Talk:Fire Emblem/Archive 2

Infobox

With reference to this reversion:

I came across Fire Emblem on the CVG To Fix page, where it was listed as requiring an infobox - and I therefore added one in what I thought was the correct way. Since the page was listed there, I'm guessing that there was an actual need for an infobox here (although I'm happy to admit I went about adding one in the wrong way). So:

1. Does it actually need one?
2. If so, how should it be added?

RandyWang (^raves/_rants) 03:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. I don't think Fire Emblem (series) needs an infobox because it encompasses 9 games (so far). The individual games need their own boxes but the series article doesn't (see The Legend of Zelda (series). Also, it looks kinda ugly having a box that long. Axem Titanium 03:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd say Axem's got the right idea. The infoboxes are really meant more for each individual game article. Since the main Fire Emblem article covers so many games, an infobox seems impractical. I'd recommend against including one here. --Hailinel 04:07, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I was initially confused about adding infoboxes to series articles (take a look at my edit summaries at the CVG To Fix page), but I thought I should add one here to see how it would work out. Thanks for the comments. RandyWang (^raves/_rants) 04:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Suggested Anima merge

I just noticed someone has suggested that the Anima (Fire Emblem) article be merged into the main Fire Emblem article. Not only is there too much detail in the anima article to merge easily, the information it contains would throw the focus away from central article's main point, which is the dicussion of Fire Emblem as a series in general. So count me in for a solid vote of "no."--Hailinel 17:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree. The Anima (Fire Emblem) article is too specific, just dealing with one minor aspect of the games; while this article addresses the main points of the game. --Kirbycubed 05:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the Anima article is too specific in that the focus is too narrow. It wouldn't do to merge it into the main article but it could be incorporated into a more general article concerning magic in Fire Emblem games. Axem Titanium 20:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I can agree with that. An article on magic in Fire Emblem could be broader and include more information on all the types of magic used in the games.--Hailinel 23:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like something I can work on this week. If I can get to it. Also, what should the title be? Axem Titanium 04:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

A good title would probably be something like "Magic in Fire Emblem" or "Magic systems in Fire Emblem." Just so long as the title accurately reflects the article's contents, there shouldn't be an issue.--Hailinel 07:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I just started the article. It's just a stub right now with stuff from the first three games and more to come. It'll improve throughout the week until I run out of material. Axem Titanium 02:58, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Cool. It looks good so far. Now that you have the article underway, I'll remove the merge tag from the main Fire Emblem article.--Hailinel 07:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I just completed a short section for each game. Right now, it seems a bit awkward being that short. Any suggestions on other stuff to include? (notable characters, etc, I dunno) Axem Titanium 13:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe some more detail on how the Trinity of Magic works, or a more in-depth description of certain spell types (comparing a "normal" attack spell with its "ballistic" equivalent like Meteor, for example.)--Hailinel 16:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Angel Sword

Guys I think Angel Sword would be great for the external links list. They have really complete statistical information--way more complete than the sites listed now.DanB DanD 08:25, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

404 error. But I think I've been to that website a few times (and it was great and helpful), but I have some reservations because wikipedia is about providing information about the game, not indepth faq-type material. Axem Titanium 02:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The problem resolves itself. The links at the bottom of the page have been editted so that the only fansite is the one that currently houses the most content, the EFED. From that site's links page, though, there are links to Angelsword and pretty much everywhere else of note in the FE fandom.

Celice in infobox

Since I can't edit it myself (at least I don't think), I'll request here for Celice to be listed under characters in the infobox. I see no reason why Sigurd should be in when Celice isn't. Celice was more of the main character of FE4 than Sigurd. In fact, I think Sigurd should be removed Xubelox 00:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, you can edit it yourself. Template:Fire Emblem. Just don't pull Sigurd from it. --tjstrf 00:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I left Sigurd alone. Thanks. Xubelox 21:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Fire Emblem Factory

Would it be appropriate if I include links to Fire Emblem Factory? -Izaak Aug. 04, 2006

Hmmmm... I'll have to look into this a little more. First, I don't believe it qualifies for having a wikipedia page for it. However, once I can take a closer look (ie. get to a PC computer where I can actually play it), I'll see if you can add it to the links section. Axem Titanium 13:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

History Making Characters

What blockhead deleted it? It is obviously important to hardcore fans, such as me. Fire Emblem Freak

Well, if it's only important to hardcore fans, then it's probably cruft and doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Axem Titanium 20:49, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll go elsewhere. This place does not need my services. Fire Emblem Freak

Quit adding Fire Emblem World to the list of external links.

