Talk:The Last of Us Part II/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

reviews info

@Rhain: My last edit to the article was not concerning the "universal acclaim" which was removed according to the old talk discussion. We already agreed that to change that Ill need a new consensus. But this last edit I made is a new edit that does not go against the hidden text based on the old talk discussion. Since youve stated youre not for/against, there is no one against my edit, so I dont need to await consensus for this last edit. Or do you personally dislike the last edit?

My last edit is just this: We state in the critical reponse section "The narrative and writing polarized critics". There is no source, it is just based on the subsequent positive and negative reviews. So I put the same type of statement in the preceding paragraph. "The Last of Us Part II earned acclaim from the majority of critics." Bilto74811 (talk) 01:39, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how much you twist it, the edit you made was related to the discussion above. The article clearly avoids any sweeping statements like that, and excluding Metacritic doesn't suddenly make it okay. Also, there's no source for the "majority of critics" bit. – Rhain ☔ 01:49, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Your characterization of the edit is innacurate. The new edit is not related to the old discussion of "universal acclaim". You trying to twist the situation so you can undo more edits "doesnt suddenly make it okay". This new edit is in line with the sources, solves the WP:DUE issue which the article does by giving the false impression of equal negative and positive critical reviews.

Instead of blocking progress at every chance, you could make 1 suggestion of how to improve the edit, or what problem you have with it.

As stated above there is no source for " "The narrative and writing polarized critics" bit did you read the comment youre responding to?

My proposed edit has the same effect of summarizing the information. 113/121 critic reviews were positive, can you tell that that is mathematically a majority? Bilto74811 (talk) 02:04, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

The hidden message on the article explicitly says "Do NOT add ... "universal acclaim" per consensus on the talk page". Your edit literally added "earned acclaim from the majority of critics". Changing a few words doesn't circurmvent the issue; you can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig. This is clearly connected to the Metacritic discussions above, and I highly recommend that you await a new consensus there before making any more changes. – Rhain ☔ 06:43, 8 April 2021 (UTC) (no need to ping me)

Thats just your misunderstanding. Read the discussion you linked. The problem was that "universal" acclaim could sound confusing because the article preceds to talk about negative critic reviews. Saying that the majority of critic reviews are positive (when that is overwhelmingly true - 113/121 is a mathematical majority) fixes the WP:DUE issue where the article currently makes it sound like there equal good and bad critical reviews and we give them equal weight. Changing that 1 word, changes the entire meaning and avoids the entire problem from earlier.

If you have nothing to contribute to this discussion though besides blindly undoing every edit and saying "I dont care either way but also "I just prefer" this" then just let other editors respond. Your "recommendation" is meaningless as I have no choice but to wait because once you blindly undo the edit without good reason, I cant undo it back or it would be edit warring.

If you read the discussion you linked you would see "majority" avoids the discussion groups' problem with the word "universal acclaim" and does not violate the hidden text based on the talk discussion. Bilto74811 (talk) 12:50, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Changing "universal" to "majority" doesn't fix the issue, it just feels like an attempt to circumvent it. Likely the only way to source that information, per WP:VG/REC, would be via Metacritic. And then we're back where we started. – Rhain ☔ 14:36, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

If you read the discussion you linked youll see why the "universal acclaim" was removed. It was sepcifically because it could be confusing to the reader to read "universal" accclaim and then read criticism. The problem was not that metacritic can not be cited, as the metacritic score is already currently cited. "Majority" direclty solves the "universal" problem and the WP:DUE problem. Youve got to read the talk dicsussion if youre going to keep referencing it. Bilto74811 (talk) 15:28, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

If you're serious about adding this sentence to the article, I'd recommend starting a new proposal discussion outlining your exact suggestions. These sections are far too messy for anyone to be bothered to read. – Rhain ☔ 15:39, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

I think our ongoing discussion makes that clear, I made a new section Bilto74811 (talk) 15:58, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

I was the editor who reverted your edit when you ignored the hidden text. I do, however, think you have some good points and as Rhain has said a new proposal should be stated so that a new consensus may (or may not) be achieved. My view is that it does seem strange that the 'universal acclaim' label was discarded as that what (the agreed reliable source) Metacritic states and it is their criteria which resulted in this assessment of 'critical acclaim'. The current consensus has made an editoral judgement that for reasons of possible confusion the term should not be used because a small number of reviews are critical. A solution may be to name the source in any sentence with 'critical acclaim' such as 'Metacritic assigned critical acclaim to the game' or similar. This makes it clear to the reader (and points them to the source without going to footnotes immediately) where this term originated. Robynthehode (talk) 16:07, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

There are extensive discussions in the archive about why consensus came to omit MC consensus, etc. Which I still agree with for the same reasons you can find in the archive. If sources have significantly changed then you can try to form a new consensus if not then leave it.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 19:21, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Game of the Year awards record

"261" is more accurate according to the only reliable source (according to you @Rhain:) we have. "Over 260" is less accurate. 261 is literally the number. Over 260 is vague. 261 is the reliable source number we have and its more accurate by definition. Bilto74811 (talk) 00:22, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

@Bilto74811: "Over 260" isn't inaccurate. We know that the game has at least 294 Game of the Year awards, but we can't source that specific information reliably, so "over 260" manages to remain accurate and sourced while future-proofing the sentence for future awards. There's no reason to be specific with "261" because we know it's already outdated. – Rhain ☔ 00:31, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

@Rhain: "Over 260" is less accurate, contrary to your claim in your edit that "over 260 is more accurate than 261" which is false by definiton of numbers.

Wikipeida does not know 294, given that you reverted my edit trying to add that number based on the source you referenced in your edit summary, which you called not reliable. We cannot assume information from unreliable sources is correct or state that we "know" that.

That is what editors are for. To update information as it comes in. If we ever have a reliable source saying 294 we can and will update it. Just like I am trying to do by updating the current amount according to reliable sources. Bilto74811 (talk) 00:36, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

@Bilto74811: "Wikipeida does not know 294": but we do. Why do you suggest that we be specific with "261" when you know that it's less accurate? I'm not proposing that we change it to "294", because that can't be reliably sourced, but "over 260" isn't wrong, so why are you so opposed to it? – Rhain ☔ 01:01, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

@Rhain: I tried to be the most accurate based on what we "potentially" know (assuming you personally beleive sources that you personally consider "not reliable") but you reverted the edit. According to you we cannot use that source. So given that constraint, the most accurate we can be is 261.

Information that is not in reliable sources is not reliable. We do not know 294 is correct, which is why we cannot include it. 261 is the most up to date reliable information. It is the most accurate information. As soon as you or anyone provide a reliable source that is differnet and more up to date we will change it. Bilto74811 (talk) 01:07, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

261 is accurate, but so is "over 260", and I personally prefer the latter. There's nothing more I can say than that. – Rhain ☔ 01:49, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

It is literally less accurate by defintion Bilto74811 (talk) 02:07, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

@Rhain:you deleted the response here that I replied to above.... Bilto74811 (talk) 01:30, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

@Rhain:since you deleted your response, does that mean youre okay with me updating the aritcle to match what the source actually says, 261? Bilto74811 (talk) 01:40, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Nope, accidental deletion. – Rhain ☔ 01:49, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

...then why did you ignore my whole comment...My edit is accurate with the reliable source. Yours is less accurate. This is an easy editing choice. Your fear of what will happen when if is new info is not relevant. Its been months since that reliable source stated 261 and we still dont have any more up to date reliably sourced info. If you ever have that you can change it again. Bilto74811 (talk) 01:54, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Less precise, sure, but not less accurate, and certainly not wrong, so I don't think there's any reason to change it. I'm not worried about new information from future sources. In fact, I know there probably won't be any more reporting on the issue; that's why I phrased it that way in the first place. It's consistently accurate, no matter how outdated the source is. The explicit number is unimportant, in any case, so per MOS:UNCERTAINTY, there's no need for it. – Rhain ☔ 06:43, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

at least you can finally admit its less precise. it is also less accurate, google defintion of accurate - correct in all details; exact. it is less precise and less accurate (less exact). I didnt say its wrong.

"it was written that way to future-proof the article" "I know there probably won't be any more reporting on the issue". Youre all over the place with your arguments. You now recognize that there is no future-proofing issue. Wikipedia does not say everyones age is > 1 years old to future-proof or a director has won > 3 awards to future proof. As I've explained that is why there are wikipedia editors, who bring reliable sources to bakc their preffernce (which you have not done). This is an easy wikipedia editing choice, you admit yourself there likely will never be an issue with choosing the accurate number that the reliable source actually says. You even admitted "I personally prefer the latter.". Its a bad wiki choice, but since thats "just your preference" we will just have to wait for others to weigh in on your choice to undo edits that make the article more accurate.

I propose we change it to 261 as the source actually reports.

"Over 260" just makes the reader want to know how many did it win, which we can answer with the latest reliable source, 261. Bilto74811 (talk) 14:21, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm not "all over the place" with my arguments; those statements don't contradict each other at all. In fact, they work together—the phrasing was intended to future-proof the article because I knew there likely wouldn't be any more reporting. But I've said all of this before, we're just going in circles now. – Rhain ☔ 14:36, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

You are back and forth like with these-"none of those are appropriate.". "I don't find the phrases themselves problematic". For this time, since you stated you dont think there will be any further reliable source reporting a new number we dont need to worry about "future proofing". And as I explain above, future proofing is not a problem, that is why there are wikipedia editors to bring new reliable sources and update articles.

You didnt adress this probelm with your preferred less accurate term: "Over 260" just makes the reader want to know how many did it win, which we can answer with the latest reliable source, 261. This is another reason why 261 is much better for the reader. Bilto74811 (talk) 15:27, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Those quotes aren't even from this discussion, so I'm not sure why you feel the need to bring them up. Also, I should make it clear that my "future-proofing" concern has nothing to do with reliable sources. To go back to the basics: we know that the game has 294 Game of the Year Awards, but we can't cite gameawards.net, so we're stuck with the outdated VG247 source; in an ideal world, we would say that it has 294 awards, but we can't, and 261 is inaccurate and outdated, so "over 260" not only covers accuracy, but it's technically sourced by VG247 as well. That's all. – Rhain ☔ 15:39, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Because once again your arguments are all over the place. We do not know that as that information is not reliable, the source is not reliable even according to you. We can only deal with reliable sources, not what "you know" based on unreliable sources. We have to cite the most up to date accurate infomraiton according to reliable sources, which is 261 Bilto74811 (talk) 16:02, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

It's not that I think the information is unreliable, but the website isn't on our list of reliable sources, so it cannot act as an immediate reference, especially on a good article. At the end of the day, all of this information is coming from the same source, we're just forced to use an outdated news article to reference it. Ultimately, though, the number is unimportant, so I've removed it. The fact that it holds the record remains reliably sourced, and the outdated number is entirely unnecessary. – Rhain ☔ 16:15, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

I have gone to the source from VG247 which is 'Game of the Year Awards Tracker' and think after a brief look at this source that the GOTY award number should be clarified. GYAT combines critics GOTY awards with what they call 'Readers Choice' awards. Generally readers choice sources would be seen to be unreliable (as per Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritics own Audience stats). The sources of their 'Readers Choice' awards are wildly different - from BAFTA to Youtube and Instagram linked sources. They do have criteria for inclusion of these awards but I don't know what editorial oversight is done. I would say the cautious approach would be wiser and to (at least) split these two categories so it is clear that GOTY awards by critics are represented separately. Thoughts? Robynthehode (talk) 16:19, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

