate it out, it makes sense to keep it together). --MASEM (t) 03:43, 6 June 2014 (UTC)", "Hmmm, I guess I would say that if you can make a proper music section in the article (you all do that... right? Right? It's not just me?), like 2+ real paragraphs, then you should be able to have a (collapsed) tracklist. --PresN 03:59, 6 June 2014 (UTC)" and "Well, the one thing you'd have to add but it should be possible based on my recall of the reviews would be a paragraph about reception, and all three you have listed there are ones that I'm pretty confident you can expand on that way, which is why those soundtrack listings are fine. As someone above mentioned, this is more aimed towards random JRPG soundtracks, for example. --MASEM (t) 04:10, 6 June 2014 (UTC)"

So what can we take from this? Having the track listing for the album is fine and even recommended and the fact that it is now collapsed (which I personally prefer) should be enough of a compromise.

Also, someone should update the rule, it's quite frankly utter nonesense in its current form. Either be more precise or don't even bother making up a rule when it has NOTHING to do with the actual discussion and what users think/want. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KingSiri (talk • contribs) 01:33, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

  • Then the guideline needs to say this before you just make up your own and use that as your argument. Don't be upset at me because I'm following what's standard on most other game articles (FA articles have had their track listings removed without any controversy). Just because WP:YOUDONTLIKEIT doesn't mean you get change what the guideline says without first reaching consensus again. I'm going to continue to remove the tracklisting until consensus arises for it to remain. The discussion does say that, but the guideline doesn't (which came after), so I'm not sure how we are suppose to take that. Pinging @Masem and PresN: for their opinions. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 01:40, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

This is not a personal thing, but what you are saying makes zero sense. You say the guidelines do not say it, however they do because the guidelines link to that very discussion and are based on that discussion. Also the guideline is about "non-notable soundtracks." First say why it does fit that criteria before removing the listing. What makes the tracklist non-notable? And remember that the rule you are referring to is covering video game articles which means that having a tracklist is fine for a notable soundtrack. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KingSiri (talk • contribs) 01:53, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Firstly, guidelines are based on community discussions sometimes; it says so right at the bottom of WP:GAMECRUFT. If you think the consensus is unreasonable, you can propose a change at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games. Secondly, just because you say the tracks are notable, they don't automatically become notable. They have to meet WP:NMUSIC criteria. -- ChamithN (talk) 05:09, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
I don't see how it fails to make sense? First you misunderstood what the guideline meant (an infobox is fine for notable soundtracks (which GTA4's would fall under, I'm not arguing that), but tracklistings are not, notable or not), and now you are reaching for discussion points on the talk page that were left out of the final guideline, which I'm going to assume was intentionally done until told otherwise. The guideline also is only applying to main articles about the game, which is how the Grand Theft Auto IV soundtrack article and ones like it don't have this issue. As stated previously, I'm going to continue to revert any edit that adds the tracklisting back in without consensus for it first. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 07:03, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

About the album being notable: The OST contains the main theme for the game. The album contains the song "No Sex for Ben" which was featured on several "best songs" lists and it is the only album this song is on. The album came with the Special Edition of the game and was also sold seperately and it represents the diversity of the music found in the game making it a good example of the music in the entire game and the soundtrack has also been reviewed. Also you like to throw around with guidelines but I suspect you don't even read all the articles you are referring to. WP:NMUSIC has NOTHING to do with music in video game articles. What it does is give guidelines for main articles focusing on music. I do not know what guideline you'd even be referring to but it doesn't matter as it doesn't apply. Also about the WP:GAMECRUFT guideline is all about non-notable soundtracks. You say that an info-box is permitted for notable soundtracks, but that is not what it says in the guideline. Again, the entire guideline covers non-notable soundtracks. Sorry, but you act like you know all the rules but you keep failing to understand the rules you are referring to. The rule says that an info-box for a non-notable OST is permitted if the album has been released on let's say a CD. That justifies an info-box even for a non-notable soundtrack (like one for some JRPG). Also you need to get over yourself and abusing the rules. I see you edited Journey which I and the article were referring to. I see why they classified Hourney as a non-notable soundtrack (all original music, the composer is not notable to many) however a soundtrack that has been nominated for a Grammy Award should never be seen as non-notable because it being nominated for a Grammy makes it very much notable. The word "notable" even implies it. So before starting to abuse rules you do not even seem to understand and saying that we need to find a consensus, leave the tracklists in and maybe you should wait until the rule has been clarified to justify a removal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KingSiri (talk • contribs) 13:46, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Again, nobody is arguing that these soundtracks aren't notable, but the guideline doesn't make an exception for tracklistings, even for notable ones. Not sure why you are fighting so hard to re-add this, when they have all been removed from FA ranked game articles without any sort of controversy. Just because WP:YOUDONTLIKEIT doesn't mean you get to pick and choose what sort of guidelines you'd like to have or not, not without consensus anyway. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 22:31, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
@Rhain: Then suggest something yourself? I've already asked for consensus before continue to re-add it; and he's the one reverting it back while also misunderstanding the guideline. I'm going to ask WP:VG for their opinion since nobody here wants to come to an agreement. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 22:31, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
I didn't feel the need to make a suggestion, nor was I required to—snippiness won't achieve anything. There's also no use in pointing blame, since you were both reverting it back, thus violating WP:3RR (which often results in a block, and does not usually take "misunderstanding the guideline" into account, so be wary). – Rhain ☔ 23:03, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm aware of the policy and didn't mean to sound hostile, but I didn't see how telling us that would have helped when you could have instead provided your own opinion for either of the arguments. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 00:11, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I was going to suggest that you stop the fuss and just write about the soundtrack so you can add the listing and get on with it, but unless someone else has sources, I'm finding nothing substantial to say about it[2][3] apart from that it was included in the limited edition. Where are the sources that discuss the soundtrack? And if there are none, then there is no reason to discuss it in depth, nevertheless to include its tracklisting. czar 22:41, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
    • Agree with Czar. We need critical discussion of this released soundtrack beyond that it existed, otherwise listing the tracks is just noise in the article. --MASEM (t) 22:42, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
In fact, I'd kill its infobox too—it's a distraction for something that's barely discussed in the paragraph. czar 23:02, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
I agree—I've removed it. I also don't know if the cover is necessary, but I've left it for now. – Rhain ☔ 23:09, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Actually if there is a physical soundtrack release, the infobox should stay to collect the details of that physical release (particularly with Wikidata now in place. Just not the tracklist. --MASEM (t) 23:26, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
So would you agree that even for notable soundtracks, tracklistings are to be considered WP:GAMECRUFT, and therefore don't belong? (on main game articles anyway). The entire point of discussion here has been KingSiri misunderstanding the guideline, if that's the case. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 00:11, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
I didn't misunderstand the guidelines as the guideline wasn't about notable soundtracks and there is no guideline for notable soundtracks anywhere. I find it incredibly funny that some people make up the rules on the fly, but if it's going to keep the contents of articles closer I'm ok with it, however I do not understand how a collapsed tracklist for an album that is in many ways connected to the game is an issue. In the case of GTA IV there are many reasons why it should be in the article especially because music is an essential part of the game. The music sections however have been greatly reduced in various articles lately, GTA V doesn't even feature one, instead it's all been put in a seperate article with little to no information in the main article as if music wasn't a big part of the game. Don't expect too many people to find the GTA V music article if it's been banned out of the main article. But again, if that's how you guys want to represent games on here then so be it. I'll take the tracklist and put it in the GTA IV soundtrack article where the soundtrack is also mentioned. I'd should be allowed to stay there I suppose. Also one thing I want to say is that there are, even if you enforce the rules like this now even though I've pointed out how flawed the rule is and how different from your original discussion it is, soundtracks trakclists that NEED to stay in the article because of how notable the soundtrack is.--KingSiri (talk) 15:57, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

