Talk:We Love Katamari

message: A Link to the Past, I don't think it's a good idea to move the soundtrack to a separate page. Unless a particular music album is well-known or critically acclaimed, it doesn't have much potential to become encyclopedic. The We Love Katamari article is stubby enough as it is, and I don't see reason to split off content from it yet. --Poiuyt Man talk 04:11, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that it'll be shorter is no good argument. You don't add content to make it big, you add content to make it good. This is about the video game, not the separate soundtrack. Katamari Damacy's soundtrack has its own soundtrack article. - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:08, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The soundtrack is directly related to the video game; it's not something that people reference without knowledge of the game it came from. Articles on specific music albums are generally avoided because there's a limit to how comprehensive the article can become without turning into fancruft. How much can you really write about the album? --Poiuyt Man talk 06:29, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It just looks worse with it, for one. If you want this on there, there shouldn't be an infobox. - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:31, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it might not be necessary to include the soundtrack listing at all, even as a separate article. There's already an external link at the bottom that shows the soundtrack listing. Wikipedia doesn't need to duplicate it. --Poiuyt Man talk 06:41, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I have to go with Poiuyt Man on this, there is no need for a seperate article for the soundtrack alone. Havok (T/C) 08:56, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Just like there is an article about King of All Cosmos, there should be an article for a separate product. - A Link to the Past (talk) 09:11, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not so sure that article's necessary either, since much of the information is already covered in Katamari Damacy. Maybe if the character appeared in more than two games it would be justified. --Poiuyt Man talk 20:31, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh, I arrived at that same conclusion independently. I merged the contents of King of All Cosmos into Katamari Damacy and We Love Katamari, without seeing this page. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 13:07, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Soundtrack 

message: The 1,000,000 roses section hardly seems like it belongs under the "Story" heading, as it doesn't enhance the main plot of the game.  Rather, doesn't this seem more appropriate under "Gameplay", or perhaps under a new "Easter Eggs" heading? - Exitmoose 18:29, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Reading through the article again, the "One million roses" section completely breaks the logic of the "Story" heading (which puts forth the idea that there are two components to the story".  I'm not even convinced that it should be a part of the article, as it seems more like game advice appropriate for GameFAQs or some such, than a description of the game.  As a compromise, I'll move it to a new "Easter Eggs" section.  However, I think it should be removed.  Thoughts? - Exitmoose 04:52, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a somewhat important part of the game. Keep it in there for now. -- PinkDeoxys 13:09, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Spoiler warning for this section!! - Is (non-named bonus level) a part of the story?

message: Since this game was released in the US and not in Europe, it seems more appropriate, based on the guidelines in the Wikipedia Manual of Style, to go with US spellings for words in this entry. That means "fulfill," not "fulfil." (See American and British English differences.) --Darksasami 23:22, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Spelling

message: This statement is basically self-contradictory:
However, with the exception of the loading icon being a rose, the Rose Nebula, the Select Meadow being covered in roses, and one extra song, there is no reward outside of the satisfaction of rolling up 1,000,000 roses.
A new song is a pretty significant reward in a game, along with the other things. If this part is true, the "no reward outside of..." part should be removed. Alternately, the new song and all that might be a hoax. Can anyone confirm one way or the other? rspeer 04:03, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't call it "self-contradictory."  Assuming all the facts are correct,  the sentence is perfectly logically coherent.  That said, the wording is pretty strange, and should probably be changed. - Exitmoose 07:51, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Speaking as someone who has completed the million rose level, this statement does make some sense, relative to the other major milestone achievements in the game.  If you place the game on "autopilot" using the rubberband cheat to obtain the million roses, it takes approximately one week (24 hours a day) to collect them all.  There is no extra level to be unlocked after doing this, as there is when you complete the other major levels in the game.  Can't sleep, clown will eat me 19:46, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  self-contradictory statement 

message: Amazon.co.uk seem to be claiming that there will be a UK release
on Feb 3, 2006.  this page.
If this is so, looks like it should be added to the article.
Richard W.M. Jones 19:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  UK/Europe release 

message: We should probably start counting notable differences between the european release and the other versions. Here's a few.
*The intro cutscene from the original game is included in the Katamari Memorial, claiming to be PAL-exclusive. Is this true?
*The original "Katamari on the Rocks" can be unlocked for in-game use after clearing the game. Is this song present in the US version as well?
If anyone has played both the European and US releases and could care to provide some insight on version differences, that'd be grand. --Boredalot 11:09, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: the PAL version does say that the original's cutscene was included as a bonus because the original game was never released in PAL regions --James 11:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  European differences 

