Talk:Grand Theft Auto V/Archive 1

Justification for keeping page
The information will be coming quickly now. With such an enormously high-profile game series, the page deserves to be stand-alone with the appropriate information listed very clearly. The game has been officially announced and certainly meets all applicable noteworthy requirements. We can formulate a discussion here if there are serious objections to the creation of this article. Bbqsauce13 (talk) 00:43, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

The confirmation text
Confirming work on Grand Theft Auto V for the first time, Houser stated he planned to co-write a script that reached about one thousand pages in length. This doesn't mean that Grand Theft Auto V was confirmed in November 2009 and is inaccurate to say. There's been a problem with original research here already so I'll try to clean it up a little.92.19.40.193 (talk) 15:59, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I did not see this entry before posting that template on your talk page. Regardless, the source states the following: "Rockstar's Dan Houser has given the first official admission of Grand Theft Auto V in the works, saying they'll choose a city first before anything." I fail to see where you make the distinction between the game being confirmed to be in the works, and the co-creator being the first to admit that the game is in the works. I'm sure, however, you have a valid reason. Instead of simply removing the entire phrase, consider other possible ways to say it and place it on the page. Bbqsauce13 (talk) 17:34, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I see the point you are making, but Dan Houser didn't say "Our next title will be called "Grand Theft Auto V" and we'll think of the city first". There was no official confirmation in November 2009 that the next GTA title would be called that, and at the time it was have just been speculation. Most people at the time, including whoever wrote the article you are refering to, would have just assumed it would be called Grand Theft Auto V and so just called it by that, despite no confirmation of that, you see? It was only officially announced yesterday that the next title would be called GTA V, not November 2009.92.19.40.193 (talk) 18:46, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, your point of focus was on the name itself. Yes, that makes perfect sense now. Bbqsauce13 (talk) 19:33, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Original research (& sourcing)
Phrases like "seemed to indicate", "possibly relating" and "implying that" need to be kept out of this article unless they've been said by a reliable source, otherwise it's original research, no matter how likely or probable they are.

As a side note, whilst so little information is available we should be able to keep on top of unsourced claims, get the article off on the right foot! BulbaThor (talk) 14:46, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

This entire article is dripping in amateur writing. It needs to be redone to avoid speculation and be consistent with Wikipedia's standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.5.70.1 (talk) 04:55, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Relevance?
I can understand why this is here, because it may suggest GTAV is not an FPS, should you not put that in then? That "this suggests x"? Irregardless, it seems a bit irrelevant because we don't really know if it was implicitly talking about GTAV nor does anyone think that it will be first person... ProfNax (talk) 04:59, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Its not relevant. - X201 (talk) 08:00, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It mentions the Grand Theft Auto but I'm not sure if it's relevant either.92.19.43.55 (talk) 11:56, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I moved it to the Rockstar article. It seems a more appropriate place. - X201 (talk) 11:57, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Speculation
I particularly don't agree with speculating when writing an article on an encyclopedia (Wikipedia in the case). Yeah, it's true that you can find neverending references to support your adding of information, as well as infinite bloggers writing about rumors that have come up and gone around the whole Internet. But, do we tolerate this on this website? Please, let me know. Thank you. ALCRK 10:52, 31 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlbertoCrakito (talk • contribs)
 * Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Anything added to any Wikipedia article should be cited correctly by reliable sources. Video games that haven't been released yet are subjected to speculation and rumors, just like films, TV shows, etc. In conclusion, the Wikipedia community does not tolerate any unsourced speculation or rumors. --   Luke      (Talk)   20:45, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * and any sourced speculation or rumours need to have exceptional sources. - X201 (talk) 22:25, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

LOCK PLEASE
It needs to be protected from rumours being added to it. It says that it will be published via download on the article... No citation or evidence. The same goes for the appearance of Vercetti. Speculation. Someone with the power to - could you please lock this article? Cross Pollination (talk) 17:33, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Put in a temporary request here. I tried the same thing a week ago and got denied. I saw this travesty coming. Perhaps now the request would be reconsidered. Bbqsauce13 (talk) 17:43, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

There are rumors that middle-aged protagonist is Tommy Vercetti. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.134.236.203 (talk) 20:18, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * We don't add rumours to the article. Its governed by WP:V - X201 (talk) 22:26, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Article protection request has been accepted as semi-protected. The vandalism should be significantly reduced from this point forward. Bbqsauce13 (talk) 03:20, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Editnotice
I've placed a request for an editnotice to be attached to the article. I've requested the same as the GTA IV article. - X201 (talk) 08:06, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

PS3 Exclusive?
Has rockstar released information regarding what consoles GTA V will be released on? There are rumours that it is a PS3 exclusive. Looking at the trailer, I wouldn't be surprised. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.135.163.97 (talk) 04:19, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


 * LA Noire was originally a PS3 exclusive, but that was changed basically at the last minute. I wouldn't be surprised either. It took three discs just to play that game. I just don't know how the 360 is going to support a game this massive. PositivelyJordan (talk) 04:23, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

1. No it wont be a PS3 exsclusive for the same reason GTAIV wasnt,it cost over $100 Million to make the game and making it a PS3 exsclusive means they wouldnt make their money back as more people have Xbox 360's,it doesnt make financial sense and the games industry is all about making money. It will be on the PS3,Xbox 360 and PC.

2.Yes it will fit on the Xbox 360's DVD disc. Rockstar North had no problem fitting GTA Sanandreas on to a DVD disc and that game was huge. Also remember Rockstar North are masters at squeezing in content to make it fit,they achieved what many thought was impossible and squeezed GTA III and Vice City on to a tiny Playstation Portable UMD disc,not only that they looked better too. Also the Xbox 360's DVD's can now hold an extra 1GB storage thanks to an Xbox 360 update and new game discs. Also GTAIV was huge and fitted fine on 1 DVD. There could well be 2 discs with 1 of the discs having to be installed on to the hardrive like Forza 3 and 4. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.28.239.162 (talk) 00:37, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

For clarity the PS3 uses Blu Ray discs for games. BDs have much larger storage capacity than DVD - 50GB for a standard single sided dual layer BD and abt 10 GB for a single sided dual layer DVD. To say whether GTAV will be PS3 exclusive or not is wrong at this stage. Brylaw (talk) 05:30, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'd have to disagree. Following a discussion with a Rockstar member of staff whom was present during a College Event Day, the new game is intended to be on Playstation 3, Xbox 360 and PC. But if Sony and Microsoft were to release new consoles in 2012, the game will be released on these new platforms. GTA5 on Wii U or OnLive is undecided yet. On the point of disk usage, with all the 3D and HD footage being used for the game, I highly doubt it will be on one disk like GTA4, GTA5 brings more photo realistic imagery than previous titles along with more features I'm sure. And, with La Noire being very realistic with a smaller map than GTA5 (although with more dialogue), it just adds more to the picture. All word of mouth by a R* developer (whom I will not name! :)) 86.161.35.243 (talk) 23:49, 2 January 2012 (UTC) Rockstargames has confirmed that they like ham and ham will be present in gta v. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.78.206.215 (talk) 04:40, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Location
Is the trailer sufficient to conclude if the game will be set at the whole state of San Andreas or only the city of Los Santos? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.92.70.22 (talk) 09:43, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I think for now it's only clear that it will be in the city of Los Santos - it looks like Mount Chiliad will return, so we can guess/assume that there will at least be some surrounding countryside, but our own guesses can't go in the article anyway. Personally I wouldn't be surprised if the whole state returned, but until explicitly stated we shouldn't say. BulbaThor (talk) 11:14, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

If there were Las Venturas, they certainly show casinos. I think only LS.--92.45.148.28 (talk) 17:46, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

In the first GTA Sanandreas trailer in 2004 they only showed Los Santos,Las Venturas etc were never shown untill later trailers. So its still very possible the whole of Sanandreas will return,we will have to wait for more trailers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.28.239.162 (talk) 00:43, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Los Santos only
Rockstar have announced the game will be set in Los Santos and its "surrounding hills, countryside and beaches". No San Fierro or Las Venturas. http://www.rockstargames.com/newswire/article/19471/grand-theft-auto-v-official-announcement.html Cross Pollination (talk) 12:19, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, yourre right, i couldnt see las venturas or san fierro, i suppose they will enlarge the los santos as whole san andreas.--92.45.148.28 (talk) 12:47, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