The guideline doesn't say don't include tracklists for notable soundtracks. It says: "Unless the soundtrack or music is the subject of independent commentary (apart from the game): put it in Development rather than its own section, do not include tracklists, and do not add non-free soundtrack cover art or audio clips." So notable soundtracks would by definition have received independent commentary and may have their tracklists included. —Torchiest talkedits 16:02, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

The sentence needs to be more clear if that's the case, or else it saying to me don't include tracklists or non-free cover art regardless of notability. I remember when a bunch of FA game articles had them (Chrono Trigger and the Final Fantasy series) all of which had way more notable soundtracks than GTA games, yet their tracklistings were removed and delegated to their specific music article. I don't see why we can't do the same here, especially when the notability of GTA4's soundtrack is even in doubt currently. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:01, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I'm having trouble understanding how this is unclear. Saying "Unless..." means that what follows are cases where the track list can be included. There are three scenarios here:
  1. The soundtrack has barely any coverage whatsoever. In this case, a mention in development, with no cover art or tracklist, should be plenty.
  2. The soundtrack has a good amount of independent coverage. In this case, it is worthy of its own section, and may include tracklist, cover art, etc.
  3. The soundtrack has a ton of coverage. In this case, it could have its own article.
It seems like you're discounting the second possibility, thinking that a soundtrack must either have its own article or be folded into another section. There is a middle ground. —Torchiest talkedits 12:28, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
No. 2 used to be Wikipedia's policy, as most JRPG articles had this, but sometime recently, it was changed to only keep the infobox for notable soundtracks, and remove all tracklistings in the main article. If the soundtrack was truly that important to mention, it would have been split off into it's own article, where tracklists/song lists are fine (see Grand Theft Auto IV soundtrack and Music of Chrono Trigger). ~ Dissident93 (talk) 22:33, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
I saw this referenced on WT:VG. That sounds like a very strange decision that I'd be opposed to; I agree with Torchiest that #2 sounds perfectly reasonable and harmless, and find it weird that "somewhat notable" soundtracks must be either removed or shunted into their own article. It's especially odd since most tracklists are usually presented auto-collapsed these days, so they aren't hogging tons of space, and thus while often only quasi-relevant are at least "harmless". And... this kind of small section is totally Wikipedia's style elsewhere. Perhaps that decision should be revisited. SnowFire (talk) 19:53, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Missing the point. MOS:COLLAPSE says that a track listing shouldn't be auto-hidden anyway. The option was once removed for compliance but only kept so it could be collapsed exclusively when need be. Tracklists are exactly the kind of video game cruft that piles up when editors think a some element of a work is important but have no evidence that any other journalist agreed. Our coverage is proportional to the coverage in reliable sources. If no one has cited the importance of this soundtrack, it isn't something we give much (if any) room, and that goes for track listings and infoboxes as well. (In this case, reviewers were only interested in its inclusion in the limited edition, per the sources I cited above, so that is the context in which we mention it: in passing, just as in the sources.) If collecting this stuff is your concern, take it to Wikia. If it doesn't have sources, it's outside our purview as an encyclopedia. czar 04:53, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

gta 4

Gta games are the best Redz733 (talk) 21:49, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 25 external links on Grand Theft Auto IV. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:47, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 January 2017

Found a typo in developers section: Rockstar Toronto and Rockstar New England??? for Windows port. Rockstar New England never ported GTA IV to Windows. Actually both Rockstar Toronto and Rockstar North ported GTA IV to Windows. VoltaAA (talk) 22:12, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. - Mlpearc (open channel) 22:16, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Comment: Credits of the Windows version clearly reveal the porting partnership between R* Toronto and R* New England. Lordtobi (✉) 13:05, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Grand Theft Auto IV. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:44, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Merge Grand Theft Auto: Episodes from Liberty City to GTA IV

I think the article should be merged to Grand Theft Auto IV. I don't see the need to have a separate page for this compilation. A short reception section could written for this compilation but I don't think it's enough for a separate article. --Mika1h (talk) 16:54, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Grand Theft Auto IV. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:20, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Suggestion

A system requirements box. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RTSmaniac7777 (talk • contribs) 23:27, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm afraid that would be inappropriate unless you can find any sources to establish notability in regards to GTA IV's then-high system requirements, a la-Crysis. Blake Gripling (talk) 00:57, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 March 2020

The synopsis, setting, and plot subsections omit several key details about GTA IV. I am requesting the ability to edit these sections to fill in many of these details which are not explained in the article. Achawla54321 (talk) 19:01, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. JTP (talk • contribs) 21:20, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

