Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Chrono Trigger/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article review
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by Joelr31 03:00, 23 January 2009 [1].

Chrono Trigger edit

Review commentary edit

Notifications to Zeality, WP:VG, WP:SE
(a)
  • story section in particular is not the best. Other areas may need cleanup
(c)
  • DS section is in particular lacking detail for verfiable information on any of the items
  • Sequels section list a number of sequels which are not considered as sequels
(e)
  • because of the DS release content has been changing more rapidly, almost daily. While there are no edit wars, the amount of changes is imo too frequent for a FA-class article.

Style Guidelines

(b)
  • no "related media section where music, anime (which should be WP:V, sequels, music, etc should be in.
Length

The story section is far to detailed and likely violates WP:fancruft.じんない 22:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree the story section is problematic but can be corrected. (I might take a stab at that). A related media section is not required, though the sequel area (which if you read it, is about related games based on this one) discusses related titles, so I don't think this is actionable.
The area of major concern, that being the DS section which just came out last week, is one that I think this FAR is jumping too soon on. There is a lot of information changing, and for the moment it is unstable, but any established FA can have the same thing happen. If the DS section is not improved in, say, a month since its release (so around the end of this year, then) then a FAR to address those points should be made, but FAs do need to be updated when new information is available and will be in a short state of flux while they are. --MASEM 22:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's an issue of sourcing throughout, and the story is indeed atrocious; there's a startling lack of reception as well. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 23:02, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well those games, with the exception of Chrono Cross, and formerly (until CC) Radical Dreamers, aren't sequels and should not be listed. The section should be renamed to to "Sequels and Spinoffs" and it should be made clear that most of those games are sequels.じんない 23:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have to disagree with you on the Radical Dreamers front: that's an issue of a canon change and the game was for a significant amount of time CT's sequel. A similar case would be Devil May Cry 2, where Capcom modified the material to express that Dante wasn't actually in the title and so forth to separate it from the "main storyline". Since Wikipedia doesn't concern itself so much with canonical changes over real-world relevance, Radical Dreamers' mention should be fine there, no?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:46, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Radical dreamers is fine, with the caveot mentioned that Square-enix altered their timeline so that it is no longer considered canonical sequal. As for the real-world relevence to whether it is still thought out as a sequel, that would require WP:RS claiming that it is still the case post-Square rewrite of canon otherwise that would be vering close to WP:OR.じんない 01:59, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I raised an issue with the references used on the talk page a couple of months ago, but no one seemed inclined to do anything about it. In particular, I'm not convinced that Chrono Compendium qualifies as a reliable source for our purposes. Pagrashtak 19:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thinking story could be divided into plot and setting as well.じんない 15:37, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, there has been a ton of changes, trims, and the unreferenced material is now gone from the DS section. Any concerns left, or can this be kept? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:35, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's definatly better. I still believe, this being from a seasoned Chrono Trigger player, that I have trouble following the story; mostly because there is no transition between the 2nd and 3rd paragraph to let the reader know we are backtracking in time. Also the DS release only cites 1 instance of a review on the dunegones which could very well denoate WP:BIAS. The number of scores listed may also be excessive and repetative. This is easily GA quality, but I still think its not FA quality.じんない 20:36, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My concern hasn't been addressed at all. What makes http://www.chronocompendium.com/Term/Alpha_Version_Screenshot.html a reliable source? Pagrashtak 20:49, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sources

Going through the sources per the standards at FAC these days, the following issues would be raised:

  • GamesAreFun — There is no editorial policy nor does the site has any reliable references. Furtheremore, this is a fan-submitted review (reviewer is not on the staff list,)
  • Galbadia X — Colin Temple's blog... who is he in the game industry?
  • PALGN & again — Despite its claims and history, no reliable sources have referred to it as a reliable source of information and reviews...
  • Chrono Resurrection project — Non-notable fansite, announcing its closure
    • I am not doing that as it is used for showing that the popularity of the series for inspiring fan-created spin-offs/remakes/sequels and nothing more.じんない 19:28, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Player One Podcast — The audio link should help to vouch for its reliability, but giving more reasons to why this site should be believed that it would not edit the audio would help it further.
    • I think linking directly to the audio link is fine. Either way a link to a forum should not be used when there is a legitimate non-forum source.じんない 19:28, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • CTRP — Another non-notable fansite, announcing its closure
    • I am not doing that as it is used for showing that the popularity of the series for inspiring fan-created spin-offs/remakes/sequels and nothing more.じんない 19:28, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gaming Age — Another of the hordes of gaming sites on the web with no editorial policy or reliable references to speak of, what makes it the reliable one?
    • A look on the staff page has Marcus Lai, as well as a lot of former members, as staff for other more well recieved publications. I believe this therefore qualifies as WP:SPS.じんない 19:28, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Destructoid's Collette Bennett — Per WP:VG/S, concensus is that Destructoid is not a reliable site, and that its bloggers should be considered under WP:SPS rules, so what makes Bennett a reliable person or expert in the gaming industry?
  • Overclocked Remix — What makes this community site reliable? In fact, why should we link to it? It is hosting a copyright violation, is it not (unauthorized remix of the game's soundtrack, is the soundtrack in the public domain)?
    • Not sure it violates anything as if it is remix it may fall under Fair use for parody. I suggest before removing we have someone more versed in US law dealing with fair use rationale to weigh in.じんない 19:28, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Silicon Era — Another of the horde of gaming sites, what makes it reliable?
  • RPGamer — Despite its listing on WP:VG/S, which I am raising queries on, what makes this site reliable?
  • Cubed3 & another — Nintendo fansite: what makes this a reliable site for news and reviews (keeping in mind its staff's resume[2])?
  • RPGFan — Like RPGamer, another site on WP:VG/S I am concerned about. What makes it reliable?
  • VG Museum — Why are we linking to mass copyviolations (unauthorized use of screenshots)?
  • Gamekyo — Another of the horde of gaming sites, what makes it (or its predecessor, Jeuxfrance.com) reliable?
    • Don't know. Is there reason to believe they edited the video interview footage?じんない 19:28, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • All links to Chrono Compendium — Fansite. If the link is supposed to be to a transcript or scan of a publication, then the reference should be to the publication, not the site. What makes this fansite reliable as a source (SPS or otherwise)?
    • Before we remove anything from this site I suggest we discuss get a 3rd party as the site appears to have a an exhaustive peer review and encyclopedic nature. However, it also does not do a good job on citations (except with the use images) and may have too many of them that would normally violate copyright. Therefore it's not a clear-cut case like most fan-sites and perhaps should be brought up before a larger audience for discussion.じんない 19:28, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following seems to be wrongly cited:

  • Yasunori Mitsuda's personal website — This might be incorrectly labeled as "Procyon Studio: Interview with Masato Kato". Mitsuda might have worked with that studio, but it is not stated here in what capacity he interviewed his fellow composer Kato.

