Talk:Detroit: Become Human/Archive 1

Archive 1

Genre

To avoid any edit warring I think this should be discussed here and settled as this affects games like Heavy Rain and Beyond Two Souls too. According to IGN, heavy rain is classed as an adventure game which makes sense, it's similar to a point and click adventure games of old, with a more up to date point and click. It has some action sequences scripted as they are, so I think action-adventure in its broad scope does cover this game and others like it. Linking to interactive movie on the other hand is, I feel, inappropriate. It's not a film with limited interaction ala one of those old VHS board games, it's a video game first and foremost, therefore interaction is implied if not mandatory and is covered by the "video game" labeling in the opening sentence. Drama, neo noir, any of these things are film genres or tones, applicable to discussing the story but not to classifying the type of game it is. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 09:58, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Life Is Strange is another appropriate game to compare to, and unlike those you mentioned, it is not developed by Quantic Dream. But it definitely has a lot of similarity in gameplay. That game's genre is currently identified in its infobox as "graphic adventure", though "graphic" is simply to distinguish from text adventures. Heavy Rain and Beyond: Two Souls are both currently classified as "interactive drama, action-adventure" in their infoboxes, while Fahrenheit is labeled "interactive movie" instead of interactive drama, though the label links to the same article in all three cases.

I agree that "interactive movie/drama" does not seem an appropriate label for these games. Other than the second-to-last paragraph in the §History section of interactive movie, which mentions Fahrenheit, Heavy Rain, and others because "During many scenes, the player has limited control of the character and chooses certain actions to progress the story" and also their use of (and under the rest of that paragraph's definition, the Mass Effect and Uncharted series would each qualify as well), the rest of that article is entirely about works in which the only interactivity is the selection from a small set of choices at discrete decision points - no free movement, nor independent camera control. I believe that adventure (with or without the "action" co-label) is the most appropriate genre label for all of the Quantic Dreams games, Life Is Strange, and any other similar title. I would additionally suggest that the aforementioned paragraph in the interactive movie article is, perhaps, in need of a bit of attention as well, if only to distinguish that the modern games listed therein are inspired or influenced by the category, rather than being members of it.

Another thing that I feel I should preemptively point out: Heavy Rain's infobox includes a citation alongside its genre label of "interactive drama" (apparently there's been contention around the term before), to an article in which Sony applies the term to describe the game. However, I think it's important to observe that in the context of that article, the term is used to refer to the "emotional connection" and "consequence-based gameplay", rather than as a comparison to the Wikipedia article "interactive movie". In fact, the citation on the other genre label for Heavy Rain is to an interview with the founder of Quantic Dream, in which he emphatically opposes the notion that Heavy Rain be thought of as an "interactive movie":

Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 19:50, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Metacritic list

This thing is appropriate to mention in the reception section I think. But still, I just wanted to see other opinions. Sebastian James (talk) 18:57, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I added it as a note, so it wouldn't push the paragraph into an orphan. Cognissonance (talk) 23:58, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Famitsu review

Is it wrong to show Famitsu review on the review template? I know that all the reviews must be mentioned in the body, but I've seen some good/featured video game articles that include Famitsu only on the template. Some of them mention it in the body, though not the review. Sebastian James (talk) 16:21, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Ideological/Political Message

The game has an underlying ideological or political message. --105.0.2.154 (talk) 00:27, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 July 2018

Please do not close talk items until they have been at least responded to. If nobody wishes to dispute these edits I'll make the relevant changes. (QuanticNut (talk) 20:55, 22 July 2018 (UTC))

Adam Williams should be included in the writers section, as he was previously, not sure why this keeps being removed.

Many media sources quote him as Lead Writer, including Sony (the publisher): (https://blog.eu.playstation.com/2018/05/23/how-detroit-become-humans-narrative-team-brought-a-world-of-androids-to-life/) (https://www.gamereactor.eu/articles/611843/Detroit+Becoming+Human+with+lead+writer+Adam+Williams/) (https://www.vg247.com/2018/04/23/detroit-become-human-lead-writer-quit-tv/)

He is also active on the Detroit Reddit, where he has appeared in an AMA beside David Cage as lead writer: https://www.reddit.com/r/DetroitBecomeHuman/comments/8n8b6p/hi_im_adam_williams_lead_writer_at_quantic_dream/

The edit history says he was removed because he is not lead writer in the opening credits. But in the credits he is credited as 'Additional Writing', so still a writer and still belongs in the Writer(s) category.

The fact Detroit was Quantic's first game not written entirely by David Cage was quite a big deal in the promotion so the page looks pretty out of touch by removing him.

Speaking here as a Quantic fan who is active on the Reddit. QuanticNut (talk) 19:30, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. — LeoFrank  ^Talk 06:14, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 July 2018

Synopsis section should mention that the story summarized here is just one of many possible iterations, depending on players' choices.

An IGN interview with David Cage mentions "1000 possible combinations" of ending but I haven't seen specific numbers elsewhere. https://wccftech.com/detroit-become-human-player-choice/ QuanticNut (talk) 19:49, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. — LeoFrank  ^Talk 06:13, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Danski454 (talk) 21:37, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Detroit: Become Human/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Adamstom.97 (talk · contribs) 23:36, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

This is branching out a bit for me as I am not that familiar with video game articles, but I have plenty of film and TV GA experience so hopefully that serves me well. I have a good read through the article soon, and get back to you with some thoughts. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:36, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97: When do you think you'll begin? Not used to waiting so long. Cognissonance (talk) 19:10, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry about this. I didn't manage to get to it on the weekend but should be good for this weekend coming. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:08, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Issues and discussion

Sorry again for the delay. Here are some things that I would like to see fixed up before I promote the article to GA:

• Can you mention the actors for the other two main characters in the lead as well?
• I don't think the last sentence of the lead is complete or correct. The same for "Magazines abound the levels for players to read."

• @Adamstom.97: I don't understand. It begins with the fact that it is the developer's most successful launch and ends with the total copies sold. "Abound", a verb for existing in large numbers, is appropriate in that sentence. Cognissonance (talk) 08:24, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

• I don't know if English is your first language or not, but neither of those sentences make sense. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:10, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

• @Adamstom.97: I made the sentence in the lead more straight-forward. I am Norwegian, but "Magazines abound the levels for players to read" is the same as writing "Magazines exist in the levels in large numbers for players to read". It is grammatically sound and Englishly correct. Cognissonance (talk) 10:25, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

• I changed the sentence in Gameplay after checking an online dictionary. Cognissonance (talk) 13:30, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

• In-line citations should come after punctuation, not just be placed in the middle of sentences.
• "During his hunt for Markus' group" - ambiguous pronoun.