Me and another editor have already talked about it and agreed that it should NOT be on the list of fansites, as it has a very low actual amount of content despite being formatted to look like it has numerous resources with a myriad of links just leading to the same pages or to parts of pages. Other fansites on the external links are only there because they are definitave resources.

Whoever is adding it, please cease and desist. It is an obvious attempt to gain publicity and does not belong on Wikipedia. Thunk 23:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I would like to point out that "Thunk" is, in fact, a disgruntled ex-member of Fire Emblem World who was banned for improper behavior. He is in no way an authority on the matter and is actually vandalizing whenever he spitefully removes Fire Emblem World from the list of external site. It is a very informed website with very much information, and one of the best of Fire Emblem sites. I and the six other people who've added it to the list do not own the site and have full permission to add it, as we, Fire Emblem fans, feel it will help other Fire Emblem fans. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.123.32.123 (talk • contribs)

I would also like to add that Fire Emblem world is larger than Fire Emblem English documentary, has more active and more populated forums, has a Fire Emblem game, and more features that the Documentary does not. So, in fact, whenever Fire Emblem World is removed from the list, it is vandalism. Thanks!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.123.32.123 (talk • contribs)

Well, I was banned for criticizing two of FEW's moderators and two of your politically-immune members for spamming despite my contributions to your site. Since then, you've decided to make my name a pariah, insulting me, accusing me of things I have never done, and calling me "Satan" throughout your site even though I enjoy a relatively good reputation throughout most of the FE community and have not wronged them... well, ever. For those of you unfamiliar with FEW, it's one of the smaller FE information sites with little actual content and known for nearly-anarchical forums with around 500 members (20 or so frequently active) last I heard and theft of sprites ripped by someone from another community.

Don't take these two seriously. They're afraid to even post the names they use on their own site, and are just out looking to flame someone and give me a bad name. I have already told them both to stop, but they refuse to listen.Thunk

Also, why did you add your comment in two seperate sections like that, and phrased as though it came from two different people? Thunk 01:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

No one is flaming you. Just requesting that you stop breaking the rules of Wikipedia and holding your personal grudges (they are unacceptable on Wikipedia). Thanks. :) --124.157.169.165 03:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I used to reguarly post on the Fire Emblem World comments board, often promoting discussion of Fire Emblem whilst other members tended to indulge in off-topic conversation. I was banned for citing my belief upon religion which was in no way offensive or provocative, later I was banned by the devout Christian adminstrator (talk about the restriction of free speech). Thunk is correct in mentioning the sites lack of FE content, they are, in fact, abundant with hostile moderators and members who fail to acknowledge opinion that they do not concur with. Unfortunatley, the moderators have a strong alliance and are highly intolerant, making it extremely difficult for people like me and Thunk to convey opinions without unjustified penalties that will inevitably follow. I apologise for naming names, but Michelle is especially dodgy, often initiating arguments, then re-establishing her moderator authority whenever it is apparent she is losing the debate, "Don't forget that I can ban you" is a common Michelle quote. Signed- AnonFE (Sorry, I do not have a wiki account) 5:40, 23 December 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.0.62.43 (talk • contribs)

You were not banned for citing your beliefs. This is entirely false. And regardless, you've just proven that your deletion of FEW from external links is based on personal bias, which is unacceptable on Wikipedia. Thanks you for confirming that your editing of the page is vandilism based on a grudge. --124.157.169.165 03:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd also like to note that Thunk and Anon never removed FEW from Wikipedia external links (though they knew it was here) until after they were banned. They also have spread negative comments toward Fire Emblem World on multiple sites after their banning. This clearly shows that they are not removing it from personal links due to it not belonging, but because of personal grudges and bias. --124.157.169.165 03:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, this is rather late but I'm reinstated into the commentts section, maybe I possibly could've been too critical of Fire Emblem World, yet I still have not been given the reasons for my ban. I have never actually removed FEW from the external links. I apologise for my furious (and elaborate) rant, yet the reasons for the ban are still a matter of confusion, I would appreciate it if any of you can clear things up in the near future. Signed-AnonFE aka anon (lack of capitalisation as anon is an abbreviation of anonymous which is an adjective.)