The plot's length

Hi there. Hope you are all having a great day/evening. What I'm here to talk about now is the length of GTA IV's plot. As everyone who played or at least watched read or watched videos of the game knows, GTA IV is a very lengthy game (taking about 20 hours to complete only the main story). There are many other games out there in a similar situation, such as GTA San Andreas, the Mafia series, the Saint Row series, Telltale games etc. (just to name some of the ones I know about), which all have a generally lengthy plot, with many characters and lots of stuff going on. As such, the 700 words rule doesn't apply (or at least hasn't yet applied) to them, because it is impossible to sumarise everything happening in so little words. That's why I would like to change the 700 words rule to 2000, or remove it at all, because Wikipedia is a site where everyone should be allowed to freely write about what they like and share the information with others. Having a rule like this really restricts people who are intrested in the subject and would like to expand it (not in a ridiculous amount of detail, but enough to cover all the main asspects). In GTA IV's case, almost the entire 2nd and 3rd acts are omitted, which is plenty of main characters and entire side stories. GTA 4, being part of a series where characters and plot events tend to appear or be mentioned in other games, should include some details about those aspects (here, important characters that appear in later games, such as Brucie Kibbutz, Ray Boccino or even the entire diamonds side story, which is what connects GTA IV to its two expansions).

I feel like my previous edits, which were all undone, did a pretty good job at mentioning all important characters in the game, as well as detailing the diamonds side story, and in not that many words (only 3 pharagraphs, with 4-5 lines each, which is really hard to accomplish for a game with so much stuff going on in it). That's why I request that I am allowed to keep my edits, and then everyone who would like to add to them or adjust them be free to do so. I expect a response, because, as someone who played GTA IV over 10 times in their life, I know when the plot is too short and undetailed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by General Clanker (talk • contribs) 12:47, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

@General Clanker: Your reference to other articles is essentially invalid per WP:OTHERSTUFF—but, despite this, those articles' plot sections are also too long. Their existence does not make them a guideline or an exception to a rule; the 700 word rule (as stated in WP:VG/PLOT) does apply to them, it just hasn't been policed as strictly. If you wish to seek a change to that rule, you would be best to do so at WT:MOSVG; however, that rule is based on WP:FILMPLOT, which has existed for much longer, so changes are unlikely. I disagree that Brucie, Ray, or the diamonds side story—emphasis on side story—are at all relevant, but if you feel as though the article's current plot section is missing information crucial to the overall narrative, it must be added in less than 90 words to avoid exceeding the limit. There are plenty of much longer games that manage to condense their complex narratives to 700 words or less, so there's no reason that we can't do the same here (in fact, I'd argue that we already have). – Rhain ☔ 14:24, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Also, in general, WP is not supposed to be expansive about plot summaries in general and summaries should be consise. The GTA may have larger plots but a lot is just temporarily asides from the main driver. --Masem (t) 14:34, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

List of characters

Hello there!

Without any further introductions I would like to adress a problem: the lack of a list of GTA IV characters. I remember that there was one at one point, around 5 years ago, but it got deleted for whatever reason and I would like to know why. If it was for no good reason, then I would appreciate if someone created a new one and then everybody contribute to it (I will gladly do all the contributions myself, it's just that I don't know how to create a page), seeing as to how GTA IV is a game with so many characters and almost every other GTA has such a list, or, if not, I would like to add a new pharagraph at the Synposis about the characters. I'm telling you this because I didn't want to add it, then someone delete it, and then initiate another argument. I really don't like arguing with other people, and I didn't (all I did was make some edits on pages, then get those edits undone and people telling me to stop, when I only had good intentions). I understand that this site has rules and I'm trying my best to respect them, but when somebody does something wrong, at least try explaing them what exactly they did wrong and give them an alternative. Afterall, we all have the same goal here: improve pages about the stuff we like and share the information we know with others. I will respect your opinions and, if there is to contradict them, I will do it in a polite, civilized way, and I expect the same in return. We're all equal here and, again, have the same goal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by General Clanker (talk • contribs) 08:16, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

