Talk:OneShot

Requested move 21 June 2019

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: consensus to move. (non-admin closure) KSFT  (t&#124;c) 00:05, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

OneShot (video game) → OneShot – Per WP:SMALLDETAILS. There is no other media called "OneShot" (without the space or dash in between). A hatnote can be used if there remains confusion. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 11:13, 21 June 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. bd2412  T 22:12, 7 July 2019 (UTC)  --Relisting.  Steel1943  (talk) 05:20, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - looking at the dab page it is clear that the various forms of writing "One shot" require disambiguation. --Gonnym (talk) 14:17, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - WP:SMALLDETAILS says that when renaming to a less ambiguous page name can be done without wandering from WP:CRITERIA, such renaming should be considered. When this article was created, I explicity chose to do so, as OneShot isn't really notable enough to have an undisambiguated title without viewer misdirection. Support - Based on WP:SMALLDETAILS, disambiguation is not necessary; no other article title possesses OneShot as one word. - Axisixa T  C  02:47, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:SMALLDETAILS. Too many other One Shot. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:13, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:SMALLDETAILS. No other article has "OneShot" spelling and no disambiguation is needed. A hatnote can direct to One shot (disambiguation). I admit I am confused by the opposite interpretation of SMALLDETAILS. Even the examples given there are exactly for a case like this where a spelling variation disambiguates the topic. — HELL KNOWZ   ▎TALK 10:21, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * You are correct in that WP:SMALLDETAILS would usually mean that, but as I stated above, it does make an exception for when renaming to a less ambiguous page name can be done without wandering from WP:CRITERIA. Although the example for this case is far less disambiguous than OneShot (which does indeed bear more similarity to the examples you mentioned), such an requirement is not included in the text of the rule. - Axisixa T   C  11:15, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I understand how "renaming to less ambiguous page name [..] without wandering from CRITERIA" applies here. "OneShot" does not have other names. Say, the game was also commonly known as "OneShotOneKill", but it wasn't the primary name. In this case, one could argue "OneShotOneKill" disambiguates much better than "OneShot" because of the other topics sharing the shorter name, but still following WP:CRITERIA and being an alternative name. So we could apply this SMALLDETAILS exception then. But that's a hypothetical scenario that doesn't apply to most cases, because most subjects have just one name, like this game. Adding "(video game)" isn't an alternative title to be considered by WP:CRITERIA. It's a disambiguation, and SMALLDETAILS applies before such disambiguation. If one adds "(video game)", then of course SMALLDETAILS no longer applies. But that's because disambiguation was applied before considering if the original name was sufficient, which is exactly what SMALLDETAILS says it (could) be. — HELL KNOWZ   ▎TALK 11:55, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I get what you mean; although the clause that I referenced in WP:SMALLDETAILS doesn't explicitly exclude the disambiguation that the rest of the rule deals with, it makes far more logical sense in terms of the rule's intentions. I've changed my vote to a Support. - Axisixa T  C  02:47, 23 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Support per WP:OVERPRECISION and WP:CONCISE. There is no other article titled "OneShot" so a qualifier is unnecessary. Station1 (talk) 06:24, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per SMALLDETAILS and the other supporters above.  Calidum   04:21, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per Calidum this is the only use of precisely "OneShot".  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 17:45, 17 July 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

More about the Freeware Version
This page seems to only talk about the Steam version. I think it should clarify what also aplies to the steam version and what doesn't when it comes to the plot and stuff. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MLisDreaming (talk • contribs) 19:33, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Possible GAN?
pinging you since you created the article & did notable expansions. After reading the article it seems that it could go for GAN or is at least very close. What do you think? Since I'm also a fan of the game, it would be nice to see it reach that status. Might open a PR to see what can be improved. Skyshifter  talk  00:20, 3 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately i'm not able to be hugely active for the time being so I won't be able to participate much, but this seems like a good idea and I was aiming to eventually bring it to that level. Only issue is that IIRC a few of the sources could be more reliable and it might be difficult to find good ones to replace them (when I first wrote the article the game was barely notable, though it's increased in prominence since then). ― novov t c &#32; 02:23, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Multiple non-free images
since you mentioned it in the edit summary, from my understanding multiple non-free images in a VG article is fine provided there is sufficient justification to do so. There are plenty of VG articles that do that, cf. Portal 2 (which was approved as GA with multiple images). However, the specifics on what is allowable depends on the nature of the images and the prose surrounding it; the relevant policies are WP:NFCC and MOS:VG.