NOTICE: Please stop discussing what happened outside of Wikipedia. We don't care. And please stop discussing the (possible) motivations of other editors. Per Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, this page is to discuss the content of the article. The relevant guidelines for external links is WP:EL; please limit discussions to whether this fansite does or does not belong. Wikipedia:Resolving disputes gives guidance on how to resolve content disputes; if informal discussions fail, the next step is an RfC. -- John Broughton (☎☎) 17:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. However, what happened on this other site is the sole reason they keep deleting tis site from external links. This should not be permitted.--124.157.174.17 09:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm a frequent poster of FEW, and I can say that the forum is rife with drama, and the site is lacking in content and does not deserve to be among the external links, as a while ago the external links were huge with a ton of links, but it looks like people came to the consensus that only the top couple fansite pages should be listed. And FEW is not nearly the largest or most resourceful FE fansite. So it does not deserve a link on this page. Also, please stop the drama and insulting. I think that you are being unfair to Thunk as he does not seem to be flaming you or your site as much as stating the facts, even though he could have done it in a nicer way. Just drop it and get another affiliate or something if you want to have more links to your site. 71.198.105.25 16:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe an RfC would be the best solution if we can't come to a consensus of some sort, actually. At least then everyone would stop with the drama. 71.198.105.25 16:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The English Fire Emblem link I believe needs to be removed, because an FE5 ROM can be downloaded there from my recollection. David Martin Chao 04:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you're mistaken. That site only has patches, which are related to roms, but aren't roms and aren't illegal. You might be confusing it with the ROM version of the FE5 patch, which isn't a ROM, but the patch for the ROM version of FE5. Aveyn Knight 18:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

character archetypes

Why doesn't somebody make an article about the character archetypes featured in the Fire Emblem games? I keep seeing them being mentioned in other Fire Emblem articles, but there isn't a link to an explanation of what they are. --3000zebs-(talk to me) 22:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Once upon a time there was. It got deleted for some reason, though... --RidFanOne 23:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Probably because: Very few people use them (thus confusing the majority of fans, most who don't even know what a Jeigan is), nobody can agree on who fits what archetype, archetype descriptions differ wildly, later games include characters forced into archetypes (in what ways is Stefan an "Ogma"?), etc. etc. The Gordon archetype mentioned in FE10 is a good example... Why is it even an archetype? Because Gordon was the first archer in FE1? Why don't we have an archetype for every first *insert class here*? Aveyn Knight 00:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I could answer all that for you...and I will. Fans are only confused as long as they do not know what the archetype is, and the "hardcore" players have them down pat (except the easily confused Kain and Abel, of course). An article would aid them in their understanding. Archetypes are based off of many factors, not just one. Stefan is an Oguma because he has the stats of an Oguma in a game where the traditional class does not exist, for example. And Gordon is actually a relatively accepted archetype that refers to an archer who joins at a relatively or even very early point in the game and is always an ally (Rolf, Neimi, Wil, Wolt, etc.). --RidFanOne 02:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

That still doesn't justify an article as they are simply fan names; the archetypes have no official status and are not mentioned in any official sources. Axem Titanium 02:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree. If we're not keeping history-making characters, why keep archetypes? Heck, at least history-making characters are well defined, even though I don't care who the first female Nomad was (and I don't think anyone does) etc... Also why expect fans to know more than should be needed. Only a huge minority actually use archetypes. As I said, archetypes have no real or mainstream use, other than to describe certain characters, but why call Stefan an "Ogma" when you can just call him Stefan? (Stefan being Ogma was a farce anyway. If you don't understand scroll to the bottom of this [large] post) Also true "hardcore" fans don't care about archetypes. Do you care about archetypes? Also Gordon being a relatively accepted archetype is BS to me. If he gets an archetype, why don't we give one to each early class? I don't see a Sheeda archetype being listed, a Minerva archetype, a Linda archetype (actually I saw this once), or a Chiki archetype, etc. Aveyn Knight 15:00, 14 November 2006 (U

Well, couldn't it be listed uder "popular fan terms"? Just don't note them as official archetypes, I thought the page was incredibly informative and excellent in developing understanding of the roles in Fire Emblem, it seems a shame to lose that. Ashnard _talk 14:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Character classes

Well, we should have a list of the different classes in this series, shouldn't we? --Luigifan 00:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

That would be treading dangerously close to game guide material. Axem Titanium 02:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

A character class list may have been included in the Japanese Wikipedia article. Decimus Tedius Regio Zanarukando 16:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Fire Emblem Planet external link

I am removing this link per WP:EL (our policy on external linking) for the following 4 reasons (in rough order of relevance):

1. It distributes copyrighted material, namely sprite and music rips.
2. It is a fansite, and hence only indirectly related to the article's subject. According to the policy page, in order for a site to be directly linked to the article's subject there must be "both a relation from the website to the subject of the article, and a relation from the subject of the article to the website.", with a fansite being used as the example of what you shouldn't link to. "An alternative site run by fans is not symmetrically related to the video game (rock band in the original quote), as the video game (rock band) has only indirect connections with that site."
3. External links should be kept to a bare minimum.
4. It is a social networking site.

