Talk:GLaDOS

xkcd reference

There is a new reference in xkcd 375: https://xkcd.com/375/

Should it be added? --46.117.167.51 (talk) 18:26, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

No. We don't include every trivial pop culture reference. -- ferret (talk) 18:37, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Pronunciation?

Is there any information as to how "GLaDOS" is supposed to be pronounced? I automatically thought that it's pronounced "glad-ohs", but now that I think about it, I figure it's pronounced like the name "Gladys". I think that makes sense, since it would give her a "real" name instead of a meaningless acronym. Does anyone know if this pronunciation is correct? If the game developers have given info on pronunciation, I think it should be included in this article. NoriMori (ノリモリ) 03:13, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I've heard it various ways, but the most common is GLAD-ohs from my experience. Not sure what it is officially, though. Supernerd11 _{Firemind ^_^ Pokedex} 04:54, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

One option might be "Glad-O-S", like "Chrome OS", but that's just a guess. I've always heard it labelled "Glad-ohs" Mrman19 (talk) 20:09, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Portal: Prelude

All of the sections that pertain to Portal:Prelude are really badly written and have no sources. Should this even be part of the article? If so it should be rewritten, because the sentences run on and refer to characters that haven't been mentioned previously in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petenick96 (talk • contribs) 17:36, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, can someone please rewrite this? It's awful! I don't know enough about the prelude to do it myself, but its existence is embarrassing to Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lobstrain (talk • contribs) 19:30, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Deleted it. As a fan project rather than an official product it has no place here, cannot presume the plot is official. Яehevkor ✉ 19:43, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Category:Disk operating systems

Isn't Category:Disk operating systems only for real disk operating systems? Harry Blue5 (talk) 15:04, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm making a note here:

"She also sang the lyrics for "Still Alive", written by Jonathan Coulton, which played during the credits of Portal. The song has been a huge success[.]"

Please nobody change that wording. :-D — Mütze (talk) 20:14, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Merging Caroline (Portal 2) into this article

Caroline is, to be honest, not a major character, and I think that her article should be merged into the GLaDOS one. Does anyone object to this?--In Donaldismo Veritas (talk) 16:51, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support --Teancum (talk) 15:39, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support. I can't imagine there's not a lot you can write about her to support a whole article. She should probably have an entry in Characters in the Portal series though. Rehevkor ✉ 22:44, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support. It's basically a call for a redirect; everything that you can talk about her is already mentioned here. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 02:11, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support. I see what you did there. ζompuλacker (tlk) 19:47, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Goodbye, Caroline. Lagrange613 (talk) 00:39, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support. As per above statements. GWPSPØ9Ø7thAdv. 03:38, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

See also section

I've reinstated the link to Galatea (video game) in the See also section per Wikipedia:Build_the_web and WP:SEEALSO. These sections are navigation devices, which require that the targeted article exist and that a brief annotation is provided "when a link's relevance is not immediately apparent". "Links included in the "See also" section may be useful for readers seeking to read as much about a topic as possible, including subjects only peripherally related to the one in question." The topic at hand is female video game characters; both being AIs make it a strong connection between them. Diego Moya (talk) 23:33, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I've found a reference that allows placing it in text.Diego Moya (talk) 09:49, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Eh, a whole paragraph based on a single primary source (a wordpress blog at that) is a bit much imo. Rehevkor ✉ 10:55, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I'll trim it down to the main points. Emily Short is a notable video game designer. Diego Moya (talk) 11:11, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Pacific Rim

I know that del Toro hired McLain to be the voice of a computer system in Pacific Rim and that the trailer released yesterday has her nearly doing her Glados voice, but we can't say that there's necessarily a connection between Glados and the film based on that. Given that del Toro is a gamer, the similar might certainly well be intentional, and if we have an article that asserts this, great, then we can add it. But just having the similarity in voicing is otherwise OR to connect the film to Glados at this point. --MASEM (t) 14:39, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm a little short on time atm but I found this which while not full confirmation is at least something (del Toro saying that he went through Valve to get McLain to voice). We can't "yet" say its Glados but I'm more comfortable in having a statement that many journals noted the voice, and we can point out this hiring/valve influence on del Toro. --MASEM (t) 15:24, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

As a female in video games

Can we have a talk about the "As a female in video games" part? Only I can see how citing stuff wrote by random people online from sites that have recently been discovered to have an agenda that pushes feminism has no place on Wikipedia? How does this improve the article? How are these facts?

