Talk:Grand Theft Auto V/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Semi-protected edit request on 20 September 2020

2409:4053:2E12:C0EA:2067:D16B:B6E:EC51 (talk) 15:46, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:52, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Merge controversies article

Per Arkhandar's suggestion above, it might be a good idea to merge Controversies surrounding Grand Theft Auto V to the main article. As they noted, the prose size of the respective articles do not meet the split guidelines at WP:SPLIT. Importantly, per WP:CRIT, separate articles dedicated to controversies are generally discouraged because they are liable to become WP:POVFORKs, in this case, by having the appearance of "hiding" criticism/controversy about the game by putting it in a separate article that is less likely to be read. Axem Titanium (talk) 02:53, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, this makes sense. There's clearly a few bits of common sections that can be cut down and this will then be okay. I'd recommend doing the same on GTA IV's controversy page as well (as its also at the same rough size levels). --Masem (t) 03:40, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Just thought I'd point out that while WP:AS does document an editing guideline, WP: SPLIT is not a guideline but an information page. To quote the template at the top of the page: "It is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, but rather intends to describe some aspect(s) of Wikipedia's norms, customs, technicalities, or practices. It may reflect varying levels of consensus and vetting." My interpretation is that it is merely an essay which recommends editing practices. Haleth (talk) 13:14, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 October 2020

Change The game was first announced by Rockstar Games on 25 October 2011 to The game was first announced by Rockstar Games on 25 October 2011 at 12PM

If you require citation, please use this official public announcement from Rockstar on Twitter https://twitter.com/RockstarGames/status/128788090969001984 86.173.143.101 (talk) 16:52, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. This kind of detail is unnecessary. The time given is also incorrect, the tweet was published at 8:00 AM EDT. IceWelder [✉] 17:01, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Second sentence

Similar section is on Grand Theft Auto 4 and similar change. This sentence “ It is the first main entry in the Grand Theft Auto series since 2008's Grand Theft Auto IV.” seems redundant. It’s always the first entry because it came after San Andreas. I think maybe changing it to the game’s position would give more info such as “It is the seventh main entry in the Grand Theft Auto series.” Thoughts?

If a change was deemed necessary it could be changed to: "It is the seventh main entry in the Grand Theft Auto series following 2008's Grand Theft Auto IV." Though that may confuse readers as to why it is called Grand Theft Auto V and not Grand Theft Auto VII. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 00:15, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 December 2020

69.160.26.247 (talk) 11:04, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. OceanHok (talk) 11:14, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Objective article quality changes in "Plot" section

Mantr33r (talk) 22:23, 20 January 2021 (UTC) The users "ferret" and "TheDeviantPro" are sabotaging the article because they want to maintain the plot section, word for word, how it is. The current state of the plot section is that it's just awfully written. The game takes about 20+ hours to beat in Story Mode with TONS of dialogue, phone calls, writing, extra missions, lore and everything, and these users are disregarding it because of some weird personal agenda and ego problem. Me, Spy-cicle and XygenSS all agree that it requires extensive modification to be barely up to par with other video game plot sections. It's a good game story disrespected by two I presume friends who've never played a GTA game in full in their life. Plot sections are meant to be long anyway, look at a movie's plot section. GTA 5 is basically to the level of quality of a movie released at around the same time.

If they wanna edit war, that's fine, but they're provably wrong and the game itself can be cited for the information. How else would you know a game's story?? From a news article? Same way Plot sections for movies are filled out or synopses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mantr33r (talk • contribs) 22:25, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Plot sections are meant to be long anyway - no. We have a strict character limit on plot sections for a reason. Not pinging TheDeviantPro and ferret when talking about them is a little disrespectful. The game having lots of dialogue and "lore" is exactly why we don't want a series of WP:GAMECRUFT finding its way into the article. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 22:39, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Lee Vilenski What hard word limit? Would you like to try telling the Final_Fantasy_XII article that? That's over 1,300 words. Is there some special exception applied to convoluted plots? Does GTA 5 fail to meet a convolutedness standard? How ocnvoluted does a game or show need to be to justify a longer plot section? Are plot sections summaries or synopses, or both? A summary can be as short as a 2 inch/5 cm tall paragraph (or 5-10 lines of text on an average screen), or as long as well... GTA 5's? Please mention me. And unfortunately, at that time not only did I not know how to mention those users, but I felt personally that mentioning them would be a waste of their time and a pointed attack/harassment which I did not pursue. Again, please mention me, and thank you.Mantr33r (talk) 06:22, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Mantr33r - WP:VG/PLOT which is our manual of style for video game articles reads To retain focus, generally limit plot sections to 700 words or fewer. There are indeed other articles that don't meet the MOS, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't meet them for this article. No, there is no "too complicated" loophole, or there'd be no MOS at all. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:20, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Who knew a casual edit in a sunday afternoon would get me reeled into this thing. Let me preface this by saying that I am nowhere near an experienced contributor (my edit count should speak for itself) and I might be looking over the most obvious of things during my attempt at rambling.

Mantr33r - I don't appreciate how you're speaking on my behalf.

ferret - You call for reliable sources for changes to be made. Yes, my primary source is that one DarkViperAU video. Wow, Youtube, such credible and respected source of information, this guy must know what he's talking about...

But tell me, does the current revision have it *any* better? [29] is an except from the game with zero explaination. [31], [32], [33] are just pointers to endings A B and C. Is this an acceptable standard in other videogame-related articles? Not a rhetorical question. You're telling me that I can just do the same thing and pull out quotes from the game and stick that up as a reliable source?

