Hi Jack! My name is Shrev, and I’m the Fandom Wiki Manager for Red Dead Wiki. I am here to help the community and be a liaison to full-time Fandom staff. If you ever have a question or issue relating to the wiki, editing, styling, infoboxes, templates, etc., please feel free to contact me on my wall, or on Discord at Shrev64#0089.
I'm deciding to bring this up to you because I can see this becoming an issue now that Red Dead Redemption II has been released and I've already gotten into a minor edit war with somebody about this. And me being on wiki for almost ten years now, I know people are likely going to keep arguing about this. Unless some administrative action is taken to deter it. I’m hoping you can put to bed this issue. Which I’ll explain below.
You might be aware that for a long time, on the Marston daughter page that essentially the only two details about her were this.
1. Javier Escuella knew her, having indirectly mentioned her in the first game. Meaning she was at the very least alive when John Marston was in the Van der Linde gang.
2. John Marston mentioned a gap of years between his time in the gang and his daughter's death. Originally this gave a timeframe of her death having taken place between 1908-1911. Because it was originally assumed that John left the gang in 1906. And John Marston's daughter was dead by the time Red Dead Redemption take place. Which is in 1911.
So this information was reliable and was not able to be contradicted for years, until the release of Red Dead Redemption II which totally contradicts nearly everything that was said about John's daughter in the first game. Red Dead Redemption II takes place in both 1899 and 1907. Years she should have been alive in. Yet she is neither mentioned or seen in the entire game. It's as if Rockstar totally forgot John had a daughter. Not to mention that Javier Escuella knew of her yet she is obviously nowhere to be seen in the game.
Because of this. I elected to change the information and references on her page to the following two sentences.
"Nothing is known about her, though dialog in Red Dead Redemption asserted that she was still alive when John was in the Van der Linde gang." This is something we know for a fact that the first game implicated. Because Javier Escuella knew that John Marston had a daughter. And because John and Javier haven't met since their time in the gang. This is irrefutable evidence that she was alive and that this statement is true.
The next sentence is the following "Then died years after John's time in the gang." This is backed up in the first game when John openly states that a timespan of "years" happened in between him leaving the gang and his daughter passing away when speaking to Bonnie Macfarlane.
Next I made a note that the daughter is neither seen or mentioned in Red Dead Redemption II. Her absence is notable and should at least be mentioned since it seemingly causes some contradiction in what the first game implied.
Now, the editor i'm having this dispute with seems intent on speculating about the years she died in. By adding the following sources to what I wrote.
"Originally, it was speculated that John Marston left the Van der Linde gang in the year 1906. This was later corrected by the story told in Red Dead Redemption II. Red Dead Redemption II depicts this happening in the year 1899 through the mission "Red Dead Redemption". John Marston's daughter is also neither seen or mentioned in Red Dead Redemption II."
Obviously this statement has a lot of problems with it. The first being that the original speculative date of 1906, no longer has any relevance to the article because clearly, RDR 2 depicts John leaving the gang in 1899. This citation is referencing the fact that the older version of the article used the date of 1906 to try and date when John Marston's daughter died. This doesn't belong here anymore. Red Dead Redemption II totally contradicts the 1906 date. This information does not need to be referenced anymore.
The next reference the editor changed was the following.
"In Women and Cattle, John says "I had a daughter but she died. Years before that I rode in a gang." This narrows down the timeline of her death even more, as it is known that John left the gang in 1899. Using this information, she had to have passed away sometime in the years of 1899-1911 for John's statement to be correct."
This doesn't make any sense. Red Dead Redemption II takes place in 1899 and 1907. A timespan of eight years passes in total and in those eight years, John Marston's daughter is never seen or referenced. Because of Red Dead Redemption II's release, this doesn't "narrow down" anything anymore. If anything, it makes things far more convoluted. We play John Marston's backstory in the new game and it clearly creates a big discrepancy with this assertion. Also if "years" passed between John's time in the gang and her death. How could she have died in 1899? That's just an outright factual error.
Because all of these inferred details have become unclear. My version of the article no longer mentions any years. Because the years she lived or died are never given in the game, only vaguely inferred. At the end of the day, what we know as a bare bones fact. Is that the first game implied she was alive during John’s time in the gang and then died years after. That’s it. We know nothing about the actual dates and RDR 2 contradicts any timeline people are going to try and come up with.
'In conclusion, I don't think the article should reference proposed dates for when she lived or died anymore. Because this is specualtion. Fan speculation and not actual information the games are giving us. 'I apologize that this is so long winded. But I wanted to lay all the details out for my case on what is the best way to handle this article so we can take care of this and close off any future debate people might have about it.
