Talk:Yggdra Union

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Future game?[edit]

Does "localizing" count as "developing"? Sting already "developed" the game. --Raijinili 19:28, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Separate Characters Article[edit]

I've been rewriting the Story and the Characters sections, mostly because the story section was more of an intro, and really poorly done, and the characters section was massive, and you essentially get the story from the characters section instead of the story section, etc. Anyways looking at a lot of other game articles, many of them, especially those for RPGs, have separate articles for characters. Considering how many characters there are in Yggdra Union, as well as how involved the characters are in the story, should the YU characters be split off into another article? DrSturm 09:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it may be necessary, now, considering when I tried to update my characters and story sections changes, the article was 36KB - above the limit. I've added the splitsection tag now that I know what it is, and, unless someone comes in with major objections, I'm going to do it. :/ DrSturm 04:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like the characters section is way too long in the first place. Not every character needs a section so if you can compress it into prose (try grouping the characters in terms of origin or relation), it'll go a long way to making the article better. I would really suggest against splitting off the article prematurely. Axem Titanium 22:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you ignored what I said; I had rewritten the characters section, shortening it and only including the more important characters, but with my other edits the article still ended up at 36KB. Also, not every character has a section, only those with story relevance. Hell, not even all those with story relevance; Marietta, Canaan and Monica were all left out. Al really could have had his own section, too, if we were to include every character. But, if I were to include every character, I'd have to throw in Ordeene, Vanessa, Brongaa (technically story related), Dr. Murdock, etc. I don't intend to include every character if there ends up a character's article, but, well, hell FF7 has an article for the characters, and even articles for the individual characters (something grossly unnecessary). DrSturm 02:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the FF Wikiproject is trying to merge the individual character articles to the main characters page (something I'm very proud of, see discussion here). Anyway, I urge you to look at Characters of Final Fantasy VIII, a characters FA, for suggestions about going about this split, should you choose to do it. Anyway, the 32kb limit is actually quite archaic now (see Wikipedia:Article size) so 36kb is hardly too large. I don't forsee needing to split the characters just yet, unless you feel like you can make a very strong article out of it. Axem Titanium 20:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to split it. No one seems to be paying any attention to the YU article, but I'm going to clean up the Characters section and make a separate article. I am also currently rewriting the story section for shortening; focusing on the larger events of the story. DrSturm 22:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

Two things. First is the fact that the Atlus USA forums are going down. While not the most important reference, would there be a way to save the reference to one of the threads? Second has to do with the Japanese article. They make the claim that in a staff interview in Dengeki Maoh, it is explained that Riviera and Yggdra Union are two worlds connected by Heaven's Gate to the Realm of the Gods, and that there will likely be a future game linking a third world. Now, they do not give the exact issue, or even a direct quote, and I can't find anywhere online where it might be posted, so I can't confirm whether or not it was really said. I assume it is not safe to put in this article, because it doesn't seem confirm-able?

Final touches?[edit]

Okay, I need advice on what to do with the character and story sections. Story seems way too long, and I feel like Character is way to short but will be way too long when/if I/someone add/s other major characters and more information for the characters already described. Also, references for the Twin Valkyries' names are still needed, plus (maybe) the other uncited story claims.

I also wonder if citing JaJa's blog a different time for every entry is really productive, or if the blog itself is all that should be cited. I've kind of been considering merging the Development and Localization sections, any comments on that? I think this article is actually nearing "completion", or, rather, decency. DrSturm 06:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the story section section a bit overgrown ? This part of the article doesn't have to cover the whole story of the game from 'a' to 'z' by revealing all major plot advances, as it is just a one huge spoiler for anyone who hasn't finished the game yet. A small intro or a short summary to the game would be more sufficient and appropriate, as the current build of the story section is rather unpleasant for the eye and overflowing with unnecessary information.--Maikito 22:35, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, please pay attention to change dates and other crap, and note that I have been working on shortening the story section. DrSturm 21:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:YUCardSShot.PNG[edit]