"Changing the plot based on fan researching nearly a decade after the game's released is going to need something a bit strong."

I don't see what the age of the game has to do with anything. Besides, what's stopping me from tagging [citation needed] on every minor detail on the plot section? Obviously that would be breaking the rules, but you get the point - the relevant sections on the article has zero citation. You call for "something a bit strong," but the current revision as it stands doesn't have anything substantial either.

I do completely understand the point about word count though. Reverting back to my revision would go past the limit.

XygenSS (talk) 14:10, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Rockstar Games described Michael's situation as:

Michael is a veteran bank robber, an expert, with the kind of knowledge that only comes from years as a successful career criminal. He's now retired, living comfortably in an unofficial sort of witness protection program.

(emphasis added)
Based on what is said in the game, he is in some form of witness protection, just (apparently) not officially granted by the government. This is a very marginal detail and ultimately only affects Michael's interactions with Dave Norton & co., rather than the overall plot. Should it be mentioned, it should be very brief and not given undue weight. The current plot is 702 words. IceWelder [✉] 14:33, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
User:IceWelder Not only is the plot detail wrong, and many missions are out of sequence, but.. 702 words?? Michael uses "witness protection" to explain to people like Lester Crest and Trevor what has been going on. And, that's a MEDIUM sized plot section! Go to Final Fantasy XII's plot section, it is literally at LEAST 1,300 words. I counted. These fixes that add detail and proper timeline to the story, don't randomly exclude 80% of Trevor's storyline or a HUGE majority of Michael's personal story missions... They would barely add up to 1,000 words. GTA 5 is a 27+ hour game with a LOT going on, that is poorly summarized (as in not even mentioned or condensed, just completely left out.) Mantr33r (talk) 06:07, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
I made no deep analysis of the rest of the plot. My position was simply that this is an FA, the highest quality standard Wikipedia assigns to an article. As such, MOS (word count for plot) must be met. And generally, when suddenly a lot of new or infrequent editors pop up to start editing plot details based on a YouTube video, it requires something deeper than "I played the game, bro." IceWelder has good enough proof that it's not official, but at the same time, it changes nothing about the overall plot description. How do we explain it without going into a dozen+ words of detail? Is adding "unofficial" enough to satisfy? -- ferret (talk) 15:11, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
I think it is worth mentioning in a couple of words that it is unofficial, especially as we link to United States Federal Witness Protection Program. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 16:32, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
I agree that we can add one or two words about the witness protection being unofficial, even though the word limit is just over 700. Someone can do some minor edits to make it under the word limit. But we don't need to rewrite large sections of the plot to mention Dave and Michael's dialogue about the unofficial witness protection, like what Mantr33r and XygenSS were doing. It adds undue weight and bloats the plot; it's just unnecessary. TheDeviantPro (talk) 03:39, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
ferret What MOS word count for plot? Can you please link it? Because Final Fantasy XII's plot section is twice as long as the current GTA 5 section. If I could theoretically rewrite GTA 5's plot section to be 400-500 words, yet include ALL necessary details unlike the current one, would that count? GTA 5's plot is notoriously big, and unlike say previous games, everything you do is more integrated into the story rather than having some side activities and characters going off to do their random business with no regard to the story like San Andreas and such. 800-900 words which'd be a small change would befit a complex if convoluted plot. Idk. I decided to mention you because I've lost interest in edit warring the article, and also, because you couldn't simply undo my article and keep my changes, but just hit the undo button and ended it at that but urr yeah. I even explicitly said "please, if you have a problem with SOME of my changes, don't delete all of them" and you did exactly that. The undo function lets you selectively pick and choose what is too bloated and what fits. Mantr33r (talk) 06:16, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Other's have already pointed you to the MOS and addressed the FFXII plot. The undo function does NOT allow for selectively keeping parts of your edit. It requires manually taking up my own time to keep this or that portion of the edit. Secondly, I don't think you're even talking about this article but a different one I reverted you at. I recall that edit summary, and most if not all of that edit needed reverted anyway. -- ferret (talk) 14:40, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm trying to address some disconnects within the plot section. Assuming zero outside knowledge, a reader may not understand:

- Why Michael, presumed dead after Ludendorff, is alive and in (official) witness protection.

- Why Trevor, presumed dead after Ludendorff, is also alive but seperated from Michael.

- Why Trevor believed that Brad was alive but imprisoned when he was presumed dead after Ludendorff.

- Why Brad was buried in Michael's grave and why Trevor got angry over it.

I do understand that the article is already really pushing the word limit, and that a nobody like me encroaching upon your proud work that was nominated an FA might feel like I'm violating something personal for you, but if you'd let me, I'd like to take a shot at condensing it all down to something more concise and more accurate at the same time.

XygenSS (talk) 15:46, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I'd recommend attempting it in the talk page or a WP:SANDBOX or something. I'm going to lock the page from editing if there's any more back and forth reverting of edits. Sergecross73 msg me 18:28, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