Do not readd the link. Thank you. --tjstrf talk 09:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Recurring themes

The recurring themes section has become rather long in the tooth. Either information needs to be weeded out to highlight the most significant recurrances or the section needs to be moved/reorganized in a fashion that isn't as obtrusive. --Hailinel 01:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I say take the "divine sword of original research-slaying +1" and hack away at it until there isn't any of that stuff left. Axem Titanium 02:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. It's outta here! --Hailinel 07:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Unofficial Title

Since the game currently has no official international title, there should be no reference to the title as official in the Fire Emblem series as released under an English name. Like the past 3 games in the series, I doubt that they will keep the title exactly as translated. -'-WNF 12:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Merge from Weapons & Magic in Fire Emblem Series articles

Per the closing of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magic in the Fire Emblem series, I've proposed that both Weapons in the Fire Emblem Series and Magic in the Fire Emblem series be merged here. Any comment or feedback is appreciated, and especially work towards the merge itself. Thanks, as always. :) Luna Santin 23:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

There was talk of doing something like this some time ago, but the general consensus at the time was don't merge because the information in these articles is superfluous to the nature of the main Fire Emblem article, which is to provide a general overview and history of the series. Detailed specifics such as those listed in the magic and weapon articles should not be merged here.--Hailinel 06:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

See this?

"The magic system in the Fire Emblem series has changed dramatically over time. In the first game, Fire Emblem: Ankoku Ryū to Hikari no Tsurugi, magic was divided into Black Magic, offensive magic cast through tomes, and White Magic, restorative magic cast through staves. Fire Emblem Gaiden re-used this system, but with major changes. Magical spells were acquired when units reached certain levels, and every spell cast drained a portion of the user's hit points. The enhanced remake of the first game, Fire Emblem: Monsho no Nazo, included the first use of spells that had particularly damaging effects against certain enemy types (ice spells against flying enemies, for example).

Fire Emblem: Seisen no Keifu broke from this system and introduced the magic triangle, counterpart to the weapon triangle. As in the previous games, staves were used to cast healing or protective spells, but tomes were split into three categories: Fire magic, effective against Wind magic; Thunder magic, effective against Fire magic; and Wind magic, effective against Thunder magic. In addition, Light magic and Dark magic were effective against all three types. This system was continued in Fire Emblem: Thracia 776. The Game Boy Advance games, Fire Emblem: Fuuin no Tsurugi through Fire Emblem: The Sacred Stones, used a different magical triangle, consisting of Anima (elemental) magic, strong against Light magic; Dark ("elder") magic, strong against Anima magic; and Light magic, strong against Dark magic. Fire Emblem: Path of Radiance returned to the magic system of Seisen no Keifu (with the exception that Light magic was no longer superior to the other three, and Dark magic was excluded), a key point in the game being the effectiveness of certain magic types against certain types of laguz."

This is what I was afaid of. You can't cram every detail about individual magic systems from each game into a section of the article like this. It's a mess, and it's almost physically painful to read with the way the information is crammed together. Unless someone has a really good reason for objecting, I plan to remove this section.--Hailinel 07:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not as though the sections about magic the different games in the separate article say much more than that--most of them have one or two sentences. Wikipedia is not a game guide. Expand the magic section if you will, but it really doesn't need its own article. (or why not merge the weapons/magic things into a Fire Emblem game mechanics article if it's really that unrelated? Half of the Weapons in the Fire Emblem Series article is gamecruft anyway. SubStandardDeviation 03:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The move to create a separate magic article was considered necessary at the time because there was no other place for it. If it fits better in a general Fire Emblem mechanics article, that's fine. I'd support creating such an article. My main concern is simply that it not become cluttered within this article, which is focused on the series in general and its history.--Hailinel 04:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Then again, why not delete both of them? They're hardly notable (it's enough to mention the triangles, wikipedia doesn't have to cover every detail), and a game mechanics article would also have to include supports, class abilities, etc. and I think those are covered well enough on the main page and the individual game pages. Can you tell me how I can make a motion for deletion? SubStandardDeviation 09:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not experienced with motioning articles for deletion. I know that there's a banner used to mark articles as recommended for deletion, but I'm not certain of what the code for it is. It's been a while since I've seen an article marked like that. In any case, I'll clean the detailed magic information from the main article.--Hailinel 04:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, both the weapon and magic articles have notability tags now.--Hailinel 04:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

You'll find information on how to nominate an article for deletion at Wikipedia:Guide to deletion. -- John Broughton (☎☎) 02:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Stop the merging, already!

