Talk:Dragon's Crown/Archive 1

How is there no mention of tits?
If you google 'Dragon's Crown' all you get are tits, tits, and more tits. The posters are tits, too. You couldn't even tell it is a fighting game at all, based on a lot of the released artwork. It looks more like a hentai show. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A metal shard (talk • contribs) 01:32, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Because it has nothing to do with the game mechanics, maybe? I actually came here to state how little is that "controversy" information needed. Gearbox's artist citation was just a hypocritical rambling to get :media attention. If you cater it with the media attention it seeks, you're making it fall into a loophole where game journalism should stop falling: Yellow journalism. On the other hand, there's "tits tits tits" of anything on the internet. You can easily look for anything + rule 34 and you'll get hentai. Undiente (talk) 07:09, 2 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Because no one outside of tumblr and kotaku is talking about that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.248.222.63 (talk) 15:01, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Removal of unsourced material
This material was re-added with the claim that the source was a blacklisted website. That doesn't bode well for it being a reliable source, so I've removed it again. Contrary to the editor's claim, the material is just one sentence, not "section deletion". If a real source can be found we can restore the material then, but the burden of evidence is on those restoring challenged material to defend it.--Cúchullain t/ c 12:56, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Controversy Section
Could the contributor who keeps re-adding the controversy section based off a single review explain to myself and the other contributor why their own and Danielle Riendeau's opinion is the only one not "faulty" and why a site like wikipedia should give page space to click-baiting sites like Kotaku and Polygon over every other site that managed to review the game without the jumbled ideology?

Bigpigeon (talk) 08:52, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I have re-added it a few times, since some anonymous users have deleted it, citing fairly juvenile reasons. This was not a little controversy, given the company involved, as well as numerous game reviews. It was not a singular point-of-view and counterpoints were added to the Wiki page. Do any basic search about reviews for Dragon Crown and you'll find numerous mention of the breasts, depictions of women, etc.

BigJackman (talk) 12:38, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The burden of proof is on you to make the point that this controversy is wide spread and deserves a mention in this article, as it stands myself and others (i have seen your talk page) hold a contrary opinion and have advised you that the section isn't up to the necessary standards and shouldn't exist. Further more if we are to chronicle this so called controversy surely we should report it from the start; Kotaku's original click baiting article in which George Kamitani was needlessly insulted, the author crying wolf regarding Vanillaware's reply, the "lolicon fantasy" incident, etc, etc, etc. The level of click baiting, twitter feed based rubbish which made this controversy is exactly the reason game-journalism gets absolutely zero respect (and nor should it until things change) and to include this controversy section in the article is ridiculous and makes a nonsense of the entire thing. I honestly think this section needs to be taken down and either rewritten or trashed all together.Bigpigeon (talk) 14:57, 11 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Just passing by here: I believe that the whole Kotaku incident was essentially yellow journalism, sensationalism and the forced creation of a scandalous controversy in a click-baiting effort. I've no opinion on the Polygon review, but it is the opinion of one person overall. I'll leave it to the rest of the community as to what happens to this section, because this is simply how I see things, and what happens here depends on community consensus. That said, it's probably not a good idea to edit war over this; I'm sure we can come up with a solution by discussing here. Parties involved here should consider requesting a third opinion by asking the folks over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games, I'm sure they'll be glad to assist. -- benlisquare T•C•E 15:05, 11 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I feel that to allow this to remain on the article condones the sort of journalism that spawned it; so just to restate my position the section needs to be either rewritten with stronger citation from better sources or removed.Bigpigeon (talk) 15:15, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but you keep stressing that the Kotaku / Polygon article is somehow anomalous, when it's not. It's representative of a widespread controversy about the depiction of women in this game in particular. Just in the last few minutes, I found several-

   

The Danielle Riendeau piece was well-written, good source, but hardly a singular point of view unsupported by the criticism of many, many others. You can argue whether the Riendeau piece is the most representative, best example of highlighting the controversy if you want, but you can't deny the controversy exists. There are good arguments to the contrary, which is why I found those and added them as counterpoints. BigJackman (talk) 16:25, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I disagree, you obviously believe that Danielle Riendeau's review was an objective well written piece and that and she and by extension polygon are a fair, well informed and legitimate source, i'm afraid i couldn't disagree more. I believe the article is an incredibly subjective piece that spends far too much time being used as a mouth piece for a narrow and selective argument, not once does Danielle Riendeau's attempt to draw a connection between sexualisation and sexism let alone draw a link between misogyny in videogames and real life.