@Mantr33r: I'll respond to all three comments here: the MoS guideline you're looking for is WP:VG/PLOT ("To retain focus, generally limit plot sections to 700 words or fewer"). As for Final Fantasy XII: it's actually 829 words, but you're right, that's going over the guideline too; I've tagged it so hopefully someone more familiar with the story will cut it down. Other stuff exists, but that's not a valid reason to violate guidelines here as well. 700 is the limit. – Rhain ☔ 07:55, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Seconded. The plot for Final Fantasy XII is too long and per OSE irrelevant, and should not be used as a justification for an overly long plot here. For comparison, Red Dead Redemption 2, which is advertised with 60 hours of story gameplay, manages this limit just fine. The only endgame for this trivial plot detail is to propose a change to the plot that will keep it at the word limit. IceWelder [✉] 08:04, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
I actually agree with that. Here's what I've been thinking for a first draft of a much less dense Plot section:
"Four bankrobbers rob a bank in Ludendorff, North Yankton, of which only infamous bank robber Michael Townley (now going under De Santa) and Trevor Philips survive. Michael lives in a mansion as a husband and father to two kids, living off of his bank robbing money and remaining anonymous thanks to the corrupt FIB agent Dave Norton, who in turn takes bribes and earns promotions for "killing" him. Trevor Philips is living in squalor in a trailer park at Sandy Shores, Blaine County because all of his bank accounts were frozen by the government. Franklin Clinton is participating in gang business with Lamar Davis and officially working for the corrupt Armenian car salesman Simeon Yetarian.
Michael and Franklin's paths cross when Franklin tries to illegally repossess his son Jimmy's car, after which they become accomplices in crime and rob a jewelry store. Trevor finds out Michael is alive and seeks him out after he finds out about the jewelry store heist, and the three reluctantly work together to pull off a few more heists and are blackmailed into working for the FIB to undermine the IAA. Trevor's activities anger the mercenary group Merryweather funded by Devin Weston and the Triads headed by Wei Cheng, Franklin's friend Lamar is kidnapped by their former ally Stretch and Michael angers FIB agent Steve Haines as well as Devin Weston, resulting in his family being held hostage by Merryweather and Steve Haines blackmailing and attempting to kill him and Dave Norton.
The three with the help of their hacker assistant Lester Crest engage in a final heist where they steal gold bars from a large bank in downtown Los Santos. They pull it off successfully, but are still each left threatened by the Triads, FIB, Merryweather and Stretch working with the Ballas. Franklin is given an ultimatum: murder Trevor, murder Michael, or fight off all four threats endangering the lives and safety of Michael, Franklin and Trevor. Whichever of the two the player chooses to kill will leave the remaining two distant and not friends anymore, while choosing the third option will see the three hold off a massive onslaught from the FIB and Merryweather at a foundry, before each going to personally kill Wei Cheng, Steve Haines, Stretch and finally Devin Weston whom they throw off a cliff."
This is the most accurate and true version of the plot, everything is in correct order and the word count is EXACTLY 385. Nothing is left out, I even managed to fit in how Dave Norton was a corrupt FIB agent, surely our favorite plot detail. The original is entirely out of order and has so so much detail for some things then completely leaves them out for others. This is addressed to ferret, IceWelder, XygenSS, and Lee Valenski in case anyone feels left out, I failed to mention the users I was addressing before and I feel this is relevant.Mantr33r (talk) 08:36, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

New low res gameplay image, or a side by side?

The original image is based off of VERY old 2013 gameplay reveal footage from a slightly different looking version of Lamar Down, the next gen and PC versions look different. Maybe have a side-by-side image, and maybe have both images submitted by players of each version instead of exclusively from a gameplay promo?Mantr33r (talk) 08:57, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

File:Grand Theft Auto V PS3 PS4 comparison.jpg already exists. (CC) Tbhotch™ 18:12, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 January 2021

"Michael is living under witness protection with his family in the city of Los Santos, under the alias Michael De Santa." Should be "Michael is living under the facade of witness protection with his family in the city of Los santos, under the alias Michael De Santa." as it has been proven that michael is not under witness protection by DarkViperAU. 90.191.113.98 (talk) 20:55, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. -- ferret (talk) 20:59, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
FWIW I believe that edit request was referencing this video [1]. If the change were made, a new RS probably would not need to be added as it can just sourced to story of the game. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 22:18, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Changing the plot based on fan researching nearly a decade after the game's released is going to need something a bit strong. The core details don't change either way, and the plot is pushing MOS:VG recommendations on word count as is. This is an FA, we need something strong than fan speculation/research. -- ferret (talk) 23:14, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Absolutely, this is a true fact: MANY times, Dave Norton's agreement with Michael Townley is mentioned throughout the game, with direct quotes such as Dave's "well if you expose my corruption I'll expose you're alive" etc. Mantr33r (talk) 10:15, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
That quote doesn't prove anything. This all remains very WP:OR feel to me, with users speculating based on "it's implied by how this or that was said." The quote above for example would still apply to a situation of a corrupt agent telling someone under legit protection that they would expose them. The bottom line is Michael is under what is presented as witness protection, whether legitimate or not. MOS:VG's word count is being strained here already, and this is a Featured Article. The burden of proof is higher, and fan arguments isn't enough. -- ferret (talk) 13:11, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Mantr33r (talk) 22:18, 20 January 2021 (UTC)Yes it does...???

I think you'd like to see this ferret. AdrianWikiEditor (talk) 05:43, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

:) AdrianWikiEditor (talk) 05:49, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. (CC) Tbhotch™ 05:52, 3 February 2021 (UTC)


With regards to the arrangement between Michael and Davy:

- He literally calls it an "informal witness protection" at the end of Dead Man Walking (when he is simplifying history for Franklin). He is avoiding explaining the actual details obviously, but there is no reason for him to add 'informal' as a qualifier unless this was not a traditional deal with the FIB. The 'informal witness protection' was his secret agreement with Dave to give Dave the glory of taking down the trio and Dave would help Michael fake his death to get both his criminal enemies and the wider FIB off his back so he could disappear. [1]

- If it were an actual witness protection agreement, what crimes of Dave's would be revealed if they looked through Michael's files. (mentioned at the start of Dead Man Walking) What does Dave mean when he says "I would get 3-5 years, but you?" If Dave was just the middle man for a legit agreement with the FIB where Michael turns himself in, why would Dave get in trouble for the contents of Michael's files? He means that Dave would go away for 3-5 years for his corrupt deal with Michael and Michael, now known to be alive, would be convicted of his past crimes by the wider FIB. - There are dozens of references in the game, literally dozens, including Lester's "that is doesn't sound like any wit-sec program I have ever heard of" when he starts to hear Michael's lies on casing the jewel store.

