Talk:13 Sentinels: Aegis Rim

question

Is it right to include an upcoming release in an encyclopaedia? Surely Encyclopaedias should concentrate on past knowledge, not future knowledge? Kerouac's socks (talk) 11:18, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Discussions: Getting the plot a sensible size

I know this is a difficult task, but the plot summary of the game as it currently stands is extremely bloated. The game is difficult to summarise concisely because of how its structured, but if this article's going to get to GA status in the future, the summary needs to be pared down to something that's understandable and accurate without looking like it does right now (it's about a quarter of the article's total length, which for a plot synopsis is way too much). Suggestions and sensible action is welcomed. --ProtoDrake (talk) 16:19, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

@ProtoDrake:I took a look at the plot section and the only thing I can think of is to remove the part that comes after the intertwining arc line completely (i.e. What occurs in the arcs of each character). Roberth Martinez (talk) 01:59, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Gatekeeping articles for "purity" ?

See Wikipedia:Why_is_Wikipedia_losing_contributors_-_Thinking_about_remedies#Deletionism and Wikipedia:Content_removal.
     I just spent an hour clarifying the core plot and fixing up common misconceptions while trying not to remove previous user content, unless it was factually incorrect, and using simple language without arbitrary jargon or unclarified terminology, only to discover that all my changes in their entirety were immediately reverted back by User:ProtoDrake into wrong info due to, I can only assume, some misguided attempt at "brevity". Then he made miniscule change in the middle of that content that blocked automatic reversion. Same goes for this revert of someone's excellent per-character plot summary.
     This story is the modern equivalent to Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey but 10 times longer (30 hours of people talking non-stop + in-game article reading, and that's after about 50% of the story got cut due to budget constrains), with more science than fiction and zero fantasy or surrealism. Putting this in few paragraphs there were is already sign of its writing's achievement and how it allows so much complex real-life concepts fall into place so concisely and easily alongside full terminology description in linked related articles.
     Although, it takes players hours [1], sometimes tens of hours, to fully analyse the story and understand chronology for which they usually do by replaying the whole thing in chronological order which fully unlocked post-game Event Archive allows. But a lot is still left implied and not explicitly defined in game due to its reliance on 100 years of real-life transhumanism and the history of sci-fi genre as a whole. This is where concise BUT fully FACTUAL article is beneficial. Absence is not brevity.
     What is this ? Are articles now supposed to be as empty and as wrong as possible ? Is some letter-counting bureaucracy using inconvenience tactics are more important than usefulness of the actual content ? Didn't know that it's what they meant by Wikipedia:Be_bold.
     I was planning on proof-reading and fixing more of incorrect statements about order, purpose, causes and effects of key plot events and filling blanks in face-value interpretations of scenes by post-game & real-life info, which seems to be still a lot, but now it's pointless to attempt if they are going to be blindly removed too. DFX (talk) 16:31, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

If you've not read WP:PLOTSUM, I'd suggest having a look through it. Likewise on other articles where you have been adding information about this video game, please consider the amount of information you are adding relevent to the nature of the article. You can always provide an external link to a more detailed site or other wiki if relevent. Sciencefish (talk) 19:01, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

You mean like the part: "The description should be thorough enough for the reader to get a sense of what happens and to fully understand the impact of the work and the context of the commentary about it." ?

    The part about working of Project Ark, what Facility ("The Facility is Facility of the current colony, where story takes place, which is rebuilt every 5000 years in the same place, a colony consist of many different facilities/buildings but "Facility" specifically refers to pod+simulation building) is and its purpose is literally THE purpose of the whole story which is explicitly explained in Tamao 2188 ending scene. Not just for in-game events for characters but "the moral of the story" to the audience: the most important takeaway for both characters and audience IS the importance of cultural heritage, the memes that built civilization like genes built biosphere. This is THE crux of the story and it's unfathomable that people writing the summary would miss the point of the explicit scene and, worse, remove its description altogether from the plot summary.

    There is no point in attempting to improve it if the most important aspects are going to be cut down "because the page is too long" or "I personally don't care about the subject" and instead is going to get filled with random out of context pseudo-factoids that are also factually wrong, often being the exact opposite of what happens in the story.

