Jump to content

Talk:Wario Land: Shake It!/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

New title

Wario Land: The Shake Dimension? I heard the title "Wario Land Shake" but not the Shake Dimension. Where does the new title come from? Superluigi821 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.42.50.223 (talk) 23:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
It was rated by the OFLC, and that was the English name given. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
U.S. title is Wario Land; Shake It! I provided a source as well.AlexanderLD (talk) 13:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
So why is the Oceanic title being given primary-ance over US and Japanese names? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.70.113 (talk) 03:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Captain Syrup?

Is that Captain Syrup in the picture in Reference 3? GEM036 (talk) 03:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes. - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Awsome GEM036 (talk) 19:51, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I know, isn't it? - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:29, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Remember..this is not a forum. Just put the new information on the page, and be done with it!Chaoshi (talk) 18:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

uh isnt merleda's servant the cute lil' kid the escaped and beged to wario to help (How can wario resist that cute lil' voice and face?)-67.87.96.255 (talk) 11:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Release

Japan is in July 24, Europe is September 26, U.S. is September 29 (I found a source) Australia is still unknown AlexanderLD (talk) 13:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

New information

Nintendo issued some statements about the game recently. Some things they mentioned included the fact that each level has multiple missions. Source: http://gonintendo.com/?p=47484 82.32.90.49 (talk) 18:13, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Official Title

On the Nintendo Press Site, the game was called "Wario Land: Shake It!" I think the article should be titled that because, once the box art is revealed, we will use the U.S. version.AlexanderLD (talk) 21:39, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't you mean "we will use the U.S. version because..." and then a reason? Being the U.S. name is hardly a reason to use the U.S. name. The game is being released as Wario Land: The Shake Dimension first, and it's being released in Europe first. There's absolutely no reason to call it Wario Land: Shake It!. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
That is not always true. I think on the Wii Sports page, the PAL cover is used, even though it came out in America first. For Mario Kart Wii, the U.S. version is used, even though we got it last. By you saying "and it's being released in Europe first." it doesn't support your point. At the very least, can Wario Land: Shake It! be redirected to this page?AlexanderLD (talk) 11:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
  1. "Other articles do this" is not an argument to do something.
  2. It does redirect? - A Link to the Past (talk) 16:29, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
  1. My point is that just because the European version will come out first doesn't mean we have to use its title. I said how it doesn't matter in what came first, examples were Wii Sports, and Mario Kart.
  2. It doesn't redirect. It would be helpful when someone in the U.S. wants to read about this game this article would come up. Where are you from U.K.?AlexanderLD (talk) 12:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
  1. And what reason do you provide for the North American title?
  2. Both titles "Wario Land: Shake It!" and "Wario Land: Shake It" redirect, how does the title not redirect there?
  3. That's really none of your business, but I live in Minnesota in the United States. - A Link to the Past (talk) 16:25, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Both redirects do work, I've just come here through them :) Tphi (talk) 15:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Uhhh... considering most places, including the Super Mario Wiki, are using the title Wario Land: Shake It!, shouldn't wikipedia use it. GEM036 (talk) 01:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, since the Article's Boxart uses the Shake It! title, shouldn't the article title match. This sems like ignorance. GEM036 (talk) 01:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

So, just curious, did your search involve looking at anything other than "web sites/resources based in the United States"? You cited a fan wiki, whose policy is to give America preference in all cases? Wikipedia is not biased, and to attribute this to ignorance is one of the most laughable things I have ever heard. Oh, silly me to think that a user insisting that a name should be used JUST because it's the American title.
And no, since the title of the article was there before the box art, it shouldn't. The title of the game does not have to match the box art, and the only reason the box art is how it is is because there were not PAL box arts yet, and at present, the only box art with this title has a cosmetic border around it, and once an appropriate boxart appears for the PAL version, we'll switch it. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Geez, why are you always so "Sarcastically Isulting" in your responses? You could just say it and be done with it. GEM036 (talk) 18:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

We should use the US name because this is the US Wikipedia. So there... Chaoshi (talk) 19:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