 * All images must meet all 10 WP:NFCC criteria.
 * According to MOS:VG, one image is implicitly notable for the Gameplay section, and additional images must be justified by sources (in prose or directly in the image caption, but that ofc should still relate to the prose around it either way). Currently, I wouldn't say the image in the Plot section meets that, unfortunately. Even if you added some sources, I'd recommend replacing it another one that better shows off the game's atmosphere, as I originally made it to show off the gameplay and IMO it's not really that good at doing anything else.

― novov (t   c)  06:50, 10 September 2023 (UTC)


 * , alright. I think the current one could work for showing the game's "dark atmosphere", but maybe it should be outside the ram puzzle indeed. I'll try to look for a screenshot that better show the game's atmosphere. Skyshifter   talk  13:44, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Minor Plot Edit
In the plot section, the second sentence is as follows: "They interact with a computer, which addresses the player by a name derived from the computer's login name via an external dialog box." This sentence is a bit confusing - the term "computer" here is used to refer to both:

- An in-game computer - The real-world computer that belongs to the player of the game (which the login name is derived from)

This is a very important part of the game's plot, as it's where the metafictional elements of the game first make themselves apparent; I think it would be good to rewrite this to make it less confusing. That said, I've tried a few rewrites, but I find that they're all pretty awkward. Would anyone else be willing to give this a shot? (At least one shot, perhaps? I'm sorry.)

Also, please feel free to say if you think a change is not necessary.

SpaceCowboy444 (talk) 20:42, 25 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Yeah it's not exactly the easiest thing to write within the constraints of Wikipedia's style of plot summary. I've given it a go but it's still far from optimal IMO. ― novov</b> (t   c)  21:32, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Definitely a lot better - I added a few more words to clarify that the login name comes from the player's computer. Would it be good to add something making it clear that the player is not prompted to enter this information in Oneshot? Some might think the player was prompted to give a username, and that the computer just repeats that username. SpaceCowboy444 (talk) 21:44, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * "login name" makes it pretty clear that's not the case IMO. ― <kbd style="font-size:85%"><b style="color:#270;rotate:-2deg;display:inline-block">novov</b> (t   c)  21:56, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * That's fair, I can agree on that. SpaceCowboy444 (talk) 22:22, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Featured article - an idea for a fanart
Given this article on OneShot have been featured today, this little event could use a picture of Wikipe-tan playing this very game. Cheers. 81.89.66.133 (talk) 09:12, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

"Universal acclaim"
I don't see how removing "universal acclaim" is the solution here — not only that, I don't see where is the problem. The paragraph begins with "According to review aggregator website Metacritic" and presents the ratings for the PC and Switch versions, plus "generally favorable reviews" for the PC version. It seems very clear and unambiguous that "universal acclaim" is taken from Metacritic — that's why it's in quotes, just like "generally favorable reviews". Even if that wasn't the case, why not a reword instead of removing something that is clearly in the source and is standard to multiple FAs citing Metacritic? Skyshifter  talk  14:50, 12 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Can we discuss here? Skyshifter   talk  17:09, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It appears quite straightforward to me. The wording in the article is "..received "universal acclaim", with a score of 92 out of 100".  The word "received" is in editorial voice - i.e. is presented as the view of the WP article, not as a quote from Metacritic, which is clearly wrong.  And the score of 92/100 with 8% negative reviews clearly does not amount to acclaim that is universal - i.e. from everyone.  The words I deleted add absolutely nothing - and indeed are misleading - compared to the straightforward fact that Metacritic assesses 92% of the reviews as positive. MapReader (talk) 17:18, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, according to Metacritic, the Switch version received "universal acclaim". This is verified in the source and, in the article, "universal acclaim" is inside quotation marks and attributed to Metacritic (as the paragraph begins with "According to review aggregator website Metacritic"). I don't see how that can be interpreted as being some Wikipedia interpretation. But if you interpret it that way, you can suggest a reword. Regarding the "universal acclaim" itself — yes, it wasn't 100/100, but that's how Metacritic (not us) assesses the reviews for this game: as "universal acclaim", and so that is included in the article and attributed to them. I really fail to see what is the problem. Again, this is standard wording for multiple FAs citing Metacritic, which is another thing to note: the article passed GA, FA, and appeared as TFA without this ever being a complaint. Skyshifter   talk  17:28, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * How is a sentence starting with "according to review aggregator website Metacritic" presented as the view of the WP article? The relevant MOS recommends using Metacritic's qualitative summary. Charcoal feather (talk) 17:52, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * This has been discussed on MapReader's talk page several times, they're the only person I've seen removing this, they've done it across many articles, including edit warring here. It's standard practice to include and they have no consensus to remove it. Indagate (talk) 20:40, 13 July 2024 (UTC)