Talk:Dark Savior

hidden parallel 6 : a hoax ?

there's no "parallel 6" in the japanese guide book of Dark Savior : http://www.radions.com/climax/book_05b.html

it shouldn't be mentioned here without reference —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.72.61.153 (talk) 03:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

This post is incredibly old, but I figure it should state somewhere on this talk page that yes, parallel 6 is sadly a hoax. There are people who have played the Japanese version, followed the directions for getting to parallel 6, and it's not there. There's also an interview with the game's developers (which I've already added as a reference to the article) in which they summarize all the parallels in the game. The idea of a sixth parallel in which Garian finally escapes from the time loop certainly makes a lot of sense thematically, but it just doesn't exist in reality.--Martin IIIa (talk) 03:48, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Dark savior eu front cover.jpg

Image:Dark savior eu front cover.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Reviews summation

First of all, my apologies to LightKeyDarkBlade for neglecting to fully explain my revert in the edit summary, making it look like I was just doing a lazy full revert without giving proper consideration to the whole of your edits. That always frustrates me when other editors do it and my one defense is that I simply forgot to cover everything before I clicked "publish changes".

To fully explain: The quoted passage from WP:VG/REC is an unfortunate instance of WikiProject Video Games overstepping its authority. Re-defining common English terms and policing their usage is beyond the scope of even Wikipedia as a whole, and certainly beyond the scope of an individual WikiProject, since expressions such as "mixed to positive reviews" are used for all critically reviewed media, not just video games. And in this case, the reception clearly doesn't fall under WG/REC's definition of "mixed reviews". So whether you use Wikiproject VG's definition or the definition used by the rest of the world, the statement "Dark Savior received mixed reviews" is in direct contradiction to the sourced content in the article.

I don't think the clear template is necessary in this case but I'll happily concede that one.--Martin IIIa (talk) 16:16, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Apology accepted. I just don't like it when people simply revert everything when usually they just want to revert a specific change. It's happened to me quite a few times. So yeah, it also frustrates me.

But I would emphasise that the phrases "mixed to positive" and "mixed to negative" in fact don't really make much sense. WP:VG/REC is correct in that the definition of "mixed" is not "medium" or "average". In this context, having mixed reviews would mean that the game has a mixture of both positive and negative reviews. That is the definition and WikiProject didn't re-define the word. So saying "mixed to positive reviews" is redundant.

But, I will admit that I simply changed it to "mixed reviews" without giving it much thought because it's usually the case. After checking through the reception section, I would say it's reasonable to just write "positive reviews" or at least something akin to "fairly positive reviews". The reviews appear to be positive at least for the majority (it doesn't seem like any of the reviews is entirely negative).

The clear template is just there because the reviews template is going into the ref section, messing up the refs and creating a white space, at least on my screen. It's kinda trivial but the page definitely looks better with it. LightKeyDarkBlade (talk) 06:07, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

'But I would emphasise that the phrases "mixed to positive" and "mixed to negative" in fact don't really make much sense. WP:VG/REC is correct in that the definition of "mixed" is not "medium" or "average".' As I said when the change to WP:VG/REC was proposed, this is a disingenuous argument, because the very fact that phrases such as "mixed to positive" and the singular "mixed review" are in common usage establishes that the definition for "mixed reviews" WP:VG/REC is pushing is (at best) not the only one. If it were, no one would use those expressions. Moreover, WP:VG/REC's explaining the preferred definition makes it obvious that the writers realized that not only is it not the only accepted definition, but it is so obscure that the average Wikipedia editor can't be expected to be familiar with it.

"positive reviews" is definitely a more accurate summation than "mixed reviews", but still less precise than "mixed to positive", I'd say.--Martin IIIa (talk) 02:02, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Misconceptions in languages often occur so common usage doesn't necessarily mean that it's correct. The only way to determine whether a definition of a word is correct is by looking at reliable dictionaries, not by whether a usage is common or not. In the context of reception, a "mixed reception" implies that the game has both positive and negative reviews, by definition. This isn't a debate. Regarding singular "mixed review", no reliable sources have used such phrase (at least I haven't seen it before). On Metacritic, they simply have a category of "mixed or average reviews". On Rotten Tomatoes, a review is strictly either positive or negative.