It's actually the English Wikipedia. Still, I think we need to go with either the title under which the game is first released (Shake) or the US title because it's the title under which the most copies will likely sell. Rhindle The Red (talk) 03:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  1. Nintendogs - 7 million/4 million
  2. Brain Training - 2.5 million/1.3 million
  3. More Brain Training - 2 million/1.1 million
Left = PAL sales, right = US sales. Have you seen the European sales charts? The top ten for the United Kingdom has 9/10 games for the Wii. And the DS sells 200,000 on average per WEEK, that means that an average month is about 800,000 across the PAL regions, while in the US, the DS sold 723,000 in the month where GHOT's bundle was released. Your logic of "better sales" is faulty and could never be true, and in all likelihood, because of the limited sales info available, it wouldn't be a very citable figure. And because Wario Land: The Shake Dimension was known to many because it was announced under this title long before Wario Land: Shake It! appeared, and was the only title known to people in English regions. The reason to change the title is very weak - the only reason provided, for the most part, is "it's the US title". - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, I think you've made some odd choices there. Those are all DS games, not Wii titles. And they are *very* different kinds of games than what we are talking about. Take a more reasonable comparison (a first party platform title for the Wii). "Super Paper Mario" sold .58 million in Japan, 1.12 million in North America and .7 million in the rest of the world. [1]. It's fair to assume that with 2 million more Wiis sold in NA than in Europe and other regions (besides Japan) that Super Paper Mario numbers are a more reasonable expectation for this title's success than the ones you've cited. (BTW, where are your numbers from? They are considerably different (although with the same basic region breakdown) as the ones I can find.)
It's also fair to point out that the majority of the English-speaking game media is based in the US and "Shake It" will be the more common title used. A Yahoo! search shows a much higher occurance of "Shake It" than "The Shake Dimension". I think we need to go with the English name most people will be familiar with and I think that will be "Shake It". Rhindle The Red (talk) 20:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
You cited a NeoGAF forum member's site, a site which uses estimates based on the number of copies shipped. And just to make it clear - your entire argument is based solely on speculation. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't know what "NeoGAF" is, so that comment means nothing to me. You, meanwhile, have still not provided a source for your numbers, which are for titles completely dissimilar and unrelated to this one. Please provide the source for your numbers and I will gladly replace the VGChartz ones with the ones your source provides. While they may be different, I feel it is likely they will show the same basic breakdown. If your source shows differently (i.e. that the EU sales are higher than the NA sales) I will gladly retract that as an argument.
As for my argument being based solely on speculation, no, I don't think it is. I think it is based on the notion that numbers for this game will be similar to numbers for another game, for which I provided a source, and that the more commonly used title is the one that should be used. Your argument, on the other hand, seems to basically be "this was here first, so should be here forever". That is, of course, patently untrue. I agree that the argument that the US title should predominate simply for being the US title is silly, but you have not been able to counter other, more valid, arguments that support the name change. Rhindle The Red (talk) 01:41, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Your argument can only work if it applies to every single video game article ever made. And it IS patently true. Wikipedia guidelines say that if a title is stable, and without any good reason to move (and potential better sales is NOT a good reason to move), it should stay where it is. - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:00, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
A more commonly used title *is* a reason to move. The sales (along with the Yahoo! search) are just a way to indicate which is the more commonly used title. Rhindle The Red (talk) 06:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
And yeah, it's not even OUT and you're saying its sales figures and common usage is reason enough. I doubt you'll be able to sufficiently establish that this unreleased title will sell better in the US, and even if it does, you have to show that it's so much better selling than the EU title that it warrants moving. - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
My point is that sales and common usage *can* be viable arguments for moving the title. You seem to feel that it would be very hard to justify the move; I disagree. But you are right, the title has not yet come out. Past performance is no guarantee of future results. So I will not move the title now (not that I was going to without consensus, anyway), but we'll revisit this in, say, January, when it will be clearer what is the most common English language title. Rhindle The Red (talk) 14:18, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Wow, that's pretty sad. You're going to plan an agenda to move a title with the basis that "it might sell better in the US!". You have no reason to expect that it will sell better, so may I just assume that since your basis is nonexistent, all you really care about is using the US title because it's the US title? You have to establish that the disparity between the two titles' common usage and sales is so great that the title needs to be changed. Which means that either it has to bomb in PAL regions, or do exceptionally well in North America. And looking back, both Brain Trainings sold exceptionally well in PAL regions, much more so than they did in North America. In fact, the NA release of Brain Training was actually criticized by Iwata for being low compared to North America - Hell, the original title is still one of the best-selling games in PAL regions, not one of the best-selling DS titles, but one of the best-selling titles week to week. Not so much with North America, where it's not even one of the top-selling DS titles month to month. But guess what? It remains at Brain Age and Brain Age 2 respectively, because the articles have been at those titles and have been stable for a very long time. You better be able to prove very strongly that the North American title is significantly more well-known by January, and on top of that, you better be able to establish that the disparity is SO great, that the title must be changed, so yes, it IS very hard to justify the move - "it sold one more copy" or "it has one more Google hit" are not valid arguments. You have to establish that the NA title sold exceptionally well, to the point where leaving it at this title would be BAD, or establish that the PAL title sold exceptionally bad, to the point where leaving it there would be bad for the article. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Look, I've been respectful with you, but you have not shown the same level of good faith with me. I specifically said that I did *not* have any plans to try and move this title. I said that I felt this issue could be revisited at a later date, not that I had an "agenda". And I gave you a reason why I expect that it will sell better in the US, but you refused to acknowledge it. You have accused me of just "wanting the US title" despite the fact that I never said that and the fact that I gave you very specific (and supported) reasons why I thought "Shake It!" *could* be the more appropriate title. Far from me being the one who is being single-minded, you seem to have some sort of issue with this kind of US/UK title discrepancy to the point where you lash out first, listen to arguments later. (See below.) The difference between us is that I have no problem with the title staying where it is if that's the right one. You seem unwilling (or extremely reluctant) to accept that there could ever be a valid reason to move. And please do not think that you are in the position to dictate if, when or under what conditions this page will move. Wikipedia is collaborative and hostile attitudes are not generally welcomed.
But to clarify it for you, after the title has been out for a while, I will check to see which title is more commonly used. If I feel that the title should be changed, I will officially propose it (using a tag on the page to increase the number of opinions) at that time. If there are not enough responses to achieve consensus (meaning not just you and me and a couple of others), I'll list a request for comment. Either way, a decision will be made and we'll move forward collaboratively. Rhindle The Red (talk) 18:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, the fact that you have been fighting to change the title to the US title because of a nonexistent argument of "it might sell better". I'm not reluctant that it can't sell better, I'm reluctant that you can establish that leaving it at this title would be bad for Wikipedia. There's one fact you need to accept, that naming conventions say that if an article's title is stable, it doesn't need to be moved, and quite frankly, the North American title selling better does NOT establish instability. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Glad to see you've taken that request to accept my comments in good faith to heart. It would be nice if you would acknowledge what I actually say, rather than what you want to hear.
I have not fought "to change the title to the US title" at all. I have merely stated my opinion that we should either go with the original Japanese title or the more common English title, which I believe will ultimately prove to be "Shake It!". I have even stated that I would defer that until the question is settled. My argument is not "nonexistant" it is viable and backed by sources. You only call it nonexistant because you do not agree with it. (This is called "acting in bad faith".) I have specifically said that I will not push for a rename unless and until my projections concerning sales and usage prove true.
You have not backed up anything you have said, right down to these "naming conventions" you keep mentioning. Please show me where Wikipedia's policys, guidelines or manual of style agree with you. (As with my request for your sales numbers, which went unheeded, I really want to know. I couldn't find it.) I know nothing of this "instability" question you are speaking of. Rhindle The Red (talk) 19:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
[1] - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:57, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. Unfortunately, that doesn't actually support your position. This article is only two months old and has only been at its current title since early June. That is hardly long enough to qualify it as being "stable for a long time". As this title has not been "stable for a long time", a discussion to determine a correct title according to this guideline on naming conflicts seems appropriate. That guideline states "If the name of an inanimate or non-human entity is disputed by two jurisdictions and one or more English-language equivalents exists, use the commonest English-language name." If research shows "Shake It!" to be the "commonest English name", it would, therefore, be appropriate to move it. Rhindle The Red (talk) 20:57, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
So you suddenly have the power to establish how long a "long time" is? And you're citing one part of a naming conventions but ignoring another? By January, it WILL be stable for a long time. Like I've said so many times, being slightly more common is not a good reason to move a stable article. It is known as The Shake Dimension in Australia, New Zealand, all of Europe, and South Africa. That naming convention cannot override mine. It has to be a good reason - that is, a reason so compelling that it would establish that it would be wrong to NOT move it. And besides American bias (Wii games sell equally as well or better in Europe, thanks), there's no reason to make an agenda and assume that your stance on an unreleased game's sales. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
I do have the right to hold an opinion on how long "a long time" is. And I think most would agree with me. (Where it is in January is irrelevant. *Right now* it has not been stable for "a long time"). Please feel free to ask some admins whether less than two months qualifies as "stable for a long time".
My position, if you would take the time to check, is that I think it will be more than "slightly more common".
Today from Yahoo!: "Wario Land: The Shake Dimension" - 998,000[2] / "Wario Land: Shake It!" - 1,870,000 [3]
Today from Google: "Wario Land: The Shake Dimension" - 293,000 [4] / "Wario Land: Shake It!" - 385,000 [5]
Today from MSN search: "Wario Land: The Shake Dimension" - 50,000 [6] / "Wario Land: Shake It!" - 170,000 [7]
That is not "slightly more common". That is significantly more common, in my opinion. I also think that the numbers will only favor "Shake It!" more as we approach release. (After all, as you yourself pointed out, it's been around a shorter period of time, but has already become more common.)
And I will ask you to stop accusing me of bias. I have done nothing to indicate it. It shows your continuing lack of good faith. I have ignored nothing and I have treated your views with respect. I ask that you do the same.
And here's my last point for now. If you take everything you have said at face value and accept that there is no reason to move this title now or even in January if I am proven correct, then there was no real reason to move it before and it should still be at Wario Land: Shake - the title that was *first* revealed, the title *you* started this article under and an option I also endorsed, btw. (Which should settle your nonsensical "American bias" charge.)
But, regardless of what you think, I have only the accuracy and viability of the encyclopedia in mind. Call it an "agenda" if that makes you feel better, but I will abide by my original plan and may (or may not) revisit this at a later date. Rhindle The Red (talk) 23:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
  1. Besides the fact that Google hits are purely anecdotal and are far too weak to be a front-running reason to move an article, less than 1 million hits does NOT constitute it being "significantly more common". And on top of this, your Google hits also establish that The Shake Dimension is also a common title. Hell, Google's search for the two titles shows hardly any disparity - less than 100k is hardly a significant difference.
  2. No real reason to move from a non-English title to an English title? The guideline that you cited says to use English titles, is that not a real reason right when it backs me up? - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