@Robynthehode: None of that information is discussed in the VG247 article, so it cannot be reliably sourced. That being said, what Wikipedia considers reliable doesn't need to be considered when it comes to the specific list; if we followed that approach with everything, then we would have to manually edit Metacritic scores to fit our own reliable outlets, since it uses a lot of sources that we don't consider reliable. VG247 says it has the record, so we say the same, regardless of whether it was media outlets or readers' choice. – Rhain ☔ 16:50, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

The record should be mentioned, but readers will want to know how many did it win which we have a reliable source for, 261. Bilto74811 (talk) 16:30, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

The number is 294 according to the source VG247 uses with 187 being critics GOTY awards and 107 being Readers Choice GOTY awards. The VG247 source is outdated. I think a number may be useful but it should only reflect critics GOTY. Robynthehode (talk) 16:39, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

If youre okay using that source or using it indirectly via VG247, then we could say 187 Bilto74811 (talk) 16:47, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

The source itself is not considered reliable and cannot be used. It can't be used "indirectly via VG247" either, that's not how sources work. – Rhain ☔ 16:50, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

If the source is not reliable why are you treating it like the info it states is reliable? Bilto74811 (talk) 16:52, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

I said "not considered reliable", not "not reliable". I trust the information personally, but as a reference it's poor. – Rhain ☔ 17:03, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Okay and since were editing Wikipedia and Wikipedia does not conisder that information reliable, we are left with the 261. when you state that something holds a record people will want to know what the record is. we have the reliably sourced info Bilto74811 (talk) 17:06, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

261 is inaccurate. I don't know how else to put it. I'd rather include what's true than what's reliably verifiable, and if that means excluding the specific number, then I'll do that. – Rhain ☔ 17:35, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesnt take into account information "you personally know". Only reliable sources. 261 is accurate when following Wikipedias rules of reliable sources. "The specific number" is 261. But as a compromise I also added "holds the record" and removed the number on another page. Bilto74811 (talk) 19:30, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Then they can click on the source to find out. It's not our job to serve the reader, it's our job to provide accurate and important information. The number of awards is not important (or accurate). – Rhain ☔ 16:50, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Its not important to you. 261 is reliably sourced info and when you state something has a record, usually people want to know what the record is (important to them). Bilto74811 (talk) 16:56, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

I can't see a problem using that source as it is what VG247 uses for their report. However we can't use VG247 for that figure of 187 because it's not stated by VG247 itself. But the number of awards is part of a larger discussion, as I noted above, as to whether we only use the critics GOTY award rather than the aggregated total which is what is used by VG247 and by its source - 'Game of the Year Awards Tracker'. My preference is to only use the critics GOTY total and the reasoning I stated above. This, of course, has implications for other video game articles. Robynthehode (talk) 16:57, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

It's not included in our list of reliable sources, and it likely doesn't meet the criteria for the list, so using it as a direct reference at present is discouraged. – Rhain ☔ 17:03, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

It's (Game Awards Tracker) also not included in the list of unreliable sources. I can understand your 'going down the rabbit hole' reasoning but assessment of sources are made all the time to conclude as to whether a source is reliable or unreliable. And part of that assessment is whether the source is known to use reliable sources itself. If we are going to say that Game Awards Tracker may not be reliable then this should affect how we assess VG247 as a reliable source. Or it could be that we acknowledge that VG247 is reliable and therefore that adds evidence to the reliability assessment of Games Awards Tracker. If lots of sources used in Wikipedia video game articles that are considered reliable use this source shouldn't it be on the WP:VG/RS. Robynthehode (talk) 17:13, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

It appears there's a pretty recent discussion over here about the site, so it's better to discuss it there. There are about three reliable sources (VG247, GamesRadar+, Push Square) that have linked to the website, but they were all earlier this year in regards to this record, so it's not much of a reputation. – Rhain ☔ 17:35, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I'll check it out. Robynthehode (talk) 19:08, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Over 260 is good enough helps future proof the article, precise number is not really that relevant.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 19:19, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

reviews info proposal

The article should list that the game received majority positive critic reviews, 113/121 metacritic scored reviews were positive, and by my estimate 4/11 unscored were positive. The old talk discussion removed "universal" acclaim according to metacritic because they thought it would sound confusing to readers to read "universal" acclaim then read about negative critic reviews. But we still need to accurately give weight to the positive reviews so in the critical response section I propose we add this- "The Last of Us Part II earned acclaim from the majority of critics..." Bilto74811 (talk) 15:58, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

I have suggested an alternative in the section directly above. I don't like 'majority' because it is imprecise - a majority can be 51% to 99%. Alternatives such as 'the vast majority' or 'nearly all' aren't much better. I think 'universal acclaim' is sourced and can have the caveat of 'Metacritic states' or the like. But I generally support the change to wording that more accurately reflects the Metacritic source. This is the phrasing used in Uncharted 4: A Thief's End Robynthehode (talk) 16:43, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

If you could sign your comment it would be helpful for forming consensus. "universal acclaim" according to metacritic or metacritic states is best and what I originally wanted to add. I suggested "majority" as a compromise to the old talk discussion link that Rhain refers to. But it would be best to add the actual quote of "received "universal acclaim", according to review aggregator Metacritic, based on 121 reviews" Bilto74811 (talk) 16:44, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose per the reasons I and other have pointed out in the archive.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 19:23, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

I addressed the reasons of the old talk discussion that were specifically about "universal acclaim" being potentially confusing to readers, as the next sentences mention the criticism from a very small minority of critics. "Majority" is accurate and does not have any potential for confusion.

So "majority" addresses the old talk discussion concerns in a way that was never brought up in those discussions. They just dicsussed "universal" Bilto74811 (talk) 19:33, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

The whole point of a review aggregator is to aggregator all reviews (from decent publications I know MC still uses ones from red/unreliable publications but it uses assigns weightings but anyway). By selecting a certain vague 'majority' and exluding the minority is misleading. You could equally by your logic say it recieved critism/mixed/negative reviews from a minority of critics but that does not help anyone. There is specific coverage is to the concerns of MC consensus for this particular game as well [1] with Kotaku saying it recieved mixed critical reception, etc so we should just exclude it.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 20:55, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

113/121 is not a "certain vagye majority", its the overwhelming majority. I never proposed excluding the minority, the critical reviews are stated clearly in the article. But to follow WP:DUE we have to give due weight to the significant positive majority, which is what the word "majority" does. Kotaku saying "mixed critical reception" is true in that there was a "mix" (7/132 negative - a very small minority but technically a "mix"). But it does not accuarately refelect that the vast majority of critical reviews were positive. The word "majority" addresses this ("vast majority" would be more accurate, but "majority" is at least somewhat indicative. Right now the article gives equal weight and that is not following DUE.

The Kotaku link is talking about metacritic's unscored reveiws, which total 11. Even if all 11 were negative (which theyre not, by my count 4/11 were positive - see my comments in thread above where I quote each of them) that would be 113/132, 8 neutral, and only 11/132 negative. Still an overwhelming majority positive. Even if you agreed with the Kotaku point that unscored reviews should count, it would not come close to changing the majority of critic reviews being positive.

"Majority" avoids the "universal" potential confusion the old talk discussion wanted to avoid and fixes the current DUE issue. Bilto74811 (talk) 21:43, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

113/121 welp you rated some unrated reviews that is OR. The vague is in reference to exactly how many are or are not postive. Fine let's assume as you said you if you assume all unrated are negative. MC is an aggergator that assigns weight to each publications behind the scenes. Those that are more established get higher weightings (IGN, GameSpot, etc), those that are less established get lower. By simply saying numerically X were positive and Y are negative is not how these aggregators work, they weight up how important each publication is. This numerical tossup of reviews is just OR and does not account for that in the slightest.

Right now the article gives equal weight and that is not following DUE. That also is not true, it just omits the summary it does not give equal weight to all positive and all negative, it just omits the MC summary.

There are specific problems with using MC for this game as pointed out by coverage, like that Kotaku article. I suggest you stop continuing with this OR and re-read the archives.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 21:58, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

No, that is false. 113/121 is the actual count of the positive/total scored critic reviews on metacritic. 113 positive 8 mixed. There are exactly 0 negative scored reviews. Look at the sources were discussing before commenting on the thread.

No, thats not how metacritic works. The 93 and the resutling "univeral acclaim" label come from the equation and weighting. The 113/121 is the actual account of positive to netural scored reviews. see the source were discussing

The unscored reviews are 4 positive and 7 negative by my estimation. But if you consider that analysis where I include the supporting quotes above to be OR, then we cant even say all 11 are negative, as that would be your own OR. That just leaves use with 113 positive 8 mixed critic reviwe.

As I explained the Kotaku link is saying there are unscored ratings that dont get counted for the 93 metacritic score (which is where "universal" acclaim comes from). Even if all 11 were negative (which is not true and would be your own OR) it would not come close to changing the overwhelming positive count (in that pure hypothetical it would be 113 positive 8 mixed 11 negative). But that is not the case, just would be your OR. In reality it is 113 positive 8 mixed and 0 negative scored reveiws, with just 11 unscored.

The aritcle currently just lists some positie and negative reviews. It currently is giving the impression of equal amount and weight to both. This is violating WP:DUE. We need to give DUE weight which would be at least mentioning the "majority" positive (actually the overwhelming majority but I proposed just saying "majority" as a compromise). Bilto74811 (talk) 22:34, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

You are continuing to violate WP:OR, so I suggest you stop WP:BLUDGEONing, thanks.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 22:37, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Your misunderstanding of metacritic is not OR. Metacritic states that there are 113 positive, 8 mixed, 0 negative scored reveiws. Just calling that "OR" because you didnt read the source is false. Its not bludgeoning if I am explaining to you how metacritic works. Its just a discussion between 2 people. It takes 2 to tango. And explaining how metacritic works to someone who is falsely stating how it works is not about the POV, its about fixing your false statements and explaining how metacritic actually works. The weighting is actually how the 93 and the universal came about, read the source were discussing before commenting on the thread. The majority is just math, can you see that 113/121 is a mathematical majority?

here is the link to metacritic last of us 2, 113/121 postiive scored reviews. Its not OR, it is not "weighting", that was just your misunderstanding of metacritic. It is the actual positive scores. 113/121 is more than enough to write "majority" per WP:DUE Bilto74811 (talk) 22:45, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

I am not falsely stating how it works. Assume good faith next time just how I am good faith assuming you are not a sock. You are only considering scored reviews in your summary which is the whole reason it recieved critism as I have already said [2] and it is getting tiring repeating myself making me less and less likely to continue discussing this with you.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 23:05, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

I am AGF, just because you are falsely stating how it works does not mean I said you are doing it on purpose, dont put words in my mouth. I have acknoledged and stated multiple times the 11 unscored reviews. Dont falsely state that I am "only" considering the scored reveiws "in my summary". I did not say that was "a summary" of our discussion, my last comment was just to correct your false statements about metacritc. I explained the Kotaku article you linked is jsut talking about the usncored reveiws multiple times, each time you ignored it, repeating the explanation to you is tiring, just like it is with repeatedly explaining how metacritic works.

Do you understand that 113/121 is metacritics count of the postiive/total scored reviews and not mine and not OR as you falsely claimed repeatedly?

Do you understand that metacritcs weighting in its equation is for 93 and "universal" and not for 113/121?

The Kotaku aritcle was taking issue with the 95 (metacritics score at the time) and presumably the "universal" label (doesnt explicitly state this). That Kotaku article does not contradict 113/121 whihc is why I proposed adding "majority" positive. I already explained this above...

According to you saying 4/11 unscored are postiive would be OR, so we cant state that they are all negative either. Even if we could, it would still not change the fact that the overwhelming majority of critic reviews are positive.

113/121 is majority positive. even in a generous to your view hypotheical (all 11 unscored counting as negative for some reason) 113/132 is still majority positive.

