# Talk:Sleeping Dogs (video game)

@Czar Starting a new section as the old one is kinda too big. URDNEXT (talk) 23:54, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Czar What are some of the objectives we have to acomplish? I think a list is helpful, so here's are some of my thoughts:

Expand gameplay section with Jade Statues, Health Shrines, and Status Buffs.
Expand the Anita Sarkesian stuff as it's missing a lot of stuff she mentions in her video. Necessary for taking the article to FA.
Talk about the marketing Activision did for True Crime as well, though I'm not sure if necessary.
URDNEXT (talk) 00:18, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I started to edit and fact check the new dev section and I'm a bit worried. I'm trying to match the facts in the articles to info in the sources and I'm having a hard time (e.g., "HBO crime drama" or "180" employees). Can you confirm that everything in the dev section actually appears in the sources cited? As for the other stuff, I'm happy to put stuff in the text if you just let me know what source needs to go where. And I think the Sarkeesian mention is ample as is. Anything more would be undue weight. czar ♔ 01:41, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
In fact, I think that's the main next step, as you asked. This article has been revised so much that we need someone to verify that the citations actually source the sentences that precede it. czar ♔ 01:42, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
@URDNEXT, do you have anything on why Activision abruptly cancelled the game? Or about how things went under Square Enix? We have holes in that story right now. czar ♔ 02:06, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
[1] Has the quote Act gave when they cancelled the game. Ref <ref name="AutoQB-17"/> has the source to the employee count stuff.
HBO crime drama stuff at [2], by the way. 
[3] talks about how Square Enix got the title back wokrking, and why they bought the publishing rights. @Czar As to the other sources, let me know if you find any other holes. URDNEXT (talk) 14:29, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
@Czar so, is there any way you can copy edit the last paragraph of development (not design)? URDNEXT (talk) 14:21, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thanks. I'll add that stuff. Two things: (1) add <code><nowiki> tags around things like <ref name="AutoQB-17"/> to get them to display properly, and (2) I edited that section last night, though it should change when I add these sources. If you do have the time, we need to do that line-by-line fact checking because you don't want that to wait until the source check at FAC czar ♔ 14:36, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Sounds good to me, @Czar. The only thing that got me kind of confused is, do we do that thing with the code wiki to every citation in the article or just develpment. URDNEXT (talk) 14:52, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
The code/wiki thing is only for when you want to make a piece of code readable (such as your <ref name="AutoQB-17"/> above, which shows as a footnote instead of text if I don't use the code/wiki). It's not for use in video game articles. czar ♔ 14:55, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Do you have a secondary source for "United Front Games laid off 120 employees almost overnight"? We're currently using Square Enix czar ♔ 14:57, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
[4] Here you go, @Czar. Is it good? URDNEXT (talk) 14:59, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
"I sure have. It was tough. When Activision canceled the game, we had 180 people and shrunk down to 60 almost overnight. At that point, we started looking at a number of options: leave the game altogether and make something else, talking to other publishers about it... We had poured so much of ourselves in the game, we wanted to finish it." - quote at [5] by the way. Czar URDNEXT (talk) 15:07, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
The Joystiq one works. I'm worried about using the sleepingdogs.net source because it has that age gate that doesn't allow the content to be archived. Eventually that site will go offline and we'll have to pull the source. czar ♔ 15:14, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
So what do we do now? Czar URDNEXT (talk) 15:24, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm trying to work on the section but it's hard because you keep pinging me! The major next step is making sure that all of the current citations are correct, because a lot of them were not. This means checking that if a part of the text has two citations that follow two sentences later, both citations confirm that sentence, you know? czar ♔ 15:26, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
We have a problem. Much of the dev section is not linked to the proper sources. Not sure when that happened. URD, since you built most of the new section, can you handle that before I continue editing? If we have to strike whole sections, I don't want to waste time if we can't source it czar ♔ 17:17, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
I'll handle it, Czar. URDNEXT (talk) 17:38, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
@Czar @Tezero Here are some things we need to adress in the article:
- Purchase vehicles
- Shooting
- Driving, action hijack
URDNEXT (talk) 01:34, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Sure, but I'm foremost concerned about the source verifiability czar ♔ 01:38, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Czar Does the problem involve the whole article or just development? URDNEXT (talk) 01:40, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Haven't tested the other sections czar ♔ 01:43, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
@Czar So far, development has almost no problems with the references, except for #31, which doesn't mention the inclusion of Tony Ciccone in the game's development. Now let's see design... URDNEXT (talk) 02:16, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