WP:VG/REC is part of the Manual of Style. Whatever that is proposed and accepted into MOS:VG, it's by consensus. I'm merely following the guideline with my edits. If you find that you have a problem with the guideline, you'd have to bring it up on the talk page of the MoS, not by explaining to me, a random editor, that you disagree with it. Surely, you can't be expected to continue to make edits on Wikipedia in direct opposition of the MoS, right? LightKeyDarkBlade (talk) 20:33, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

On the contrary, language is defined by usage, and historical attempts to change language according to the opinions of linguist experts (and Wikiproject Video Games is nobody's idea of linguist experts) have invariably failed. Language isn't something that can be managed and controlled.

As I already said, I did bring my objections up when this guideline was proposed. No one made any attempt to address my objections, instead resorting to pretending they couldn't understand the simple concept of a review which has both positive and negative remarks, and went ahead with adding the guideline. WikiProject Video Games' MoS is not Wikipedia policy; it is only as good as the reasoning used to support it and the number of editors willing to follow it. I don't doubt that someone could find an admin willing to abuse his power and indefinitely block me, but they could do that even if the guideline said the opposite of what it does, and much as I abhor editing conflicts, there's no sense in my remaining on Wikipedia at all if I'm going to refrain from every edit that someone can conceivably disagree with. And given that I made clear even before the guideline was posted that I had no intention of adhering to it, and have yet to be blocked or even receive a stern warning, I think it's safe to say that the WikiProject Video Games regulars are too concerned with the good of Wikipedia to want to expel a valued contributor just because he occasionally uses a phrasing they dislike. (Which is no surprise; they make the odd mistake, like all of us, but they're a good bunch.)--Martin IIIa (talk) 01:30, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm not denying that languages change over time since dictionaries are updated over time too. But we still shouldn't singularly follow common usage for the definitions of words. The best sources we have for words' definitions are the dictionaries, whether the definitions would change or not. When dictionaries change, we change. And because this is Wikipedia which is a tertiary source and we shouldn't have WP:OR, all the more reason for us to follow the dictionaries, rather than simply adhering to "common usage" of the random editors here (which is not a very reliable argument). This isn't even about the common usage of reliable sources, which is a completely different case.

MOS:VG may not be policy but it is still a guideline to follow. As written at the top, It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. Any substantive edit to this page should reflect consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page. Again, it is by consensus. If no one supported your objections, then you're in the minority and are not of the consensus. It is as simple as that and that is how Wikipedia works (including all its policies and guidelines). Regarding whether the GameRankings score should be included, it is an exception from the reasoning you gave (it's also technically still adhering to the guideline). But the phrase "mixed to positive reviews/reception" under no circumstances can have exceptions. It's either it's accepted, or not. It doesn't matter whether you'd be blocked for not adhering to the guideline. It's probably because it's not common thing that editors would do. This is honestly my first time meeting an editor who would insist on using the phrase "mixed to positive/negative". I know you mean well, but Wikipedia revolves around consensus (not that this article has enough regular editors to give their view now), as is MOS:VG. LightKeyDarkBlade (talk) 13:26, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

You misunderstand; the definition of "mixed" which Wikiproject Video Games advances is recently conceived and has never appeared in dictionaries. Even the guideline in question implicitly admits this; why do you think the only usage it forbids is "mixed to positive/negative", a usage which would leave no one confused about which meaning of the word was being used? It's because the intent of the guideline is not to ensure correct usage, but to obscure usage of the established definition.

And no, Wikipedia policy does not say that a simple majority vote at a Wikiproject is enough to establish consensus on a matter which falls outside that project's boundaries and eliminates any need to address the opposition's arguments or even provide a rationale consistent with established facts. I strenuously urge you to read WP:NOTDEMOCRACY and WP:CONLEVEL. I also invite you to question why editors advancing this definition have only managed this one local consensus in the first place, when the obvious move would be to go right for a site-wide consensus or even site-wide policy.

Also consider the practical difficulties of this guideline. With no argument beyond "This is what the majority at this WikiProject voted for", you can't expect editors to be persuaded, which leaves enforcement as its only recourse, and there is an obvious lack of editors to enforce it. You say you haven't run into any other editors using this phrase, confirming that you yourself don't spend much time looking at reception sections. In the two years since you made the above post, I have used "mixed to positive/negative" on numerous articles with no opposition, and seen many other editors do the same. So even if Wikipedia policy was that rationale is not needed for consensus (and again, that's not so), without a good rationale, your victory is nothing more than a guideline that no one will follow. Martin IIIa (talk) 16:33, 1 April 2023 (UTC)