"Majority" positive (which is a compromise understatement even with 7 or even "11" negative unscored reviews) takes into account and presents the accurate picture, and fixes teh WP:DUE issue. Can you see that 113/132 (with unscored reviews counted as hypothetical all negatives (which would be your own OR)) is still a mathemaitcal majority? Bilto74811 (talk) 23:47, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

I do not care the number or whether unreliable publications like The Sun, The Metro or the Daily Star etc give the game postive or negative reviews. Becuase they are unreliable. Only after they go through MC's algorithm weighting etc the overall score like 93 becomes reliable (yes I know you said you are not using this metric with your proposal). But you are using the metric of simple positive/mixed give equal weight to reliable and unreliable publications as I have already explained. It is very improbable I am not going to reply to you as you've labelled my claims 'false' so it is longer worth my time if you are not going to listen, thanks.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 00:09, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Ive provided the links to metacritic explanation of how the scoring works that show your statemetns on how metacritic work were false. And I explained it repeatedly. Metacritic is a reliable source. Metacritic states 113 critics reviews of 121 were positive 8 mixed with 11 unscored. That is a reliable source that gives the majority of critics with postive reviews. Just like you stated that MC stating 93 is reliable, MC stating 113/121 is reliable too. Even with unscored reviews hypothetically being all negative it is still overwhelming majority positive. But well just have to wait for other editors to offer their opinions.

To be clear, I am proposing "majority" as a compromise, instead of "universal" which could potentially cause confusion for readers per the old talk discussion. Bilto74811 (talk) 00:15, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

I am going to ignore the 93 score here as I and other mentioned the problems with using this, etc. MC stating 113/121 is reliable too. Well, that is not really correct. It is right in the sense of all the scored reviews used MC algorithm. But we do not use it. Becuase it includes many publications of which are not considered reliable. As noted at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources#Aggregate sites Only use aggregators for aggregate scores. 113/121 is not a score. The Metro, The Daily Star GamingBible / LadBible, among other publications in this 132 are not considered reliable per WP:RSP or WP:VG/RS. They aggregate score (93) they slightly help produce is reliable from Metacritic but they themselves are not. By using this metric you are giving equal weight to unreliable publications which should not be used to reliable ones by IGN. This metric is not a meaningful, weighted score thus it should not be used to represent a crticial consensus.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 00:29, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Glad you decided to respond after stating it was "not worth your time". The article already uses 93. But we do not use it.. Thats not really true, we use it on many other game wiki pages mention "universal acclaim" based on MC, see above where I list one and Robynthehode lists another. I didnt say 113/121 was a score. It is a report from a reliable source. Were not quoting them, were quoting the reliable source MC stating that the 113/121 are positive. We can even state it more directly if that will make you happy "Review aggregator Metacritic shows 113 out of 121 critics with positive reviews".

The reliable source MC states that there is "universal acclaim", something we regularly state in other articles. The only reason we did not state that here is due to the old discussion worrying about how it might mislead (even though it explicitly states "according to metacritic") readers, when there are negative unscored reveiws. The only problem of "universal" according to the old talk discussion is solved with "majority" (something you and no one else proposed at the time)

You cut off the rest of the quote from Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources#Aggregate sites, here is the full quote - "Only use aggregators for aggregate scores; scores from individual reliable publications should be retrieved directly from the publication." We need to reference individual scores form from their sites, but MC is still reliable for what it does state. MC still is a reliable source and states that the majority of critics (by a wide margin...even removing the few you mention) are positive. I look forward to more "very improbable" repsonses from you.

Like I said we will need to wait for more editors opinions as right now we just have 2 in favor and 1 against Bilto74811 (talk) 01:21, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

@Spy-cicle: Using these links on RS and VGRS and metacritic full list of Last of Us 2 critic reviews I fixed your confirmation bias listing of The Metro, The Daily Star, and GamingBible.

37 of the positive scored critic reviews on MC's Last of Us 2 page were reliable according to wikipedia (see links above). 1 of the mixed scored critic reviews on MC was reliable. 8 of the unscored were reliable and as we mentioned we cannot state that they were negative as that would be OR according to you.

So at best for your personal view and after more work to find info based on your views, we are left with 37 positive, 1 mixed, 8 unscored. So 37/38 positive or even if we said all 8 unscored were negative (which would be OR) that would leave 37/46 positive reliable critic reviews. Still a clear "majority" of positive reliable critic reviews.

So with all of that said and your extra requirements met, would you be in favor of "majority"? Bilto74811 (talk) 01:59, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

"Majority" proposal

Made a new section, because old one (see above) was getting long (per Rhain's recommendation from the other thread). See above but so far 2 editors (myself included) were in favor and 1 editor was against (although they did not respond to my new data below that addresses their concern)

The article should list that the game received majority positive critic reviews, 113/121 metacritic scored reviews were positive, with 11 unscored reviews. The old talk discussion removed "universal" acclaim according to metacritic because they thought it would sound confusing to readers to read "universal" acclaim then read about the negative unscored critic reviews. "Majority" would avoid any potential for the problem. So now we do not have "universal" and we explicitly mention both negative and positive reviews, but without any mention of the significant majority being positive. We need to accurately give weight to the positive reviews so in the critical response section I propose we add this-

"The Last of Us Part II earned acclaim from the majority of critics..."

Spy-cicle brought up the point that many of metacritics 121 scored reviews and 11 unscored reviews were unreliable sources. So based on that I took the time to compare all of the reviews on the metacritic full list of Last of Us 2 critic reviews, both scored and unscored reviews to RS and VGRS.

The results are:

37 of the positive scored critic reviews on MC's Last of Us 2 page were reliable according to wikipedia.

1 of the mixed scored critic reviews on MC was reliable.

8 of the unscored were reliable

So of the reliable sources for critic reviews: 37/38 were positive. And even if hypothetically all 8 of the unscored reliable critic reviews were negative it would be 37 positive 1 mixed 8 negative 37/46 positive.

So whether you look at 113/121, 113/132, 37/38, 37/46, the majority is positive according to reliable sources. Bilto74811 (talk) 18:57, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Its been about a week since I addressed Spy-cicle's concern that we needed to weigh only the reliable sources. That data shows the majority were positive by a significant margin. No one else has brought any further concerns so I will go ahead and make the edit. Bilto74811 (talk) 16:31, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

"Critical response" opening sentence

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I'd like to start a formal discussion on how to open the article's "Critical response" section, since the recent arguments have become a little messy. Here are the apparent options:

1. "The Last of Us Part II received "universal acclaim" from critics, according to review aggregator Metacritic."
   This is a pretty standard approach per WP:VG/REC, but was previously excluded from this article as some editors felt that Metacritic's score failed to take into account the unscored reviews, several of which were more negative.
2. "The Last of Us Part II received "universal acclaim" from critics, according to review aggregator Metacritic."       ^ ^a Based on 121 scored reviews of 132 total reviews.
   Same as above, but with a footnote clarifying that the calculated score is only based on the scored reviews, excluding 11 unscored—this footnote is already used in the reviews table.
3. "The Last of Us Part II earned acclaim from the majority of critics and was praised for..."
   This one was suggested in some discussions above. It provides a definitive statement about the overall reception without specifically quoting Metacritic, with "majority" intended to seem less definitive than Metacritic's "universal".
4. "The Last of Us Part II was praised for..."
   Avoids general statements entirely, getting straight into the game's praises and criticisms. This version was in use from June 2020 until earlier today.

The reviews have been out for 10 months and the dust has well and truly settled, so it's about time we did the same here and come to a final consensus. What are your thoughts? – Rhain ☔ 03:28, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Option 1 or 2. I haven't looked into the previous debates so maybe I'm coming from a place of ignorance here, but the way I see it, all we're doing is reporting exactly what Metacritic says. The fact that Metacritic's statement doesn't include unscored reviews is their problem, not ours; we're just telling readers what the source says. If that still makes people uncomfortable, I'm OK with Option 2 as a compromise. Popcornfud (talk) 12:16, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Option 1I agree with Popcornfud. I have done some research on Metacritic and in the matching Wikipedia articles as to how Metacritic 'universal acclaim' is represented in those Wikipedia articles. I can post this but will leave it out for the moment and just say that other games given universal acclaim that do have a number of mixed reviews within Metacritic are represented in Wikipedia as being 'universally acclaimed'. In addition in those Wikipedia articles there are no footnotes clarifying the scoring. There has to be a very good reason to make Last of Us 2 an exception. The previous decision not to assign the Metacritc 'universal acclaim' is inconsistent editorialising as far as I can see. Robynthehode (talk) 12:32, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Option 2. I also concur with Popcornfud, and am ever so slightly leaning towards Option 2, despite my reservations about whether it's necessary to use the same footnote twice. I think Metacritic's consensus should be used regardless. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 12:42, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Option 1. Simply put, you can't beat the classic. The Last of Us Part II shouldn't stray from the norm because some unique editors think otherwise. Panini!^🥪 23:33, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Curious what you mean by "because some unique editors think otherwise"?. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 20:35, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

• Option 1: quoting Metacritic should be the standard that we follow. OceanHok (talk) 12:34, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Why? If, as the opening post suggests, "universal acclaim" is not an accurate summation of the sourced content in the reception section, why should we make the text seem to contradict itself based solely on a source which doesn't even look at the content of the reviews?--Martin IIIa (talk) 16:50, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

• Option 1. Option 2 doesn't add anything of qualitative value to the reader. For those concerned about universality, our job is to present the sources, not to find the truth. Unless you have another source that characterizes the game's full reception differently, Metacritic gives a widely accepted, general summation of the overall reception. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 18:00, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

  Czar, "Option 2 doesn't add anything of qualitative value to the reader." I think that's a good point and really makes me lean more towards Option 1 even more. Popcornfud (talk) 20:39, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

• Option 4 I seem to be outnumbered here but I'll comment regardless. As stated previously by myself and others in the archives that are specific reasons in this case as why MC's summary has been omitted (like [3]) among others and I do not think much has changed in the past 10 months to justify changing it.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 20:35, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Comment re  Spy-cicle💥  above. The Kotaku article you refer to mixes commentary on critics and user scores. User scores are irrelevant (or I thought they were because of WP:UGC. Even though they try to critique Metacritic's numbered scoring they fail to do so with any sort of cogent argument which would withstand analysis and seems more of an opinion piece (I could go into it in more detail here but will keep this brief) and they can also be accused of being self serving as part of the critique is aimed at how un-numbered reveiws (such as their own) aren't taken account of. Furthermore from Wikipedia's standpoint if Kotaku's criticism of Metacritic is to be given weight it would have apply to all video game articles on Wikipedia where games received any nuanced criticism - i.e postive and negative points about one game. This would result in the use of the Metacritic numbered scores being irrelevant (a discussion that could be had if we want to) for video game articles - you can't use the Kotaku critique of Metacritic for TLOU2 alone because the critique is about the Metacritic system - we either accept the numbered system which results in 'universal acclaim' assignments or we do not. Robynthehode (talk) 21:33, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

• Option 1 I only started the suggestion of option 3 as a compromise (see above 2 sections). Option 1 is an accurate summation of the reviews and is attributed directly to metacritic. Also per the comments above Option 1 is best. Bilto74811 (talk) 21:16, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3 or 4. I've stated several times in past discussions that we should be looking to write something better in articles to replace the copypasted Metacritic line that exists in the majority of them. We can still directly cite Metacritic there (and any other review aggregator, which fixes the whole Metacritic/OpenCritic debate too). The whole thing of Metacritic calling a game "universally acclaimed" because it got a 90 on launch day but dropped to 89 a week later and now is simply "generally positive", which also includes games that average a 75 is stupid. I'm not sure why tons of experienced editors here think Option 1 is the ideal format, at least for games with larger reception sections. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 21:32, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

