# Talk:The Guardian Legend

I'm going to give it a shot and nominating this for FA as-is. We got nothing to lose, here. MuZemike 18:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. I had assumed this was already going on behind the scenes but was caught up in some super long FAC process delay. I hope the article length isn't too short. AMHR285 (talk) 01:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, there are shorter FAs than TGL, not to mention shorter VG articles than this. I am banking on that the quality makes up for the quantity. MuZemike 02:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Differences between the English and Japanese version of the game, or is that Trivia? JasonHockeyGuy (talk) 23:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Most of that information would not be able to be backed by reliable secondary sources, so it would probably be considered excessive information, i.e. trivia. MuZemike 23:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
By the way it seems that there is little difference between them other than that the room messages are written in japanese. Most everything is written in english even in the jp version anyway, including the credits, menu, and intro. If want to know about the trivia anyway you could check the archives where we talked about it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Guardian_Legend/Archive_1#post-GA_stuff . Rumors that game graphics were changed appear to be false and would be unreferenced anyway.  AMHR285 (talk) 01:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
So this was a game then that Nintendo Of America did not censor at all according to the content of the game? Wow......... Thanks for the information :)
Oops forgot to sign the above comment sorry about that JasonHockeyGuy (talk) 06:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It is now apparent that The Guardian Legend was not promoted to Featured Article status. The article has been through several peer reviews, and extensive modifications were made on the FAC page.  What might give the article that extra nudge towards promotion? It is unlikely that much additional content will easily be discovered. Rg998 (talk) 04:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I agree theres not much information about this game that you could find. I did many google searches an other searches and found nothing that would expand this article. Its as comprehensive as you can get. JasonHockeyGuy (talk) 06:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

First off, I was kind of surprised about the concerns regarding the prose, since that was driven into the ground in the peer reviews. Anyways, I'll write up a more-detailed post-FAC review tomorrow if I have time. MuZemike 06:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The game was briefly mentioned in a recent Gamasutra article here from Mike Engler, designer of Retro Game Challenge as "one of the best NES games ever released". I don't know if that's worth another sentence in the "Reception" section or not. MuZemike 01:43, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

If anyone cares, I am working on a version of this article for the Simple English Wikipedia. My draft can be found in my sandbox right here. MuZemike 21:04, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Cool AMHR285 (talk) 05:26, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

To try and steer the article closer toward meeting all appropriate MoS standards, some things need to be edited up which I'll bring here first:

Since the article is only 22KB long, per WP:LEAD the lead should only be two paragraphs long. All the paragraphs are short, anyway, so I don't see a problem combining to make two slightly longer paragraphs.
I'm considering removing some of the lesser-known developers in the infobox, but we should discuss who to keep. Niitani for sure and possibly Shant, but I don't know about the rest.
We should consider combining the Development and Reception sections into one History section and/or removing the Plot section and integrating it into the Gameplay section. I feel that we should have some consistency in the lengths of these sections and not have one-paragraph sections.
It might be a good idea to remove the Reception box and just have the rankings and incorporate the ratings in the prose since we already have three images and an infobox, which seems to seriously bork up the layout in general.
Those are some of my suggestions. Feel free to make others if needed. MuZemike 05:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Making the lead more succinct sounds like a reasonable idea.
I agree that we should at least keep the ones you mentioned.  Of the other developers, the map maker and password developers are probably the most expendable, and I'm not convinced the others are strictly necessary either.
I don't think combining sections is necessarily a bad idea, especially since there is scant further information to be found.  However, it will be a very delicate task.
Personally, I am a fan of the Reception infobox, since it allows the reader to see varying opinions of the game at a glance in a well-organized fashion.  Perhaps it would be best to complete the other tasks first, then see how the infobox fits into the revised layout.
These are my thoughts on the issues you raised. Rg998 (talk) 05:56, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