I just noticed the merge tag applied the Fire Emblem (anime) article. There's no reason to merge the article relating to the anime production into the main Fire Emblem article. By that logic, all of the articles relating to each individual Fire Emblem title would have to be merged into this one, and that's just not possible.

Once again, don't merge the anime article here.--Hailinel 05:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

START DATE

WEN DID THE FIRST GAME COME OUT? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.195.132.253 (talk) 19:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC).

If you read the article about the first game, you'd find that it was released in Japan on April 20, 1990.--Hailinel 22:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Character classes

Would anyone here agree to the creation of a separate list article detailing the various character classes Fire Emblem uses and their differences from game to game? It might make for good supplemental material for the gameplay section of this article. It would also help in distinguishing the FE classes from those used in other RPGs and SRPGs.--Hailinel 00:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it's an excellent idea, and I would help you contribute to it. Ashnard _talk 08:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Something like..Ranger > Lord (the description of each one, their weapons...)?? Well, let's try. Armando.O^{talk • Ev} 13:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

So when is it getting started, I'm ready when you are. Ashnard _talk 14:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, the List of Fire Emblem character classes page is already there, it just redirects to List of character classes. It would probably need sections for every character class (branched promotion makes 'promotion lines' too messy, but the Weapon Armors/Weapon Knights could be lumped together, I suppose), plus special subsections for Lord classes, Trainees (FE8 only), Laguz (Tellius only, and they're almost all the same), and other special cases I don't know about. Each class should probably have:

• Name/Japanese name
• First title it appeared in
• Weapons wielded (and differences between games noted)
• Classes it promotes to and from (again, differences between games noted)
• Description: archetype/fighting style represented, stat distribution, special skills, how the class has changed over time

(3) and (4) could probably be merged into Description if it becomes too messy. Note that FE9 Ranger =/= FE8 Ranger = Nomad Trooper. That said, having a character classes page would be a nice solution to all the broken Myrmidon (Fire Emblem) links. SubStandardDeviation 08:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Fire Emblem World?

Hailinel, why did you remove FEW from the links? Wait, are you Thunk (a disgruntled ex-forum member) under a different alias? Ashnard _talk 18:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

No. I don't even know who Thunk is. It's just been deleted so often in the past (and the previous conversation above is so argumentative) that I deleted it just to be safe. If there's good reason for the link to be there, then it should be added, but the reasoning behind it should be well-stated before another argument like the one above breaks out.--Hailinel 18:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

It's just an FE resource not much better or worse than the other fan sites, so it has the same reason for being there as the other links, the person adding the link is going to keep on trying, and I feel it is unfair to deprive them on the basis of an argument, it's quite a good site, and I only found about it via that link before. Ashnard _talk 18:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Lol, your username is "Ashnard"... well, isn't that ironic? Do you mind if I call you "Mad King Ashnard" or "King of Daein"? XD --Luigifan 19:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Call me Ashnard, err...Luigi. Ashnard is the best character ever, that's why he is in my Username. Ashnard _talk 19:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

It was just a joke... --Luigifan 12:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Errr...I knew that, I have a sense of humour, honest. Luigifan What sort of Username is that, it should be something like "Bowserfanboy" or "Wario's_bitch" Ashnard _talk 18:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Please change the "International Release" section into a whole FE history section!

It would be more worthwhile putting the history of the series in whole making the "International Release" section look more encylclopedic and give it more reason to be there, not only that, you can still note when the series saw an international release. It would also proove more beneficial to people new to the series so they can learn all of the history instead of just one part. Samusfan80 18:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The Infobox

What happened with the Infobox that had the characters, enemies, ect? Black Omnimon 21:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Well the people seem to adopt a minimalist approach here, so over time, alot of things have gone, but some of it was fairly deemed unsuitable, like the Character Archetypes page and the Mythology page, it seems a shame to lose some of it, but I suppose they have their reasons. Ashnard _talk 22:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

External links

I'm just thinking, maybe we need to rethink what is allowed on the external links. Personally, I'm all for what we've done so far - only having official sites and the one fansite with the most information linked. However, there've been arguments over the deletion of fansites from the list and we should either put clearly what is okay to link to or not on the article so that people can see it as they edit, or decide on a new policy here. Thunk 00:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

To clarify Thunk, I wasn't arguing against the deletion of links, I was just asking why. Personally, I think we should have a maximum of 3 websites. Ashnard _talk 19:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

