Talk:Albert Odyssey (1993 video game)

merge
I can't find any reliable review/commentary on this, even from Japanese sources. ∞ 陣  内  Jinnai  16:36, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't understand how that is a reason for merging Albert Odyssey: Legend of Eldean(which has plenty of commentary from reliable sources already in the article) into this article. If Article A's notability is in question, Article B should never be merged into it. If Article B does not merit a standalone article, it should either be merged into an article whose notability is not in question, or proposed for deletion.--Martin IIIa (talk) 19:58, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Well this would be the likely target because the series isn't Albert Odyssey: Legend of Eldean. It is Albert Odyssey. Since there wouldn't a seperate series and video game page, there would be no need for a disambig phrase added to it. Therefore while yes, the US port is notable, the original isn't, and combining them into 1 article would help support both. You're right, it could be deleted, but WP:PRESERVE would say otherwise since their is a valid way to preserve the info. All we'd be doing is making extra work by merging this into that article, then having to move that article back here because one couldn't support a naming scheme like that for 2 games. ∞ 陣  内  Jinnai  00:03, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * First of all, I'm not sure why you think Albert Odyssey: Legend of Eldean couldn't support two games. After all, this is why we have redirects; if we were to merge Albert Odyssey into Legend of Eldean, anyone looking for the former would be immediately redirected to the latter. This sort of thing is done all the time, and there really is no potential for confusion. For a good example, check out Hydlide - or better yet, check out Hydlide 3: The Space Memories.
 * Second, in my opinion Albert Odyssey: Legend of Eldean merits a standalone article. It was one of only three purebred RPGs for the Saturn that were released outside Japan, and it was localized by the famed and controversial Working Designs. It's no Final Fantasy VII, or even Mystaria: The Realms of Lore, but it's more notable than over half the video games that have articles on Wikipedia. And going by the article, it's been mentioned in plenty of notable sources. Moreover, most English-speaking gamers don't even realize that the game is part of a series, and few of those who know care, since pretty much the only connection it has with the previous games is the development team. In effect, the series is far more obscure than the game itself. So my stance is that Albert Odyssey: Legend of Eldean shouldn't be merged at all, much less with the non-notable Albert Odyssey.--Martin IIIa (talk) 14:31, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Hydlide 3: The Space Memories violates WP:TITLE because the article isn't just about Hydlide 3: The Space Memories. Just because it does, is no excuse for this article follow that example. TITLE is clear here. Someone searching for Albert Odyseey (this game), the series or the Legend of Eiden, would not violate anything if they were directed to a page titled Albert Odyssey.
 * As to whether Legend of eidon deserves its own article, it is notable enough, but notability one 1 article isn't enough. If seprating it endangers the notability of another article, this one, then editorial decision should be that they be merged as deletion is the worse option per WP:PRESERVE. That merge point as mentioned would not be the sequel article because people searching for the original wouldn't look for it there, but people looking for the sequel could still look for the article here. ∞ 陣  内  Jinnai  19:11, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * No, Hydlide 3: The Space Memories does not violate WP:TITLE. When a subject is deemed not notable enough for its own article but notable enough to have content in another article, a redirect is created to the target article. This is not only not a violation of Wikipedia policy, it is how WP policy mandates that merging must be done. If you are that unfamiliar with what merging an article means, then you really shouldn't be proposing articles be merged.--Martin IIIa (talk) 13:09, 2 October 2011 (UTC)


 * If its merely a redirect, yes. If its a merge, no. ∞ 陣  内  Jinnai  16:27, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

As my post above implies, a merge involves a redirect. That's what differentiates a merge from a deletion.--Martin IIIa (talk) 13:14, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Satellaview versions
Hi, I noticed that in the lede of this article it is mentioned that a Satellaview game entitled BS Albert Odyssey was broadcast in June 1996. The infobox goes on to describe a release of Albert Odyssey for the Satellaview on June 12, 1996. I cannot find any reliable sources for this information, though. I know of a Japanese website that has collected and reproduced the broadcast schedules from a number of different copies of the Satellaview-specific magazine, Satellaview Tsushin. That website covers June 12, 1996 in its entirety and I cannot find any mention of Albert Odyssey on this date. I can see that the game was actually broadcast for a time beginning on March 29, 1998, but I still find no mention of a game entitled BS Albert Odyssey...

So I've altered the Satellaview release date from June 12, 1996 to March 29, 1998 in order to match what is listed in Satellaview Tsushin, and I've tagged the BS Albert Odyssey claim for sources. I'm skeptical of its accuracy but information on Satellaview releases is scant at best so there can be no out-of-hand discounting of the possibility of sources to back up the claim. Cheers, -Thibbs (talk) 14:50, 27 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Sounds good. I know nothing about Satellaview broadcasts so I can't contribute anything confirming or refuting the claim, but your edits seem sensible given what we know so far.--Martin IIIa (talk) 21:40, 27 December 2011 (UTC)