    And, as I've told, this isn't a 1,5-hour movie, it's 30-hour novel about 13 protagonists and many more supporting characters with multi-layered meta-story concerning both multitude of in-game narratives and out-of-4rth-wall real-life commentary in addition being 100% based on real-life concepts with no fantasy involved. And that point is completely absent from this article. It doesn't not relate why people, who know the subject, think and feel about it what they do to those who don't. Not any more than "some reviews claim that writing is kind of nice and some character's personal stories are relatable but whatever, gotta keep articles short because that's what they are for, not to relate some kind of point across about what it is and what makes it so".

    It's kind of ironic that the story primarily about preserving cultural heritage in a giant super-library and giving new life-forms understanding of importance of stories is getting none of it itself here. For some reason, old Wikipedia praetors are adamant about completely cutting useful information into nothing and guarding articles against additions. I would even understand reformulating it but cutting down under pretences is just personally offensive and anti-encyclopedic.

    As for "other articles" where you were gatekeeping me, you've asked for "citations" and I've provided you with plenty, - the ending with explicit definition for key plot-points and "the moral of the story" + its short analysis with expanded in-game encyclopedia.- 8 hours of additional post-game analysis with citations of the story's writer.[2][3][4]["I think you must buy this game! The reason for that is—in order to keep the existence of this Japanese national treasure of a company known as Vanillaware, they must sell as many copies possible. I don’t care whether games of other companies sell, and I really wouldn’t care at all if Atlus were to go under! However, Vanillaware games are the one thing we can’t lose in Japan, so let’s all buy 13 Sentinels: Aegis Rim!" - Yoko Taro, the author of post-apocalyptic NieR: Automata, at Siliconera of Enthusiast Gaming.]["13 Sentinels has the makings of a true cult classic, and earns its respect as a shining beacon of speculative fiction. The game has a lot to say about topics as wide as ethics in genetics to honoring the people who came before us, and handles it all with a steady, precise hand. Most importantly, 13 Sentinels completely reshapes how a story can be conveyed through gaming. It’s an incredible achievement, and one we’ll remember for years to come." - Austin Jones at Collider_(website).]["While it’s true that the work of Kamitani-san is largely inspired by other existing classics, the game is designed so that people who aren’t familiar with the original sources can still connect certain dots and speculate that a specific plot point might be inspired by a specific influence. I would actually encourage those who’ve played the game to speculate and debate amongst themselves." - producer Akiyasu Yamamoto of Atlus at Fanbyte.], you may want to actually read them (if anyone is actually interested in providing useful information to public, these should have all necessary info laid out to be reiterated actually concisely instead of not at all). But it seems that other user already deleted them and accused me of misconducts in violation of Wiki's own contribution guidelines of WP:BOLD and WP:EDITWAR. And if I would find or write this information on another site, let alone a wiki-site, then why I, or anyone in my place, waste time and mood on this here ? DFX (talk) 15:13, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

• The plot additions are not appropriate. I'd recommend the writer review how Wikipedia writes/handles plot summaries rather than making wild accusations or falling back on the "this is why Wikipedia is losing editors" appeal to emotion. Sergecross73 msg me 15:49, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

  So plot description is "not appropriate" in the Plot section ? Great ! Apparently, "Wikipedia handles everything" by not handling anything. My "wild accusation" are word for word realization of the situation described in that article. I think I've provided enough facts on the matter to make a factual judgement to those who want and not "appeal to emotion" or whatever else justification you like to make up for this behaviour and attitude. Anyway, you're free to swim in your own reductionist cabbalistic nonsense undisturbed because I'm done and out of here. DFX (talk) 16:00, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:13 Sentinels: Aegis Rim/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Lazman321 (talk · contribs) 04:59, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

I will review this one for you. Lazman321 (talk) 04:59, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

1 - Well written

1a - Clear and concise prose

• "...who handled music for Vanillaware's past games..." to "...who handled the music for Vanillaware's past games..."
• "Battles pit Sentinels against Kaijuu..."; earlier you said "Kaiju". Which is it?
• "They also have different attack ranges and movement speed." to "They also have different attack ranges and movement speeds."
• "In 1985 Japan, Kurabe, Fuyusaka and Amiguchi..." to "In Japan 1985; Kurabe, Fuyusaka and Amiguchi..."
• "Tired with spending so long..." to "Tired of spending so long..."
• "...he originally wanted to handle the mecha and kaijuu designs..." to "...he originally wanted to handle the mecha and kaiju designs..."
• "...with the script writing and revision process..." to "...with the scriptwriting and revision process..."
• "...the recording team needed a dedicated work sheet showing which scene..." to "...the recording team needed a dedicated worksheet showing which scene..."
• "...Kaneko had to carefully sync voice clips with key words from the Thought Cloud..." to "...Kaneko had to carefully sync voice clips with keywords from the Thought Cloud..."
• "...praised the narrative delivery and artstyle of the adventure sections..." to "...praised the narrative delivery and art style of the adventure sections..."
• "...lauding its narrative and artstyle while again faulting the RTS gameplay as weaker overall." to "lauding its narrative and art style while again faulting the RTS gameplay as weaker overall."
• "...unforgettable experience and a "a unique..." to "...unforgettable experience and "a unique..."
• "...but cited the storytelling and adventure artstyle as the main reasons..." to "...but cited the storytelling and adventure art style as the main reasons..."

