Talk:Resident Evil 4/Archive 2

message: This section needs cleanup badly. It reads like a bullet list without the proper format, and many sections are out of chronological order. Can somebody who knows a lot about the history try to clean it up soon? Konman72 09:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Development History Section

message: Heh, not sure if that's how it is spelt, but I'm sure that there used to be a page on this subject, but then was removed, am I right on the matter?  Cause it seems like that Los Iluminados would be another organisation to write about as it were, I mean, start a new page based on that organisation. It would definitly seem like a relevent article to begin writting up. Just my opinion really. Drakehellman 22:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why would you need a separate article? There's nothing you can say that wouldn't be recapping RE4, and if you're going to recap RE4, this is the article where you should do that. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then how come there are articles about Umbrealla Coporation and the Raccon Police Department based on the other games? Drakehellman 22:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because they appear in multiple games. Those articles aren't very good either, and should probably be merged somewhere, too. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, ok then and speaking of merging, there is an article on Tom Merchant, not sure if you have seen it, but that article there was propsed to be merged with Resident Evil 4. Drakehellman 23:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Los Iluminados 

message: All the release dates for the various versions/countries are listed the the information column.  Do they really need to be at the top of the article as well?
Rmmiller69 05:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *No, Not really. I don't really know why it's there, usually that kind of information is stated in another section or in an infobox. --ShadowJester07 11:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Release Dates 

message: Beware of spoilers!
Anyway, it's right after the hallway with the lasers. Leon finds this red throne and, after picking up the emerald, can sit down in Saddler's seat. The camera pans back and Leon poses like he's bored. What is this an homage to? (Momus 00:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing, It's just an easter egg. :-p --ShadowJester07 00:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  King Leon on his Throne 

message: I created a section based on this group, you have any problems with it, you use my talk page.--SGCommand (talk • contribs) 15:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, um, it was already removed once, so creating again, will probabally just get it removed again, though I wasn't the one who removed it. Drakehellman 20:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Los Illuminados Part 2 

message: Is the Graphics Section really needed? It seems rather arbitrarily placed and contains superficial information. Moreover, the same idea applies to several other sections, GameCube exclusivity controversy, Dialogue notes, and Awards & recognition. Consider deleting, consolidating, or moving them to proper sub-sections.  --ShadowJester07 08:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. They're good as is. Ex-Nintendo Employee 08:46, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

text: The discussion of the move to entirely-3D graphics would fit nicely in the discussion of the new viewpoint in "New Gameplay", while the discussion of the changes compared to the PS2 version would also fit in that section. That'd free us of a two-paragraph section. I'm in favour. Sockatume 01:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

text: We need at least to move/delete the details of the port differences from the main graphics section. this is mostly duplicated from the individual port sections.Gecks 11:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Graphics Section 

message: I've noticed that the shotgun Ada uses in the "Seperate Ways" scenario is not mentioned in the Weapons section of this article.  As it's a unique weapon, despite having the same name and in-game description as the standard Shotgun, I'd think it deserves a mention.  I'd add it myself, but I currently lack the knowledge of it's make, model, or stats (if its stats differ from the standard shotgun, I don't remember). Musha 12:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's exactly the same as a slightly upgraded shotgun, it just looks different <B>Photo</B><B>Nikon</B><B>Man</B> 07:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ada's Shotgun 

message: Uh, can anyone tell me what's so wrong about putting the Handcannon in the "Hidden Weapons" section? It IS a Hidden Weapon after all. 81.153.3.82 21:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Where is it? I've never seen it <B>Photo</B><B>Nikon</B><B>Man</B> 13:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think that this article will tell you everything you need to know about the Handcannon. Ex-Nintendo Employee 02:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've unlocked it now, thanks <B>Photo</B><B>Nikon</B><B>Man</B> 07:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Handcannon 