- That Michael is PAYING Dave over 10k a month, even after 9 years, should scream to you "this is not a witness protection deal". That got to keep his stolen millions, and lives in a mansion shows it is NOT a witness protection deal because that is obviously not what a witness protection deal looks like. [2]

- Michael's crimes spanned 20+ years and included smuggling drugs, running whores, murder, torture, and stealing 10s of millions of dollars. We literally mow down a few dozen cops at the start of the game. You don't get to "cut a deal" and get NO jail time and a mansion after such a career! He was literally the most notorious bank robber of the age "The late, great, Michael Townley". Both Trevor and Brad's careers were shorter, and Michael was the ring leader (of course they were still only known as M, T, B as their identities had not been blown until after the failed North Yankton Heist).

- The FIB also did not know about Lester and Michael asks after his former associates during Casing the Jewel Store, showing Michael did not give up ANYONE to the FIB because Michael would know where they were if he did and therefore would have no expectation they'd be available to help him get back in the game.

- Additionally, the FIB had no reason to shoot Trevor, only Michael did, and the FIB would clearly not kill 1/3 of a bank robbing trio. Michael clearly wanted Trevor dead and he was calling the shots in the deal. As Michael says to Dave at the start of Dead Man Walking "You ungrateful fuck, I made your career" [3] , and Dave doesn't disagree. Michael was never caught, he came to Dave with the deal as noted he "turned himself in" during Monkey Business.

- In the ENTIRETY of North Yankon, there was exactly ONE FIB agent. ONE and that was Dave. Clearly if the wider FIB was involved, there would have been more than one guy sent to take down the most nutorious bank robbing crew of the modern age. Michael criticizes Dave during By The Book for not being able to control things in North Yankton, allowing the normal police to get involved. Dave was just a little guy in the FIB at this point and so was less able to control local law enforcement, while clearly the wider FIB would have no issue. The existence of local law enforcements again shows that the wider FIB were not involved.

CarToneHK (talk) 07:05, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1yhw0LQXus&t=588
  2. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FR4ap7iM7OE&t=122
  3. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1yhw0LQXus&t=52

Semi-protected edit request on 17 July 2021

Close to the beginning of the plot part about Michael's "deal" with the FIB it should say he refers to the deal as an "'informal' witness protection" Hsmith310 (talk) 02:31, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. lomrjyo(talk•contrib) 02:31, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

New Criticisms

Should a new section regarding the reception of the 2022 release for Xbox Series X/PS5 be made/new paragraph written? Pretty much everyone is writing off the release as a disappointing joke offering no new features (except for more lens flares) and are criticising Rockstar for trying to get away with reselling the same game in its third generation of consoles with no improvements. In fact, there's very little written about the game's criticisms after its launch. The page for GTA Online says reception has steadily gotten better since release, but if any of you have actually played the game, you'd know and agree with me that Rockstar has continually been getting trashed online for flooding GTA Online with microtransactions and their lack of action regarding in-game cheaters, especially after the release of the Oppressor Mk II (14 Jul 2018). Coupled with Rockstar's efforts to attack modders who have created more original GTA content in mere weeks than Rockstar has in 8 years, people are saying that Rockstar has shilled out, and they've become what they made fun of in earlier titles of the franchise.

162.83.143.126 (talk) 01:31, 12 September 2021 (UTC)random gta v enthusiast

Unless you have reliable sources reporting on the issues you've raised, they won't be added to the article. After a quick search, I can find two sources that report on issues with the recent trailer (1 2), so they may be worthy of addition. There may be sources referring to Rockstar being "continually ... trashed online" too, but I won't be spending the time searching for those or making those changes right now. – Rhain ☔ 02:01, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

This review is from 2020 and mentions much the same as I what I did. This review is from 2018 and mentions the anti-modding attempts made by Rockstar. Here is a Google search of several pages of Reddit (only one platform, imagine if I did this for every game forum site) threads made for the express purpose of complaining about the Oppressor. I even have a Change petition demanding the Oppressor be nerfed, but I can't link it as it is blacklisted.

I also have two videos from youtube. The first is from DarkViperAU, a Twitch and YouTube (verified, if that matters) personality who has played GTA V for over 8500 hours and is by far one of the most popular GTA V streamers on Twitch. The second is from Mors Mutual Insurance, a verified (again, if that matters) YouTube personality that has only ever made GTA-related videos (even if there isn't that much else noteworthy about him).