ALTTP, let's be honest. Had the U.S. and PAL names come out at the same time, teh U.S. name would get priority. You seem to forget that despite Wiki-equality, the U.S. name automatically recieves more importance. The only reason the PAL name is being used is because it showed up a little before the U.S. title. You seem to think that your stubburness is ALWAYS reason enough to do what you say, but if we took this to a vote, which we SHOULD!, the U.S. name would be the one on top. And what's more is that the U.S. version is coming out BEFORE the PAL version. So how about we take this to a vote and see what happens. GEM036 (talk) 00:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

So basically, I'm stubborn because I don't think that Wikipedia should consider "being the US title" as a top priority argument for a naming convention. Yeah, that's great circle logic, be biased because of past bias. The reason we use EVERY SINGLE TITLE on EVERY SINGLE ARTICLE is either it started with it, or editors decided that there was a need to move it to where it is now. NOT because "it's the US title". Your proposition is so blatantly far and away from anything even vaguely, remotely resembling equality, and is through-and-through saying that we should use the US title JUST because it's the US title. You already admitted that the bias towards US titles is in spite of how Wikipedia should work, and you're saying that we should go against how Wikipedia should work just because other people do so? That's like saying you can break the law because other people do so as well. The title will not be changed "because it's a US title lol", and I can hardly take you seriously anymore.
And two things - one, your discussion of a "vote" - if a DISCUSSION, not a vote, took place, and none of the editors who only care about the title being US-centric (ie you) were able to provide an extremely compelling reason, which does not include the origins of the title, Google hits, or slightly better sales (and no, if both versions sell, say, more than 10 million, but Wario Land Shake It does one million more, that is NOT a compelling reason to move - you must establish that the title it's at right now is bad, not that another title is good). If everyone "voted" for Wario Land Shake It! and had no compelling reason to do so, consensus rules say that the discussion would default to keeping it at the current title. It would be like if there was an AfD, and everyone "voted" Delete except for a few dissenters, if the delete "voters" didn't give an argument while the keep "voters" provided very compelling arguments why the article shouldn't be deleted, it will be kept.
And on the subject of release date, being released three days before the Australian version establishes a need to move? Funny how when the European version was coming before the North American version, you were for moving regardless. So an earlier release date is not a good reason to keep it where it is, but when the order of release is changed, it's all of a sudden a good reason to move a stable article? Do you have a single reason why the title it's at is unstable? - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Okay, we need to get this formalized. I, ultimately, don't care which title this lands at, so I've put in a request to move and started a discussion area below. I will remind all participants to remain civil in this discussion and stick to valid points, not just "cause I wanna". Hopefully, we can get some additional opinions and come to a consensus on this. Rhindle The Red (talk) 01:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.vgchartz.com/games/game.php?id=4448

Cover

Don't you think that the article needs the games cover, and at least one screen? I know the cover's been released, i saw it on some French game site. Do you need it?  Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R.  02:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

 Done Megata Sanshiro (talk) 10:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you!  Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R.  17:13, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Title Error

why is the article's title "Wario Land: The Shake Dimension"? it wasn't sourced so I added a tag. the box art says "Wario Land: Shake It", isn't that the real title? anyway, either the title or the box art needs to be fixed so that it actually makes since, the article is very confusing and no reason is given why the first title is used over the one on the box art, it should be in the intro or something. cordially, 74.215.110.151 (talk) 01:21, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Because Shake Dimension is the first title announced, and how many times do you see "evidence" that the North American title is the proper title? Almost never, since editors are largely American, and thusly, article naming is biased. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
well, then that makes no difference for this article. as an american myself, how am I to know that this is the european title? i'm basically the man-off-the-street, and the man-off-the-street isn't likely to know right off the top of his head that this is the one article on wikipedia that doesn't go by an american title (and that there's a bias to begin with). there should at least be a section somewhere explaining why the european title was used over the american title, otherwise us americans may think the title was changed on us. I read your arguments above, and I say to you, "There is also no reason why the american title can't be used". Either the article's title is changed to the american name, or the european box art is used and a sentence put somewhere in the intro explaining to the average, uninformed user (who wikipedia is supposed to cater to anyway, I didn't think this was a game site where everyone is "in the Know") that "Wario Land:The Shake Dimension" is the european title. I don't mean to get carried away, but if there is a bias then something should be done to solve that bias, not stubbornly promote it by saying "it's been biased in favor of one side forever, and now is our chance to get revenge by being equally biased". I apologize for my frankness, but I strongly feel something must be done. cordially, 74.215.110.151 (talk) 02:04, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry for forgetting that Americans should be treated special. If it has to be explained why one title is used over another English title, then it has to be done in EVERY SINGLE CASE. The only reason you care is because you're American and want an American title. There isn't a PAL box art yet that is presentable, and so we used the next best representation for the box art. You're in no position to make ultimatums. Would you ask the same for when a North American title is used over the PAL title? Probably not. People in the PAL region would be just as confused at that. And wow, bias? I'm really sick of ignorant American Wikipedians who call it biased to NOT use the North American title. You're not the first person to object on the basis of "USA #1!". If it weren't for the fact that all you care about is that the American title is not being used, I'd take your complaints more seriously. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't appreciate your attitude towards this. I offered an alternate solution (replacing the box art with the european version and a simple explanation why the european version is preferred) besides changing the title, but you met it with sarcasm, negativity, and rudeness. if I were a more hot-headed person, I would report you (I know editors aren't supposed to act the way you just acted). instead, I ask that you apologize immediately for your attitude and remarks, or I will register and will report you. now, as I said, we have the second option. what is wrong with using the european box art for consistency's sake? just because you have a tiff with the system doesn't mean you should make a WP:POINT (yes, I know about that, I do edit around here from time to time as an "ignorant" american) and dismiss me. i'll even look for the european box art and figure out how upload it myself if need be. all i'm saying is that the article and the common reader should not suffer because you think it should be one way and I think it should be another; we are both fully capable of compromise, no matter how "ignorant" an american I am. cordially, 74.215.110.151 (talk) 02:36, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
I apologize for the statements. But what explanation do you provide to change a stable article's title? And I said that you were an "ignorant American" because, honestly, would you have objected to any North American title? I need to provide an explanation no more than others do for North American titles. The first English title was The Shake Dimension, The Shake Dimension is coming mere days after Shake It!, and there simply is no reason to move it at this point. The notice is more than enough to tell readers of why it's at the title that it's at. Both are legitimate titles, and the mere fact that The Shake Dimension is the FIRST legitimate title is enough to warrant it being here. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the apology; I think we can both agree that conflict is something we want to avoid, this is really a trivial matter. You do make a valid point, but again, how many readers will know where your notice is? I suppose we can set that aside however, and hope that the game's release will clear things up. in other words, that by then most american readers (we decidedly aren't the most intelligent people in the world, and I agree there is some bias in favor of americans here, but I take great offense when I'm lumped in with the majority) realize that the title here is european. the more important issue at hand is consistency. I will no longer argue the title, but I believe that if we use the title from one region, we must also use the equivalent box art. I tried to find the european box art myself, but was unsuccessful, so it likely hasn't been revealed (unless I didn't look hard enough). therefore, I only ask if we can agree that when the european box art is revealed, it be used in the article. if I find it, I will try to post a link to it here for others to upload (the process looks like a jungle at first glance, I'd rather someone else more knowledgeable did it). anyway, I apologize to you for coming across as ignorant; I strive to create a good impression with everyone I meet, online or otherwise (excuse the typing, but don't expect it to improve). cordially, 74.215.110.151 (talk) 03:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I've personally seen the PAL box art. But the quality isn't good enough to be used. - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Then we'll just have to wait for a better image. in retrospect, I brought this up too soon for the solution to be implemented; I wonder if it would have made a difference if I had decided to wait a month before posting. anyway, sorry for taking up your time, we both got a little hot under the collar, but all in all no harm done. cordially, 74.215.110.151 (talk) 03:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Is the qualitiy of this box art good enough? --Grandy02 (talk) 14:02, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to change the current box art. Any box art is acceptable but this one was uploaded first. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 00:09, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

It's for consistency, to match the title. It confuses the reader if the box art doesn't match the title. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:17, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
The two titles are indicated in the lead AND in the infobox. There is no reason to be confused. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 22:37, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
To play devil's advocate, why is changing the box art to match the title considered acceptable, but not changing the title to match the box art? Pagrashtak 20:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Because it was at this title before the box art was there, and the box art was left there because we didn't have an appropriate substitute. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Can't we use both covers? --(trogga) 04:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I tried it on another article, but it was believed that there could not be an appropriate fair use rationale to have two depictions of the game's box art. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:03, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Really? Somehow the article for Dragon Quest IV: Chapters of the Chosen was able to get away with using two box arts in the infobox, but that could be because one of them is a remake. While I'm here, I thought I'd give my opinion on the title. If the North American title is used first for an article, I think it should be used. If the European title was used first, as the case here appears to be, then I think that should be used. The only time I think the North American title should always be used is with the main Dragon Quest games (such as the one I linked to), since the European titles are basically the North American ones without the numbering, though that doesn't apply here. --Evice (talk) 20:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Whoops, forgot to mention that I think that the European box art linked to previously should be used in this article (to match the title) if both the North American and European box art can't be used at the same time. It's kind of inconsistent to use the title from one region and the box art from another. --Evice (talk) 20:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I just ran a little test and googled "Wario Shake". The PAL title didn't come up until page 6 of the results, and then again on page 8. Unless you count this article which showed up on page 1 :) The title is probably a little confusing for most users, but it's only a video game...66.194.50.2 (talk) 20:38, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus, default to no move. JPG-GR (talk) 21:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Wario Land: The Shake Dimension → Wario Land: Shake It! — It is the more common English title. — Rhindle The Red (talk) 01:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

Support

  • Support. It's not out of bias, it's out of being consistant. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and normally uses the N.A. names. Since all articles are supposed to be consistant, it would be in the article's best interest to use the N.A. name. GEM036 (talk) 04:33, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. "Shake It!" is already the most common title being used and will likely only grow more common as we approach release. Being the first English title announced is not strong enough reason to retain this title, especially given the fact that it will release in NA first. Rhindle The Red (talk) 13:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. If we're not going to use the PAL cover, why should we use the PAL title? --(trogga) 02:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
    • That's a reason to change the boxart, not the title. We're using the PAL title because it was the way the article was named in the first place. If you think it can be changed because of the box art, why don't you simply propose we change the box art? - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

  • Oppose. I personally oppose that the name be changed to suit the americans. The PAL version box art was the only one i could find, but i am keeping an eye out for the Australian PAL version box art. The PAL version name of Wario Land will be used a lot more because a lot of the players of the game are from countries that use the PAL television system e.g Australia, Europe, the UK, Germany, Italy etc. Besides, the PAL version name sounds better and the PAL box art is a lot better then the NA version. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theprophet08 (talk • contribs) 03:35, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. As Wario Land The Shake Dimension was the first english language title announced for this game changing the title would cause confusion, it is clearly stated in the first line of the article what the game is called in the various regions Golden Dragoon (talk) 10:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