message: The article suggests they are "somewhat rare", which seems to be unsourced and fairly unsourceable- at any rate, there's a stockpile of about 100 of the PS2 controllers in Glasgow alone, and I get the feeling there's plenty more around. So I'm editing it. Anyone want to suggest a source for product unavailability?
:: It doesn't seem rare to me. I bought one a few weeks ago from Spencer's on clearance for five bucks. Ex-Nintendo Employee 17:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I bought one for like 6 bucks at Spencer's. Doesn't seem rare to me. Ex-Nintendo Employee 02:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Special controller availability 

message: Why is the Resident evil 4 PC Rom always being delayed?
:Because making a game is not like ordering a piazza. --ShadowJester07 14:59, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is the official PC release date today or was that info on the front page just a load of bull? Vgamer101 22:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: PC Delay

message: Why is the weapons section deleted without any discussion?--Soetermans 11:44, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Adding a section like that is basically making the article into a strategy guide. However, Wikipedia isn't a place to write about strategy guides. --Snkcube 05:04, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, See WP:NOT. --ShadowJester07 15:10, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

text: There is no proof to even verify that a certain weapon is counterpart of an actual gun. Thus violating WP:Verify and WP:original research. --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk   22:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Your 'common sense' and 'visual skills', no matter how excellent they are, are still original research, and are still not verifiable.  Geoff B 14:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

text: If I recall correctly, the weapons featured in Resident Evil 4 were on a completely seperate article, so you won't find them in this article's History.  I don't think the original research really matters, as it wasn't the reason the article was deleted.  Somebody decided it was "fancruft" and sent it over to AfD, where they quickly voted to dispose of it.  If I were you, I wouldn't bother trying to resurrect the thing, Resident Evil 4 isn't worth the trouble, anyway :) Gamer Junkie 16:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then can you point me to where I can find the weapoins section? <B>Photo</B><B>Nikon</B><B>Man</B> 15:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I just told you, there is no weapons article anymore.  It was deleted and it's gone. Gamer Junkie 22:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that sucks... I wanted to know what the Hand cannon's real-life counterpart was.Kuribo 19:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Hand Cannon is a revolver, right? I don't have the PlayStation 2 version, but I'd guess it would be something along the lines of a Colt Anaconda or S&W Model 29. Gamer Junkie 21:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesn't look anything like either. .45 calibre, top break and looks old. Can't see it being anything other than a Webley. Optimus Sledge 21:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weapons section 

message: If anyone wants to add the RE 4 Walkthrough for the wiki web site then allow me to be of aid to you. I've completed both the main walkthrough, the seperate ways walkthrough, and got all the weapons that there are for everyone. The mercenary mode is the only other another I couldn't do.--Zhang Liao 08:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And one would be added in there....why? Captain Drake Van Hellsing 07:39, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly, wiki article about videogames are not walktroughs or FAQs. --Soetermans 21:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Walkthrough of RE 4 

message: Its obviously Spain right? the accent there is Castillan and their currency is the peseta.
The reason why i ask this is because almost every source just limits to say that the location is "somewhere in Europe". --189.135.67.61 00:19, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Judging  by the cultural aspects and satellite screen shot of the village, it's commonly assumed that the "unnamed village" is in Spain. ;-) --ShadowJester07 00:32, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Hiroyuki Kobayashi once said in a GameSpy interview (see here) that the location of the game is NOT Spain. It's a fictional European country in the same way that Raccoon City is a fictional American town and Rockfort and Sheena are fictional European islands. Jonny2x4 22:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The unnamed village and country are fictional, any way you look at it, so the location really doesn't prove to be particularly important. It would be important if the location was directly related to the story, but I think Capcom wanted to be careful when creating a plot that centers on anti-American terrorist activity, so as to not imply any such feelings toward America on the part of the country involved. Leebo86 20:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

text: The game's setting is similar to Springfield from the Simpsons, in the sense the producers intentionally left the settings actual whereabouts to draw additional speculation --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk   21:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't recall any point in any Simpsons episode where there's a map of America with a "Springfield is here" sign. In "Separate Ways," there is a map which shows that the village is located on the Iberian peninsula in Spain. --Halloween jack 22:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

