Talk:Nier: Automata

"...the game's fourth ending"

Given that the Nier page itself only has one possible ending (kill the shadowlord), followed by additional add-ons if you play through it a second time that end in one of two ways (kill/die for the female fighter), this needs a full clarification. What does the Japanese article think "the fourth ending" is?

Similarly, nothing on the Nier page remotely fits the description "...went berserk...", so those characters need a less opaque and more truthful descriptor.

Similarly, Nier was the protagonist of Nier, not Emil. — LlywelynII 23:34, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

"logic virus"

is not actually a thing in the English language. Are they trying to translate the Japanese for logic bomb? or just straight up computer virus? — LlywelynII 23:51, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

It's called fiction..... 64.170.21.194 (talk) 00:26, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

To the spirited stewards of this article

• https://twitter.com/ThatKevinWong/status/908060646972964864

czar 22:44, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Nier: Automata Xbox One Edition

Just thought I'd throw this out, but despite what already added information states in this article, Square Enix have announced that Nier: Automata will be releasing for the Xbox One June 26. I'll try and edit the article to include this information at some point, but feel free to add to it should this be included at an earlier time. Adam tighe (talk) 18:20, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

 Done, although the wording might seem a bit too contrasting because of what they previously said. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 23:10, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Spelling

Is there a reason why the name is not spelled with a capital R? That is, NieR: Automata? Klaas van Aarsen (talk) 18:08, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello. I did a web search. It appears many sources have consistently capitalized "R". 5.78.108.87 (talk) 21:20, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Because of MOS:TMSTYLE ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 23:29, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Source

I noticed that a certain User:ProtoDrake did a major edit with adherence to the sources as the reason given, but that was exactly the thing lacking.

For example, the gematsu.com source does not substantiate the sentence "Other characters from both Nier and Drakengard 3 are mentioned." The source mentions 2B, 9S, A2, 042, 153, Commander, 6O, 21O, Adam, Eve, Pascal, Devola, Popla, Emil and ???. There are no other characters.

In addition, the new edit attributes the creation of the resistance to YoRHa, but the source says the opposite, which was in the article before:

The Resistance Camp is where the Androids that fell to Earth before the YoRHa squad are based. These Androids have organized their own resistance army

5.78.108.87 (talk) 21:34, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Proper title (NieR:Automata vs Nier: Automata)

All official media refers to the game as NieR:Automata. As such, the title of the article, and all mentions of the game within the article, should be renamed to reflect it as such. This isn't just a formatting style; it's the official name of the game, in the same way "YoRHa" is not "Yorha". Buh6173 (talk) 17:43, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

That's right. SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 17:35, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Reminding you to fix the incorrect title, also to ask why there's no 2B article yet and do i really have to create it myself. SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 09:37, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

• MOS:TMSTYLE. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 16:45, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

The current title is merely editor's choice, and by no means "correct" or absolute; see MOS:TMSTYLE. Anyway edit war (WP:WAR) is futile. --125.175.27.12 (talk) 05:42, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes i think the same as well,it should be changed to reflect the title. WillsEdtior777 (talk) 19:33, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: TheJoebro64 (talk · contribs) 21:41, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Snagging for later. JOEBRO64 21:41, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

@ProtoDrake: I'm going to start reviewing this before the end of the weekend. JOEBRO64 18:29, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Well that comment aged well. Should start by the end of the week lol. JOEBRO64 23:13, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

• @ProtoDrake: I am so sorry I still haven't started this yet, real life has gotten in the way, and when I'm on Wikipedia I'm usually doing something else. I promise it will be done soon. JOEBRO64 17:47, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Finally, here's my review, @ProtoDrake:. Again, I am so sorry for taking this long. I did some copyediting on my own, because I thought it'd be easier if I took care of that on my own. Here's what it stood out to me:

• I think we should refer to Square, Platinum, and 8-4 as "it"/"its"/"which", not "they"/"theirs"/"whose". E.g. "... English dubbing was handled by Cup of Tea Productions, who which had previously..."
  • Did my best catching these.
• "... features additional costumes, elements from the , ..." Uh, something's missing here
  • Whoops! My bad.
• In the "collaborations" I'd add when the collaborations happened.
  • Dates added.