 * To be clear, lack of mention of a setting doesn't invalidate that that setting could appear. We shouldn't include SF or LV speculation of course, until such a time that its clear they are or aren't included at all. --M ASEM  (t) 13:07, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


 * But in trailer, i saw a place like LA(it must be los santos because of the "vinewood" signboard) and im trying to say, if there where SF and LV they certainly gave those cities in trailer. Why they show only LS?--92.45.148.28 (talk) 20:14, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Maybe they don't want to give everything away in the first trailer? So far, we know LS. If the game is set in other locations, we can add them once they are announced. Regards  So Why  20:25, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

If you watch the trailer, when the dued has the foreclosuer sign, LV is behind it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.74.58.146 (talk) 21:38, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

In the first GTA Sanandreas trailer in 2004 they only showed Los Santos,Las Venturas etc were never shown untill later trailers. So its still very possible the whole of Sanandreas will return,we will have to wait for more trailers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.28.239.162 (talk) 00:46, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Young Maylay
Apparently Young Maylay had some involvement in the writing. Link to the original is included on here. --Lenin and McCarthy |  (Complain here) 19:59, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


 * This is a fansite, for one, and I can't even get the video to play.


 * Secondly, each numbered GTA game starts a new continuity, meaning it takes place in a different fictional universe than previous titles. The article's speculation about Carl Johnson returning makes no sense, as he's from the GTA III era. Zeldafanjtl (talk) 03:19, 5 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Like I said, original is linked through there. I just posted that because it had the times of comments.
 * Second, nothing is confirmed. Besides, all the source says is that he helped in writing the script. --Lenin and McCarthy |  (Complain here) 19:20, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Release Date
You can find the announced release date of Grand Theft Auto V by searching on google "Grand Theft Auto 5" Find the link that leads to "Rockstargames.com (Rockstar's official website). DO NOT click on the link to go to their page, instead, read the words underneath it, it clearly states "Coming March 2012 for Xbox 360, PlayStation3 and PC. Watch the First Trailer ..." Then, if you don't believe the link is from rockstar, click on it and find out for yourself that it is legit. I find it odd that they post the release date in the link info on google, but for some reason don't actually write it in on the page the link goes to. Click this link for a warp to the google search: http://www.google.com/#hl=en&sugexp=tshc&cp=18&gs_id=52&xhr=t&q=grand+theft+auto+5&pq=rockstargames.com&pf=p&sclient=psy-ab&source=hp&pbx=1&oq=grand+theft+autio+&aq=0s&aqi=g-s4&aql=f&gs_sm=&gs_upl=&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=5451a12f7c00363c&biw=1600&bih=799Fallior (talk) 01:48, 7 November 2011 (UTC) Fallior 11/6/2011 8:48pm est
 * That comment is referring to Max Payne 3, which has been announced for release in March 2012. Bbqsauce13 (talk) 02:07, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Rockstar North
For the sake of accuracy it should be noted that Rockstar North is Scottish not British, they are based in Edinburgh. Brylaw (talk) 05:56, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * This discussion has been had many times. For the purposes of the encyclopaedia UK/British is the correct term. - X201 (talk) 09:26, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Scotland is in Britain. look it up — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.254.234.165 (talk) 15:44, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow you are a real genius now aren't you? Think before you post your comments because you just contradicted yourself right here, dumbass. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.144.142.243 (talk • contribs) 11:25, 5 March 2012

Importance of Nationality
It's obvious to me that some people are, for whatever reason, insistent on making it known the nationality of Rockstar North on this article. Considering that this gets changed to "Scottish" every few days, why even have it? It isn't really necessary. If a reader wants to know the nationality, they can read the lead of the Rockstar North article; we can deal with the associated nationality conflict on that page. Additionally, it currently reads "being developed by British games developer Rockstar North." Seems redundant. To avoid conflict and redundancy and to be more concise, just have "being developed by Rockstar North." Bbqsauce13 (talk) 14:49, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

This discussion has been had many times. For the purposes of the encyclopaedia UK/British is the correct term. - X201 (talk) 09:26, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

All Grand Theft Auto games from GTA III onwards are listed as "Developed by Rockstar North in Britain and published by Rockstar Games" They have been listed like this for years with no problems,so this article is no diffrent.

Signed Mr D Editor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.29.6.11 (talk) 15:43, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Alright, let's do this again, shall we? To the above IP, what is with this insistence on including the developer's nationality on these pages? The inclusion on all of these Grand Theft Auto pages is unnecessary, not just this one. As such, I have removed the mention of "British" on all previous Grand Theft Auto pages, only for them all to be reverted by the same IP as above. The fact that this, a measure to avoid conflict, is causing conflict itself is ridiculous. Any efforts to place "British" back into the article have been reverted not just by myself, but at least two others. So, to the above IP who are so insistent on keeping "British", please explain yourself. If not explained, I will consider any further reverts to be disruptive editing. To be clear, here are problematic edits on this page alone:

British --> Scottish    

It IS a persistent problem that will not go away.

None --> British       

All by the same IP address.

British/Scottish --> None        

BBQ (talk) 15:39, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The IP address has ignored my request to solve this matter. This conflict is now also occurring on Grand Theft Auto IV, Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas, and Grand Theft Auto: Vice City. I will go ahead and post edit summaries from the above edits to hopefully facilitate discussion.

Edit summaries for changing from British/Scottish to None:
 * "Reverting previous edit - Completely unnecessary and prone to conflict"
 * "As X201 said: "No need to expressly exert nationality of developer, has no bearing on the game and its contents.""
 * "Better yet. There's no need to mention the nationality of the developer"
 * "Undid revision 462738447 by 188.29.6.11 (talk)No need to expressly exert nationality of developer, has no bearing on the game and its contents."
 * "Removing to avoid further conflict (again...)"
 * "Undid revision 461282415 by 188.28.153.183 (talk)No need to mention nationality in the lead unless it has a major bearing on the title. We don't put Japanses or American on others"
 * "Undid revision 461203258 by 188.28.189.86 (talk) No need for national jingoism"
 * "Rewording to avoid further conflict"

Edit summaries for changing from None to British:
 * (None)

BBQ (talk) 18:36, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

This discussion has been had many times. For the purposes of the encyclopaedia UK/British is the correct term. - X201 (talk) 09:26, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

All Grand Theft Auto games from GTA III onwards are listed as "Developed by Rockstar North in Britain and published by Rockstar Games" They have been listed like this for years with no problems,so this article is no diffrent.

Signed Mr D Editor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.29.6.11 (talk) 15:43, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

ALL of Rockstars games on Wikipedia list the nationality along with which division developed the game. Its educational,All games on Wikipedia list the nationality of the developer also. Why should GTA V Wikipedia page be any diffrent??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.29.68.197 (talk) 13:51, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Could you please provide links to the old versions of the articles that support your claims please, as the tools and systems I've used to try and find them, result in zero hits. - X201 (talk) 15:19, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

How is it possible to list old Wikipedia pages? They were listed as "Developed by British games developer Rockstar North and published by Rockstar Games" for years untill just recently,so why change them now all of a sudden? If you look here you will see GTA III has its nationality listed and has not been changed for years,you can see it has not been edited for a long length of time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Theft_Auto_III

If you read above a Wikipedia editor X201 even sais that Britain/UK is the correct term for the encyclopedia.