Image:YUCardSShot.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:YUPACPCover.jpg[edit]

Image:YUPACPCover.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Remake[edit]

A few questions regarding the remake. First, for categories, should we have all the years it was released (eg, 2006 video games AND 2008 video games)? I assume a yes, but I still want to know for sure. Second, what about cover art? Should we use the original (in which case we're technically not, but moot point), or should we use the most recent incarnation (in this case the one for the PSP version)? Third, how do we handle the game play changes? They've been minor, but should we point out each when describing them, or have a little paragraph at the end delineating the differences and leave it as it is (or updated it for the PSP version), or what? DrSturm (talk) 17:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I believe only the initial release year is given in the categories, but the usage is inconsistent. Cover art should prefer the original English language box. The PSP cover can be placed in a section devoted to the PSP rerelease that would also detail the changes to whatever is being changed. Axem Titanium (talk) 04:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adding Wikia Link[edit]

Most of the other game sites have Wikia links on them. (in fact, in universe information is, per Wikipedia policy, directed toward Wikia) I'm putting up a link to the YU Wikia site.

The argument that plot information hurts sales is absurd. Point to a single study that says so in concrete terms. ...I got berated for adding in-universe information to the Wilhelm (Xenosaga) article, and now you're saying I can't even link to a Wikia with the same? I daresay that Lacrima Castle poses a much greater threat to sales information-wise, what with its hosting of the ENTIRE script and every in-game graphic. But there's really no "negative sales" argument to be made in the first place. Exposure is positive. Tcaudilllg (talk) 11:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lacrima Castle is a professional news site (and I'd like you to point to where it hosts the entire script - I can't seem to find it). Your wikia is a rumor-mongering bin. Which do you think belongs as an external link? Correct. Lacrima Castle, and not your Wikia. As for how much factual information your wikia contains, well, this Wikipedia article astoundingly carries more. Much of the information described in the Character "facts" page is fallacious in nature, or based on unsourced developer claims. When your wikia actually has something worth contributing, then you can link it. DrSturm (talk) 14:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So putting up a few press releases for a handful of games that can be found ALL OVER THE INTERNET makes a site "professional"? Don't make me laugh.
I think I've got another proposition for you, "DrSturm": I'll not bring down the whole "anti-in-universe" crowd on this article's head, if you get some sense. I can pretty much count on extremism to mangle the whole article... and mangle it they will, those "brave" wikipedes. Once the debate starts, who knows where it will go? If you don't want your effort to vanish, then you'd better be willing to compromise....
Alternatively, you can come over and add those facts to the wiki. You say the fact sheet isn't reliable, then go ahead and change it to reflect the facts. (hey, I hate the damn in-universe crowd as much as the next guy, but they've made their choice and the "community minded" wiki-zealots here have arguered for them. If it's not a critique by some notable person, it "doesn't belong on wikipedia". Certainly the character ages at least are superfluous.)
And the script is posted on your forums. Tcaudilllg (talk) 15:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
More professional than your wikia, which has a "rants" article in which nothing but flaming amongst the editors occurs. Anyways, I haven't the slightest idea what you mean by "in-universe crowd" nor am I entirely certain what you're threatening me with, but I won't edit your wikia because I haven't the time to waste on it. I am also unaware what you mean by "your forums." DrSturm (talk) 16:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about? It's a wiki, and a user decided to create the rant article as a critique. I responded in kind, and left the page up. Feelings run high because the wiki's format is very experimental and for that reason is controversial. That article in no way represents the opinion of the wiki, only its editors. Nor is it my wiki: Wikia makes it clear that founders have administrative capacity to make sure that. I know that it looks bad that I'm not the banning type... but I really do believe that everyone has a role to play in this world and that within reason "bad behavior" should be tolerated if it is not a material problem. After all, I thought wiki was supposed to be "free"....
Since When are Wikia wikis supposed to be professional?
As for your forums, here's a link.