The reference of this is the Gamespot release information. Nothing here references who created the game, and I think this is likely OR. We could use Mobygames as a reference (as the consensus at WP:VG/S allows that for only developer information, provided we only stick to only providing that information and not make any inferences), or we can try to find a better source for these two statements. What I did on another GA, Blazing Lazers, I used this secondary source [1], but that only mentions him creating Puyo Puyo. Any thoughts? MuZemike 17:13, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I think they should just be reverted to the credited names (see also my thoughts here, in the second-last paragraph, about "Miyamo Shant").  The big problem is that the only source that describes these people in good detail is (the unreliable) MobyGames, and its contributors haven't spoken up. (I have grown to hate MobyGames, IMDb, and fansites, for this article and Cutie Honey-related ones.  In theory, they can help others find sources for the facts, connections, similarities, etc.; in practice, the real sources for the facts rarely exist on the internet, especially for media as old as TGL, so it becomes unquestionable plagiarism in the guise of "these ads pay for my bandwidth lol!")  Just ranting here. --an odd name 17:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
On a side note, I found what looks like the Courier article online (archived), under a different title.  It only mentions TGL and Sigma Star, not the other games. --an odd name 20:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
I would focus on what was said during the FA nom process. Unfortunately it was pretty vague stuff if I recall correctly. 闇甦兄 (talk) 06:27, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Checking the nom, I actually don't see any lingering concerns. Ealdgyth's issues were resolved, Gary King struck his Oppose just after the nom was archived, and the rest were non-"!voting" Comments that also appear resolved.  There's no more concerns there to focus on (unless the FA delegates were keeping theirs secret), and I think several Supports from other users would've earned it the star.  --an odd name 07:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
There is also this article from IGN that I don't think has been used yet: [2]. MuZemike 14:24, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
That last sentence in the lead still needs to be changed to properly reflect what the sources say (BTW, I added the URLs to Thomas' Courier & Press article). We also need to get rid of that inline citation as having inline citations in the lead are not looked highly upon and can clutter the lead. MuZemike 18:18, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
OK. Made some changes here. If someone wants to copyedit that over and make sure my English is good, please do so. In effect, I removed the last reference in the lead, reworded the last sentence there, and balanced the two paragraphs for consistency. I also added back RPG per the Courier & Press source, but right now I am only listing it down there.
Also, it might not be a bad idea to get one more peer review on this (with an emphasis on FA-quality) before nominating this for another FAC. MuZemike 22:02, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

While this was not mentioned at the previous FAC, I can foresee someone opposing on the basis of having too many non-free images (unless someone can find any free images that can be added). I would contend that the original box art and the two gameplay screenshot are necessary to the fundamental understanding of the article. If push comes to shove, I think we can do without the Japanese box art. However, so that users can still have access to the image, we could add some sort of external link going right to the image (unless that's covered already in the current list of links we have). Thoughts? MuZemike 19:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Even if we are forced to only link it, I can imagine that someone will complain "hardcore gaming is non-reliable, do they even have the rights to show the art? How do we know they didn't alter it? STRONG OPPOSE for linking to copyvio" or something.  It might be hard to prove their reliability wrt images (they've been around a while and talked about lots of games, but "Vyse the Bold" isn't exactly a reassuring editor name), so we'd have to find another source with the art.  Or...
There's a far more reliable source for the boxart, sort of: an image of a signed poster (showing the awesome realistic Guardian art, but none of the ribbons and titles and such) linked from a thumbnail on publisher Laputa's website!  (Hint: Ctrl+F for "ガーディック外伝"!)  It's Matrix- or Ghost in the Shell-ish now that I think of it.
Anyway, our choices, in order of increasing safety, are:
Show the fair use boxart (current, but may have to be cut);
Show the Laputa poster as fair use (from a slightly more RS, but still a fourth image that'll attract opposes);
Link the boxart (which might get "how do we know they're reliable enough not to fabricate the image?" complaints); or
Link the Laputa poster (safe at this point, maybe overly so); or
Have none of those and curse copyright and the NFCC forever.
Or something like that. --an odd name 09:36, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
If you all end up using laputa, for reference here's the line that proves what it is, from next to the image and under the line that says 500円＋税. コンピュータゲーム『ガーディック外伝』(アイレム販売）のパッケージ用として描かれた作品。 - "Piece drawn for the packaging of the video game "Guardic Gaiden" (Irem corporation)."  闇甦兄 (talk) 21:51, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Now that I look at WP:ELNEVER, it probably wouldn't be a good idea to link to sites that may be infringing copyright (like Hardcore Gaming 101 for example). I think we can try to include laputa instead of the current boxart shown. Depends who looks at it and their mood, we're still rolling the dice on whether that should be included or not.
I don't know if this is a good idea, either, but perhaps we could replace the North American box art in the infobox with either the Japanese box art or even possibly the laputa image (Even though, IMHO, having an image that is not boxart in the infobox of a video game article is stretching it). Even though this would contradict current WPVG article guidelines, this might further ensure that the non-free images are being used to further provide context to readers that may not be possible without. However, I also think many other people wouldn't necessarily like this idea. MuZemike 23:31, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
There are a couple more things of possible interest that I noticed today. Looking at Flickr, there are some photos of Kato in some sort of painting competition here. There are also some books of his works, also published by Laputa as shown here. Don't know if this helps out any, but I thought I would mention it. MuZemike 17:08, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Interesting.  Of them, I think http://www.flickr.com/photos/99862880@N00/1566185434/ has the best view of Kato's face.  It might be better at his article than here: if his boxart stays, his face would crowd the History section; if the art goes, it would get one or two weird looks from people wondering where his actual work is (but that won't mean much).
Now we just need to free it from the "All rights reserved" tether. --an odd name 21:15, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Is there anything else beside the images that need to be addressed before we re-nominate for FAC again? MuZemike 15:02, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
So it failed again? I guess then there's nothing to be done until miracle Y happens, such as renewed interest in the game via Wii virtual console or something. 闇甦兄 (talk) 05:33, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