In that case, what 3 websites should be included? Would Fire Emblem World necessarily make the top 3? As you said, it's not much better or worse than other sites. If it doesn't make it, would people stop trying to add it? Aveyn Knight 23:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, it probably wouldn't make it, the site isn't regularly updated with FE information (although they have an active forum, with foum members who keep people informed). The admin, Reaver hasn't been around in a while. If they keep trying to add it, explain on their IP talk page that it doesn't lie within the top three and give reasons, of course, that is if a "top three" is agreed and FEW doesn't lie within it. Ashnard _talk 06:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Just to let you know, FEW has almost crashed and is burning slowly, I believe there is currently just one mod active now so this eliminates the chance of it been added. Ashnard _Talk 19:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Naming of the series

"It is also hinted to be one of the twelve holy weapons in the game." Just interested- is there a source to this? Aveyn Knight 11:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

FE on Nintendo 64

Fire Emblem was originally planned for release on the Nintendo 64, but the project was canned. Many people believe the battle sequences were imported to the Gamecube version, thus explaining the "stiffness" many fans complained about. I think it was nice to point out about the planned release, but the last part is purely speculation. Also who are these "many people"? Aveyn Knight 18:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, the notorious weasel words, that part really should be either deleted or cited. There's some wiki regulation about that sort of stuff somewhere, so I'll delete the last part now. Cheers for the spot. Ashnard _Talk 19:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Secret of the Crest

I admit, I don't know much of the series and have barely started the second GBA game, but this one thing really stands out to me:

In the English translated credits it says the show was based on "Fire Emblem: Secret of Crest" instead of "Mystery of the Emblem".

There's really not that much difference in meaning to "Secret of [the] Crest" and "Mystery of the Emblem". "Mystery" and "secret" are synonyms of one another, just as "crest" and "emblem". It is for this reason I'm deleting the last part of the phrase as both translations are legitimate (and it would be pointless in this regard to even discuss alternate translations). Drumpler 04:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I deleted the sentence altogether and placed "Secret of the Crest" under the translation section. Since the name could be translated either way, I decided to rely on the "official" translation as used in the authorized English OAV. Drumpler 04:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not too knowledgable about Wikipedia, but wasn't it recommended to use the most commonly known names where possible? Mystery of the Emblem is the more commonly used name in this case. Intelligent Systems (and/or whoever works for them) are often not consistent in their names (especially in the past), so even if "Secret of the Crest" was used once, "Mystery of the Emblem" may have been used elsewhere. Further inconsistencies include Henry/Anri, Jeigan/Jaigan etc. Also the object in the game is also specifically referred to as an "Emblem" (Emuburemu). Aveyn Knight 14:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

This is an issue I think would be best addressed on the game in question's talk page, not this Wiki article, and probably best addressed within that article itself. It really is a small matter, however. Drumpler 23:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Concerning Intelligent Systems, is there reference anywhere to being an official translation by them? Drumpler 23:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Trivia

Per WP:Trivia, I removed the trivia section and reincorporated the different bits of trivia into various parts of the article text itself. This resulted in tremendous reordering (I renamed the "International Release" section "Fire Emblem's influence on other media" and relocated it toward the end of the article. Doing this enabled me to include much of the trivia that was found in the "trivia" section since this section was largely about "Super Smash Bros. Melee" anyway. I then mentioned SSBM's influence on an international release in the article's opening paragraphs). This should be sufficient. There are also various other edits (such as mentioning the second Super Famicom game as being a Virtual Console title). I do fear, however, that the "Other media" section might become another trivia section. Drumpler 15:31, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Nice job. Why has this Trivia revamp thing came about anyway? Ashnard _Talk 16:07, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Woops, I guess that was a silly question considering the internal link above explains it. Ashnard _Talk 16:17, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. :)

I canned the "Other Media" section altogether. The original only mentioned one soundtrack but when I googled the games' soundtracks, I found there were various others. As soon as I (or an other editor) can find a comprehensive list of game/anime soundtracks, it can be placed there. I rewrote that one part and placed it under the "Music" section. Drumpler 18:17, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I also mentioned the OAV in the "influence on other media" section. I'm wondering if mentioning Daigasso Band-Brothers twice though would be a good idea, since it does belong in two sections (the section aforementioned and the music section)? I have DGB and can check to see if the song is actually there, but then, how do you reference a video game? Drumpler 18:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've got a link of the official site, but it's in Japanese. It shows all the track listings. I'll leave it here, I can reference it if you want. External Link: Official DGB Website (Jap)

I think we should only have one mention of DGB as the the second statement is just a repeat of what has been said in the Music section. Ashnard _Talk 07:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I removed it from the music section and left it alone in the other section. I likewise added a reference to the page you mentioned. Drumpler 09:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and another thing, how can the "Anna" statement be integrated. It looks out of place as a kind of "tack-on" to the end of the Death section. Ashnard _Talk 08:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