That's all I've got. Placing on hold. JOEBRO64 20:47, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

@TheJoebro64: I hope I've addressed your concerns. Didn't think there'd be so few. --ProtoDrake (talk) 21:39, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

ProtoDrake, alright, it's a pass! And yeah there weren't as many points as I was expecting either. Might be because I made changes I assumed would be uncontroversial. Anyway, I'm adding this to the GA list. JOEBRO64 01:57, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Merger discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to not merge. There's enough opposition here after it was fixed up to support keeping it as an article, and the conversation has since wore down, so I feel confident that's the proper consensus. Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:32, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

---

I am propsing to merge The Nier: Automata Church to Nier: Automata. This "hoax" feels like an WP:ONEEVENT with limited lasting significance, and the article itself really does not give enough context for people to really understand it properly. And to be honest, it is an extremely WP:TRIVIAL part of the game which really should not be spun off into a proper standalone article. A mere sentence or paragraph here in the main page is more than sufficient. OceanHok (talk) 15:14, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

I support the merge. WP:ONEEVENT applies and it makes more sense in the context of the overall game. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:24, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

@Shooterwalker: I'd ask you to potentially re-evaluate the article in light of its recent expansion - it's coming up on twice as long now. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:38, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Support. The article does not have adequate development and reception, would fit cleanly in the target article. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 15:55, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

@Cukie Gherkin: I have expanded the article a fair bit, I am curious to see whether you now believe development and reception are still inadequate. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:25, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Looking at it, all of the sources, save for the further reading source, are within a couple-month period. It doesn't seem like it had much of a lasting impact, and I still feel it would fit cleanly. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 16:39, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

@Cukie Gherkin: It's clearly not a couple-month period -- there are sources from July, August, September, and October 2022, a period of four months, besides the year-later documentary. There's even an article noting that the Nier anime may have referenced the mod. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:03, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't think that the difference between a "couple" and four is vast enough for me to change my mind on the reception largely being mutual reactions to a piece of news. Also, that Kotaku source seems to only mention it in passing. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 20:05, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

The reception is split between the mod being initially revealed as fanmade and being released to the public, so that's two separate pieces of news that it was mentioned regarding, with the latter being the cause of the articles months later. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:04, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

• Support - completely unnecessary split. Very little of substance, bloated way out. Condense and insert into the parent article. Sergecross73 msg me 21:01, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
• Comment Any defense of this article is probably a lost cause, but I figure I may as well try. I will just state the facts. Wikipedia has numerous articles about video game mods. This mod got a full article in WIRED magazine, Rock Paper Shotgun, and several IGN articles. According to WP:NOTMERGE, articles should not be merged together if: "The topics are discrete subjects warranting their own articles, with each meeting the General Notability Guidelines, even if short." This article meets the General Notability Guideline beyond a shadow of a doubt and has potential for expansion beyond what is already here. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:48, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

  A mod of a video game is absolutely not a "discrete subject" from its respective video game though. Absolutely not what NOTMERGE is talking about. Sergecross73 msg me 23:55, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

  @Sergecross73: Added significantly more content to the article including a half-hour IGN deep dive documentary into the mod that was published around a year later as Further reading. I'm counting dozens of potential sources in gaming websites alone, not to mention both the producer and creator of the game acknowledged the mod. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:54, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

• Support, regardless of expansions, this is something that could be addressed with less verbiage in the main article. --ProtoDrake (talk) 20:21, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose As page creator, since I haven't officially registered my !vote yet. I was about to just declare it a lost cause, but in my search for sources in my expansion I discovered dozens of instances of SIGCOV from game journalists across the Internet as well as a 30 minute documentary from IGN (saying it "fooled the world") and accompanying 5 chapter article on the mod's development, which is more than most mods, or video games for that matter, will ever see. Said documentary was released the following year, demonstrating massive WP:SUSTAINED interest that contradicts the nominator's assertion of ONEEVENT. The article has since doubled in size and could probably double once again with all the information available from interviews with the developers. As far as mods go, this got massive coverage and would not be UNDUE for a separate article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:54, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. I've looked at the expansions by Zxcbvnm, and I think the issues of content and the presumption of an unnecessary split is addressed. I agree with their assertion that it isn't a WP:ONEEVENT situation, because there is evidence of WP:SUSTAINED interest, though I wouldn't describe the aggregate reception as "massive". Haleth (talk) 22:40, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose The mod easily meets GNG, has lasting coverage to avoid ONEEVENT, and is of a sufficient size to remain separate. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:47, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Oppose If there were a dozen other articles detailing hoaxes in video game modding communities like it, I would be inclined to believe that it wouldn't be notable, but it's one of a kind and received significant coverage precisely because of how unique it was. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 15:04, 4 July 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.