Can we just stick to what has actually been confirmed and not the mad ramblings of somebody that doesn't even have a journalism degree?

Also, this is from Jimbo Wales himself. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Due_and_undue_weight I think it falls perfectly in this category. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.36.154.190 (talk) 21:11, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it's fair to single out the "As a female in video games" section when all of the "analysis" is equally bogus (based on theories, not facts) in the article. I think arguing that only that section of analysis needs to go would be pushing POV.Wakanneesa ^t 06:27, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

The whole section seems unabashedly biased and does not belong without some serious editing.Tupin (talk) 21:50, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

It's odd that I count 3 separate IP's and a user, all coming out of the blue at the same time who apparently feel quite strongly about this. Why? Яehevkor ✉ 08:26, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I noticed this addition to the pag eof one of my favorite characters ever and posted it online and linked it to some people that love the game as much as me. This isn't right.--134.36.111.111 (talk) 16:02, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

There appears to be some meat puppetry going on here, relating to Milo Yiannopoulos on the GamerGate Twitter hashtag[1]. Artw (talk) 14:50, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's me. I tried to signal boost the addition to the page to get more people in here to talk about this part of the page. Never received an anwser from Yannoupoulos though. Is that wrong? --134.36.111.111 (talk) 16:04, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Canvassing is discouraged. Яehevkor ✉ 17:05, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

"it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it is done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus." It's discouraged?.--134.36.111.111 (talk) 13:19, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Inevitably is also at reddit http://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/2i0mr8/still_doubting_about_feminism_taking_over/ .©Geni (talk) 06:27, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

That wasn't even me --134.36.111.111 (talk) 13:19, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree. The analysis section of this Wikipedia article is bogus and has nothing concrete to say about the character. The "As a Female in Videogames" section is the most glaring example. It even sounds preachy. If I didn't know any better, I'd say someone is pushing their ideology on Wikipedia. 158.135.13.9 (talk) 13:05, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Please stop pushing your misogynistic ideologies onto decent people. ~ - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 12:10, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

By the way, as a feminist today, I was fairly anti-feminist when I wrote the (admittedly poorly-written) section on her role as a female in video games. There is no logical way to suggest that this was an attempt to force any ideologies on anyone. Keep that GamerGate shit off of this article. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 12:14, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Calling someone a misogynist is not productive. While I disagree with his POV push, he might disagree with feminism or certain aspects of feminism, but that does not make him a misogynist. Wakanneesa ^t 14:36, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

How about we stop pushing our "mysoginistic" ideas when you stop pushing theories about feminism in a game that have no basis on wikipedia? Can you confirm any of the things written in that part of the page? --134.36.111.111 (talk) 13:19, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

The refs seem to do a good job about confirming the stuff in the "As a female in video games" section. If I missed something, go ahead and slap a tag on it. Supernerd11 _{Firemind ^_^ Pokedex} 13:40, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't want to get caught up in anyone's POV pushing war, but all I see here (the entire analysis section, not just any one section) are plenty of references to support the opinions of people, but these opinions actually take up more space than the entire rest of the article. It feels bloated and too long. I think it's fair to represent widely observed and culturally relevant analysis of the character, but I think it should not be as bloated as it is now. It definitely needs some cleanup, but outright removing the whole section is probably not productive, and neither is singling out a section because of one's ideology. I think this discussion is about at its end.Wakanneesa ^t 14:36, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