http://leyviur.net/forum/index.php?showtopic=1819&st=0

It already seems clear to me, however, that we're headed to Dispute Resolution. I absolutely perceive injustice. Tcaudilllg (talk) 19:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a critique if you're going back and forth with direct insults and analyses of each others' characters. And those would not be my forums. I don't know where you got that idea. DrSturm (talk) 20:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Granted, it's not constructive critique. I've since moved it to a forum article; thanks for the advice. ...As for the link, I ask again: will you accept it? Tcaudilllg (talk) 07:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No. Speculative information is of little relevance to a wikipedia article (particularly when Wikipedia is striving for reliability regarding fact.) DrSturm (talk) 13:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tell you what I'll do: I'll excert the original plot section of this article (the long one with the spoilers) and put it on the wiki. I'm doing this for the integrity of both projects, although I do urge you to reconsider the link, for fans' sakes. Tcaudilllg (talk) 17:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For later reference, those articles are (later version) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yggdra_Union:_We%27ll_Never_Fight_Alone&oldid=134743514 (first version) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yggdra_Union:_We%27ll_Never_Fight_Alone&oldid=134743514 Tcaudilllg (talk) 18:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What does the original plot section have to do with this? It was deleted because it was too long. As for the fans, I believe I heard you say LCN already links to the wikia? Well, then you've already got the fans, and since Wikipedia links there (numerous times), they'll find it. DrSturm (talk) 20:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, the wikia links to them. They do not link back.
Here's the thing: when people think, "where do I find information on game X", they don't think Wikia. If anything, they think Wikipedia, GameFAQs, and the largest fan sites. (the only one of which for YU is Lacrima Castle) I've got the wiki advertised on the GameFAQs boards, but I can't spam them and when the advertisement is pruned no one will know about the wiki anymore. It's a question of where people know where to look, just like the value of office space based on its proximity to busy streets. A problem of advertising. The wikia must be advertised to be successful, and that's why I must take this matter to dispute resolution. Given that wikia is controlled by Jimbo Wales and the YU wiki for all intents and purposes has his company's blessing, I think my chances are pretty good.
I admire your work on this article and I can see that you tried your best to inform people about the game, but this stance is against consensus and I know from experience that when you fight consensus then you don't get your way. ...It's just a matter of a single link. Where is the principle in that? Tcaudilllg (talk) 21:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You said it yourself; you want to advertise the Wikia on Wikipedia, and advertisements are not allowed on Wikipedia, paid or otherwise. And I know not what consensus you speak of, considering no one but you and I are involved. DrSturm (talk) 23:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then, something must be done about that. Tcaudilllg (talk) 23:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've integrated the plot summary which was previously posted here to the wikia. There is a clear complementarity between this article and the Yggdra Union Wiki. Tcaudilllg (talk) 09:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, because the only motive in doing so was achieving a "complementarity." Not to mention, stealing a summary from wikipedia and adding fallacious information to it makes it look like plagiarism or fanscript, neither of which deserve a link from this wikipedia article. DrSturm (talk) 14:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing Flash[edit]

I want to reference the official PSP YU site. However, it is in flash. Considering how large of a site it is, I don't want to merely cite the whole thing, so, unless that it's THAT, what is the preferred method of citing a particular page of a flash website? I also wish I had citations all the information I COULD add to this article. DrSturm (talk) 21:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think given the circumstances a site-wide citation is justifiable. (perhaps note which flash section the information came from (characters -> Milanor, for example)
As for how to cite a flash page, I guess that's a matter for debate but the conclusion would doubtless be something similar to what I just proposed. Flash was not developed with encyclopedia citations in mind. Tcaudilllg (talk) 00:45, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cites are for verification, so add whatever info is needed so that verification is possible. --Raijinili (talk) 09:34, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bug and Errors section[edit]

DrSturm, forums are not a reliable source, so they cannot be used to source this section. There is no way to know who posted, no editorial oversight and no fact checking. Please see reliable source examples in addition to the pages I have already pointed you to. Also, there is a possible conflict of interest. You are member no. 1 and the thread starter here, and contribute to many of the other threads used as sources.

