Talk:Spyro

Started

I just got the page started with what I remember from the games. Expand the info on the games and include a list of characters.- B-101 12:47, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Reverted

I made a revert to this page, since the anon seemed to remove a lot of info and ruin the formatting. I encourage him to add to the article instead of course. —siroχo

Hi there. I hope I did an adaquate job adding more info to the article. I have no info on the GBA games (never played them before), and will eventually add info on the GC/PS2 game (I own the GC version). I hope I didn't make anyone feel bad by out-shining them. I'm a Spyro fanatic. I've beaten the games many times, gotten every little secret, and often dream about the games. Maybe it's just me. o_0 --SilverFyre (e-mail silverdragon706@yahoo.com)

Don't forget to inlcude a character list. I'll get one started- B-101 15:21, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I just semi-wikified the article, rephrased some sections substantially and removed some subjective comments. I think the entire writing is too focused on superfluous plot details, considering Spyro is after all a pretty popular and influencial series it deserves better coverage. I'm keeping it on watch but leaving it as is and on cleanup for now. --Phils 21:44, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Protection for Page

I think this page should be protected due to a number of anonymous IP address's making disruptive edits and stating them as though they are fact, and continue to re-add them if they are undone. - Jak Fisher (talk • contribs) 23/1/13

Why?

Anyone know WHY Insomniac stopped developing the Spyro games? I was just wondering. User:68.229.103.250 19:12, 24 July 2005

Well, back in the PS1 days, Crash Bandicoot, developed by Naughty Dog, and Spyro the Dragon, developed by Insomniac Games, were both of Universal's babies and the unofficial mascots of the Playstation. However, since both franchises were owned by publisher Universal (now Vivendi Universal after they merged with Vivendi), Universal could do anything they want with their mascots. So after the first 4 Crash games (the fourth was the cart racer Crash Team Racing), and the first 3 Spyro games, Universal cut off ties with the developers. (Naughty Dog developed all the PS1 Crash games with the exception of Crash Bash, and Insomniac developed all the PS1 Spyro games.) But it was all for the best, as the Naughty Dog got to make Jak and Daxter: The Precursor Legacy and Insomniac got to make Ratchet & Clank. Both are now exclusive developers for Sony on the PS2. However, for the next generation, they will probably create new franchises: see Insomniac's I-8 <--- Whats with the dodgy title to Resistance Fall Of Man, it has beeen places there to recently to be places before the game came out Gaogier (talk) 00:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC) --->on the PS3. I hope this explanation is sufficient.

For more info on each developer's list of games, see Naughty Dog#Games and Insomniac Games#Games. -Hyad 02:54, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

My unconfirmed theory is Vivendi Universal wanted to go "multi-platform", but Naughty Dog and Insomniac both were subsiduaries[Potential spelling error there...] of the Sony Corporation and declined to participate. That or maybe their contract ended and they didn't bother renewing it... Or something like that. Bear in mind it's only a theory... User:66.244.215.10 20:01, 7 May 2007

I know Insomniac stopped making Spyro games because Spyro was too simpler of a character User:Crasnex 23 December 2007

List of Eggs

Would a list of the eggs in Spyro Three be a welcome addition or an unwelcome annoyance? Would it be suitable as a separate article? I'm ready to add it if it would be desirable. Mikereichold 19:43, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

That kind of information might be more suitable for Wikibooks than Wikipedia. Stratadrake 05:20, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

That would be a good idea. I personaly wouldn't have a problem with that. --Sango4ever 22:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

What is a wikibook anyway? If anyone likes, they can make a page of The List of Eggs in Spyro 3 then link it to the Spyro 3 page. User:Crasnex 23 December 2007 —Preceding comment was added at 06:29, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikispam?

The The Legend of Spyro: A New Beginning section needs to be made more encyclopedaic. A quote from the publisher's website is an easy start, but we need more info than just that -- including citations. Stratadrake 05:32, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Concerning "The Legend of Spyro: A New Beginning"

I have edited the article which I posted yesterday, and called the info. There a "sales pitch", that way people will know it won't be encyclopedic because no such proper info exists at this time. Also, in the External Links section I added the offical webpage for the new game. Hope that is all you needed me to fix! ~*Neal*~ User:216.180.216.66 17:36, 16 April 2006

Spyro Series article too long!

The Series page should still exist, but have summaries of each game's plot. Maybe each game should have it's own page, too. And each game page would have characters from that game, maybe more parts of the storyline added to its synopsis, etc... And the characters of the series, maybe we could keep that, but a little part of me is leaning toward "List of canonical characters from the Spyro Series" sorta thing.

I agree that the individual games should all have their own pages. After all, other game series have the games not redirecting, like Sonic. And now that we have the template of characters, games, and all that, maybe we could start to split the games off the main article and instead leave the wikilinks to each game. That way, we could go in-depth about the plot of each, and have a reference link to the realm it took place in for information of the sub-worlds of it.

