# Talk:Kingdom Hearts HD 1.5 Remix

Should this page be 1.5 or I.5. Serious question, as ReMIX is properly stylized (in the article, but not the page title), it it's more in tune with the numbering system of the series itself (Kingdom Hearts II, not Kingdom Hearts 2)
74.74.131.246 (talk) 05:02, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I think this is a good consideration, and something to be discussed, because the logo stylizes it as I.5. However, many reliable sources and outlets, even Square Enix's releases, have it stylized as 1.5. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:38, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Just wanted to know if we should only have the japan release date? As their is no confirmation of an outside release? 94.1.182.184 (talk) 19:34, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I see the move has happened - no problem with that. The question is, within the article, can we refer to the game as Kingdom Hearts HD 1.5 ReMIX, or should it be referred in article, as it appears in the title? If the latter, then it will need to be changed in other Kingdom Hearts articles, but we should be consistant throughout. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:49, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

It should never have been stylized as a common term. It'll have to be changed if its hanging around somewhere. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 05:01, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
I think Kingdom Hearts, Kingdom Hearts (video game), Kingdom Hearts: Chain of Memories and Kingdom Hearts 358/2 Days would be the places where it would still be stylized as ReMIX. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:05, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
What are you referring to as the "common term" DragonZero? HD 1.5 ReMIX or HD 1.5 Remix? After rereading your comment, I was uncertain. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:47, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Oops, I mean the game's stylized text shouldn't be used as the common term in articles to refer to it. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 20:31, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
All uses of "ReMIX" have been changed to "Remix" on all the pages listed above. The KH template was changed before so that is all set. There may be other instances of ReMIX floating around, so just be on the look out for them. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:22, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I looked at "What links here" and found any other traces of ReMIX and have changed those as well. Everything should be all set now. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:26, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Kingdom Hearts HD 1.5 Remix/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: ProtoDrake (talk · contribs) 05:04, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

I'll have the review ready in a few day's time. --ProtoDrake (talk) 05:04, 30 June 2016 (UTC)


#### Review
Initial Comments

The lead doesn't need exact release dates. Reccomend rephrasing it to "First revealed in 2012, it released in Japan in March 2013 and in the West in September the same year".
 Done
The lead lacks any kind of information regarding its development, and its emphasis on the later collections seems too high.
 Done. Let me know what you think of the new lead.
Recommend renaming "Games" to "Content".
 Maybe I feel like "Games" is a better header than "Content".
This isn't essential. It can be left as is.
Development section needlessly repeats information from the Release section. Either properly distribute the information, or merge the two into a "Development and Release" section. The latter might be preferable, given the low use of development information in the section.
I've reduced the repetition in the development of the release date. I think both should be two separate headings still.
GameRankings shouldn't be used here. It's a seventh-gen games, and I believe there was an agreement not to use GR for anything later than sixth gen.
 Done
Main reception paragraph should be broken into two paragraphs.
 Done
I would rename "Additional Collections" to "Later Collections".
 Maybe Not overly opposed to this, but might have to think on it a bit because I'm not feeling that's the best change at this time.
I'm alright with leaving it as is if you think it's better that way.
Those are my initial thoughts on the review. I'll be back with more detailed stuff once the items above are addressed or explained. --ProtoDrake (talk) 09:30, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

I've added responses above to your comments. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:22, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
I've had another look through, and I'd be willing to give this a Pass, now the main issues have been addressed. --ProtoDrake (talk) 18:16, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks ProtoDrake! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:19, 3 July 2016 (UTC)