@General Clanker: Articles are rarely deleted "for no good reason". In this case, the list of Grand Theft Auto IV characters was redirected due to a lack of reliable, sourced content; the majority of the article consisted of original research. Having researched this game, I would argue that there is too little commentary on the game's characters to warrant the list being restored. Have a look at featured lists of other video game characters, such as The Last of Us or Red Dead Redemption 2—most (if not all) sections have paragraphs discussing the characters' development and reception, which Grand Theft Auto IV is unlikely to have. If you would like to experiment, however, I recommend doing so on your sandbox (check out H:SANDBOX for more information). You're right that other GTA games seem to have their own character articles, but most of these are not up to scratch either; and, just so you know, the "other stuff exists" argument is not a strong one.
As for the plot changes, I understand that your goal was not to start arguments, but you have continued to ignore the advice of other editors. Your errors have been explained to you several times, and sometimes you cannot be given "an alternative", as the "alternative" is to stop. Just because WP:VG/PLOT states that 700 words is the limit, does not mean that we need to write 699 words and say it's okay; sometimes, especially with smaller games like The Lost and Damned and The Ballad of Gay Tony, we need to strip the sections down to the most important plot information. We don't need to mention every named character who interacts with the story (if we did that, games like Red Dead Redemption 2 and Grand Theft Auto IV would have 2000+ word plot sections). Information like that should be kept to places like GTA Wiki—Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. We need to discuss topics in a concise and encyclopedic manner. If you wish to make any significant edits to plot sections (especially for articles like Grand Theft Auto IV and Grand Theft Auto V, which have undergone several reviews and thus been deemed suitable), I recommend creating a discussion on the article's talk page or making some edits to your sandbox first. – Rhain ☔ 09:17, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
@Rhain: In response to what you said, I agree that some games don't have the same plot length as others. However, for the most part when speaking of games made by Rockstar, the plots tend to reach lengths of at least 30 hours. GTA San Andreas, GTA 4 and Red Dead Redemption 2 are the perfect examples for this, and for each of them it's not that hard to write a summary in under 700 words. Now, I'm not saying that I want to rewrite the plot section of RDR 2 in any way, because it's already a perfect summary of its 40 hours long storyline, but I would like to do only some minor additions to that of GTA 4 (which is only about 600 words, so I won't go over the words limit) and perhaps rewrite that of San Andreas. Red Dead Redemption and the GTA series are very similar in terms of gameplay, yet so diffrent in terms of storyline: wheras Red Dead Redemption focuses on morals and inner conflict with a smaller cast of characters (sure, RDR 2 might have many characters, but only about 10 of them play an actual role in the storyline), the GTA games are pretty much doing random missions for numerous characters, all the while some inner conflict is hapenning with the protagonist, which is barely ever mentioned until the very end of the game.
That's why I consider that GTA 4, which, like I said, is completely laking a list of all characters in the game, should have only mentioned, and I repeat, only MENTIONED the main characters, who give Niko missions (there are only 4 more of them other than those already mentioned in the current version of the plot: Elizabeta Torres, Manny Escuella, Playboy X and Dwayne Forge); this shouldn't take more than 20 words. I would also like to add 1 more sentence (again, only about 20 words) that mentions Niko kidnapping Gracie Ancelotti, because it is also part of the diamond storyline, which is pretty much what connects GTA 4 with TLaD and TBoGT; not to mention that this already exists in TBoGT plot, so it would be weird to not be at least mentioned in the GTA 4. All these additions shouldn't take more than 50 words, so the plot's length would be of about 650 words long, which is more than reasonable for a game as long as GTA 4, in my opinion.
As for San Andreas (even though this is not the talk page for it, but I'm going to say it anyways), I would like to rewrite a version of the plot that doesn't feature details such as CJ getting bored of running Wozzie's casino, because is it not important to the storyline, but also because, like I said, GTA games aren't about morals or inner conflict up until the very end. Instead, I would like to use those removed words to MENTION major characters, who play an actual important role in the storyline, like Catalina, The Truth, Ken Rosenberg or Salvatore Leone, and who were all mentioned in older versions of the plot. Again, San Andreas is a long game, almost as long as Red Dead Redemption 2, and while it shouldn't be 700 words like it, it should come pretty close to it (again, somewhere around 650).
Hope I haven't upset you Rhain or anyone else reading this, I just spoke out my mind, and you are all free to do the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by General Clanker (talk • contribs) 12:17, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
@General Clanker: I appreciate you outlining the changes that you are interested in making. My primary concern is your emphasis of the word mentioned. If the characters only warrant a mention within the plot, are they worth mentioning at all? Elizabeta, Manny, Playboy, and Dwayne are all interesting and entertaining characters, but they add virtually nothing to the overall story. They are essentially there to give Niko missions to keep him busy and earn him some money; ultimately, they play no part in advancing the primary narrative of the game. Furthermore, I don't think the Ancelotti storyline is worth mentioning, and I think you've explained why: "this already exists in TBoGT plot". The Ancelotti storyline plays a very significant role in The Ballad of Gay Tony, as the loss of the diamonds is what leads to the game's final act, but in Grand Theft Auto IV it is relatively minor: another brief set of missions to keep Niko busy and earning money. The Plot section should outline the important narrative elements of this game; we shouldn't be mentioning things solely because they crossover later on.
The same applies for San Andreas, really. While fun and interesting cameos, Catalina, Ken Rosenberg, and Salvatore Leone add nothing to advance the primary story. The Truth is a little more important, as he is present for the majority of the game, but ultimately he is only there to give CJ missions to keep him busy. None of these characters are worth mentioning in the plot summaries. If you want to experiment with these at all, I urge you to use your sandbox. – Rhain ☔ 12:39, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

List of GTA IV characters

Hello!

Hope you are all having a good day/evening. Today I'm going to bother you iwth one more thing, and I hope I don't upset anyone with this. For the last three days I have been working on a List of GTA IV characters article in my sandbox (you may see it here) and I submited it to draft. It was reviewed surprisingly quikcly and the user who did it - Robert McClenon - found only two problems with it.

First of all, a lack of refrences. I did add some, alongside several external links, but I don't think this is the bigger one of the two problems here, because my main inspiration when making the article were the articles about the list of characters from the older GTA games, which have very few refrences themselves. For example, List of Grand Theft Auto: Vice City Stories characters has only one refrence, and I don't see anyone complaining about it. I think I also understand why: the game isn't that popular to begin with, meaning that the article about its characters is even less popular, so there's no need for too many refrences. I think the same would be for GTA IV: the game has been kinda forgotten, which is really sad for such a masterpiece, and I don't think the article I made would be very popular to begin with, so the same thing would apply here. That's my opinion at least.

Now, for the bigger problem, namely the fact that "List of GTA IV characters", as well as any other character from the game, would redirect to the GTA IV article. I would like to request that somebody deletes these redirects, at least for now, until I submit my article for draft and it gets re-reviewed. Afterwards, I would inform you so that you could either restore the redirects, in case it gets rejected, or move them to the article, if it is accepted. P.S: This applies for both The Lost and Damned and The Ballad of Gay Tony, as my article pretty much also covers all characters from those game.