text: There have been several episodes of the Simpsons that have shown Springfield from Space, and a few geographic maps, which depicted Springfield near Texas. --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk   22:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, you're thinking of when they mentioned West Springfield being three times the size of Texas (or something like that).  The geographical location of Springfield is still unknown.... not that this has anything to do with this game, of course.  RPH 22:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, the continent is Europe, the language Spanish, the currency pesetas, the Police tunics Policía Nacional uniforms, the maps show the Iberian Peninsula geography, the secondary characters have Spanish-sounding names, there is a character who is a retired Police officer from Madrid... So, despite the bulk of the setting isn't remotely accurate nor realistic, you had enough clues to think that it "is" Spain in the same way that the African country of The Interpreter "is" Zimbabwue. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 150.244.23.200 (talk) 01:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Village location 

message: Seriously. It feels more like a collection of random facts about the game than a truly encyclopedic article. Alot of the sub-sections could easily be merged. A few examples:
*The "Comparison to other Resident Evil games" feels more like a comparison to other game franchises (Diablo this, Beyond Good and Evil that) based on the writer's own experience (which constitute OR) than a comparison with previous Resident Evil games. Drop the unneccesary name dropping of other game titles (already did) and clean it up a bit, and you could easily merge it with the Gameplay section as well. 
*Same thing with Graphics (since I consider the graphics to be part of the gameplay). I think comments about the PS2 RAM are something best left at the version differences.
*The whole GameCube controversy section is something that could easily go into the Development section, as well as the differences between each version and such. The Development section seems to have too much Original Research as well. In addittion, the section seems to be written to fanboy-ish (PS2 fans this, GameCube fans that).
*The awards section could be axed. I know It's a really great game, but I don't think everyone is interested knowing every award the game has won. Just mention the notable ones (Best GameCube game, Game of the year) in the Reception section.
Here's a proposed layout for the next version article.
*Gameplay
**Full model change (mentions the graphics and it changes from the previous games)
**Creatures (briefly mention the Ganados and how they differ from the zombies, as well as other monsters)
**Extra features (mention the game's unlockable features)
*Plot
**Characters and settings
**Story
*Releases
**Localization
**PS2 version
**PC version
**Any additional revelant merchandise or product.
*Development (mention how the game was originally planned for the PS2 and eventually became a GameCube exclusive for awhile. Mention the original DMC proposal and the three discarded GameCube betas)
*Reception (mentions of critics feedback of the game and the awards the game received).
*External links
Any other suggestions?Jonny2x4 06:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems like a good model. It resembles the model used by StarCraft, one of Wikipedia's best Video Game articles. All in all, I like ideas and layout. I think the section could also use some more resources, as eight is not enough for 36kb article. The Cast section could be converted into a "Characters" section, which just has list of main characters and voice talents. Additionally, I hate to be a stickler, but none of the images have any fair use rationale. --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk   04:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The whole article needs a good cleanup BADLY. 

message: Can someone please explain why my revision of the PC port section keeps getting erased? As far as I can tell I am not violating any rules.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 161.253.48.161 (talk) 06:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh please. You've not only inserted a completely outlandish claim (that the PC port is graphically inferior to all the other versions), but you've refused to provide a valid source (some chinese pirate forum speculation is NOT a valid Wikipedia source), and you created several sockpuppet accounts in order to bypass the 3RR rule for your "edit". I'm a stick and a half away from reporting you to the moderation council for your behavior, because I'm sick of it. Ex-Nintendo Employee 13:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Technically, a PC port WILL be graphically inferior. The GameCube, PS2, and Wii versions are all designed, graphically, for very specific hardware builds. A PC port has to be very flexible, and in that flexibility, there will be loss. -D14BL0 04:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Ironically, you just made a completely outlandish claim that I've created several sockpuppet accounts without any proof. Reverting the whole section because you did not agree with one line is ridiculous. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 161.253.48.161 (talk) 13:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