As for a characters page, we might just be able to squeeze out that entire section and just leave the template, or something, while adding the sub-bosses to it. Do something like the other video game series articles, like Sonic. Tom Temprotran 19:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

PLEASE split into separate articles per game - ayyem User:62.6.139.11 14:39, 21 September 2006

Each game already has a separate article about it, and this page is designed to give and encyclopaedic overview of each game in the series, which is what it does. I vote we leave it as it is. Smomo 10:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

We used 2 have more pages. Dragon Realms was a large page. But for some reason they were redirected here where they are mentioned very little. User:OsirisV 17:55, 13 August 2007

• Stay The series article needs to stay the same. This article is capable of better explaining the ties the stories have than any one article about any one game could. So it needs to stay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gp75motorsports (talk • contribs) 02:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

With all the characters here, should we at least restore the character page so that we can list every character from this franchise there? Rtkat3 (talk) 9:02, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Combine character pages

I really don't think each character in the game needs their own pages. At the very least, they should be merged into one page for heroes and one for villians. Most of the pages have one or two sentences at most. --Awiseman 20:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd say we need to expand the pages instead of merge them all. The sub-bosses, of course, I think deserve to all be merged under their main villain master page, as subsections. But as for the main characters of the game, like Hunter, Elora, Ember, Flame, and especially Spyro himself, need to be kept separate and then expand. Personally, I've tried to set up the pags so that others could come by and help me by adding more information. I don't have all the time in the world to write just about Spyro characters. Tom Temprotran 19:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe so, but I really don't think the minor characters deserve their own pages. Maybe do it like the Simpsons, where the main characters have their own, but the minor ones are on a "minor characters" pages. --Awiseman 19:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with both of your suggestions. Major main characters would have their own pages, and maybe with subsections, like "Ripto's Rage" to show their personalities in each of the seperate games. You guys pretty much took the words out fo my mouth.

Say, do we have the right pictures? And appropriate ones? Ones with the actual polygon selves and then maybe a picture of them drawn? Do you guys think we should ahve a "Protagonists" and "Antagonists" page? Yes, I added those subsections to get everything more organized, but it seems it just made the article more listy... any thoughts?Abby724 00:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

If they're minor characters, I'd say just have one minor characters page divided into Protagonists and Antagonists. --Awiseman 15:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Most of Spyro's antagonists were nothing more than level bosses; no overall signficance to the game's plot, or the series as a whole. I've tagged a few of the articles with {{mergeto}} to help. --Stratadrake 06:13, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Removal of features

Every so often my mind goes to features that were in the first Spyro that I liked that were removed in the later series. In the first you could have much the same experience of going through the level by the fact that the killed-again creatures gave up a silver gem in the same way that they gave up the original gem. Collecting this gems also provided an extra man feature. Thus you could earn extra men by doing things that were skill improving. It also occaisionally coughed up little 1-up statues, artwork missing in later games. The new games use a kill the dragonfly fodder and one up flies extra man method that I don't like as much. On the plus side later games used Spyro's head as the 1-up head for current lives. Also, the original game allowed Spyro to roll using L1 and R1 that made him more manuverable and made Spyro more lifelike. User:Hackwrench 22:39, 31 May 2006

I agree, they should have kept those features. ANd maybe, once we have seperate game pages, we might add that to the "Trivia" category. Abby724 22:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Someone is messing up the article

Well, someone here is sort of "unwikifying" it, as in messing up the categories, page format, and also, someone has been putting their own grammatical errors and childish things in it. If anyone finds the person who keeps on doing this, someone give 'em a good old lecture, okay? They've been adding info about upcoming games without citations, and putting POVs on here. Abby724 22:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Change content

Merge the characters and provide an overview of them here. Split the game titles to individual articles. I.e. actually make this page about the series as a whole. I think even separate summaries for each title are unnecessary - they can be introduced inline into a summary of the series. After all, a clear list can also be provided in a series box (and if minor characters are merged, the current series box can be cleaned up). zoney ♣ talk 10:25, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the idea (at least in part) for this article's cleanup. Been doing some of that already. --Stratadrake 16:46, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

"Riptoc"?

Quick question. What exactly is a "Riptoc" and how verifiable/notable is the term? I've yet to see this term actually used in a Spyro game (though I haven't touched Spyro Orange or Shadow Legacy), and a quick Google test resulted in about 900 items (by comparison, Rhynoc = 9,000 and Gnorc = 15,000), the top results of which were based on Wikipedia.

Maybe I have a hyperactive fancruft sensor, but... I have to challenge it. Ripto didn't have any minions in Ripto's Rage! besides Crush and Gulp (all other enemies were level-specific), and he definitely used Rhynocs in Attack of the Rhynocs. (I don't recall the Enter the Dragonfly or Season of Flame enemies too well at the moment....)