The issues included lack of dev info and sales figures, which just don't exist at the moment, so we should indeed tag it [miracle needed] --an odd name 06:08, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, that's about it. I was afraid it would come down to that, but it didn't hurt trying. Hopefully D4 Enterprise (who released Zanac and I believe a couple of other Compile games such as Aleste) considers releasing them for the VC. Otherwise, I don't think FA will ever happen. It just needs to be more bulk as far as material is concerned, and I am now convinced after two FACs that this doesn't have it. MuZemike 07:20, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

While little information has surfaced in the past several months, usable sources with development and/or sales information may still be out there.  For example, the Japanese gaming magazine GAMEST published something about Guardic Gaiden in an early issue (vol. 19, April 1988, p. 52). I don't have a copy, so the article could be useless, though a scan of the table of contents confirms that it exists.  I'm reasonably confident that something useful (and perhaps even a home run) may be found in ~1987-1988 era Japanese gaming magazines which, admittedly, are very hard to come by. I also wonder if the Compile developers were ever interviewed at some time...
In any case, feel free to contribute with any promising leads. Rg998 (talk) 02:12, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

This blog post apparently indicates the issue of Famicom Tsūshin which features the review of Guardic Gaiden. The scores and the text of the review itself are included.  However, its accuracy cannot be verified. Rg998 (talk) 05:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
I just added some preview coverage from Nintendo Power if that helps any. –MuZemike 19:12, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Cool - it might.  I found another review - this one from a 1990 issue of VideoGames & Computer Entertainment which I added to the table.  The review is detailed and quite lengthy, but I don't plan on adding much to the prose because most of what it points out has already been covered. Rg998 (talk) 05:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
We should at the least mention that it was covered there as far as comprehensiveness is concerned. I mean, it has to offer at least something different than all the other reviews. –MuZemike 07:47, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
FYI, the citation is: Bieniek, Chris (January 1990). "Video Game Reviews – The Guardian Legend". VideoGames & Computer Entertainment. 12: 28, 30.
The ratings were 8/7/7/7 (out of 10). –MuZemike 22:52, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
...which I did not see that the citation itself is already in the article. Anyways, I spelled out the magazine's title in the Reception box as people will not have any clue as to what VG&CE means. –MuZemike 23:02, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Here's another review I found in the premiere issue of a German magazine called Video Games. The citation is the following: Hengst, Michael (March 1991). "Konfusion in Raumstation – The Guardian Legend". Video Games (in German). 1 (1): 37. –MuZemike 04:26, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
And another German review from Power Play: Gaksch, Martin; Hengst, Michael (March 1991). "Link im Weltall – The Guardian Legend". Power Play (in German). 7 (3). –MuZemike 04:39, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Good news - I now have access to the article about Guardic Gaiden in the aforementioned issue of GAMEST.  It is about a half-page long, but I am unable to translate it myself, so I will need assistance in that regard.  Also, I remembered an earlier discussion where Guardic Gaiden was found to appear at the 19th rank in a "sales" list in the Famitsu mook.  I think I've found a key in the intro of the mook which may explain what the "sales" ranking actually means - this could be very useful information. (I speculate that it could be overall sales in Japan for that year; Dragon Warrior III has the 1st rank in the "sales" list, which correlates well with the cited sales data.)