text: So, because you don't see a reason why it shouldn't be allowed in, it should be included?  What about WP guidelines on reliable sources?  Are we supposed to ignore them because you do?  Geoff B 22:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Because there is no sourcing for it that is valid under Wikipedia's guidelines. If it was "self-evident", then it would have been all over the LEGITIMATE news sites by this time, and if its true then when one of the aforementioned legitimate sites talks about it, then it can go up. Neither you nor your sockpuppets have to this date been able to provide a legitimate source for your assertion. I'm also calling attention to your blatant and repeated violations of Wikipedia's "three revert rule". Ex-Nintendo Employee 19:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Woah, sorry about that revert, I thought you posted that statement on the actual article page as opposed to the talk page. I'm on too much cold medicine, my bad :-p --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk   04:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

text: No, it's not enough proof. Wikipedia's guidelines as to verifiability are clear. Forum discussions are absolutely NOT a valid source for Wikipedia. Good sources are established media outlets- actual news articles such as Gamespot (NOT gamespot forums), mainstream news, etc. Anyone on any forum can say anything and pretend to be anyone, and self-collected "information" constitutes Original Research, which is also prohibited on Wikipedia. To include any information on this, it must be legitimately sourced. Ex-Nintendo Employee 00:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ok. There were screenshots to prove the differences though, but I guess that wasn't enough. Lesson learned. Buzku 15:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Screnshots are only as valid as the source. 15:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not exactly, see WP:OR and WP:RS --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk   20:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Although the sources may never be 100% accurate, they have a methodical approach to research, summarize, and present stories; there is an organized process to weed out inaccuracies and factual errors in every story. Sure, there may be some bias, but that’s life. I highly doubt GameSpot, IGN, or GameInformer would intentionally make up a story to throw off a group of gamers. However, those sources are obviously not the final word when it comes to releasing games. I agree that we should only state the game’s official release date. One can make cited elaboration in another section. --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk   05:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I do believe someone provided a viable reference , but from what I've read from it, there's no mention at all of a lack of either fog, lighting or shadows. The complaints present in the reference article mention a lack of mouse movement, and he says that the increased sharpness "doesn't help" the game. I'll restore the paragraph that the anon erased, but I'm going to modify it to avoid speculating about fog, lighting or shadows. Ex-Nintendo Employee 10:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Added. Ex-Nintendo Employee 02:57, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: PC Port Section

message: There are people on the imdb boards saying that this game was inspired by a direct to video movie called Dagon and loosely inspirated on H. P. Lovecraft's works. Is that correct? The movie depicts a couple of American tourists who arrive at an apparently abandoned village in Galicia, Spain, which is actually inhabited by crazy not-so-human villagers who whorship a fish-like God. There are also some octopus-like and fish-like mutants.--Menah the Great 08:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt that film made it as far as Japan, but even if it did there's no way to know if it inspired the designers unless they say so, and it's far from the only film about a secluded little village filled with mutants/aliens/*insert weird creatures here*.  Geoff B 12:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah, unless we can find a definitive source tying the two together, I'd say no. There are broad similarities, but nothing particularly specific. Lovecraft's fiction is full of isolated villages full of mutants and cultists. Kelvingreen 19:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, this game is not based on Dagon.  However, there are several spots which seem to take inspiration from HP Lovecraft's works. -Emhilradim 12:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's worth researching for sources, as they are very alike.  Some other film reviewers have picked up on this.  http://www.thefilmasylum.com/reviews/dagon/dagon.htm for example mentions it.  I'll look into it more when I get the chance. Parjay 14:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible source of inspiration? 

message: This article on the cable that connects the GBA to the Gamecube lists RE4 as a game that it compatible with it. I don't have my copy of RE4 at the moment (I lent it to a friend who's out of town) so I can't check the back of the game to verify this, so I'm wondering if someone else who has it on hand can. I don't remember this being possible at all. If it is, for some strange reason (a horror game linking with a GBA seems silly to me), this should be mentioned in the article. If it isn't, it should be removed from the link cable article. --Thaddius 16:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not compatible with the cable. Ex-Nintendo Employee 16:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Must've been vandalism. I'll remove it from the article on the cable then. --Thaddius 17:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No offense, there's no GBA connectivity...but why would an ex-nintendo employee know anything about a third party game? --71.210.128.20 21:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't have to have worked on a game or any other project to know something about it.  I know plenty about things I never had a hand in the creation of. Womanhood 00:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Game Boy Advance Cable? 