Info? --Stratadrake 07:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Riptocs were the creatures used by Ripto in Enter the Dragonfly. An example of the name being used is for the first dragonfly entry in Thieves Den which is "Wizard Riptocs". Dark52 22:17, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Riptocs were a species of dinosaur cretures that served under Ripto, pretty much, they are his footsoldiers when he wasn't using the Rhynocs. The Riptocs only appeared in three games, Enter the Dragonfly and in the two Crash+Spyro games.Unknown Dragon 06:15, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Riptoc is one of the one-hit enimies from the Spyro games. I think that was the unofficial name for most enimies in RR (there were Earthshapers in Fracture Hills and Magma Cone,; Breezebuilders were in Zypher for a counter-attack, Land Blubbers were invading Breeze Harbour). It was official in SO:TCC, where the first 'cutscene' (and by that I mean poor-drawn moving pics) showed Neo Cortex talking to Ripto about how he disguesed the quote "Riptocs" to look like Crash in Dragon Castles, and like Spyro in Crash's first level. And they were a low-level trading card in the game also, along with Rhynocs and Gnorcs. -Mace —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.27.231.237 (talk) 20:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Season of Flame

I heard that the GBA game was called Spyro: Season of Fire. 67.188.172.165 19:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

No. It's Flame. The sequel to Season of Ice. --Sango4ever 23:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Why don't the Gameboy games have articles of their own, they ARE notable enough. Sonicfan122 (talk) 23:19, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Guides coming... or not

I have asked my favourite Spyro guide writer if I can use his guides for articles. If he says yes, some of you may be happy. If no, then just no. Don't guarentee he will say yes, this may be risky. --Rossage Sausage 21:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

No, actually not. He said no. --Rossage Sausage 09:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Rewrite of introduction?

Sorry if this seems prudish, but the following paragraph, taken from the introduction, appears badly phrased and informal to me:

"It was making excellent progress with positive reviews until Insomniac Games stopped making anymore Spyro games after Year of the Dragon and started creating the Ratchet & Clank series. Spyro could not make much success without Insomniac Games."

I propose that it is rewritten in a more formal style. My suggestion would be something like:

"The series made excellent progress, garnering positive reviews and mainstream popularity. However, following the departure of developer Insomniac Games from the franchise (after the third instalment, Spyro 3: Year of the Dragon), critical and popular opinions on the series began to deteriorate."

I would also add that there should probably be a source for mentioning the 'positive reviews', and a small section at the end about Vivendi's mostly negatively received takes on the series. Any opinions? Dragonfly888 19:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, but I don't think some new Spyro fanboys can handle it. User:Crasnex 23 December 2007 —Preceding comment was added at 06:36, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Television series

In the introduction, there is a link to a Spyro the Dragon television series. Also, part of the page is used to list episodes of this series. After checking on the Internet Movie Database for this series, I found nothing on it and have come to a conclusion that it does not exist. I advise that everything related to this non-existing series be deleted at once. Michael Mad 19:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Then you should have tagged it as a {{db-a7}}. This is all work done by one user, clearly a Spyro fanatic. I've listed the corresponding article for AFD. --Stratadrake 17:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there is a TV series. --Sango4ever 23:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Nope, never heard of one. User:Crasnex 23 December 2007 —Preceding comment was added at 06:35, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

If there was a T.V. series, I would have heard about it. I've been a Spyro fan since I was 10. I actually started playing when I was 7, but I got scared when a Stone Hill Ram made me lose a hit. And my dad never told me the controller would vibrate if that happend. But who cares about a series? The Legend of Spyro 3D will be out by Christmas!!! YAY!!! :D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.27.231.237 (talk) 20:57, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Spyro DS.jpg

Image:Spyro DS.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 07:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Ahem

(Time for my daily rant.) This needs to be cleaned up. Most of them are a short plot synopsis, with "It's up to Spyro and his friends to _____." Well, that's what I think. ~Crowstar~^{crow calls} 22:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

That link to Uncharted

I saw that someone was puzzled over a link to Uncharted: Drake's Fortune in the main article. Since there's no way I could start a talk page with an unanimous account, I'll just say that it was there due to relationships between Naughty Dog (Uncharted's developer) and Insomniac. Though now that we think of it, neither Crash (outside the Fusion mention), Jak, Resistance or Ratchet & Clank barely got a mention either.

I don't know if this will be worth the debate, but we could do with clarifying what kind of "see also" links at the bottom of the page would work out for the article, with reasonings added when on provision. Freqrexy 15:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Remove the flash games section

I believe that it should be deleated because we don't have a flash games section for other game series that has flash games —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.89.132.150 (talk) 01:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, most of them dont even work anyway. User:Crasnex 23 December 2007

I move that we remove them.--Wise dude321 (talk) 18:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

A possible romance?

A possible romance between Spyro and Cynder? --Gp75motorsports 00:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Most likely, we will just have to wait and see! Sonicfan122 (talk) 23:20, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Its a strong possibility, but we can't see any real romance yet. User:Crasnex 06:33, 23 December 2007

"...Insomniac which sold the concept of Spyro to other game developers"

Can this be cited please? The way I remember it, Insomniac had split with Universal who took the rights to Spyro along with them, they did not sell it on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.219.254.158 (talk) 15:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I've removed this entry until this can be properly cited as its quite a major issue to get wrong. RadRick (talk) 07:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I sent an e-mail to insomniac a long time ago (post-split) regarding something about Spyro, and they did state in their response: Actually, Insomniac Games didn't sell the license. When we separated from Universal, they retained the license. - so that pretty much proves that they did not sell the licence. HarukoBass (talk) 15:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:SpyrotheDragon.jpg

