About The Boy:
In game we can read that Boy is "Young GUNSLINGER and outlaw", so he is GUNSLINGER.
About Joshua Brown:
Why I can't write that Joshua is gunslinger in West Elizabeth?
About Black Belle:
Why I can't write that Belle is legendary gunslinger?
You could’ve used the other, existing thread that was about this specific topic. Anyway:
It’s already mentioned in Slim Grant’s infobox that he’s the State Marshal of New Hanover, which is a type of lawman, just a more specific term. I removed “Lawman” because it’s basically saying the same thing twice.
As for Joshua Brown, not quite sure he’d count as a gunslinger. He’s an outlaw, but not a renowned gunman with tales on his exploits and whatnot.
With Black Belle, I didn’t remove the statement that she’s a gunslinger but merely changed it, for the purpose of improving the paragraph’s flow. The sentence “Legendary gunslinger” at the start of the paragraph is quite abrupt - even if it is true.
For The Boy, well... he doesn’t seem like much of a gunslinger to me, but if the game says he is then that’s not something any editor can contradict with their personal opinion. You can re-add it.
I’ve just checked, and Farley doesn’t say anything about him killing people on duels, just that he’s previously killed people legally and has overstepped the line. He made no mention of the circumstances of these deaths. Brown also doesn’t have a gunslingers card and isn’t known by anyone except the sheriff, so I don’t think he’d count as a gunslinger. In any case, just because someone wins some duels, doesn’t necessarily make them a gunslinger.
It’s already written on Black Belle's page that she’s a gunslinger.
We already talk about who gunslingers are. This is everyone who make money buy guns, especially if they have duels with there aponents. And if someone doesn't have his card it doesn't mean that he is not a gunslinger
A gunslinger is more of a reputation or status than an actual occupation. It’s generally an accolade given to someone because of their skill with a gun, often if they’ve been involved in shootouts of some kind, regardless of the person's provenance.
An occupation is someone's job/profession, and being good with a gun is only indirectly linked to that. Being a famed shootist might help you in situations that lead to money, but it’s not that in itself that actually provides income. The occupation would be a more specific term, like outlaw, lawman, bounty hunter, soldier or mercenary. Anyone with these occupations could be considered a gunslinger, and they’re considered an occupation because they’re what someone does for a living - their profession.
In terms of the ones you listed:
Flaco Hernández would be an outlaw
Landon Ricketts' occupation isn’t known for sure. He appears to be some kind of vigilante (like a voluntary lawman) in the town, but whether this is his profession, we don’t know for sure. Perhaps he makes his money from gambling? Again, not sure
Joshua Brown would be an outlaw, formerly a bounty hunter
The Boy would also be an outlaw
Billy Midnight is also a difficult one. It’s implied that he’s been on tours to speak of his gunslinging experience which could technically make "gunslinger" his profession, but again, it’s indirect and not known for sure to what extent this happened and whether it’s even current
Slim Grant is a lawman, State Marshal of New Hanover
Calloway is also an unknown, similar to Billy Midnight, though because his past is implied to be fabricated, it’s very hard to know what he actually did
I've noticed that John Marston's page has been locked since Febuary, from what I've gathered due to edit warring (please forgive my ignorance - I joined back in March), and was wondering when if it will be unlocked anytime soon, as I've noticed a few things that could be changed or tweaked.
Not too related, but I was wondering on whether it would be a plausable thing to slightly alter John's Quotes section. Currently the section is simply a link to John Marston/Quotes - Now, this makes sense, as the linked page is more than large enough to be its own page. However, I suggest that John's current Quotes section should be altered to be more akin to how Jack's is formatted, in that all of the "Campaign (Redemption)" and "Campaign (Redemption 2)" quotes should be added to John's main page while all of his gameplay quotes (Skinning, Shopping/Selling, Picking Flowers, Riding, Combat, etc.) should be left on John Marston/Quotes.
For the quote situation, I’d rather they’re all in one place. There’s a huge number of quotes, especially for RDR 1, so not all of them could go on John's page. Deciding which ones to use and which ones not to can be a difficult process too, which adds further complications - some on the main page and some on the quotes page, for example, is not ideal. Jack's situation is slightly different because he has much fewer quotes in both games, so what applies to him may not be the same as for John.
In terms of protection, I will certainly consider unprotecting it soon (next couple of days, perhaps), as it’s been locked for a while now.
Thank you. To clarify on the quotes suggestion, you wouldn't actually need to work too hard on deciding which ones to use and which ones not to, as all of the story quotes are in the Campaign category on the quotes page . Additionally, in terms of only story quotes, although it is quote a few, it isn't too much','in my opinion, as it isn't much greater in quantity than Dutch's quotes.
Hi Wagwan. Recently I was hanging out on the GTAforums. In the thread for TheRDR2BetaHunt there were some users who found voicelines of Eliza and other characters mentioning her (Like Miss Grimshaw and Abigail). Apparently, John was supposed to encounter her during the epilogue according to one sound file. The thing interesting about Isaac is that, according to Roger Clark, he was originally supposed to freeze to death during the first chapter.
Should these facts be added onto their wiki pages?