There's really no issue here, and actually gamers should be proud that a beloved (give or take...) character from a popular video game has gotten anywhere close to this much coverage from an academic level. This is the type of analysis that Wikipedia values for fictional characters analyzed by academics (see nearly any Shakespearean work, for example) and is good to have here. Since it is opinions of academics, their position is neither right or wrong, but just outlining the various viewpoints. And you are not required to read this section to still go and jump through portals and solve puzzles. We're not here to be a game guide, we're here for the academic and educational nature of topics, of which most of this analysis sections hits home with. --MASEM (t) 14:46, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

PotatOS Name Inclusion

I noticed that the name of the potato-battery version of GLaDOS, PotatOS, is never mentioned. This can be cited to the name of the song "PotatOS's Lament" from the Portal 2 Soundtrack (Songs to Test By). Should this be included and, if so, where? Smock42 (talk) 19:22, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't think the song title can be taken conclusively as a "name" for GLaDOS. Her name didn't change, and I don't think any dialogue refers to her as such. -- ferret (talk) 19:36, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Adding the Fact that the Character is Well Over 50,000 Years Old?

I am uncertain whether or not to add this. The article, as is, is excellent enough in its avoidance of the soon-to-be-proposed accuracy-improvement, the article doesn't make any mention of the plot explained time-frame: According to GlaDOS, this A.I. has an ¨quicksave¨ feature that forces the A.I. to reexperience the last two minutes of their life, which the A.I. claims to have been for the last years. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p0__zvbhGDY&feature=youtu.be&t=19m20s -- or: you can play Portal 2 and find the dialogue. This is seemignly self-sourced plot synopsis aren't required to have a source--the plot of the content is literally the source. So, this should be valid to add; that GlaDOS is well over years old (the intro of the game also mentions: "Hello, you have been in suspension for - NINE NINE NINE NINE NINE NINE NI-"; which additionally verify the claim--assuming the announcer is not broken). If plot can be added without a source; someone add this, properly for I can not add it properly. If even plot synopsises requires a source; I'll probably go ahead and drop a few pages which needs additional verification. -- An anonymous person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.194.15.104 (talk) 19:03, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Glados doesn't age, being a robot. But also, the announcer, and everything else in the facility in Portal 2, is broken. If we assume the game is around the time of Half-life, about 2000-something, then the Caroline part would be at least 50. Mrman19 (talk) 20:13, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:GLaDOS/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: PerryPerryD (talk · contribs) 17:43, 27 October 2022 (UTC) I am PerryPerryD and I will be performing this review. I accept any and all assistance from other editors in this review. I will begin as soon as i can.PerryPerryD Talk To Me 17:43, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Head verified as good, Layout is efficient, resourceful, and consice. No Typographical Errors found. Follows the Manual of Style. Fiction is a bit difficult here, but after a thorough analysis, I confirmed that it passes Fiction. Approved.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Headbomb Reliability Script assisted, unreliable sources point to reviews or quotes, therefor reliable. Manually checked sources. Approved. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 18:40, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Article is able to describe the characters backstory without going to far. into it. Its able to describe the character and not focus on the game itself. It is broad, yet doesnt have more than what it needs. Approved.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Self Fixed Head Neutrality.PerryPerryD Talk To Me 18:48, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Venus illustation may not be needed for the context or to support the claim of this article. Image reassesed. Image supports the article. Approved.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Very impressive. The article passes all of the criteria as far as I can tell after 4 days of analysis. Approved for GA. Congratulations. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 15:36, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by Narutolovehinata5 (talk) 01:13, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Erik Wolpaw's bitterness about employees finding text-to-speech reading lines funny helped lead him to creating GLaDOS? Source: https://web.archive.org/web/20091104222639/http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/4151/valves_writers_and_the_creative_.php?page=2
  • ALT1: ... that Erik Wolpaw's bitterness about employees finding text-to-speech reading lines funny helped lead him to creating the character GLaDOS? Source: Same as Alt0
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Nakhichevan uezd
  • Comment: Grammar seems off about Alt0 and 1 but I can't figure out why. I can definitely brainstorm more hooks for this article if you desire.