These were the prose problems I found. Lazman321 (talk) 16:45, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

@Lazman321: All of the above taken care of. --ProtoDrake (talk) 09:28, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

One more prose problem I neglected to mention. Lazman321 (talk) 05:58, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

• "Getting everything to work was a collaborative effort..." to "The voice acting took a collaborative effort..."

Prose is now taken care of. This article does ✓ Pass this criterion now. Lazman321 (talk) 15:27, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

1b - Adherence to the manual of style

The lead is sufficient, the layout is standard, there are no words that one has to watch out for, all fiction is clearly marked as such, and there are no lists. This article does ✓ Pass this criterion. Lazman321 (talk) 17:27, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

2 - Verifiable with no original research

2a - Identifiable list of references

All references are clearly identifiable and are listed appropriately. This article does ✓ Pass this criterion. Lazman321 (talk) 17:28, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

2b - Reliable sources

Virtually all the sources used are reliable. All the primary sources are used appropriately. The only source I am a little concerned about is the Chinese Gamer.com. However, I don't speak Chinese and the source is only being used to source a release date, so for now I am letting it pass for now. This article does ✓ Pass this criterion. Lazman321 (talk) 17:45, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

@Lazman321: I understand the concern. Gamer.com is a Taiwanese website which I typically use for things like release dates, press releases and interviews if they have them. It's the most reliable Chinese source I've found for this subject. --ProtoDrake (talk) 09:28, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

2c - No original research

This one I am doing last as it is the most time-consuming criterion to review. Lazman321 (talk) 17:46, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Because of how busy in real life I am going to be, I won't be able to finish this review for a few days. I will try to have it finished by the end of next week. Lazman321 (talk) 15:50, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Finally have the chance to do this source check. Unfortunately, I won't be checking Japanese sources, despite me wishing otherwise. This is because I don't read Japanese, and the browser automatic translator, when translating Japanese, produces grammatical errors and hard-to-read text. As such, I am taking the Japanese sources in good faith.

Anyway, these are the statements that are not backed up by the listed sources:

• "...with up to six chosen characters using Sentinels..." — The amount of chosen characters was never mentioned.
• "There was an amusing range of reactions from the English cast when they got summaries of the game's overall plot." — The source states that the reactions "fell into three categories". This does not indicate a range of reactions.
• "...the usual joking and banter during in-studio recordings did not happen..." — Aside from a quoted remark from an actor that was taken from a recording session, the lack of joking and banter during remote sessions compared to studio sessions was never mentioned.
• "...a collaborative effort between Atlus, Sega, Vanillaware and Basiscape." — Sam Mullen did not mention Atlus during his twitter thread.
• "Doyon referred to 13 Sentinels as her favorite video game project up to that point in her career." — Technically, she said it was one of her favorites.

And that is about it. Lazman321 (talk) 05:39, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

All the original research problems have been taken care of. For now, this article does ✓ Pass this criterion. Lazman321 (talk) 15:27, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

2d - No copyright violations

With a copyvio score of 8.3 %, this article does ✓ Pass this criterion. Lazman321 (talk) 17:50, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

3 - Broad in its coverage

3a - Main aspects

The article is definitely broad in nature. It successfully mentions all the main aspects of the game along with expanding upon those aspects. I especially how detailed the development and release sections were. I don't think anything more has to be added to this article. As such, this article does ✓ Pass this criterion. Lazman321 (talk) 17:58, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

3b - Focused

Despite how detailed this article is, at no point does it ever stray off-topic. All the information is related to the game in some way. This article does ✓ Pass this criterion. Lazman321 (talk) 18:00, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

4 - Neutral

The article is neutral. All opinions are clearly marked as such. Therefore, this article does ✓ Pass this criterion. Lazman321 (talk) 18:05, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