Whatever your response may be, I appreciate you taking time to read this and listening to my opinons. - General Clanker —Preceding undated comment added 08:15, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi General Clanker. Thanks for your message, and for the effort that you put into the list of characters. Unfortunately, it appears that you're failing to understand some of the fundamental rules of Wikipedia. To avoid confusion, I'll quote some of your message and reply individually:
  • "articles about the list of characters from the older GTA games ... have very few refrences themselves"
    We've discussed this one before, but "other stuff exists" is not a very strong argument to use here. The other lists are very weak, and really should not exist themselves; they are poor examples to use for inspiration when writing new content, so I think that has led to the issues present here.
  • "I don't see anyone complaining about it"
    People have complained about these for years. They have been deleted on several occasions, and I've seen them mentioned in discussions for deletion. I think they are completely unnecessary and give the wrong representation to new editors, so I've nominated them for deletion.
  • "the article about its characters is even less popular, so there's no need for too many refrences"
    I'm sorry, but this sentence exactly explains why these articles should not exist. If the game's characters are not "popular", and therefore not discussed by reliable, secondary sources, then they're not notable enough for a standalone list on Wikipedia. Take a look at WP:VGSCOPE, especially number 6: "It is almost never appropriate to create a standalone list of characters that appear within a single video game as these can be described in the game's article." Such articles need secondary sourcing, otherwise they shouldn't exist; there is never an excuse for a lack of secondary sources, especially not "it is not popular enough".
    Take a look at the lists of characters in The Last of Us or Red Dead Redemption 2. In both lists, most (if not all) character sections feature a paragraph or two about the development of the character and how they were received. These sections are preceded by a section documenting the creation and conception of the characters as a collective, and they are followed by a section documenting their reception from critics. All aforementioned sections are filled with information supported by reliable, secondary sources that have deemed the subject notable, and therefore Wikipedia does the same. Does this make sense?
Your proposed article features excessive detail that is not supported by reliable sources—and, considering the subject matter, such reliable sources do not currently exist. I hope you understand. Please let me know if you have any questions or comments. – Rhain ☔ 15:38, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
Rhain I appreciate your response and the fact that you explained what is wrong about my article step by step, in a civilized manner. However, I would like to express the fact that I'm not trying to create a "good article" here. Very few articles are "good" when they are originally made, requiring future editors to improve them. That's what I'm trying to create here: just a rough start for other editors to expand and improve on in the future. Even if that doesn't happen, it's not a reason to just delete it and pretend it didn't exist. Same thing applies to the articles you proposed for deletion. A lot of work has gone into them, and simply lacking some secondary sources isn't not enough to justify deleting them completely from existence, mostly because it is something that can be redeemed very easily - just like you have been told by GUtt01. I speak from personal experience when I say that one of the most unpleasing thing to happen is having your work underappreciated - just imagine one of the articles you have created or put a lot of effort into being suddenly deleted because someone found an issue that could have been easily redeemed. Just like I said before, I personally don't find the lack of secondary sources a major issue. Sure, it's one, but it's not enough to ruin an entire article. Very few common readers actually check if the information they have just read is valid, and the secondary sources are there mostly for editors. I don't think it's right to prevent anyone from making additions to the already vast Wikipedia - which stores information about everything - unless they actually break some major rules or make mistakes that are almost impossible to redeem. This breaks the sole principle of Wikipedia: share the information you know with others. A lot, if not most information on Wikipedia is original research, and it's difficult to find secondary sources for every piece of information added.
In conclusion, I appreciate you trying to improve Wikipedia, like we all are, but I think you are a little too strict when it comes to secondary sources. I don't think that Wikipedia is meant to be just a collection of information from other sources, but also have some original research, as most people wouldn't make the diffrence. As long as there is nothing wrong about that original research, I don't see that big of a issue about it. Anyway, I appreciate you reading and expressing your opinions about the article I put so much work in. All I ask for is the removal of the redirects of List of GTA IV characters and other stuff related to it for a short amount of time (maximum two to three days) so that I could resubmit my article. As long as someone thought it would make a good article or, at least, the start of one, I don't think that there's too much wrong about it. - General Clanker 17:51, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
@General Clanker:
  • "I'm not trying to create a "good article" here"
    The guidelines that I'm referring to are not specific to good articles, but to all articles. These are basic guidelines, not high-level ones.
  • "I'm trying to create ... a rough start for other editors to expand and improve on in the future."
    That's great, because that's what Wikipedia is built off of, but your "rough start" is too rough. The burden is on you to demonstrate verifiability, not on other editors to fix up the mess afterwards.
  • "A lot of work has gone into them"
    Believe me, I'm aware, but "lots of people have worked on this" is not a reason for inclusion. It's unfortunate, but the content does not meet Wikipedia policy.
  • "simply lacking some secondary sources isn't not enough to justify deleting them completely"
    Yes, it is. Take a look at WP:RS: "If no reliable sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it."
  • "just imagine one of the articles you have created or put a lot of effort into being suddenly deleted"
    I've been editing here for almost ten years, it's happened to me plenty of times. It sucks every time, but I take it as a lesson and try to do better next time. And the articles are never deleted out of aggression, but out of the interest of improving Wikipedia.
  • "an issue that could have been easily redeemed"
    In this case, the burden is on you to redeem it.
  • "Wikipedia ... stores information about everything"
    No, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. We have guidelines for a reason.
  • "A lot, if not most information on Wikipedia is original research"
    While that's definitely an exaggeration, Wikipedia is still a work in progress. There will always be articles with errors, but it is our job to find those errors and correct them. Just because other stuff exists doesn't mean that it should.
  • "Wikipedia [should] also have some original research"
    Also no; WP:NOR is one of the three core content policies here on Wikipedia. Wikipedia should never include original research. There are no exceptions.
If you submit your article again, it will be failed. The issues raised by Robert McClenon are not about the redirects, but of the content itself: "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources." The only source in the article is IMDb, which is unreliable. I'm sorry, but this article has no place on Wikipedia, especially in its current state. – Rhain ☔ 00:12, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Not that it can't be done though. Characters of Halo and Characters of Myst were refined to GA status, and Characters of God of War even got featured. The problem here is with mainly how the stuff was cited and if there's some notable scholarly analysis or similar commentary on the characters which can be used. Blake Gripling (talk) 02:18, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
Of course! I've referred to some other lists for singular games (The Last of Us and Red Dead Redemption 2) above, but those are fantastic examples of lists for franchises. Unfortunately, Grand Theft Auto IV currently lacks the analysis and commentary of those titles, but I'd love to be proven wrong. – Rhain ☔ 04:08, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
Given the series being a poster child for video game controversies, I'm sure there are commentaries which at least mention some of the characters and their relevance to the series. But that remains to be seen of course. Blake Gripling (talk) 05:35, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
None that I've found in my time researching the game. Certainly not enough to justify an entire article on the characters, in any case. – Rhain ☔ 05:54, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Details about GTAIV

Platforms: PlayStation 3, Xbox 360, Xbox One*, Microsoft Windows

The game was not released for the Xbox One. We don't list games played via emulation or backward compatibility. - X201 (talk) 11:20, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Characters

Hello again!

I've seen that there is a full protection on the article until May 5 due to editing conflict, which I understand. Until then, and because I have nothing else to do in times like this, I would like to tell you that I intend to make some major additions once the protection expires (as long as you agree with them, which is why I'm going to list them now).

