Jump to content

Talk:Splatoon (video game)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wiimote Support?

[edit]

cant find anything on if it is confirmed or denied. would love to have wiimotes in the game. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:2CF2:C5D0:20C9:86BB:558C:B771 (talk) 01:28, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no Wiimote support in any gamemode. You must use the gamepad in all modes except for the two player battle dojo, where the player who plays on the TV can use either the classic pro controller or the pro controller. MonsieurPoulet (talk) 20:44, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is support for using a Wii Remote Plus with a Wii Classic Controller/Pro in Battle Dojo: http://splatoonus.tumblr.com/post/120246428234/one-of-our-scientists-has-made-a-rather-stunning TEH (talk • contributions) 16:08, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

August update info edit warring

[edit]

@Brantastic: Your edits do not improve the sentence at all, and should be avoiding adjectives like "massive", which is a WP:PEACOCK word. And the edit you did as "punishment" was immature and violated Wikipedia policies (read WP:DISRUPTPOINT). Not to mention you don't even have the correct date, as the update is released August 6, not August 5 despite sources stating otherwise. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 02:01, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Memes?

[edit]

How come the "memes" section of the article always gets removed? Can't you all just add on to it? DBZFan30 (talk) 22:12, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@DBZFan30:
  1. Memes are usually not notable enough to be included in any article, much less have their own sections on an article. Yes, the meme was popular within a relatively small community for a relatively short amount of time. Relative to the cultural impact of video game memes such as Arrow in the knee and All your base are belong to us, which have been acknowledged by reliable, published third party sources.
  2. While you did provide sources, blogs such as Reddit and Tumblr are not seen as reliable, and do not establish any WP:NOTABILITY. So not only do they bring factual doubt, they also cast doubt on the importance of the information being cited. What would you be more inclined to think is important (in terms of public perception, not personal taste): something on the front page of Reddit, or something on the front page of The Washington Post? Lizard (talk) 19:20, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Lizard the Wizard: Thank you. And to answer your question, i'd say something on the front page of The Washington Post. DBZFan30 (talk) 12:32, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Lizard the Wizard: I'll admit it: I added that information because I wanted to make more people aware of the meme. I'm sure that there are more Splatoon memes out there somewhere and I just wanted people to help me out on expanding the section. DBZFan30 (talk) 03:37, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Splatoon is the best-selling new IP in Japan since Wii Sports" source

[edit]

I believe this statement probably should not be included at this time. According to the discussion (found here) regarding the reliability of Gamnesia (the source of this statement), it was found to be "situationally" reliable. However, parts of that discussion seem to conflict about the reliability of Gamnesia articles that ultimately cite the NeoGaf forums, which are an unreliable source. So, without a 100% reliable source making this statement, should it be included or not? Takinzinnia (talk • contribs) 23:42, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Splatoon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:36, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Niconico Tokaigi and Japan Expo 2016

[edit]

Should anyone put in info regarding the January 2016 Makuhari Messe and the Japan Expo 2016? There was a concert going on based on the game itself (featuring the Squid Sisters)... Visokor (talk) 17:12, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Splatoon for Nintendo Switch

[edit]

Has anyone seen the first look at the Nintendo Switch? Near the end of the trailer Splatoon is getting a Switch release, we'll have to wait and see. Rorosilky5 (talk) 05:18, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It could be Splatoon 2, an enhanced version of Splatoon, or a direct port, so until we know more about we can't say this game is coming to the Switch. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:03, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Date format

[edit]