Image:SpyrotheDragon.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 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) 05:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

TLoS Movie

Has someone made an article for the upcoming CG movie? According to this film sales site, the title of the movie is called The Legend of Spyro. Of course, this could be merely a working title, but some (confirmed) information has already begun to leak in. Xlittlecloudx (talk) 06:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

• It looks like the full title may be The Legend of Spyro 3D. I think that's a great choice because affixing the '3D' helps to distinguish it in reference from the series that spawned it. It would be nice if other game-inspired movies (like Double Dragon) had followed that example. It's certainly preferable to something like "Spyro Evolution!" ala Dragonball. I don't think we'll be seeing an article for it until it has progressed a lot (perhaps when it airs) since it may be considered tentative and it's not Wikipedia policy to make articles about stuff that hasn't happened yet. For now someone might redirect that link to Spyro (series)#Animated feature film and that redirect could later be upgraded into a whole article as more information about the movie is compiled. Tyciol (talk) 03:12, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok the movie is comin out in 10 days and there hasnt even been a trailer released, is this ferreal or fake? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.97.184.73 (talk) 06:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Seriously?

"The main planet that the Realms are set on is Earth, in a supposedly undiscovered part." Okay what? This screams for a citation. It NEEDS one! Could someone turn something up on this? Wise dude321 (talk) 01:27, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup

After some cleanup I am ready to suggest the removal of the cleanup tag. If it is not agreed upon, I move that we compile a to-do list. Wise dude321 (talk) 01:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The Health and Magic Crystals first appeared in A New Beginning, not in Dawn of the Dragon, as it says in the article. 75.157.110.77 (talk) 09:26, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Spyro 2009

Will there be a new Spyro game in the original series coming this year, apart from the film in the Legend of Spyro series? BulsaraAndDeacon (talk) 02:12, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Why is Wikipedia merging every article they see?

What happened to the character articles, at least keep Spyro! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.25.130.155 (talk) 10:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

Someone needs to change an act of vandalism back. I was looking at this article, I wanted to know about the film. So I went to the film section--

--and saw the words "Tis a sham!" in place of whatever was there first.

I don't know what was, but someone please change it back to what it originally was. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.94.90.185 (talk) 00:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Fixed.--Tsb505 (talk) 00:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Collections

Does anyone know if any collections have been sold combining any of the original 10 Spyro (not newest 3 'Legend of' ones)? I've never run into any of the original ones as most game stores don't carry PS1 games any more. Sometimes old games get sold in anthologies and it could be interesting to list existing ones here. Tyciol (talk) 02:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Upcoming Movie

I've read the article, but I haven't seen any mention of the movie (or any link to an article for the movie). Why? Was the movie cancelled? 92.50.121.46 (talk) 20:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

New Spyro Game

Someone should update this section with information on the new Spyro game Activision has leaked out. It is called "Spyro's Kingdom". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.225.35.194 (talk) 00:24, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The only confirmation is leaks, leaks, and more leaks. Leaks are not reliable sources. I just did a quick search, and no good sources came up. Without them, that is original research, and it can't be added into the article. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 01:13, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Check this out!!!

http://www.gamespot.com/news/6298531.html

Confirmed! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.57.63.204 (talk) 04:49, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Protect

I think this page should probably be protected so that unregistered users can't edit it because twice now the page has been the subject of false information added by enregistered users. ---StevenBjerke 14:14, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I re-created the table. The previous one was confusing, so I had to edit it. Let me know if you liked it. FinnsDeal (talk) 03:33, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Great, but could you merge the "Details" section into those tables? Or better yet:

• Erase the games and details sections, make a List of Spyro media, and make a small bullet list of the games with basic details like system and year.
• Erase the Universe section, maybe make a Characters of the Spyro series article, summarizing characters, the world, and gameplay elements in one section, in prose, not lists.
• The reception section needs actual content saying how well received the series is as a whole.
• Skylanders could possibly have its own section summarizing its universe and how it mingles with the Spyro series.

All of this of course being sourced to reliable sources. :P Good luck and may the force be with you! _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 01:08, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

www.SpyroDragon.com is activision approved

Persistent Legend of Spyro Vandal

User:173.162.247.129 has been repeatedly putting false information on the cancelled Spyro Movie, despite being warned, thinking it's confirmed and repeatedly add false information back in (even though the source doesn't mention any Legend of Spyro movie, but possibilities of a Skylanders TV series and movie. -- Aura24 (talk) 23:28, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

"Publishers: Sony Computer Entertainment America (2014 - present)"

Did Activision really sell the rights to Sony? I don't think this is right. Can someone find a source, maybe? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.190.133.97 (talk) 06:24, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Anyone still watching this page and want to weigh in on this? I keep reverting the edits to the publisher dates whenever I see them, but it would be nice to know why this is being done and what reason they have for doing it. Trolling attempts, maybe? Sfstormy (talk) 01:06, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

SpyroDragon.com

This needs to be on the page somewhere, seirra and activision own the rights on it , and its a remaking of the broken " official website" thats posted on here now. it at least needs to be an external site.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Quinten Armijo (talk • contribs) 04:43, 20 June 2013 (UTC) Members of activision had signed up to it and so i automatically asumed they owned the copyrights to it. My bad

Why would Activision use a free forum hosting service to host their Spyro forum (which is actually located at http://tlos.openu2.com/ once you get past the iframe)? GSK ● ✉ ✓ 19:47, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Because we need to renew the copyrights, and the copyrights has currently been expired, and this has allready been approved, and random people removing it , is getting annoying and we dont want to go through all the trouble just to contact the wiki admin, just because someone doesnt know how the copyrights work.