• I replaced the following use of "he" instead, which was more likely to be misconstrued as Markus. Cognissonance (talk) 08:42, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

• The big first paragraph in critical reception could probably be split into two.

• This specific style uses positive reception first, then negative, each with their own paragraph. Breaking that up would defeat the purpose. Cognissonance (talk) 08:46, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

• I understand that, but it is a really big paragraph. There is nothing wrong with two paragraphs for positive reviews and one for negative, or one for most positive followed by one of less positive and then one of negative. Just to help the reader. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:10, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

• Done, begrudgingly. Cognissonance (talk) 10:25, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

• There are enough awards listed that an accolades table may be useful.

Let me know how you get on with those, or if you have any questions. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:03, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: Would it also be possible to reduce some of the WP:CITEKILL present in the article, or are all affected sentences' information pieced together from three sources each so that they are all required? Lordtobi (✉) 07:47, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

• Sources accumulate based on the information added. There are no more than four at most in the article. Cognissonance (talk) 09:13, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

• This is not such a big deal to me, but if there are redundant references then it would be good practice to remove them. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:10, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Placing this here for the attention of the reviewer - a long-standing issue from the talk page that has not been addressed:

Adam Williams should be included in the writers section, as he was previously, not sure why this keeps being removed.

Many media sources quote him as Lead Writer, including Sony (the publisher): (https://blog.eu.playstation.com/2018/05/23/how-detroit-become-humans-narrative-team-brought-a-world-of-androids-to-life/) (https://www.gamereactor.eu/articles/611843/Detroit+Becoming+Human+with+lead+writer+Adam+Williams/) (https://www.vg247.com/2018/04/23/detroit-become-human-lead-writer-quit-tv/)

The opening credits also mention two more directors: Benjamin Diebling and Gregory Diaconu (cited in the above), the former of which is very active on Twitter/the community and streamed from the game's premiere. (QuanticNut (talk) 19:24, 22 July 2018 (UTC))

The latter two only need to be included if they are widely covered in reliable sources. Merely having the word "director" in the credits does not necessarily make them noteworthy. It does look like the content about the other writer should be added though. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:59, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Respectfully noted. Many thanks for your input. (QuanticNut (talk) 21:23, 22 July 2018 (UTC))

Also, you guys need to be careful with this edit warring. I cannot promote the article to GA if it is not stable, so you need to sort out your issues through the talk page please. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:00, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Understand entirely. To give you the full background, the other editor registered an issue with me which has been addressed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Proposal_(User:QuanticNut). My contention is that the accreditation is plainly sourced and that the only grounds for dispute is cog's ownership of the page. I'll let the other party put their case in their own words if they choose to, though it's spelled out on my talk page already for your info. (QuanticNut (talk) 22:17, 22 July 2018 (UTC))

• If the scriptwriting credits are important, they can be discussed in prose. This said, I don't find anything in the three sources listed above worth mentioning in prose. The infobox is meant to be shorthand for the article. I didn't see Williams in the end credits, but I did see "Written and directed by David Cage". (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 02:14, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97: Criteria 5 says is it stable if "it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute". This is a small content dispute with consensus in my favour that is only going on because the editor disregards the consensus. Cognissonance (talk) 02:31, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Williams in the end AND opening credits (the latter being much more prestigious) as well as dozens of articles before and after publication. The dispute is currently just about whether his name can be legitimately added to the writers' box. The guidelines and common sense say yes. The consensus is also between me and @Adamstom.97:. Anybody who reads the sources and checks the credits ends up agreeing, you just obscure the facts by suggesting one or either source is missing his name when they are not.

What you have said is the definition of ownership: disagreements with you are not valid.

I never really understood why cog was so keen for it to be a no, but he often presents it as if the guidelines support his claims - they do not say what he thinks they say - but he takes it personally and he has been quite aggressive on my talk page about it. (QuanticNut (talk) 04:48, 23 July 2018 (UTC))

If the syntax guide said "Additional writers" could be added in the infobox, despite contradictions between past and present sources, I wouldn't have a problem with its inclusion. If I had this feeling of ownership, and not just a keen sense of what is a good or bad edit, do all of the editors who agree with me also think they own it? Cognissonance (talk) 04:57, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

First, I'm glad you're actually talking to me now instead of threatening to ban me and telling me I'm just 'some random from a subreddit'. Thank you.

Second, the syntax guide doesn't need to positively rule IN every acceptable formulation of 'writer'. That would be endless. Respectfully (and I really mean this) I think you are being tripped up by the fact the style guide is listing alternative forms of 'Writer' formulation to ensure they get included. The style guide doesn't positively include 'Written by' either, we just understand that to be obvious :)

Source: Opening Credits: [[1]

As for other editors, they take a view based on your representation of the style guide, which is incorrect as has been explained by me and others. Very few people also check the game credits. This is a minor issue that most people wouldn't exert this much energy on... but given your language on my talk page I can't help thinking this has become personal for you (QuanticNut (talk) 05:04, 23 July 2018 (UTC))

Sounds to me like his contribution may warrant a line in the body saying "Adam Williams did additional work on the script" or something like that, but is not noteworthy enough to add to the infobox. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:47, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

But there are others mentioned in the info box and not in the article? Surely adding a line to the article would be going further than we have for other credits? (QuanticNut (talk) 05:50, 23 July 2018 (UTC))

@QuanticNut and Adamstom.97: What about a note placed either in the body or infobox saying "Additional writing by Adam Williams"? Cognissonance (talk) 05:53, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Wouldn't that require a new info category line? Don't you think 'listing in order of contribution' in the writer box, as per the guidelines, is simpler?

That being said, if he appears in that panel of credits I would be totally fine with him being specified as Additional Writer. (QuanticNut (talk) 06:03, 23 July 2018 (UTC))

I was going to suggest that he be added to the infobox with "(Additional)" added as a note beside his name, but this should only be done if his contribution is notable enough. It puts a lot of emphasis on him, which is especially strange if he is not featured in the actual body. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:05, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

We mention others in the infobox who do not feature in the body. Frankly it would be easy to add a section on Wiliams to the body but I think this would be overkill.

