# Talk:Chrono Break

Nice citations; needs to be broken up into multiple paragraphs and/or subsections, though. -Seventh Holy Scripture 10:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, could still use grammatical polish, but it's good enough :) (Sorry for the delay, finals week for summer classes!) -Seventh Holy Scripture 02:28, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Tanaka's recent interviews and the fact that Square is still developing the Mana series (which doesn't sell on such a level) warrant the removal of the Cross section. For those that missed it, it was a proposal that Chrono Cross's sales (over 1.5 million, but low compared to Final Fantasy's) caused the lack of development. However, comments by separate individuals at Square Enix have confirmed that it is a personnel and project planning issue. --Zeality 02:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Chrono Break is notable, having been mentioned in the gaming press and registered as a trademark. Earthbound 64 was also never made, but that does not wound its notability. Should we delete Unfinished work as well? --Zeality 21:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not for the deletion at all, but Mother 3 for GBA is the same as EarthBound 64, it was just completed in 2D... 208.101.130.232 21:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
At least there was some media released for Earthbound 64, Chrono Break is just an empty trademark with no released info at all. This is the same as having an article about the highly hypothesized Shenmue III (which has been several times deleted and is now protected). --Mika1h 21:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Square, Square Enix, and Chrono-related freelance developers have given tons of statements about the game's possibility or non-possibility. Besides, this article has been listed as Good Article, it's not like it's a random stub. Kariteh 21:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, compared again to Shenmue III, Yu Suzuki has given plenty of updates about the game's production status but that's not a reason to have an article. Also I don't think Good Article status is a definitive proof of article's notability. Anyone can review and promote the article. I remember one article didn't survive an AFD although it was a GA. --Mika1h 16:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Feel free to demote the article's GA status if you believe it does not meet the GA criteria. In any case, this title wasn't talked about by the creators only, it also generated fan reactions, as proven by the fan poll stuff (and I'm sure other fan or professional reactions could be added to the article from websites and reliable sources). This asserts its notability. Kariteh 20:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I say we change the title to Chrono Brake. Chrono Break is outdated and no longer officially trademarked by Square-Enix. 208.101.130.232 21:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The fact that it was rendered as "Break" in English lends to the idea that "Brake" was a simple romaji on-the-spot translation with no thought behind it at the time. Zeality 22:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
But wouldn't "Brake" make more sense? The "Chrono Cross" was an object, "trigger" can be a reference to an object as well... So "Brake" would work pretty well, here. How can you tell which of the two spellings, "Brake" and "Break", is an "on-the-spot" one? You could argue that Japanese people are infamous for their "Engrish", but I could also argue that US teams are known to butcher translations of Japanese games because they don't do their homework... 88.161.129.43 (talk) 12:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

So, the chrono team is maintaining FFXI eh? And they can't make a new chrono game until FFXI is done? I think this can offer an explanation of where WotG came from --67.160.118.193 (talk) 21:18, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Article does not meet Wiki requirements.  A redirect to main Chrono series article is appropriate. Sheeeeeeep (talk) 17:48, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I undid this. You need to come to concensus before you do things like. Especially considering:
It was a good article.
It's been around for years, is well sourced and written, etc.
People clearly oppose this. Myself included.  Sergecross73 msg me  18:01, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
It's not a good article, doesn't matter what the people want, it doesn't fit Wiki's guidelines, and is best suited with a redirect.  Wiki is not a community where you discuss random copyrights. There has been no discussion on the article itself as it keeps getting deleted by annoying fanboys.Sheeeeeeep (talk) 18:04, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
If it's well sourced and well written, why can't there be an article on a copyright? Not to mention, it's been discussed by a number of reliable sources. I could understand if the page was sloppy or offensive or something, but it's very professional. There's no reason NOT to have it.  Sergecross73 msg me  18:08, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Look, just give it up. At this point, you've been reverted by 4 people, and I would also revert you. There's a well-sourced article about the subject, so it meets the guidelines. It's nice that you feel like you're "defending the wiki" or something but this is a consensus-driven site and no one agrees with you. --PresN 18:10, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, there's nothing about the page that goes against WP guidelines. Unless you can specifically come up with a reason not to keep this, consensus seems to say it stays. If you REALLY think it should go, make an AFD and let 'the community' decide. Being bold is fine, but not in light of being the sole holder of the opinion. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 18:12, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
And "Chrono Break" gets 61,400 results on Google, suggesting notability (in addition to the sources). ZeaLitY [ Talk - Activity ] 05:44, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
According to the notability guideline, notability is not temporary. Under that guideline, if the game was already sufficiently notable before it was cancelled or put on indefinite hiatus, the cancellation / hiatus would not push it below the notability threshold, and press coverage of the cancellation / hiatus would actually increase notability just like any other press coverage related to the game. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 08:48, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Well like Duke Nukem Forever, it continues to be brought up periodically by game news magazines and sites as one of the most anticipated sequals that never happened (yet).陣内Jinnai 16:43, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

A bit late, but RPGamer did an April Fool's joke this year with CB so incase someone starts adding info about its release, check the date.陣内Jinnai 20:57, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

As mentioned in the AFD, there are WP:SYN issues, especially in the aftermath section.