I also read the Reliable Sources article, and I find numerous things I disagree with (I didn't want to make another talk section there). Firstly, almost all of the sources listed as official/reliable/acceptable for citation are themselves operated by groups of people who may have contradictory views. What makes a review from IGN more reliable than that from YouTube comments? One is almost certainly longer and more grammatically correct, but both still express vital opinions. If we compare reviews of video games to those of films, paintings, music or literally any creative medium, all of them share the fact that every individual's opinion matters towards pushing the consensus towards universally loved or despised. In fact, an "official source" review can more biased than a non-official one. Many official game reviewers (independent or otherwise) depend on being able to get games from the developers early so they can write reviewers quicker and make money off of web traffic from being the first reviewer. A high score and lavish praise curries favour with developers/publishers who will be more likely to give them their next game earlier as well. You can easily scroll down in either of the videos I linked and find unbiased commentary on the new trailer as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.83.143.126 (talk • contribs)

FWIW, the legal issues on GTA modding (which is not limited to GTA V) are covered at the main Grand Theft Auto page as well as Grand Theft Auto modding, though there are no RSes that I'm aware of that talk to the fan reaction to their takedowns (I mean, we can guess what they are but there's no sources to document that) --Masem (t) 04:21, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
The Kotaku review is great, but your other links are either considered unreliable or irrelevant. If you have concerns about WP:VG/RS, I suggest you take them to WT:VG or WT:VGRS. – Rhain ☔ 04:48, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Plot - Presumed Dead?

The three are not presumed dead after the initial heist! Brad Snyder is shot and dies of his wounds in custody, and *officially* has been incarcerated, Michael is living in an informal witness protection in Los Santos and *officially* reported deceased, and Trevor escapes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.181.70.150 (talk) 17:36, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Can someone add a trivia

I think it would be nice for this article to have a trivia section I mean you do know how detailed this game us right. I mean this is the first game to have realistic flip flops, and to build upon that this game is also filled with small and nice Easter eggs and pop culture references, I really think this article could use a trivia section and I have enough dignity to not use visual editor and don't have enough experience in HTML to make it myself, so come on someone should do it (: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Das Kittles (talk • contribs) 19:57, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Refer to WP:TRIVIA. (CC) Tbhotch™ 20:05, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict)We aren't a WP:TRIVIA website. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:06, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

"Most profitable"

@Maestro2016 and Rhain: Just to note, the GameRevolution article here [2] specifically talks revenue, whereas the claim for GTA V is around profit (revenue less costs). Those are different metrics, and thus it is right not to try to make the comparison. --Masem (t) 23:55, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Well, I don't have an issue with the current version of the article, which Rhain has worded more carefully this time. So I'm fine with the way it is currently. However, the claim made by MarketWatch (the source of the news reports that repeated the claim for a few days) that it is the "most profitable entertainment product" ever is still highly doubtful. Annual revenue reports for World of Warcraft (which I have cited elsewhere on Wikipedia) show it grossed over $10 billion up until 2017. Likewise, Dungeon Fighter Online also grossed over $10 billion by that time, according to its publisher. Among several other games that exceeded $6 billion revenue. If MarketWatch was talking about profit, it didn't mention how much profit GTAV made, but only its revenue. It seems clear that MarketWatch (or the news outlets repeating its claim) simply didn't do a good job of fact-checking (to check what other games out there have made more than $6B). Either way, the current version of the article is fine if it's stating it's "estimated" to be the "most profitable". Maestro2016 (talk) 00:33, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
@Acekard: You should probably participate in this discussion as well. I remain concerned that a Featured Article is presenting unofficial estimates as fact. Especially since we can source that Dungeon Fighter Online has double the revenue. Can this be the "most successful ever" if another game has *double the revenue*? -- ferret (talk) 00:35, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
@Maestro2016, Rhain, and Masem: Further issues: The "estimated to be most profitable" is flawed as well. Market Watch made no such claim, only talking about revenue. The other sources quoted "Market Watch estimates it's the most profitable", when they never did. This entire claim is flawed. Even worse, Take 2 doesn't appear to have released any revenue figures that I could find. Market Watch seems to have done raw units sold * retail price for their figure. They also sourced unit numbers from VGChartz. -- ferret (talk) 00:41, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
Yup, it's misleading. The $6 billion part should be removed from the sales section in my opinion. Like you said companies don't release such figures and there is no way to know which is the highest-grossing. Timur9008 (talk) 03:08, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
I think it should be fine to keep the $6B figure as long as the article notes that it's an unofficial estimate from MarketWatch (though its use of VGChartz as a source does raise questions). But like ferret said, since it's an unofficial estimate (especially one citing VGChartz as a source), that's not a strong enough source to support the WP:EXTRAORDINARY claim of it being the "highest-grossing" or "most profitable" entertainment product of all time. Maestro2016 (talk) 02:00, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

locked

this game is 7 years old why is the page locked? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.223.170.71 (talk) 04:52, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Because when it is unprotected the page receives vandalism. (CC) Tbhotch™ 04:57, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

typo

"fifteenth instalment overall" in the first paragraph. 94.187.2.160 (talk) 13:25, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

No typos in sight. – Rhain ☔ 14:02, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Grand Theft Auto 6

Time to change the redirect 007sak (talk) 18:47, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Gta 6 announced by rockstar games 

007sak (talk) 18:48, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Should we put the PS5/XSX reviews now? Or not yet?

https://www.metacritic.com/game/playstation-5/grand-theft-auto-v — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.121.150.192 (talk) 21:19, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Ps5 debacle

There was controversy with the trailer alert being announced for release on ps5 Persesus (talk) 14:52, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Pretty sure this is discussed in the last paragraph of Development. – Rhain ☔ 15:13, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

random events/strangers and freaks

I added a small amount of ontent about this and was reverted as "unsourced and unnecessary". Unsourced, I will grant, but unnecessary is just one persons opinion. The Strangers and freaks stuff was some of the funniest content in the single-player mode, and the random events and street crimes can actually influence events down the road. Anyone else have a thought on this? Beeblebrox (talk) 00:13, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

scratches head I guess I'd suggest starting by finding a reliable secondary source that bothers to take note of the feature, so that we haven't added unsourced content to an FA. -- ferret (talk) 00:29, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Section on Modding?