For some reason i thought he was Asking why activision would sign up to A free hosting service because i didnt remove the forumoton.com off the bottom of the page.. My faultfor not reading him correctly.. That happens when your fustrated.

Activision is well-funded. They are not going to use a free forum host as their official messaging board. I think you need to understand how copyrights work on Wikipedia. Claiming to be part of Activision and speaking on their behalf is not going to fly here. See WP:COPYVIO. GSK ● ✉ ✓ 20:02, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Then you would understand how long it takes for copyrights to renew, and if it wasnt activision approved why was it sitting here on wiki for over 5 years? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.18.97.103 (talk) 20:05, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Some reason just cause members from activison and serria had signed up gave me the big idea that it was approved.. I admit i was prtty dumb for automatically thinking that.

Tell you what, feel free to add it back in, but only if there's a reliable source confirming Activision is behind it. If you need to brush up on what a reliable source is, see WP:RS. GSK ● ✉ ✓ 20:08, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Okay will do.

Supposnly the members from activision and serria have nothing to do with this nor want anything to do with it.

After spending time for whatever reason, I (and probably others) would say this would be the official forum: http://www.insomniacgames.com/community/forumdisplay.php?17-Spyro-the-Dragon-Series&s=62f1319183d17d94bde9e2f52b4f45f6 GSK ● ✉ ✓ 20:11, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Thats not even activisions...Hold on for a few weeks, i can't even say anything until the copyrights are renewed after that, ill contact one of the admins at activision and have him add all the info and stuff on here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.18.97.103 (talk) 21:51, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

This is the time i was trying to get them on here but apparently they have no control over stuff like this nor want anything to do with this.

"Spyrodragon.com" is not an official forum; this guy, Quinten Armijo, is infamous for going around on various Spyro communities trying to force admins to list his cheaply hosted site as "official." Take his fan site off the page if he puts it up again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.190.133.97 (talk) 06:27, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Your spyro fan forum doesnt count has various spyro forums stormy. And SpyroDragon.com has 27,000+ facebook likes, and is spyro related, official or not, it earnd its spot in external links, And there is no where on that site that says its official, obviously who ever made the site quinten Armijo, isn't infamous. And just saying that is being a typical hater..who the hell saus that? Anyway its external links. way to make yourself look like a hater. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.70.218.39 (talk) 22:44, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

If you look at the history for your IP address there are entries by Quinten Armijo. I also looked into your Facebook likes - it appears that you were using some other Spyro-related page to generate the like buttons. Regardless, Wikipedia is not the place to advertise personal websites, no matter how well-known they may or may not be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfstormy (talk • contribs) 23:03, 30 June 2014 (UTC) Heres the code i use.

Its a link by link fb widget. That means people dont have to click like for the count to go up. People have to include the link SpyroDragon.com in there conversation or post for the like count to go up So for example if you post a status update saying SpyroDragon.com sucks...it wouldcount it as a like simply cause you included the link. Therefore The site isn't linked to any Facebook fan page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100E:B002:123B:28FD:BB46:E4A:9602 (talk) 23:17, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I only see a Google+ button with 12 likes, a Twitter button with 35, and a Facebook like button that no longer leads anywhere which could be for any page. I also looked up your website on Facebook, as well, and there is no SpyroDragon.org page except your personal Facebook account, "Quinten Armijo." Even if any of what you said was true, it doesn't matter how many Facebook likes a page has. Fan websites do not belong on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is for information. Advertising should be done elsewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfstormy (talk • contribs) 23:35, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Again its a link widget its only connected To the link you put the code on.

Try it yourself

http://help.forumotion.com/t144833p30-loading-page-is-not-working?nid=134#993694

If you look at the style sheet he's using forumotion.com's simple Facebook widgit...vwich means it can't be connected to any other page. And its external links. That means anything that has to do with Spyro. So if a Spyro site has that Manny Spyro fans. Why the heck is it not on wiki! Why are you so desert to keep it off you have something against it? Hate to be rude but your acting jealous over this guy especially when I found out it was already sitting here on wiki for 6 years... Give the man his spot back. There's no reason why it shouldn't remain here

What?

Using a certain widget can't restrict which pages can be connected. Also curious how you would explain the only four pages of users on your actual site.

Tell me how to connect a facebook page to this one then

@Spyro: it was remade , it was made 2005 we had over 80k Members , then I deleted it and remade it from scratch , the likes stayed, but all the members were lost. the new creation date is 2013 so their I explained why we don't have so many members anymore.