There's an open "not in citation given" tag, and the HBO quote is not in its citation, for example czar ♔ 02:21, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Czar Took care of the HBO thing. By the way, what do we do with the citation given tag? URDNEXT (talk) 02:25, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
It can be cleared once the fact is updated to match the source or vice versa czar ♔ 02:35, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Done. Also finished checking the entire development section. It's all good, Czar URDNEXT (talk) 02:37, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Where do we go from here, @Czar? I just fact checked the entire article, and it' all good. URDNEXT (talk) 13:30, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I think we should write about the fact that the developers also developed another game while makeing Sleeping Dogs. URDNEXT (talk) 14:18, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
I suppose you could add that, but it doesn't warrant more than a brief mention. For the record, I don't think this article is quite near FA-quality prose just yet, and I'm not even sure it covers everything adequately. Curious what Tez would think, but I saw your comment on GP64's talk page so I wanted to say something. If you were to nominate it, I'd try to help it pass as best as possible, but I doubt it would pass as I don't think it meets the criteria myself czar ♔ 19:27, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
@Czar What do you thonk we should do to meet the criteria? Also, can you go over the prose issues for me, as I'm not that good at it yet? URDNEXT (talk) 19:29, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
It's not like it's just one thing... to start, I'd want to make sure that the source verifiability actually holds throughout the article. The miscellaneous sections are also in short paragraphs, choppy, kind of scattered in terms of what they present and the types of sources they use. The big cast list needs to be redistributed somewhere else (and to be less of a cast list, which is outside WP:VGSCOPE), and so on. All in all, the prose just needs refinement, like read aloud to make sure it sounds good, makes sense, is mellifluous, etc. czar ♔ 19:34, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
@Czar I'll handle the cast thing, and I think the source verifiability is not needed as I'm pretty confident all the sources are reliable. The only thing I can't do is just like I said before, the prose. Is there any way you can handle that? URDNEXT (talk) 19:43, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
I can. I'll keep working on it. And by source verifiability I meant that the facts mentioned are actually in the source (not that the sources are themselves unreliable). czar ♔ 19:53, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
@Czar Thanks! And I get it now what verifiable is. It's pretty easy to keep the article stable source-wise, as long as we don't delete too many references. URDNEXT (talk) 19:56, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Hey Czar, I wrote this list of things that can be useful to the article: - Alt caption for synopsis and design pics, elaborate more about the definitive edition on marketing and release, and to mention purchasing vehicles, Shooting and Driving, action hijack in the gameplay section. Overall, I believe if we get this out of the way, we can get to FA easily coverage-wise. Is there any way you could incoporate this in the article? URDNEXT (talk) 00:07, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Moved from my talk page to keep this all in one place. I'm watching this page so you don't need to ping or send talk page messages unless I've missed something in particular. Incorporate what? That list of things? I suppose I could, but I'm working on the prose first. Do you have links that mention those things? czar ♔ 14:32, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
the Alt captions don't really need any sourcing. [6] should cover the vehicle thing, as well as the classes for purchasing them. [7] should be enough to cover the definitive edition stuff. [8] mentions the action hijack and sheds some light on the driving mechanics. Czar Any review should cover the shooting mechanics, so for that, just go with whatever you're confortable with. URDNEXT (talk) 15:02, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
@Czar URDNEXT (talk) 01:06, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Saw this, just can't do it right now. Not sure that Big Red Barrel site is reliable either czar ♔ 01:08, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
@Czar It's alright. Meanwhile, I'll try to work on something else. URDNEXT (talk) 01:11, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

