Talk:Roman's Child

From Grand Theft Wiki
Revision as of 09:05, 14 October 2011 by MrLanceVanceDance (talk | contribs) (Contributed to a discussion)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Name and Gender

...has a different gender and name depending on which ending is played...

I don't think that's entirely true - I think that it's too early in the pregnancy to know the gender of the baby. Instead, in each ending it's stated "If it's a boy..." or "If it's a girl..." respectively. Although obviously the names are unique to each ending (they wouldn't name their daughter Kate if it wasn't for the events of the revenge ending). JFletcherTalk (formerly User:Biggest gta fan ever) 10:21, 21 April 2011 (BST)

To clarify this, check the dialogue after "A Revenger's Tragedy." Mallorie is clear to say it's a boy but does not indicate the name of the baby. After "Out of Commission," no gender is mentioned at all. Roman merely said if it's a girl, he would name her Kate.--spaceeinstein 03:52, 12 September 2011 (BST)

In that case, I think it would be a better move to split the article, rather than move it, as this wiki also needs information on Kate Bellic. However, i think it would be better if we kept the info on one page, as both articles would be short and there isn't much differece between the two.--MrLanceVanceDance 09:19, 12 October 2011 (BST)

This wiki does not need information on Kate Bellic, because Kate Bellic does not and would not exist, seeing as either way Roman and Mallorie will be having a son. I highly doubt Niko Bellic's choices would alter the gender of his nephew. Grand Theft AJ 01:09, 13 October 2011 (BST)
Based on what Spaceeinstein has said, it seems that Mallorie knows the gender of the baby (and it's a boy), but Roman does not. JFletcherTalk (formerly User:Biggest gta fan ever) 05:05, 13 October 2011 (BST)

I think having two articles for two potential names for the same potential future hypothetical character is pushing the boundaries of canon a bit too far!! There should be one article for Roman's Child, and a section explaining the two names/genders mentioned. It is not likely (or biologically possible) that the gender of the child is influenced by Niko's actions, however I don't think we can say it would definitely be a boy in both endings, because the child is not even born during the storyline. Just like the rest of this wiki, this article has to cover events that happen in-game, NOT fan-fiction or non-canon assumptions - so this refers to the unborn child. We can't assume that the child will be safely born, or even what name it will be given (they might change their mind in the remaining time). All we can say for certain is that she is pregnant, gender is mentioned in one version of events, and they say in another version of events that they would name their child Kate if it were a girl. Separate articles for Kate and the son need not exist, as they are only possible future names for the same future character. gboyers talk 06:08, 14 October 2011 (BST)

I agree with you GBoyers. I think this article is fine the way it is and should not be split, moved or deleted. But guys, just try your best not to bias the article towards "Roman Bellic, Jr" too much. Also, I added a speculation tag just in case it is needed.--MrLanceVanceDance 07:01, 14 October 2011 (BST)
On the subject of not making assumptions, based on what Spaceeinstein has said (and now that he said it, I think he's right), it seems to me that Roman Bellic Jr is a completely made up name, never mentioned in game - Am I right?
Also, regarding the sentence Mallorie is pregnant during her wedding in both endings, but is unaware at that time, I don't think that's true. The final mission presumably takes place the day after the wedding, and the phonecall with Roman/Mallorie later that day - So I think that they knew she was pregnant, they just hadn't told anyone yet. I suggest that that line is removed. JFletcherTalk (formerly User:Biggest gta fan ever) 07:28, 14 October 2011 (BST)

I agree with the fact that the sentence has to be removed. Also, I obtained the names "Roman Bellic, Jr" and "Kate Bellic" from the Roman Bellic article. Kate Bellic is a definitely existing name, as Roman clearly stated that the baby will be named after Kate McReary after Out of Commission. Roman Bellic, Jr is a logical name, as Mallorie would name him as so to honour and remember Roman, however, this is just speculation.--MrLanceVanceDance 08:06, 14 October 2011 (BST)

Please don't add speculation and logical assumptions like that to articles, as they will be taken as facts unless very clearly identified (like on GTA 5). Users saw your edit and believed that was the child's appointed name, which led to other users (including me) re-incorporating that into that article and others as a fact. It can then lead to other sites citing it as true, even though they only read it on here! Just be careful, that's all, because we want to be accurate, even if it means a bit less information than if we speculated/expanded! If you really want to draw conclusions from things, or expand on stories/plotlines/characters beyond what is depicted ingame, you should make a subpage for that under your user page. gboyers talk 08:33, 14 October 2011 (BST)

I feel that I have to clarify an important point. I was not the one who created those names. I only created articles on them because, as you said, I saw the name on the Roman Bellic article and I believed that they were the proper names, therefore I created articles on the names. Because Grand Theft Wiki hardly has wrong information and every time wrong information was posted, it gets removed, I believed that they were the proper names. You can even check the edit history of Roman Bellic's article. I didn't add them. They were there long before I created those two articles. And I added a speculation tag on this article because I knew was a danger in keeping that article on the wiki the danger being, as you stated, making other people believe that the child's appointed name were the ones stated, which leads to other users re-incorporating that into that article and others as a fact. It can then lead to other sites citing it as true, even though they only read it on here.--MrLanceVanceDance 09:40, 14 October 2011 (BST)

Fair enough - a perfect example but someone else's fault! The speculation tag is relevant to the contents of this article, but it must be in addition to clearly marking the text as an assumption/speculation/possibility, which I've now done. Pretty much sorted for now, I think? gboyers talk 09:43, 14 October 2011 (BST)

Yeah, I agree. Pretty much sorted now.--MrLanceVanceDance 10:05, 14 October 2011 (BST)