What problem do we solve by replacing the Metacritic line? Popcornfud (talk) 21:38, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Articles have lots of detail about what critics say about games with the Metacritic assessment just being a part of that so I'm with Popcornfud - I don't see the problem having it in a review section. There would need a better argument than calling the numbered system stupid to convince. The point about changing scores for the aggregated number doesn't hold as that figure stabilises after all the reviews come in. We either accept Metacritic or not but fudging the reviews aggregation system that Metacritic presents is not helpful Robynthehode (talk) 21:48, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Popcornfud, a few. One of them would be solving the whole MC/OpenCritic debate by not favoring either one as we could use both as citations to support the general consensus. Another would just be setting a higher standard of writing as we would not have to include the same copypasted phrase just because it exists in 90% of other game articles. I'm honestly surprised the support for that is seemingly so high. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 23:03, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Here is the OpenCritic summary "Simply put, The Last of Us Part II is yet another masterpiece from Naughty Dog that should not be missed. It's a brutal, poignant, beautiful, cohesive, and thrilling experience." Its in agreement with the metacritic summary so theres no need to really choose. Plus we cant include it per VGRS, where OpenCritic is not listed as a reliable source, but Metacritic is. Bilto74811 (talk) 23:34, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Bilto74811, I think you are misunderstanding. If you aren't aware, there has been an ongoing WT:VG debate about including OpenCritic in articles for years, but it has never garnered consensus because it's currently redundant with how we copypaste Metacritic in every single article. Also, OpenCritic's issue has nothing to do with its unreliability (it would be on the list if we could find a way to use it). If we simply had higher standards of writing we could cite either/or/both in addition to the actual reviews, which would solve the issue. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 21:19, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

So can we move forward with option 1? How long do we wait according to wikipedia rules? Bilto74811 (talk) 23:06, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

I usually wait around a week, since that seems standard and fair, but there's a pretty quantifiable consensus towards option 1 and the discussion appears to have died down, so I've made the change. If anybody strongly objects, please feel free to continue the discussion or start a new one, either here (just below the break/in a new section) or at WT:VG. – Rhain ☔ 23:47, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Looks like I'm a day late and a dollar short with respect to this discussion. For what it's worth, I agree with User:Dissident93's position that we shouldn't have MC's boilerplate language as the first sentence in the Critical response section. Especially considering the place TLOU2 holds in the larger discussion about how big-budget AAA games get rubber-stamped as good by the games press, it doesn't feel right to trot out the MC boilerplate in the first sentence. Again, no prejudice against including it later in the opening paragraph, which should be used to give an overview of the section, but I think we can come up with a better topic sentence that captures more of the nuance and details surrounding the game's overall critical response. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:19, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm too late to make my vote count but for what it's worth, I also go with Option 1. I tried bringing up the matter of omitting the descriptor of "Universal acclaim" from the reception section of The Last of Us Part II a while back but I wasn't experienced enough as a Wikipedia editor to use the proper lingo or cite the appropriate Wikipedia rules/guidelines to back up my argument. Luckily User:Bilto74811, User:Robynthehode and others did an excellent job of making the argument for it's inclusion. Like some of the other editors who voted for Option 1 have pointed out, it makes no sense for The Last of Us Part II to be an exception when it's the norm for pretty much every other game article on Wikipedia. Even articles on games like Death Stranding which had extremely polarizing reviews still quote Metacritic. TheMassEffector (talk) 04:51, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

"The Game Awards" being reverted to the "Game Awards"

Hey, @Popcornfud: and @Rhain: . I made a couple of changes that were reverted by you. Namely renaming and capilatlizing the article The in "The Game Awards". That's because the official designation is "The Game Awards" and not "Game Awards".

That is how it's also spelled everywhere on Wikipedia including in the original The Last of Us page. https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/The_Last_of_Us So there's precedent and again it's the official designation.

I have never seen The Game Awards being written like that on or off Wikipedia, this article is the only piece I have ever come across that writes The Game Awards as the Game Awards which is grammatically incorrect and looks bizarre to anyone aware of it. Doesn't align with what I see everywhere else on the site when TGA gets mentioned.

I was told by Popcornfud to get a consensus to finalize this edit, so what does everyone here think? Do you agree?

(Offtopic. Rhain re:the CS error - I checked and I'm not getting that script error at the end of references on Firefox, but I get em on Chrome. https://i.imgur.com/W4b5gia.png FWIW, I'm logged in on Chrome and using a non-default theme while I was logged out on Firefox)

Things get stylized, capitalized, messed-around with etc in all kinds of ways across all kinds of publications online and off. Different publications have different style guides. To solve this, Wikipedia has its own manual of style to make sure the writing in the encyclopaedia is consistent with itself (as being consistent with everything else ever written outside the encyclopaedia would be obviously impossible).

With regards to the capitalization of "the", we have the MOS:THECAPS policy, which says Do not ordinarily capitalize the definite article after the first word of a sentence, and lists some exceptions. The Game Awards is not among the exceptions.

You're very right in that other articles write it as The Game Awards, but this is where the idea of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS comes in - just because an article does X doesn't mean that X is correct, or that all articles should do X. In fact, to be concistent with the MOS:THECAPS policy, all pages should write "the Game Awards", not "The Game Awards", so those pages are wrong and this page is right.

You feel this is grammatically incorrect and not the correct title of the awards show. We understand this. But we have a policy in the manual of style to resolve this issue. Popcornfud (talk) 17:13, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Well, okay. I'm an extremely casual editor and I'm not going to pretend I understand the intricacies of how this place functions. On the other hand, you both are extremely experienced editors and have used the same reasoning and referred me to the same policy, and I know the importance of sticking to strict policy standards for efficient operation and maintenance of a user-contributed encyclopedia like this, so I respect your opinions.

But I would just like other experienced editors to weigh in and gauge if they are of the same opinion as you two, before I decide if I want to challenge this further - Which, in any case, if I want to challenge it further, I would have to first get "The Game Awards" listed as an exception in MOS:THECAPS , correct? Gagan1042 (talk) 17:59, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

@Popcornfud: per MOS:THECAPS, the Odyssey is correct beccause "the" is not part of the title, and The Lord of the Rings is correct because "The" is part of the title, so wouldn't The Game Awards be correct?

The Open Championship (a specific golf tournament conventionally styled this way)

The British Open is wrong because "the" is not part of the name, its just British Open

thegameawards.com has "the" and the site seems to indicate "the" is part of the name

so shouldn't "The" be capitalized in this case? Bilto74811 (talk) 23:39, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes. Like mentioned earlier, "The Game Awards" is the official designation and that is how it's mentioned across the site without fail. This article is the sole exception (not even the TLOU1 article does it) and seems to imply the title is (the) "Game Awards" which goes against Wikipedia:Truth matters.

And the fact that numerous editors already spell it as "The Game Awards" is further implication there is already an informal consensus about its usage without there being a formal discussion page about it.

Infact, after reviewing MOS:THECAPS, the policy itself states the correct usage for the golf tournament is "The Open Championship", the reasoning being that it's an exception due to it being a "specific golf tournament conventionally and (officially) designated this way" (theopen.com). Accordingly, "The Game Awards", a game awards ceremony, should receive the same treatment.

Different publications can stylize or capitalize in all kinds of ways according to their style manuals, but that doesn't mean they go out of their way to change official and conventional designations to fit their style criteria. Case in point: literally every publication, no matter what their style guides for capitalizations of the article "The", including the encyclopedia itself, designates "The Game Awards" as such, because it doesn't fall under Generic use.

The application of style guides is only true for items which fall under Generic use, like "The United Kingdom" (incorrect usage). "The Game Awards" falls under the example case scenario for Exceptions like "The Open Championship" (correct usage) because this is not Generic use. Generic use vs Exceptions is an important distinction MOS:THECAPS makes and "The Game Awards" clearly falls under the latter, because it's a "specific award ceremony conventionally styled this way.".

So all the pages are correct and consistent with the MOS:THECAPS policy. This page is not and it should be changed to adhere with the policy. Gagan1042 (talk) 05:39, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Bilto and Gagan. MOS:THECAPS clearly allows exceptions for full-on proper names. The Game Awards is no different than The Open Championship, unless the argument is that the "Game Awards" is what the event is actually titled? MOS:THECAPS actual purpose is to avoid writing something like The Beatles instead of the Beatles. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 09:43, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

OK, some good points made above. Personally, as a copyeditor, I think it's bananas to capitalise "the" in names outside titles of works - see this rant on the subject for why - and I don't care how sources self-describe their names, for the same reason I don't care if bands call themselves the Beatles or The Beatles or ThE BeAtLeS or whatever.

That means, personally speaking, I think we should write the Open Championship (which, by the way, some reliable sources do) and the Game Awards (same again). However, as others say above, The Open Championship is (puke) listed as an exception to the Wikipedia guidance on this matter so The Game Awards might fall under the same umbrella. Might be worth asking for more opinions at WP:MOSCAPS. Popcornfud (talk) 09:57, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

I certainly respect your opinions, especially seeing as how they are coming from the perspective of a copyeditor and an experienced Wikipedia editor. And The Guardian's usage of both "the Open Championship" and "the Game Awards" is also interesting and insightful.

However, I've stated before how much I respect the encyclopedia's Policies, and I was perfectly willing to drop this out of respect for said policies. But that was before I reviewed the policy, and after seeing more editors share their opinion and after a personal review of MOS:THECAPS itself, and seeing the stance on Exceptions and their usage, I think we should adhere to the stated policy seeing as how everyone here seems to agree that "The Game Awards" falls under the same umbrella.

Of course, like you say in your essay there's no one single correct usage (The Eiffel Tower vs the Tokyo Tower), and the usage differs from publications to publications, as per their individual editorial style guides. Since this item is being discussed on Wikipedia, we should adhere to, follow and respect the editorial style guide here, no matter our personal opinions on the subject because there's no one objectively correct opinion like you stated in the essay and I agree.

So, since we seem to have reached somewhat of a consensus here, do I have the go ahead to change it or is there a particular waiting period?

Also, to everyone, please feel free to start a discussion on the subject at WP:MOSCAPS if you would like to. Gagan1042 (talk) 10:45, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

 Done. – Rhain ☔ 14:01, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Dissident93, just re: MOS:THECAPS actual purpose is to avoid writing something like The Beatles instead of the Beatles. Don't think so - none of the MOS:THECAPS examples are about band names. You might be thinking of WP:THEMUSIC. I'm also not sure why you call out "full-on proper names" - the Beatles, the Eiffel Tower etc are all "full-on" proper nouns. Popcornfud (talk) 11:08, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Popcornfud, the listed example of the Odyssey would be the same as the Beatles and other band names, would it not? But regardless, my point still stands that if "The" is officially included in the name then it should be capitalized. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 01:45, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Concur with Dissident93 on this.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 13:18, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Dissident93, re: if "The" is officially included in the name then it should be capitalized

Forgive me, but this sort of misses the point. The entire debate, from a copyediting perspective, is 1) whether to consider definite articles "part of the name" or not and 2) to what extent it actually matters how the source describes itself (ie what is "official").

This is a weird tension in English grammar, and publications tend to be wildly inconsistent about it - including Wikipedia. IMO the fact that the Wikipedia community decided (after months of torturous debate) that we would not consider "the" part of the name "the Beatles", but that this has become its own weird separate policy rather than something extended to all equivalent constructions - such as the Open Championship - is inconsistent and bizarre, and likely reflects the vast multiplicity of opinions on Wikipedia more than logic. But I'm repeating myself at this point. Popcornfud (talk) 13:33, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Possible sequel

Naughty Dog has written a story outline for The Last of Us: Part 3, but isn't making the sequel right now. Creative director Neil Druckmann says he hopes it can "one day see the light of day." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C2:D80:3380:F077:9D8C:D261:AF4F (talk) 02:13, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

References

Audience response

I noticed that the section 'Audience response' completely leaves out that The Last of us Part II was widely hated by the audience for Joel's death?