Further more look at polygon's track record recently and tell me it's not a click baiting site. Dragon's Crown & Killer is Dead both small games from minor devs with tiny marketing budgets and small fan bases whose reviews would get very few hits marked down massively for "misogynistic" elements while GTA5, a game with the biggest marketing budget in history and a huge fanbase is given unquestioning praise despite blatant and undeniable misogyny that goes far beyond odd body proportions and dating mini games.

With the greatest respect your sources are cherry picked at best and barely relevant at worst, just look at metacritic in which 48/53 reviewers scored the game positively with barely any mention of the so called controversy, many (including one of the sources) treated it as a joke, and rightly so.

Having said all that though both our stances are based on nothing more than opinion and wikipedia is a place for facts.

I'm not debating that there were some things written, what i am saying isyou are overblowing the impact and importance of these articles to justify your own world view, the "controversy" was a result of yellow journalism generated from click baiters and via twitter and facebook feeds and was built on aggression from minor elements of the press, rumour, half truth and blatant misrepresentation - to give that sort of thing space here on wikipedia cheapens the article and the site and it shouldn't be allowed and you really need to address this point over all others if we are to ever come to a amicable resolution here.92.233.58.235 (talk) 01:07, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not here to debate Polygon. If you believe it a dubious source based on other experiences, then take it up with Wikipedia, and put them on the blacklist along with examiner.com. The fact is that nothing that appeared in that article is any different than what has appeared elsewhere, regarding the artwork and depiction of women. Numerous articles on many, many other sites mention exactly the same issues and conerns that Riendeau did.

The sources I found were not cherry-picked; they were simply what I was able to find in 2 minutes. Do a little checking around, and you'll see that the majority of reviews mention it, and a fair number of mainstream, non-gaming sites speak at length about the sexualized issues with Dragon's Crown. Your reference to a Metacritic article (unsourced), appear more cherry-picked, if you'll forgive me for saying so. It's laughable to compare Dragon's Crown to Grand Theft Auto 5, since like all GTA games in the series, GTA5 received a huge amount of press for the usual misogyny and prostitute-killing you mention (not to mention torture and mass shootings). Just as the GTA5 issues were well-publicized and made it into a 'Controversy' section on its own Wiki page, so too were the Dragon's Crown issues well-publicized and deserving of similar attention.

It's not a manufactured controversy, even though many gamer-friendly types might find it trivial and wish it weren't so talked about. This isn't my "world view", and the controversy isn't overblown. The bottom line is, Wikipedia isn't a gaming review site, and both does not and should not ignore obvious large and bad press about games.

BigJackman (talk) 01:52, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

You're main source on the article is written around the Polygon review, it's your main source and you have to debate it. In case you dodn't know metacritic is sourced in the same section you are arguing shouldn't be amending - forgive me but you do not seem to know a lot about videogames or the Dragon's Crown artile outside this "Controversy" section. "Metacritic is a website that aggregates reviews of music albums, games, movies, TV shows, DVDs, and formerly, books." (Wikipedia); it appears in every article on individual videogames that i've seen on the site in he last few years and any serious contributer to this article should know about it. Polygon has no editorial integrity because it gets by on yellow journalism and as i have arguing all along if you want the controversy section to remain up it needs to be rewitten with legitimate and respectable sources.

As for GTA  (note the sources of my references compared to yours - this is widespread controversy), what i refer to are the strip clubs and similar content which you seem totally unaware which makes Killer is Dead's "Gigalo" mingames that it was marked down so harshly for look like a Benny Hill sketch.