The point is, no matter how many likes is has, ""fan sites do not belong on Wikipedia!"" The article is locked now, anyway, so there's no use arguing about it anymore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfstormy (talk • contribs) 23:55, 30 June 2014‎

Page protected, please continue discussion here

I've protected the article for 2 days. This is so you can both/all continue to work on achieving consensus without the temptation of edit warring over whatever it is that you disagree about. The worst thing you can do is to go quiet here, and start edit warring again when the protection expires. For the record, I have no interest in the topic, I just want to ensure that we do things according to our policies, guidelines, and common sense.  —SMALLJIM  00:02, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

It's just a minor issue of whether the External links section should have a link to a fan-made discussion forum or not. "75.70.218.39" insists that the site belongs on the page, but if you refer to comments made by GSK above under the section SpyroDragon.com, you'll see that the concerns about the legitimacy and notability of the site were never addressed, and he has no interest in consensus. He has been trying to get almost every website and page relating to this series to link to his website for years - obviously trying to promote a personal website. I understand we are supposed to reach a consensus, but in my opinion this should be a very clear issue about what does and doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Sfstormy (talk) 00:11, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

As this dispute appears to have been ongoing for several months (possibly a year or more), it would certainly be beneficial to get outside input on the appropriateness of the link. Please see WP:Dispute resolution for options on developing a consensus. For issues specific to an external link, a discussion could also be started at WP:External links/Noticeboard to discuss the disputed link. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:17, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Its not a fan site I can tell you that right now. I've looked at.. Its not the official neither a fan site... I've read a few topics in their. And it made me believe the owner created a whole new religion..that's prob why hes sensitive with it not being on wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100E:B002:123B:28FD:BB46:E4A:9602 (talk) 00:25, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

There's not really another category between fan made and official site.... I'm putting a section up in external links/noticeboard now; thanks, Barek. Sfstormy (talk) 00:32, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Idk but I think this deserves a spot somewhere on the this wiki page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100E:B002:123B:28FD:BB46:E4A:9602 (talk) 00:36, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to chime in on the section I've created for this dispute, then. Hopefully we'll get some opinions neutral opinions from others soon about whether or not it should be here. Sfstormy (talk) 00:43, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm a neutral on this situation and I personally think it should stay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.70.218.39 (talk) 01:05, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Reverting the removal of the link dozens of times hardly qualifies as "neutral". §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:07, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I didn't remove it I added it back 3 times — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.70.218.39 (talk) 01:17, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Correction, you added it back over 20 times today. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:22, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

You realize that all your edits are logged, right? §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:23, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Yea they are logged.. Look at the different I.PS. my IP did it 3 times.. Someone's I.p did it a buncha times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100E:B01E:286B:9433:57B5:28CF:8916 (talk) 01:33, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I think it should stay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100E:B01E:286B:9433:57B5:28CF:8916 (talk) 01:43, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

What we need are reasons for why this external link is within Wikipedia guidelines, and opinions from neutral parties. Please make your case in the section I linked above (and Barek linked below). Sfstormy (talk) 01:51, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

i think sfstormy is being a jerk and kinda feel sorry for that forum owner cause the way hes being treated on here, im netrual about this and i say it should stay. sfstormy you sound deseprate just ftw. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.63.48 (talk) 04:44, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

You are not fooling anyone. Sfstormy (talk) 04:49, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Just a note that stormy has also signed up To spyrodragon.com back in 2010 and changed her email to thisforumsucks@live.com

Yea hi, this is the real Quinten Armijo. Who ever this hater is who feels obligated going around making fake youtube accounts fake google accounts and what ever other fake account you made, Good job at deceiving many. For all those people out there that think this is me, think about this, No where at any point in givin time have I ever put on my website tlos.openu2.com that it was the official, so srsly, Don't believe Anything but the source.. that's like hearing on bing that Subway is giving away free sandwiches and never going to subway to actually see if its true. Go to the Source of the water fall, not down the river where crap has been thrown in. If I'm not saying its the official spyro forum on the place my haters claim ( SpyroDragon.com) If theres nowhere on there saying it, then I never said it.. and again, to the hater .. Dam good job deceiving the entire SpyroForum.com community, and to who ever else believes in this nonsense. Thumbs up — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.3.195.211 (talk) 07:01, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

EL/N discussion

See WP:External links/Noticeboard#Dispute on Spyro (series) external link for the discussion started by Sfstormy, which they referenced above. I have also notified a relevant WikiProject of the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:21, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for all your help. I want to apologize for the edit warring earlier as well.... Not to make excuses, but I haven't spent much time on Wikipedia before, and I didn't know it wasn't allowed (although in hindsight that should have been fairly obvious). Sfstormy (talk) 01:59, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