The Web is filled with articles concerning this; a few examples below:

"At the time of writing, The Last Of Us Part 2 is currently boasting an impressive total score of 95 on the Metacritic critics side, but the user score (at an atrocious 3.7 out of 10 from more than a whopping 40 thousand users) tells a decidedly different story." (...) Gamers are upset that game director Neil Druckmann (who co-wrote the game’s story) and Naughty Dog have seemingly done their beloved character a disservice, treating Joel like he means nothing as well as giving him an undeserving and arbitrary death just for the sake of spurring Ellie on a revenge quest. " https://kakuchopurei.com/2020/06/23/the-last-of-us-part-2-spoiler-ending-explained/

And according to the following piece, "Its creators are copping a deluge of vile messages.". https://www.news.com.au/technology/home-entertainment/gaming/the-last-of-us-part-2-why-the-hate-for-its-story-and-ending-is-so-wrong/news-story/3a1a767cd86d484b3f40203cd4f9ab64

Even death threats by furious Joel fans: https://www.polygon.com/2020/7/6/21314543/the-last-of-us-2-harassment-neil-druckmann-laura-bailey-naughty-dog-abby-death-threats-ps4

A few more links:

The Last of Us Part 2: Breaking Down What Players Hate in the Game

The Last of Us Part 2: Why Some Players Hate This Sequel

Obviously, this should be mentioned, as the negative feedback was so massive and at times extreme.

Okama-San (talk) 16:37, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

@Okama-San:  Done. Doesn't appear to be as widely discussed as other elements of the game (probably because of Abby and Laura Bailey, understandably) but an important element nonetheless. – Rhain ☔ 01:43, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

This is also a good source on the topic [4].  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 03:48, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Great! Well done. :)

Okama-San (talk) 12:54, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Audience response and criticism in lead

This is just something that came to mind today about the Audience response. Whilst I fully agree that the game is polarizing, the way the section is written suggests that the criticism of plot elements only came from regular players, while the positive/neutral opinions are given from publications' articles and essentially are being used as a rebuttal against the complaints. I understand a lot of sources are just reporting on the backlash, and that we're labelling them as fellow players rather than critics because they're not reviewing the game, but there's nothing to indicate plot elements were polarizing for both sides.

Additionally, the reception in the lead reads "though the narrative and the representation of a transgender character polarized critics and players", but I feel the explicit complaints in Critical response (which boil down to pacing and themes) could easily be summed up individually. Because of this, and the entirety of Audience response, I propose re-phrasing the criticism in the lead into something like the following: "though it received minor criticism for its pacing and handling of themes, while the representation of a transgender character polarized critics and players. Audiences were more negative towards the plot, and the game was the subject of review bombing on Metacritic. Discourse surrounding the game was observed to have become adversarial." Wikibenboy94 (talk) 19:28, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Forgive me, but I'm struggling to understand your point in your first paragraph. The point of "Audience response" is to summarise the (almost) unprecedented response that the game received from some players, especially in regards to the review bombing. The quotes from media outlets aren't intended to represent "fellow players"; they're essentially there to provide an emphasis and rebuttal from a critic's viewpoint. Perhaps I'm not reading your paragraph correctly, but I'm not sure what suggestions you're making there.

I'm hesitant to state that "it received minor criticism for its pacing and handling of themes", since half of the praise in the 'narrative and writing' paragraph is directed towards the game's themes—hence, they were polarising. I also hesitate to write anything like "Audiences were more negative towards the plot", since that's a major generalisation towards a poorly represented group; those mentioned in "Audience response" are an effective group that managed to make a lot of noise, but do not represent the majority of players. Honestly, I think "the narrative ... polarized critics and players" is the best phrasing choice here—it summarises that the narrative (including the themes and pacing) received both praise and criticism from critics (per "Critical response" para 2) and also managed to make a polarising impact on players (per "Audience response"). I'm interested to hear what others think, though. – Rhain ☔ 00:12, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with the current wording of covering all the criticism under the mention of narrative, I just thought my suggestion could provide more of a detailed alternative. I must confess however I wasn't really paying attention to the beginning of the second paragraph where we have some praising the themes and pacing, which does therefore highlight that critics were mixed on these aspects. However, as I mentioned with regards to the Audience response, I do not believe that this section sufficiently indicates that audiences were polarized on the narrative when all of the sources are just reporting on the backlash. While we have CNET in the first paragraph writing that the review bombers were not the majority of players, this implies that those who weren't review-bombing the game were neutral or satisfied with the narrative, but again we have nothing sourced that highlights this. The rest of the section as written (and within some of the sources) also does not emphasize that audience criticism only came from the review bombers, but attributes it to a general consensus from players.

I don't want to seem like I'm making a big fuss out of this because I know how discussions like these sometimes get dragged out and I think you've done a great job with the Reception section regardless. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 12:46, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Any concerns that you have are always welcome to be raised, so don't worry about that—I'm certainly not offended, and I doubt any other involved editors would be either. You raise an interesting point. It's practically impossible to generalise all players, and to state that they received the narrative either positively or negatively would be technically incorrect, which is why "polarized" feels like the most accurate phrasing to me; the "Audience response" section also uses the phrase "some players" for clarification. I've added an extra comment to the section to support the claim that not all audience reviews were negative, though this is unlikely to alleviate all of your concerns. – Rhain ☔ 14:01, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

FWIW broadly speaking I do not think there is anything wrong with how we are presenting this infomation currently.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 12:59, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Ambiguous Pronoun Needs Clarification

Early in the Plot section:

They return to an outpost run by Abby's group, former Fireflies who are now part of the Washington Liberation Front (WLF), a militia group based in Seattle, Washington. They attack Joel and Tommy;

Joel and Tommy are part of the first 'They' but the direct objects of the second 'They,' leading to confusion on the reader's part. "Militia" is singular, so it can't be the antecedent of the second "They." Suggest replacing the ambiguous second "They" with a specific noun. But I can't edit yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FromSafetyToWhere (talk • contribs) 18:24, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

 Done. – Rhain ☔ 11:08, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Abby

This line seems to create a slightly unfair emphasis as the first line of the relevant para: "The playable Abby chapters were controversial, as players had expected to control Ellie for the majority of the game.[98]" Is it really accurate that the reason the Abby chapters "were controversial" is simply because gamers expected to control Ellie? That seems out of line with the suggestion that everyone expected to control Joel, something else that has been bandied around so much. And it seems simplistic. As the later lines go on to explain there is an unpleasant streak of misogyny involved that seems to underlie any dislike of those chapters - how can we play a woman who has [gasp] muscles?!. Can I propose simply deleting that line - even the supporting ref doesn't actually say that players do dislike the swap from Ellie to Abby. The strongest it gets is saying "Whether you appreciate the design choice or not is entirely up to you. Just at least give Abby a chance." I am also not convinced the Abby chapters are actually "controversial", but that's a separate argument. StupidLookingKid (talk) 20:00, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

@StupidLookingKid: (A bit unusual to "propose" deleting something and then do it yourself four minutes later, but fair enough. New talk discussions should always start at the bottom of the page, too.) The information in the article is right: the playable Abby chapters were "controversial" among some players because they had expected to control Ellie. Most of the other controversy surrounding Abby is simply because of the character, not the playable chapters. That being said, I agree that "controversial" is a strong word, so I've rephrased and added more sources. – Rhain ☔ 22:34, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi Rhain. Sorry for being "a bit unusual" - like I say I am relatively new, so a four minute learning curve for "be bold" is hopefully not too terrible. Your revisions look good - taking out "controversial" and reframing it as "some players." Can we discuss whether "the narrative and the representation of a transgender character polarized critics and players" as per the intro is ok? I see you reverted my edit on that. I accept that a very small number of critics had problems there (though we do say elsewhere in the article that it had "universal critical acclaim"). And I accept that *some* players have expressed their strident outrage spanning a range of issues (including some deeply unpleasant stuff). But is that enough to support use of the word "polarised"? If "some people didn't like it" = "polarised" then I am struggling to think of any game / book / film / art that does not polarise its audience. It just seems quite a strong word for the intro. StupidLookingKid (talk) 09:20, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

@StupidLookingKid: The game did receive "universal acclaim" according to Metacritic, but that doesn't mean that the narrative wasn't polarising; half of the second paragraph of the "Critical response" section discusses criticisms directed at the narrative by critics. Personally, I believe that's enough to support the phrasing in the lead. – Rhain ☔ 09:37, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Saying that not every critic gave a work of art a 100% review is bit redundant to be honest - unless we are going to go through every page on wiki relating to every book, game and painting and add "this polarised critics." The key, interesting issue to report in the intro is the overblown hostility from some players. I also think (as per the main section) that saying this response was simply due to to the narrative and the trans character overlooks other issues as per the audience response section. Could we find a short compromise form of wording? Perhaps simply "though aspects of the narrative and of some of the characters led to vocal opposition from some players." BTW - how do you do the @ bit at the start of a post to show who you are replying to?StupidLookingKid (talk) 09:54, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

@StupidLookingKid: I don't think you're fully understanding the point; the narrative and transgender character led to polarisation among critics too, not just players. We're not "saying that not every critic gave a work of art a 100% review"—we're simply reiterating the (sourced) claim that the narrative was polarising. Stating otherwise would appear to be undue weight, since the corresponding paragraph in "Critical response" is split between praise and criticism. I've made a minor edit adding some brief information about the specific player criticisms to the lead, which feels like more due weight as there wasn't much regarding the audience response in there. You can ping other users by using templates like {{@}}, {{Ping}}, or {{Reply}}, though you needn't do that with me as I'm already watching this page and receive notifications for every edit. – Rhain ☔ 10:11, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Sorry Rhain - before I reply properly, can I ask you to point me to the source for the use of the word polarised? We use it three times, but it isn't clearly flagged in the article what the source for it is. Is it just a word that a previous editor introduced or are we quoting someone? StupidLookingKid (talk) 10:45, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

@StupidLookingKid: There isn't a particular source to verify the use of the word "polarized", just as there isn't one particular source to verify "praise for its characters, gameplay, performances, and visual fidelity"—it's a summary of the reviews discussed in the article, which is common for reception sections. – Rhain ☔ 12:09, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Ah, ok. In that case can I suggest it is being misapplied? There is evidence that responses of players are polarised, but not critics. It is a specific word with a specific meaning. I can see some reviews saying things in the narrative could be better, but that is not polarisation. I will change it StupidLookingKid (talk) 12:22, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

It is an adequate summary of the critical response section on the said topic. Some critics praised it strongly whilst others were scrathing on it. (Side note: the source you provided here would not reliable per WP:FORBESCON). Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 12:41, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Once again, a bit strange to "suggest" something and then make the change ten minutes later. I'll respond in the new section below. – Rhain ☔ 13:38, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

The use of the word "suggest" was just me trying to be polite. StupidLookingKid (talk) 14:22, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

You can be polite without being cryptic or false. If you want to be bold, be bold; if you're looking for approval before making a change, do that instead. It's misleading and confusing to try and do both. – Rhain ☔ 14:25, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

I said "I will change it" StupidLookingKid (talk) 16:13, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough. Definitely should avoid making such changes in the midst of a discussion, though. – Rhain ☔ 21:35, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

As a new editor I suggest you familiarise yourself with the Five pillars, particularly WP:V, WP:NPOV as well as WP:RS.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 11:37, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Spy-circle. I have done, but am sure I will make mistakes along the way. Please do nudge me if I step out of line!StupidLookingKid (talk) 11:45, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

References

Mention ludonarrative dissonance?