Again you finish with an opinion and not fact and i will not debate that for a tiny minority of gamers it is a big issue, but again i must stress that a wikipedia article is not the place to for it, it's a place for facts and you are still a long way from providing them. 92.233.58.235 (talk) 12:36, 13 October 2013 (UTC)


 * You keep missing the point. There is nothing in the Polygon review that doesn't appear in many, many other places.  You bring up past issues with Polygon, which may be valid criticism of that site, but still do not invalidate the main points of Riendeau's article.  If I swap out the source of the criticism, nothing will change.  I know plenty about videogames, but- and I can't stress this enough, Wikipedia is NOT a gaming website.  Its focus is to report on the main points, history, notable features, and where necessary- the controversies.  That said, I stress again that Polygon's review was not a singular opinion, and is shared, even elaborated upon elsewhere.  If you want to defeat the idea of this controversy appearing on Dragon's Crown's Wiki page, then defeat the argument, not some cowardly attack upon one of the many websites where such criticism appears.


 * I really don't care about GTA5 in this discussion, except to note that its controversies were even more widespread, and correspondingly so is the Controversy section in Wiki. I've never heard of any widespread controversy for this "Killer is Dead" game that you keep referencing, and can find little press about it, perhaps because it's simply not as highly anticipated a game (indeed, it's a budget title that's garnered only lukewarm interest).


 * My suggestion to you is to confine your game review activities to Metacritic, since you seem to prefer it so much. Wiki's focus is including, but also beyond gamers.  If you can put up a decent argument of why the content of Polygon's particular review makes it ineligible for inclusion, then perhaps it can be replaced with material from one of numerous other websites    , etc.


 * BigJackman (talk) 19:29, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Now that the temporary page protection has been lifted, I hope that all parties refrain from continuing any edit wars. Please make constructive contributions to the mainspace article only; any further edit warring will lead to nothing, as the page will be swiftly protected again. If need be, this discussion can be expanded to WPVG where there is a larger audience. Perhaps a greater number of discussion participants can help with proper consensus-building. -- benlisquare T•C•E 08:41, 14 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Of course, I'll abide by this suggestion. But I'll be asking for protection again if explanation-less section blanking recurs-- especially by anonymous contributors.  With this particular issue, I'm disappointed more people didn't weigh in.


 * BigJackman (talk) 13:09, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Obviously an indication of the wide spread controversy the game spawned? On a side note while you have been constantly editing and re-editing the article to protect against "vandalism" the main body of the article hasn't been updated since well before the EU release.

Bigpigeon (talk) 15:44, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

...and it begins again: poorly explained or unexplained section blanking. Perhaps the contributors responsible this time would care to explain their actions? BigJackman (talk) 12:21, 15 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Not the guy but you can't just call the explanation poor because you don't agree with it "Removed controversy section again. Really don't think we should be contributing to yellow journalism, or labeling it as a home grown outrage." seems a perfectly acceptable explanation that should be retorted not ignored or dismissed.Bigpigeon (talk) 15:21, 15 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Oh well, I've tried. Mysterious first-time contributors blanking whole sections of a page doesn't make the underlying issue(s) go away- the same as any other Wiki page.  Vandalism is vandalism.  Perhaps I'll restore the Controversy section in a week or so and use one of the hundred other sources out there as the primary criticism (instead of Polygon) and see what happens. BigJackman (talk) 17:52, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

BigJackman I read the talk sections, and pored over your points about it being mentioned in other sources. Still most of the sources you mention it being referenced in are still referring to the Kotaku article as the source of the "journalism" controversy. Further most of the "controversy" doesn't come from people agreeing with the article, but hotly denying its points, and criticizing the author for his opinion on the matter. Also I would like to add that the character models had been known about for "years" before the games release, and not a peep of outrage was heard until the salacious piece was published. 70.112.208.158 (talk) 00:43, 17 October 2013 (UTC)