His contribution is as notable as most of the other names on that list in the sense that he is referenced in media and the game's two credit screens. I would prefer simply to list writers in order of contribution, but in the interests of consensus I could compromise by adding the label (Additional). Thoughts, Cog? (QuanticNut (talk) 06:13, 23 July 2018 (UTC))

I just want this over with. I'd prefer a note beside Cage's name, like the one beside Ubisoft Montreal in Watch Dogs 2, as a compromise. Cognissonance (talk) 06:17, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Cog, look at the page you referenced... it lists 6-7 writers in order of contribution, not all of them leads and none of them relegated to a note like the Ubisoft one. Can you really not see the argument here? Shouldn't we just repeat their format? (QuanticNut (talk) 06:19, 23 July 2018 (UTC))

Obviously it doesn't follow the syntax guide, so I fixed it. Seems like we'll never reach common ground, so let's see where the consensus goes. Cognissonance (talk) 06:27, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

As a neutral third-party, I am going to say that you need to prove to me that he deserves to be listed in the infobox QuanticNut, or I will pass the version of the article that does not do so. And being named in the credits is not proof of notability. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:29, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

What would constitute proof? And must that further proof be provided for everybody else in the infobox? (QuanticNut (talk) 06:32, 23 July 2018 (UTC))

Cog, you 'fixed it' by deleting all the writers on that watchdogs page? Is that really helpful? Are you going to 'correct' every videogame page after that fashion? You will be deleting a lot of work... (QuanticNut (talk) 06:35, 23 July 2018 (UTC))

That is unrelated to this article, take it up on Talk:Watch Dogs 2. Cognissonance (talk) 06:38, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Williams interviewed on camera by Sony at the Detroit launch event, credited as Lead Writer: [2] Williams interviewed by IGN: [3] Sony crediting Williams as Lead Writer: [4] Williams interviewed by the Guardian, a national newspaper in the UK: [5] Williams and Cage interviewed on video together: [6]

A simple google search turns up 50+ results for Williams who seems to have done a promotional tour with Cage.

@Adamstom.97: that surely makes him at least as noteworthy as the other people listed in that infobox? (QuanticNut (talk) 06:47, 23 July 2018 (UTC))

Is that information in the article? - adamstom97 (talk) 07:16, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your question. Are you asking if this info is in the articles I cited? Yes. In the wiki article you are reviewing? No but I can add it if there is consensus.

There is also no specific mention of other names in the info box, but their place is not questioned.

Have I met your criteria for proof? If not, what would meet it? (QuanticNut (talk) 07:37, 23 July 2018 (UTC))

@Adamstom.97: Per Talk:Detroit: Become Human#Votes, I propose that you carry out the consensus as a neutral party. Cognissonance (talk) 00:12, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Verdict

It is unfortunate that this review has become as messy as it has. Overall, I feel that this is a good article so I am going to go ahead and pass the review. However, I do still have some concerns. I believe the current resolution to the writer issue is the correct one, but if the discussion on it is to continue then that needs to take place at the article's talk page (do not continue it here or start a new edit war). I believe an eye should also be kept on the number of sources addressing each point, as was mentioned above. Other than that, congratulations. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:59, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Adam Williams

@QuanticNut, Sebastian James, Wrath X, Only in death, and Czar: Pinging to gather consensus. My case against adding Adam Williams as a writer in the infobox is as follows: The infobox syntax guide says to include in the writer= parameter "The popular names of the video game writers", "lead writer(s)", or synonyms thereof. As Williams is credited with "Additional writing" in the finished product, whereas David Cage is credited with "Written and Directed by", Williams falls short of meeting the criteria. David Cage is both the "popular name" and lead writer based on the opening and end credits. Despite pre-launch sources saying Williams was a lead writer, we defer to the facts of the game credits post-release. Cognissonance (talk) 02:26, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

• This logic is sound. As I wrote above, if secondary sources have written about the role of the additional writers, then it would be worth paraphrasing that material. If not, it's trivia for the purposes of an encyclopedia article serving a general audience. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 02:28, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Respectfully the logic would be sound if the detail were correct.

The style guide does not say what Cog seems to think it says...

"The popular names of the video game writers. The names can wikilinked. The writers should be listed in the order of their contribution, with those who wrote the game's scenarios/scripts listed before the game's story writers. If a single person is credited as "scenario director" or "scenario writer", list that person; synonyms for this position include "lead writer"; If there is a person credited as "scenario concept writer" or "[original] concept", also list that person here; List no more than three people in this field."

It doesn't rule out any kind of writer or specify only leads. It simply rules IN lead writers. It also says 'in order of their contribution' which is what I have done. It just doesn't say what @Cognissonance: seems to think it says. This has been explained to cog a few times, not just by me, including on his own talk page.

Dozens of secondary sources have written about the one single other writer, including the publisher, plus he is listed in the opening AND closing credits. One of my 3 sources is also post-release, actually referring to Williams as Lead again (there are dozens). That's why I included it for those who read it.

I realize Cog makes it sound like there is a dispute to be had here but he relies on people neither checking the guidelines, the sources nor the credits. (QuanticNut (talk) 04:44, 23 July 2018 (UTC))

"It doesn't rule out any kind of writer or specify only leads. It simply rules IN lead writers". No, that is reverse logic. By making clear what should be included, it also says what should not be. Please don't assume that nobody here is familiar with actual guidelines because they might have a different opinion than you. That's bad faith on your part. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 06:08, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Dozens of secondary sources have written about the one single other writer

The only secondary sources that interest WP are reliable, secondary sources (e.g., WP:VG/RS)—didn't see "dozens" on Williams czar 09:58, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

The guidelines are quoted above and say writers should be listed in order of contribution. How could that be construed to mean only listing leads? Apologize for assuming lack of familiarity. I just don't see the debate: plenty of articles have more than one writer in the writer infobox. (QuanticNut (talk) 06:23, 23 July 2018 (UTC))

In this case because Adam Williams was interviewed at different stages of production (the most recent I saw was May 2, 2018) his contribution to the project was significant enough to the project to warrant the "additional writing" credit. There is nothing wrong with his inclusion based on reading the infobox syntax guide. The information notes the order in which writers should be listed but does not eliminate "additional writer(s)" at all. When I see instructions such as "popular name" I take it as listing the name the person goes by but is different than their birth name. (A good example I can think of would be Joss Whedon) I do not take "popular name(s)" as the most popular individual in that respective category. Just because David Cage is credited with "written and directed by" doesn't mean he was the sole writer for the project but he should be listed first in the infobox. From my understanding of the template syntax guide we should discuss if Williams' contribution played a significant part for him to be included in the infobox. The article however in the Development section should at least mention him since he was interviewed at various stages of production about the game. The way the article reads at the moment would give a casual reader the impression that David Cage was the only person that contributed to the writing of the game. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 08:41, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