My reasoning is why all of a sudden get rid of it when its been here for over 6 years..it's been on external links since 2008. And that's when his site was acualy c created...just why so suddenly remove it??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100E:B01E:286B:9433:57B5:28CF:8916 (talk) 02:05, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia pages are always being edited and improved. Being up for a long time doesn't automatically give something credibility; it just means no one caught it sooner, which happens sometimes. Also, this is not entirely accurate as there has been controversy about this link on the page for at least a few months now. Sfstormy (talk) 02:11, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Against like 1 person. Every once n a while. And no that's not intirely true there was stuff like this in the past about getting rid of it but it was accepted to stay on.. Now its like that all over again cause he had to remake the site from scratch. Everyone knew it was their and only the haters always tried getting rid of it. And obviously no one saw it seeing how it got all those likes .. I'm sure it being on wiki had a big effect for that — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100E:B01E:286B:9433:57B5:28CF:8916 (talk) 02:59, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Again, it's irrelevant how long the link was on the page or who was removing it. That doesn't make the link valuable for research on this topic. You've also basically just admitted that you wanted the link on Wikipedia so you could get pageviews and Facebook likes, so this seems pretty clear to me that you only want it there for advertising purposes and not for anything informational. Sfstormy (talk) 03:04, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

No im just saying that simply cause it was on wiki for 6 years is probably the reason for 20% of the likes, no matter what, removed or not it will continue to get likes, simply cause its not a fan forum. and theirs no man or woman on earth that can change that. a fan forum wouldent get that much likes, hate to say it but its impossible for a fan forum to receive such a thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.70.218.39 (talk) 07:10, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

external links = Things that relate to the topic, SpyroDragon.com Obviously doesn't Relate to spyro any way shape or form? Not.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.70.218.39 (talk) 07:15, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Either way, removed or kept it will allways continue to gain likes simply cause its Spyro's Forum. like it or not, you can tell everyone their fake, but anyone who acualy takes the time and acualy looks, and sees that the widget that spyrodragon.com uses can only be connected to the link the widget is on. and if people didn't care for it being on here for all these years, whawt makes you think theyd care for it being on here now? its not like they're going to randomly say they don't want it on here cause 2 people got jelous and want it so desperately to be removed. My point being, I like your idea of having netural opinions, but honestly if no one cared all this time, this is gonna be sittin for quite a while, like it has been. Which im fine with seeing how my sites gonna sit on wiki for another few years. Excuse my 1:22am spelling

None of that matters at all; it seems like you're just trying to brag about your site's successs. I don't know how you're not understanding the actual point: that it doesn't relate to Wikipedia. It's related to Spyro, but it's not a source of information about Spyro. It's just a forum. Check the EL/N section - forums are not qualified as external links, period. Sfstormy (talk) 12:11, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

acualy it is a source of information.. don't know something go ask them and theyd awnser within 24 hours — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.70.218.39 (talk) 20:04, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

That's... not really how it works. Random forum users aren't reliable sources. Maybe someone else can explain this better than I can.... Sfstormy (talk) 20:10, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Just read this and this. They explain the guidelines for external links and should explain why this site shouldn't be allowed. I'm getting tired of arguing about this; it should really be common sense in my opinion.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfstormy (talk • contribs) 20:18, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

yea your right, random forum users aren't reliable, that's why spyrodragon.com isn't random.

...Forget the word "random" then - forum users are not considered a reliable source for Wikipedia. Sfstormy (talk) 03:09, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Not if one of the forum users works for serria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.70.218.39 (talk) 06:42, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Wrong on two levels - the source of the forum doesn't matter, (see rules 10 and 11, it says forums are excluded, and rule 11 only makes exceptions for blogs and personal web pages of notable people) and you cannot just claim that someone at your site works for Sierra without evidence. Before, you were claiming to be a representative from Activision and never provided evidence of that, either. Also, since it is your website, it is conflict of interest to add it to a page (which I am sure you know since you are blatantly using Wikipedia for advertising) (read here). Sfstormy (talk) 11:49, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

To you maybe, well just see from netrual users, believe what you want to believe, the fact of the matter is. 1, Its spyro related 2. 2-3 former activisionist are signed up to it like it or not, Not something I have to prove to anyone. 3rdly , this is external links were talking about why do you sound so desperate to remove it from that? 4thy I just reached 28k fb likes today, I don't think wikipidea had anything to that rather than the common sense everyone knows that its Spyro's Forum and it does meet rull 11, because they're are notable people, if their wernt why the heck is everyone liking it, rather than you two people? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.70.218.39 (talk) 23:37, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

You do need to prove it if you're going to use that as your defense for relevance on Wikipedia. You can't just expect people to take your word for it. Again, forums are not listed as an exception to rule 11, regardless of the source. Since you have failed to gather consensus in favor of your link in the time that the page was locked, I have removed the link. You will be warned if you add it again and reported if you continue to do so. Sfstormy (talk) 00:01, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

first off you have no authority to warn me. and rull 11 , execpions if the forum has notable people. if anything you should be warned for desperately wanting this site that should be on here gone just cause you can't get that many likes yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.70.218.39 (talk) 04:06, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Anyone can issue warnings. Anyone can report. You are still not providing proof of notability. A neutral user has, in fact, requested that the link be removed, here. Sfstormy (talk) 04:10, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Nowhere in their did it say " I want this removed " all I saw was the sites wernt official. Why don't you just make everyone happy and make a new section called " Spyro Related Sites" Seeing how your so desperate for this. and if you read up a netural user said he wanted it to stay, so that's 1v1 so far..