Thoughts on mentioning that some critics felt it had ludonarrative dissonance. The closest we get to currently in the article is Bailey also criticized the dissonance between the game's statement against violence while also necessitating it during gameplay. Polygon's Maddy Myers and Kotaku's Riley MacLeod opined that the game repeatedly delivered its themes without allowing the player any agency in their decisions. I was going to try to find a way to link it in the first sentence but could be considered ORish as term is not explictly mentioned in that review (though we essentially describes the term here). We do have coverage mentioning it here [5][6][7] (also related found some coverage on LD relating the first game [8]). Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 22:10, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

I've added the link; if anyone disagrees, please feel free to revert and/or discuss. Bailey's comments are basically the definition of ludonarrative dissonance, so I don't think it's OR to link the term, just as it wouldn't be OR to link the word "themes" in the following sentence (though that's probably OL). I read through Chris Plante's Polygon article but I can't really find anything in particular that is worth mentioning; it feels more like a history of the term "ludonarrative dissonance" using The Last of Us Part II as a backdrop, so I think it's more suited over on that article (where it's already summarised) than this one. The Atlantic article by David Sims is equally great but it's difficult to find a specific comment worth including, especially considering the current length of the Reception section (and the narrative paragraph in particular). Of course, if you feel otherwise, please feel free to add it to the article. – Rhain ☔ 00:46, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for adding it this is a reasonable solution for the moment, will propose text at a later point if there is more solid concrete coverage I can find worth mentioning.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 01:12, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Kotaku Australia sourcing

As Kotaku published an identical review of Part II on kotaku.com and kotaku.com.au (edit: this goes for two other sourced articles), I was just wondering why we've chosen to source their Australian site when, where possible, their American site is typically always used as standard? Wikibenboy94 (talk) 16:47, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

@Wikibenboy94: I believe it used to be very difficult for me to access Kotaku without getting automatically redirected to Kotaku Australia. Apparently it's a lot easier now, so I've replaced the URLs. – Rhain ☔ 21:39, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Seeking consensus on polarisation of critics

In the introduction, we say "the narrative and the representation of a transgender character polarized critics and players." Polarisation means a situation where people are split into two camps - you either love it or you hate it, with very few people in between the two extremes. I do not believe that a) the narrative, or b) the transgender character resulted in polarisation of critics. There is indeed some commentary by critics that the narrative could have been tighter, the flash backs tweaked etc etc. But unless some say "I absolutely hated the narrative - zero marks out of ten" and other say "I freakin' loved the narrative - 10/10" and we have very few in the middle, then this is not polarisation. I am even less confident that the transgender character led to polarisation among critics. Happy to hear arguments to the contrary. Editted to add: Metacritic lists 113 positive critic review, 8 mixed and 0 negative. But we are saying to readers that critics are "polarised." I am not massively up to speed on the undue weight policy, but there is a problem here (and possibly also in our response of critics section) StupidLookingKid (talk) 12:47, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Writing is more nuanced than talking in absolutes; a reviewer can completely trash the narrative without saying "I hate it, 0/10". I think there are several examples of critics hating the narrative: GameRevolution calls it the game's "biggest whiff"; Vice describes it as "flat and featureless"; and the entire Kotaku and Polygon reviews are essentially dedicated to criticising the story. The representation of the transgender character feels even clearer to me: there are distinct criticisms directed at the use of Lev's dead name, his creation by cisgender writers, and using trans story as tragedies; meanwhile, there are critics who thought it was a major step for gaming and an effective example of representation.

I don't see a necessity in changing the phrasing, and I most certainly object this change (it ignores the critics, and "upset" is very poor phrasing). If the intense criticisms of the narrative is "just critics doing their usual job", then surely the same could be said about the praise for the game's characters, gameplay, performances, and graphics—they're all examples of "providing critique", after all.

The "polarized" comment is not about critics in general, it's about the general consensus on the narrative. If you're going to use the Metacritic ranking as an argument, may I direct you to the sentence "It received critical acclaim"? We're talking about the narrative here, not the reviews in general. – Rhain ☔ 13:38, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

I oppose this change as well, Rhain already summarises this well.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 13:48, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Guys, could you address also my point about undue weight? I did not object to the positives about gameplay etc because they are in line with the overall tenor of reviews for the game which are predominately positive. Had it received 113 negative reviews and we spent half the word count listing a load of positives I would be arguing the opposite.

Rhain, I note that you removed my earlier addition of "substantial" to the line "it received critical acclaim" and described it as an "unnecessary buzz word." Ok, let's just use the original metacritic wording then of "universal critical acclaim." At present the intro text re the critics' take seems to try to give a false balance between positives and negatives which simply does not reflect their overall views on the game. Happy to stand corrected re the trans character btw StupidLookingKid (talk) 14:10, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "overall tenor of reviews". Just because the game received primarily positive scores does not mean the reviews were void of criticism; it's important to note that most of the reviews that were critical of the narrative are unscored and thus ignored by Metacritic's algorithm. I truly don't see the point in bringing up Metacritic's "113 positive, 8 mixed, 0 negative" statistic—all that means is that the reviews were mostly positive overall, not that the response to the narrative was.

I'm hesitant to state "universal acclaim" in the lead because that would require a direct quotation, which itself would require a citation per MOS:LEADCITE. This is more of a personal thing, but I'm not a fan of references in the lead (or quotes, for that matter), so "It received critical acclaim" is good enough for me. – Rhain ☔ 14:16, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

What I mean is that the intro should give readers who aren't going to read the whole article (and that's presumably most of them) a good sense of what are the most important things to know about this game. In terms of "what did the critics think" the most important thing for the reader to come away from this with is "rave reviews". Looking at the two areas where there were disagreements seems unbalanced. I think that is the undue weight issue isn't it - picking on a small matter and focussing on it too much to give an unbalanced impression. Does that help? That's why I think "universal" is quite useful to include. That's my key problem here - the at-a-glance you get from this is "yeah, good reviews, but what about the narrative and the debate around the portrayal of the trans character?" Those are important to have in the body, but give a misleading impression in the intro. BTW I can sense a bit of heat here - I am genuinely just trying to improve the article! StupidLookingKid (talk) 14:32, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't think "rave reviews" is what I'd want readers coming away with—I'd want them to think "critical acclaim for most things, and a polarising narrative", just as the article says. Excluding this information from the lead feels like undue weight to me; it would be unfair to mention the praise for the characters, gameplay, performances, and graphics, but not the response to the narrative or transgender character, as all of these elements have an equal weighting in the body (one paragraph each) and therefore should have the same in the lead. I genuinely don't see how this information is misleading if it's exactly what is expanded upon later in the body (all with sources). We shouldn't simply ignore the polarising narrative just because it might not fit with the preconceived notion of "universal acclaim". It's very common for widely-loved works to mention criticisms in the lead, including films, books, and video games. If the information is "important to have in the body", then I don't see why it's not important enough for the lead.

There's no genuine heat or hatred against you, don't worry; I understand you're only looking out for the article. Discussions may feel heated but please don't take it personally. – Rhain ☔ 14:51, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Ok - happy to agree to disagree on it. Hated Time Traveler's Wife though and will go to the wire on that one... StupidLookingKid (talk) 17:23, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Just to add, you mention the 132 reviews from MC. It is possible if we took all these reviews as reliable and summarised it the narrative would not be considered "polarizing". However, when you filter down these sources as which are reliable and which are not (as seen on WP:VG/RS) it leaves far fewer reviews than what we started with, leading us to the "polarizing" narrative summary.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 18:12, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Rhain, why do you feel that "polarized" and "praise for its characters, gameplay, performances, and visual fidelity" are commonplace review section summary, but that "universal critical acclaim" would require a lead cite? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 21:41, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

In my view, "universal acclaim" isn't really a thing; there's no way that every single review was positive. Therefore, to me, I think we should only ever use that phrasing when quoting Metacritic directly. – Rhain ☔ 21:54, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Is "considerable critical acclaim" a thing? StupidLookingKid (talk) 22:26, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

It could be, but it feels completely unnecessary to me—ultimately it means the same thing as simply "critical acclaim", but too wordy and unnecessarily praise-y. I just don't think it's needed. – Rhain ☔ 02:48, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I looked at the first couple pages of "universal acclaim" Google hits, and it does appear to be a construction mainly used by Metacritic. I am ok with "critical acclaim" in the lead and mildly supportive of "considerable critical claim" (proposed above). Firefangledfeathers (talk) 22:31, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

My rationale for adding a single additional word to reinforce the praise aspect is to balance the undue weight given to negatives in the relevant line. As it stands, half the word count re the critical response relates to negative aspects / "polarisation" around two issues, yet the majority of reviews are generally positive. StupidLookingKid (talk) 08:26, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

The main reason it takes up half the word count is because of the wordiness of "the representation of a transgender character". Ultimately, we're listing four positives (characters, gameplay, performance, visuals) against two "mixed" (narrative, transgender). To me, that aspect is more important than the precise word count. That being said, I noticed there was a paragraph from Critical response that wasn't represented in the lead, so I've added "sound design" and "music"—it's now six positive vs. two mixed. – Rhain ☔ 14:38, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

"Considerable" critical acclaim reaks off rather awkwardly and bloat-like. Isn't "critical acclaim" by itself already "considerable" (i.e. notably large in size, amount, or extent, significant). Surely, by the same logic, "inconsiderable" critical acclaim" would be a thing, would does not make sense. Also "sound design" and "music" for the lead I have just simplfied down to "score" considering we only have one paragraph on the whole topic of "audio".  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 20:47, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Dictionary.com's examples of usage for acclaim include "resounding acclaim," "worldwide acclaim," "world acclaim," "clamorous acclaim," "general acclaim" and "loud acclaim." Collins adds "highly acclaimed," "international acclaim" and "universal acclaim". Merriam-Webster has examples of "widespread acclaim" and "overwhelming acclaim." I'd accept any of those, or we could put Rhain's personal thing about the use of quotations in introductions to one side and quote metacritic if you want to make it someone else's words rather than ours. Disagree, obviously, about "bloat." StupidLookingKid (talk) 07:23, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

The definition of "acclaim" according to Wiktionary is "To express great approval"; adding an extra word does not change that meaning. There's no difference between "acclaim" and "considerable acclaim", so why bother with extra words if it means the same thing? It feels like unnecessary bloat and praise to me—it's why we try to avoid phrasing like "of all time". Just because those are examples of usage does not mean we need to use one of them. – Rhain ☔ 07:51, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Wiktionary also gives the examples "highly acclaimed" and "widely acclaimed." Adding a qualifier can change meaning by adding emphasis. That is why multiple examples of such qualifiers exist in multiple usage guides for this word. In this case, the added emphasis then changes the context for the rest of the sentence and balances the negatives that are included. I have been trying to meet you half way on this issue by suggesting alternatives to a direct quote because you said your personal preference is to avoid quotes and references in the introduction. But you previously argued persuasively for use of the word "polarised" because it is "simply reiterating the (sourced) claim." Unless you can point me to a wikipedia policy which says that we can't make judicious use of quotes in the introduction, can I ask you to put your personal preference aside so that we can do exactly the same thing for "universal acclaim" as a direct quote? That then keeps the emphasis the same, ensures it does not come across as our opinion, balances the sentence appropriately, is factually accurate, and, most importantly of all, means we can all go back to editting less contentious articles about creationism, the relative cuteness of cats vs dogs, and the merits of jazz. StupidLookingKid (talk) 09:56, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