@Alucard 16: You're thinking of WP:COMMONNAME, that's not what this is; David Cage fits the bill of "popular name". I have gone through these interviews with Williams and there is nothing he has said that has not already been added to the article (referring here to facts). Mentioning Williams for the sake of it would perhaps warrant a note, but QuanticNut has dismissed every attempt at compromise. Cognissonance (talk) 09:19, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm gonna be nice but blunt here, in my previous comment I'm not siding with either party right now I just posted that comment as I understand and read things. I wasn't thinking of WP:COMMONNAME I used Joss Wheden as a clear example of how I understood the syntax guide in regards to popular names. I mean I wouldn't put "Joseph Whedon" in the infobox of Firefly (TV series) I would put Joss Whedon because that is his popular name. I think this whole thing has escalated beyond what it should by both parties. You've not made this whole process any easier than what QuanticNut has. I've read his talk page, this talk page, the ANI report and the only true compromise I've seen is in the section above way after you posted on his talk page asking him not to start a dispute while this article is undergoing its WP:GAN review and after filing the ANI report on him. You also removed the writers from Watch Dogs 2 after proposing the said compromise and as of this comment there is still no discussion on its talk page as to why even though that article passed its GAN review with 8 writers in the infobox which is 5 more than what the syntax guidelines says should be included. To me this makes it difficult to reach a compromise/consensus with anyone. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 10:46, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I am still amazed that @Cognissonance: would refer to an external article, discover it supports the case for including Williams, then delete the entire 'Writers' field of that argument to make it fit in with his interpretation of the syntax with zero discussion on that article's talk page. (QuanticNut (talk) 17:28, 23 July 2018 (UTC))

The fact missing from the article was the mention of Williams' credit, which is in the articles and videos I cited. Many of the names on the info box do not come with specific additions to the article, they are credits. That is the fact that was missing and which we are discussing.

Given you threatened to ban me and told me I was 'just a random person from a subreddit' with no right to challenge you as an 'experienced editor' I think it's unfair to describe me as dismissing attempts at compromise. (QuanticNut (talk) 09:44, 23 July 2018 (UTC))

Highly recommend that you both keep this dispute to the content and not each other's motivations from this point out czar 10:11, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

@QuanticNut: I was, and still am, willing to add a note in Development about Williams' contribution. The contention is about the infobox, do we have one about the note? Because it could solve this whole thing right now. Cognissonance (talk) 10:16, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Incidentally, in the discussion above (GA review) I have cited sources that include a video interview of Williams by Sony at the launch event, so even more recent. Assuming there are no objections I will add the information to the development section. (QuanticNut (talk) 09:01, 23 July 2018 (UTC))

Syntax guide says:

1. If a single person is credited as "scenario director" or "scenario writer", list that person; synonyms for this position include "lead writer"
2. If there is a person credited as "scenario concept writer" or "[original] concept", also list that person here;

If Cage is credited as "written and directed by" and Williams as "additional writing", in my opinion Cage is the "lead writer". "Additional writing" is not "original concept". Williams can easily be mentioned in prose of course. We're discussing the inclusion of a name in the infobox. The infobox should give clear information at a glance. To me, Williams does not necessarily have to be included there. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 09:24, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

It also says: "The writers should be listed in the order of their contribution". This indicates writers other than leads can be listed. Otherwise there would be no need for the plural "Writers" or any reference to "order of contribution" which makes plain that different levels of contribution can be listed. (QuanticNut (talk) 09:36, 23 July 2018 (UTC))

Where is Williams attributed as "additional writing" in the credits?

This indicates writers other than leads can be listed.

If they are shown to have the same stature. If not, we only list the foremost credits in the role. czar 09:58, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

@Czar: Opening. Cognissonance (talk) 10:05, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Also here in the ending credits @Czar: ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 10:17, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I think you're reading too much into the guideline. The syntax guide specifically says "If a single person is credited...", so that would be Cage. Just because it doesn't specifically say it shouldn't be there, doesn't mean it has to be. Even if Williams is the only one with "additional writing", the guideline is clear: there is no reason to start including people credited with "additional writing". Take open world role-playing games like Fallout 4, it has a single writer listed, while the credits list has eight more people with "quest design and writing" and three more with "additional quest design and writing". We don't add just two random people out of the first list either. Unless you can come up with a source that says Williams' role was larger beyond "additional writing", I'm not convinced. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 10:21, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I agree with you there @Soetermans: in that regards. For me I'm on the fence about having Adam Williams listed in the infobox but after reading and watching all the pre-release interviews I do think Williams should at least be mentioned in the article in some way. This interview from Sony Europe's blog makes it clear that the story was David Cage's it also goes into how Williams contributed. A good quote from the article I found interesting:

Quantic Dream’s founder, David Cage, may have been central to Detroit: Become Human’s creation, but the tale of finding humanity within androids turning ‘deviant’ was a team effort. “David was very keen on making this the most collaborative – and interactive – thing he’s ever done,” explains Adam, who previously worked as a television writer, which also included producing pilots for the BBC. “I was brought in to help him finish and elaborate on the story.

♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 10:37, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I would think the 'reading too much into it' would cut the other way. The guide clearly entails listing writers of various level of contribution. You point to another article but there are many articles listing more than just one writer for creative works, that's why the guide refers to writers in the plural.

If you wanted a source that says he was more than just an additional writer, every single source I referenced above has him as lead, including the publisher. The publisher also interviewed him as lead writer during the launch event which he attended with Cage. So any of those.

Still I don't see how "varying levels of contribution" can be construed to mean "everybody listed must have equal levels of contribution (I.e be the single lead)". Even if he isn't considered lead he made a "level of contribution" and should be listed in that order. (QuanticNut (talk) 10:32, 23 July 2018 (UTC))

@QuanticNut: For now instead of focusing on the syntax of what the infobox guidelines say look at the sources (like I did from Sony Europe's blog) and find the relevant info about how Williams contributed to the game's story. That will have a bigger impact and possibly resolve this issue quicker than just providing sources while disputing what the infobox's syntax guidelines state. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 10:41, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

@Alucard 16 and QuanticNut: My idea would be to add the information about Williams (brought in to help him finish and elaborate on the story) as a note in Development, where appropriate. Cognissonance (talk) 11:09, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

@Cognissonance: I think this is a good start and at minimum that should be in the article because like I said before the way the article is written now it would give the impression that Cage was the sole writer. If Cage was truly the sole writer then Williams' wouldn't have been interviewed by various reliable sources about the game to begin with with emphasis on his involvement and his previous history as a TV writer. To me if someone was brought in to help with a core part of the story like the beginning or end that is a significant part they helped with. I'm still on the fence about the infobox but at minimum his involvement and how he was involved should be in the article to be as accurate about the development as possible. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 11:21, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I offer this as a compromise; I still think Williams ought not to be included in the infobox, per everything that's been said on the matter. Cognissonance (talk) 11:39, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I think that is a great compromise @Cognissonance: and I also would think the hatnote would work for the infobox as well.