Thanks for reaching out to me. Where should I start. I have thought about it numerous times, and as the release of RDR2 came and went it crossed my mind again. Really it is probably just that the events of the two games do not entirely go hand in hand with one another. What course of action should we take? Which of the two games' story is correct? If you ask me I would add that it is unclear whether or not John had a daughter or not. After evaluating your message I completely agree with the statement, go ahead and add it. I'm okay with it! Best regards JackiBackiBoy 18:25, November 12, 2018 (UTC)
I need some help editing Arthur Morgan's page. I've put a new quote but I don't know what's wrong with my browser and now the Quotes section is a little mess. If someone could check it or teach me how to solve it, I'd really appreciate that.
So I take it that you have read all the messages that I sent right and I'm guessing you read the parts about me bringing up my family. You said that I stepped out line and that I would continue to argue.
It is ture the behavior that I have shown on here is the same that I have shown in real life with my family. I was the peace maker in the family I fixed things I literally would step in between my siblings or mom and dad to stop the fighting and bad behavior. That of course hasn't always gone well sometimes it would stop the fighting and sometimes they told me to stay out it.
I will honest I don't agree with part where you said I stepped out of line. I don't think that I made debate out of it. But I think that you handled it in a good way because of that I'm sending this to say thanks. You don't have to reply just going thank you for clearing things up.
I honestly don't give a damn whether or not you were the peacemaker in your family, since I only look at your behavior on this wiki, that's it. Good for you that you were the peacemaker in your family but that argument is totally irrelevant in this particular situation.
Also, when you imply that you do not think that you stepped out of line, think about this: You have involved every single member of staff in a rather unnecessary debate, instead of just following the order one of the staff members gave you, you kept the debate going on, and on, and on.
I hope this is the end of it. Best regards, JackiBackiBoy 15:23, August 20, 2018 (UTC)
Honestly I have read rules and messages on many on other wikis where admins saying that if a user and an admin get into some time agreement those admins have said no one should get involved.
They said if person got themselves in the mess they should get themselves they have also told them it between that one user and that staff. I have found that listed in rules on other wikis. So basically what they say on those wikis no one jump on those conversations and no one else should get dragged into them. But that is only if it involves one user and one admin.
To me inoving people means if I sent that person a message I dragged them into. I never sent a message to JamesTheNerdKing he sent one to me. Thereason why I said I am a peace maker because that is what I am try to on I not starting an argument I am trying make peace with you guys not make things worse.
So far I think that I might have made peace with me and JamesTheNerdKing. Also me and Raziel Reaper have also made peace with each I think. I'm trying to make things good between that is why I say thank you in the message because I thought things were okay. I did that so we could move on.
That thank you was an act of kindness it was my way of saying glad that this is all over. You say you hope that this over honestly I that it was over that is I said thank you.
Sorry to bother you but I felt the Multiplayer glitches page needs changes and I didn't feel that I had the authority to spontaneously make them.
The aforementioned page currently lists the infamous and highly infectious multiplayer glitch often reffered to as "Injured man" as "patched" unfortunately the effects of NPC overload infections can be seen on almost every PS3 Public server. These include invisible players, infinite loading screens, empty NPC locations and a host of fps and performance issues.
Seeing that these glitches have almost completely destroyed PS3 multiplayer (and, if RDR forum posters are to be believed Xbox servers) would it be ok if I moved the paragraph? Perhaps a specific page describing the complicated processes necessary to minimise this glitch's many symptoms (and how to avoid transfering the glitch) would be helpful also.
What little I know about this issue beyond my own experience on PS3 servers comes from this Reddit post.
Thank you contacting me regarding this. I have heard about this glitch and I am very much aware of the impact it has had on the multiplayer experience for many. I have now looked in to the Multiplayer Glitches page and I have classed it as partially patched since form my research it is mostly gone. However since you reached out to me regarding the matter I am very confused since I haven't heard people talk about it for years now. What I'm trying to say is that if you have a reliable and newly updated source regarding the matter then please share it with me, thus I can add the information regarding the glitch and expand upon it further. I am however not for the idea of having a separate pafe regarding it. Feel free to make a blog post about it which explains it, but not a full on article in my opinion. As an admin of the Red Dead Wiki I would advice you to add the information you have to the Multiplayer Glitches article, if possible please provide a reference. Thanks for reaching out to me, best regards, JackiBackiBoy 09:23, May 9, 2018 (UTC)
I was looking through Discussions before I went to sleep and there was a new post asking to add a link to a new Brazilian Red Dead Wiki on the main page. I don't know much about technical aspects of things so would you do it.