# Talk:Watch Dogs 2

Hello, I would like to propose the date format to be changed to dmy to keep consistency with Watch Dogs. Opinions? Lordtobi (✉) 09:51, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Since the game is developed by Ubisoft Montreal, I would suggest whatever date system is used by Canada (I believe it's dmy, but I could be wrong). The same is done for films (American films use American English writing conventions, British films use British English, etc.) so it would make sense to do that here. -RM (talk) 13:43, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
I don't think Canada is using any specific format. I also don't think it is necessary to keep it in line with the first game. As long as the date format in this article is consistent it is going to be fine. AdrianGamer (talk) 15:12, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
According to WP:DATETIES, Canada uses both, mdy and dmy. However, DATETIES itself does not take effect as there is no strong tie to the country. Therefore the consistency with Watch Dogs 1 is prioritized. Lordtobi (✉) 15:50, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Three years later, I would like to pick this up again. Somewhere in the process, I changed this article to dmy, while Watch Dogs independently assumed mdy. The newly-announced Watch Dogs: Legion also uses mdy. Thus I'm reverting my edit to bring all articles of the series in line. Lordtobi (✉) 07:15, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Since I am wanting to avoid WP:3RR, please here me now, DatGuy. As already mentioned before, the content added is currently not verifiable, and not held up by neither primary nor secondary sources. Easily, one could wait for the game to come out and the closing credits to appear, but that is not the case yet. Especially in the infobox, we only keep lead roles in certain fields; in the first Watch Dogs, Kevin Shortt was the lead writer, and Madeleine Hart and Ethan Petty (as well as left-out Li Kuo) are "just" scriptwriters, and are not given any special attention, especially apart from Shortt. Combining these, you have unverifyable, unsourced facts based on an inaccessible statement by someone claiming to be from Ubisoft, disputed, and unconform to Wikipedia guidelines. Therefore, please clean those out again or search for reliable sources that support your statements. Lordtobi (✉) 12:09, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
--The full credits are out now, all 8 writers have equal credit (at the 2 minute mark)  
Madeleine Hart, Jesse Daniel Scoble, James Russell Lees,  Ethan Petty,  Jared Schincariol, Diana Rose Sherman, Lucien Soulban, Leanne Taylor-Giles. 
I'm not sure if you wanted to give all 8 credit or remove them from the infobox as there was no lead writer?   192.222.148.133 (talk) 05:08, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi. I understand shortening the Verge review if the reception section here was very long, but it's almost empty without it. And the Good Article nomination for Watch Dogs was denied because the reception section was too small. Why not at least keep the full review until you have other reviews in the section as well? LocalNet (talk) 15:46, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Pinging Cognissonance for answer. LocalNet (talk) 15:55, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
No reason to have filler for the sake of it. Watch Dogs 2 is a long way from being GA ready. Cognissonance (talk) 16:01, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
How is it "filler"? The section needs to have reviews, and even if a long one, it still provides a lot of value for the time being. I just don't see how your reason is supposed to make it okay to remove material that clearly serves a benefit. Again, I could understand shortening if section had 40 reviews, but it has 0 excluding that one. LocalNet (talk) 16:09, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
This is release day. More reviews are coming in as we speak. "the time being" won't last that long. Cognissonance (talk) 17:01, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
I just have to laugh at how you're trying to defend removal of content - with no content replacing it yet - on release day. You should add info from reviews right now, not remove it. I was personally intending to write more about other reviews, but I'm not exactly feeling enthusiastic about that now. Good luck with the article! LocalNet (talk) 17:29, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
You're one to talk. Why The Verge was used in place of Destructoid and Game Revolution is beyond me. Cognissonance (talk) 17:53, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Watch Dogs 2/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: ProtoDrake (talk · contribs) 10:04, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

I'll accept this review. If I haven't posted comments and suggestions by Friday, ping me. --ProtoDrake (talk) 10:04, 5 June 2017 (UTC)


#### Review
a young hacker from Oakland, California - Why is his birthplace important to the gameplay?
Marcus Holloway (Ruffin Prentiss), an intelligent twenty-four year old hacker from Oakland, California - Why is his age important? Also, his birthplace again?
the city's ctOS 2.0 - Elsewhere it's referred to as a singular entity rather than related to something.
Raymond "T-Bone" Kenney (John Tench), who is determined to battle Blume. - Isn't T-Bone a character from the original game? If he is, this bears mentioning.
take down the ringleaders of the Tezcas, one of the local gangs after they kidnap Horatio and kill him after he refuses to cooperate with them. - This sentence is rather confusing, and features repetition of the word "after". Also, this is the only place Tezcas is mentioned and doesn't seem to play a role in the rest of the plot, so why is it being treated as such a major part of the narrative?
was developed by Ubisoft Reflections, the developer of Ubisoft's own Driver series - Link Ubisoft Reflections.
Also, while it's said in the infobox that Reflections, Ubisoft Paris, Ubisoft Toronto, Ubisoft Bucharest aren't mentioned in the development section at all.
Ubisoft Montreal made frequent scouting trips to California to research the setting - From novice and those who didn't read the infobox: "Is Ubi Montreal the main developer?"
A general note about the references: many of them don't have the accessdate value in place or filled, but this isn't strictly necessary for a pass.
And good thing too. I do not see accessdate= as useful information. Cognissonance (talk) 02:47, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
That's what I saw that stood out this time. --ProtoDrake (talk) 13:14, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

@Cognissonance: I guess there's nothing overtly wrong with the article now, just more along the lines of stylistic choices. I'll Pass this. --ProtoDrake (talk) 08:16, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

I reverted this edit because to me it seems the writers were removed from this article after Cognissonance used it in an attempted compromise on Talk:Detroit: Become Human/GA1 without a proper discussion here. The two scenarios are unrelated to each other so I restored the writers here until a proper discussion happens. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 10:52, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

It's an uncontroversial edit. 1, there shouldn't be more than three in the parameter. 2, none of them are credited as lead writer(s). Cognissonance (talk) 12:20, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
@Cognissonance: In normal circumstances it would have been an uncontroversial edit however this article was referenced as part of a compromise in relation to the ongoing discussion Talk:Detroit: Become Human#Adam Williams during its Good Article review you offered the using the note for the infobox similar to how it is used in this article beside Ubisoft Montreal in the developer field here. However when it was pointed out that this article had 8 writers in the infobox you removed them with the reasoning "no lead writer".[1] Then in the GAN review of Detroit: Become Human you were called out for this.[2] This in turn makes the edit a controversial one because it is similar to an ongoing discussion of a similar issue. While I know it was not your intention to an un-involved third party that reads through the GAN review this could be seen in a negative way such as you edited this article to match your reasoning as to why Adam Williams shouldn't be included in the infobox of Detroit: Become Human since David Cage is the lead writer for that game and credits for that game don't give Williams that distinction. Again while I know this wasn't your attention it can also be viewed as biting the newcomer who raised objection to not include Adam Williams in the infobox of the other article and their subseqent objections to that article and since they also pointed out this article has 8 writers in the GAN review of Detroit: Become Human.[3]
For the second part of the reasoning in the infobox syntax guide while fields like director, producer, designer, etc. have a clear guideline like If a single person is credited as "Lead designer", list that person; synonyms for this position include "[game] design director" and "lead planner"; followed by If there is no equivalent to #1, omit this field; the writer field does not have this guideline.
The guidance for the writer field gives guidance on how writers should be listed in order it states The popular names of the video game writers. The names can wikilinked. The writers should be listed in the order of their contribution, with those who wrote the game's scenarios/scripts listed before the game's story writers. 1 If a single person is credited as "scenario director" or "scenario writer", list that person; synonyms for this position include "lead writer"; 2 If there is a person credited as "scenario concept writer" or "[original] concept", also list that person here; 3 List no more than three people in this field.
For this article all 8 writers are "script writers" and therefor explicitly meet the guidelines. The only cap here is a recommended limit of 3 writers maximum however as with the example with the syntax guide, The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess story & script writers qualify and can be included in the writer(s) field and also exceeds the recommended guideline of 3 writers maximum. As mentioned by the IP in Talk:Watch Dogs 2#Writers (with a video of the game's actual closing credits) there are 8 people equally credited with "scriptwriters" therefore based on The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess and the template's own syntax guide all 8 of them must be listed since they all share the same credit unless there is a discussion and consensus reached to remove them. None of the writers for this game was given "lead scriptwritter" credit and if 1 of the 8 were then in this case it would be okay to only list the lead so the table doesn't exceed the 3 limit guideline.  ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 23:24, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

All caps and an underscore is a not notable stylization and should be omitted from the lead sentence. Involving unusual typefaces, symbols and other non-standard elements is common in promotional and cover art and should only be reflected in our prose if notable and consistently used by sources (which this isn't).
For a related discussion about noting stylized titles, see the WP:ALBUMS discussion here [[4]]. Popcornduff (talk) 14:34, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

I suggest we keep the stylisation to keep it in line with MOS:TMSTYLE. Also not sure how this is considered not notable considering it is used across two of its games with a similiar stylisation in the first. Although as a compromise we could have it as a note like in Red Dead Redemption 2.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 14:48, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
We don't make decisions about notability based on things like "it was used in the box art for two games". Notability comes from coverage in reliable sources.
I would not support a note as it's not notable there either. Popcornduff (talk) 14:57, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
Just becuase it is not consistently used in sources to refer to it, it does not mean it should not be used. Author's of articles about Watch Dogs 2 may simply want to use the non-stylisation for simplicity's sake. It is still noted on their official site [5] and others [6] [7] [8].  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 19:32, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
Support. "Just becuase it is not consistently used in sources to refer to it, it does not mean it should not be used." I'd agree if it was an alternative name. However, it's just in allcaps with a stylized _ to make it seem more cyber, so I don't really think we need to note this at all. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 17:12, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
@Dissident93: But this would violate the consensus met at MOS:TMSTYLE; What would your thoughts be on a efn note like in Red Dead Redemption 2?  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 18:00, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
Who could that Red Dead note possibly be helping? This is pure nerdism - cataloging beyond sense. Popcornduff (talk) 18:36, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
As already stated it helps meet MOS:TMSTYLE.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 19:35, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
Whatever the outcome may be, this should be kept consistent with Watch Dogs. Funnily enough, Watch Dogs: Legion dropped the underscore. Lordtobi (✉) 17:24, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
Popcornduff (talk) 18:36, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
I could take it or leave it. Everywhere (video game) has a stylization because of the Ǝ, which made sense because it's unusual. Not sure with Watch Dogs when it comes to the underscore, whereas Observer (video game) includes the >. For titles that are just simply all caps, you don't even need to write it out. Cognissonance (talk) 00:27, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Change 1996 to 2014 Mo1StCrtiKAL12 (talk) 00:30, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Looks like that's already been done. —C.Fred (talk) 00:38, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
yeah i edited it to 2014 instead of 1996 Mo1StCrtiKAL12 (talk) 01:34, 11 November 2024 (UTC)