First of all, I would like to add one more sentence at the beginning of the fourth pharagraph of the Plot section, namely: "Niko gets more involved with the city's underworld as he takes on jobs from various criminal sources, including drug dealers, the Irish mob, and several Italian Mafia families, looking to secure a better lifestyle for himself, as well as hopefully track down his unit's traitor quicker." Now, as to why I would like to add this sentence, the reason is that, like I stated some time before, this plot doesn't mention at all Niko's work for the various criminals and organizations in Liberty City, which is like 2/3 of the game. I don't wish to list all of his employers or jobs he takes, simply mention the fact that he works for a lot of people, and why he is doing this. An average reader, who reads this article, would believe that the entire storyline of GTA IV resumes to this, and that Niko doesn't work for anyone else after moving to Bohan, just the United Liberty Paper, which is not true. At least, this is what I understand when I read the Plot section here.

Second of all, I would like to add a Characters section, in between the Setting and the Plot ones. Just like I said some time ago, GTA IV lacks a list of all its great and amazing characters, so, if I won't be able to create a page to discusss each of them in detail, I would like to at least mention the major ones (namely all the mission givers). I would also expand on this section, mentioning new stuff that GTA IV adds to the franchise, such as the option of killing or sparing a character, or random characters (not going to list them, just bring into the attention that they exist).

That would be about it: just one more sentence that sums up 2/3 of the game in the Plot section, and a new Characters section (which you are all free to adjust afterwards). Like I said numerous times before, my interest here is not to upset anyone, just to improve stuff that people already made, so that we would all have to win from this. I respect your opinions, as long as you respect mine.

Yours faithfully, General Clanker (just a simple guy who wants to let others know about the awesomeness of stuff he loves) — Preceding unsigned comment added by General Clanker (talk • contribs) 18:12, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

@General Clanker: To claim that you are going to make some "major additions" to an article that has undergone several thorough good article nominations is worrisome. That being said, your change to the Plot seems fairly trivial, not "major", and I'm not opposed to it; I would suggest dropping the "as well as hopefully track down his unit's traitor quicker" from the end of the sentence, as it would feel repetitive. Other than this, the sentence is fine.
The proposed Characters section, however, is not fine. To list "all the mission givers" would be at least 22 characters, which is even more than the Characters section of Red Dead Redemption 2 (a game with arguably far more main characters, let alone secondary). Such a section would be excessive WP:GAMECRUFT. Furthermore, I'm unsure of what reference/s you would use to cite such a section, as each piece of information added to an article must be appropriately sourced. Please keep any attempts at a Characters section to your sandbox and share them on this talk page before adding them to the article. Also, the game's morality choices are already present in the article (in the fourth paragraph of Gameplay).
I understand that your only interest is to add content that you feel is helpful, but please understand that Wikipedia has rigorous notability and verifability guidelines, particularly for articles of GA and FA status. If you really want to contribute positively to Wikipedia, you should listen to the advice of others and avoid disruptive editing. You're making good steps in this direction by posting your thoughts on talk pages, so please continue to do that if your additions are challenged, instead of repeating to make such changes. Believe me, we're all simply trying to improve Wikipedia; that's why we respond to edits like this in the first place. I hope you understand. – Rhain ☔ 02:00, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
@Rhain: I made a version of the Characters section I would like to add:
Unlike previous games in the series, Grand Theft Auto IV doesn't feature well-known Hollywood actors to voice their characters, instead using lesser-known voice actors. The game's protagonist is Niko Bellic (voiced by Michael Hollick), a veteran of the Yugoslav Wars who arrives in Liberty City to pusue the American Dream with his cousin Roman (Jason Zumwalt) and search for a man who betrayed his unit in the war. Niko quickly gets involved with the city's underworld, working for various criminal figures, some of whom he establishes good friendships with, such as Yardie underboss Little Jacob (Coolie Ranx), car entrepreneur Brucie Kibbutz (Timothy Adams), and Irish mobster Patrick McReary (Ryan Johnston). At first, Niko's notable employer include Russian loan shark Vlad Glebov (Misha Kuznetsov), and leaders of the Broker Russian mafia Mikhail Faustin (Karel Roden) and Dimitri Rascalov (Moti Margolin). During later stages of the game, Niko's range of employers vastly expands, among them being egocentric vigilante Manny Escuella (Berto Colon), drug baroness Elizabeta Torres (Charlie Parker), drug dealer Playboy X (Postell Pringle), his mentor Dwayne Forge (Devin Richards), Patrick's brothers - corrupt cop Francis (Thomas Lyons), retired mobster Derrick (George Feaster), and Irish mob boss Gerald (PJ Sosko) - Gambetti crime family Don Jon Gravelli (Madison Arnold), his former friend and member of his unit Bernie Crane / Florian Cravic (Timothy J. Alex), Pegorino family high-ranking members Ray Boccino (Joe Barbara) and Phil Bell (Frank Bonsangue), Pegorino family Don Jimmy Pegorino (Tony Patellis), and the United Liberty Paper agency, for whom he works through an unnamed agent (Milton James).
During the storyline, the player is given the choice of killing or sparing a character, most of whom play a minor role in the story, but, if spared, than they can be encountered again as "random characters", who are met in certain locations around Liberty City and the player can do a short mission for them. There are also two occasions in which the player must choose between two characters to kill, namely Playboy X or Dwayne, and Francis or Derrick. Niko also has the option of going on dates with five possible girlfriends, two of whom are met during the storyline, namely Michelle (Rebecca Henderson) and Kate McReary (Mary Catherine Donnelly), Patrick's sister.
Many of the characters featured in the game would go on to make appearances in its two expansions and successor, Grand Theft Auto V.
As you see, I only mentioned the major characters in the game, which is about 21, so around as many as Red Dead Redemption 2, which I don't see as too many, beacause of 2 reasons:
1. I'm saying for like the 4th time, but GTA IV lacks a list of characters, so this is the only place on Wikipedia where you can see them, at least the major ones.
2. Red Dead Redemption 2 doesn't mention all it's major characters (over half of the Van Der Linde gang is absent), so GTA IV has about as many important characters as half of those from RDR 2.
I would also like on more pharagraph at the Setting section, to mention the gangs featured in the game, namely:
Liberty City is divided between various gangs and criminal organizations. Besides African-American street gangs and biker gangs, the game also features the Irish mob, the Russian mafia - divided between the Faustin (late Rascalov), Petrović, and Bulgarin syndictes - and the Commission - consisting of five major Italian mafia families: Gambetti, Ancelotti, Pavano, Lupisella and Messina - as well as the less-influent Pegorino family.
Seeing as to how most crime games have a pharagraph about the gangs featured in the game at the Setting section, I think GTA IV deserves one as well - an this is not an "other stuff exists" argument, so don't take it like that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by General Clanker (talk • contribs) 08:49, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
@General Clanker: I feel the need to reiterate that your paragraph lacks any sourcing that demonstrates the characters' notability. As it stands, it reads like WP:GAMECRUFT—it's just listing every named character without discussing any relevance to the story. To respond to your two points:
  1. "this is the only place on Wikipedia where you can see them" — please note that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Just because characters exist does not mean that they should be mentioned. If a reader wants to know every mission-giver from Grand Theft Auto IV, they'll visit the GTA Wiki.
  2. "Red Dead Redemption 2 doesn't mention all it's major characters" — if anything, I think this hurts your point. Red Dead Redemption 2, which is a game whose narrative is almost solely focused on characters and their relationships, only lists a few key characters who are integral to the overall story. I would argue that the section could mention at least a dozen other main characters—in fact, it previously did—but such a section would be useless trivia and simply awkward to read.
All of the truly integral characters in Grand Theft Auto IV are mentioned in the Plot section, and I believe that's all this article needs. Or, at the very least, that proposal requires some significant cutting and sourcing before it would be suitable for inclusion. – Rhain ☔ 09:34, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
@Rhain: In terms of sourcing, it's difficult to find a proprer site to source the GTA IV characters from, because there is a lack of a list of characters from the game not only on Wikipedia, but on the entire Internet (excluding the GTA Wiki). However, I think the most reliable one is IMDB - https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0802999/fullcredits?ref_=tt_cl_sm#cast — Preceding unsigned comment added by General Clanker (talk • contribs) 09:42, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
@General Clanker: That means the characters, in that format, are simply not notable enough to include, as reliable sources have not considered worthy of such discussion. IMDb is not a reliable source—not to mention that it only lists names of actors and characters, not necessarily the roles that you've mentioned in your paragraph. – Rhain ☔ 10:10, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
@Rhain: I took a look at what are considered "reliable" sources for Wikipedia, and found that GiantBomb is considered reliable in certain situations. You may take a look at https://www.giantbomb.com/grand-theft-auto-iv/3030-20457/characters/ and tell me if it's good enough to source from. It was the best, mostly reliable source for GTA IV characters I could find. — Preceding unsigned comment added by General Clanker (talk • contribs) 10:54, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