FWIW, Wiktionary is not an RS. Unless you can point me to a wikipedia policy which says that we can't make judicious use of quotes in the introduction, can I ask you to put your personal preference aside so that we can do exactly the same thing for "universal acclaim" as a direct quote? But what makes citing MC in lead a "judicious"? Look at any promoted VG FA and probably GA (or most other well-written FA/GA media articles which summarise reception sections), see how many you find which directly quote the aggregator (here are some 1, 2, 3, 4, 5)? Answer will be very few. Per MOS:LEAD we summarise the body, including summarising the aggregators. There is not outright ban on using quotes in the lead but should be used sparingly (and also comes MOS:CITELEAD). This is not simply one user's personal preference this standard is done on most articles to adhere to MOS:LEAD. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 13:24, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Ok - good point. But whatever happens, don't tell Rhain that the Bioshock 2 lead describes it as one of the best video game expansions "of all time" :-) StupidLookingKid (talk) 14:58, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a work in progress. "Of all time" isn't technically wrong, it's just excessively phrased and needlessly dramatic, so there are probably hundreds (if not thousands) of uses of it on here—I'm pretty sure I used to use it myself. – Rhain ☔ 23:15, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

At the end of the day, I just find the addition of an extra word completely unnecessary. It adds nothing, and does not clarify or balance anything. My prior arguments regarding "polarized" are different; that word is being used as a verb (or, more specifically, a past participle) while the suggested "universal" is an adjective—an additional (unnecessary) word. (Not to mention that "polarized" isn't referencing a direct quote, whereas "universal" is.) I simply fail to see the benefit of the extra word. – Rhain ☔ 14:10, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Cool, ok. Glad some of my improvements made it through at least. Good chatting. StupidLookingKid (talk) 14:58, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your efforts in improving Wikipedia. I look forward to seeing more of your work. – Rhain ☔ 23:15, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

I've also brought this argument up before, nothing about the games overall games reception implies it was "polarizing" at least among critics. This article is definitely giving undue weight to a few negative reviews despite the overwhelming positive reception. No game with a polarizing narrative (especially where the Narrative is the most important aspect of the game) gets a 93 on metacritic. We should definitely get a consensus on this. TheMassEffector (talk) 22:47, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

@TheMassEffector: We came to a consensus about this a while ago; the narrative, characterisation, and representation of Lev polarised critics, but everything else was pretty well received. "It received critical acclaim" is the sentence that refers to the game's overall reception. I'm not sure what else you believe needs addressing. I've also moved your comment to the bottom of this discussion as its original placement was misleading. – Rhain ☔ 22:59, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Wasn't that over a year ago? Just a few months ago we've had another vote for the inclusion of the "Universal acclaim" descriptor and a year ago editors were against that as well. So you never know, the consensus could change by now. Besides what's the harm in trying to get another consensus? TheMassEffector (talk) 23:13, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

@TheMassEffector: It was last month—the discussion you're responding to now. – Rhain ☔ 23:17, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

A discussion between three editors hardly counts as a consensus. And you didn't really address StupidLookingKid's concerns, he just got outvoted by you and Spy-cicle💥 . Now that I'm here it's basically a tie. This is why we should get more editors in here and put it up for a vote like we did with the one about the "Universal Acclaim" thing. TheMassEffector (talk) 23:26, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

"he just got outvoted"—I mean, yeah, that's what a consensus is. We absolutely addressed all of their concerns; whether or not you agree with it is a separate matter. If you feel strongly about it and want an additional discussion, though, feel free to start a new sub/section. – Rhain ☔ 23:37, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

And now the vote is a tie. Also you absolutely did not address all their concerns, if you did you wouldn't need to outvote his suggestions and put an end to it lmao.

Also please for godssake stop dillydallying.

"start a new sub/section" Really? What I want is exactly the same as what StupidLookingKid wants, there is absolutely no reason to create a new section and delay this even further with more pointless arguments. Everything I want to say has already been said better by StupidLookingKid, I have nothing further to add to this discussion except throw my vote with his. Now since it's a tie, you yourself can create a new section asking for a new consensus asking for a vote (since that seems to bring in more editors for some reason) and see what other editors have to say or we wait and see if someone else decides to chime in to this two month old post. TheMassEffector (talk) 23:58, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

@TheMassEffector: What concerns didn't we address? We didn't "need to outvote his suggestions and put an end to it"—we responded to all of their concerns, and they eventually settled with it, because that's how discussions work.

I won't be making a new section, because I'm not the one trying to change consensus (and I'm not even sure what it is you want). Instead of demanding others to do it, you're welcome to start a new sub/section clarifying the main points of your argument, and then consider asking WT:VG for more opinions. But you can't expect other editors to read over this entire discussion, which is why another sub/section is needed. – Rhain ☔ 00:21, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

They didn't settle with it, they gave up because they were outvoted.

"and I'm not even sure what it is you want"

Mate I already told you I want what StupidLookingKid wants, that the narrative/transgender character wasn't polarizing.

Look man I don't want to get into a heated argument with you, I read the discussions from over a year ago and I know you're basically the reason this page hasn't gone to shit and the reason the lede basically doesn't say "The Last of Us Part II was shit and no one likes it, end of discussion".

I asked you to create a new section asking for a new consensus because you did it a couple of months ago for the "Universal Acclaim" thing even though someone else brought it up originally and that brought in a lot of editors. If you don't want to, it's fine, I'm not here demanding you to do anything. I'll ask some of the editors who voted on the last consensus to chime in. I personally don't want to create a new section because I simply don't want to have the same arguments you had with StupidLookingKid and have it go nowhere. I'd just prefer if editors just voted on this one and we didn't drag this out even more. TheMassEffector (talk) 01:10, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

StupidLookingKid also wanted a few other things that we settled on (namely, "universal acclaim" or "considerable critical acclaim" in the lead), so thank you for clarifying the specifics. They also said that they were "happy to agree to disagree on it", which sounds more like settling than 'giving up' to me—but, of course, you're still entitled to revive the discussion if you feel strongly about it. If you'd like to put it to a vote, I'd recommend creating a section or subsection below outlining your argument and the change you'd like to see; you could even consider providing some options, as we did in the previous discussion. The reason that discussion received so many responses wasn't simply because it was me who posted it; it was because a) it was brief and simple, and didn't require editors to read pages of old discussions unless they wanted to, and b) I asked for more opinions at WT:VG. You could do the same, and garner a similar response (or you can post your section here and I'll ask for more responses there). The choice is yours. – Rhain ☔ 02:21, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

• Hi, I was pinged on my talk page to participate as a prior discussant. To the question of whether critics were "polarized", I think the bigger issue is where is the citation for this in the text? That claim should absolutely be sourced to something for readers to verify it. If not a single source, consider a WP:CITEBUNDLE. Alternative words: divided, mixed, ambivalent. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 03:34, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

@Czar: Thanks for responding. Too often, I'll tend to think of the opening sentences of Reception as a topic sentence or summary of the following paragraphs—and, as a result, I'll often forgo immediate references à la MOS:LEADCITE—but you're right, these should have refs, so I've added them. – Rhain ☔ 04:30, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Having skimmed the four refs re: the game's characterization being polarized, I'm not sure the claim is supported. Polygon certainly makes the point that the game hammered players with a moral lesson that its characters did not learn. IGN praised the character-writing and its variety. Destructoid reinforces that the game is character-driven and maybe that their acting brings out their personalities? Vice seems to say more about the story than the characters. Either way, not quite seeing how critics are even necessarily divided on their views of the characters, nevertheless polarized. I think the claim either needs more sources or to be rephrased. For example, it's potentially possible to say that the characters were believably nuanced yet evolved little in the story, if that's indeed what critics say. But the generalization that its overall characterization was polarizing seems to be a stretch, for the cited material at least. I'd sooner limit any summary statement to cover what critics definitively regarded as highlights and nadirs, leaving any further detail for the section's prose. And agreed that this doesn't necessarily warrant a footnote in the lede as long as it is cited in the text and unless it is contested. czar 05:17, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

@Czar: In retrospect, I agree with your point about the characterisation refs; there was a recent concern that the relevant paragraph demonstrated a split between positive and negative responses of the characters, but I think the reviews are pretty clearly leaning towards the positive here, so I've changed this back. If there are still concerns, though, it may be wise to follow your suggestion about omitting that particular summary altogether. As for the remaining two points (narrative, representation of Lev), might the word "polarized" be most at fault here? The term has been used on the article almost as long as the game has been out, so I've admittedly not given it too much thought, but perhaps one of your alternatives would feel more appropriate—"divided" would be my pick. – Rhain ☔ 06:10, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

@Czar:@TheMassEffector:@Rhain: Hi all. First, just for the record I'm a "he" - not a biggy, thank you for being neutral, but just saying for clarity. Second, my "agree to disagree" point meant just that. I still disagree, but didn't feel the game was worth the candle and had an important article about Afternoon Tea I needed to edit (and might benefit from your mentoring on that Rhain if it's ok - will drop a line on your page if I ever get to it). Third, I do think "polarisation" is causing some disquiet among editors because it just doesn't feel right and (forgive me if I am wrong) is unreferenced. E.g. re Lev - most reviewers actually have no real view at all that they think worth mentioning about the transgender issues in the game, so on reflection I think calling reviews "polarised" about it is probably factually incorrect.Though I have re-read the intro and I do think it is much better balanced than it was, thanks to Rhain's earlier edits.StupidLookingKid (talk) 19:43, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification and kind words, nice to see that you're still around! I'm not sure I can offer much in the way of mentoring but I'd be more than happy to try and help—please don't hesitate to reach out whenever. You raise an interesting point about Lev, but I'm going to start a new section so it doesn't detract from the point of this discussion. – Rhain ☔ 07:28, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

I still think it is misleading and inaccurate to simply say the "characterisation was praised" when there is a number of critics that do in fact critize this as I think I have mentioned before. Also, characterization is also intrstrinctly linked with a narrative/story.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 19:45, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

@Spy-cicle: I definitely understand your point, but I think the relevant Reception paragraph is mostly positive, with only a few minor negatives. It's also important to note that the paragraph is not exhaustive; when I write things like this, I tend to pick some of the stronger points to represent, but I think I clearly missed a lot here. I've added some opinions from a few more reviews—mostly positive, but not all—so hopefully the paragraph is a little more correctly weighted now. – Rhain ☔ 22:46, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

One solution is to say something like, "some critics praised its character development" (or whatever specific part of "characterization" they praised) if needed for a topic sentence. But if it would be controversial to say critics either praised, were divided on, or criticized some component of the game (i.e., character development), it might be best not to make a summative statement about that component at all. czar 20:43, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

So something like "It received critical acclaim, but was the subject of review bombing... etc". In other words just take out the detail about specifically which bits were praised or divided reviewers? I would support that. StupidLookingKid (talk) 06:45, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

I think another option to consider may be something along the lines of "It received critical acclaim, with particular praise directed at its gameplay, audio design, score, performances, and visual fidelity."—a.k.a. the elements that are essentially universally praised in these reviews—while the more divided elements are omitted from the lead. – Rhain ☔ 07:28, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

That would work for me StupidLookingKid (talk) 07:45, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

I do not think removing the critisms is a good solution at all, as that would violate WP:DUE.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 16:30, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

I was considering this as well. I've seen plenty of other articles that focus on the particular areas of praise (or, in the case of mostly negative reviews, areas of criticism) while omitting the more ambivalent elements—this phrasing is a similar approach. That being said, I don't think there's much of a question that the narrative was divisive among critics, so I think it should be included. As for characterisation, I'll outline that below. – Rhain ☔ 03:29, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Characterisation

@Spy-cicle: I understand your concern with the movement of "characterization" from the 'polarized' to the 'praised' part of the sentence, so I did some digging. Out of all the reliable and situational sources listed at WP:VG/RS, I managed to find 34 reviews of The Last of Us Part II, 27 of which specifically mention the characters and their development. Of these 27, 16 are entirely positive, 3 seem mostly negative, and 8 are a bit of both.