 * You are in error, sir(?). One source of the ~10 reviews I mentioned refers to the Kotaku article, yes.  But even the one that does doesn't invalidate the point, if a respected author on a legitimate review site agrees with it.  The other sites seem to independently come to that same conclusion, despite your insistence that it's faux journalism.  And the game was debated back when the conceptual artwork was released, and then the issue really blew up when the trailer was released, back in April.  Please check your history.BigJackman (talk) 21:27, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * This is unsourced nonsense at best, Dragon's Crown was released announced during E3 2011 and then was largely forgotten until it was picked up by Atlus in April 2012 (in fact even Kotaku was being very complimentary about the title when the original Atlus trailer dropped ), the source of all the controversy was the attack on George Kamitani by Jason Scherier in the same month, you'd be hard pressed to find anything about dragon's crown between the E3 announcement and the first Atlus trailer - i know i followed the game from day one and fresh info was a nightmare to come by. Bigpigeon (talk) 23:46, 15 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Sigh. "Unsourced nonsense", huh ?  Here: .  Once again, none of this is relevant.  From the time when the first Atlus trailer came out until the present, people have been commenting on the depictions of the Sorceress and Amazon characters, as well as the large numbers of sexually suggestive images in the background.  There have been a large number of articles written about this game and these issues, and amazingly you still cling to the it's-yellow-journalism accusation, as if it held any water at all.  BigJackman (talk) 03:45, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

You mean the link to the blog post where the individual in question says they can't get over the artwork, but makes no actual opinion on the matter while linking to a bunch of fan art of the characters? Yeah that really isn't helping your argument.70.112.208.158 (talk) 00:43, 17 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Look, if you like boobs, that's fine. Many people do.  But many people don't, and quite a few legitimate reviewers spoke out against the game.  This happened a while back and then blew up when the trailer was released.  Your desire to minimize the arguments don't invalidate them, sorry.  Your anonymous section blanking notwithstanding, you don't have a leg to stand on here.  Please don't post here again, if you don't have something of value to contribute.  BigJackman (talk) 16:16, 16 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Personal attacks followed by assumption with a mix of ad hominems thrown in for good measure. You have failed to back up your point, and are now literally grasping at straws. I suggest you improve the article in constructive ways rather than introducing narrow opinion pieces, and passing them off as a majority view.70.112.208.158 (talk) 00:43, 17 October 2013 (UTC)


 * This debate has gone from ridiculas to farcical. "Look, if you like boobs, that's fine. Many people do. But many people don't"; This is where we're at right now? This is what the controversy boils down to? Is that really what you wanted to say? I think it's becoming increasingly silly to maintain that this section really belongs here. I could go on but this has been getting more and more personal with parties attacking contributors instead of arguing their point so i won't. I will say this though, when the page protection originally went up we were asked to reach a consensus on whether this section should remain, be changed or deleted, i belive that at this point we have reached said consensus and re-adding this section in it's current state should be considered vandalism, not deleting it. Bigpigeon (talk) 09:56, 17 October 2013 (UTC)


 * A great new standard- I salute you! You and the guy who anonymously blanks sections and then launches personal attacks yelled the loudest and that's all that matters, according to you.  I await the next charge of vandalism from you then.  BigJackman (talk) 05:12, 18 October 2013 (UTC)


 * As far as i can see you are the only person yelling here and throwing personal insults around, i recommend you do some checking before accusing other contributors of blanking as it can be proved very easily that i have done nothing of the sort since this section of the talk page was put up. As for standards i'm not the one making things up and then presenting totally contradictory evidence that doesn't support my viewpoint when challenged.
 * I find it genuinely quite insulting that you feel the need to lash out with baseless accusations instead of reinforcing your argument yet again while pretending to play peacemaker when we are asked to calm the debate. Bigpigeon (talk) 00:30, 19 October 2013 (UTC) Bigpigeon (talk) 00:26, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

There is a controversy over the controversy!? Have you seen what's been written about this game? Sorry if I stumbled into something I shouldn't have, but why are people playing goalkeeper on this topic? Get a poll up, mates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grendl666 (talk • contribs) 06:21, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Well if go over the discussion you will have seen Kotaku is the "source" followed by the Poloygon review. Most of the "controversy" stirred up from the original opinionated pieces are not people debating whether the game was sexist, or not. It was direct criticism directed at the pieces for their opinion on the matter, and how it came off as click bating. So labeling it as a controversy, or a home grown outrage is incorrect. 70.112.208.158 (talk) 14:28, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Discussion is becoming more heated
This is starting to become a heated argument here. I'd recommend that everyone calm down and take things easy; after all, it would probably be in everyone's best interests not to stir up enough trouble to warrant administrative action. At this stage there are a few choices to take: I personally can't force anyone to do anything here, but I'd really recommend that contributors here consider any of these options, for the benefit of everyone. The last thing we need is punitive action being taken, and bloodletting on all sides. -- benlisquare T•C•E 05:26, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:TEA - Stop editing for a while, take a cup of tea, and cool down for a while. It's better to edit whilst having a cool head, as an angry argument isn't going to be as constructive. Once editors are WP:COOL again, we can try to resume the discussion.
 * WP:3O - As I've said before, this discussion only has a small amount of people involved, and it would probably be a good idea to seek a third opinion. Other people can be invited to provide their neutral, outsider views. I recommend starting a discussion thread at WT:WikiProject Video games.
 * WP:RFC - If everyone really wants to start a formal poll, a request for comment can be started. I'd recommend against this, because there really isn't a pressing need for a RfC at this stage, for this topic.


