Talk:South Park: The Stick of Truth/Archive 1

Fan info regarding Europe censorship
This content has been added by an IP (who failed to start this discussion) so here's why it does not need to be included. Fan backlash: The source does not say ANYTHING regarding "fan backlash". This is WP:OR and should not be added on the page without significant commentary on the matter. Just because this may exist on other pages doesn't mean it is correct. The remaining part: The information is conveyed as it is, and this info does not change the statement. It is clearly labeled that Ubisoft EMFA made this decision, as theirs alone. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:21, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Kinect
The article mentions kinect support, but the game box has no mention of it. I am wondering if it was scrapped. If there is no kinect features then the information should be changed. ASOTMKX (talk) 19:14, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * We would need a source stating the change. However, I don't know if the fact it is on the box, as you stated, is sufficient enough. I'm sure some site will talk about this. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:07, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

March 8th editnotice
Hi, I'm a Template editor who dabbles in the recent changes patrol. I saw this page is getting very close to a 3-revert rule violation and created an editnotice to alert any editors who may have not read the guidelines about Wikipedia's spoiler alert guideline.

This was done in good faith to try to save any editors from being blocked or otherwise penalized. I set it to expire in 3 days (March 11th), but if it's not helping, feel free to drop me a line on my talk page and I'll change or remove it. meteor_sandwich_yum (talk) 19:23, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I also requested page protection, which may help the issue as well. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:07, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

The importance of the new kid never speaking
I notice a few editors (some of whom seem to be new to Wikipedia) have engaged in back-in-forth addition and removal of content. Although not quite an edit war, I do think the article's talk page should be used for this purpose. That's why I'm attempting to mediate this. Pinging the following:, ,

This doesn't have to be very involved. It seems three editors have expressed their thoughts individually, through edit summaries:
 * said ""Its important to know the new kid never speaks in the game"."


 * later replied ""Please explain why it is important to know this. Beyond being a running gag, he apparently merely chooses not to do so, and this resurrection is original research, its the virus, its shown multiple times in the game"."


 * made an edit, and mentioned ""same issue"."

So why is it important that the new kid doesn't speak?

This is what talk pages are for, after all meteor_sandwich_yum (talk) 22:50, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The new kid doesn't speak for the game until the end where he gets one line, he doesn't regain his voice for any reason he apparently just chooses not to speak for the sake of retaining a silent protagonist for the bulk of the game for the various benefits associated with such an implementation. I don't see the purpose of mentioning that its his only line of dialog when the plot is already over the word limit, and meant to provide a brief overview. DWB (talk) / Comment on 'Dishonoreds FA nom! 22:53, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't see the purpose of inclusion either. If anything, somewhere in development you can state that Parker and Stone wanted to create the character without a voice, because they dislike the fact that games give you a voice. I know that source exists, if it is not already on the page. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:57, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Which would be a perfect venue to discuss the final line if needed. DWB (talk) / Comment on 'Dishonoreds FA nom! 23:00, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Right on. meteor_sandwich_yum (talk) 23:02, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Sales
Any information regarding the sales of the game? 2601:8:9380:56C:A085:1D44:8973:C87B (talk) 06:32, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Censorship in the German and Austrian PC version
The article seems to suggest that the Germand and Austrian PC version also has the seven scenes (abortion minigames, etc) censored, which is not the case. It only has swastikas removed to comply with local laws, everything else remains uncensored. Saufsoldat (talk) 10:49, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Useful sources
Pretty good background on creation 21:44, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Character classes
I noticed it said Stan's a warrior. He's actually a ranger, and Sparky is his stated "wolf companion". Scott Malkinson is also a ranger, and is shown to be tending Cartman's cat.

Clyde is a fighter, and Token says he is a healer, which is a different class than a cleric in DnD... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.238.189.12 (talk) 20:43, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned references in South Park: The Stick of Truth
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of South Park: The Stick of Truth's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "IGNReview": From Taming Strange:  From A Song of Ass and Fire:  From Black Friday (South Park):  

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:45, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Tracking data:
 * all refs defined in (okay)
 * undefined refs introduced (presumably by hand) in (error introduced)
 * defined (presumably by hand) in (likely fixed)
 * Note that &lt;ref name=IGNReview&gt; [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=South_Park:_The_Stick_of_Truth&oldid=601413442#References currently has a bad title] ("The New Batman Game is Batman: Arkham Knight") but a plausible URL.


 * Fixed Meteor sandwich yum (talk) 22:21, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


 * None of the "orphaned refs" match up.


 * Doesn't appear to be copied; therefore this shouldn't apply.


 * Marking as disregard. Meteor sandwich yum (talk) 21:57, 26 March 2014 (UTC)