message: I Removed the Wii Port section since there were no Reliable Sources to verify the claim. GoNintendo.com appears to be a fan site. Additionally, the GoNintendo states, “Capcom has not made any announcements about a new Resident Evil title”, claiming the quote came from a Capcom Rep. The section stated, “Capcom refused to comment”, when in fact Capcom clearly remarked stated that they have not made any announcements for new RE titles.  I’ve looked it up on Google (and also Topix.com), and only come across some Internet Forums and other insignificant things. --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk   04:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Technically, it wouldn't be a new title, but I agree with the removal 100% unless/until there's a reliable source.  Geoff B 07:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: IGN is definately reliable. Guest 03:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

text: IGN does not have the authority to dictate whether a games will actually be produced. The article claims that numerous foreign sites are flippantly reporting the game's status. There's no actual confirmation from CapCom or Nintendo - Although IGN is a reliable source, its merely spinning unverfied information around a rumor mill. --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk   00:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Famitsu's new issue may confirm the port; it is said now to have the PS2 version's extras.Infinitys 7th 02:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of Wii Port

message: There is a new Resi4 Wii trailer/teaser out, on the Japanese site: Here. Should we add it to the article? 
--Garfunkle20 23:53, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Resi4 Wii trailer 

message: Why is the awards list so huge on RE4, very few other big titles do not have such a list. The list seems to include every little award, as if made by a fanboy...maybe consider to make the list a lot smaller and include only the most important awards?
:Actually, there's only a handful you could point to that are 'little'.  Most of them are from fairly respected sites or publications, IGN, Edge, etc.  Like it or not, RE4 got a lot of awards, a lot more than most big titles, in fact.  Geoff B 13:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Awards 

message: There seems to be dispute over whether the Wii port is properly called Resident Evil 4 Wii edition or Resident Evil 4 Wii Edition. On one hand, the box is labeled "Wii edition". On the other, every official link and review call it "Wii Edition". Some samples: . Indeed, I can't find one reliable source that has "Wii edition" as the official title.
Also, if we're going by the box art as our source for the title, shouldn't it be resident evil 4 Wii edition? It appears to me that the lower case "edition" is a style choice, not the official title of the game. 
While we're at it, what's the official title of the Japanese version: Biohazard 4 or biohazard 4? -- MisterHand 21:31, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Firstly, reviews are not reliable sources.  Logo and official website is "edition". So is the box, the manual, the game disc.  You can't find reliable source?  Since when is the game title on the box and disc not reliable?  Lastly in 4's case "biohazard" has always been in lower case, spanned across the game versions and soundtracks, and so has "resident evil". Parjay 21:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have a link to an official site where it's written as "Wii edition" in plain prose (ie not part of the logo)? -- MisterHand 22:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: http://www.capcom.co.jp/wii_bio4/  Official site, also note the title bar, as well as "biohazard 4" Parjay 22:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't be absurd.  This is a stylistic choice made by some designers and has nothing to do with the title.  I've seen versions of this debate all over Wikipedia and elsewhere and all they do is prove that many participants are completely ignorant to the way design works.  Just as the movie Safe is not called [Safe], just as Hackers is not called HACKERS, the title of Resident Evil and Biohazard are subject to the same grammatical standards as other subjects unless there is some recognized symbolic weight to the alternative (like e.e. cummings or the brief period when the artist Smog referred to himself as (Smog)).  Get off it.Womanhood 00:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Just for yucks, I'd like to point out that not only is the title lowercase on the box, but it is also identified that way in the Wii's UI - the disc is actual titled using lowercase. 24.23.213.22 05:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

text: No one was discussing the title of the article, which of course should stay within wiki guidelines.  Also, this was settled about a month ago. Parjay ► Talk  00:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The discussion is only one part of a larger problem I've noticed on lots of Wikipedia talk pages.  If issues that are considered settled are no longer open for discussion, they should be removed.  Since that isn't the way open internet discussion works, I don't see any reason I shouldn't say something.69.138.104.214 02:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops, I'm sorry!  I forgot to log in.  Womanhood 02:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Wii edition" or "Wii Edition"? 

