Talk:Fire Emblem: Shadow Dragon

message: I've got more to add; please wait until I add everything. Ashnard Talk Contribs 17:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: added infobox and such, removed speedy delete. Carry on with your editJedi6-(need help?) 17:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Be careful with speculation. We don't know for sure yet that it's a remake of Ankoku Ryū to Hikari no Tsurugi. Could be a remake of Monshō no Nazo. --Mukashi 00:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Since Monshō no Nazo itself was a remake, then it would still count as a remake of the original, even if it did have the additional features that FE3 had. Anyway, that information is cited by probably the most reliable FE fan site, so you'd be better off contacting that site if you feel that the info is speculation. Ashnard Talk Contribs 15:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Except that Ankoku Ryū to Hikari no Tsurugi was only half as long as Monshō no Nazo, there was an entire second section to FE3. It'd be really stupid to remake only book one. Well, we have no real facts either way do we? --Tyrfing 22:42, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

text: What part of "even if it did have the additional features that FE3 had" didn't you understand? Ashnard Talk Contribs 08:52, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hang on 

message: This is still probably a long ways off, but when the time comes and a character list article is created, it will inevitably contain characters that were also in Fire Emblem 1&3. Let's not forget to reference which characters originated in which version, though the article itself should be named after the DS version's title (whatever it may be) since the game features the most recent and theoretically most comprehensive cast.
But like I said, this is theoretically still a ways off. I just thought I'd toss this out here while it was on my mind.--4.242.24.56 23:02, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  For future reference... 

message: They belong on the article, until images are on the article. They do no harm being in the project tag. Ashnard sees it as an issue, but it simply isn't one. The article needs images, so the requests are perfectly fine. RobJ1981 19:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not going to abandon my reasoning in this case; they do no harm but are completely redundant as no images can be used at this time. By your reasoning Rob, we should plaster this tag over every talk page because they "do no harm". Anyway, I'm not going to edit war with you, so don't expect me to revert the edit. By the way Rob, I was disappointed by your lack of etiquette in this case—why avoid discussion that I tried to intiate and revert my edit? Ashnard Talk Contribs 20:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the article needs images: then requests should be placed. I still don't understand what the big deal is. It's a few lines on a talk page, it's not cluttering it up and it's not redundant. Why add it later, when it can be on the page now? RobJ1981 21:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because you're requesting something which cannot be used. The box art hasn't been released yet and a screenshot can't be used becaus there's no gameplay section yet. At this stage, an image cannot be used. Ashnard Talk Contribs 22:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I still see no harm listing it now, rather than later. A few lines on a talk page shouldn't be such a big deal. RobJ1981 05:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I suppose THIS is why my image got taken off of this page, then? --RavensIllusion (talk) 21:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid so. Only box arts are used on video game leads, unless there won't be one, which is highly unlikely in this case. It was a nice image though, and probably should be used when the article develops a "gameplay" section. Ashnard Talk Contribs 06:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Image requests

message: (Current revision) Sounds like a lie to me. Got any sources that actually SAY this? -- Snip3rNife (talk) 07:57, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The current source up there didn't actually list the release date, I'm not sure about the reliability of the site, and it had (preloaded) next to it, but I don't know what it means. Anyway, it's probably false, so I've removed it. Thanks. Ashnard Talk Contribs 08:14, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Australian "release date" 

message: Someone set the release date as February 2009 and then someone else reverted it. I looked on Google Product search and there are two preorder sites with the same date of 2-24-2009   . Is this some inside info that we can use as a trusted source or are they just wild guesses? Aether7 (talk) 04:17, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know if they're wild guesses or not, but there are no trusted/official sources at this moment in time. Aveyn Knight (talk) 22:31, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the official Nintendo site, the release date for this game is on February 16, 2009. But I guess it's already too late to say that for me =/ Slapmeorelse (talk) 22:01, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  North American release date