Would it be appropiate to include a section on the modding of the Game? It seems to be a very large part of the game's influence and playerbase, as noted in the article Grand Theft Auto modding. Yobbin (talk) 16:35, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Update revenue

Hey! I Just found out that, according to Take-Two Interactive the game nearly has a total lifetime revenue of $8 billion as of November, 2022. I just hope someone would update the article.

https://www.tweaktown.com/news/89416/grand-theft-auto-revenues-hit-nearly-8-billion-since-gta-vs-release-in-2013/index.html

103.21.164.22 (talk) 13:52, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure if we can use Tweaktown as a source. Timur9008 (talk) 10:56, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
And even if we could, these are figures for the series as a whole anyway, not Grand Theft Auto V specifically. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 12:04, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
I think Tweaktown is reliable enough, as it have published accurate information in the past. I'll leave more sources if this isn't enough. @Rain The article says "The Grand Theft Auto franchise has generated nearly $8 billion in net revenues since Grand Theft Auto V released in 2013, including game sales and GTA Online" isn't that mean those billions came from this game?

https://cyberpost.co/rockstar/grand-theft-auto-has-made-almost-8-billion-since-gta-5-launched-in-2013/

https://game-news24.com/2022/08/12/since-the-launch-of-gta-5-in-2013-grand-theft-auto-generated-nearly-8-billion-dollars/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.121.91.97 (talk) 17:18, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Regardless of the source, the revenue is for the series in total, not GTA V specific. -- ferret (talk) 17:21, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
As a result of my research, this game's current total revenue should be somewhere around $8 billion. As we all know that this game had a revenue of $6 billion by April 2018, additionally the game have earned $595 million in 2019 and $911 million in 2020. Equaling a total revenue of $7.5 billion without the revenue of April–December 2018 and year 2021 time periods. It is pretty obvious that this game's current total revenue should be around $8 billion with the revenue of those two unavailable time periods. In my opinion it is now fair enough to update the article to the current revenue figure. I'm eagerly waiting for your opinion. Best regards!
(For some reason, given source links may not work. If it was the case I kindly request you to search this "Grand Theft Auto 5 (GTA V) made $ 595 million in 2019, according to SuperData" or "Grand Theft Auto 5 (GTA V) made $ 911 million in 2020, according to SuperData" on the internet. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaayhan (talk • contribs) 17:41, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
Adding those figures together to assume the total is original research. Since the figures come from different sources (and most of 2018 is missing), I'd argue it's not covered under the "routine calculations" exception either. There's no reason to provide a new total figure unless reliable sources do. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 00:13, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Development of Grand Theft Auto V into Grand Theft Auto V

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.
Electing to close this discussion as Not merged, as aside from the nominator, the result has been unanimous and the discussion has been openseveral weeks now. At the very least, the result changing would require a significant sharp turn in the consensus to even reach a no consensus result. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 20:36, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Development of Grand Theft Auto V is not a very long article, and could be quite easily integrated into the 'Development' and 'Release' sections of the main article, especially since there is already some overlap. Additionally, content like the 'Promotion' section about the game's launch marketing, should be better suited in the main article, rather than the article regarding the game's development. Other expansive games like Ghost of Tsushima easily accomodate an extensive Development section without necessitating splitting off into a separate article. Theknine2 (talk) 14:46, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

  • Oppose GTA V is one of the largest and best selling games of all time, and the article is huge. If any game's development could have its own page it would be this one. By saying this article is undue, you are essentially arguing that every article in Category:Development of specific video games doesn't need to exist. I think rather than trying to merge individual pages, you should discuss that more existential question at WP:VG. However, my opinion is that the development of games is a lot less undue to split off than, say, individual minor controversies with little impact. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:05, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose. GTA V sits at 39 kB readable, Development at 35 kB—both pretty standard lengths, and combining them would put the main at roughly 66 kB (74 kB if the above merge discussion is successful), which is certainly long enough to justify the split. The game's development was notable for its length, cost, and scale—not to mention the game's extensive marketing—so unlike, say Ghost of Tsushima (44 kB, FWIW), I believe it has individual notability. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 15:07, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Draft it first. Rhain brings up a good point about the length, but I see substantial repeated coverage across the two articles and also the 'extra headroom' so to speak in the split out dev article seems to have attracted some purple prose and coatracking of minutia. I think there's plenty of room to slim down the latter to the point where a merge is not an unreasonable option. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:22, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose. A {{ping}} would have been courteous. By what rationale do you assert the claim the article is "not very long"? Rhain's already brought up the numbers; readable prose size in both articles is comfortable, but a merge would put the parent article into the upper threshold of "split needed" per WP:WHENSPLIT. Any "overlap" in content is a result of WP:SUMMARYSTYLE, but having worked extensively with both articles, I don't see it. Development sub-articles should stand alone when both; the articles in question are scoped to stay focused on their respective topics, and when the development of a specific video game meets notability. GTA V's development was a landmark undertaking for the industry as a whole, and this is reflected in its coverage by independent, third-party sources. The coatrack argument above is a bit of a misnomer. I don't see writing outside the scope of the development history of the game, and further, I've copy-edited minutiae from the article several times over the years. Both articles have passed all assessment processes and appeared as TFAs, so colour me perplexed by the out-of-the-blue merger probe many, many years on. — CR4ZE (T • C) 15:21, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose because a merge would make the article too big, and the development meets WP:GNG. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:13, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Way too much to comfortably fit in without hurting the article or losing information. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 18:11, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose The article has large amount of textual information and furthermore it should be noted that Grand Theft Auto V has been a global cultural phenomenon as a result the game should have its own development page, also to note is that the development of Grand Theft Auto V article page is too large to fit into a single page. ⭐️ Starkex ⭐️ 📧 ✍️ 12:56, 6 June 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.