Raijinili, the section cannot be allowed to stay as it is unsourced. It has been in the article, improperly sourced (and so shouldn't even have been in the article) for far too long.Mr T (Based) (talk) 12:07, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, forums are not a reliable source. But collections of screenshots and data are; and this forum just so happens to BE a collection of data and screenshots and videos describing all these glitches. I'll be banned from editing Wikipedia before I give this up - because only an admin telling me so, an admin making me believe the worst is possible from Wikipedia, will make me leave. DrSturm (talk) 17:17, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's also interesting how you're trying to turn my refusal to remove information as my refusal to remove links. Now, if you had tried taking out the external links thing, and I refused to allow you, that would be different, but, sadly, you've failed to prove anything with your little tag except your own bias. DrSturm (talk) 17:42, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
collections of screenshots and data are - if they have been fact-checked and presented by a reliable source, then yes. Otherwise, no.
It's also interesting how you're trying to turn my refusal to remove information as my refusal to remove links. - Pardon?
AFAI can see, you've been using an unreliable source and your own original research to source a section, and now you've been rumbled you're digging your heels in.Mr T (Based) (talk) 17:48, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fact check them, then. All the steps necessary to replicate the glitches are outlined in the thread. DrSturm (talk) 21:19, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You don't appear to be grasping the idea very well. Even if I did fact check them, that would be original research on my part. I am not a reliable source, nor are you.Mr T (Based) (talk) 21:59, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are THE most reliable source. You're trying to get them removed; once you're convinced that they exist, no one will dispute it. DrSturm (talk) 22:49, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Quite frankly, I'm sick of your insults.Mr T (Based) (talk) 00:28, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion started out as being about sources, but this is really more of an undue weight situation. Yes, we could document bugs and typos 'till the cows come home, but we shouldn't, because there's no good evidence that it matters. That's one of the major reasons we rely on reliable sources (e.g. reviews), to separate nitpicks from major glaring problems. Nifboy (talk) 23:56, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When people complain about them, they matter. DrSturm (talk) 00:37, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It depends. If a professional reviewer decides it's a big enough problem to mention in his review, sure. Complaints on a forum however are indistinguishable from noise, and simply not worth mentioning. Nifboy (talk) 00:41, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. A reviewer is a douchebag, whereas the people are a movement. DrSturm (talk) 01:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[citation needed]. I would also add that, if that's how you feel about it, Wikipedia is probably not for you. Nifboy (talk) 02:45, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, despite the fact that that's what Wikipedia is all about? You know, bringing all this information to the average person rather than having it sit in the hands of a few elite for each subject? DrSturm (talk) 17:40, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you're not willing to write an article based on reliable third-party sources (e.g. professional reviewers et al) then you're not really doing anyone a favor giving emphasis to what you and a couple forum guys have said. Yes, the game has bugs and errors in it, but so does every game in existence. If it's bad enough that we ought to mention it, then it will be properly covered in reviews et al. Essentially what I'm asking for is corroborating evidence to come to the conclusion that the bugs and errors in the game are a significant enough portion of the game and how it's seen, so that we can justify having a section with the big bold Bugs and Errors heading. Nifboy (talk) 22:29, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I never said I was unwilling to write an article based on professional reviewers' information. I just said that other information, well cited and researched information, can't be ignored. Also, it is not a section, it is a sub section, and the reviewers didn't encounter them because most of the reviewers didn't even finish the game. Plenty of players from NOT the forum cited discovered and complained about the glitches (sadly, on GFAQs and the old Atlus USA forums, so none of the posts remain). DrSturm (talk) 01:48, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So should I, after having read this article, come away with the impression that the game is riddled with errors and bugs? That is the net effect of having such a subsection in the article. The only evidence you have provided is a rather short list of bugs (plus illustrations), when I could provide a similar list for, for example, Smash Bros, for which the glitches are clearly not an issue, and