My thing, the reason why I'm still on the fence here in regards to the infobox, is in a lot of sources that QuanticNut has provided Williams is attributed as a lead writer for Detroit: Become Human while there are only a few times they say "one of the lead writers at Quantic Dream". :I understand the actual game credits attribute Williams' contribution as "additional writing" but in this case it is hard to overlook all the reliable sources here.

My questions are why not having Williams listed in the infobox better for the article when in various interviews leading up to the game's release he has been called a "lead writer" for Detroit: Become Human specifically? What good would it do the casual reader if he was included or not? Do the in game credits take precident over a lot of reliable sources who call Williams' a lead writer for this title? If I can get some clear answers to these questions it would help me out a lot. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 12:04, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I think this applies: "Individual tasks should be generally kept to prose and the field should only list key people". Cognissonance (talk) 12:12, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

@Cognissonance: I don't mean to be rude but the syntax document at this point can support your view or QuanticNut's view and has been hammered on a lot in this discussion. I also like to point out right after that sentance the document also says (For example, the distinction between story and script writers of The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess is mentioned in the article's development section. So again this can be used in that both David Cage and Adam Williams can be listed in the infobox while in the prose of the article their specific involvement can be listed there. To me Adam Williams is a key part of the game's development because he has done a lot of press for the game. Usually people that do not have a major involvement in a specific project are not part of its press tours. Adam Williams was interviewed a lot about Detroit: Become Human specifically the story.

What I am looking for is a response without using the template syntax as justification at this point. I'm looking for you is a solid reason as to why Williams should not be in the infobox or why should his contribution be regulated to a note like in the Watch Dogs 2 compromise you suggested. What I'm looking for from QuanticNut is why should Williams be included in the infobox and why the compromise from Watch Dogs 2 won't work. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 12:36, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

@Alucard 16: Discussing what should be in a video game infobox template, it is only natural to consult the rules of the template itself. But I don't think Williams' contribution is significant enough to warrant a place in the infobox, despite his role in the marketing (pretty late in the process). In the interviews, he mostly did the usual talking points that David Cage (& Co) had already relayed. You pointed out the only new information from him, indicating to me that he's a glorified script doctor. Cognissonance (talk) 12:57, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The reason I'm wanting responses that do not involve the syntax guide is it has been beaten to death and to keep providing it as a reason at this point will get us nowhere. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 13:10, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm amazed at how disparaging you get over this topic. It is not for us to determine if he is a "glorified script doctor", which would be an odd conclusion to draw since script doctors rarely serve as spokespeople for a project. We are trying to ascertain if he contributed to the project. The developer, publisher, games and other media think yes... you say no because he didn't contradict the other writer in public? We also have no idea when he or anybody on that list started working at the company so why speculate? (QuanticNut (talk) 13:05, 23 July 2018 (UTC))

Some notes here for those gauging williams' contribution (though I still maintain most of the people in that info box were not scrutinised in this fashion and listed simply because they were credited in the game, as was Williams).

He was interviewed by a big national newspaper in the UK on the core theme of the game, AI:

“It’s a more subtle threat to the sanctity of the human category,” he says. “Emotion is something we reserve for ourselves: depth of feeling is what we use to justify the primacy of human life. If a machine is capable of feeling, that doesn’t make it dangerous in a Terminator-esque fashion, but in the abstract sense of impinging on what we think of as classically human.” [7]

He commented on how the ending was designed and how interactive choices were designed and written in an interview with IGN:

"We wanted every play through to be as unique as a fingerprint" and the game features "thousands of combinations of ending" which were "difficult" to write (video in link) [8]

He summarized the five most important elements of the game for an interview with the publisher, discussing especially the fact "every character can die" and how difficult that was to manage but why it was "so important" to him and cage:

[9]

He explained his reasoning behind the setting and location of the game:

"2038 was the right mix between far enough in the future, that something like this could’ve happened, but near enough in the future that it would still feel like our world. It was really just a question of being near enough to feel real, but far enough to allow these androids stories to feel credible"

[10]

"Interestingly, Williams also explained the reason why Detroit was chosen as a setting. The city was the seat of the Ford Motor Company, and it’s where the car was born. The automobile is an example of how one piece of technology can change the world and even the way society is formed. When the car became commonplace families became more dispersed, people traveled longer to work… Cars changed everything."

[11]

Is there any doubt that he had significant involvement? Why would media be interviewing him otherwise?

If Sony, the guardian, IGN and Quantic Dream all considered him a significant contributor, why wouldn't we?

[[[User:QuanticNut|QuanticNut]] (talk) 13:01, 23 July 2018 (UTC)]

(edit conflict)@QuanticNut: The reason that most of the people in the template wasn't scrutinized is they naturally fill out the template based on the in game credits. Normally those credited with "additional writing" are not included in the infoboxes unless they had a significant contribution to the project. The point of this discussion is to determine if Adam Williams' contribution was significant enough for him to be in the infobox based on the reliable sources at hand. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 13:10, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

It is not that these news outlets considered him a significant contributor – Sony Interactive Entertainment funded Quantic Dream's marketing budget and they added Williams, a handsome face and recent contributor, to convey the usual talking points. Cognissonance (talk) 13:11, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I mean @Cognissonance: has a point anyone can convey usual talking points the issue is @QuanticNut: is Adam Williams didn't start showing up until November 2017 from the sources that have been found so far. [12] and I haven't found a source relating him to the game in the years prior. So I can see why some are not wanting to include Williams' in the infobox considering there was no mention of him in this source [13] states that it took Cage 2 years to finish the script with no mention of Williams. However Cognissonance I don't think SIE has the ability to hire staff for Quantic Dream as Williams works for them not Sony. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 13:30, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

That's what I meant, but hey. Cognissonance (talk) 13:33, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I also agree with Cognissonance and Soetermans. Cage is the only one who is credited as "Written & Directed by". Williams' role is not as significant as some sources claim, at least not for the infobox. You may liken it to not mentioning every single credited person in the articles. Sebastian James (talk)

• Would you have sources that discuss the role Cole and Williams played in writing the script, perhaps something that would put them at the same stature? My issue is that besides the title of "lead writer" (when quoted in sources), the game's credits portray Williams as a subordinate writing role. Not looking to rehash old points—only interested if you happen to have seen something along these lines. czar 01:32, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

@Czar: I remember seeing an article about the game's premiere where they attended together and asked questions together about the writing, but can't find this just now. I did find these however:

"The initial script – penned by Cage alongside lead writer Adam Williams – shown to the design team was apparently between 2,000 and 3,000 pages long." [14]

"Cage and lead writer Adam Williams (it’s no coincidence that Cage’s best and most human sounding game is his first with a co-writer) have created not just a world, but a society and a cast of characters that read and play as people whose stories we want to see play out." [15]

The first uses 'alongside' which sounds quite collaborative to me. The second calls him a 'co-writer'. (QuanticNut (talk) 20:09, 24 July 2018 (UTC))

I'm sorry... a 'handsome face'? @Cognissonance: are you serious?! You are contending that Williams' presence in those interviews is not because of his contribution to the project but because of his appearance. Can you really be saying that? What evidence do you have for it? I am a girl and if somebody discounted my contribution on the basis of my appearance I would consider it ugly prejudice. This after calling the guy a 'glorified script doctor' on the basis of...? Do you think that is what @Canterbury Tail: meant when he politely asked you to take some perspective on this debate?

@Alucard 16: @Adamstom.97: you very fairly asked for proof of Williams' stature and contribution. I provided these from reliable secondary sources. Cognissonance is dismissing them on the basis, not that they don't show evidence of statue, but that it is probably all just a conspiracy theory on the part of Sony/Quantic Dream. That must be true because he has a 'handsome face' (apparently?) Is that really the burden of proof in this case? Isn't the straightforward interpretation that a writer who is credited in the opening credits, spoke at length about the process of writing and was interviewed internationally for his involvement is probably just... what the sources indicate him to be?

As for the November thing, November 2017 is a long way out for release. That's a long time to have somebody marketing the game who had no involvement. I don't see many interviews with Cage or anybody else about the substance of the game (outside of hype) from before then either.

It's not our job to speculate that all these media outlets were mislead by some devious marketing strategy. What evidence could we possibly have for that? And why believe it? They all point to a significant contribution. Now we are questioning them because it would be 'easy' for Williams to just be lying about his involvement? Because he's 'handsome'? It is absurd that the argument against requires us to believe this.

I really feel the goalposts are shifting on this. (QuanticNut (talk) 17:17, 23 July 2018 (UTC))

That was clearly not my main point. I trust that you'll honour the majority consensus and not create another edit war. Cognissonance (talk) 00:19, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I'm seeing a lot of reliable sources call him the lead writer from as recent as two months ago, and also a Reddit AMA where he uses that title. I doubt Sony PR would allow someone speak on the record like that with the wrong title in so many places. It's not directly sourced to the game credits themselves, but I don't believe it's worth nothing. Also remember that game credits are subject to office politics. Williams is credited with "Additional writing" for reasons we don't and probably can't know. Axem Titanium (talk) 05:41, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

This contradiction required consulting the syntax guide, after which most of us agreed Williams should be in the body, but not the infobox. Cognissonance (talk) 06:33, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

@Axem Titanium: makes a good point here if the title "lead writer" used in the press for Williams was wrong no company would have allowed this error to continue up until 2 days prior to the release date during the press tour. When consulting the syntax guide if you look at "programmer" for example it has a clear guideline of If a single person is credited as "lead programmer", list that person; synonyms for this position may include "technical director"; followed by If there is no equivalent to #1, omit this field; however with the "writer" field it doesn't place a limitation of that nature. The only limitation in the writer's field is List no more than three people in this field. which can be on occasion overridden as seen with The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess. As Detroit: Become Human only lists a total of two writers in the opening and closing credits and reliable sources calling Williams a lead writer he can be included without going against the template syntax guide. Including Williams in this field would not trigger adding everyone involved in this game to the infobox as each field has specific guidelines as to who should be listed in the infobox to keep it at a reasonable size. I also agree with what Axem Titanium has said below in the Votes section about the template guidelines as well. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 21:30, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately that was the main thrust of your argument. Your only reason for dismissing the sourced was speculation that it's all a hoax. For that, you offered only 'a handsome face' by way of speculation. Anything not to take the sources on face value.

You don't have consensus. You have a vote which is non-binding on Wikipedia and even then it's 2-4. Yet still you insist on seeing your change made. I think there is a perfectly good case for me reverting the edit to how it was before you opened this talk point.

The article wad awarded GA WITH Williams in and you still removed him? (QuanticNut (talk) 19:18, 24 July 2018 (UTC))

Votes

Against

1. Cognissonance
2. czar
3. Soetermans
4. Sebastian James

For

1. QuanticNut
2. Dissident93
3. Axem Titanium
4. Alucard 16

Tallying up votes, as is customary in consensus-seeking discussions (those who have not replied yet are excluded). Neutral parties are not counted. Cognissonance (talk) 14:49, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

• Adding myself in the for vote, as if sources consider him to be among the lead writers, who are we to argue? I actually had a similar issue on the Planescape: Torment article a few weeks ago. The syntax exists really to prevent people from adding every writer in the game (which could be over 10), which helps limit the parameter to only include the most notable ones to avoid bloat. He should at least be mentioned in the article body if this fails to pass. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 16:18, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I agree with Dissident on this one. I was the principal architect of the guidelines as they currently exist and, as Dissident mentioned, it was more to combat the need to list all 900 people in the credits that was in vogue at the time. Two people, one of whom has repeatedly been named lead writer by multiple RS, is well within the reasonable amount for an infobox. If he wants his name associated with the writing in this game, that's his prerogative. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:14, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
    • After thinking about this at work and with Dissident & Axem Titanium's comments above I have switched from neutral on this to a strong For because I agree with everything Dissident says. My motto is to always go by reliable sources and for this particular game there are way too many sources that consider Williams to be a lead writer on the project. In fact aside from Cage he is the only other writer that was part of the press tour and interviewed from November 2017 up to the game's release. The syntax guide just limits writers in most cases to 3 with Watch Dogs 2 being an exception since all 8 writers were given the same level of credit. This game only had 2 writers credited so Williams inclusion would not go against the syntax document or exceed the recommended limit of 3 writers. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 19:26, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Dissident93. You ask the obvious and right questions. They have yet to be answered except to say all the sources are lying or misled by a marketing conspiracy.

