Talk:Papers, Please

Deleted from lead
This was deleted from the lead. It seems relevant, NPOV and reliably sourced:

"The phrase "Your papers, please" is a cultural metaphor for life in a police state, which was popularized by Hollywood movies featuring Nazi officials stopping people and demanding to see their identification." http://www.jurist.org/forum/2011/11/margaret-hu-immigration-papers.php Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:42, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The origin of "your papers, please" is fine, but it is original research to say (conclusively) that the name of this game was based on that. --M ASEM (t) 13:44, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * To be fair, the sentence didn't say that the game title is based on that expression. See this article where Wired is making the connection between the title and the border policies of oppressive regimes; I think this merits explaining the origin of the expression. Diego (talk) 15:56, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * But we're still dealing in original research in that I haven't seen anything yet to show if that use of phrase is why Pope chose it for this game. There's a high chance it was specifically selected for this reason, but we have to be careful without a source to know this was the purpose of the game's name. --M ASEM (t) 16:14, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * That's fine as long as we don't say that Pope chose the title for that reason, which the article doesn't do. Wired does say that "You're a border agent for an impoverished totalitarian rathole of a country" and "You're simply turning away people whose documents have an error and admitting those whose papers are perfect. Criminal with clean documents? Come on in. Law-abiding citizen whose documents were goofed up by some other soulless apparatchik? Nyet. Papers, Please". This is enough to explain the origin of the term "Papers, please" in terms of totalitarism, not because Pope explained it, but because Wired staff explained it. If it makes you feel better, we could add an attribution like "Wired placed the expression Papers, please from the title in the context of totalitarian regimes", but I don't think that's necessary. You don't need to cite that the sky is blue unless you're writing an article about the physics of refraction; people know how to look upwards to verify it by themselves. Diego (talk) 16:22, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, I haven't found a source from Pope but I did find another case from ABC News that they pointed out the "Papers, Please" line and attributing it to the Arizona immigration issue (which happened around the time of the game's release). And he also noted that he wasn't trying to comment on any known political aspects, so to necessaarily say this was from the Hollywood treatment of Nazi germany might be injecting something that wasn't intended. I'd really rather see Pope's own statement on the name selection than shots in the dark from third-parties. --M ASEM (t) 18:21, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Isn't that how we write articles? :-) I'd like to see what Pope intended too, but not having the author's vision is not a reason to remove the others. Analysis from third party independent commentary is typically what we consider the strongest sources for an article. Diego (talk) 18:41, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * But we are putting that in the lede, and that's giving too much weight to this aspect. The phrase "papers, please" can be neutral (I've heard it myself on foreign travel) or can be negative, and without Pope's reasoning, we shouldn't put it that high. The way it is being written is trying to say why Pope chose it without having Pope's own words. If we include it, it should be how others found the title to bring back memories or impressions of how historically and stereotypically immigration into Germany or the Eastern Bloc, rather than say these were the inspiration for the title. --M ASEM  (t) 18:57, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * That's easy to fix. I've moved it to Reception as the explanation is based on external commentary, although it could fit at Development as well. Diego (talk) 09:08, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't fit into Development, as it has nothing to do with Pope's own ideas. We are lacking any clear reason from Pope directly as to why he chose that name, so its inclusion is clearly a third-party opinion, so it can only go into reception, but even still, has to be reworked to not imply that it was Pope's intent with that title. --M ASEM (t) 13:57, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

I think you're reading too much into the sentence. As Wired explains, the term is a metaphor for police detentions that is culturally related to police states; it is proper for the article to explain the connection because the readers of the article (as well as the players of the game) will make that inference, even if we don't have explicit confirmation from the author that this was the intention. As long as we don't explicitly say that Pope intended it this way, which the current version doesn't do, it's OK to explain the context in which the game was created and its title was chosen, as documented by a reliable independent source. Diego (talk) 14:44, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The phrase "papers, please" may be tied to a police state and that's how it is popularized in popular culture, but that is not the sole intention of the phrase either, it can be used neutrality simply as the act of any immigration worker's routine in democratic societies. We don't know which way Pope intended it to mean (that I can find), so it's OR to make the connection. As reception, such as the Wired one, they talk about how dismal that Pope's narrative makes the country of Aztrokia seem, and thus connecting the police-state phrase "papers, please" to that country as an accurate concept, in their view, is fine. --M ASEM (t) 15:16, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

So your concerns would be satisfied if we connected the sentence to the fictional state, rather than the whole game? I don't see the need, but if you think that's what we should do, suit yourself. Diego (talk) 15:32, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The way it was included and worded, it was implying that the reference to the use of the term from Nazi Germany was the reason Pope picked that name, which, we don't know if that was or not. That others saw the title connecting well with the nature of Aztrokia, that's fine, but we shouldn't attempt to put words in Pope's mouth here, even implicitly. --M ASEM (t) 15:40, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I think it's time to try WP:EDITCONSENSUS. Simply write a version that you think it's acceptable, and if it's necessary we'll rewrite it until it's settled. Diego (talk) 20:20, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I should explain why I insert this originally. I was searching for information about the phrase "Papers, please!" and I got this article instead. I thought noting the background of the phrase in this article would avoid creating a stub article on this.Ghostofnemo (talk) 07:11, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I just added an "In popular culture" section and included it there.Ghostofnemo (talk) 07:15, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Looks as if it has been deleted without discussion. I guess I will have to create a stub of an article and a disambiguation page when I have time, as well as a note at the top of this article for people looking for information about the much more well known phrase who end up here by accident. Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:50, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The section has been removed, but its content has been placed at the Reception section. I do agree that documenting the sentence "your papers, please" on its own stub article would be a good idea. Diego (talk) 09:58, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, this would make sense, and then we can hat-note from here to that article for those searching on that phrase. --M ASEM (t) 14:24, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Article created Your papers, please and hat note added to both articles Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:17, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Everything seems good and in proper order with it. --M ASEM (t) 01:21, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Term relation for the hatnote
I don't think I agree that adding the word "related" to the hatnote is appropriate. Hatnotes by definition are not for WP:RELATED subjects, but primarily for naming conflicts and confusion. Whether the other term actually is or isn't related should be irrelevant to the hatnote and thus not vital to specify. I'm probably nitpicking, but hatnotes that I've seen don't include extra words or explanations like this. — HELL KNOWZ   ▎TALK 16:03, 7 May 2019 (UTC)


 * "Papers, please" is a completely fair search term that someone might use to locate the police state phrase. But because that's over at "Your papers, please", searching on "papers, please" (which is an alternate phrase there) gets you currently to the game. The hatnote served to redirect the user to that proper article. It is there for the naming conflict. --M asem (t) 16:15, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * And to be clear, it is not there because the term happens to be related. It's the search/disambigution issue. --M asem (t) 16:17, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * To be clear, are you aware that Hellknowz is only reverting the addition of the word "related" that was done today? He is not removing the hat note, just the extraneous word. -- ferret (talk) 16:27, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh geez, my bad. Yes, "related" is unnecessary. --M asem (t) 16:29, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, now I see what happened. >.< — HELL KNOWZ   ▎TALK 16:39, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Obristan above all listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Obristan above all. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. signed,Rosguill talk 17:07, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Trivia
regarding the content I removed: firstly, it's not appropriate for the section, as it's not "Reception", and would normally go to a "In popular culture" or "Trivia" section if Wikipedia still preferred having those. As for the content itself, the first is an Easter egg, which is pretty much the epitome of trivia. Then you have a "nod" which was "briefly shown" as a magazine cover in a television show. WP:IPCEXAMPLES lists some good and bad examples, and these are in the vein of the "passing, insignificant reference" in the "poor" example. The reference for the first is a list of "17 Easter Eggs", while the second reference doesn't even mention Papers, Please, nor the specific trivia detail. Even if these are third party sources, they don't pass the bar for multiple sources demonstrating significance of the reference, as neither play significant roles in their works. Opencooper (talk) 23:00, 2 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, I thought at least the Uncharted one was better documented but I can't find any other immediate sources. Just note that per that guideline, we actually want people to AVOID separate "in popular culture" sections and work that information into other sections. --M asem (t) 23:31, 2 January 2022 (UTC)