Positive	Mixed	Negative	Not really mentioned
A.V. Club Destructoid Easy Allies Entertainment Weekly ESPN Game Informer GameZone Gry Online IGN Igromania The New York Times Push Square Shacknews TechRadar VentureBeat VG247	Complex Eurogamer GameSpot Jeuxvideo.com Kotaku USgamer The Verge VideoGamer.com	Ars Technica GameRevolution Polygon	Den of Geek Digital Spy Digitally Downloaded Electronic Gaming Monthly Hardcore Gamer Nerdist

If you count the 'mixed' as half a vote to each, then, that's 20 positive and 7 negative. It's definitely leaning more towards positive than it is to mixed—hopefully that explains why I made the change. I'd love to hear your thoughts. (And yes, I know this is far too much effort for the placement of one word, but "too much effort" defines most of what I do here. ) – Rhain ☔ 03:29, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Wow firstly, thank you very much for the time put into this interesting analysis. I have not read the reviews probably since launch this was certainly interesting to see. Assuming this analysis is correct, when we say "characterization" what exactly do we mean though? Some definitions include "the creation or construction of a fictional character" "the way that people are represented in a film, play, or book so that they seem real and natural" "the way that people are represented in a film, play, or book so that they seem real and natural". To double check, I won't have a lot of time to this right now, but this is certainly what the reviewers meant when they praised the game, right? The motivations, 'believability', writing, (of both new and old characters)? Would be simpler for us to say they praised the characters, in general? Perhaps I am overthinking this though. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 10:20, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Not a problem. It definitely felt like the reviews were quite negative towards characters and writing at the beginning, so I too was surprised to find that so many were positive. By "characterization", I assume we mean all of those—the creation of the character, their role in the story, and their development and growth through it—but I certainly wouldn't be opposed to a change to "characters". It's clear and simple, and says basically the same thing. And yes, to confirm, that's what all of those reviews were praising (or criticising): the writing, role, and development of the characters. – Rhain ☔ 12:36, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Alrighty based on your analysis, I will good faith assume it is accurate which I am pretty sure it would be given your work towards this article, therefore I would go with "characters" in the lead. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 18:35, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Lev paragraph

StupidLookingKid raised an interesting point above and it made me think: does the paragraph about Lev's representation actually fit under "Critical response"? The main point of the paragraph is that members of the transgender community—i.e. not reviewers from professional outlets, for the most part—objected to his representation. I think the paragraph itself may fit more appropriately within "Audience response"; like the paragraphs in that section, it still includes the opinions of some journalists, but those opinions are mostly reactions to the audience response, not necessarily their own thoughts of the game like the rest of "Critical response". I'd love to hear your thoughts. – Rhain ☔ 07:28, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Well... the sources cited are reviews, and do discuss their own takes on it... Um... I am not sure it really matters to be honest?StupidLookingKid (talk) 13:03, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

None of them are technically "reviews", they're all editorials (not that it makes a big difference—editorials can be used in these sections too). If you don't think it matters, you don't need to comment. – Rhain ☔ 13:18, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Having gone back through previous revisions, it appears that the opinions on Lev's representation was initially in the Audience response section until late June 2020 when the section was temporarily removed to avoid further vandalism; it's remained in Critical response ever since. I do feel it's better suited to Audience response though. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 12:43, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

I do not think it is incorrect to put it under critical response as from memory another of critics mentioned this as well. Alternatively, we could just have a dedicated heading for this.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 16:24, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

I think a dedicated heading would give it undue prominence. I don't have any strong view as to audience vs critic, but think it should be one or the other. StupidLookingKid (talk) 16:33, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

@Spy-cicle: A number of critics have also responded to the criticisms about Joel's death and the Abby chapters in "Audience response", which is why I think this fits a little better there—their comments are a response to the audience criticism. – Rhain ☔ 03:29, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

My original point in the section above was whether this existing wording in the lead was accurate: "the representation of a transgender character polarized critics and players." I think we are edging to a point where we do not think the "critics" part of that line is correct, as they are reflecting and commenting on the views of players. But can I add that I am not sure "players" is right either? My assumption is that most players don't really have any strong feeling at all on the representation of Lev and therefore "polarized" is wrong. Happy to do a Rhain style selection and analysis of 100 random player reviews to test that! But would it be reasonable to suggest a rewording here? Maybe "the representation a transgender character sparked controversy among some players"? StupidLookingKid (talk) 11:06, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

@StupidLookingKid: I understand your original point, but that begs the question of where it fits in the first place. I think "Audience response" is the best place; you're probably right in saying that "most players don't really have any strong feeling at all", but the section isn't about "most" players, it's about the ones that our reliable sources covered. It certainly doesn't seem to fit in "Critical response", so I think "Audience response" is the best place. Since it's been well over a week with little ongoing opposition, I've made the change. (And in case you're serious about the "Rhain style selection and analysis of 100 random player reviews": that would be a gross violation of WP:USERG. We pay no mind to user reviews, just those reported by reliable sources.) – Rhain ☔ 14:19, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

No, I was not serious. [editted to remove suggestions around polarisation which I think have already been addressed! Sorry!]StupidLookingKid (talk) 18:17, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

@Spy-cicle: I see you put "polarised" back in. Polarized means (Cambridge Dictionary) "to cause something, especially something that contains different people or opinions, to divide into two completely opposing groups." Do you have a source to support that that is what happened for a) critics and b) players? StupidLookingKid (talk) 20:35, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm not as strongly opposed to using "polarized", but for the sake of simplicity and clarity I think "divided" is a better choice. I also think it's better to exclude "and players", since the following sentence refers to the audience response. – Rhain ☔ 22:33, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

It is a summary of the reception section. Though I am not too fussed about divided over polarized.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 17:45, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Reception paragraph openings on Joel and Abby

Perhaps it's only been done for the sake of the prose to flow better (in which case I don't mind it being left as it is) but I feel the opening sentences to the paragraphs on Joel's death and Abby's role could be re-phrased to better encompass the entire paragraph, like it is for those on the review bombing and Lev's representation. As it is, the first three sentences on Joel's paragraph outline one point of criticism (his trusting of Abby) while the latter half of the paragraph discusses his manner of death. The opening sentence on Abby's paragraph, meanwhile, highlights the criticism towards her playable chapters, while the subsequent sentences all highlight other points. Propose re-phrasing to something like the following: "A subset of players criticized Joel's death in the game's opening hours. Some perceived a discrepancy between his cautious nature in the first game and his more trustful and protective attitude in Part II." and "The character of Abby proved controversial with a number of players. Her playable chapters were criticized as they had expected to control Ellie for the majority of the game." The only issue is that I've had to come up with more synonyms of "some". Wikibenboy94 (talk) 12:42, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I've always been a fan of topic sentences that naturally flow into the paragraph, rather than summarising the entire paragraph immediately; see, for example, the third, fifth, and seventh paragraphs of "Critical response", which outline what the paragraph is discussing without explicitly stating "The critics praised [X]". I think the first sentence of Joel's paragraph does a good job of both, too, summarising both the death itself ("Some players criticized Joel's death..."), and his trusting of Abby ("...perceiving a discrepancy..."). That being said, I'm pretty apathetic about it, and your suggested replacements are mostly good—the Joel one is a simple and undisruptive change, though I'd rework the Abby one to avoid some wordiness (and especially the word "controversial"). – Rhain ☔ 12:59, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I might just leave the Joel sentence based on what you've said. For Abby, how about "Abby received negative reception from a number of players."? Wikibenboy94 (talk) 13:31, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Better, but what about something like "A subset of players criticized Abby. Some disapproved her playable chapters as they had..."? – Rhain ☔ 23:40, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Done. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 12:13, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

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

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

• Graphics.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:53, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Removal of unverifiable claim that the game holds "The Record of Most Game of the Year Awards"

As stated the claim the game holds the record of "most game of the year awards" nominations needs removal as this is an unverifiable claim and instead replaced with a statement simply listing the ballpark of how many awards it received.

The source at present is a single piece in VG247 that simply cites the the website GameAwards.Net, which used to aggregate known awards given to games each year, as the basis for the entire seven sentence article. However, as detailed in the stats page of GameAwards.Net:

"As such, the "totals" for any year can only show you the minimum amount of awards that a particular game received, not the exact number, and they certainly cannot be used to compare games from different years in such precise detail. There could be five awards missing, or there could be fifty—no one can know for certain. Any site attempting to claim otherwise is trying to mislead you." [9]

This shouldn't be a controversial removal given that it is a basic issue of VG247 demonstrably misusing and misrepresenting the information recorded on GameAwards.Net in a way that the website itself is specifying it can't be used to establish as it doesn't know how many GOTY awards are even awarded, only how many it has chosen to select and record on the website.

This is also fundamentally the exact same issue that recently saw the "Global" section of the List of most-watched television broadcasts purged due to the fact it is inherently impossible to properly assess and establish the veracity of any such wide-ranging claim. Apache287 (talk) 10:06, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Several reliable sources are used to verify the information, not just VG247. Seems like a logical, referenced inclusion. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 00:04, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

No @Rhain, none of them have verified the actual information, the claimed fact that The Last of Us Part 2 or frankly any game ever had the most Game of the Year awards in the world. All they did was go to the same anonymous website where someone google searched and tallied GOTY awards for fun, a website that actively says "do not use this to say with certainty one game has the record", and then reported the hobbyist website as though it was the equivalent of say Box Office Mojo or Official Charts Company. There is no measurable way to prove how many GOTY awards are awarded each year worldwide and of that how many any game got.

All we can verifiably support with those sources is that a game got at least so many awards, so saying The Last of Us Part 2 accrued in excess of 300 awards is provable. That no other game got more can't be proven.

Simply put, the data analysis issue here is the equivalent of someone giving a random Twitter poll the same "worth" as Gallup. Apache287 (talk) 00:38, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Sequel

There seems to be a bit of edit warring going on over the issue of whether or not there should be a sequel section on this article. I noted in the edit summary to please bring up the topic here on the talk page, but my comment has been ignored. User:Rhain claims that Neil Druckman is not a reliable source to cite regarding information he shared about a possible sequel to the game. They also claim that the information is a "throwaway I've thought about it comment" which seems to indicate that they didn't consult the source, since this is not true per Druckman's comments. Rhain's assertion that the information is "Unnecessary and not notable" is their own POV, violating Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy. Recommend a third party review the addition to weigh in per WP:3O. —scarecroe (talk) 23:20, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Rhain that it doesn't seem like a major element worthy of inclusion here, at least not its own subsection, per WP:DUE. Feels speculative and inconsequential at this point. Popcornfud (talk) 23:44, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

It also seems that you don't really understand WP:NPOV, which doesn't prevent editors from having opinions about how articles should be written. Popcornfud (talk) 23:45, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Agreed with Rhain on this, it would be indiscriminate to list everything Neil or similar says about a potential sequel. Wait until official confirmation, then note it. Also, you can't just note in an edit summary to come here and expect that to not be "ignored", the WP:ONUS is on you as supporting inclusion of content to gain consensus for it, plus going against the WP:STATUSQUO. Thanks, Indagate (talk) 09:31, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Some of the moderation here is bizarre.....

There's a handful of other videogames & films w/ a "potential sequel" tab, so why can't TLOU2 get that luxury? 2601:1C2:1500:5190:2079:E15C:3EB0:9A64 (talk) 19:32, 24 June 2023 (UTC)