Improved to Good Article status by Lankyant (talk). Nominated by Onegreatjoke (talk) at 03:30, 9 November 2022 (UTC).

• Suggestion. Did you know... that the design for GLaDOS is based on the Birth of Venus painting upside down? * PerryPerryD Talk To Me 17:14, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
• Comment and Suggestion: You stole my thunder, I was thinking of a good one! The grammar does seem off. For Alt0 ... that Erik Wolpaw was inspired to create GLaDOS after using a text to speech function? Lankyant (talk) 18:56, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
• The review (which I'm starting now) is a lie! -- RoySmith (talk) 23:21, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
• Article is long enough and new enough (nominated 2 days after passing GA).
• @PerryPerryD and Lankyant: I know this just passed GA, but I have major reservations about the quality of the sourcing. I've spot-checked a few places. Most of the first paragraph of Description is sourced to Game Informer. Assuming for the moment that this is actually a WP:RS (which I'm not totally convinced of), here's a list of statements I can't verify (i.e. pretty much every sentence in that paragraph):
  • "GLaDOS serves solely as the narrator, guiding players through the test chambers."
  • "Her voice is robotic, but distinctly female."
  • "GLaDOS's announcements get increasingly personal and farcical."
  • "She has several system personality cores installed"
  • "partly to prevent her from killing anyone"
  • "she's actually a complex artificial intelligence system composed of robotic parts hanging from a larger device"
  • "GLaDOS's voice becomes less robotic and more sensual."
• Moving down to Development history, first paragraph sourced to Gamasutra, which sure looks like a blog to me. It's apparently an interview with Erik Wolpaw. Statements that he said in the first person ("When I was working on Psychonauts"), are in the article in wikipedia voice ("Erik Wolpaw was writing the script for the video game Psychonauts").
• Moving down to Voice design, again we have a first-person statement in an interview ("And of course I was trying to sound like a computer") being stated in wikipedia voice ("voice actress Ellen McLain attempted to sound like a computer")
• I'm going to stop here. I honestly don't see how this passed a GA review. Unverifiable facts, unreliable sources, over-reliance on primary sources and interviews. I'll let somebody else take another look, but from where I sit, I don't see how it can pass DYK. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:32, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

RoySmith I don't see how either. I saw an unreliable blog and a forum post within seconds of looking through the references. According to this and reading the Wikipedia article, Gamesutra seems reliable enough. Too bad that isn't the only issue. SL93 (talk) 00:47, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

@RoySmith: Heya, I am not new to making mistakes, I reviewed this article with direct accordance to the GA Guidelines. As for game informer, according to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Game_Informer GameInformer is a reliable source. I also want to mention Plot Sourcing where a games plot can act as its own citation in certain situations. I am fully willing to let someone re-asses this article. This is my direct stance on this issue. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 00:52, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Did you look at the reliability of all the sources? Like the two sources I mentioned above, this blog, this review by username The hole shebang, and a personal YouTube video. SL93 (talk) 00:57, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

As for the blog, A direct interview with the VA about wanting to sound robotic is not un-reliable. As for the youtube video, I assumed it was fine due to its context of it being about user reception of the character, and the video being used as an example of it. The blog i'll admit was my mistake. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 01:10, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I will step out of this to not hijack RoySmith's review. I only posted here because I'm thinking about submitting the article to be de-listed from GA. SL93 (talk) 01:00, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm butting in a little here after seeing Perry mention this on the Discord. I agree that the GA review was quite scant compared to what I would expect from such a lengthy article (and I said as much on the Discord). At the very least it should probably be gone over again. However, I do think some of the concerns noted here are not really fair. Gamasutra and Game Informer are both reliable per WP:VG/RS, and I know I've used both in my gaming FAs. The Computer & Video Games review is actually bylined at the bottom to Andy Robinson, an editor at C&VG, and now an editor at Video Games Chronicle. Both sites are considered reliable per VGRS, so I don't see any issue with that review. Finally, it may be true that the article over-relies on primary sources or interviews (I haven't checked that for myself), but I don't see any reason to question basic statements people have made about their own work, such as the Ellen McLain one. Of course she's reliable about how she tried to make her performance sound. Again - I agree with the underwhelming quality of the GA, but some of the things being pointed out here aren't actually problems. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:18, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Premeditated Chaos I know I said I would leave, but I am curious about the Allen McLain interview. I was under the impression that an interview on an unreliable website can't be used. How would a reader know that such an interview has nothing that was made-up? I highly doubt that I could interview someone, post it on my blog, and then use it as a reference. SL93 (talk) 01:27, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

The interview I see as a source for the "sounds like a computer" bit is on IGN, here; IGN is a major gaming site and I have no question that it is reliable. What unreliable website are you talking about? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:31, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I was confused then. I meant this which I didn't read all the way through. SL93 (talk) 01:33, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

And how do we deal with my original point, that none of the statements I pointed out in the Description paragraph are mentioned in the source they're cited to? -- RoySmith (talk) 01:33, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Roy, I never claimed the article does not lack problems; I explicitly said that I think the review was not up to snuff. However, several things pointed out above were not, in my view, actually problematic and I believe it's reasonable of me to point that out. SL93, for what it's worth, I'm not sure that site is actually on-its-face unreliable - looks like their other interviews have been referenced in IGN and Kotaku, which lends it a little credence. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:46, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I totally get that not everything mentioned here is an actual problem. It's a matter of once you find problems, you go looking for more. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:54, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm marking this for closure. The actual problems, such as the unreliable sources (including a forum post and YouTube) and there being so many primary sources, has not been taken care of. SL93 (talk) 20:23, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

GLaDOS

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delisted. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:35, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

So this nomination is a little more of an interesting one. When this became a GA I nominated it for DYK like I always do for most GAs. However, the nomination actually got rejected because of reliable sourcing concerns. There are reportedly unreliable sources such as youtube and a forum post while there's also a supposed overuse of primary sources. This is concerning considering i've never had a nomination rejected for unreliable sourcing and DYK is usually more relaxed than GA with its criteria. So, i'm nominating this for GAR to see if these concerns are valid and enough to be reassessed. For more information see the DYK nomination Template:Did you know nominations/GLaDOS Onegreatjoke (talk) 16:15, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

There numerous listicles that may need to be removed. This one for example is just pure fluff. This one may also be fluff, especially since it's written in a very geeky tone. There don't seem to be many that are outright unreliable, though, but I am not sure if PopMatters is a WP:RS. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:14, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

I would recommend delist until sourcing issues are fixed due to such wide ranging use of content farm style articles. It's clear the review was simply not thorough enough, and the fact that no fixes were asked for by the reviewer is surprising and points to a rushed review. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:19, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

The entire section "Relationship to other characters" is cited to G. Christopher Williams of PopMatters. They might be cited in-depth in part because of their position at the University of Wisconsin–Stevens Point, but there may be good reason to trim this section down. I don't know. Primary source usage does not seem out of the ordinary. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 12:46, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

As the GA reviewer of this Article. I admit that more work should have been performed on my part. I apologize for this. I agree that a delist should be performed. This article does not meet all of the GA Criteria. Cheers. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 15:57, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

The article is redeemable and probably close to GA. But there are a few sourcing issues that need to be resolved. I agree about a delist and I hope it encourages editors to work on it. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:37, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Get to GA

Hey all I've done some work in fixing the issues listed above to get this to GA. I am struggling with Description though and finding sources? Also can you see any more sources that need correcting or removing/replacing? Thanks. Lankyant (talk) 23:55, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

I have reversed the GA for now as in my opinion the article needs serious work. It suffers from too much "he said X, she said Y" rather than summarizing the conclusions in a cohesive, readable way. It is supposed to be an article that sums things up, not just a list of quotes from game journalists. I think the key here is that similar conclusions about the character should be grouped up and paraphrased as much as possible. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:12, 20 February 2023 (UTC)