It quite clearly says "Please remove the link." Please read it again. Wikipedia pages have no need for a "Spyro-related sites" section. The so-called "neutral user" was you. Sfstormy (talk) 04:18, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

My I.p is 75.70.218.39 the Neutral user that said he wanted it to stay was

2600:100E:B01E:286B:9433:57B5:28CF:8916

Aka. NOT ME. and you got 1 person to say no, and I got 1 person to say yes so its a tie, don't over react to your 1 person who agrees with you, first one to hit 10 ppl should be the awnser if it stays or goes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.70.218.39 (talk) 04:30, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Even if that somehow wasn't you, that user is not neutral. Check the contributions - all of them were adding the link back in. Clearly not neutral.

This is not a vote. Two other people besides me are removing your edits. You have not gained consensus. Sfstormy (talk) 04:36, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I think it should stay in external links..I don't think I should have to explain myself cause its self explainatory why it should stay. and sfstormy is just being a desperate jerk. Keep it on external links dude. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.63.48 (talk) 04:47, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

you guys replaced spyrodragon.com with a dumb promotional site.. r u kidding me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100e:b004:849e:c47f:5d8a:d0ec:8e65 (talk • contribs) 04:55, 16 July 2014

"Legend of Spyro and Skylanders Movie"

Hey guys (if anyone ever checks this page...), can we talk about why people are adding "Legend of Spyro and" before "Skylanders" in the film section? If you are someone who has been doing this, can you provide a citation that proves Activision has interest in a Legend of Spyro movie? I have been removing it because I've heard nothing about this at all, and it seems like either wishful thinking or attempted trolling, especially when accompanied with no source. I believe it was also marked with "citation needed" before, but someone removed the tag and reverted it back. Sfstormy (talk) 17:06, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

The IP user who keeps adding this false detail is notorious for changing the Movie Date pages with false information on the cancelled Legend of Spyro movie being "confirmed", until the articles were locked. He's going to keep doing this until an admin intervenes. -- Aura24 (talk) 06:14, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Merge

I think that List of Spyro characters should be split up and then merged to Spyro (series) as well as The Legend of Spyro. The list does not have any real world information, and there are only three sources. Also, someone said that it may not meet WP:GNG. DJ Autagirl (talk) 17:04, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

TLOS is not a spin-off

I just went on the Spyro series page to see all the changes, but you listed TLOS series as a spin-off along with Skylanders, but it is a reboot, not a spin-off. Skylanders is a Spin-off, but not TLOS. So I think it would be necessary remake this, to make TLOS as a reboot and Skylanders as a Spin-off

However, I just now made some alterations to the spyro page that I hope everyone will find agreeable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.67.7 (talk) 18:49, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

' TLOS the movie ' is also the name for a hard science fiction film currently live on kickstarter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.188.176.215 (talk) 10:20, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

IT'S HAPPENING

There is NO DOUBT that Spyro is coming to a remaster.

https://twitter.com/SpyroTheDragon/status/981578215029264384

Everybody chant his name and try to summon ActiVision! /s --- seriously though, i'm super excited. hoping it's as good as the crash trilogy

CrashRocks1419 (talk) 19:02, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

yep

it just leaked CrashRocks1419 (talk) 11:52, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Spin-offs\reboot

Someone should edit all the spin-offs games in the timeline, I mean all Skylanders and those almost unknown minor Spyro games, also we need clear official statements about what is a spin-off and what is a reboot.

--Metbert (talk) 19:39, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

The Legend of Spyro trilogy and Skylanders: Spyro's Adventure are both reboots. In the case of Skylanders, they pivoted away from that idea by the time the sequel came out and it has become a franchise in its own right. Essentially, it is the only official Spyro game in the series. I updated the page with the needed information as well as sources. Paul Reiche's original interviews are included, as well as the complete 180 Alex Ness did the following year. ConspiracyStuff (talk) 14:58, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Happy Day

Skylanders Spyros Adventure is officially the only Skylanders title in the "Spyro" series. The rest of them are not spyro and are spinoffs. My recommendation is, for proper information and clarity, keep Skylanders SA in the article, leave the rest out, and lock the page from editing until September when S:RT releases on the 21st of September. People keep changing the page and adding all skylanders products and that is not proper. Only the first skylanders is a spyro game. Cammers1995 (talk) 02:46, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

I just made the changes necessary. ConspiracyStuff (talk) 14:56, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

I tried to add Skylanders on the release timeline based on your post and it got removed on the idea that it's only apart of a "Skylanders franchise." Can Spyro's Adventure truly not count as a Spyro game?

Electricmastro (talk) 06:51, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Spyro the Dragon (video game) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. Andrewa (talk) 17:07, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Name Change?

Should the name be changed to "Spyro (series)"? That way, it would be identified more clearly when you click on the page, or even before you click on it, that this page is for the series, not the character or specific game. Similar to the Spyro (character) page. I know there's a disclaimer at the top of the page stating "This article is about the series." but I think this would be more clear. Lnbean (talk) 23:03, 24 October 2024 (UTC)