That's what I was wondering. :\ I tacked it on as I did because that was the only thing I could think to do, honestly. Drumpler 08:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

No complaints, I can't think of a more suitable place myself. Ashnard _Talk 09:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I've cited the Famitsu thing, although the website is Dutch. The actual list is in all English though. Ashnard _Talk 10:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe its minor, but I found a better, more notable site in English and replaced it. You might want to readd the citations tag, though, since the page is far from finished in terms of referencing. When the tags are placed up, it displays on several other pages and notes other Wikipedia editors that the article is in need of editing. Drumpler 10:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

It's just that the tag says that there are no references and this is obviously not true – maybe there is a more suitable tag. But you may readd it if you wish. I've also referenced the "Fire Emblem 64" thing, feel free to rectify any mistakes. Ashnard _Talk 10:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Relocated Anna to the Units section. I was thinking about adding a blurb about how, because of the nature of the series, the majority of the cast of any one FE game (PoR and AnM being exceptions) only appear in one game, but that doesn't fit under Gameplay. SubStandardDeviation 18:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

This would have fittted in well with the Recurring themes section – what happened to that? I don't know, maybe a new section culd be created. Ashnard _Talk 09:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Nixed due to OR and endless bickering over "What's a Jeigan" methinks. SubStandardDeviation 18:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I see. Thnaks for clearing that up. Ashnard _Talk 19:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Whilst on the subject, what happened to References to mythology in Fire Emblem? Ashnard _Talk 20:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

References to mythology sounds like something best for a personal website on Fire Emblem, not WP itself (just because I think it both a) comes close to OR and b) trivia). As for "recurring themes", I see no prob with that. Drumpler 22:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Hm, I read the Final Fantasy article because I hoped a reference to "Cid" would be there (those familiar with the series know that a character named "Cid" is in just about every game) and it isn't. I wanted to see how they would handle it. Drumpler 23:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

If you looked closer, you'd find a link from Final Fantasy series to Common themes of Final Fantasy, which talks about Cid. For further information and a list of Cids, you could then go to Recurring character names of Final Fantasy (though a notability label is on that page, I personally think it's a stretch anyway). Suffice to say that the FF Themes page is a lot longer and better referenced than the FE Themes page was.

"References in Fire Emblem" (or similar) was deemed un-notable and unsourced listcruft. SubStandardDeviation 03:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

So a second page would be out of the question? I think it'd be highly appropriate, but maybe the series isn't notable enough. Drumpler 07:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced? Just about every FE article is unsourced and this one is barely referenced. With the loss of trivia, it seems some content is wandering aimlessly for a suitable title by which it can stay. Ashnard _Talk 08:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, the key question is, how do you source a video game? Drumpler 09:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't complaining about the lack of references, just about using that as a factor against a Recurring List as all FE articles are unreferenced. To be honest, it's really hard because I once tried to reference the late Ashnard page (now expired) by referencing from the in-game script. However, the references were denounced as poor and I was advised to get better sources even though no reliable website goes in depth about FE's storylines. It's exacerbated by the fact that it's less popular than some of the more well-known series like Metal Gear or Zelda. Ashnard _Talk 11:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Fire Emblem The Sacred Stones.JPG

Image:Fire Emblem The Sacred Stones.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 Wikipedia articles 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 insure 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 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 07:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:GBA Fire Emblem Box.jpg

Image:GBA Fire Emblem Box.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 Wikipedia articles 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 insure 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 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 11:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Fuuin no Tsurugi.jpg

Image:Fuuin no Tsurugi.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 Wikipedia articles 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 insure 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 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 11:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair Use

I tagged all the images above. No need to worry. Drumpler 02:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Seisen no Keifu.jpg

Image:Seisen no Keifu.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 insure 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 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow.

This otherwise fairly good edit would've been better had the personal attack not been included. No flaming, whoever you are. :| Drumpler 03:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Mergers

Just about everything that is outside the Fire Emblem main scope (individual characters, the magic page) has now been redirected here. I've moved "Magic in the Fire Emblem series" to a gaming wikia. This has been a major clean up of the Fire Emblem articles. I hope that more people can contribute to discussions in the side articles of Fire Emblem because the effort and response on talk pages has been waning. Thank you. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 17:36, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Ayra, Celiec and Sigurd have been moved to "egamia". Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 18:07, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Move to "Fire Emblem (series)"

Basically...