Proposed merge of Controversies surrounding Grand Theft Auto V into Grand Theft Auto V#Controversy

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.
Clear consensus to merge. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 04:46, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Similar issue to the GTA IV controversies article, is very overextended when it could easily be discussed in the main article when pared down. Negative aspects are given WP:UNDUE levels of prominence compared to their relative importance. The portrayal of women section in particular seems like it would be better off in the series article, Grand Theft Auto#Controversies, since it is an aspect shared by most if not all of the series games rather than specific to GTA V. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:47, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

I would also put forth the idea of splitting off or otherwise removing the table of awards, since it would reduce the article size and make the controversy easier to integrate into the article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:50, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
It was split once before, but consensus was to merge in 2020. Removal doesn't seem like a logical option, though, and I see no issues with the article size as is. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 01:21, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
Oppose This is already long enough article as-is, and its controversies were significantly noted by RS coverage so trimming it down to this already big article would not give it enough DUE prominence. It also does not make since to just remove the table of awards since it meets WP:VG/AWARDS.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 13:12, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
The question here is whether the controversies affected the game in any meaningful way. The answer is no. The most that happened is some copies being pulled from store shelves in a single minor market of a worldwide game. Most works of media will have some amount of controversy, it should be highlighted in a separate article when it has a significant affect on the game or society at large, which didn't happen here. Mortal Kombat, on the other hand, prompted a Congressional hearing and video game rating legislation. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:06, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
I do not think a Congressional hearing is the threhold to get a separate article on controversies nor is it stated in GNG. It had significant coverage regarding the portrayal of women and torture which was disscussed around release, and signficantly after release thus I believe it warrants a separate article, especially as this article is rather lengthy for a VG article.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 20:32, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
I agree that it should be merged into the GTA 5 article because then the people don’t have to go to another page just to see the controversies of gta 5 101.112.201.46 (talk) 23:58, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:CSECTION and WP:POVFORK. The bar is very high when you want to spin out a controversy section because it is very susceptible to violating NPOV and becoming a coatrack for grievances. The controversy article is not so long that it can't be merged here verbatim without trimming, which should alleviate Spy-cicle's DUE concerns. Indeed, the mere existence of an article prominently called "CONTROVERSIES ABOUT X" can in and of itself constitute UNDUE weight on the the side of controversy/disparagement (as warned in CSECTION). I oppose splitting out the accolades list. Accolades tables are not prose and do not count against word/character count as measured by WP:SIZESPLIT. Axem Titanium (talk) 03:31, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
Support, since it's not a long article anyway and does not necessitate a separate article. Theknine2 (talk) 14:35, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose. We do tend to give negative aspects significantly inflated prominence in many articles, and merging here would give them even more undue prominence. Merging it here verbatim would destroy NPOV, while keeping it separate allows it to be documented without giving it undue weight. Also roughly oppose a trim & merge, since the current length of the section seems about right, and ultimately, per ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ, most of this criticism had low lasting significance. DFlhb (talk) 08:23, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
    This assumes the controversies cannot be trimmed down to a size that allows them to fit. The controversies stated in the article are already vastly overinflated and can easily be trimmed without losing any information of note to a typical reader. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:53, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
    I'd be fine with that, then. DFlhb (talk) 11:56, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Support per Axem. Sergecross73 msg me 16:05, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
  • I'm split on this (heh). I wrote this article in fundamental disagreement with the reviewers about sexism, but included the commentary in good faith as the point was echoed in multiple sources. The vacuous writing is not exclusive to women. The game revels wholly in misanthropy; the male cast are just as paper-thin and imbued with an insufferable machismo. The game's writing was poor when it released and has aged even poorer; the satire bites at times but has little of substance to say. I suppose the article has become something of a time capsule; the "controversy" was a flashpoint at the time, especially in the wake of Gamergate, but unless I'm missing something in more recent sources, the lasting effects weren't there. It's worth investigating this before any action takes place, as the bulk of the article discussing the depiction of women has not been updated in years. I have no strong feelings either way; I note that there should be coverage but have no qualms if someone wanted to pare it down and/or merge. — CR4ZE (T • C) 15:39, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
    I think have found some academic articles regarding controversy. This 16 page peer-reviewed discusses the controversy of the "By the Book" published in 2022 (
 Wills, J. (2021) ‘“Ain’t the American Dream Grand”: Satirical Play in Rockstar’s Grand Theft Auto V’, European journal of American studies, 16(3). doi: 10.4000/ejas.17274.) demonstrating some level of sustained coverage. [3] [4] [5] which discuss the scene which signifantly discuss the torture mission long after release.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 20:30, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Support – Per WP:POVFORK, and the current "Controversies" section, if expanded, could cover needed information from the standalone article. DecafPotato (talk) 19:35, 23 May 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.

British?