Anyone up for a bit of Japanese translation? Rg998 (talk) 04:06, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Sure. What am I translating exactly? I'm not really up to date with what's going on anymore. I can't believe it's been 2 years since I did that guidebook. I'm lucky it was so simply written, because I know a heck of a lot more (although mostly colloquial) Japanese than I did back then. If you need to send me something, send it to Kilgamesh at gmail dot com.闇甦兄 (talk) 19:29, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm working on the German translations of the two German magazine sources right now. –MuZemike 20:39, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Remember to provide quotes in the original language for translated stuff, or it'll all be for nothing.  (Some Japanese sources used here are still lacking the relevant original quotes.) --an odd name 00:35, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
If you can tell me what's lacking original quotes I can get them. Also I looked over the scans, but they don't really say anything we don't already know. Number one is the original box stating the "sales ranking". Number two clarifies what each category is. All it says about the sales ranking is that... it's the sales ranking, derived through famitsuu's correspondence.　Number three is a miniature review/blurb. 闇甦兄 (talk) 03:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Refs 4, 5, and 13.  I think you said once that you didn't have the manual anymore.  It's no big deal now (we have the page numbers etc.) but a FAC will need them to pass source checks for sure.
Maybe for ref 29 (the Japanese artwork) to be extra-safe, but if it's what I think it is (a page with the art with Kato's name next to it) then we can probably just show them the page and say "see? the art matches the box and the guy made the art, please support now ok?".  --an odd name 08:17, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Oh I've got the manual. What I don't have anymore is the guide, and I'm not sure why I would delete or lose that, but apparently I did. Luckily you don't appear to need that one so much. I don't know how this should be formatted, but here are the lines.
ref4 = (in Japanese) Guardic Gaiden Instruction Manual, p. 3. "This huge object—known as Naju—was a giant capsule of unknown purpose sent off by an alien existence years ago."
「ナジュ」というこの物体ははるか過去、人類と格別の｢存在｣が落とした用途不明の巨大なカプセルだった。
ref5 = (in Japanese) Guardic Gaiden Instruction Manual, p. 5. "The struggle unfolds over the planet's surface (the Labyrinth) and its interior (the Dungeon)."
戦いは惑星の外周「ラビリンス」と惑星の内部「ダンジョン」の中にある２１のコリドールで繰り広げられる。
This one can be made more precise if you want. It mentioned the 21 corridors originally. "The struggle unfolds over the planet's surface (the Labyrinth) and the 21 corridors in its interior (the Dungeon)"
ref13 = (in Japanese) Guardic Gaiden Instruction Manual, p. 11.
I'm not sure what's needed with this one. The only text on this page related to the randaas is  their names. It lists the blue randaa 青ランダー and red randaa 赤ランダー
For ref 29, I definitely don't have that book.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 闇甦兄 (talk • contribs) 08:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC) 

Thanks!  I put them in.  The note that ref 13 uses gives the kana anyway, so I wasted your time with that one.  Sorry! --an odd name 11:53, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't suppose there's anything new that needs doing on this front? Stopping in since it's been awhile. 闇甦兄 (talk) 19:34, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Just found this blog entry today from someone on Hardcore Gaming 101, which mentioned the strong resemblance of the U.S. boxart to the poster for the 1985 film Creature. I don't think we can use this as a reliable source to verify the connection, but it is interesting to say the least. It also mentions something about the European boxart may have been done by Hajime Sorayama, but that was not verified at all. –MuZemike 03:33, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Can someone please explain why the full title isn't being used? It should read, Guardic Gaiden: Legend of Goardic. I tried adding it bt it was reverted on a claim of good faith. 108.57.87.25 (talk) 04:14, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

https://web.archive.org/web/20060209191145/http://crucialclassics_23.1up.com/