• Fire Emblem = disambiguation page, which would contain...
  • The GBA game
  • The NES game (as it has been referred to as simply "Fire Emblem" as a shorthand name)
  • The series
  • The Wii game (as it has been referred to as simply "Fire Emblem" at many points)
• Fire Emblem (series) = new location for this page
• Fire Emblem (Game Boy Advance) = GBA game

Ta-dah. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

As I stated on your Talk page, I see no reason against the move. I'd like you to explain how a disambiguation page would arise though. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 22:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Push for GA

You may have acknowledged that I've been adding references profusely. Basically, I'm pushing for GA status. Hope some of you guys will help me out. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 09:10, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe that the page needs two new sections: media reception (reviews and awards) and In-universe (mention continents, a brief overview of recurring general storyline). Any ideas about this? Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 09:21, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if there's too many references, but I guess it's the norm after seeing a few other articles. Those two sections sound good anyway. I might try and start the in-universe one. Aveyn Knight 13:27, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Too many? Pah. Never too many for Ashnard or FE! Only joking. Cheers Aveyn Knight. I think there just should be a small entry detailing how there's usually one super being and conjurer of being etc. Only a small bit though. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 13:35, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

By super being, do you meant like Zephiel, Ashnard, Lyon and etc? I suppose those would go under recurring general storyline? However I worry they won't last, like what happened in the past. Perhaps its too trivial and superflous to the general article. At least the information about the Fire Emblem is relatively important, interesting and well-defined. Aveyn Knight 17:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

This "too many" thing is bothering me so I'll ask around to see if it's to the article's detriment. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 13:39, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

By super being I mean the dragons, Formortiis, The Goddess in PoR. Maybe we should ignore that. All I want is some part that links the continents to the game — not a "recurring" section. Maybe something like this:

Elibe: Sword of Seals,Fire Emblem. etc. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 17:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Plus, a brief mention of how having two games based on one continent can make links between the characters of the two games. Father>Daughter between games. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 17:16, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I ended up adding a section about the Manaketes. I'm not sure if it's important enough, but it is key recurring feature in the series, and has a mention in the equivilant Japanese page. Aveyn Knight 19:18, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, but I think we should leave it at that and not add any more. Anything else will pretty much be redundant info. Cheers, I'll try reference all the stuff taht's been added now. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 19:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, I don't know too much about this, but isn't that other continent called Valencia instead of Barensia? Please correct me if I'm wrong. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 19:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Barensia is the same as Valencia. Barensia is used officially in Fire Emblem: The Complete. I don't know any official sources that use Valencia. I could perhaps get a scan of the source. Aveyn Knight 19:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, if you can source that, then please do. Or you can show me the link and I'll do it. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 19:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Since I can't source to save my life: Map. Aveyn Knight 19:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

All done, cheers Vincent;-). Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 19:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

External Link Addition

Hello, I was thinking it may be a good idea to add the link to Hardcore Gaming 101's article on the series as its very informative. It can be found here:

[1]

It contains info on the Satellaview Fire Emblem which isn't listed on the game list and may be worth adding also.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lockshaw13 (talk • contribs) 18:40 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll have to look up Wiki's external link policy to see what's acceptable before we decide. Thnaks for the heads up though. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 18:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC):

Wow, that's an excellent site — how come I haven't spotted this on a Google search. I've looked at the policy and see no reason not to include it, although the external links should be kept to a minimum. A really decent resource — thanks. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 21:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Personally I don't see anything worthy there that isn't already on Wikipedia or the History of Fire Emblem that is already present in the external links. It does mention TearRing Saga, but that technically isn't a Fire Emblem game, and it does have information, albeit brief, on the BS Fire Emblem. It is a decent read though, and could be used to reference the BS Fire Emblems (although I may know a better source). Aveyn Knight 21:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the two shouldn't co-exist; I find the more recent site more comprehensive. The other has been used as a source anyway. Should we remove 'History of Fire Emblem'? There aren't many sites out there that give this information — most sites don't have a clue considering the Japanese releases. So, if you agree, I'll remove 'History of Fire Emblem'. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 21:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

On a side note, we should get fair-use rationales for all the images and a referenced 'Reception' section before we should nominate this for GA. Once that's been done, I think we should put it up for GA. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 21:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think they should co-exist, as they contain pretty much the same content. Although I think History of Fire Emblem is better, I guess it would be alright to keep the more recent site instead, seeing as it is less outdated. Aveyn Knight 22:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

If it's okay with you, may I delete the 'History' one as the other is already there under references? It's just this way, both can be on the article as the other is under references. I'll edit it out now and them I'm probably going to bed — if you disagree, then just revert it. By the way, I respect your FE knowledge if you can make better pages than them; I know that you've made your own Fe sites. Bye. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 22:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)