Usually the dmy date format is used for pages about games made or published by companies located in Europe. Nintendo is NOT a European company, and most pages about games by Japanese companies are in the mdy date format. Does anyone think we should change the date format on this page? DBZFan30 (talk) 18:09, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Japan is odd in that they don't, to my knowledge, really adhere to dmy or mdy. Following WP:DATERETAIN suggests no real reason to change it. Keep in mind that dmy is viewed less as a "European" format and more as "International" format. -- ferret (talk) 18:34, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Ferret: To clarify, most articles about Nintendo games on Wikipedia use mdy dates, such as the Mario and Zelda games. Every Dragon Ball-related article on Wikipedia uses mdy dates too. However, the articles about Nintendo, Splatoon, Splatoon 2, and The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild use dmy dates, which doesn't make sense to me. We should probably change the dates to mdy on these articles so they could be equal. DBZFan30 (talk) 00:50, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The only reason why a format is used on certain articles is because of the first editor using his personal preference, which sets the standard. I agree that it's a dumb system, and Wikipedia should perhaps reconsider its policy on this. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 01:10, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

[edit]

Recently I found this news article from WLWT (an NBC station in Ohio) when I searched for Splatoon on Google. This has also been mentioned by Kotaku, so is it okay if I could put any of these articles into this page? DBZFan30 (talk) 03:11, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it should be included. Unless there's some evidence of a widespread incident that really has some strong tie to the game or its manufacturing, beyond it just happening to be a Splatoon case in this one incident, it has no lasting importance. -- ferret (talk) 03:15, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ferret: There is no evidence of a widespread incident, but I think this story is interesting enough to be included. DBZFan30 (talk) 15:17, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is it really? It's barely even related to Splatoon.--IDVtalk 15:22, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's a trivial one time incident where no one can prove the parent didn't lie (I.e. maybe they broke the disc and did this for a replacement) or that it happened to any other unit of the game. -- ferret (talk) 15:56, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just because we can source something doesn't mean it needs to be in the article. Unless there's further developments of importance (they sue Nintendo, there's confirmation it was done by an actual Nintendo employee and they're fired, etc) I'm also against inclusion. Sergecross73 msg me 22:33, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@IDV: The video in the WLWT source shows footage of a girl playing Splatoon, so it's somewhat related to the game.
@Sergecross73: We should probably include it, because both of the sources I mentioned are reliable. DBZFan30 (talk) 11:06, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but like I said, just because it can be sourced doesn't mean it should be in the article. We don't add every single related bit of info into articles. Being able to source it is a bare minimum of eligibility for inclusion, but its not some sort of obligation to include it. It seems to be a minor, one-off incident, that had no real bearing on the actual product, its reception or sales, or the respective company's reputation. If you really want to pursue this, you could ask WP:VG for more input on it, but right now, you don't have a consensus for inclusion, which means it should not be included, and based off of the discussion so far, I really can't image a scenario where we get a ton of people advocating for inclusion. It just seems like kind of a pointless addition. It happened. No one knows any of details on it. (Who did it? Why? How? What were the effects of this? etc.) It had no lasting impact or conclusion. The end. It feels like a really incomplete bit of information. Sergecross73 msg me 12:48, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I side with Serge here. This has no bearing on the actual product of Splatoon. It may be true but is not worthy of being in the actual article. Manfred (talk) 13:43, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also agree. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 16:48, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, you've all defeated me. DBZFan30 (talk) 04:18, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DBZFan30: You shouldn't see it as defeat! This was a discussion on how to improve the article. By bringing this up, we can all discuss its place in the article or not. If this discussion didn't take place, someone else probably would've eventually said it. Manfred (talk) 08:07, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

character list article?

[edit]

does anyone think that, now there are two games, an article listing the characters in the Splatoon games should be created? Visokor (talk) 10:02, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No. Neither article bothers to list or describe the characters now, so there is no content to fork out. -- ferret (talk) 11:46, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Are any of them even remotely notable? And as said above, neither of the articles even currently mention the characters, outside of naming them in plot. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 17:50, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Possible that the presenter characters are notable, at least. I've seen a whole bunch of articles about Pearl and Marina from Splatoon 2.--IDVtalk 18:36, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but that would be separate from a "List of Splatoon characters", which would probably fail WP:LISTN or be viewed as unnecessary content fork (there being nothing to currently fork at all). -- ferret (talk) 18:38, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I agree with you on that - was just replying to Dissident's "are any of them even remotely notable".--IDVtalk 18:43, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I suppose they would count. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 18:44, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops my bad. Context is important :P -- ferret (talk) 18:45, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@IDV: @Dissident93: @Ferret: The Squid Sisters have had a significant amount of media coverage over the course of two years, so I don't see anything wrong with a Squid Sisters article. Squid Sisters is currently a redirect to Splatoon, but an article should be created for them. I know this sounds silly, but does anyone agree with what I said eariler? DBZFan30 (talk) 19:36, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If there really is signification coverage, then there shouldn't be any opposition to it. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 02:11, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I wasn't intentionally ignoring you, sorry. I think we should find and list usable sources for Callie & Marie and Pearl & Marina beforehand, to see that we actually have enough to write anything.--IDVtalk 09:41, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Splatoon (series) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 11:03, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

added a question

[edit]

should we mabeye put a link to inkipidea? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DuckDog67 (talk • contribs) 14:38, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DuckDog67, the majority of external, fan-generated wikis like that should be avoided per WP:ELNO. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:52, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Proposal

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The consensus of this discussion was keep. 22:37, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

I propose to merge the content of Inkling (Splatoon) into this article. The Inkling article's content should really be part of the Gameplay and Development sections of this article, it's mostly a Wikipedia:REDUNDANTFORK.

Birko bird (talk) 11:00, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support, cull the concept and creation (general copyediting and focus on brevity) and reception sections (crap like John Smith voted them the 14th most popular character in 2019), remove the abilities section (WP:GAMECRUFT), and I'd see no reason why this couldn't just be a condensed section on the series article. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:42, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Per WP:NEXIST. The article in its current state is rather poorly sourced (in terms of substantive coverage) but there are numerous actually substantial articles out there on Inklings that have yet to be included at all. Overall, it appears like a notable fictional species.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 10:14, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Merge into Splatoon instead of this article. What I thought was substantive content were actually interviews therefore not WP:SECONDARY. A section on the universe can be added to Splatoon.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 00:06, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Interviews are not necessarily primary or secondary in the strictest sense and need to be assessed for their nuances on a case by case basis, and so I find the advice provided by the WP:Interview essay in that regard helpful. A straightforward transcript which simply regurgitates a roughly transcluded conversation between the participants is more likely to be primary in nature and unhelpful for the purpose of demonstrating notability. However, a lengthy article presented as a feature, where the author's critical opinion is interspersed with commentary from the developers in the same manner done by a lot of eminent journalistic sources, I would consider it secondary and definitely reliable. In any event, since the nominator's primary concern is that it is a content fork with little coverage on the article that is specifically devoted to the topic in question, I found three articles which discuss the Inklings in a level of detail not seen in either the franchise article or the current version of the article. I am positive there are more, need to keep looking. The reception section isn't crash hot, but it is adequate for a C Class article and contributes towards notability. Haleth (talk) 01:21, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, Splatoon Is Set After A Climate Apocalypse - author's analysis of developmental/background information
Interview Game Informer interview - has information covering the creation of the Inklings' language and the developers' view on crossover media appearances
What do Squid Kids Eat? Splatoon’s Producer Explains - author's analysis of in-universe info and subject biology
  • I see. Sometimes we may disagree on what is actually notable but in this case it really does seem adequate, and I think my original assessment may have been correct. I will retract my retraction and stick to my original statement then.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 01:45, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Tofu as characters and sources

[edit]

My source for the tofu info as playable characters is broken and I dont know how to fix it, help! Ashiboio (talk) 11:24, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can't remove the original source that covers the rest. This presentation says they "eventually called" the cubes "tofu", not that they were designed to be tofu as main characters. This was just a nick name for the featureless cubes. -- ferret (talk) 13:11, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see, I didnt know that. Thank you! Ashiboio (talk) 14:45, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Splatoon_(video_game)&oldid=1243059083"