Talk:Grand Theft Auto V

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject iconVital articles FA‑class(Level 5)
WikiProject iconGrand Theft Auto V has been listed as a level-5 vital article in Life. If you can improve it, please do.
 FAThis article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Featured articleGrand Theft Auto V is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 17, 2015, and on September 17, 2023.
In the news Article milestones
June 13, 2008Articles for deletionDeleted
September 24, 2013Good article nomineeNot listed
November 4, 2013Good article nomineeListed
March 11, 2014Peer reviewReviewed
April 20, 2014Guild of Copy EditorsCopyedited
May 4, 2014Featured article candidatePromoted
In the news A news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on September 22, 2013.
Current status: Featured article

The $6 billion revenue figure

I've checking the Market Watch source and looks like they cite Box Office Mojo and Take Two but also International Business Times and VGChartz [1]. Maybe we should remove the figure? Timur9008 (talk) 11:17, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Rhain what do you think? Timur9008 (talk) 11:21, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Timur9008: I wouldn't read into the "Source" part too much; presumably, those are just the sources for the smaller points within the image (e.g., Box Office Mojo for Avatar's gross and budget, International Business Times for GTA V's budget, VGChartz for sales by platform). The US$6 billion figure itself is still sourced to MarketWatch's analyst/s, and the article presents it as such, so I don't have a major problem with it. I definitely wouldn't be opposed to seeing the website discussed at WP:RSN or WT:VG/S, though. Rhain (he/him) 11:16, 17 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks! I will probably put Market Watch up for discussion at WT:VG/S some other day Timur9008 (talk) 11:21, 17 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Clear consensus to merge. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 04:46, 14 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Similar issue to the GTA IV controversies article, is very overextended when it could easily be discussed in the main article when pared down. Negative aspects are given WP:UNDUE levels of prominence compared to their relative importance. The portrayal of women section in particular seems like it would be better off in the series article, Grand Theft Auto#Controversies, since it is an aspect shared by most if not all of the series games rather than specific to GTA V. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ () 12:47, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would also put forth the idea of splitting off or otherwise removing the table of awards, since it would reduce the article size and make the controversy easier to integrate into the article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ () 12:50, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It was split once before, but consensus was to merge in 2020. Removal doesn't seem like a logical option, though, and I see no issues with the article size as is. – Rhain (he/him) 01:21, 23 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose This is already long enough article as-is, and its controversies were significantly noted by RS coverage so trimming it down to this already big article would not give it enough DUE prominence. It also does not make since to just remove the table of awards since it meets WP:VG/AWARDS.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 13:12, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The question here is whether the controversies affected the game in any meaningful way. The answer is no. The most that happened is some copies being pulled from store shelves in a single minor market of a worldwide game. Most works of media will have some amount of controversy, it should be highlighted in a separate article when it has a significant affect on the game or society at large, which didn't happen here. Mortal Kombat, on the other hand, prompted a Congressional hearing and video game rating legislation. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ () 15:06, 22 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I do not think a Congressional hearing is the threhold to get a separate article on controversies nor is it stated in GNG. It had significant coverage regarding the portrayal of women and torture which was disscussed around release, and signficantly after release thus I believe it warrants a separate article, especially as this article is rather lengthy for a VG article.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 20:32, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree that it should be merged into the GTA 5 article because then the people don’t have to go to another page just to see the controversies of gta 5 (talk) 23:58, 24 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support per WP:CSECTION and WP:POVFORK. The bar is very high when you want to spin out a controversy section because it is very susceptible to violating NPOV and becoming a coatrack for grievances. The controversy article is not so long that it can't be merged here verbatim without trimming, which should alleviate Spy-cicle's DUE concerns. Indeed, the mere existence of an article prominently called "CONTROVERSIES ABOUT X" can in and of itself constitute UNDUE weight on the the side of controversy/disparagement (as warned in CSECTION). I oppose splitting out the accolades list. Accolades tables are not prose and do not count against word/character count as measured by WP:SIZESPLIT. Axem Titanium (talk) 03:31, 30 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support, since it's not a long article anyway and does not necessitate a separate article. Theknine2 (talk) 14:35, 15 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose. We do tend to give negative aspects significantly inflated prominence in many articles, and merging here would give them even more undue prominence. Merging it here verbatim would destroy NPOV, while keeping it separate allows it to be documented without giving it undue weight. Also roughly oppose a trim & merge, since the current length of the section seems about right, and ultimately, per ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ, most of this criticism had low lasting significance. DFlhb (talk) 08:23, 17 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    This assumes the controversies cannot be trimmed down to a size that allows them to fit. The controversies stated in the article are already vastly overinflated and can easily be trimmed without losing any information of note to a typical reader. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ () 08:53, 17 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I'd be fine with that, then. DFlhb (talk) 11:56, 17 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support per Axem. Sergecross73 msg me 16:05, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I'm split on this (heh). I wrote this article in fundamental disagreement with the reviewers about sexism, but included the commentary in good faith as the point was echoed in multiple sources. The vacuous writing is not exclusive to women. The game revels wholly in misanthropy; the male cast are just as paper-thin and imbued with an insufferable machismo. The game's writing was poor when it released and has aged even poorer; the satire bites at times but has little of substance to say. I suppose the article has become something of a time capsule; the "controversy" was a flashpoint at the time, especially in the wake of Gamergate, but unless I'm missing something in more recent sources, the lasting effects weren't there. It's worth investigating this before any action takes place, as the bulk of the article discussing the depiction of women has not been updated in years. I have no strong feelings either way; I note that there should be coverage but have no qualms if someone wanted to pare it down and/or merge. — CR4ZE (TC) 15:39, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I think have found some academic articles regarding controversy. This 16 page peer-reviewed discusses the controversy of the "By the Book" published in 2022 (
 Wills, J. (2021) ‘“Ain’t the American Dream Grand”: Satirical Play in Rockstar’s Grand Theft Auto V’, European journal of American studies, 16(3). doi: 10.4000/ejas.17274.) demonstrating some level of sustained coverage. [2] [3] [4] which discuss the scene which signifantly discuss the torture mission long after release.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 20:30, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support – Per WP:POVFORK, and the current "Controversies" section, if expanded, could cover needed information from the standalone article. DecafPotato (talk) 19:35, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Electing to close this discussion as Not merged, as aside from the nominator, the result has been unanimous and the discussion has been openseveral weeks now. At the very least, the result changing would require a significant sharp turn in the consensus to even reach a no consensus result. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 20:36, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Development of Grand Theft Auto V is not a very long article, and could be quite easily integrated into the 'Development' and 'Release' sections of the main article, especially since there is already some overlap. Additionally, content like the 'Promotion' section about the game's launch marketing, should be better suited in the main article, rather than the article regarding the game's development. Other expansive games like Ghost of Tsushima easily accomodate an extensive Development section without necessitating splitting off into a separate article. Theknine2 (talk) 14:46, 15 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Oppose GTA V is one of the largest and best selling games of all time, and the article is huge. If any game's development could have its own page it would be this one. By saying this article is undue, you are essentially arguing that every article in Category:Development of specific video games doesn't need to exist. I think rather than trying to merge individual pages, you should discuss that more existential question at WP:VG. However, my opinion is that the development of games is a lot less undue to split off than, say, individual minor controversies with little impact. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ () 15:05, 15 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose. GTA V sits at 39 kB readable, Development at 35 kB—both pretty standard lengths, and combining them would put the main at roughly 66 kB (74 kB if the above merge discussion is successful), which is certainly long enough to justify the split. The game's development was notable for its length, cost, and scale—not to mention the game's extensive marketing—so unlike, say Ghost of Tsushima (44 kB, FWIW), I believe it has individual notability. – Rhain (he/him) 15:07, 15 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Draft it first. Rhain brings up a good point about the length, but I see substantial repeated coverage across the two articles and also the 'extra headroom' so to speak in the split out dev article seems to have attracted some purple prose and coatracking of minutia. I think there's plenty of room to slim down the latter to the point where a merge is not an unreasonable option. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:22, 15 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose. A {{ping}} would have been courteous. By what rationale do you assert the claim the article is "not very long"? Rhain's already brought up the numbers; readable prose size in both articles is comfortable, but a merge would put the parent article into the upper threshold of "split needed" per WP:WHENSPLIT. Any "overlap" in content is a result of WP:SUMMARYSTYLE, but having worked extensively with both articles, I don't see it. Development sub-articles should stand alone when both; the articles in question are scoped to stay focused on their respective topics, and when the development of a specific video game meets notability. GTA V's development was a landmark undertaking for the industry as a whole, and this is reflected in its coverage by independent, third-party sources. The coatrack argument above is a bit of a misnomer. I don't see writing outside the scope of the development history of the game, and further, I've copy-edited minutiae from the article several times over the years. Both articles have passed all assessment processes and appeared as TFAs, so colour me perplexed by the out-of-the-blue merger probe many, many years on. — CR4ZE (TC) 15:21, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose because a merge would make the article too big, and the development meets WP:GNG. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:13, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose. Way too much to comfortably fit in without hurting the article or losing information. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 18:11, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose The article has large amount of textual information and furthermore it should be noted that Grand Theft Auto V has been a global cultural phenomenon as a result the game should have its own development page, also to note is that the development of Grand Theft Auto V article page is too large to fit into a single page. ⭐️ Starkex ⭐️ 📧 ✍️ 12:56, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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.