In response to TheProphet08, where are you getting this information? You are stating that it "Sounds Better" and "Looks Better", which is not relevent to the discussion. And numbers show that the N.A. title is more commonly used. GEM036 (talk) 04:39, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Um, what? You need to understand Wikipedia better. "Consistency?" There's not one Wikipedia policy that exists or ever will exist that suggests we should name every video game by its North American title. Your logic suggests that even if a title sells almost nothing in North America but sells, say, 20 million in Europe, if it was made in Europe, if it came out in Europe first, it should be at the NA title, in spite of the fact that there's really nothing that would suggest it would be good for the article. There is no such thing as "title consistency". The politics for naming a title are exclusive for EACH article. Brain Age may have a valid reason to be named what it is, but Brain Age 2 was inappropriately placed where it is in the name of consistency. You'd be hardpressed to find any guideline or policy encouraging consistency. Article titles are where they are depending on varying factors, but the name of another title is NOT one of those factors. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:02, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Contrary to what some supporters suggest, we do *not* always use the American name on Wikipedia. We use the most common title. A perfect example is Sega Mega Drive. If that position were true, it would be Sega Genesis. But as "Mega Drive" was used not only in Europe, but also in Japan, it is the most common title. With three competing English titles (Japan, US, Europe), we need to choose the one most likely to be used by the general public and by readers of the Wikipedia. At this point it seems clear that it will be "Shake It!".
I agree that just because other articles use the NA name is not a reason to move. But they can serve as an indicator that editors in the past have agreed that when the NA name is the most common, that title should be used. Specific comparisons would be required.Rhindle The Red (talk) 13:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Theprophet08, I agree with the above that "sounds better" and "looks better" are hardly valid reasons for keeping the title where it is. And please do not imply that we are just trying to "suit the Americans". You may disagree with the positions given, but there has been no indication that it is just for the sake of the American name prevailing. Rhindle The Red (talk) 13:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Golden Dragoon, you fail to explain why there would be confusion. As I have stated before, the article has existed for only about two months and has not yet been at its current title for that long. It's hardly a well-established article. Moving it now would ease any confusion that could potentially arise down the road. Besides, Wikipedia is a dynamic place. Articles move all the time. Confusion is not really an issue here. Rhindle The Red (talk) 13:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
ALTTP, I find it odd that you would bring up Brain Age 2, as you were essentially suggesting there what we are suggesting here. You had some pretty solid arguments, but the discussion just kind of petered out. You should have formalized it as I have here. Rhindle The Red (talk) 13:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I bring up Brain Age 2 because it was an example of a game that is definitely more well-known in the here and now in PAL regions than in North America. However, I find it hard to assume good faith when you were talking about "oh I'll wait till January", and when I bring up the issue of stability, you suddenly change your mind. I don't see how showing that between two well-known titles, that one has more Google hits, establishes instability. The problem with Brain Age 2 is not that I didn't formalize it properly, it's that the article was not unstable, which is why I never bothered to bring the issue back up anymore. I don't have to establish why this article should stay where it's at, you have to establish why it shouldn't. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:56, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Rhindle The Red, As I stated I think that as The Shake Dimension was the first announced English title, that changing it at this point would cause confusion, I personaly had never heard the game mentioned as anthing other than T.S.D. until reading this article, and if this wario game follows the precedent of Wario World it will sell more copys in PAL regions (unable to remember issue number, but nGamer (at the time NGC Magazine) stated sortly after the release of WW that the EU sales were higher than the US sales). However I would like to point out that were the situation different, (google hits significatly more, or sales figures) I would not be opposed to changing the title of the main article, whilst obviously keeping redirects from T.S.D and mentioning in the first line the PAL title, just as the US title is mentioned in the first line of the curent page. Golden Dragoon (talk) 23:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
And on the point of sales, your whole point is that "video games sell better typically in the US than PAL". It is true that people buy more games in the States than in PAL, but like Nintendogs and the Brain Training titles selling better in PAL doesn't reflect on this title, video games selling better typically doesn't, either. Video games selling better in general doesn't matter if Wario Land games don't sell better in general, and I see nothing to establish that. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:03, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Chaoshi other articles do use PAL titles where it can be shown that the tile is in wider use, or where sales figures have indicated that the game has sold more under the PAL\AUS\JAP titles, just off the top of my head is Colin McRae DiRT, which is titled simply DiRT elsewhere but the article uses the PAL name. Golden Dragoon (talk) 00:01, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Colin McRae: DiRT uses the PAL name because it was developed by English developers for an English publisher. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Both are fine, so we can stick with the current title. "Well, it's marginally more popular in [region foo]" isn't enough of an argument to shift the status quo. Also, discussion always wins because voting is dumb. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:25, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I can accept that. As long as it's the Majority vote, I shall not question it! GEM036 (talk) 05:58, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

This isn't a vote. If there were five supports and three opposes, it could lose if an admin decides that the argument for moving was not substantial enough. It's not based on "majority rule". - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:22, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
A Man In Bl♟ck, in that case we should immediatly rename this article Wario Rando Sheiku (Japanese game, Japanese developer, Japanese Publisher), I jest :). Whilst it is true that it is a game developed in England, I beleive that it is simply the fact that the game is more known for the Colin McRae dirt name and is thus titled that, in any case, I see no reason to argue\discuss this any more as until something happens that changes the status quo. Golden Dragoon (talk) 07:50, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 2

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus, default to no move. JPG-GR (talk) 05:20, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Wario Land: The Shake Dimension → Wario Land: Shake It! — First off, there is potential for confusion between the PAL title in the article and the NA title featured in the article's primary image. Also, the official NA title predates the PAL title. Google also hits on NA title outnumber PAL title 3.6 million to 850 thousand (39:1). This qualifies the article to utilize the NA title in accordance with WP naming conventions. — -- TRTX T / C 16:15, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Survey (2)

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

Support (2)

  • Support: My opinion is based on those points illustrated above. Furthmore, all conversations suggesting a rename have wide support by multiple editors, but appear to be "steamrolled" in a sense by a single disagreeing editor. I'd perform the move myself, but due to this continuing guarding of the page, it's impossible to form any kind of consensus...as any discussions are filibustered into deadlock. -- TRTX T / C 16:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Support per Prince of Darkness.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 10:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Support we should always default to the American name. It is the newest et les enfants d'aujourd'hui ont plus options a s'amuser que les enfants meme il ya a dix ans.

Oppose (2)

  • Oppose. This has been discussed to death, and it has never resulted in a consensus to move. Furthermore, I might suggest TRTX to cease his accusations of bad faith - me steamrolling the discussion? It was not moved for the reason that more people disagreed with the move, and ignoring that is an act of bad faith to make the opposition look bad. At no point am I acting alone to oppose a move, anyone who clearly examined the discussions would see that the supporters are in the minority, and considering that since the Discussion header for this directed to the first discussion to move the page, you have to have known about it. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:38, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Arguments in favour of moving are not substantive. The release dates are very similar, it is not an issue. The Google hits argument is not grounded in reality at all, try searching yourself for related terms and you'll find Wario results including "shake it" and "shake dimension" do not have a wide margin of disparity. Shake Dimension is a valid English language name for a whole swathe of the population, the article can exist perfectly fine here. - hahnchen 15:53, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per all previous discussions. Each time there was no consensus to move. It seems the only unstability in this article is the one generated by people who want to move the article, rather than something resulting from confusion or a lack of clarity in the article. I'd like to note that there *might* be some logic to changing the cover art (to match the article name), but there isn't much reasons to move the article name itself. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 18:11, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
My original confusion, which lead to this, came from the inconsistent use of title and art combined with the fact that my original Wiki search of "Wario Land: Shake It" lead to a "Page does not exist" (I have since created it as a redirect). Having reviewed previous discussions, I came to the conclusion that there was a deadlock as to which should be changed. Thus I opened this in the hopes that the conversation would result in SOMETHING being changed. I have gone on record in the discussion as stating that if the easier/better change is the Box Art than that's the way to go. -- TRTX T / C 19:06, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Then I support changing the cover art. Consistency is a good argument. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 16:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Discussion (2)