Sounds interesting. Can you access these voicelines in any way? It would definitely be good information to have on the page, but a reference would be required. For Isaac, this shouldn’t be too hard as Roger Clark presumably says it in an interview somewhere? Eliza may be a little more difficult.
Could you send me a link to the forum that you found this information on? I’ll be able to have a look and see what I can do in terms of references.
Thank you for sending me this. I’ve updated the Isaac page accordingly. With Eliza, the situation is a bit more tricky as it’s hard to get the sound files into a form that could be used as a reference on the wiki, so I will keep looking.
Just an update on this situation: the google drive audio files don’t work if they’re used as a reference on articles. I’m not sure why this is, but it means that they’ll have to be in a different form. A YouTube video might work, although it shouldn’t have a background.
.ogg files could work if there’s a way to get them into a format on the page where they are shown clearly when clicking on the reference prompt and in the references section. If not, then they may not be of much use. If that does work, it would be a viable option, but a YouTube video would be preferable as the .ogg files don't work on all devices.
Tell me, who is the other Eliza that knows Arthur Morgan, John Marston and Dutch's gang? You obviously know since you keep deleting my contributions. There's more audio to back this up of course but you obviously know best.
Is it because of my beef with H Roosevelt that I'm being watched?
Since when would Eliza know John? That’s an assumption. Furthermore, that was done before Eliza was even created as a character, so it won’t mean the same person who Arthur had a relationship with. Saying that it is the same person just because they share a by-no-means-rare first name is also an assumption. Finally, the reference was not done properly.
It should be:
<ref>[insert video link here]</ref>
And at the bottom of the page, there should be a references heading with simply "<references/>" written underneath it.
The video makes no mention of Arthur. Aside from which, she was dead before 1899, so she won’t be around in 1911. It’s not the same person.
I will not keep arguing with you about this. Your uptight attitude on mine, Linus' and Roosevelt's message walls is not welcome, and venting about it on the discussions isn’t either. If you continue harassing people and throwing insults, the only thing it’ll result in is a block.
I hope that both the reasoning and the warning are clear.
I would normally change this myself, but Arthur's page is so huge that I feel I should post this first (and I don't know what mission that image came from).
I actually really like Arthur's leading image, it's well-shot and represents his character well. However, I feel that it is heavily dragged down by the fact that it uses a clean-shaven, overweight Arthur.
I personally believe that this image should be replaced with the same shot, but with Arthur's default appearance (level 3 beard and hair, perfect weight, "The Gunslinger" outfit).
Certainly, a character's default appearance is what an image on the wiki should show. As far as Arthur's photo goes, the only noticeable thing is that he is virtually clean shaven, although I wouldn’t say that that’s a massive a problem given that everything else is right. A few months ago, I took some photos of Arthur myself, but as I always wear a bandolier and never the neckerchief that Arthur wears, it wasn’t quite the default outfit. Furthermore, getting the lighting right in the photo of him in Valentine sheriff's office proved quite difficult.
While I am satisfied with the current photo, changing it to what you suggest would be fine, but only if the graphics, lighting, etc are just as good.
Just wanted to let you know that there are two recent characters that need to be added to the Redemption template: The Butcher Brothers and Sherman M. Rhodes. Both are mentioned in the first game and I just wanted to let you know.
Hello! We’ve been analyzing what makes people spend more time on wikis and we’ve identified something. It’s comments! Having comments enabled on a wiki gives it a boost to the time people spend on the pages and engage with the wiki.
We would like to enable comments on your wiki to help it grow as part of an experiment.
This will not happen if you don’t agree with trying this out! It’s entirely up to you!
We believe that this experiment will help your wiki and if you have any problems along the way we can always roll back and disable comments.
So, what do you think? Are you interested in trying this with us? We’d love to work with you to help grow your community!
After a discussion among staff members, we have decided not to enable a comments section on articles. This is due to bad past experiences with it, the heavy moderation that it would require, and that it would make discussions about editing an article more difficult due to the resulting cluster of comments. Regardless, thank you for the suggestion.
You claim that the trivia doesn't pertain to "in-game animals, and so it’s not relevant here." Yet, you've kept this trivia: "The fictional Wapiti tribe is not based....late nineteenth century." If it doesn't pertain to in-game content, then why is that allowed, especially when it's speculative and the language is not neutral?
In regards to the overhunting about bison and theories as to how/why their numbers dwindled, the general nature of this topic means that it’s not particularly relevant for a wiki devoted to Red Dead. Many things are explicitly mentioned in the games, like rapidly advancing technology, ever-increasing government interference and so on, yet not all of these would need theories on the real-life factors behind them. It’s simply not relevant.
The point about the inspiration for the Wapiti Indians provides a potentially insightful comparison between them and the real-life Indians in similar situations, so there is a reason for that. However, going further and discussing reasons behind it and whatnot would not be necessary, hence why the point is relatively broad and vague. Similarly, the buffalo page could plausibly have a brief mention of how the real-life buffalo’s numbers were low by the time of the game(s) for comparison, but going further and discussing the reasons behind it (especially when it’s theoretical) is a step too far and no longer pertains to anything in-game.
Regarding neutral language, it’s certainly true that wording should be as objective as possible on articles. However, I wouldn’t say there’s much wrong with the current wording.