Other games also list the nationality of the developers with no problems....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Need_for_Speed:_Hot_Pursuit_(2010_video_game)

What is the problem with having its nationality/origin listed? is it not educational? Celebrities,Sports Stars etc etc all have their name followed by their nationality,Inventions have their place of origin listed too,same with films/movies.....so why not have the origin of where a videogame is created??? Is it going to kill anyone or cause an uprising somehwere? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.29.68.197 (talk) 16:05, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The original intent of mine for removing the listing was to avoid conflict. Editors repeatedly change "British" to "Scottish" on all Rockstar North-related articles. Instead of dealing with that conflict on all associated articles, I wanted to confine it merely to the Rockstar North article. Now, with this much more heated content dispute, that original intent seems completely pointless. Personally, I'm tired of fighting over something so meaningless in the long run. I'm willing to look the other way until someone changes "British" to "Scottish" again. Once that happens, I'm removing the nationality again and we'll probably go through this crap again. Whether or not other editors want to continue this is their own decision. BBQ (talk) 19:09, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

But BBQ,youre the one who is creating the conflict! lol Like i said before,having "British" on all of Rockstar Norths Wikipedia articles was no problem and sat there just fine for years untill you came along changing it. Only GTAV got changed from 'British' to 'Scottish' a few times,but hadnt been changed in over a month as i was watching it,then it doesnt matter as Scotland is part of Britain anyway. You keep changing it just creates the conflict. Peace! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.28.94.42 (talk) 19:34, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I disagree with your statement that British has been present in all Rockstar articles for years. But that's by-the-by. I was removing it for the same reason as BBQ - UK or British is the consensus for the nationality of the company. The conflict was caused by the people who changed it from the agreed British. With editing of that manner its far better for the article to remove the problem sentence - with a possible view to re-adding it later down the line - than to disrupt the article with a constant edit war.
 * You appear to be happy with British, as does BBQ, as are most of the people who commented at WP:VG, and I'm OK with it being British. So we can all get behind that, and all revert it back to the original should it be changed to Scottish/English/American or anything else. - X201 (talk) 09:42, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

soon it wont matter because if scotland becomes independent from britain rockstar north will not be in britain — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.97.11.82 (talk) 21:32, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Not to PC?
I heard this game will be released only for consoles. True?-- Westnest  message  22:38, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * There has not been any official information regarding which platforms the game will be released on. Your guess is as good as mine. Bbqsauce13 (talk) 23:02, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * There has been no official information yet but if past actions are anything to go by i'd expect a console release first with a PC release later (probablly by about 6-10 months). I'd also expect them not to confirm the PC release until the console release has been out for some time and soaked up the initial sales.
 * This way they get to sell the game to the diehard fans twice... 86.22.248.209 (talk) 08:50, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Marketing and Release
The first paragraph of Marketing and Release is quite redundant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.118.198.5 (talk) 00:23, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

2K Czech confirm they are not working on any projects with Rockstar Games.
Today it was added under the Developer section that "2K Czech" were also helping develop the game. This was widely reported as a rumour,later to be revealed as false.

A Games reprosentative from 2K Czech games themselves told Gamespot that they were not working on any projects with Rockstar Games....

"[UPDATE] A 2K Games representative told GameSpot, "Rockstar Games and 2K Czech are not working on any projects together. We haven't announced any plans regarding a future Mafia release."

http://uk.gamespot.com/news/mafia-iii-enters-full-production-report-6364783 http://playstationlifestyle.net/2012/03/06/rumor-debunked-2k-czech-not-helping-with-gta-v/

So it should be removed and rumours should not be added to Wikipedia anyway surley? - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boxerboi31 (talk • contribs) 00:31, 8 March 2012

Commercial Reception Section
The Commercial Reception Section is just pure speculation. The section seems to fall inline to WP:CBALL. While WP:CBALL does state “Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included, though editors should be aware of creating undue bias to any specific point-of-view.” I feel the section should be removed and only known and reliable information should be indicated in the article. All the section is doing is creating a place for speculation. ChadH (talk) 16:14, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Im with ChadH. The Commercial Reception Section is just speculation. Delete the section. - SideMaster (talk) 04:39, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I also agree with this. The article should be pure fact, nothing else. The reception section is just speculation, which doesn't fit in with the rest of the article. Remove it? Eden1023 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:53, 19 March 2012 (UTC).

Outright deletion is the wrong way to go. The section needs a re-write. - X201 (talk) 15:58, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Although, after taking a second look at it. It needs binning. - X201 (talk) 16:02, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for spearheading the cleanup X201! I do not think it could have been rewritten because of how much the section relied on sources. ChadH (talk) 17:55, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Minor grammar
The last line on the article reads "Similar, GameStop president Tony Bartel wasn't expecting GTA V to launch in 2012 either." I think it should be Similarly instead of similar. 79.97.40.245 (talk) 19:26, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 13 March 2012
SHOW RELESE DATE

Sinu22 (talk) 06:58, 13 March 2012 (UTC)


 * There is currently no verifiable release date available. Rockstar Games have not announced a release date (they haven't even confirmed which platforms it will be on.) When a date from a reliable source becomes available, it will be added. - X201 (talk) 08:51, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

There's a site that published a lot of information about Grand Theft Auto V,and in that site there is the release date,from a Rockstar worker's CV:October 2012,and the information that it is going to be released for PC,PS3 and 360.Now this next info is official(because I saw it),yes indeed:there's this store in Portugal in which you can actually reserve GTA V.And it´s going to be on sale in November 2012 for PS3-can't wait.I wrote this so the rumours of the game coming out on 2013 can be erased-it's not going to be on 2013.If you want anymore proof you can go to where I went:www.gtaengine.com and look for "Release date set for October 2012?"inside the topic "Home"Know-howpt (talk) 17:50, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: No release dates will be added unless published by Rockstar Games. They are the sole authority. Retailers can and do use filler release dates on their websites and marketing for people to buy it from them. On another note, if you have a legitimate edit request, please use the request edit and a new section. Thanks ChadH (talk) 18:11, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Whatever you say,only it's too much coincidence.Just think about it,alright?Out.Know-howpt (talk) 17:53, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Analyst predictions
To me, analyst predictions are no different than nonfactual speculation. Why should predictions be in this article? (I'm not being mean, just an actual question) Predictions do not add anything to the content about the game; it's some person's opinion on when the game will come out. How is analyst predictions any different than WikiProject_Video_games/Article_guidelines item 8? ChadH (talk) 17:14, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

We must add this
"Although it was originally reported that Rockstar had "no plans for E3", according to a very popular UK videogame magazine, Grand Theft Auto V will definitely be making an appearance at E3." From Electronic Entertainment Expo 2012 article --82.139.5.13 (talk) 09:09, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SideMaster (talk • contribs) 14:57, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

'According' to a very popular UK videogame magazine. 'According' = 'rumour' Rumours don't get added to Wikipedia articles. If Rockstar are present at E3 and show off Grand Theft Auto then it shall be added. Will find out over the next couple of days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.28.177.145 (talk) 15:19, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

All information on Wikipedia is 'according' to its respective source. RichardGHP (talk) 04:05, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Rockstar North employee CV from CVG
http://www.computerandvideogames.com/350928/rumour-gta-5-will-launch-in-october-new-trailer-coming-soon/ http://www.gta-v5.com/2012/06/03/gta-v-releases-in-102012-according-to-jolyon-ormes-cv/ http://www.oxm.co.uk/42231/gta-5-release-date-zips-into-october-2012-new-trailer-coming-soon-report/

Even if it is a rumour, the CV seems ligitimate, and as such, I think that this should at least deserve a mention, no? If such a high ranking person on team was being falsely represented, I think there probably would've been a lawsuit or something by either Rockstar or the guy himself right?

What do you think? Yay or nay on the update? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.152.3.212 (talk) 19:14, 11 June 2012 (UTC)


 * IMO it still falls inline with bullet 8 of this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Article_guidelines#Inappropriate_content --ChadH (talk) 22:56, 11 June 2012 (UTC)


 * All reports of this nature fail WP:SPS. - X201 (talk) 07:58, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Could you please explain how the information referenced by cite note 25 differs in this regard? Would just like to hear your opinion on the difference, thats all. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.152.3.212 (talk • contribs) 20:00, 13 June 2012‎


 * Its no different and needs removing, I'll sort it out tomorrow. It would only be usable in hindsight after the game is released and proves that its true. - X201 (talk) 21:45, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. Keep up the good work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.152.3.212 (talk) 04:18, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Pre-announcement
As per the above discussion, I have removed the section about the stunt man's CV, as it also fails in the same manner as the LinkedIn profile above. I'll place the material that I have removed in a Refideas template at the top of the talk page because they stand a good chance of being proved truthful when the GTA V cast list is finally known. This edit also looks like I've removed more than I actually have due to me trimming some repetition in the section. - X201 (talk) 07:48, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks good! --ChadH (talk) 14:33, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Post-Announcement
I think we should retroactively remove information that doesn't bear any weight to the article in this section. Below is what I think can be removed:

"On 29 May 2012, supposed "trusted sources" told Computer and Video Games that Rockstar "has no plans for E3", meaning that hands-on demonstrations of Rockstar games such as GTA V and Agent will not take place at any of the platform holders' E3 press conferences."

