Talk:Star Ocean (video game)

message: The descriptions of the main characters contain spoilers and speculation. It even describes Ronixis destiny in Star Ocean: The Second Story! This should be either edited, removing the speculations on the characters outcome and their future, or a spoiler warning should be present. --Lashiec 11:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As it seems that no one is up to the task, for now I put a spoiler warning in there, now we have two. Do what you have to do with them, but if you remove the new one I created, do it before you edited the descriptions to get rid of the spoilers. But please do not simply remove the warnings. I'll probably do it myself in a few days --Lashiec 17:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spoilers in characters descriptions 

message: I think we should take out the moby games link, for it has been taken down.
:Fixed. The guys at Moby Games renamed the entry. Thanks for the tip --Lashiec 02:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moby Games 

message: Star Ocean : the First departure is an enhanced remake of Star Ocean (snes).  As it is unreleased in Japan, not much information is known about the title (unlike Final Fantasy IV DS).  Normally, it would make sense to combine the two articles EXCEPT for the fact that The First Departure is being released in 7 days.  Upon that time more information should become known, including but not limited too overall development information, US release, Japanese reception, and first week sales.  Overall, I recommend a STRONG DO NOT MERGE.  If in 1 months time, The first departure has not been expanded upon they should be combined (like the Tales of Eternia PSP port).  64.129.86.8 (talk) 21:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  First Departure Merger 

message: The ROM of the original Super Famicon release was partially translated into English and made available for play via emulators by the online fan translation group, DeJap, long before the remake was ported to the PSP.  Should the article reference this fact?
CWD 65.38.113.232 (talk) 15:22, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  DeJap Fan Translation 

message: *Star Ocean: First Departure -> Star Ocean (video game)
As is, Star Ocean: First Departure does not warrant a standalone article, as it can easily be integrated into the primary article. Jonathan Hardin' (talk) 08:39, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: As info. -- ferret (talk) 22:29, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that the FFD nom is over, what shall I do with the PSP cover? Shall I leave the image alone or re-remove it? What about you, ferret and Serge? Eh, well... I got kinda mellow and bored with image disputes. Nevertheless, I wonder whether the PSP cover helps readers a lot and whether the image meets NFCC. --George Ho (talk) 03:25, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I'm fine with the current arrangement. However I am not super familiar with the ins and outs of NFCC and whether there's a violation. I believe it's probably safe. -- ferret (talk) 12:44, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: My stance was also the current arrangement as well, so I too would like to stick with that. Sergecross73 msg me 14:26, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cover image discussion at [[Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 May 17#Front covers of Star Ocean (video game)]] 

message: http://www.hardcoregaming101.net/star-ocean/
Pretty comprehensive source done recently by veteran journalist Kurt Kalata. Sergecross73 msg me 15:37, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source 

message: Per  advice, I decided to make a discussion about this. I accidentally went ahead and made a separate page for the Star Ocean remake, Star Ocean: First Departure, thinking it would be okay since almost all remakes of games have their own page rather than just being part of the page of the original game. As I stated before, some remakes like Final Fantasy III, Final Fantasy IV, Final Fantasy VII Remake, Fire Emblem: Shadow Dragon, and Fire Emblem Echoes: Shadows of Valentia all have their own page rather than just being a section of the original game. Considering that the remake is significantly different from the original and is the version that has been re-released, I think that it should have its own page for being significant enough. Star Ocean: Second Evolution isn't a remake like this game but a port/remaster only adding some new things and features whereas First Departure is a straight up new game built from the ground up. Let me know if you are okay with making it its own page. If the consensus is that it shouldn't get a separate page, then please go ahead and redirect the link. Suriwashi (talk) 06:43, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: people involved in the GAN for this article. Axem Titanium (talk) 22:56, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

text: It's not even that I'm opposed to a split, it just felt like a pretty heavy-handed deconstruction of this article, which has had a lot of work put into it. Sergecross73 msg me 13:09, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: To clarify, Oppose the way it was split before, open to it being done in an alternate, more nuanced way. Sergecross73 msg me 01:40, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

text: Support I agree that if other remakes get to have their own separate page, then so too should the Star Ocean remake. Since it isn't a remaster of the original game, it should be moved. I think this is especially true considering how different it is from the original. JAMendoza (talk) 05:58, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

text: Support The remake is different enough that it should absolutely have its own page. The split was clumsily done since there is some repeating info on both pages and there really should be none. Also, post split the original game will undoubtedly no longer be a Good Article. While I think it must be done, it's best to show some politeness by notifying the people in question.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 19:39, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

text: Strong oppose. Remake vs remaster is not the distinction we draw on Wikipedia for what gets an article. The primary question is "how do we present this information well?" Splitting information across multiple pages always entails some degree of redundancy and harms the reader's understanding of the topic (cf. WP:SIF). For two intimately related topics, such as a game and its remake, it is much more legible to read about them in the context of each other on the same page so you can naturally see the parallels. Forking off content to another page just because other remakes do it is an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. The desire to split articles into least publishable units has to be tempered by an understanding of what's best for the reader (and obey guidelines at WP:SPLIT). Axem Titanium (talk) 20:58, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  WP:SIF is an essay, however WP:NOTPAPER is part of Wikipedia's policy: "Other than verifiability and the other points presented on this page, there is no practical limit to the number of topics Wikipedia can cover, or the total amount of content." As long as this game is notable and is different enough to the main game (it obviously is for both), I see no issues having this with a standalone article. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:55, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm aware that SIF is an essay; editors need not be reminded every single time they are even obliquely referenced (nor was it even the main thrust of my opposition, I merely mentioned it because it encapsulates my point well). The readable prose of the article is currently at 24kb, which is far below the recommendations at WP:SIZESPLIT. My contention is that one article that covers both is a better way to convey the information to readers. It avoids redundancy and places relevant details near each other in context. Remember the reader. That's who we're making this encyclopedia for. Axem Titanium (talk) 06:03, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

text: The fact is that incorporating the remake into the article of the original results in a poor presentation for the original game. The original's reception is hardly mentioned; nobody did any digging on older publications to find it because it was easier to talk about the remake. So I think that contrary to your argument, the best presentation is when both pages are split because reception for the remake has nothing to do with the original title. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 11:20, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Reception for a 25 year old game will not magically appear after a split. That is a sourcing issue, not a presentation issue, and it exists regardless and independent of the split. And OF COURSE the reception of the remake has "something to do" with the reception of the original title. They're obviously in conversation with the other so differences in overall reception are worth noting and worth highlighting by their juxtaposition (e.g. "the remake fixed all the problems of the original and it was better received" or "the remake was insufficient and did worse than the original"). Axem Titanium (talk) 01:15, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

text: Support ZXCVBNM summed it up best by stating that the majority of the information on the page deals with the remake and not the original game. If other pages for original games and their remakes have separate pages, then so should this game. There's no logical reason to do otherwise. FlyingChancla (talk) 01:41, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, I'm not against splitting, but this whole "other remakes get articles there's so should this one" is a complete logical fallacy. It directly violates WP:OSE. There is zero requirement for 100% parity between how we handle all games and their remakes. You guys have to stop citing that, it's not considered a valid argument on Wikipedia. Sergecross73 msg me 15:18, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

text: Support First Departure is a completely different game from the original. It shouldn't be part of the original game's page considering how it's technically a brand, new game with a ton of new additions and different gameplay. If First Departure isn't noteworthy of getting it's own page then why do remakes like The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening get their own when the only major difference between this and the original are new graphics. The gameplay from the original has not changed at all. Even the remasters of Wind Waker and Twilgiht Princess have separate pages. There's no logical reason for First Departure, a remake, to not get a proper page if even remasters get their own. Alexaclova112330 (talk) 01:33, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Ignoring all your WP:OSE violations, I've played both versions of the games. They are extremely similar. That aside, I'm a bit concerned about all these relatively inactive accounts coming out of the woodwork to come and make the same OSE-violating argument. I'm starting to wonder if we've got an off-wiki WP:CANVASSing problem or something. Sergecross73 msg me 02:42, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah I find it strange too. Every person in support of the split, except for ZX, has been inactive for months or years (and promptly returned to inactivity after parachuting their !vote in here). Axem Titanium (talk) 05:46, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, situations like this are almost always either thinly-veiled WP:SOCKPUPPETRY or WP:MEATPUPPETRY. Sergecross73 msg me 19:26, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

text: Support Moving information from this page to the First Departure page won't ruin the quality of this page since there is enough information about the original SNES version to keep this page up. There is also enough sources to go ahead with the split too. DinosaurPlaneteer (talk) 06:29, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you check out the first attempt at a split? It destroyed this article. And I've had to weed out a ton of garbage from the First Departure article. It was clearly carried out by someone with little experience with editing Wikipedia. Sergecross73 msg me 19:28, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

text: Where are you people coming from? Did someone ask you to post here? Axem Titanium (talk) 07:07, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Making "Star Ocean: First Departure" its own page