Talk:Saints Row: The Third

Saints Row: The Third has been listed as one of the Video games good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: May 23, 2014. (Reviewed version).

A fact from Saints Row: The Third appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 15 June 2014 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the Japan release of Saints Row: The Third had the veins removed from its Penetrator weapon—a three-foot long phallus bat—due to regulatory restrictions on depictions of genitalia?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2014/June. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Saints Row: The Third.

Wikipedia

Video games Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks

AfDs

Jackpot World (1 participant)
Bejeweled Stars (5 participants)
Melee (game terminology) (3 participants)
Solo leveling: Unlimited (4 participants; relisted)
Godzilla 2: War of the Monsters (4 participants; relisted)
Godzilla: Monster of Monsters (4 participants; relisted)
Araya (video game) (4 participants; relisted)
Crazy Bus (12 participants; relisted)

Merge discussions

Other discussions

No major discussions

Additional sources

Better off here than dangling beneath the article. Not sure anything needs to be added from them, but there are listed here in case anyone is curious.

Ryckert, Dan (April 2011). "Embracing the Crazy". Game Informer (216). GameStop: 48–57.
Tom Chick interview with lead designer Scott Phillips

czar ⨹ 15:22, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Game Informer video feature

@The1337gamer, re: your edit, first, if you disagreed with my revert, the proper next step would be to take it to the talk page for discussion rather than reverting it again (edit warring). Second, if you meant WP:ELNO#1 (not WP:VG/EL), the link (Game Informer video features) certainly provides a resource past FA-quality references. The link is to a portal of exclusive and copyrighted video features pertaining to the development of the game. They'd be cumbersome (and shortsighted, seeing as how quickly sites are offlined recently) to reference, and provide a visual history of the development process that can't be explained through referenced prose alone. That much should be straightforward just from a cursory browse through it. Please revert your revert. czar ⨹ 12:22, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The first point under inappropriate external links at WP:VG/EL says: "The video game's page at 1UP.com, GameSpot, IGN, GameSpy, GameFAQs or any other commercial video game news, reviews or walkthrough sites - Such links can be seen as promotion of the associated commercial sites." It's a link to GI's hub for their monthly coverage of the game. I'd say it falls under this. I don't see how it is any different from the exclusion of hub pages from other games websites regardless of whether some coverage is exclusive or in video form. Any useful information used within the article can be referenced the usual way. GI's video features were referenced individually in Halo: Reach, Halo 4, Batman: Arkham Knight, The Last of Us. The same can be done here if necessary. Additionally, I just checked through every Wiki article that GI has a coverage hub on (list here) and not a single one has an external link to the GI hub. --The1337gamer (talk) 12:34, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @The1337gamer, that first point is a reference to indices like this at Polygon or this at IGN, not the type of site under discussion. There's no way the GI link can be misconstrued as promotion—I laid out what specific benefits the page has over FA-quality references. Not sure why the other GI hubs are of importance, but the SR3 portal is of particular benefit to this article for its number of video features. The other hubs are more or less a collection of print articles and are not the same. czar ⨹ 13:19, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you check through each one individually because they are nearly all of similar importance to the Saint's Row 3 with equal coverage and scope. There's just as many video features on other hubs as this one. And as before, other articles reference to features within prose, it can be done here to. --The1337gamer (talk) 13:33, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I had spot-checked a number of the hubs and they were all series of text-based articles. Even if they were identical, I'm not making a case based on how a link to the hub would work in another article. In the context of this article, the link provides a concentrated slew of copyrighted content related to the subject that we would not be able to host within the article. Edit consensus (including its GA nomination) is to keep the link unless you have a consensus otherwise. Please revert your revert. czar ⨹ 01:27, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well I don't agree with it's inclusion but if a consensus has already passed to include it in this article then I'll revert. --The1337gamer (talk) 10:00, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Saints Row: The Third – The Full Package

There is a small mention about the Saints Row: The Third – The Full Package. Could some of you wise people please clarify / elaborate whether the content comes with the Disc(s) or whether it is DLC content or a mix of both. Compare and contrast the [S.R.T.3rd - The Full Package version] to the original/standard Saints Row: The Third package or(Greatest Hits if it came like that please. Why is matters? At this point for people looking to buy this game used which is all I've been able to find so far, it's extremely difficult to find out whether the Disc(s) are all that are needed to get the extra packs/content or whether that was DLC content - also if any expiration information IF there is a DLC component... It would be very helpful if someone who knows that information could please fill out that section. - TIA

Sources don't indicate whether the content is a disc download or an Internet-based code, if that's your question. But this is an encyclopedia, not a buyer's guide. Usually Amazon reviews are best for figuring out this sort of thing. Otherwise it should be clear that the "Full Package" edition comes with the three DLC packs and all bonus content.[1] czar 19:17, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the reply. It's relevant information for an "encyclopedia" to list what comes with a game especially expanded content for subsequent editions of a game for that game titles specific wiki page. Also whether content is obtained via 1 x use code or is provided on a disc, otherwise its incomplete information, what isn't relevant is what an intended user of the wiki is seeking it for, not the same thing (of course all will have an opinion about the matter and that is fine). Just as a clarification, "The Full Package" is a (minor) misnomer, it does not come with all the bonus content, there are two packs not included (not including platform proprietary content available on a PC). http://saintsrow.wikia.com/wiki/Saints_Row:_The_Third_-_The_Full_Package — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.188.252.171 (talk) 20:35, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You may find it helpful, but our job is to present the reliable sources, not to find the truth. The logic is that journalists would cover your concern if it was shared widely. Our "encyclopedic" is defined by what secondary sources find important. czar 21:06, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]