Thanks Axem Titanium, really helpful to have the principal of the guidelines come in and clarify what they actually say. (QuanticNut (talk) 19:17, 24 July 2018 (UTC))

To be clear, I'm not speaking from a position of authority here---merely explaining the background and thought processes that led to the way they're currently written. Also, please refrain from breaking WP:3RR, even if you think you are right. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:03, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Alucard 16 After writing these messages I discovered that the article was awarded GA with Williams IN, but then Cog removed him right after the award was given. Given the lack of consensus I've reverted the page to the state it was when GA was awarded as I don't see that Cog had a consensus to change it... (QuanticNut (talk) 19:32, 24 July 2018 (UTC))

@QuanticNut: To be fair the section under dispute shouldn't be changed until this whole thing is resolved and closed. @Cognissonance: shouldn't have changed it at this time as a consensus can take a while to achieve or unless there was a WP:SNOWBALL in support of his non-inclusion in the infobox a 4-2 against him in the infobox is hardly a WP:SNOWBALL reason to change. Also because this has become such a controversial, debated topic you should not have reverted Cognissonance as this leads to an edit war. I don't want to see anyone in trouble here or breaking any policies but QuanticNut if the edit happens to get reverted again while this discussion is ongoing don't revert it please. Let's reach a binding consensus on the topic and then if the outcome is Williams should be included then at that time he will be added back to the infobox. I also say the same for anyone who believes he shouldn't be leave it be until a consensus is reached. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 20:23, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Okay Alucard 16. I thought if it had passed GAN and there was no consensus to change, reverting a change was just enforcing the guidelines. I'm sorry I misunderstood that. If his name is removed yet again and no consensus is reached on this page, do we default to inclusion of Williams (as when the page was GAN) or keep that inappropriate reversion? (QuanticNut (talk) 20:31, 24 July 2018 (UTC))

@QuanticNut: Editors involved with the current discussion like you, myself and even @Cognissonance: should not be changing the "Writer(s)" section of the infobox irregardless of their view on the topic during this content dispute. In my opinion the way the article passed its GAN review should stand as a neutral version until this discussion is closed. If an un-involved editor changes it to remove Williams' I would recommend leaving it alone until this discussion is closed since it is at a 50/50 split. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 20:45, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

That's really clear, thanks (QuanticNut (talk) 20:56, 24 July 2018 (UTC))

Your welcome, anytime. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 21:01, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) The article has passed its GAN review while this discussion is still ongoing to reach a consensus in regards to Adam Williams being listed in the infobox. I'm asking everyone to be mindful of Wikipedia's guidelines and policies that come into play here. In order to avoid violating WP:EDITWAR and WP:3RR I am asking that the infobox be left alone at the time it was passed as a Good Article which includes Williams' name in the infobox.[16] Based on previous edit patterns of this article it seems that any change to either including or removing Williams' triggers reverts I am asking it be left alone for now.[17] I'm also asking everyone to be mindful of WP:CIVIL, WP:CON, WP:DISPUTE and WP:TPG and keep all discussion on target and not stray away from Wikipedia's gudelines & policies and what the reliable source say. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 20:04, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Just to clarify I'm not asking that the infobox be left alone because of my recent change in this discussion. Had this article passed its GAN review without Williams' name in the infobox I still would use this as a neutral point and ask that the writer(s) portion of the infobox be left alone until a consesus is reached. My above non-admin comment is in no way endorsing one side or the other its a simple reminder of policies that come into play to avoid anyone breaking them and getting in trouble. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 20:15, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

My honest apologies to everyone on this page for when and where I have failed to meet the WP:CIVIL guidelines. (QuanticNut (talk) 20:20, 24 July 2018 (UTC))

Thank you @QuanticNut: much appreciated ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 20:27, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

@QuanticNut and Alucard 16: Now that the discussion is the size of a novel, further debate would be of no use and a consensus will never be reached; in fact, it will leave Williams in the writer parameter as a default, which I'm sure none of you took advantage of at all. I am going to add a note beside Williams' name describing the contradiction between his credits so this can be ended and I can get back to writing good articles, hopefully without my time being wasted or nominations intentionally endangered. Cognissonance (talk) 13:04, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

@Cognissonance: I think the note beside his name is a good compromise to the situation at hand. I would just make one suggestion and maybe phrase it as While initially credited as a lead writer in interviews, Williams' contribution was credited as "additional writing" in the video game. To me wording it this way would be better as it sticks strictly to the reliable sources we have. We don't know why Williams' was credited as "additional writing" in the game while in interviews was credited as a lead writer and we shouldn't make any kind of assumption like he was demoted from that position unless there is a reliable source stating why he was given that credit in the opening/closing credits. Again I personally thank you and appropriate appreciate this compromise.

For the second part of your recent reply, I didn't waste your time or endanger the article's GA review. This is partially your fault here instead of posting what you did on QuanticNut's talk page and filing the ANI report you should have started a discussion here on the talk page and left a comment at WT:VG asking for un-involved editors to come and help reach a consensus. You as the experienced editor should have also been more patient with QuanticNut and explained nicely how Wikipedia works and other policies about behaviors before filing an ANI report. You should have also told QuanticNut to come directly to this talk page to discuss the matter before it spilled over to its GAN review. Had this been done I'm sure more editors would have come help to reach a consensus in the matter and the article's GA status wouldn't have been endangered due to a very minor content dispute. I really didn't want to get involved here at all but the only reasons I did was to try and de-escalate the edit warring, keep the article stable and help reach a consensus because I wanted to see the article get GA status because at the rate it was going it would have failed. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 14:46, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

@Cognissonance: I agree with @Alucard 16:. The note itself is a nice bit of housekeeping (so thanks for that) but the language is, in my opinion, strangely pejorative. We have no evidence that it was a 'demotion' and given Williams is posting on the Reddit page as Lead Writer post-release it would have to mean he had been promoted again. Alucard's suggestion is much more editorial in my view.

Regarding your other comments, we didn't 'take advantage' of anything we just had an honest disagreement based on the evidence. Nobody forced you to spend time on this issue so it's a pity you feel you wasted it.

