This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Video games Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks: LGBTQ+ studies This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies 2010s Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject 2010s, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 2010s on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.2010sWikipedia:WikiProject 2010sTemplate:WikiProject 2010s2010s Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

@Blue Pumpkin Pie: The series was originally capitalized as Life Is Strange. However, the "i" was decapitalized with the release of Before the Storm. This spelling is not in line with MOS:TITLECAPS, so it was not adopted for this and consistent titling reasons. As notable sources use the decapitalized spelling, I added it as "stylized as" to the lead.

I ask you detail your argument more thoroughly than "thats not really a style." Regards IgelRM (talk) 08:41, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@IgelRM: No it makes sense that "Life Is Strange" transitioned to "Life is Strange: Subtitle". Its more of a typo that got phased out rather than an intentional stylization.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 12:25, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do not fully understand what you are saying. Although the spelling in official material was not always consistent, setting and later changing the product title capitalization of an already released game on the Steam Store page is not trivial. In any way, you have not explained why the decapitalized spelling does not qualify for "stylized as". IgelRM (talk) 19:15, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@IgelRM: Stylized titles are adding something additional to them that doesn't alter the way it's pronounced. For example, Se7en or P!nk or Ke$ha are examples of stylization because they replace actual letters Steam pages are the one and only place to see the quote-on-quote stylization as opposed to the multiple sources out there showing it with a lowercase "i" in "is", then its most likely a revision of what the title is.

So i'm removing it because it's not a stylization choice. With that said, I don't believe the correct title for any of these games is "Life Is Strange". grammatically, the "is" is lowercase and it looks like Square Revised their title to be grammatically correct. All the other sources as well follow the common spelling of "Life is Strange" as well.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 19:50, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I decided to bring it up to WT:VG about it, and see if this is a good idea.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 20:19, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Now I can follow your argumentation, although I do not fully agree. However, it is in some ways contradicting to @Lordtobi: argumentation on the original game's article, which deemed the "stylization" to be "not extraordinary enough for attribution" at the time. IgelRM (talk) 20:22, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this is not a stylization. if anything, the original "Life Is Strange" is closer stylization because that's not grammatically correct. But since Square Enix has revised their title, tells me the quote-on-quote stylization was never intentional to begin with.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 20:34, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Character notable for one video game Andre🚐 18:20, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. No adequate rationale had been provided to support the proposed merge. There are plenty of fictional characters who have appeared in only one video game (or film or TV show etc) but has been subject to significant coverage specifically about their development and reception, so such a simplistic reason does not fly. For the record, Max Caulfield has technically appeared in more then one video game with Life is Strange: Before the Storm. The result of a 2019 AfD about the topic was a clear consensus that it passes WP:GNG and is thus entitled to a standalone article. Haleth (talk) 01:56, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake. I thought it was just one game. And the prior AFD wasn't tagged on the talk page; I'll add it. I'm sorry - it is there. It just wasn't on this page. I must have missed it. Andre🚐 02:05, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a "List of characters in the Life Is Strange series" article consolidating the now many separate character articles would work? Most of the opinion pieces cited as passing WP:GNG seem to be on the whole about one of the games. Looking at the article, for example Max and Chloe are nominated together for Polygon's best characters list. IgelRM (talk) 23:29, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would be a good idea. Andre🚐 23:30, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I created Draft:List of Life Is Strange characters, help appreciated. Believe the potential content should suffice and avoiding the every Pokemon articles situation. @Andrevan @Haleth @KlayCax IgelRM (talk) 15:30, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Life Is Strange (comics) redirects here but has substantial text after the #REDIRECT directive. Please can an editor familiar with the subject un-redirect, merge, delete or otherwise deal with the content? Pinging contributors 2pou and MaximumMadnessStixon. Thanks, Certes (talk) 12:04, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Certes. Sorry, but I have no familiarity with the topic. My edits used tools that don't go to the edit window, and I didn't even realize all that content was there. The edits just came about when I was cleaning up an RM that I closed, I believe. Good luck. -2pou (talk) 14:44, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's interesting, 2pou. We're cleaning up a list of redirects with content (which no one will see unless they use &redirect=no). If they're being produced semi-automatically, we may need to look at the tool. Certes (talk) 14:54, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Certes, just to be clear, the tools I used did not contribute to the commented out content below the redirect. Capricorn simply changed the section anchor reference of the redirect, and DisamAssist simply changed the redirect target link from a temporary disambiguation page to the page after it had been moved. It looks like the commented out text has been in there, in part, since its creation, and it was expanded a few edits later. I'm guessing those editors thought there was potential to build an article, but then it got lost on the back burner. -2pou (talk) 18:42, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. I'm glad the tools are behaving! Perhaps we need a wider debate about how to store these drafts and whether below the #REDIRECT line is a good place for that. I know it's condoned in some cases: the RfD banner encourages the creation of a draft whilst retaining the redirect (which doesn't activate due to that banner, but that's another story). Certes (talk) 18:49, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 January 2023 and 12 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): WikiBeani0 (article contribs). — Assignment last updated by WikiBeani0 (talk) 02:01, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Samuel Wiki: Allow me to expand why I believe "new Life Is Strange game is currently being developed" is un-encyclopedic, but I don't feel like fighting over this. Quoting from the IGN report: "This leaves those remaining at Deck Nine once again reliant on Life Is Strange. [...] For better or worse, Deck Nine has become the steward of Life Is Strange, and their fates are inextricably linked."

I assume this is the origin as it might imply a new series game to be released. But staff doesn't get paid for nothing so to speak, so it would be more of a headline if they would not try to develop a new game. Moreover, the report is meant to be about the studio culture and would be assumed to be most reliable in that area, so picking the paragraph to confirm a game feels sensationalist. Generally the publisher would need to give a complete "green light" at the end of development and previous sentence in the future section ends with the "transfer" of the series to Deck Nine, which I might understand as trying to develop more games in the series (personally even that sentence feels off). IgelRM (talk) 22:49, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the parts in the IGN article which reference a new Life Is Strange being in development:

• "Early last year, while working on the next entry in the Life Is Strange franchise"
• "Near the end of 2022, [...] someone noticed something odd in the in-development new Life Is Strange game"
• "This leaves those remaining at Deck Nine once again reliant on Life Is Strange. For now, sources says development on the current project is progressing well despite some early struggles."

- Samuel Wiki (talk) 11:29, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. At first reading, it wasn't clear to me that the beginning is not referring to True Colors. I see the reasoning for inclusion now, but will reword it to address the rest of above concerns a bit. IgelRM (talk) 22:53, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]