This article is about a game created by British and Canadian companies, and set in Hong Kong. It seems to have been started with American English spelling but is currently mainly in British English, with a language tag added a few months ago that it should be in American English. It's hard to see per WP:TIES why it would be in American English rather than Canadian or British, but perhaps there is a reason. Is there? In any case, it should all be spelled consistently and the tag should match the article. --John (talk) 22:16, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I've always assumed that video game articles go by publisher and that dialect variations default to American if the pertinent country is non-Anglophone, but failing that, I think either British or Canadian would be acceptable. Tezero (talk) 22:23, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
As a matter of content, Hong Kong was a British colony until 1997 and fully stopped using the Westminster system in 2009. Maybe that's a point for BE but since it's a Canadian company Canadian spelling suffices too. Ugh. Trust me on this, I'm an expert on ENGVAR now. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 22:34, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Oh, I know. It's just that since the British company also has a hand in this game, that point's a little redundant. I wouldn't object to, say, a Nigerian developer's game using British date ordering in its article even if the game was in Yoruba. Tezero (talk) 22:40, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Aha, as a matter of curiosity Nigeria uses British English too! During the happy ANI discussion I had to research almost every country in the world and find out what form of English they used. Anyway back on topic, what form of English should Sleeping Dogs use? Would anyone mind if it stayed in American English? ☠ Jaguar ☠ 22:48, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
That's what I was thinking. Jaguar, I remember that discussion. I will be bold and support the article being in British English as in Square Enix Europe being in Britain and the game being set and some work done in Hong Kong, over Canadian English as in United Front Games. I don't think American English is an option. --John (talk) 22:51, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
That is a good point, in that case I'll support the use of British English too due to the prominence. Canadian English is also an option but I think it has less dominance? ☠ Jaguar ☠ 22:57, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Cool, let's go with that for now. --John (talk) 23:04, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Although I'm an american, and don't know much about british english, I think if you guys are gonna have an easier time writing that way, I'll support the idea. The only problem is I'm gonna have to be careful when writing, but that's a minor issue. URDNEXT (talk) 00:28, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
When an English variety's consistent usage has been established in an article, maintain it in the absence of consensus to the contrary. With few exceptions (e.g. when a topic has strong national ties or a term/spelling carries less ambiguity), there is no valid reason for such a change. MOS:RETAIN. This article is about a video game that has no strong national ties. I'm opposed to this proposed change. czar ♔ 00:31, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
As I say, this article is about a computer game co-written by an English and a Canadian company and set in Hong Kong, so it clearly does have significant national ties. Normally I would support RETAIN, but this is more of a TIES case I think. --John (talk) 20:07, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
What I meant is that I see no precedent in a product manufacturer's nationality being a strong national tie (and, additionally, such a precedent would be really dangerous). The examples on the guideline page are all strong national affiliations, something that exclusively took place in a specific nation. With this game, you could argue that it's presented in American English  (AmEng subtitles) and designed for a primarily American audience. There's little evidence that the developer's nationality strongly influenced the product, nevertheless created a strong enough tie to rephrase its entire encyclopedia article. czar ♔ 15:57, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
That is a good point, as for example that would mean that every Grand Theft Auto article would be written in British English or every Assassin's Creed article would be in Canadian English if the developer's were supported through MOS:TIES. I don't know. There are two interesting sides to this but maybe this is a sort of debate that can be hosted for a wider discussion? ☠ Jaguar ☠ 19:43, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
It depends who's strong-arming it (or should I say strongnat-arming it? ho ho ho). I wrote the original drafts of several game articles that I promptly stopped maintaining after an external editor swooped in with strongnat. I have less interest in maintaining an article made more difficult for me to maintain. No one was better off. (And I'll add that the GTA games are distinctly American in culture and audience despite being developed overseas.) I think it has more to do with respect for previous maintainers than with sitewide strongnat policy, which I don't see being clarified any time soon. Suffice it to say that I think a strongnat claim is a stretch for this article and for almost every other video game article. czar ♔ 20:23, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, Lego Star Wars II had an English developer and one of its two publishers was English, but American English has been the standard throughout since before I started working on it - presumably because Star Wars is recognizably American. No one has contested this unspoken standard as far as I'm aware, and if someone was it'd become distinctly less pleasant to be tied to as an editor. Tezero (talk) 03:47, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
What an interesting situation! The trouble with "unspoken standards" is that it is difficult for editors to adhere to them if they have not been discussed anywhere. That's why we have agreements like Engvar. The good news is that the GTA articles seem to conform to TIES as they (at least the ones I looked at) use British English, quite correct for games developed by a Scottish software house. I cannot see anywhere it has been discussed, though I may have missed it, and neither are the ones I looked at tagged for language. GTA V couldn't have reached FA without conforming to Engvar as MoS compliance is one of the criteria. In order to pass FA this article too must fully comply with Engvar and other standards. In case others are labouring under the same misunderstanding, I will raise this matter at the video games project. --John (talk) 06:15, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
The late GTA articles were strongarmed to British English too (see early page history of Grand Theft Auto Online)—you're talking about games set and popularized in the United States having a strong national tie to the UK since it was made there? Doesn't follow. Anyway, off-topic for this talk page and there was no consensus for the proposed change above. czar 19:09, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

I completed the first mission of DZS-90 on sleeping dogs, i tried to go to the 2nd mission, but it wasnt there. Someone help. 2600:100B:B103:3473:44AF:199B:9760:E934 (talk) 22:10, 3 April 2022 (UTC)