a decidedly longer list for FF7, which our Featured Article mentions only because reviewers have stated the translation to be an actual problem. For this article, I don't think these glitches/etc are severe enough to warrant mention, because I have yet to see a review refer to them at all. There are bigger issues that we should be discussing instead. Nifboy (talk) 02:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You should go away with the impression that the rushed GBA version is. And the provided list is at least double the length of your FF7 and Smash Bros lists. As for if a review refers to them, truthfully, how many reviews have you seen? And what "bigger issues"? DrSturm (talk) 04:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen about a dozen reviews. Bigger issues include the game's difficulty curve (discussed here), the game's busy UI (discussed here and here, praised here), and a generally maligned story (here and here), and that's without considering what more positive reviews of the game have said, which should also be mentioned. Having read those reviews I cannot possibly come to the same conclusion you have. Nifboy (talk) 16:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How not? Just looking at the one from Atomic Gamer - their complaints about the story near the end of the article in particular - they didn't even pay attention to the story. As for the PSP Gamespot one, that's hard to understand - that they would love something about the GBA version and hate it in the PSP version. Doesn't make much sense. Until you see they used different reviewers, in which case... That doesn't make much sense. DrSturm (talk) 19:16, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1) While a forum is not a source, the game itself can be. If instructions are given to duplicate a bug, anyone with a copy of the game can verify that the bug exists. It's the same idea as hard-copy citations: while there's no link to an online resource to verify that a quote is actually from a given book, the theory is that anyone can verify that the string of words exist in the book by following the instructions given to find that book and information. Thus, the game is the source, while the instructions are only a citation. Admittedly, the analogy breaks down when it comes to real-world cost: you can request a book transfer through your local library, but you can't (usually) borrow a game and console at no cost. However, there is precedence for citing fansites which reproduce information from the game.
2) No fact-checking? Of course there is. If you read the thread, the bugs are checked by other members before they are listed. This satisfies fact-checking, at least at the lowest level. A reliable source has the quality of facts being checked. To define fact-checking as something which is done by a reliable source would lead you to infinite regression.
3) Yes, Sturm, the bugs need to be complained about in a review which has been fact-checked (supposedly, as we all know that an editor can't fact-check a review about a game he/she hasn't played) and published in one of the listed reliable sources or better. Or it has to be reported in a reliable source that a notable event was due in some significant part to bugs in the game. A Wikipedia article is all about things that make the topic notable, and some notable facts about the topic (though with less emphasis). To have a big portion of the article devoted to its bugs would imply that either the bugs contribute to the game's notability, or the bugs are a very important aspect of the game, in fact about as important as the fact that it was censored in Japan.
--Raijinili (talk) 12:29, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Except forums are not a reliable source. So what if you do read the thread, it doesn't mean those users have actually done anything. We have no way to know who is posting, and there is no editorial oversight. Also, don't remove tags from an article until the issues those tags concern have been resolved. Thanks.Mr T (Based) (talk) 12:57, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
God, shut up. You didn't even read the first thing I said. I'm sick of this already. You seem to think that everything can be solved by continuing revert wars and talking down on your opponent based on your superior knowledge of Wikipedia principles, while ignoring the most important ones that make up its backbone. He seems to think that anything true belongs in an encyclopedia article, just because he's interested in those facts, and that he has the right to add them in. Screw civility, I'm logging out again so I can forget that you two are still here.
By the way, the "conflict of interest" template on an article is for pointing out that the entire article has to be reviewed to conform to NPOV. It is NOT a toy for you to use whenever you decide that someone who you are edit-warring with has a conflict of interest in the current war. It's a maintenance tag, not a "point out my opponent's crimes" tag, and thus is targeted at individuals who would like to improve the article, not at potential recruits in your own personal war. He's already admitted out loud that he would not stop unless he gets his way or he's banned. That's an obvious sign to take this to WP:Dispute resolution. --Raijinili (talk) 14:04, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Yggdra_Union&oldid=1203688480"