The article would likely not pass muster in FAC today with the amount of questionable sources. Jappalang (talk) 23:01, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's best to ask WT:VG rather than here about that.じんない 23:16, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I got rid of the Vgmuseum link. That was an easy one, since it wasn't used as a reference. Some links, such as the remake efforts, are being used as primary sources for the remake. That's either an acceptable use, or you could argue that the remake is not notable enough for inclusion, in which case it can be removed completely. If you want to remove some of the more unreliable sources, please feel free, as it doesn't look like the discussion is leading to much at the moment. Pagrashtak 20:08, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Check for the use of any of the remakes on wikipedia as know at least a few have feature and good article status. Also don't remove RPGfan links without discussing it in WT:VG first. Beyond that though, go ahead.じんない 20:18, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed a few sites i couldn't find any basis to claim that the site, or the staff member for the article, was notable.じんない 19:28, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another user has reverted that. Pagrashtak 20:49, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note about the sources: OCRemix falls under fair use because it releases the remixed tracks for free. Secondly, it had approval from many game companies.--ZXCVBNM 20:56, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not going to comment inline individually for the above. RPGamer and RPGFan were not declared to be reliable by concensus or reason. They have nothing to vouch for their reliability. RPGFan has been removed from WP:VG/S by me in the absence of any proof. As for using non-notable sites to prove "popularity" of the game, that would violate WP:OR and WP:SYN, popularity is to be stated by secondary sources so that their status would be less controversial. Using a primary source to claim that the game was popular enough to make this spinoff is nothing less than contentious, especially when no other secondary source has reported of them. It is readily apparent that many games, popular or not, have spawned spinoffs by fans that number in the thousands, hundreds, tens, and single digits. The existences of fan-made game are not notable events for the original game, unless they are reported by secondary sources. As for the remix, it is not a parody (check that definition of the word), unless that remix was to make people laugh, which I pretty much doubt so; hence, fair use does not apply to them. Releasing them as "free" does not make them fair use. Are people calling anime fansubs "fair use" now? Which reliable source has stated OCRemix has obtained "approval from many game companies", which I am going to take as "permission to take our products and distribute them in a modified form"? As for Gaming Age, the writers did not come from the well received publications, they left the site for those publications. Gaming Age is not at the receiving end of the experience and skills. Jappalang (talk) 22:53, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitrary Section Break
  • (a) I'm going to take a shot at this according to the notable things I mentioned at WP:VG. Don't worry, I'll satisfy the chop-artist editors by keeping the plot section brief.
  • (b) I will create a related media section.
  • (c) You have two options. First, I can cite the new V-Jump player's guide or, in January, Chrono Trigger Ultimania. Oo, we can cite the Chrono Compendium, where people who follow the link can see screenshots proving the new content assertions, etc. I would prefer V-Jump.
  • (e) Strike. The changes are over. I've also never seen an article removed from FA status because of new volatility. Usually, there are editors to keep things in line, but I was away in school when the DS version was released.
  • Source Issues

Cross-posted at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games#.22Proper.22_SourcesWikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 61#.22Proper.22_Sources for project consensus.

  • GamesAreFun - Not an important citation, but the FACT tag should be removed. A graphic at the beginning of the game clearly says ACTIVE BATTLE 2.0.
  • GalbadiaX - Will replace with http://ds.ign.com/objects/142/14263600.html.
  • PalGN - Removal of the first about the release date is fine, but [3] is absolutely not. This is an interview with Yasunori Mitsuda. No matter how "notable" PalGN is, they interviewed Mitsuda. It's foolish to replace this with an ugly "Fact" and make people doubt the veracity of that statement.
  • Destructoid - It's either Destructoid or the Compendium here, as something has to prove that this fan translation is notable. Fan translations generally are notable; an argument about this took place with the FA process for Radical Dreamers. The Compendium Retranslation has been downloaded over 100,000 times and was noted by a few blogs in the gaming blogosphere. Whether that's notable or not, the fact stands that Nintendo's censorship in 1995 is notable, and removing the Retranslation would remove the basis for which the article talks about censored dialogue in the game. We'd be left with a bunch of ugly citations. Since the Compendium's still here, fine, Destructoid goes.
  • OCReMix - OverClocked ReMix is generally included favorably by WP:VG in cases such as its use in this article. OCR's site projects have attracted the attention of the original composers in several cases. However, OCR's editors (including User:Liontamer) like to add links to the site's composer profiles and remix sections to all sorts of video game articles and video game musician articles, so if you'd like to go clean those out, you're more than welcome.
  • Siliconera - Fine. Famitsu covers everything Siliconera said anyway, but not everyone can read Japanese.
  • Cubed3 - Okay, the review section can go without the double cite. I had it there in the first place simply because Chrono Trigger fanboys like to come along and remove the game's flaws, apparently in disbelief that the game has any. But you're not getting this. That's an interview with Hiromichi Tanaka, and like PalGN, the material is too notable to ignore. Yes, Jeux-Video is also cited here, but there is no text. The Cubed3 link contains a full transcript of the interview.
  • VGMuseum - No idea who added this; glad it's gone.
  • RPGFan - Bringing it up at a sister discussion in WP:VG.
  • CTR and CTRP - The existences of fan-made game are not notable events for the original game, unless they are reported by secondary sources - Per the citations after that, they were reported by secondary sources.
  • GamingAge - I need this review to prove the excessively slow load times of the PSX port.
  • Chrono Compendium - See WP:VG talk page.