Why is this article in British English? Sure, Rockstar North is a British studio, but the publisher (and developer's owner), Rockstar Games, is American, and the game is set in America. gangplank galleon (talk) 07:13, 19 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nobody has really made a strong argument about the topic having strong national ties, so we retain the existing variety of English. Rhain (he/him) 07:21, 19 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
the game was made in the usa, and the subject matter is entirely of the usa. nothing about this game has uk ties. Iljhgtn (talk) 03:25, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The game was made by Rockstar North which is in the UK. Masem (t) 04:11, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
the content of the game is all about america, along with the rest of the series. if i am alone in this thinking that this article should be usa english then nvm. Iljhgtn (talk) 17:46, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was also quite surprised by this tbh - but I suppose the letter of WP:ENGVAR says we generally don't change variety once one's already established. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 18:24, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"generally" i guess, but looks to me like this would make a lot more sense to be usa english here.. Iljhgtn (talk) 18:38, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not really. The developer's location is the closest tie we have, and based on it, the author of the articles used British English years ago. It is consistent across all GTA articles. IceWelder [] 18:45, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
ya, i just saw that too. ok nvm then Iljhgtn (talk) 18:47, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
if Rockstar North ends up making a GTA game that takes place in a fictional london or something maybe then, but otherwise the GTA games should be usa english i feel. i just checked now and apparently all of the other GTA games, which are deeply american games, are also written in british english Iljhgtn (talk) 18:46, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Grand Theft Auto: London 1969. IceWelder [] 19:03, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
well i guess that proves its already been done. Iljhgtn (talk) 15:34, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]