@General Clanker: Unfortunately, that's not reliable. Giant Bomb is considered a "situational source", where it is only considered reliable for reviews and news content submitted by the editorial staff. Wiki content, like the link you've provided, is not considered reliable for citations. – Rhain ☔ 14:08, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

I have reverted the article and I intend to sweep through it as well as other video game characters pages to clean it as much as I possibly can. Osh33m (talk) 13:25, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
@Osh33m: Please do so in draftspace or your sandbox (or contribute to General Clanker's sandbox version). The page has been redirected in the past, and the weak consensus was for it to remain as such, so it should undergo at least a semi-formal AFC-type scenario before being restored. It should not be restored with the intention of maybe working on it later, it should be fully fixed beforehand. – Rhain ☔ 13:32, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
@Rhain: has the page already been reverted to redirect? Osh33m (talk) 13:35, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
@Osh33m: It has, though the redirects from the page moves by Clanker have become quite messy. – Rhain ☔ 13:37, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
That it was a cut-and-past move from "List of Grand Theft Auto IV characters" to "List of characters in Grand Theft Auto IV" was wrong in the first place. I had filed a technical move request from the latter to the former with a histmerge but I doubt that this is still possible now, after at least four moves with typos and Wikipedia-space entries. IceWelder [✉] 13:46, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

July 2020

@General Clanker: once again, I feel the need to mention that your recent addition of a "Characters" section feels wholly unnecessary to me. The entire section, particularly the last paragraph, is just a block of in-universe character names with no indication of notability or relevance. The majority of these characters only exist as random mission-givers with no actual relevance to the narrative—the few characters who are relevant should be mentioned in the "Plot" section. Grand Theft Auto IV is not like, say, Red Dead Redemption 2, which arguably has 20+ main characters who are all integral to the storyline and move it forwards; only about a handful of GTA IV characters are truly relevant to the narrative progression. That you added this information to the article yet again is concerning considering you were blocked last time; you should take the advice of the block notice and discuss your changes before adding them to the article. Please do so. – Rhain ☔ 12:40, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

@Rhain:, thank you for your advice. I'll try to take it into consideration. I'm not trying to do any harm, only that I don't feel like discussing every edit unless they are major. For me, this isn't one, as I only added a short section and did a few amendments to the plot. If I were to rewrite an entire section, then I would discuss it first. Thank you again. - User:General Clanker User talk:General Clanker, 12:54. 5 July 2020 (UTC)
@General Clanker: It’s not advice, it’s an instruction from an administrator: you were told to seek conflict resolution before making changes again, yet you made it anyway. Whether or not you consider it “major” is irrelevant—I have made my case against the section, now you should make yours for it. You don’t need to discuss “every edit”, just those that are controversial (and especially those that, in the past, have led to getting blocked). – Rhain ☔ 13:21, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
@General Clanker: Wanted to give you another opportunity to respond here before I remove the information from the article. It is completely in-universe trivia that is only linked to a primary source and fails to demonstrate any notability. The characters should instead be mentioned in the "Plot" section where appropriate. – Rhain ☔ 23:09, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Excuse me?