message: No need for so many, some should be cut. Havok (T/C/c) 10:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the debate was PAGE MOVED per discussion below.  This was an interesting case.  I read all the arguments on this talk page, as well as sections of WP:NC and WP:MOS-T, and discussions on the talk pages there.  The closest precedent to this case that I saw was I Love New York.  It comes down to this: Special characters can create accessibility problems.  I think of the blind person, listening to Wikipedia through a text reader, and I think of a cyber-cafe in Africa, where a teenager is trying to learn about the world, but has no knowledge about "enabling unicode characters" on a early 1990s computer that isn't even his.
As to policy arguments: 1) Manual of Style (trademarks) would suggest that the heart be used when first introduced and thereafter replaced by the word Love.  I would take that to refer to its first appearance in the text, and not to address the title. 2) Naming conventions (technical restrictions) would permit the heart symbol in the title.  3) Naming conventions (use English) doesn't address this case; it's about how we handle languages other than English. 4) WP:NC#Special characters, in apparent contradiction with (2) above, would recommend against using the heart symbol in the title.
Except for the last, those are all guidelines, and do not have power to compel, which is just as well when they contradict policy, as in this case.  The compelling argument is accessibility, which is a higher priority than fidelity to trademarks.  That's why the policy at WP:NC is what it is. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: :Add  # Support  or  # Oppose  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.
====Survey - Support votes====
#Support as the nominatior. TJ Spyke 01:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: #Support as the nominatior. TJ Spyke 01:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey - Support votes

message: # Strongly Oppose.  Unicode characters are permitted in article titles. This is directly addresssed at Naming conventions (technical restrictions) - Pictorial names. One example of a Unicode character in an article title is seen in Sign_%E2%80%9C%E2%98%AE%E2%80%9D_the_Times.  The current title of this article is accurate, it is upheld by policy, and it must not be changed.  Also, please see the three reasons I have listed in bold in the Discussion section, they cite Wikipedia policies which actually support this usage of the symbol.Joie de Vivre 14:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey - Oppose votes

message: Why is I ♥ Huckabees still the same while this was changed to We Love Katamari‽ --FlareNUKE 07:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since we have a pretty green box just above this section explaining, perhaps that question is better asked over at the other article. --Golbez 08:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WAHT?! 

message: While the actual name of the article is now "We Love Katamari", the title at the top of the page now reads We ♥ Katamari.  There is a precedent for using a special character in this way, please see the Natto article.  The accuracy is improved, while maintaining accessibility.  Joie de Vivre 19:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Page title symbol

message: The precedent at I ♥ Huckabees and Nattō is to use a special character in the URL.  Why is We Love Katamari being treated differently?  Either We Love Katamari should be moved to the page title of its true name, We ♥ Katamari, or the use of special characters at Nattō and I ♥ Huckabees should be discontinued.  I don't agree with the "accessibility" argument, since redirects are in use at both pages.  Users can input the name without Unicode characters, and they will be redirected.  One way or the other, this inconsistency should be rectified.  Photouploaded 16:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been duspited before. Please see the very first thread titled "Title"--Phred Levi 16:17, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't matter if it's been "duspited" before.  There is an inconsistency in the interpretation of Wikipedia policy.  Special characters are allowed in the titles of some articles, but not in the titles of others. This is unacceptable.  We must determine what the policy is, and apply it consistently.  If it is determined that special characters are allowed in titles, this article must be moved to its true name, which includes the special character. If it is determined that special characters are not allowed in titles, all titles with special characters must be moved to the English approximation of their names.  It must be one or the other.  Either we can use special characters in titles, or we cannot.  Personally, I support the use of special characters, because it allows for greater accuracy in page titles. Photouploaded 16:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Naming Conventions: Special characters says: "Non-language characters such as "♥", "★", and "*", sometimes found in advertisements or logos, are not the common English usage.", thus, by the "Use English" principle, the title should not contain special characters.  If you feel that articles should have this, please address the issue at Naming conventions. --MASEM 16:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If this is your interpretation, then will you please see to it that Natto and I Heart Huckabees are moved?  Photouploaded 17:40, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I added a note to the top of the page that addresses this issue.  New template to handle MoS issues, which can be applied to the other articles above as well: Template:Title MoS. :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 07:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't need a template for this. An article like Time (magazine) simply mentions in passing that the trademarked name is different to the one used by encyclopaedias and press, it doesn't apologise for the article title and body being "incorrect". --McGeddon 09:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Accuracy dispute

message: Why is it that when I made a list of the cousins and the basic actions the King takes when you 'collect' them, why was it deleted? It was all there, until today, when it was totally deleted. Does anyone have any answers about this?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigezorange (talk • contribs) 22:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This information is unecyclopedic to the coverage of the game within Wikipedia.  WP is not a game guide, basically. --MASEM 01:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of Cousins 

message: Why was there another move of this article to We ♥ Katamari when there has already a discussion and decision to place the article in We Love Katamari? Strongsauce (talk) 02:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another move? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on We Love Katamari. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060701123350/http://www.gamecriticsawards.com/win.html to http://www.gamecriticsawards.com/win.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:32, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified