Talk:Fire Emblem: Shadow Dragon

Hang on
I've got more to add; please wait until I add everything. Ashnard Talk  Contribs  17:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * added infobox and such, removed speedy delete. Carry on with your edit Jedi6 -(need help?)  17:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Be careful with speculation. We don't know for sure yet that it's a remake of Ankoku Ryū to Hikari no Tsurugi. Could be a remake of Monshō no Nazo. --Mukashi 00:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Since Monshō no Nazo itself was a remake, then it would still count as a remake of the original, even if it did have the additional features that FE3 had. Anyway, that information is cited by probably the most reliable FE fan site, so you'd be better off contacting that site if you feel that the info is speculation. Ashnard  Talk  Contribs  15:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Except that Ankoku Ryū to Hikari no Tsurugi was only half as long as Monshō no Nazo, there was an entire second section to FE3. It'd be really stupid to remake only book one. Well, we have no real facts either way do we? --Tyrfing 22:42, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * What part of "even if it did have the additional features that FE3 had" didn't you understand? Ashnard  Talk  Contribs  08:52, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

This site states that it's a FE1 remake too. It's a translated Jp page; I don't know how relaible it is. Ashnard Talk  Contribs  09:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Image

 * Is their any way that the pics that have been shown can be added while staying legal? That's one thing that I'm still confused about with editing and it would be nice to have one of the revealed pictures up.Barrylocke 10:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You're probably better off waiting for character artwork, or more developed screenshots (because we don't know how far the game is in development right now). Radiant Dawn on the other hand only has a boxart image, and it's only a couple of days until its release. If really want to add one, I'm pretty sure it will be fine as long as you fill out the Fair use rationale for the image. Aveyn Knight 14:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The image could only be used as a lead image as the article isn't developed enough to have any sections (can't expand until more information is released). However, the boxart of a game is the only suitable lead image for a video game article. Ashnard  Talk  Contribs  14:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't see why one of the revealed screenshots couldn't be put at the top of the article (though not in the infobox image space, as that is indeed specifically reserved for boxart and such.) Put a screenshot on the left side at the top and it wouldn't look too bad balaced against the infobox. It could easily be moved somewhere else as the article expands. Infernal Inferno 03:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not really practice to have two images in the lead, but whether it violates policy is uncertain to me. Anyway, what purpose would the screenshot bring? It can only represent graphics and gameplay, both of which can't be commented on yet. Ashnard  Talk  Contribs  08:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, as there is no box-art image as of yet, there wouldn't be two images in the lead section until box art was released. As that probably won't be until significantly more information is available on the title, at which point the initial screenshot could already have been moved (of course, assuming there is one put in place to begin with.) As for its purpose, I don't see how showing the gameplay or updated graphics would not be useful. In fact, two images for graphical comparison between old and new might not be such a bad idea.


 * Of course, I'm not sure there is even enough independent notability for this to even warrant it's own article. We might consider following the example of Final Fantasy VI Advance, which as you can see was folded into the main Final Fantasy VI article. So far it doesn't look like a whole lot has been changed or added from the original, though I'll wait to act until more info becomes available. Infernal Inferno 01:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Please, don't act until there has been discussion; we don't want another catastrophe like the FE6 move, do we? As for the lead image, there is absolutely no point in having a provisional lead image at all. If we were to show the graphics on an image, then how could we comment on it? To comment on it and personally deduce differences would be original research as no reliable source has commented on the graphical change. Secondly, we would have an image, but no information to relate it to which defeats the object of images. As for notability, it's already the first online FE game, looks completely different from the first game, and will take advantage of the DS's capabilities. It is a very different game&mdash;more different than FE3 is to FE1. Finally, this will have media reception, which the FE 1 article doesn't have. Thank you.  Ashnard  Talk  Contribs  07:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * As for Final Fantasy VI Advance, why not follow the example of the good article Final Fantasy III (Nintendo DS)? This is closer in relation to FE DS than Final Fantasy VI Advance. Ashnard  Talk  Contribs  08:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You are reading overmuch into my suggestion, which was merely that, something to keep in mind. I have no intent to act until significantly more information is available. Even discussion of which model is better to follow is a bit premature due to the current scarcity of information. I suggest we take this up further when more info is available. Infernal Inferno 21:50, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. Ashnard  <sub style="color:red;">Talk  <sup style="color:black;">Contribs  14:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

For future reference...
This is still probably a long ways off, but when the time comes and a character list article is created, it will inevitably contain characters that were also in Fire Emblem 1&3. Let's not forget to reference which characters originated in which version, though the article itself should be named after the DS version's title (whatever it may be) since the game features the most recent and theoretically most comprehensive cast.

But like I said, this is theoretically still a ways off. I just thought I'd toss this out here while it was on my mind.--4.242.24.56 23:02, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Image requests
They belong on the article, until images are on the article. They do no harm being in the project tag. Ashnard sees it as an issue, but it simply isn't one. The article needs images, so the requests are perfectly fine. RobJ1981 19:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to abandon my reasoning in this case; they do no harm but are completely redundant as no images can be used at this time. By your reasoning Rob, we should plaster this tag over every talk page because they "do no harm". Anyway, I'm not going to edit war with you, so don't expect me to revert the edit. By the way Rob, I was disappointed by your lack of etiquette in this case&mdash;why avoid discussion that I tried to intiate and revert my edit? Ashnard  <sub style="color:red;">Talk  <sup style="color:black;">Contribs  20:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If the article needs images: then requests should be placed. I still don't understand what the big deal is. It's a few lines on a talk page, it's not cluttering it up and it's not redundant. Why add it later, when it can be on the page now? RobJ1981 21:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Because you're requesting something which cannot be used. The box art hasn't been released yet and a screenshot can't be used becaus there's no gameplay section yet. At this stage, an image cannot be used. Ashnard  <sub style="color:red;">Talk  <sup style="color:black;">Contribs  22:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I still see no harm listing it now, rather than later. A few lines on a talk page shouldn't be such a big deal. RobJ1981 05:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I suppose THIS is why my image got taken off of this page, then? --RavensIllusion (talk) 21:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid so. Only box arts are used on video game leads, unless there won't be one, which is highly unlikely in this case. It was a nice image though, and probably should be used when the article develops a "gameplay" section. Ashnard  <sub style="color:red;">Talk  <sup style="color:black;">Contribs  06:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Australian "release date"
(Current revision) Sounds like a lie to me. Got any sources that actually SAY this? -- Snip3rNife (talk) 07:57, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The current source up there didn't actually list the release date, I'm not sure about the reliability of the site, and it had (preloaded) next to it, but I don't know what it means. Anyway, it's probably false, so I've removed it. Thanks. Ashnard  <sub style="color:red;">Talk  <sup style="color:black;">Contribs  08:14, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

North American release date
Someone set the release date as February 2009 and then someone else reverted it. I looked on Google Product search and there are two preorder sites with the same date of 2-24-2009. Is this some inside info that we can use as a trusted source or are they just wild guesses? Aether7 (talk) 04:17, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know if they're wild guesses or not, but there are no trusted/official sources at this moment in time. Aveyn Knight (talk) 22:31, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * According to the official Nintendo site, the release date for this game is on February 16, 2009. But I guess it's already too late to say that for me =/ Slapmeorelse (talk) 22:01, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

jamesryan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesryan1916 (talk • contribs) 09:15, 6 August 2015 (UTC)