They didn't show up and it doesn't matter anymore.

--ChadH (talk) 14:40, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with you. Remove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SideMaster (talk • contribs) 20:50, 20 June 2012‎


 * ✅ --ChadH (talk) 20:56, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

White space
When I view the page I get a massive white space between the post-announcement headline and the body of text. I assume this is because the image has to fit under the chronology box, but moving it to the left just makes the article look messy IMO. Can someone with more knowledge remove the white space another way? BulbaThor (talk) 22:21, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I've tried it on several browsers and it looks fine. What are you viewing it on? - X201 (talk) 07:50, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm using IE9, if it looks fine to other people it could just be something to do with my settings, but it's definitely there for me. BulbaThor (talk) 09:32, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I think its something at your end. Looks OK in IE9. - X201 (talk) 09:46, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Adrian
It's a well known fact that the Protagonist is called Adrian. Put it in.

http://playstationer.net/2011/10/31/gta-v-details-leaked/ http://botchweed.com/game-news/grand-theft-auto-5-full-details-leaked/ http://whatculture.com/gaming/grand-theft-auto-v-is-true-sequel-to-san-andreas.php http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7te3uDuUO4

How's that for a slice of fried gold? --94.11.209.251 (talk) 17:07, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Right.... --ChadH (talk) 17:10, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the nugget of 'gold' please be aware that all content on Wikipedia needs to be from a recognised source - and the only recognised source for GTA V at the moment would be directly from Rockstar North, not blogs and YouTube videos. NotMiserable (talk) 18:55, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Please Let Me Edit
Hello Dear Sir there is bad grammar at the bottom of Marketing Section and some of the info hasn't been added yet therefore let me edit this page as it will only result in positiveness of WikiPedia and im a very big fan of "Grand Theft Auto" and have been editing "gta.wikia.com" since 2008 and still continuing i hope you get my request and i hope you let me edit it Regards Faizan, Thank You.

Faizi1997 (talk) 00:27, 31 August 2012 (UTC)


 * You will be able to edit when your account is autoconfirmed, which happens when your account is at least 4 days old, with at least 10 edits. RudolfRed (talk) 00:58, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Its easy to rack up 10 edits here on Wikipedia with all the new stuff that we can report about its impossible not to hit 10 edits within a single day. Deunick (talk) 16:43, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Release date
Only a release date announced by Rockstar or Take-Two should be added to this article. So no links to external site suggesting end of 2012 or 2013 as these are just rumours no matter which 'critic' suggests it. NotMiserable (talk) 17:36, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 19 September 2012
RELEASE DATE

GTA V will more than likely ship between March 2013 and October 2013. This assumes the game is for the "current generation" of systems (Playstation 3 and Xbox 360). As the Rockstar website does not have any systems listed under PLATFORMS for GTA V, this could mean the game is going to come out on the Orbis/Wii U/ Xbox 720.

Argusdune (talk) 15:55, 19 September 2012 (UTC)


 * We need reliable sources(WP:V). There are no reliable sources for the release date or the platform. If you know of any please provide them and we will happily include the information. - X201 (talk) 15:59, 19 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Grand Theft Auto V - Release on December 31, 2012 at Walmart. Price $59.96 for GTA V PlayStation3 or XBOX360 at Walmart. --Rossdegenstein (talk) 20:54, 2 October 2012 (UTC)


 * It is extremely common for retailers to 'announce' a release date for a game. More often than not these dates are incorrect and used as a placeholder to allow pre-orders to be taken. The only reliable source for a release date is either Rockstar/Take-Two. NotMiserable (talk) 22:01, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 9 October 2012
Klunkesprøjt (talk) 06:14, 9 October 2012 (UTC) i know the release date on gta v so plz let me edit your page i come from rockstar south and i have a friend in rockstar north. they told me the release date

bye. The release date i in november 2012 or in march 2013
 * Well, even if you were Rockstar's CEO you would need to officially announce it first, so that we could cite a reference in the article. As long as there's no reference, we're not going to speculate what the release date is going to be. Also, I highly doubt that you come from Rockstar South, North, East or West, or know anyone there. -- Nczempin (talk) 06:36, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * ( Comment from uninvolved editor ) So let's buy for a moment that you do work for Rockstar. Why would you give us two release dates, and why would they both be months and not actual dates? Oh, and since you work for Rockstar South, I thought you should probably know that Rockstar Games doesn't operate a "Rockstar South." I love it when people think we'll buy into bogus BS like this. --GSK ● talk ● evidence 06:58, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Even if we assume that someone from within Rockstar North told his friend the release date, and even if we assume that's the actual release date, we still could not use it because it would be inofficial and uncited . A release date is not a fact until it's actually happened, anyway. And for all those who are so eager to find this (future) release date: My advice is not to go to Wikipedia looking for it; Wikipedia is not a news site, and you will most certainly not hear the official release date here first. Try IGN, GameSpot or any of the other game sites, or, who'd have thought, the publisher's site? -- Nczempin (talk) 07:12, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Please update this article A.S.A.P
I have realised that since this article has become semi-protected there hasn't been any changes to bring this article up to date. This includes the 12 "newly" released images from Rockstar Games regarding GTAV (http://www.rockstargames.com/V/). Also Rockstar has confirmed that upcoming information on GTAV will be given in the 'Game Informer' magazine (http://www.gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2012/10/11/grand-theft-auto-v.aspx), Rockstar has also confirmed this via their Newswire page (http://www.rockstargames.com/newswire). I would love to update this information but i don't think I will be able to make it concise enough! Please can someone look into this matter and get this Wikipedia article up to date as soon as possible.

Thank You,

Bilal Hussain — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.98.99.181 (talk) 16:09, 14 October 2012 (UTC)


 * We can't include non-free screenshots just becauase they were put out. And once the Game Informer story is out, we can then add that info, but an announcement about that is not worthy for inclusion. --M ASEM (t) 16:11, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes but then isn't Wikipedia infringing Rockstar's rights by using The GTAV logo? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.98.99.181 (talk) 16:21, 14 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The logo is covered under fair use guidelines. --GSK ● talk ● evidence 16:24, 14 October 2012 (UTC)


 * All these additions have already been made to the article. NotMiserable (talk) 18:23, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Release date only recently confirmed
Grand Theft Auto V was officially announced on 25 October 2011, with a scheduled release during Q2 2013 for the PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360.

This reads like the release date was confirmed alongside the game's announcement on 25 October 2011. The release date only confirmed 30 October 2012. This needs to be re-phrased, and have the release date confirmation separately. Vember94 (talk) 14:37, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


 * ✅. Thanks for pointing it out. - X201 (talk) 14:50, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Game Informer info
So when are people gonna add the info from the Game Informer article? We have a tonne of it now. Or am I gonna have to add it all? Cross Pollination (talk) 23:22, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * You did a good first edit. I think you should do the rest. If my english was very good, I would have helped you. But it look like you have a good very english, so I wont stand in way. Go and edit my friend! — Preceding unsigned comment added by SideMaster (talk • contribs) 00:13, 9 November 2012‎

Marketing (and other sections) - Retain content.
Now that the juggernaut is well and truly rolling, the article sections will start growing rapidly, this is just a note to ask you not to start deleting content from article sections that have grown too large, but to split it off into a side article like we did for GTA IV. We can then build a fuller picture of the game's development, with articles similar to Marketing for Grand Theft Auto IV. - X201 (talk) 09:04, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Multiple protagonists
It says that GTA V will be the first game feature multiple protagonists. This probably is not true. I have never played GTA 1. I am assuming most of you guys haven't either. According to Wikipedia's page for GTA 1, as well as GTA Wiki's page for GTA 1, in GTA 1 you can choose been eight protagonists. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Theft_Auto_%28video_game%29 http://gta.wikia.com/Grand_Theft_Auto_1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cleandude (talk • contribs) 10:06, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * It has been confirmed that it will feature three playable protagonists.
 * It will also have a map bigger than Red Dead Redemption, San Andreas and GTA4 combined. Charlr6 (talk) 10:42, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Character details
Nowhere does it say that Franklin is a car thief, he is described in the game informer article as being a repo man. 142.157.60.170 (talk) 15:09, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thanks for pointing it out. - X201 (talk) 15:18, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Release date confirmed
On October 30, 2012, Rockstar Games confirmed via Twitter that the game will be released in Spring 2013. http://twitter.com/rockstargames — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nitharsanken (talk • contribs) 21:46, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Really? You don't say? --ChadH (talk) 21:59, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:BITE chad. - X201 (talk) 08:46, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That was really inappropriate of me and I apologize. --ChadH (talk) 15:11, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed, Rockstar has confirmed it is to be released in Spring 2013 http://www.pcgamer.com/2012/10/30/gta-5-release-date-set-for-spring-2013/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hallerbaiii (talk • contribs) 12:10, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Characters' details project
Will anyone here add a section relevant to the three's story. You can get more info on Micheal through what he narrated in the first trailer. Or I shall add the info. Thanks.-RNA5810 (talk) 07:11, 10 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I think there's enough detail in there for now. Anything more will start to be too close to a copyvio. We can't just take what is or was said from a press release or magazine article and copy it directly into the article. And I don't see anything in the first trailer that needs to be included in the article.


