Talk:Mega Man 6

Composer

This game's music was not composed by composer Yōko Shimomura. Yuko (Yuko Kadota, now Yuko Takehara) composed the game's music.([1]) She is known as "Breath of Fire II", "X-Men vs. Street Fighter" composer. --Wyveelix 11:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Spoilers

{{spoilers}}

I have restored the spoiler tag because, as obvious as it may seem to longtime fans of the series, the information that Mr. X is someone else is a spoiler.

{{endspoiler}}

Removed sentence

The game never received an official European release, probably due to it having been made in the final years of the "NES era".

This statement is just incorrect. NES games were being released in Europe well into 1995. The far more likely reason is the fact that Capcom neglected to publish the game in North America, leaving it to Nintendo who didn't bother publishing the game in Europe. -TheHande 18:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

True, but the game to this day has never been sold in Europe for any other platform either. Newer versions such as the one in Mega Man Anniversary Collection weren't released there. Theclaw1 06:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Slight Title Change.

I changed the title of the segment that explains why Capcom did not Publish the game in the US themselves. The original title, "From NES to SNES," implied heavily that a Super Nintendo version exists, and that's obviously not the case. I feel that "Published by Nintendo" is much clearer. EliotAndrews 1:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Contest rules

I'm pretty sure that Nintendo Power explicitly said that the only prizes were the drawings being reprinted in the magazine (and maybe a t-shirt or something) and that there were no guarantees that Capcom would use any of the submissions, but that they (Nintendo Power) would send them on to Capcom anyway. The article, though, claims that two winners were "guaranteed" spots in the then-upcoming game. I don't have the issue of Nintendo Power to confirm, but if anyone else does I think this needs to be clarified in the article. Henryrothschild (talk) 01:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Amazingly, now that you bring that up it seems vaguely familiar. I think you're right.--SeizureDog (talk) 09:48, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you're right. I currently have all my back issues of Nintendo Power packed away, but I have issues from the Final Fantasy strategy guide up to the first Nintendo 64 releases. I'll post again with the specifics once I've finished moving. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.149.129.44 (talk) 21:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Robot Masters

I've started a discussion about including Robot Masters in Mega Man articles at the Video Game project talk page. If you have an opinion, please remark here. Lumaga (talk) 06:28, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Audio section removal

I removed the tracklist for the so-called "original soundtrack" because there was never an original soundtrack released for this game. The only music officially released for this game is the "Capcom Music Generation Famicom Music Complete Works Rockman 1~6" released by Capcom on the Suleputer label, and the names here didn't even correspond with the names listed there.

http://vgmdb.net/album/255

The track names aren't anything you couldn't guess just by listening to the track, so rather than pretend there has been a special release for this game's music, I think it's best just to remove the listing entirely. This also ended up removing the audio section entirely.

Hellacia (talk) 11:05, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Mega Man 6/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: DustFormsWords (talk) 23:22, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I intend to undertake a Good Article Review of this article. (I will also review Mega Man 4 for consistency across reviews.) - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:22, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I intend to conduct a Good Article Review of this article. I will start by adding a framework listing the GA criteria, and then assess against each criteria. In all but the best and worst articles I expect to find at least minor ways that the article should be improved prior to getting the tick. It may take me anywhere from a couple of hours to several days to complete the initial review, depending on RL commitments. Each criterion will be marked with a red cross until I have assessed that the article meets or exceeds the criterion, at which time the cross will be changed to a green tick. When the initial review is complete I will let the nominator know via a message on his or her talk page. Thank you for your patience.

1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct;

The article prose is now clear and concise, with correct spelling and grammar.

• Resolved - "Another addition to the gameplay is a pair of adaptors that combine Mega Man and his dog Rush into special forms." - Mega Man 4 mentions that that game included adaptors. How are the adaptors in this game different, and are they in addition to or instead of adaptors from previous games?
• Resolved (better explanation of adaptors above fixes problem) - "Inafune thought that Rush adaptor assembly was inevitable" - Sorry, I just don't understand what this means. Possibly that it was inevitable that the player be able to assemble Rush adaptors? Could you clarify this sentence please?
• Resolved - "Only eight out of the more than 200,000 total character submissions for Mega Man 6 were accepted for the game. Two of the robots included (Knight Man and Wind Man) were designed by North American fans who entered the Nintendo Power contest." - What happened to the other six? How were they accepted for the game, but not included? Do you mean that Japan and North American BOTH held competitions, and six winning entries were from Japan and two from North America? Could you please clarify this?
• Resolved - "Instead, Nintendo of America published it in March 1994, ensuring its relative commercial obscurity among concurrent releases." - These sentences don't appear to logically follow. Does the commercial obscurity result from it being published by NOA, or from it being published in March 1994? Why would these factors have caused its obscurity? Would a different time of publishing have yielded a different result? Please clarify.

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation;

The article complies with the manuals of style for lead sections, layout, words to watch and fiction.

The manual of style for lists does not apply to this article.

2. Verifiable with no original research:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

All sources appear in a devoted and appropriately described section.

(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);

All content appears to be attributed to reliable sources through the use of inline citations.

(c) it contains no original research.

I see no evidence of original research in this article.

3. Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;

The article now covers all topics I would expect from an article of this kind.

• Resolved - Music/Soundtrack - I would typically expect an article about a video game to have some discussion of its composer or musical soundtrack, especially when later versions feature "remixed music".

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

The article does not go into unnecessary detail.

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

   The article appears to present all notable viewpoints without bias.

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

   The article is stable and does not appear to be the subject of unresolved disputes.

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content;

All images in the article are appropriately licensed and tags.

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

All images are relevant and appropriately captioned.

Overview - My initial review is complete. The article is very close to GA quality, and can be promoted once my concerns under 1a and 3a above are addressed. Please leave me a message on my talk page when you believe the concerns are addressed, and I will revisit the review with an eye to promoting the article. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:32, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Overview 2 - My concerns have now been addressed and the article meets the GA criteria. I accordingly Pass the article and promote it to Good Article class. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:53, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mega Man 6. 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:

• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6BEjgyXg9?url=http://www.1up.com/features/jumping-shark-man to http://www.1up.com/do/feature?cId=3159529

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:40, 10 January 2018 (UTC)