Kato and Mitsuda working together on other projects has nothing to do with Chrono Break, the sources do not mention Chrono Break.
The unreleased Chrono Cross album is not Chrono Break.
Chrono Trigger DS is not Chrono Break.
I would delete everything in the aftermath section up to the mention of Game Informer.  The examples listed above, and the "Despite Tanaka's concerns" lead, is pretty much the UN example given at WP:SYN. - hahnchen 02:06, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I say keep it in. I'd understand if it were to say that these things were literally CB, but it's not. It's merely showing related happenings in the Chrono series. Sergecross73 msg me  02:11, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
That is exactly what WP:SYNTH means. It contorts related happenings to support a theory, namely that there was a sequel in development, when rather it was just a trademark. Konveyor Belt express your horrorat my edits 05:10, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
If it actually said that, then I'd completely agree. But it doesn't. Its just related things in the series since the trademark. Band-related articles commonly talk about what individual members do after the band. For example, WP:FA Led Zeppelin talks about what the individual band members did after they broke up, like the lead singer doing solo work with Allison Krause. No one yells "OR/SYN" there, and its an FA. This is no different, its just what staff did after the trademark was filed, like create new content/scenarios for Chrono Trigger. It's no different than any of the "Legacy" or "See Also" sections commonly in video game articles either. Sergecross73 msg me  14:41, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
No.  Led Zeppelin's first two (the only one's I've checked) post break-up sources are both describe Led Zeppelin.  The first source begins, "The Honeydrippers were a post-Led Zeppelin side project for singer Robert Plant", the second is  Led Zeppelin: The Definitive Biography.  As mentioned in the AFD, "Deep Labyrinth (DS) Screenshots", or its replacement - have nothing to do with Chrono Break.  It's speculative fan service. - hahnchen 15:06, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
When I added the new references during the AFD, I was just quick searching for something that verified the credits themselves, as the other link was dead. There's links out there that make the Chrono connection stronger, and mention Chrono as vaguely as Zepelin is mentioned in the Allmusic link.
The Chrono Trigger DS info is obviously relevant, as it shows the company revisiting the series, and staff members coming together to release new content and story. Again, the same sort of thing put in "Legacy" sections all the time in video game articles. Sergecross73 msg me  15:23, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
It's not "obviously relevant", it doesn't mention Chrono Break at all, that's all fan service speculation.  To be honest, all the series legacy stuff (including Game Informer et al) would be a lot better served in the Chrono (series) article - but at a minimum, clear out the WP:SYN. - hahnchen 16:03, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
I also think the Led Zeppelin comparison is poor.  Led Zeppelin were a band, and their legacy is detailed in the band's page (which could be considered a game developer or game series article), it's not detailed in a hypothetical never-greenlit album project. - hahnchen 16:12, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Merge: For whatever it's worth, I still don't think this deserves a full article and have it's own page. I think it should just be briefly mentioned, since the game does not exist whatsoever. Tyros1972 Talk 10:44, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay, this isn't a merge discussion, and we just had a 10-day discussion that resulted in "No Consensus", so I highly doubt you're going to come to a new consensus right off the bat like that... Sergecross73 msg me  14:29, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
I can definitely see how this can be synthesis. If the section can't tie the relevancy of the aftermath and chrono break, than it should probably not be there. Which I'm starting to realize why it was called "signs of life" but even then it still suggested it was related to chrono break. But whose to say there isn't a source that suggests so? Unless speculation is connected to the aftermath.Lucia Black (talk) 17:25, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm going to start cutting the original research later this week. - hahnchen 15:32, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
now that the article is cleaned up from anything irrelevant to "Chrono Break" specifically, we don't have to worry anymore about this article being deleted or merged right?Lucia Black (talk) 17:48, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
I assume so. He and Konveyor cut a bunch of stuff out, but I added about an equal amount of new info in, and just about everything new I've added that is still in there explicitly states Chrono Break in the article or title. I also liked how you added the "History" section over the two existing ones, it brings things together a little better. Sergecross73 msg me  18:15, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm not going to nominate it for deletion, but the comments made at AFD still stand.  I made the same arguments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fallout 4, in which the consensus was to merge.  My stance is that several speculative news posts and interviews where the subject is mentioned in passing does not pass WP:GNG.
The entire aftermath section would be better just copy-pasted into Chrono (series) as a legacy section.  It's SYN in that most of it does not discuss Chrono Break, but are speculative articles regarding a return to the series.  The other piece of SYN that's left in is the stuff about Monolith Soft, which I didn't remove because I didn't want to refactor that section. - hahnchen 14:59, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't see anything wrong with the Monolith Soft bit. It's just saying what happened to some of the key staff. [[[User:Sergecross73|Sergecross73]] msg me  15:40, 13 October 2013 (UTC)