When GTA IV was released it received critical acclaim, but the ratings on the scale are commonly 10/10 or 5 stars. I think that's NOT critical acclaim but instead Universal Acclaim, because i think critical acclaim is a 8-9 or 4 stars. Is this just me, or is the rating scale messing with me? --StaleGuy22 (talk) 18:14, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

@StaleGuy22: What are you referring to? The lead says "universal critical acclaim", and the Reception section quotes Metacritic's "universal acclaim". Personally I think the term's a bit puffy, but it's used plenty here, so I'm not sure what your issue is. Also note that "critical acclaim" and "universal acclaim" are basically the same thing in this context, they just use different words. – Rhain ☔ 00:20, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
@Rhain: I'm very sorry for the mistake, i felt like i wanted to change the "critical acclaim" part into universal acclaim because i thought they weren't the same definition, i then realized when you posted your comment, i got the correct answer. Critical = Universal. Sorry for the mistake.

Semi-protected edit request on 13 August 2020

Can anybody remove the GTAV thing from Gameplay; Settings section first paragraph? Because this article only relates to those games which is made on Liberty City as GTAV is made on Los Santos. 103.18.20.255 (talk) 09:09, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. The game takes place in the same canon as Grand Theft Auto V, which is what the sentence is stating. – Rhain ☔ 09:17, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:54, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The recent split doesn't meet the criteria as before splitting, the readable prose size was only 38 KB. The development article could easily be merged back here. For comparison, Grand Theft Auto V's size is 37 KB and its development is 35 KB. — CR4ZE (T • C) 04:38, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done. – Rhain ☔ 14:44, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Well, that was simple. I was expecting to hear a case to the contrary but if you're happy with the merge it looks good to me. Thanks for taking the initiative. — CR4ZE (T • C) 00:37, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
I don't entirely agree to the merge but I don't feel strongly enough to argue my case. It was easy enough to merge, anyway. – Rhain ☔ 03:30, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Second sentence

This sentence “ It is the first main entry in the Grand Theft Auto series since 2004's Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas.” seems redundant. It’s always the first entry because it came after San Andreas. I think maybe changing it to the game’s position would give more info such as “It is the sixth main entry in the Grand Theft Auto series.”The sentence also shows in Grand Theft Auto 5. Thoughts?Manabimasu (talk) 15:05, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

@Manabimasu: Its position as the sixth main entry seems unnecessary and provides little information, while the existing sentence tells the reader which main game came out before this one, which seems more relevant. It's basically a seamless way to discuss the release history of the series in the lead. – Rhain ☔ 22:50, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
@Rhain: Maybe change the sentence to “It is the sixth main entry in the Grand Theft Auto series following 2004's Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas.”Manabimasu (talk) 16:58, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
@Manabimasu: I don't see why its placement as the "sixth main entry" is relevant. Besides the fact that it's technically unsourced, it tells the reader nothing of significance. – Rhain ☔ 21:39, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

"Brucie Kibbutz" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Brucie Kibbutz. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 25#Brucie Kibbutz until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. signed, Rosguill talk 18:21, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:53, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:23, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Confusing section

"At Roman's wedding, an assassin sent by Dimitri accidentally kills Roman with a stray bullet. Aided by Little Jacob, a devastated Niko murders Dimitri, who in turn had killed Pegorino. Later, Mallorie informs Niko that she is pregnant with Roman's child, whom Niko vows to protect. Should Niko choose to exact revenge, he finds and kills Dimitri aboard the Platypus. At Roman's wedding, Pegorino, furious at Niko's betrayal, targets him in a drive-by shooting, but accidentally kills Patrick's sister Kate, whom Niko had been dating. Aided by Little Jacob and Roman, Niko tracks down and kills Pegorino. Later, Roman tells Niko that Mallorie is pregnant and that they decided to name the baby after Kate if it is a girl."

How could Roman be killed at his wedding and still be alive later to help Niko track down and kill Pegorino (who apparently has already been killed by Dimitri) and also be able to tell Niko about Mallorie's pregnancy? How could Pegorino, who apparently has already been killed by Dimitri, show up at Roman's wedding to kill Niko? Is this section intended to detail two possible endings? if sou, perhaps it should be rewritten to better demonstrate that?208.69.184.59 (talk) 09:13, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

There's a key sentence before the bit that you pasted. "Should Niko go through with the deal, Dimitri again betrays him and keeps the heroin for himself." that is the start of the first alternate ending, then the other alternate ending starts with "Should Niko choose to exact revenge,..." - X201 (talk) 10:35, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

No mention of Dwayne/Playboy X, Francis/Derrick, or the fate of Darko Brevic?

The first two events mentioned are major events in the games plot where the player must decide which character to spare and which to kill. While they ultimately don't affect the ending, I still feel like they are worth mentioning within the plot section, as is more detail on the scene with Darko Brevic, as it is the emotional climax for Nikos character in the game.

"Niko finds work from local drug lords Elizabeta Torrez and Playboy X. Niko befriends Playboy Xs old mentor Dwayne Forge, and must decide which of the two to kill after their relationship strains. Later, Niko discovers that his girlfriend Michelle is a government agent. She warns him that Elizabeta is about to be arrested and she entraps him into working for her agency, the United Liberty Paper. In exchange for the assassinations of several known or suspected terrorists, the agency clears Niko's criminal record and searches for the traitor he seeks."

"While working for the Irish Mob, Niko befriends gangster Patrick McReary and helps him and his brothers carry out a bank robbery. Niko meets and works for the rest of the McReary family, including Patricks sister, Kate, who he begins dating, and later must decide the fate of two of the brothers, Francis, a corrupt cop, or Derrick, a heroin addicted ex freedom fighter, later attending the funeral of the one he chooses to kill."

"Eventually, the Paper finds Darko and brings him to Liberty City for Niko to decide his fate. Darko reveals that he sold out his squad for one thousand dollars to avenge his own neighbours and friends, and calls Niko a hypocrite for berating his actions. Niko, furious and heartbroken by this revelation, chooses to either spare Darko to leave him to live with his actions, or kill him to avenge his friends. Having achieved closure on his past, Niko is summoned by Pegorino for one final favour: to help with a highly lucrative heroin deal in collusion with Dimitri." 88.107.106.69 (talk) 11:46, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

The plot section is already pushing close to the word limit; while characters like Dwayne, Playboy X, and the McReary brothers are important, we have to cherry-pick storylines to fit within the count. Darko's fate is discussed in the section, albeit briefly. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 13:17, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

"Karin Futo" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Karin Futo and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 3 § Karin Futo until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Dominicmgm (talk) 13:29, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Grand_Theft_Auto_IV/Archive_16&oldid=1218254952"