 * What's more, the article clearly states that there are three primary characters. However, there is a disproportionate amount of information available about Michael. We can't reasonably include more information about Michael at the same time as claiming that all three characters are equal - doing so puts undue weight on Michael. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:05, 10 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Within Game Informers' recent issue, they included an 18-page feature on GTA5 using interviews with staff working on the game as sources of information. Included is a wealth of information pertaining to several aspects and mechanics of the game including, I believe, enough reliable information to at least get a seperate page for characters (Main protagonists and family, e.g. Michael's family or other supporting characters in the future) started.


 * Or would this be an unreliable source? I'm not sure, since it is also a non-free publication. Venae (talk) 16:24, 18 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Game Informer is a reliable source. I'm aware that Game Informerss article was leaked onto the internet, it would be inappropriate to cite information from the leaked sources; but using Game Informerss website or magazine as a source is fine I think. You may want to use the cite journal template if you are using the magazine as a source as opposed to their website. Also make sure that the information you put on this article about the character is appropriate and serves purpose, see here for article guide lines: WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines.  I would also recommend (sometime in the future when more information is revealed) creating a page for List of Grand Theft Auto V characters to provide more detailed information on the characters in the game; similar to what has been done for previous GTA articles, for example: List of Grand Theft Auto IV characters. The1337gamer (talk) 16:59, 18 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reply and suggestions. I'll delegate the task of creating another page if/when the need arises as I simply don't know how (Wikinewb). Venae (talk) 17:14, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Developed by Rockstar North in the United Kingdom
This is the third time (not in the last 24 hours) that I have reverted an edit to the lead "developed by Rockstar North in the United Kingdom" to just "developed by Rockstar North. I want to explain my actions and see if there is a consensus in my actions. A bullet list follows: I know there is currently a issue with Rockstar North's location on its talk page (Talk:Rockstar_North). Anything that comes out of that should be left there and not dealt with here.
 * The location of Rockstar North adds nothing to this article (Grand Theft Auto V). The company doing the development is important but its location does not aid in notability, its history, plot, or scope.
 * None of WP:WPVG's featured content includes location when mentioning the development company. So there is no precedent for doing this.
 * It is not in the WPVG's article guidlines for the lead.

I welcome any comments on this issue

Thanks, --ChadH (talk) 00:44, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

All previous games Grand Theft Auto IV, San Andreas, Vice City, GTA III and all the other games that were developed by Rockstar North have all had "Developed by Rockstar North in the United Kingdom and published by Rockstar games" for many years without problem! So why have a problem now? It is factual information and that is what Wikipedia is all about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.29.26.205 (talk) 15:18, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

ChadH, Grand Theft Auto San Andreas, Grand Theft Auto Vice City, Grand Theft Auto III and Grand Theft Auto IV have had "Rockstar North in the United Kingdom" for many years without edit. It's only recently someone started to remove "In the United Kingdom" from the Grand Theft Auto V article, while previous Grand Theft Auto games all kept "In the United Kingdom" that they have had for years (Although yesterday you went one step further and not only removed "In the United Kingdom" from this article, you also removed it from the San Andreas article too, yet left it on all the other Grand Theft Auto articles) So this leads me to believe that because Grand Theft Auto V and San Andreas are two of the most popular games of all time you didn't want the people of the UK getting credit. See many make the mistake of thinking Rockstar is in the United States and that all Rockstar games are made there, when infact they are made by different Rockstar divisions all over the world. 2 Englishmen founded Rockstar Games and set up Rockstars 'head office' in New York, but no games are made there. So having "Rockstar North in the United Kingdom" educates the ignorant. There are many Wikipedia articles that have "made in the United States" on them...so why should this be any different all of a sudden?--Boxerboi31 (talk) 15:46, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Look, I'm not about to engage in an edit war over this. But since you made some grand assumptions about why I made the edits, I'm going to respond. One, some but not all (older GTAs, episodes, and Game Boy Advance) had the in the UK statement. Two, no featured video games articles have this type of statement (please include examples if you have seen it), why should GTA articles have this? What makes GTA articles better than other game articles? Three, proper credit is being given by listing Rockstar North and if necessary the other divisions/companies. Four, if people need/want to know more about Rockstar North including its location, they can click the link for Rockstar North. Having the location in the article (GTAV etc...) only serves Rockstar North (Not even the other studios) and not the GTAV (or other games) article. To reiterate, I am not removing UK nationalism, I am saying that there is no precedent for doing this except some but not all GTA articles, having it in a game article only serves Rockstar North and not the game itself which is what these articles are about, and if someone wants to know more have the location, history, and notoriety of Rockstar North, they can simply click the link. ChadH (talk) 19:16, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

ChadH,it's not an edit war it's a discussion. I have been looking over the Grand Theft Auto pages for 9 years (I didn't add United Kingdom) but i know it's been there for many many years on all the Grand Theft Auto articles i listed (Check the History if you wish), and i have no problem with it, it's educational. I also notice that 'sometimes' people edit the 'Rockstar North' link so it's unclickable....so you have to ask yourself why would anyone do that? It's as if they don't want people to click on it for some reason. Being someone who reads forums about the games i can tell you that there are many (I said many not all) Americans who hate the fact it's a British creation and British made, so my guess is they try to manipulate the page and make the link unclickable. As i said eariler, many people are not aware and assume all Rockstar games are made in New York when they aren't.....so 'some' Americans want to keep people thinking it's an American thing and do that by manipulating the page. America has a famous History for stealing or trying to steal credit for other Nations achievments/creations....the Car (German)....the Lightbulb (English)....Discovery of Electricity (Italian)....claim they saved the worlds arse etc etc etc. Now not 'ALL' Americans are like this...but many are....and these are the guilty parties who try manipulate stuff.

United Kingdom has been there for years so why the fuss of changing it now, is it 'REALLY' that big of a deal, is it hurting anyone?

And yup there are Wikipedia articles where it sais a product was 'Made in the United States' i have no problem with that either, when i read them it's like "Oh cool...was made in Merica, didn't know that!".

As for examples (Not that i should have to prove anything to you, but i shall do a quick random search here)....Here we go..."Need for Speed: Hot Pursuit is a 2010 racing video game developed by British games developer Criterion Games and published by Electronic Arts for PlayStation 3, Xbox 360, Microsoft Windows, Wii, iOS, Android, webOS and Windows Phone." Now this has been this way since launch 2010 without change.