Any additional comments:
  • Viewing the page history, I see that A Link to the Past appears to be the original creator of the article. Which gives me the feeling that there may be an unintentional situation of WP:OWN. I know that this is sometimes treated as a pretty rough accusation, but that is the impression I'm left with. Further exploring the history, I have found this, which is the original move to "Wario Land: Shake It!", which was reverted by the original creator. Another attempt here is subsequently reverted here. Note that each reversion is the same editor, while attempted renames are different ones. The author championing the PAL title also claims here that there is no "instability" even though multiple editors have voiced a disagreement. -- TRTX T / C 16:36, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Have you seen the previous move proposal, two months ago? There was no consensus there; what makes you think things will be different now? 81.98.251.134 (talk) 16:54, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
If the result had been decidedly one way or another than a reopening of the discussion wouldn't be neccesary, but since there was nothing but a deadlock...I feel the appropriate action is to reopen the discusion. Especially now since we have more facts (release dates, google hits, etc). The Google hits (coming in at nearly 40:1) should be more than sufficient to demonstrate that the NA title is the most widely recognized and used.
Also, application of WP:ENGVAR doesn't really seem to fit here, as the issue isn't the language, but rather the title (which is the most important part of the article). -- TRTX T / C 17:12, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
TRTX, your only argument you're pushing seems to be bias. Well, I guess considering you're from Minnesota, USA, you just want to get the article moved to the American title, since you're biased towards America. And my God, people disagree with me? Wow, way to do research! That's some good evidence. I mean, you didn't bother to point out that many people participated in the first discussion, several in support of a move and in opposition as well. Several editors disagreed that it's unstable, why don't you acknowledge them? A default to keep the article this title by that discussion, by the way, is not a good reason to bring it up every other day until you get lucky and hope people get sick of you kicking and screaming until USA is #1. The fact that you acknowledged that the debate exists makes me ask why you think I'm the only one in agreement with the title. Seriously, we don't need anymore Amerophiles on Wikipedia - you're clearly twisting the history of these discussions around to fit your contorted debate - no discussion resulted in any favor that would suggest we need to continue this discussion. Your evidence is no different from that evidence provided during the first discussion. You are obligated to give evidence to support a move, to form a consensus in favor of moving (which means like 8 to 3, not 5 to 4), and the fact that you ignored that more people opposed the move than that supported it shows me that you just want to move the page and damn the other arguments. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:38, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
No where in my opinion do I suggest nationality is an issue. My suggestion of bias stems from the fact that you created the article, and thus might unitentionally feel you "know what's best" for it. In your previous arguments, you suggest that "there is no instability" because none was established early in the articles life. However I provide examples of where this is actually more than demonstrated (multiple attempts to rename/move by multiple editors that are continually reverted by you and you alone). I attempted to dissect the orignal move discussion, but came away from it with the opinion that there WAS no consensus, and instead one (especially vocal) user managed to piledrive their point home (primarily by using this same manner of over the top emotional response and cries of regional bias). Just because you can yell the loudest doesn't mean what you're yelling is right.
I also take offense to the fact that you automatically begin screaming some form of ethnocentricism on my part simply because I'm an American. This isn't about "us vs. them", it's about following Wikipolicy and establishing the best article available. Coming in and shouting "first'd" doesn't mean the original article title is correct, accurate, or the best representation. What part of 39:1 don't you understand? It's obvious the NA title is the more widely recognized title. Which is directly in line with the first WP naming convention listed. -- TRTX T / C 17:55, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

←You don't have to have presented any suggestion of national bias. Why are you allowed to say I'm violating WP:OWN because I "might unintentionally feel I know what's best for it"? As long as you make such proposals, I am clearly allowed to accuse you of American bias. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:09, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Nowhere do I suggest a nationality bias on your part. My suggestion of WP:OWN stems from you being the original creator of the article and the subsequent examples of you quickly redirecting any attempts from other editors to rename the article. Your claims of some kind of ethnocentricism are completely unfounded, riddiculous, and are being used as an attempt to smokescreen the actual attempt at a discussion. This is exactly the problem that has been pointed out by other editors. Instead of discussing the facts of the situtaion, you are resorting to ad hominem attacks directed at the editors. -- TRTX T / C 18:18, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't matter. I have no idea why you think that I can only accuse you of national bias if you do the same. Any accusation of bias warrants an adequate response. That I redirected these moves immediately is not bias. It is me saying that if you want to move the article, you must discuss it. I never once claimed that only I could determine what the article's title is, the only ones who made any claim even remotely close to that are those who pushed for the title to be changed with no discussion. So I'm sorry that I'm enforcing Wikipedia policy, that I'm allowed to revert a move and require the user to discuss it. The fact that you claim I'm creating a smokescreen, after you accused me of violating guidelines throughout this discussion in an attempt to discredit me and make me look worse off as an editor and make my opinion ever so less reliable. I have discussed what little fact you've provided. Let's discuss my facts - your arguments are the same failed arguments of last discussion. Why are they magically not good enough then, but now they are? As long as you continue accusing me of WP:OWN based on actions that WP:OWN does not mention as being violations of it, you have no right to accuse me of any attacks. Show me where "redirecting a move without any consensus" is a violation of WP:OWN. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:46, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

And looking at your reasons of instability...

  1. People moving it for American bias is NOT instability. That people refuse to comply with a debate does not show the title is unstable for the reader. The fact that people who support a move would harm the article to get their way is not a ringing endorsement for you, it's an argument for complete move protection of this article. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:09, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
You have absolutely no evidence of any kind of national bias. You are only using this claim as a smokescreen for real discussion of Wikipolicy. I have provided links to multiple edits early in the articles life that were quickly reverted. -- TRTX T / C 18:23, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
You have no evidence that I'm violating WP:OWN, especially since nothing that I've done is listed in WP:OWN as a violation of it. Wow, some IPs opposed it early in its life? Well, let me ask you, why should I allow a move? At the time that, there was no evidence to suggest Shake It! was the better title in any capacity - only when it was released was there enough information to suggest such a thing, but by then, there was too much stability in the current title to require a move. You are obligated to show why the current title is not stable for the readers. Editors moving the article is NOT instability. It's an argument to fully protect movement of the article. That I reverted changes to the article's title at any point in the article's life is not WP:OWN, it's consistency. If people want to change it, they have to discuss it. I am not obligated to not revert major changes to the article's contents, and I have no idea where you find that I am required to. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:46, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
  1. So, what you're saying is that the discussion resulted in a default to keep because of one, vocal person? Right, I bet the closing administrator completely overlooked the four other opposers, looked at me, and decided that I did better in the discussion. And no, yelling the loudest doesn't make me right - five people yelling louder than four people makes me right.