message: Check this link: . What is that Making Of disc that is with Gamecube PAL version? It reads "promotional" below it. I have a used copy of Resident Evil 4 PAL version but I didn't get that disc. Did that really come with the game? --Mika1h 17:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Making Of disc 

message: The language, the currency, the two policemen who wear (they even have Spanish police coat of arms on their uniforms and the sleeve patch showing the Spanish flag) Spanish police uniforms ect ect. 
Spanish Policía Nacional sleeve patch http://www1.filehost.to/files/2007-07-13_01/012946_escudcnp.gif
One of the police officers from the game http://www1.filehost.to/files/2007-07-13_01/013803_default.jpg
One has enough clues which point to Spain (quite literally, as there is a map in game which shows that the village is located in Iberian Peninsula) to think that it "is" Spain. It should not matter what one guy from Capcom has said due to some issues.
Here is the map which clearly shows that the village IS located in the middle of Iberian Peninsula. http://www1.filehost.to/files/2007-07-13_01/015827_if_this_is_not_Spain_then_what_is_it.jpg Character Ada Wong, in the "Seperate Ways" scenario of the PS2 version of the game, even used the word Spaniard. 
Regards, --Kurt Leyman 23:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All that doesn't matter.  It's original research, you can only source information that doesn't come from yourself, reliable information posted elsewhere.  Also, like I wrote in the revert tab, Capcom have already stated that the game does NOT take place in Spain regardless - but in a Spanish speaking un-named island.  Obviously, this is to avoid legal troubles. Parjay 00:12, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Take note of no original research, as instructed.  Also, you are getting close to 3 reverts - you cannot revert something more than 3 times in 24 hours without action being taken against your account.  Now take note of the following information: 
"GameSpy: So does RE4 take place in Spain, then?
Kobayashi: No, not Spain specifically -- just someplace in Europe. They do speak Spanish, yes, but we're just classifying it as a general hamlet in Europe. Kind of like how Raccoon City was just someplace in America."
You also don't take into account that we know this game takes place during 2005 - in game we collect pesetas.  Spain does not use pesetas in 2005 nor anymore.  Parjay 01:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see whats the point of even having this discussion - while the part about Iberian Peninsula  may be true, it cannot be used on Wikipedia per WP:NOR or WP:A, In many other articles, the two policies have been used to supersede most debates. If a user was not allowed to compute a baseball players statistics in order to find a certain thing, I doubt they would allow us to make a claim like this using an overhead view or little in-game things. Sorry --ShadowJester07 ► Talk  01:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite, yet your first talk edit here states "One has enough clues which point to Spain".  I like how you completely ignored the part "just someplace in Europe".  That's Capcom's official answer on the matter.  You now know this.  Further reverts on this from you are now redundant, and might be taken as vandalism. Parjay 01:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spain 

message: I don't remember anything in game even alluding to the idea that the Las Plagas and the G-Virus had anything at all to do with each other, let alone was that link ever explicitly stated. In fact, I don't remember anything in the game that even suggested "the sample" was anything other than just a sample of the parasite. Anyone got a source on that, or is this just bad information? --Gk1256 12:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: An IP has been adding it to RE4-related articles for some reason, ignore it, it's been corrected now.  Geoff B 12:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

text: yeah I was wondering about that too, currently, there is no evidence that says they're related, just speculation. however, as GeoffB has stated,IP number 68.227.250.213 keeps adding in unconfirmed "G-Virus" reltionship-type things into all the RE4-related articles with no proof or explanation to support his changes. Aoikumo 21:23, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That IP has been messing with these pages: Albert Wesker,  list of Resident Evil 4 creatures,  Characters in Resident Evil 4 and Las Plagas, violating the 3RR rule several times over, I think. Might be worth talking to an admin or reporting. Geoff B 21:47, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  G-Virus?