Another..."Superman (also known as Superman: The Movie) is a 1978 American superhero film directed by Richard Donner"

Another..."Batman is a 1989 American superhero film directed by Tim Burton"

Another..."Road Trip is a 2000 American road-comedy film written by Todd Phillips and Scot Armstrong and directed by Todd Phillips"

I can post examples all night long. There's no problem having 'American' in the article (Even though modern Batman Films say 'American' yet they were written/directed by a Brit and much of the Films were made in Britain) They still get classed as American.--Boxerboi31 (talk) 22:39, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * On your first paragraph, all I'm going to say is Describing_points_of_view point number 3. I honestly felt that your initial response was biting at me for attacking your/others nationality, that is not what I am trying to do nor is that something I will do. "Is it really not that big of a deal", honestly no it is not, but I am simply pointing out that the MoS for Video Games does not say this is needed and to me it does not add to the article about GTAV (or other Grand Theft Auto). Personally if it is going to be done one way, it needs to be that way throughout all video game articles, which is why you see that for films (see: WP:FILMLEAD). As a way to seek a constructive end, I would suggest at least adding to the MoS for video games to include countries of origin if there is a difference between the country of origin and the publisher, it is a company who has a commonly miss-known origin (as you have stated, though it would need to be verified), or it should always be included. ChadH (talk) 00:02, 10 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I'd like to add my opinion on this. Firstly I don't the MoS should be changed to include country, because naming the country in the lead is unnecessary. The lead is overview of the article, it doesn't need to include details like this, and the way it is written now makes the opening sentence long winded and not concise. I think a fair decision would be to write some background information (which can include the location of the studio) on Rockstar North in the Development section.  At the beginning of the Development section, you can just write something  along the lines "GTAV is being development by UK based developer Rockstar North who established the series in 1997.".  As for previous GTA articles including "in the United Kingdom" in the lead, most of them are all badly written and not maintained by anybody, they require re-writing to become good quality articles and should not used as an example or guideline for the writing of this article.  So to summarise, I think remove "in the United Kingdom" from the lead but mention it in background information on Rockstar North in the Development section.  The1337gamer (talk) 09:49, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

The1337gamer, the Grand Theft Auto articles do have people watching over them. I myself have been watching over them for 9yrs, plus others regularly lock the pages down to stop vandalism. The Grand Theft Auto V article has only recently been unlocked after being locked for most of the year.

I say leave it as it is, why start to change ALL the videogames pages now? If you want to change one then you have to follow it through and start to change ALL articles on videogames....there is 30+ years and millions of videogame articles out there to be changed if that's the case, you can't just focus on changing the Grand Theft Auto articles and leave all the others.

As far as im concerned it's educational to have it there and it's been there years, the more infomation the better i say.--Boxerboi31 (talk) 13:51, 10 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The GTA I and II articles do not say the location. It's only recently that this pathetic edit war of putting in the location over GTA articles has began. The location of Rockstar North has not been listed on GTA articles for years, and the only GTA article that has existed on wikipedia for more than 9 years is Vice City, which didn't include this information, so you can stop lieing and making false claims.  Even so, as I've said the GTA articles are written badly and nobody has made any effort to get them to good article status.  And what do you mean by change all video games page now?  Only a small minority include the location of the developer in the lead and I have yet to see a featured article include it, so I have no idea what you're going on about there.  The vast majority of articles don't include this information in the lead because it is not necessary as I've already explained.  What would be more appropriate and educational is to actually write some background information on Rockstar North in the development section rather than starting a silly childish edit war. The1337gamer (talk) 14:09, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

The1337gamer, i never said Grand Theft Auto II on my list! I said Grand Theft Auto III, Vice City, San Andreas, IV, V, Lost and Damned, Ballad of Gay Tony, Extra Episodes, Liberty City Stories and Vice City Stories have all had where they were from in the article. I'm not editing anything, never really have...i'm just saying what i've seen in my 9 years of watching the articles for info. Only input i've ever had was correction a rumour that turned out to be false. (The 2k Czech rumour that can be seen above on this talk page). I'm just in favour for leaving United Kingdom there...as i've said before...it's not hurting anyone and been there years!--Boxerboi31 (talk) 17:23, 10 December 2012 (UTC)


 * There's nothing wrong with it being there; I'm just saying it's not necessary. I gave my suggestion that it would be better to write a summary about Rockstar North in the development section. The1337gamer (talk) 17:28, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

The Grand theft Auto Vice City article has "Grand Theft Auto: Vice City is a 2002 open world action-adventure video game developed by Rockstar North (formerly DMA Design) in the United Kingdom and published by Rockstar Games" It has been this way for many years (Check the page History to prove this, all the evidence is right there)--Boxerboi31 (talk) 17:30, 10 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, but that is irrelevant because the Grand Theft Auto 2 article doesn't say it and never has. The1337gamer (talk) 17:38, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Also it hasn't been in the Vice City article for years. I've just check the article history.  It was added somewhere during 2011. Originally it was changed to developed in Scotland, and then by British games developer Rockstar North, and then subsequently change again. Adding it there is silly because it people will constantly change it and argue it should say Scotland and not UK. The1337gamer (talk) 17:41, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

It's been United Kingdom for years if you look at the History properly, and Scotland is British and part of the United Kingdom! So what if Grand Theft Auto II doesn't say United Kingdom....Grand Theft Auto III, Vice City,San Andreas, and all the many other Grand Theft Auto articles say United Kingdom...and United Kingdom is where they come from, that's fact! And thought you said it doesn't matter anyway?

It hasn't been changed for years until ChadH came along changing things. The pages will just get reverted and locked if people keep changing it, that's what usually happens.


 * How do you know ChadH starting changing it years ago? You're making these accusations but not offering any proof.  You haven't yet provided a valid point to keep it there.  The reason your point is irrelevant is because one GTA article mentions the location yet another one doesn't, there no consistency at all.  I've check through the Vice City article history, it has not been written there for years, I've already told you it was added in 2011, so stop with lies. I'm not even sure why you've made a big deal about the removal of it because it doesn't have any real substance at all.  Furthermore hardly any video games article list the developer's location in the lead. The1337gamer (talk) 17:58, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

ChadH only started changing it a few days ago, the page History shows this and people have reported him for vandalism and reverted his changes. Every Wikipedia page has a page History with a list of all edits etc made and by whom. It hadn't been changed for years until ChadH started changing it a few days ago. Just go look at page History....here (ChadH (Chad Hutchins) 02:07, 9 December 2012‎ Chad.hutchins(talk | contribs)‎ . . (45,146 bytes) (-22)‎ . .(See Talk:Grand_Theft_Auto_V#Developed_by_Rockstar_North_in_the_United_Kingdom) (undo)

He removed 'United Kingdom' but someone else reverted it.

I can also seeThe1337gamer's edits to the page. (09:53, 9 December 2012‎ The1337gamer(talk | contribs)‎ . . (45,146 bytes) (-7)‎ . .(Undid revision 527154776 by Coyote wadi (talk) source?) (undo))

You have also been vandalising today on the 10th December. (14:57, 10 December 2012‎ The1337gamer(talk | contribs)‎ . . (46,262 bytes) (+3)‎ . .(Undid revision 527359606 by 204.11.188.195 (talk) vandalism) (undo)

You say you don't know why i'm making such a big deal out of it being removed, yet you know why your making such a big deal of it being removed?--Boxerboi31 (talk) 18:34, 10 December 2012 (UTC)


 * You're going off on a tangent now, this is completely unrelated to the discussion in hand. I haven't vandalised the page, I was one  reverting vandalism and unsourced changes, I wrote vandalism in the summary box to explain why I undid the IP editors change.  The location of Rockstar North is not important, it doesn't matter where Rockstar North is located so why should it be mentioned?  You haven't given a decent reason. User ChadH has given a fair and decent enough reason for the removal of it.  It has no substance and is not important. The1337gamer (talk) 18:39, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * None and I mean none of my edits have ever been marked as vandalism. I suggest you read up on what constitutes vandalism WP:VANDAL and other community information (WP:FIVE) since your account is relatively new (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:ListUsers&limit=1&username=Boxerboi31). Also what 1337 did was revert vandalism not create it when he undid the revision by 204.11.118.195. And 1337 is right, its not been around for years, case in point: at the time (2008) GTA-SA was a Good Article and was up for Featured Article (WikiProject_Video_games/Assessment), it did not include United Kingdom (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grand_Theft_Auto:_San_Andreas&oldid=101821536). I changed it because I was following the Wikipedia principle of being bold and I didn't feel, and still don't feel, my edits were controversial or deter the article's quality or substance. <span style="color: blue; font-style:italic; font-family: LuzSans-Book,Arial;">ChadH  (talk) 19:01, 10 December 2012 (UTC) (Note: This was copied before an edit conflict, some items may already have been addressed by 1337)

Reggie Fils Aime
Should we mention in here that NOA's President Reggie Fils Aime is fighting to get Rockstar to get this game on the Wii U? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.233.244.120 (talk) 14:28, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