I've been learning more about Wikipedia thanks to Alucard's reading list and came across this, which we should both try to remember whenever we feel a sense of ownership over content that belongs to everybody: "Our vision is about more than providing universal access to all forms of knowledge. It’s about creating an inclusive culture. It’s about inviting others to join in and thrive with us. It’s about embracing human diversity. It’s about saying, “We see you and you belong with us.” (QuanticNut (talk) 20:01, 26 July 2018 (UTC))

Archiving

Just a friendly notice I've set the page up to be archived by Lowercase sigmabot III bot for the first round I've got it set up to archive all threads but 1 that haven't had replies in 15 days to give the talk page a fresh start. After the first archiving I plan on updating the settings to archive threads with no replies after 30 days and keep a minimal 4 threads here. If anyone has any objections to this or wants to change the bot's settings feel free. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 16:41, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

@Alucard 16: I see that you did so (increased the retention length and thread count), but forgot to update the {{Auto archiving notice}} length from 15 days to 30, so I've taken the liberty. -- FeRD_NYC (talk) 23:54, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for updating that @FeRD NYC: much appreciated . ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 23:55, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

First sentence of § Sales

I found the first sentence of the "Sales" section to be a bit long, especially with the inline citation hanging there in a weird place. That version:

Detroit: Become Human reached fifth place on the UK chart after two days of release and, in one week, made first place in overall sales, as with console sales alone; though fewer than Beyond: Two Souls and Heavy Rain in that region, Cage and executive producer Guillaume de Fondaumière claimed it was the studio's most successful launch yet.

Since that seemed like a lot of ground for a single sentence to cover, I re-wrote it as three, which had the happy side-effect of placing that first inline citation at the end of a sentence. My version:

Detroit: Become Human reached fifth place on the UK chart after two days of release. In its first week, the game topped both the overall sales and console sales charts. Though it sold fewer copies than Beyond: Two Souls and Heavy Rain in that region, Cage and executive producer Guillaume de Fondaumière claimed Detroit: Become Human was the studio's most successful launch yet.

References

My changes were reverted, with the summary "there was nothing wrong with the sentence". I wouldn't even necessarily have disputed that claim (something that there's "nothing wrong with" can still often be made better), but since the changes were undone (implying that at least one editor feels the rewritten version was not an improvement), I'll point out the issues that I felt needed addressing:

1. The overall length, plain and simple. The sentence winds quite a bit, and its points can be communicated more readably using shorter sentences. This is especially helpful to non-native English readers.
2. "as with console sales alone" is really just kind of awkward phrasing, coming on the heels of "made first place in overall sales"
3. What does "though fewer than" refer to? Console sales? Overall sales? Place on the UK chart? It's not actually clear, and requires assumption to be made by the reader.

So, those are the things I felt could be improved about the sentence. Can anyone explain why my rewrite made the article worse, and therefore needed to be reverted? Perhaps I'm just not seeing it. -- FeRD_NYC (talk) 23:46, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

To be honest I don't see anything wrong with your changes FeRD_NYC I'm not sure why they were reverted either. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 16:16, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

The changes are spot on. The original version actually has a needlessly subjugated clause, which is something you often see in people for whom English is not their first language. (QuanticNut (talk) 15:30, 7 August 2018 (UTC))

@Cognissonance: would you like to weigh in, as the reverter? As I said, I'm willing to accept that my edits were problematic. I only ask that it be explained how or why they were. Without any explanation, the revert has the appearance of textbook WP:OWNBEHAVIOR:

An editor reverts a change simply because the editor finds it "unnecessary" without claiming that the change is detrimental. This has the effect of assigning priority, between two equivalent versions, to an owner's version.

(N.B.: This edit also corrects one sentence of my earlier post, above, to better express my intended meaning.) -- FeRD_NYC (talk) 11:57, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

@FeRD NYC: we have had issues with @Cognissonance: exhibiting ownership on this page for some time now (feel free to check the archives or even my talk page if you'd like to see the extent of it). I only mention this to say don't take it too personally, it happens to everyone who tries to improve this page (QuanticNut (talk) 12:32, 11 August 2018 (UTC))

So, yesterday Cognissonance silently (in terms of this discussion) reverted their own revert, restoring the text to the version I'd written, with the edit summary "much ado about nothing". Which I guess is meant to be the end of it.

And I suppose it has to be, at least from my perspective. I wasn't involved in any of the previous issues that QuanticNut mentioned. And in terms of the edit in question, my goals were reached, and my concerns regarding the content of the article have been addressed.

But I can't shake this feeling that this latest revert represents more of the same: Cognissonance taking it upon themself to make unilateral decisions about the article. Cognissonance feels there's nothing wrong with a sentence, reverts changes to it. Cognissonance decides the issue isn't worth discussing, restores edit. It has the appearance of following consensus, but without having to bother engaging with other editors. If I were more heavily involved with this article, I'd feel that was still cause for concern.

However, I'm not. So as I said, that's that. My thanks to all who shared their insights and observations. -- FeRD_NYC (talk) 17:19, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks @FeRD NYC:. And yes, he owns the article, which is why a lot of editors such as yourself decide not to get more involved. (QuanticNut (talk) 17:49, 12 August 2018 (UTC))

Game Chronology

I can't change it because of the protection but "The game takes place on November 5, 2038." is incorrect. The first chapter takes place on August 15, 2038, and the last chapter takes place on November 11, 2038. For sources, all these dates are seen in-game. DrTeatime (talk) 17:28, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

It is an unnecessary detail. Cognissonance (talk) 20:33, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

It's a correction to incontestably wrong information. Please stop blocking people correcting stuff QuanticNut (talk) 18:29, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Should we add a Cast section?

Since the actors did both the voice acting job and motion capture, and seeing how almost all of the actors who participated in the making of this game have standalone Wikipedia pages, what do you guys think about adding a Cast section similar to ones we have on articles about movies? On my part, I'd say it would make navigation for new readers far simplier. I myself discovered this game only a few weeks, and had to resort to using IMDB to check who played which role (I only discovered that Clancy Brown played Hank yesterday, and that by accident). I think I can take the time and add this section if we approve it here.Openlydialectic (talk) 03:08, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

WP:GAMECRUFT: "If mention of the actors is an important factor of the article, typically they should be done in the article prose, and generally in the development section", as is the case here. It does not fit the exception of "actors reprising their roles in a video game version of a film". Cognissonance (talk) 12:06, 7 February 2019 (UTC)