"There was an amusing range of reactions from the English cast..." The word "amusing" should be removed. Whether something is amusing is an opinion and as such, the word should only be used as an attributed opinion to a person or company. Lazman321 (talk) 05:58, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

5 - Stable

The article hasn't been edited in five days. There are no ongoing edit wars or content disputes. As a result, this article does ✓ Pass this criterion. Lazman321 (talk) 18:07, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

6 - Illustrated

6a - Copyright tags

All non-free images have a valid fair-use rationale. The one image of a living person is under a free license. This article does ✓ Pass this criterion. Lazman321 (talk) 18:12, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

6b - Relevant media

The image used in the infobox is the cover art of the game. The images used in the gameplay section are screenshots from the game. The picture of a living person is Hitoshi Sakimoto, the leader of the music team. This article does ✓ Pass this criterion.

7 - Overall

I am placing this review  On hold for seven days. I see you have dealt with the problems raised in the prose section. Now all you have to do is fix one more prose problem, a neutral problem, and some source checking problems; and this should be good to go. Lazman321 (talk) 05:58, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

@Lazman321: I've fixed the last grammar issue, and the original research. The number of players issue has been sourced using the Eurogamer review, but otherwise I just deleted them since they weren't essential. --ProtoDrake (talk) 06:56, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Great work. This article has  Passed the GA criteria and shall be of GA status from this day forth. Lazman321 (talk) 15:27, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Edit warring Greener Meaner Green Goblin and NarkySawtooth

@Greener Meaner Green Goblin and NarkySawtooth: Both of you have done 3 reverts under 24 hours, and the next person, no matter how "right" he is, would be blocked according to WP:3RR rules. Please do not do any reverts, and discuss the changes you wanted here. I do not understand the gist of the trouble, or about this topic, but I will do the best I can to mediate both of you. SunDawntalk 02:44, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

I already reported user NarkySawtooth and their behavior and asked for them to be suspended, since I tried to reason with them in talk page(s), but they reverted my edits with other weak and debunkable excuses and without even giving me any response first in said talk page(s). I have all the evidence I need. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greener Meaner Green Goblin (talk • contribs) 02:52, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

There's just so much wrong with what you're adding. For example, the statement about a character being changed to non-binary is just completely false.

And I'm not even the only person removing it. When I started removing the section you've put on multiple pages, each one already had you undoing someone else's removal. Narky Sawtooth (talk) 03:40, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

It was removed by an unknown user without username, then it was reposted by an administrator, Discospinster, and then it was always you. And no, the statement is not "completely false", is true, and you know it and yet you continue to lie (all it takes is to notice and compare the differences, and I even posted sources from 3 or 4 different sites about it). Now what I want is to repost at least this considerably shortened text as follows: "As with other Japanese videogames released in the last years, the English localization of the game, and so extended to the rest of the West (North America and Europe), has been criticized because dialogues in the game would have turned one of the characters from a crossdresser to non-binary." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greener Meaner Green Goblin (talk • contribs) 21:31, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

"As with other Japanese videogames released in the last years, the English localization of the game, and so extended to the rest of the West (North America and Europe), has been criticized because dialogues in the game would have turned one of the characters from a crossdresser to non-binary." Do you have sources for this? If NarkySawtooth has no objection to this statement and it is well sourced, it should be included on the article. SunDawntalk 04:13, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

It's a factually untrue sentence. The character was not changed to non-binary in the localization, nor is it even mentioned. The sources cited show a line of dialogue about the character's attraction to men, which is in the original Japanese. Narky Sawtooth (talk) 04:31, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

So, it turns out it's a programming joke. Of course, it's still not saying the character is non-binary. It would be ridiculous to include a section about people on Twitter who misread a line in a screenshot from a game they seem to have never played - the character is explicitly referred to as a man throughout the game, meaning the localization did not change their gender. Also, as I pointed out on another talk page, the company behind the game fully consented to this translation, including the signing of contracts and a hefty sum of cash. Without the creators objecting to the changes, the only way it would be noteworthy is if a change was made to avoid the game being pulled, like in Russian and Chinese showings of Disney movies, for example. As the source is unreliable and no noteworthy controversy occurred (it is not noteworthy enough to have any responses outside of social media), this is a pet interest with no actual reason to be included in the article. Narky Sawtooth (talk) 20:39, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

• Checkuser note: Greener Meaner Green Goblin blocked as a sock.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:19, 13 May 2022 (UTC)