 * It happens every time a GTA game comes out. Nintendo go through the PR motions and nothing comes of it. That said, find a reliable source and its worth a sentence, at most. - X201 (talk) 15:47, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

http://mynintendonews.com/2012/11/19/reggie-wants-grand-theft-auto-v-on-wii-u/ Don't know if this warrants it or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.190.236.213 (talk) 18:40, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Cover art for Grand Theft Auto V found
http://image.noelshack.com/fichiers/2012/45/1352584095-wxcvbn22.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.174.115.255 (talk) 14:59, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Given that we've no article attached to that ID'ing the cover art as legit, (and that site is not a recognized gaming journalism site), it would be improper to use this even if it is the true art. --M ASEM (t) 15:04, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well this is a laughable attempt at 'offical' cover art. Bottom left image is from GTA IV, the other images are just poorly cropped art that has been released by R*. This is NOT the official cover art. NotMiserable (talk) 15:10, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Multiple playable protagonists
The first GTA game had multiple playable protagonists (4 or 8, depending on which version you played). I believe my rewording was the most accurate way to represent this fact. The current statement regarding this in the article is false, and the source is not reliable. As per Wikipedia's guidelines on reliable sources, reliability is not determined solely by publisher (IGN), but also by the writer in question and the context of the situation. This editor's lack of research, citations, and fact-checking makes him an unreliable source. The context of the situation is that it's known he is objectively wrong; it's not a statement of opinion, but rather, of provably false information.

I provided numerous sources to this end, and I discussed this with the other editor on our talk pages. I thought this was already resolved. Unless there is further objection, I'd like to revert the edit to the one with accurate wording and multiple sources. Azrael0 (talk) 15:34, 23 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The quality of the sources isn't the best. As far as I can tell the dispute revolves around the "First time" claim. If so, I'm going to make an edit which will solve it. - X201 (talk) 16:40, 23 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The important part of the sentence in relation to the article is that GTA V has three protagonists. The first part of the sentence, about being the first time this has happened, is not important, and not true. I've rewritten the first part to imply that in the past there were multiple protagonists, and that recently there has only been a single protagonist. Have also replaced the erroneous reference, with a better one. - X201 (talk) 17:06, 23 January 2013 (UTC)


 * You're right, it seems cleaner and more relevant without any reference to the first game. The new version is concise, informative, and most importantly, accurate. Nice work. Azrael0 (talk) 18:20, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

September 17, 2013
The news is just getting out there, google "GTA V September 17"... trying to get a source. --BlackBuried, Storm SUX (talk) 15:12, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

GTA V has been delayed until September 17, 2013. In a letter released by Rockstar Games to fans, Rockstar states:

"Today, we have an official release date to share with you: Grand Theft Auto V will arrive in stores on September 17, 2013.

We know this is about four months later than originally planned and we know that this short delay will come as a disappointment to many of you, but, trust us, it will be worth the extra time. GTAV is a massively ambitious and complex game and it simply needs a little more polish to be of the standard we and, more importantly, you require.

To all Grand Theft Auto fans, please accept our apologies for the delay, and our promise that the entire team here is working very hard to make the game all it can be. We are doing all we can to help ensure it will meet if not exceed your expectations come September – we thank you for your support and patience.”

in the uk games come out on fridays and 17th sept is a tuesday so does that mean gta v comes out on fri 20th sept? or is 17th world wide? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.151.66.0 (talk) 12:31, 4 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Check the UK release date of GTA IV. It will answer your question. - X201 (talk) 12:58, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Sandy Hook - Controversy
I feel that this section should be removed, the unreleased GTA V, and the Grand Theft Auto as a whole, had nothing to do with the tragic school shooting. If there was something found within GTA V that was found to be controversial, such a Hot Coffee Mod, upon release then a Controversy or Criticism section could be created. All I see is a US Senator, who is an NRA member so has a bias against gun control, trying to shift blame from poor gun control laws towards the gaming industry. In fact I am going to remove the section, feel free to leave your comments below should you think differently. NotMiserable (talk) 11:55, 23 December 2012 (UTC)


 * If it was reported in multiple reliable independent sources then it is still notable and is worth a mention in the article.  STATic  message me!  15:26, 23 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree it should be mentioned as if has been in the media, but I removed the second half of the section as though the source infers it, the quotes attributed to the NRA chap don't mention GTA V explicitly, he just mentions the series in general amongst a handful of others. It could perhaps be put on the controversy section of the main GTA page instead, if anywhere. BulbaThor (talk) 15:57, 23 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not the place for idiosyncratic and plainly false views to be protected. 203.97.127.101 (talk) 08:08, 29 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I also think it should be removed it has nothing to do with the game, How is the game causing this controversy? If anything that line should be on the sandy hook page.Paul &#34;The Wall&#34; (talk) 12:50, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Its worse that that. I've watched the whole interview on YouTube and he only mentions video games once "...how we glorify some of the violence in these games". There was no mention of Rockstar or GTA. The reports are either inaccurate or link to the wrong interview. - X201 (talk) 15:12, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Infobox image
The cover art was just released, should we use that or keep the logo? Samwalton9 (talk) 13:16, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I found the cover art. Here it is: http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/18jdnefljr419png/ku-xlarge.png Keep in mind, though - it's not an official cover (box) art, but the one that's been finished by fans. Only the part of it has been seen. But I vote for putting on this one. It's gonna look like this 99%. :) Boky (talk) 13:21, 2 April 2013 (UTC)


 * They just released the official cover art on Facebook, I'll change the infobox image to it to keep it in line with the other GTA articles. Samwalton9 (talk) 13:23, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree. I just wanted to post the same image: https://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/734041_579219472102916_1594498766_n.jpg, but I don't feel like logging in again... xD It's Boky. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.222.118.229 (talk) 13:25, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Trailers
Please be aware that information on upcoming trailer releases should not be included in the article simply because Rockstar have announced a date for their release. It is not Wikipedia's place to offer information on when and where trailers can be seen. Details of trailers should only be included if they are notable and offer additional content to the page - but the existence of a trailer itself does not count as offering additional content. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:17, 27 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I think we need to mention the number of trailers used for marketing, as it looks a bit odd with us only having two trailers listed, yet knowing that their are five in existence. - X201 (talk) 12:23, 1 May 2013 (UTC)


 * If you can source there's five trailers, that's definitely fine to say as part of the marketing, something like "Rockstar has planned to release five theaterical-style trailers prior to the game's release to promote the game." --M ASEM (t) 13:24, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * That's the problem. There's no one single source that says there has been five, but obviously multiple sources that back up the fact that they were released as a single, single and yesterday's triple. The problem comes from notability being enforced so that yesterday's release can't be added to the article, the only way to state that there have been five is to use single refs, and that would fail the basis of WP:SYN "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.", So that leaves the article in the position of not listing yesterday's trailers due to notability, and also seeming to deny their existence by not mentioning the total number of trailers. - X201 (talk) 13:49, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not a violation of simple SYNTH (math operations) to say 1 + 1 + 3 equals 5, as long as RS have commented on each trailer release. (I didn't realize yesterday's was a triple, sorta been out of the loop on GTAV). It's clear (just did a news check) that RSs have noted three trailers each on a single character released yesterday, so there's no issue with knowing that 3. And the other two have been sourced. The only other consideration is if they have submarined-released any trailers, but you could always say "Rockstar has released at least five theatrical trailers for GTAV." so that if there's one we don't know about, we're not incorrect in our statement. --M ASEM  (t) 13:57, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

To be honest here, my issue is more that people have simply been dumping every single detail of every single trailer into the article. I'm of the belief that articles should be written with the final version in mind, and so I have to ask if some of this stuff is going to be even remotely relevant once the game is released. Come 17 September (or whenever it is), are people necessarily going to want to know that Rockstar used a particular song for a particular trailer six months before the game was released? And if the answer to that is no, then why is it so important that we include that detail now?