 * Thanks, Belisquare. Indeed this is what I proposed.  I suggested more people weigh in, and that perhaps the section could be restored with one of the other numerous reviews standing in place for the Kotaku article that seems to be so inflammatory.  But only after a period of time, when people have cooled off.  That's why I haven't embarked on any other changes to this page.


 * I would encourage all parties to continue to use the talk page and remember that positions on such matters are rarely so absolute that pages can never be changed at future times. Situations where reviewers are simply blanking entire sections of pages or whining repeatedly about personal attacks when someone disagrees with them usually don't end well.BigJackman (talk) 19:51, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Heated as in a single person has a melt down, and tries desperately to defame the people that dare talk down on his oh so important 3 sentences covering two click bate articles given the moniker of a "controversy"? Please there is no "blood" letting, and there sure as hell isn't any "heating" up going on. If somebody wants to hold a popularity poll to confirm the existence of an actual controversy be my guess, but I don't think that would be acceptable under the original research guideline.70.112.208.158 (talk) 02:29, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * By "bloodletting", I'm referring to having everyone end up at WP:ANI for punitive action if things escalate further. If things don't loosen up, it's bound to happen; it has been the case many times before on other articles. And no, you're getting rather confrontational as well, though you might not realise it. Finally, I think you misunderstand original research - Wikipedia works on consensus building, and even though we don't make decisions based on straw polls (WP:NOTAVOTE, WP:DEMOCRACY), it's one method of measuring community consensus. Hence, whenever we have a discussion such as this one, for example, a general "poll" is formed; the numbers themselves aren't the defining factor, but rather one aspect taken into account during decision-making process, which is more centred towards the quality of arguments. -- benlisquare T•C•E 05:20, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh god no not punitive action! Seriously this has degenerated, but not in the sense that would warrant any further discussion on the original matter. I have chimed in my two cents, and I think a user poll would be a fine way to determine if the controversy is in fact real, or not. If anyone actually cares that is.70.112.208.158 (talk) 05:56, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * It's becoming really difficult to defend your actions and words, especially since you've been shittalking the whole time, and don't really see any fault behind what you're doing. You are expected to be able to work collaboratively with other people; this isn't some kind of internet forum where you can keyboard warrior away and win arguments. If that is what you're after, you're at the wrong place. To be honest, I'm not a really big fan of "controversy" sections either, I think everyone's realised this from the very beginning. The reason why I haven't personally done anything about the article contents is because I am aware of my own personal biases, and am willing to let consensus do its part. However, I do wish to remind you that Wikipedia is not an anarchy, and not only do we have due process behind these kinds of disputes, it is not the place to be picking fights for the purpose of fighting. I've been patient with everyone here the whole time, but people here really need to step back and have a good hard think about things. -- benlisquare T•C•E 08:22, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Excuse my jeering, or cavalier attitude. I just find the topic as far from heated as possible. The original contributer to the page was upset his section was removed, and than got personal in his counter arguments. He didn't cite the various reviewers that he claimed talked about it, or shared a similar opinion. Now we have yet another divergent section citing hostility, and it feels more like pouring gasoline on to a smoldering fire than stomping it out.70.112.208.158 (talk) 14:30, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Mediation
Benlisquare, since this was just getting needlessly pissy, I took your sage advice and started a discussion on the WT:WikiProject Video games page. I summarized the problem, gave the point and counterpoint for people who want and don't want the Controversy section, and added the criticism of Kotaku / Polygon as a "legitimate" source. With luck, we'll get some positive feedback and community consensus on next steps. I'm letting everyone know that I started the discussion there also, because people should feel free to participate in the discussion there as well, and back up their views. However, I would also encourage anyone who wants to do this to be civil, please.