ZeaLitY [ DREAM - REFLECT ] 08:23, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As an outsider to this discussion, allow me to add a thought with regards to the Chrono Compendium sources. All the information in these sources can be found within the primary sources themselves, whether that be the game, the japanese version of it, the beta, and so on. These primary sources should be sufficient in and of themselves. Yes, primary sources are depreciated, but not banned or forbidden... one must simply be very careful in using them. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources makes this very clear... you can't use the game as a source to say something like "it takes place in a high fantasy setting" but you can use it for scripts, assuming a transcript is available. And that's what Chrono Compendium is providing. The fact that it's an example of self-publishing doesn't matter so much as the fact that where it is being cited is space shifting the primary source into a secondary source that is more easily accessible for verification of facts. It isn't original text, such as a review, but rather a conglomeration of space shifting other sources in a convenient location. In my estimation, that qualifies it as a reliable enough source for the purposes of citation. Fieari (talk) 19:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not everything that CC is used for can be switched to a primary source. For example, "Rumors of a planned eighth character exist, but are wholly unsubstantiated." If you want to switch out any CC references that can be sourced directly to the game, please do. Pagrashtak 21:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To add on to Pagrashtak's query, how are "Developers created the North American version before adding these features to the original build, inadvertently leaving in vestiges of Chrono Trigger's early development (such as the song Singing Mountain)." and "Fans have heavily remixed the soundtrack, producing over 600 tributes and several cover performance albums released over the internet or sold at retail." not items that are derived through synthesis of original sources? Jappalang (talk) 02:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CC is a least a qualified reliable source.じんない 02:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How is it qualified? Through recognized expertise or reputation? Proof can readily end this question. Note that Zeality, the owner of CC, has stated that he "needs this information" in CC, so that he can put it into the article here. That is a questionable practice, especially in light of the concerns over the fansite. Attention has to be paid to WP:SPS, which states "However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so. For example, a reliable self-published source on a given subject is likely to have been cited on that subject as authoritative by a reliable source." Jappalang (talk) 02:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per as Fieari states. Anything that comes from the primary source itself. That is why i say qualified.じんない 03:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Where in http://www.chronocompendium.com/Term/Translation_Differences.html is a original source stating "Developers created the North American version before adding these features to the original build" or such? The CC page consists of sentences like "The English version gives Robo the line, "although I have no emotions, there is something warm..." after he reads the letter from Leene. This contradicts emotional behavior shown by Robo in the game. In the Japanese original, Robo said that he did not have parents, so that he could not understand the bond between parent and child. The problem of emotions was somehow added in translation; perhaps the localization team were fans of Data from TNG?", which is original reasearch. The entire page is a fan's attempt to compare his translation against the official English version and drawing up his own conclusions about the language development of the game. Is that from a primary source? Jappalang (talk) 03:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OR only applies to Wikipedia itself, not other articles websites.じんない 05:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OR is involved in this case. The author of the article is citing back to his site's research, which is further compounded by the fact that it neither is a reliable site per se, nor passes the criteria for WP:SPS. "Material for which no reliable source can be found is considered original research." (WP:OR#Reliable sources) Jappalang (talk) 05:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And I agree the site is not reliable for comparisons, however for statements of fact about the game, ie actual game text or the like, it meet is fine; thus it is a qualified reliable source. As no reliable sources link to it nor are any of the members known to be proffesinals or academics in the field, it can't be used for more than that.じんない 05:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to point out that CC is not used for just actual game text or the like. Where did "Developers created the North American version before adding these features to the original build" and such statements come from? Jappalang (talk) 05:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary edit

Suggested FA criteria concerns are comprehensiveness/NPOV and citations.Joelito (talk) 21:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep—seems fine to me. Some work is needed, but not enough to demote this article (especially when one considers some of the stuff being promoted). There is no comprehensiveness issue here (to either extreme), and certainly no POV issues. The story section could use some script references, but those are considered optional. Great job to whoever got this article polished up again. — Deckiller 21:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 05:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Chrono_Trigger/archive1&oldid=1181686195"