Why is this article in British English? Sure, Rockstar North is a British studio, but the publisher (and developer's owner), Rockstar Games, is American, and the game is set in America. gangplank galleon (talk) 07:13, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Nobody has really made a strong argument about the topic having strong national ties, so we retain the existing variety of English. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 07:21, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
the game was made in the usa, and the subject matter is entirely of the usa. nothing about this game has uk ties. Iljhgtn (talk) 03:25, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
The game was made by Rockstar North which is in the UK. Masem (t) 04:11, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
the content of the game is all about america, along with the rest of the series. if i am alone in this thinking that this article should be usa english then nvm. Iljhgtn (talk) 17:46, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
I was also quite surprised by this tbh - but I suppose the letter of WP:ENGVAR says we generally don't change variety once one's already established. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 18:24, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
"generally" i guess, but looks to me like this would make a lot more sense to be usa english here.. Iljhgtn (talk) 18:38, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
Not really. The developer's location is the closest tie we have, and based on it, the author of the articles used British English years ago. It is consistent across all GTA articles. IceWelder [✉] 18:45, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
ya, i just saw that too. ok nvm then Iljhgtn (talk) 18:47, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
if Rockstar North ends up making a GTA game that takes place in a fictional london or something maybe then, but otherwise the GTA games should be usa english i feel. i just checked now and apparently all of the other GTA games, which are deeply american games, are also written in british english Iljhgtn (talk) 18:46, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
Grand Theft Auto: London 1969. IceWelder [✉] 19:03, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
well i guess that proves its already been done. Iljhgtn (talk) 15:34, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

The $6 billion revenue figure

I've checking the Market Watch source and looks like they cite Box Office Mojo and Take Two but also International Business Times and VGChartz [6]. Maybe we should remove the figure? Timur9008 (talk) 11:17, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

User:Rhain what do you think? Timur9008 (talk) 11:21, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
@Timur9008: I wouldn't read into the "Source" part too much; presumably, those are just the sources for the smaller points within the image (e.g., Box Office Mojo for Avatar's gross and budget, International Business Times for GTA V's budget, VGChartz for sales by platform). The US$6 billion figure itself is still sourced to MarketWatch's analyst/s, and the article presents it as such, so I don't have a major problem with it. I definitely wouldn't be opposed to seeing the website discussed at WP:RSN or WT:VG/S, though. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 11:16, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
Thanks! I will probably put Market Watch up for discussion at WT:VG/S some other day Timur9008 (talk) 11:21, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
User:Rhain someone added the $8 billion figure. Isn't it just from this article [7]? Timur9008 (talk) 07:45, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
@Timur9008: I noticed that too. The figure is cited to Sky News, which is considered reliable per WP:RSP. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 07:50, 4 October 2023 (UTC) this is in my watchlist; you don't need to ping me
It does say "reportedly". Should we keep it? It's possible they just got the number from TweakTown or this [8].(they may have confused GTA V with the upcoming GTA VI) Timur9008 (talk) 08:02, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
It seems more likely that the information is sourced from TweakTown than confused with GTA VI. Personally, I'm apathetic; I wouldn't strongly support keeping it nor oppose removing it. In the case of the former, though, it may be wise to attribute the statement to Sky News, as was previously done with MarketWatch. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 08:11, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
Fair enough. Timur9008 (talk) 08:15, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
I added the $8 billion figure and it is not from the Tweak Town article. Its from the Sky News article, which says "[GTA V] earned publisher Take-Two a reported $8bn (£6.4bn) in revenue", seems like the figure was reported by Take-Two themselves to Sky News. Another reliable source, The Hindu claims the same $8 billion figure. I hope that my input in this discussion proves beneficial, best regards! Autoadrenaline (talk) 10:03, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
It's incredibly unlikely that Sky News received the information from Take-Two directly; Take-Two typically publishes that information itself and has not provided an official revenue figure for this game in over ten years. The article does not imply any communications with Take-Two either. It seems much more likely that Sky News sourced it from TweakTown, or at least used the same calculations. The Hindu, meanwhile, almost certainly got its information from Sky News. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 10:11, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
I was thinking the same before adding this figure to the article, but I soon realised the fact that TweakTown's claim of $8.4 billion is for the entire GTA franchise, and not in particularly for the GTA V. In my opinion, generally reliable sources like Sky News, The Hindu and IGN India (which claims an almost $8 billion figure), are more unlikely to source their information from a generally unreliable online tech news provider, like the TweakTown. Even if Sky News themselves calculated the former figure, I could not claim it unreliable because I could not find any unreliable claims or information from them about this game or any other. Autoadrenaline (talk) 07:55, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
TweakTown's claim is for the franchise since 2013—and, since GTA V is the only main entry in the series in that time, it's logical to assume that most of the $8.4 billion is from that (an assumption that TweakTown also makes). The Hindu almost certainly got its information from Sky News or TweakTown, while IGN India's $7.7 billion claim is a figure that has been circling since an unreliable post earlier this year. I have no doubt that Sky News either took the $8 billion figure from TweakTown or used the same calculations itself—hence "reported"—but either way, it is clearly attributed to Sky News in the article, so I think its usage is suitable. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 08:38, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Bundled refs

In instances where text was supported by three or more citations, I bundled using {{efn}}s; this action has been undone in this edit by IceWelder. I am following guidance from WP:CITEBUNDLE and what is standardised across many articles (including FAs). I don't agree with your rationale, but if you have a better solution, I'm all ears. — CR4ZE (T • C) 11:53, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

WP:CITEBUNDLE notably uses refs instead of efns, which alleviates the primary issue I raised, and proposes the use of {{Unbulleted list citebundle}} as means to generate a consistent format. Ideally, of course, the affected sentences would be restructured to avoid >3 sources in the first place. IceWelder [✉] 12:27, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Grand_Theft_Auto_V/Archive_4&oldid=1224490376"