This stems from the Manual of Style on film marketing (I can't find a corresponding MOS article on game marketing, but if such an article exists, please feel free to direct me to it), which says the following:
 * Topics that can be covered include target demographics, test screenings, release dates, scale of release (limited vs. wide), merchandising, marketing controversies, and contending for awards. Do not merely identify and describe the content of customary marketing methods such as trailers, TV spots, radio ads, and posters. Instead, use reliable sources to provide useful commentary about a method, such as a trailer's intended effect or the audience's reported reaction to it

And I don't really see any of that in some parts of the section. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 14:03, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Might I suggest looking at what I did for BioShock Infinites trailers? Here, RS did highlight the major details of each trailer, but short of what they said, I didn't go into any more detail about them. I completely agree - and this GTAV article has been a bad example from the first teaser images - that it is not WP's place to describe every element of media released before a game, unless a detailed breakdown has been described by reliable sources. At the end of the day, once GTAV is released, much of this will be plot and gameplay aspects, and thus not needed as part of marketing. I think there is enough RSs for GTAV's trailers to do as I suggest (mention the 1+1+3 trailers), highlighting the last 3 were individual character arcs establishing ones, but that's all one needs to do here. --M ASEM  (t) 14:15, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * My concern is mostly the hardcore fan edits that add everything to the article. I'm sure there are some people who will take that description poorly, but it's by no means a criticism. It's just a question of showing some restraint and asking yourself "does the article really need this?". Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:58, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The article will probably fork on release, just like GTA IV did to create Marketing for Grand Theft Auto IV. I understand Prionermonkey's concerns, but the end article for the marketing material isn't going to be in this article, it will be in a separate article with a narrower focus, hence my inclusion of a trimmed down version of the recent trailers. I didn't know of the Film guidelines, so will use them for video games. Do you think there's enough info to content fork Marketing now? - X201 (talk) 14:50, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I've made a first attempt at following the film guidelines mentioned above, can't find anything that comments on the intended effect or the method, but have found one that backs up the fact that it is part of an increase in publicity that started in March and I've used the trailer and other things to explain that. Opinions? - X201 (talk) 15:24, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * That looks fine to me. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:58, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay, this edit is a perfect example of what I am talking about when I mention hardcore fan edits that I think are detrimental to what Wikipedia is all about. This particular edit is fixated on minor details, presents them as if they are new features for the game, and directly addresses the reader (by referring to them as "you"). This is the kind of edit that should be avoided. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:17, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree, although I would say that - with appropriate references and re-writing - there is an argument that it should be in the development section, e.g. "Character customisation has been re-introduced to the game following its absence in GTA 4, the feature has been expanded upon to also include customisation of vehicles and weapons. Also returning is the ability to buy properties and businesses and generate an in-game income from them " as I say though, this is dependent on finding appropriate sources. But you're correct, in its original form it is no help. - X201 (talk) 12:34, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Not able to buy property.
The article is wrong when it says that "the player will not be able to buy property as in Vice City and Vice City Stories." According to the previews, Rockstar has decided to change their decision and actually include property buying. http://www.rockstargames.com/newswire/article/49721/worldwide-grand-theft-auto-v-previews.html, http://www.igta5.com/latest-gta-5-previews-from-gaming-media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ran Abit (talk • contribs) 23:57, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I know, I spotted it ages ago, but haven't got off my backside to change it. - X201 (talk) 07:52, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ - X201 (talk) 08:03, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Marketing section
As you may have noticed, the article is slightly shorter than on previous visits. I have forked the marketing section into a separate article (Marketing for Grand Theft Auto V), the same as GTA IV. The section was taking over the whole of the article, and we still have just under 4 months to go until the release. With the additional of more marketing info as well as development news, reviews, and the game plot to come, the article will become massive. So I've taken the opportunity of this lull before the main marketing onslaught to split the sections.

I've totally removed marketing as I think the puts a good line in the sand, and will give the other sections room to breathe. At a later date, a brief overview of the marketing can be re-added to the main article. Obviously from this point on, please add marketing stuff to the other article. - X201 (talk) 15:25, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Reader feedback: this page needs pictures oth...
2602:306:BCD1:D810:61B0:58AA:3C7F:850 posted this comment on 17 July 2013 (view all feedback).

"this page needs pictures other than the box art maybe some screen shots?"

Any thoughts? This seems like a good idea Techdude3331 (talk) 23:22, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 9 August 2013
GTA Previous titles release date are incorrect. plz check them.

117.206.180.234 (talk) 14:51, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Can you be specific about which games and where in the article. I have checked the ones in the lead and they are correct. - X201 (talk) 15:02, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Grand Theft Auto Online
I was thinking that since Rockstar seems to be putting a much emphasis on GTA Online than on any previous GTA multiplayer mode, then perhaps a new page could be created dedicated to the subject. Granted we would have to wait until tomorrow (15 Aug) until we have more info, but if it's as significant as it's implied, I think it could possibly deserve its own page. Constructive criticism is always welcome. ~Siriusly (talk) 20:48, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Just do the same as the Marketing. Keep it in this article and then fork it if it gets big enough. - X201 (talk) 21:37, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is considered its own game so it should have its own page. - Ral539 (talk) 22:51, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Merge discussion
Grand Theft Auto Online does not need its own Wikipedia article. It is a mode within the Grand Theft Auto V experience, not a separate game experience itself. It is packaged in the GTA V box and included in the sale total. If information on it were to ever grow too large to fit on the GTA V page, then there could be discussion about splitting the page. For now, though, I propose we merge Grand Theft Auto Online to Grand Theft Auto V. CR4ZE (talk) 04:45, 16 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I think it would be better to have two separate pages as they are two separate things. Eventually Online will be too large to just be a section, so what harm does it do to just separate them before it gets to large. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ral539 (talk • contribs) 05:17, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Oppose. Rockstar intends GTA Online to grow independently of GTA V. <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">GSK ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 05:49, 16 August 2013 (UTC)


 * To Ral539, that is an issue that you address at the point that it becomes an issue. Separating a section into its own stub article in preparation for a hypothetical is not appropriate in any instance. The article currently has 6 sources (5 if you subtract the direct Rockstar Games source, which technically isn't a "source") and is 5,000 bytes in size. Subtracting the Infobox there's only maybe two good-size paragraph's worth of information on GTA Online, which isn't enough to justify its own article.


 * To GSK, irrespective of what Rockstar's intentions are, GTA Online is a mode that is attached to the retail copy of GTA V. If it was a separate video game not tied to GTA V it would be different. GTA Online runs off the same engine that the single-player does, uses the same setting, gameplay features et cetera. It is not a separate game.


 * Can I suggest that you both read WP:STUB and WP:N, and also have a look through WP:VG's MoS so you can see where I'm coming from. CR4ZE (talk) 06:36, 16 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge As per CR4ZE above, it should be created in the GTA V multiplayer section as they are not separate games. Also the multiplayer needs to be covered in the GTA V article, there is only a small amount of information available at the moment and this will lead to both articles having the same information. This in turn will lead to duplication and the main article falling foul of the summary guidelines. - X201 (talk) 07:50, 16 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge Its part of the GTAV Game, if it grows out of the GTA 5 game and spand to the next GTA game then ok give it its own article. we are not at that point yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.249.47.209 (talk) 19:06, 16 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge. No crystal balling, whatever Rockstar wants this to become. Merge now, split later if necessary. --Soetermans. T / C 19:43, 16 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Rockstar has said this is its own thing, it is its own platform for future GTAs, obviously this means its featured in GTA V but it isn't part of GTA V, it is its own thing. --Ral539 talk 20:23, 16 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge Merge for now. If it becomes a huge thing on GTA V's page, then seperate them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamohh (talk • contribs) 20:32, 16 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge. I was thinking about making a Grand Theft Auto Online myself, but it didn't take too long for me to realise that it wouldn't be notable enough for its own page. If it was an independent game, then a page would be fair enough, but as far we're concerned, it's only a mode in a game. Albeit a popular one, but it only needs its own section for now. If it becomes popular and big enough, then a page will be created for it then. --Rhain1999 (talk) 00:57, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

The article has now been merged. I've rewritten the section too, in an effort to reduce fluff and keep the tone encyclopedic. CR4ZE (talk) 09:14, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Just a note although i agree with a merge, you should have give more time for the discussion. 24 hours from start of discussion to merging isn't much time. --JetBlast (talk) 09:45, 17 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Last time I checked on the other voting page most people wanted to keep it. Looks like you get to do whatever you feel like regardless of the majority's opinion. Congrats clown. CloudKade11 (talk) 10:48, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what/where you mean by "other voting page". Also, regarding your comments aimed at CR4ZE, be WP:CIVIL. - X201 (talk) 15:40, 24 August 2013 (UTC)