Talk:Portal 2

Plot section
I cut down the plot summary, but was reverted.

I believe the current summary contains unnecessary details. Here are some examples:


 * an artificial voice guides her through a cognitive test on the basic game controls before she is put back to sleep The brief tutorial on game controls is not part of the plot. It's a gameplay thing.


 * Chell then traverses the building in an elevator, serenaded by the laboratories' robotic sentinels in an opera song titled "Cara Mia Addio". The robots' song is not an important part of the plot. Nor is its name.


 * On the surface, she enters a wheat field from a corrugated metal shed, with the charred and battered Weighted Companion Cube, supposedly incinerated during the events of Portal, thrown after her. The type of field is not important. The type of shed is not important. The type of metal the shed is made from is not important. The companion cube has nothing to do with the plot of either game - it's just a fun thing. All we need to say about this scene is that GLaDOS releases Chell.

The summary also contains unnecessary words and clunky sentences. For example:


 * He quickly becomes power-mad and malevolent "mad with power", which implies malevolence, suffices.


 * Denying this and infuriated by the accusation, It's not important that he denies this. It's also obvious what he is infuriated by. Just "Infuriated" suffices.


 * laboratories' abandoned lowest level The entire facility is abandoned, not just the lowest level.


 * Through the recordings it becomes apparent that... Pointless. We can just describe what the tapes tell us.


 * In their final confrontation, we don't need to say this is the final confrontation, because it's the final confrontation we mention. Readers won't wonder if there was another confrontation later. Popcornduff (talk) 13:23, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with all of the points you've made above, but I think you got a little heavy handed with some other changes though. For example, it seems like "slightly changing decor starting from 1950s style" probably better illustrates the change going on here than "old laboratories". I don't know, I haven't played the game, I'm just monitoring the article a bit because of that recent disruptive IP, but that's my two cents. Sergecross73   msg me  13:37, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The important bit there is surely that we see bits of level built in different time periods, not that the decor changes. That strikes me a classic example of not writing with a reader unfamiliar with the subject - it's not clear what the decor represents unless you've played the game. In any case, prose like "slightly changing decor starting from 1950s style" sets of my "bad writing" alarms to the point where I just want to rip it out rather than stop to think about what point it's trying to make. And there is a point to be made here, so I've added it. Popcornduff (talk) 13:48, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Indeed, it's not that the original wording was great, it wasn't, its just that something was lost in translation altogether in your cut down. I appreciate your efforts to simplify prose like this, but I do think you tend to take it a little too far too. It's still a net-positive, and you leave it better than you left it, but I do wish you would try to not be quite so heavy handed at times... Sergecross73   msg me  14:15, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Then let's discuss the stuff you want to add. Popcornduff (talk) 14:34, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I just meant in more of a general sense, we tend to cross paths a lot on various articles, like Sega related stuff. I don't have any further concerns here, though my knowledge of the game's plot is pretty minimal, so I hope you'll hear out any other concerns I may be unaware of. But again, all the points above, I support. Sergecross73   msg me  14:53, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm always happy to explain my edits and I'm happy to hear arguments from others. Next time you think I've gone too far with a trim, tell me. Maybe you'll bring me round - you were right that we should mention the different time periods of the test labs. Popcornduff (talk) 14:57, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The opera song played out at the end is actually something commented on by many sources; without that sourcing, I agree its UNDUE. "hrough the recordings it becomes apparent that..." is necessary per WAF: we are writing from the POV a player watching the events on their computer screen, not from a POV inside the game. We need to explain how some of the backstory elements are developed, and if that's through the prior recordings, that should be noted.  --M asem  (t) 13:41, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Who cares how many sources mention the opera? It can be mentioned in other parts of the article if it's notable, but it's not a critical plot point.
 * "through the recordings it becomes apparent that" - we just don't need it. I think the current revision indicates that we learn the history through the recordings. It's not a WAF issue. Popcornduff (talk) 13:48, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I know I can understand from the grammar only that its learned from records in the changed version, but that's not immediately obvious, which can be a problem to the larger readership. And it is WAF related, as we're supposed to write out-of-universe, so establishing the pre-history comes from in-game recordings is necessary. --M asem (t) 13:52, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I still don't get the WAF concern - everything in the story comes from the game - but I've rewritten it to be more explicit about the information you get from the recordings. Popcornduff (talk) 14:34, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Potato image
Just starting up a discussion on it since there's been some back and forth on it. Does it's inclusion make sense, even if it's a free image? Sergecross73  msg me  14:32, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd say no. It serves no encyclopedic purpose and is only there cosmetically, free or not. GLaDOS simply being a potato for a chunk of the game (with no other commentary) does not justify its inclusion. Otherwise, we could litter the article with (free) images that vaguely represent random plot elements. IceWelder  &#91; &#9993; &#93; 14:48, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * There is no issue with the image. It is the only image being used in that section (Plot), it is demonstrating something that is not common (the idea of a potato battery), and arguably there's no other free image idea that could replace it. I would agree that there would be an issue if we were trying to fit multiple images in that section, but that's not happening. --M asem  (t) 14:56, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * TBH I'm not seeing the relevance either. If multiple sources have mentioned potatoes as a recurring/important theme, and this is covered in meaningful depth in the article, then it might be justified, but as it seems a bit random. Popcornfud (talk) 14:57, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * It doesn't add anything to the article or any usefulness to readers. Anyone can understand the plot without being shown what a potaty battery looks like, and there's no commentary about the significance of the battery either. As IceWelder said, it's there only for decoration. Neocorelight (Talk) 07:24, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Counter: What's wrong with relevant decoration? This is a free image, so it's not like we're bucking against NFCC guidelines. -- ferret (talk) 13:58, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * , the wrong has been explained by three comments here. See also MOS:IRELEV, regardless of the image's license. The potato image is not an important illustrative aid to understanding. Neocorelight (Talk) 14:37, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * No, it wasn't explained in the above comments. Opinions on relevance were given. My comment was the first time any policy or guideline mentioned, and your reply only the second time a guideline was mentioned. It's important that we state guidelines if we expect other people to understand the argument. MOS is a massive maze, no one has every aspect memorized. I'm satisfied that IRELEV does not really support the image at this time. -- ferret (talk) 14:50, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Featured
I want to get this article to Featured quality, before I nominate can anyway give me some pointers or quick review? And is anyone willing to help me? Lankyant (talk) 22:46, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Linux functionality
It claims that Linux is supported for this game, but I have Linux Steam, and I checked. The supported platforms are listed as Windows, Mac. Not Linux. Marioman28 (talk) 15:52, 2 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Portal 2 in the Steam store currently lists the requirements for Linux at the bottom, with a minimum requirement of Ubuntu 12.04. -- ferret (talk) 16:08, 2 April 2024 (UTC)