Thanks again for your suggestions, Benlisquare. Even if you don't share my opinion on this issue exactly, I appreciate the veteran guidance and various options for getting through this. BigJackman (talk) 20:17, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I at least hope we can eventually come to a working solution for this, regardless of what the outcome actually is. Up until now, we've just been going in circles. -- benlisquare T•C•E 20:24, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * (Third party via WT:VG) Wrap the "Controversy" section into the critical reception section. Riendeau's quote should be summarized. Any mention of this controversy longer than two sentences would be adding undue weight to that aspect of the article. If the fallout continues to spiral, a "Controversy" section would be in order, but not just yet. I think I'd be easily able to incorporate this text in an amicable way—ping me if you'd like me to do so. Eye close font awesome.svg czar  ♔  21:16, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I am all for that. As long as the reviews are mentioned rather than portrayed as a community reaction that is fine by me.70.112.208.158 (talk) 23:21, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * This is exactly what i have been asking for all along, i've never asked for any mention of the controversy to be expunged, all i want is for it to be written in a balanced way and supported by reliable references. Can this be done in two lines? Probably not, can it be done at all? In the climate here i doubt it.
 * As for the polygon review i would argue that it is already represented in the metacritic aggregate that appears on the page and due to the sites shady practices doesn't warrant a specific mention, but worded the right way i could perhaps be persuaded it deserves mention after all.Bigpigeon (talk) 00:23, 20 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Czar. Yes, that would be great.  Indeed, the Controversy section was under the critical reception section (and "mentioned" both the reviews critical of the sexually demeaning art and reviews refuting it).BigJackman (talk) 00:15, 20 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Sexually demeaning art? We are going to get bogged down in another pissing match if you continue to use phrases like that, i'm not sure if you're doing it deliberately but please try to avoid using such emotive terms as it doesn't help move the discussion forward at all. Bigpigeon (talk) 00:27, 20 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Please, don't embark upon this line of discussion again. I'm simply using language present in several of the video game reviews.  As stated before, your opinion is just that: opinion.  What matters is what's out there in the community.  Let's let Czar do his own evaluation and rewrite please, since he was nice enough to lend his time to this conflict.  BigJackman (talk) 00:51, 20 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Look, all i'm asking is that we sit down and have a calm, rational discussion without hyperbole and silly language that isn't helpful to anyone. I don't think i am being aggressive or unreasonable. Bigpigeon (talk) 23:43, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Long, Slow Rewrite & Update
Now the page protection has finally gone i've started the process of updating and expanding the article.

I'll be going from top to bottom and will repair any broken references that are on the page now i know how (there are quite a few).

Please bear with me as i've not mastered the finer points of wiki-formatting so there might be quite a few minor updates that accompany each major one. Bigpigeon (talk) 14:39, 15 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Plot and character sections are finished, to a degree, will be moving onto development soon but it may take a while to complete. Bigpigeon (talk) 13:31, 17 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Another section down, i'm not sure if all the repeat references are necessary though as most of the info used comes from the same page. Bigpigeon (talk) 14:48, 17 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Next section is currently under construction, if anyone wants to give me any pointers on the existing sections please feel free, i'm still not sure whether the character section and plot section should be totally separate or not; does it look untidy as it is? Bigpigeon (talk) 00:34, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

 * 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: Rename. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:42, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Dragon& → Dragon's Crown – Dragon's Crown (module) article was redirected so there is no other article titled "Dragon's Crown". Mika1h (talk) 19:35, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Support: WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. -- benlisquare T•C•E 20:39, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. Regardless of the other topic's prose status, this game is the primary topic by ghits. A hatnote for the module can be added later, if even necessary. Eye close font awesome.svg czar  ♔  21:48, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Support the game appears to be the primary topic.--174.93.163.194 (talk) 04:55, 4 February 2014 (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.