Well, I don't really care that someone who's throwing around negative, completely speculative accusations is offended by the exact same thing being thrown at them. And why does that show instability? Why won't you explain why you have no requirement to show that the current title is a bad title? Showing one title is better than another good title is not instability! It is not a reason to uproot the article! There is no confusion that warrants moving the article, and quite frankly sir, you have been throwing around insults more than anyone, accusing me of taking ownership of this article as if I haven't read every policy and guideline on this encyclopaedia, and accusing me of steamrolling the discussion to keep it here, when more people opposed the move than supported it. If it was five to four - five for support, four for oppose, and it defaulted in keep, you'd have an argument, but you didn't even have a consensus, we did! - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:09, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a ballot box. Take a second look at the result of the move discussion. No consensus was formed either way. Period. That is why the term "default" is used. I reopened the discussion hoping that people had since cooled down. I see now that is most definately not the case. -- TRTX T / C 18:23, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
That's not an argument to create discussions for the rest of time. It's clearly disruptive, and I have no idea why you can't just drop it and accept that the debate resulted in favor of this title. The reason that I am tired of people bringing up this discussion repeatedly, without bringing up new arguments. The discussion should be immediately closed, because the discussion is no different from the older one. If the argument of that discussion wasn't strong enough to override conflicting opinions, why should the same argument be enough to do this? You don't have the right to put a vote on this page constantly until you get your desired result, unless something has changed. It was determined that being the more well-known title of two well-known titles was not adequate last time, and it was also established that the main thing that supporters of a move had to prove was instability, and what is different about your argument from the failed argument of the first discussion? - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:46, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Your argument is the same as the previous argument. At no point should the article be moved if all you can do is provide an argument that was felt to be inadequate in the first discussion. The problem with your argument is that it fails to address the problem presented by opposers of the move - that it doesn't address stability, and doesn't explain how it's unstable. The first discussion failed to have the article moved because no one who supported it could establish instability. If you can't, then why should this discussion have a different result? - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:12, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


The following was removed from the survey section and reposted here to avoid confusion

    • That alone is not an argument to move the page. It was released mere days before in NA. How does this show instability? Instability is not "of two good titles, this one is better", instability is "if we keep it at this title, the article will be worse off". I don't see how being released days before in NA becomes harm if we focus on the PAL version of the title, and I don't see how you see any instability. And it's funny how everyone brings up the box art, but God forbid they suggest changing the box art before changing the title. Which you will probably respond with "well, people won't let us change the box art", which, for some reason, you don't say in the beginning of this discussion, since many people oppose the move as well. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:47, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
      • If you're going to make any sense at all, then drop the uncivil remarks. Every time someone disagrees with you, you seems to boil over and take it out on them. This is not how Wikipedia works, Link. You need to learn how to handle critique better. The Prince (talk) 17:53, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
        • Maybe if I didn't have to volley this discussion back and forth every other week because people burst into flames whenever an article uses the PAL title, I wouldn't get so bothered. There's no instability in this title, nothing has changed since the first discussion, so if it wasn't moved then, why should it be moved now? I'm the only one doing any critiquing here - I'm critiquing that this discussion lives on past its arguments. No matter how new the discussion is, the arguments are the same. For a supporter's arguments to be taken seriously, I won't accept anything less than an argument establishing instability as per what I describe instability (if not, an argument for instability and an argument establishing why my description of it is not proper). - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:58, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
          • Aside from the suggestion that there may be unintentional feeling of WP:OWN, I feel that my approach to this move has been more than civil. I calmly opened a RfC for the subject, as well as the proper Move proposal process, and ironicially enough was met with pretty harsh comments in both situations. (To the point of being accused of ethno-centricism). My accusations of steamrolling stem from your use of these types of ad hominem attacks to create emotional arguments vs. factual discussions. As demonstrated by The Prince, I am not the only editor who finds this behavior counterproductive to the discussion. This is the basis for the WP:OWN claim.
          • In regards to the "box art" situation. May I point you to this recent edit in which you remove an attempt to replace the NA box art with the PAL? You are so adamant about the PAL name, but then quickly return ot the NA box art when somebody attempts to correct the inconsistency. And yes, inconsistencies are determental to the overall quality of an article. How do you think I first got involved in this? I wiki'd "Wario Land: Shake It" and got a page not found message. I then got to this page and wondered "WTF?!" when I saw the title and the box-art mismatch. -- TRTX T / C 18:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

←Way to establish that you don't read the discussions. The box art wasn't changed because it's been the same box art for a significant period of time, and no significant reason to change it. My point is that you never once proposed changing the box art. You say that we can't have the box art changed because it's being opposed whenever anyone attempts the change, but why don't you consider that fact with the TITLE? Multiple people have opposed it throughout its life, and yet you don't think that the argument you use not to propose a change to the box art is appropriate in this case? - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:13, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

First off, "It's always been that way" is never a good enough reason to preserve the current status of an article. Plenty of articles have "always been that way" but required significant amounts of cleanup.
Second off, the argument to change the box art is a direct result of the argument to keep the current title. If the title is going to use the PAL name, than the boxart should be changed to correspond with it. See Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone as an example of how this type of consistency works.
Third off, you claim there's no confusion. I find that to be quite the opposite, considering how many editors have come in and attempted to change the title one way or another. There is very much confusion regarding this situation. I wouldn't have started this discussion if I myself hadn't gotten confused when first attempt to find the "Wario Land: Shake It!" article. -- TRTX T / C 19:21, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
  1. Um, yes, it is. Instability is one of the most important aspects of naming conventions. Without requiring that proposers of moves to show instability, articles would be moved constantly. And to claim that this article "requires cleanup" because it uses a title you disagree with is absurd.
  2. The argument to change the image resulted in the way it did solely because of the result of the discussion over the page. There was no consensus to move then, why should it change now when your argument is nothing more than what was provided in the first discussion? The fact that you never once even suggested changing the box art shows that you just want a different title, not consistency.
There is no doubt that there is an inconsistency between the article title and the image used to represent the game. One or the other is going to have to change. Since this talk page is essentially at a deadlock regarding the changing of either to match the other, I did the only thing I could think of which was to invoke the rename process. Is there a process to request image changes? I dunno. But the rename process seemed more natural given what I saw as the supporting evidnce. Part of the beauty of WP discussions though is that one suggested resolution can spawn a new one. So if the result of the suggested page move is to instead simply change the incorrect pic, then by all means let's do that. It would likely be far easier from a technical standpoint and would likely also be far less work to clean up after from an editing stand point. -- TRTX T / C 20:02, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
These are two discussions that resulted in The Shake Dimension as the title and Shake It! as the box art. You can't require editors go against the consensus just because you don't think it's right. The fact is that you didn't even consider proposing an image change, which is clearly an option available. In fact, since an image change is the best idea to fix the consistency, I don't see why you didn't propose it. The evidence isn't substantial - it's Google hits and a first release. It doesn't matter if you honestly believe that these are adequate, they don't do well enough to establish instability in the current title. Consensus can change, yes, but that's not a statement that you should present the same argument over and over until you get lucky and finally win. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:12, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
  1. Fine, there's confusion. Not enough confusion to be the sole reason to move an article. Google hits are only used as anecdotal evidence in support a stronger argument, not your main argument, which is what I see here. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move (round 3)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved per common name and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (video games), which favors common name and the title of the first English-language release. DrKiernan (talk) 08:36, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Wario Land: The Shake Dimension → Wario Land: Shake It! – This has to be a joke, I need fucking bulletpoints for this shit:

  • Above all, the main orchestrator specifically targets the PAL names for no other reason, and then tries to tell all the Americans that they're doing the same. So fucking stupid.
  • Stop counting opposes, which is what keeps happening. These title arguments ALWAYS come down to a ballot box; very few of the oppose arguments really work, but they get pushed forward anyway, simply to have the same number of people on each side.
  • That is to say, the American version was released first. That should hold more precedence than everything else, otherwise we'd have Sonic Colours and the like (can't WAIT for someone to try and tell me that decision has anything to do with the Japanese title).
  • I'm sick of these people going on about "but it's a stable article why change it?", because they know damn well why (it's completely inappropriate).

If you're going to have standards, actually have them instead of saying you do. Despatche (talk) 14:46, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Support. Both sides of the argument are fairly weak, but looking back the Oppose arguments are far weaker. They essentially amount to not letting those darn Yanks put one over on us or some vague notion about "stability." Essentially, it amounts to WP:JDLI. Shake It! is both the title of the first English language release and far more common as the NA market is larger than the PAL one. Per WP:VG/NAME, the most common title should be used and per WP:CRITERIA there should be consistency across articles, that is, the name of the first English language release. No such guideline exists that the first English name announced should be used. The only argument you'd have for the PAL name is if there was another article that shared the title of the NA release, but there is no such conflict. --Jtalledo (talk) 15:17, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It seems like both of the people supporting a move here are supporting it by making veiled accusations toward the people who oppose a move, implying bias on their part. To the second supporter, I observe there that you're synthesizing facts together; NA market is bigger, therefore Wario Land: Shake It! must be a more well-known title because of it. If correct, do you feel this about every video game that has ever been released in both markets? There has been no evidence provided to suggest that Shake It! is so much more significant in the US than in Europe and Australia that it warrants a significant change to the article. It seems to me that you are both employing personal policies over a basic structural guideline; there simply is no value in changing the article's title, while stability - even the slightest amount of it - is valuable when no profound reason can be provided to suggest that the title needs to change. The opposition only needs to point out how weak the supporters' argument is. They don't need to have an Epic God Tier reasoning behind keeping it where it's at because they already have a reason supported by Wikipedian policies and guidelines to keep it where it's at. The article isn't staying at its current title because it was the first announced name; that's just asinine. It's staying at its current title because that was the first English name the article used. A name which is perfectly valid and plenty well-known. To cite a similar case where I foolishly tried to move an article's title for the same reasons you are (but with a lot more strength to my argument), for the Brain Age articles, I cited overwhelmingly higher sales figures in Europe and Australia over North America, as well as a quote from Nintendo President Satoru Iwata stating that he was disappointed with the way that Nintendo of America handled the marketing, and the North American sales. Despite the fact that Brain Age, or Dr. Kawashima's Brain Training, was significantly more noteworthy in Europe and Australia, it remained at the title it was at because there was no pressing need to change it. Both titles were appropriate, but it could not be demonstrated that the article was harmed by the use of one title over another. Similarly, the use of the European title is not so significantly obscure that it does harm to keep it at its current title. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 05:53, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
No, I don't believe every game should be at the NA title. But WP:NCVG says the name is "usually the official title in the initial English release". It was undoubtedly released in NA first. But to underscore that, I pointed out that NA is the larger market as well. However, I fully agree that a title like Chaos Engine should be at that title, as per its original release and origin. But I think it's fairly evident there is bias on both sides here. If you want to talk stability - I've noticed that the article was moved back to "The Shake Dimension" several times by you before there was even discussion about what to title the page. Keep in mind, this was when the article was still stub class, so WP:TITLECHANGES did not apply. Why was the article moved back without discussion first, thus causing the title not to be stable? Did you "The Shake Dimension" was "much more significant" than the NA title?
And for goodness sake, chill out. It's just an article title. ;) --Jtalledo (talk) 11:17, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Jumping to your latter comment: the discussion was started in an inherently inflammatory and accusatory way. That much is evident. The atmosphere of any such discussion on the matter was never going to be chill, for reasons irrelevant to subject matter.
To the point that I made the move - let's say that a title change was valid, and my reversions were not sponsored by said guideline or policy. Does that entail that we should use the article's past stability (or lack thereof) to validate making the same move now? It seems like more dirt-digging than a strong argument. There simply is not bias involved, at least on my end; I support either the first English title or the by-far most well-known English title. At this stage in the article's life, the stability is clear. There hasn't been any demonstrated flaws in using the PAL title, so the move comes down to only preference. A fair argument, had it been made when the moves being discussed were made in the first place; at the time, the title may have changed on an official scale. Now, though, it's trivial and distracts from the more important issues with the article. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 10:29, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - This just seems to be a completely over-exaggerated point, and I don't see why you won't end everything and go with what makes sense. Your only argument is that it was originally revealed with the PAL title, but other then that, everything else seems to not support it. 4 years is a long time to hold a baseless point of view and force it on others. I get that part of your point is to show people that this is NOT the American or US wiki, but overall English speaking, so the US should not get an advantage, but it's gotten a bit old. Blake (Talk·Edits) 15:57, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - This is ridiculous. Name is official. Going by Google hits is really poor, given that the online games press is dominated by American publications. This doesn't stop however, users in non-American markets from referring it to the Shake Dimension. Obviously, this includes the French, so maybe that's why you hate it. I should not have to go back to this talk page every year or so in order to restate the same opinion as I did previously, consensus can only change if the facts have changed, they have not. Repeating the same arguments over and over again is not about the quality of the argument, but about how lucky you'll think you'll be. - hahnchen 13:25, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wario_Land:_Shake_It!/Archive_1&oldid=1213589175"