# Talk:Rain World

The great source dump for later:

 Tarlby (t) (c) 03:42, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
hi how i can help, i think this project is great!=) Mynameiskakaka? (talk) 08:00, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
I'm not sure about anything specific, but I guess you can fix some issues with the prose if you find them? Tarlby (t) (c) 14:50, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi, leaving some suggestions per request on my talk page:

I haven't updated the article much since the initial release, so any large changes since 2017 would need elaboration. For example, the initial Reception was quite scathing. Has it mellowed out since, or have review sources explicitly commented on improvements/changes since initial release? If so, the article should both describe the reception at the state of release and show how the reception became what it is today. Downpour and The Watcher both haven't had too much attention that I've seen. So if there hasn't been much written about changes, the article should stay mostly the same (i.e., with coverage proportionate to its weight in reliable sources).
Plot is super long. Should be perhaps a third of its total length, if not absorbed into the Gameplay section altogether (since this is a platformer and not a plot-driven game). WP:VGPLOT
Unclear how the new DLC game modes are accessed
Gameplay should be written for a general audience familiar with the concept of video games but with no knowledge of its jargon. It's not written that way currently.
Development info on the DLC is missing, if there have been any interviews
Reception section on DLC is short. Per above, would either need to decide to beef up the subsection if there are enough sources, or ultimately wrap the content into the larger Reception section.
The "Downpour was well received by critics" is original research if not backed by a source or series of sources that assert this. I recommend WP:CRS for advice on writing a good reception section.
What I originally wrote is almost a decade old now (wow...) but is generally close to FA prose save for my comments above. I'd feel confident it can get there, but the above notes will be a good deal of work.
There are also some sources mentioned on this talk page to be incorporated into the text for FA breadth.
An alternative to integrating the DLC into the existing sections is to create a section below the Reception that covers the DLCs as add-ons separate from the gameplay/development/reception of the core game.
czar 22:21, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

The peer review mentions these notes as being addressed. Just wanted to add that I think there is a fair amount more that can be done on most of these points. I also recommend retaining the {{r}} reference format because (a) it's easier to navigate wikicode when the refs are list-defined and (b) standard etiquette is to keep existing ref formatting unless there is consensus otherwise. czar 21:46, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
I moved the referencing format away from using {{r}} because I use visual editor. It makes that template much harder to use since I can't easily click the citation's link and look at the source without having to stop editing repeatedly which I don't like doing. I don't consider it worth it just switching it back again.
The text about Downpour is all of the reception I've found through all pages of Google that exist. Same for The Watcher. I did my best fishing for text using those sources.
I'm not sure how I would exactly cut the plot as I'm not too comfortable just removing it. The game does have a plot (much more so in Downpour) and I'm sure players are motivated to actually complete the plot, though I do concede that only one single source has talked about the narrative (without going into detail).
Unclear how the new DLC game modes are accessed I don't know what you're asking for.
I've tried making the gameplay section more simple. Could you point out some specific problems?
There's been exactly one single interview on Downpour which I used.
Tarlby (t) (c) 22:35, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
Unclear how the new DLC game modes are accessed Whether the DLC add areas to the main game, using the player's progress, or whether they are accessed as separate campaigns independent of the main game
If the Gameplay has changed since that which sources originally discussed, it should be properly re-sourced and updated. Some sentences have no direct citation and others have three or five (four is overkill for an uncontroversial point and the reader should be able to easily verify claims by looking at one or two directly relevant sources for each claim. Some concepts like a "campaign" are not defined. Or "choose the Monk and Hunter" (for what?) What is the goal of the arena and sandbox modes? The paragraph about there being different slugcat types is in a separate paragraph from the one listing the types. Read each Gameplay sentence aloud to someone that knows what video games are but hasn't played many. This is our general audience for FAC and they should be able to follow each sentence without having to ask basic questions for understanding.
There are many online tools for paraphrasing and you can feed the Plot into any one of them to give a sense of what points should be generally reduced. The point is to cover the plot proportionate to how sources cover it.
czar 11:31, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

@ConanHighwoods, WP:UGC says that wikis like the Rain World wiki is unreliable, a significant guideline described in WP:RS. I do not want to edit war, so I kindly ask that you revert your edit yourself as it is against guidelines. Tarlby (t) (c) 03:27, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

The fact that RW has multiple and significant tentacled monsters is easily verified by the wiki and a quick search online. The wiki is linked in the RW article, as the official wiki no less, so I see no problem with citing a wiki linked on the article itself. In fact the Tentacles/tentacle monsters in fiction tag is more accurate than the cats in fiction tag as slugcats are not even cats. I see no need in removing legit information from an article. I ask you to please not revert the edit as I have given sufficient proof that the tag belongs on the RW article. In fact, I will see if I can add link or so more to give even more proof. ConanHighwoods (talk) 04:18, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
I added another citation. You can actually see the tentacled beings in question...in action. There is no reason to doubt this now. Reversing it at this point would be ridiculous. ConanHighwoods (talk) 04:28, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
@ConanHighwoods WP:V and WP:RS are long-standing policies that should be followed. These sources you've cited are both wikis and are user-generated, making them unreliable and unfit for use. Please remove them. Whether the information is "true" or not doesn't matter as Wikipedia relies on secondary, reliable sources to provide its content. If you wish to keep the citations, I'll ask for assistance at WP:3O to see what someone there thinks. Tarlby (t) (c) 04:34, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
The third opinion request is now listed. Tarlby (t) (c) 04:59, 9 November 2025 (UTC)