Talk:Fire Emblem Engage

Numbering
Is there any argument that they need to be mentioned beyond the invalid "the other articles do it"? If not, I'm starting a discussion to remove it from all the articles.

If Nintendo doesn't bother numbering entries, I fail to see the significance. Doubly so when there's so much back and forth arguing in the exact numbers due to all the remakes, spin-offs, etc. People's attempt to number Sonic the Hedgehog and The Legend of Zelda have been removed on similar grounds. Sergecross73  msg me  14:13, 15 September 2022 (UTC)


 * It's better to be consistent with the openings on each game. Feel free to remove the numbering from the other articles as I'm personally indifferent to whether or not they're listed or not. My only real issue is the lack of consistency with this change when it only affects this article only. Basically my point is, either keep them all or remove them all. Also mind providing examples of previous revisions of numbering attempts at the other two series? SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 12:54, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * If that's your only opposition, I'll just remove it from other articles too. It's easy to reword it out of it. Sergecross73   msg me  13:36, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * All's good for me in that case then. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 14:57, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Improve ASAP
This article needs to be improved quickly, as the topic Main Fire Emblem Series will be demoted on April 20th if this article does not meet good article status by then! Please improve the article before then! QuicoleJR (talk) 23:36, 26 January 2023 (UTC)


 * This FT is doomed. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:13, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Go for it. You're probably not going to recruit much new help here though, this article doesn't have much in the way of regular, experienced editors maintaining it. Sergecross73   msg me  15:12, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I have started on it in one of my sandboxes. Hope it goes well! QuicoleJR (talk) 16:36, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

"FE17" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=FE17&redirect=no FE17] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:57, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fire_Emblem_17&redirect=no Fire Emblem 17] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:58, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Pre-GAN chat
Hello article watchers (, anyone else out there too), I'm considering throwing this up for GAN again soon. Any thoughts / issues we should address first?

Some general comments from me as a bit of a pre-review of my work... SnowFire (talk) 04:26, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * There's a few short paragraphs which I know riles some editors, but I don't see a way around them because the topic is too disconnected from everything else in the remaining short paragraphs. The most obvious example is the Manga section, where we have one tiny article translating Nintendo itself.  This has absolutely zero to do with Release IMO, hence marking it as its own section when I first edited it, but Quicole also has a point that it might just stand out even more if given its own top-level section, so better to hide it in "Release".  In the same way, I don't think we have a lot to say on music other than the two sentences we have short of just reposting the entire interview - I don't feel it's super relevant to mention which composers also worked on Three Houses, etc.  Same with the FE Heroes sentence, we've got one sentence worth of content and that's it and it's unrelated to everything else.  So I think the current structure is acceptable as is, but open to suggestions.
 * The lede currently doesn't summarize or discuss the "Development" section at all. This is intentional, but I can see that possibly being questioned.  I find that Wikipedia articles over-emphasize development stories compared to public interest in them when I've asked normal non-Wikipedia editors for feedback before, and I don't think anything in Development is so important as to be put in the lede.  Also, our Development section is essentially primary-sourced at the moment.  I'd be more confident including this in the lede if we had some spicy Jason Schreier style independent source on the development, but we just have a pile of interviews.  (And, speaking personally, interviews that are OBVIOUSLY BEGGING FOR A REBUTTAL on parts...  all the talk about wanting a broader audience than Three Houses, because clearly if we remove all the sad stuff there that scared people away, we'll double our sales!  Wait, accounting said our sales were cut in half instead?)
 * I mentioned it in an edit summary, but while our plot section barely scrapes in under the "limit", the DLC plot section is technically over WP:VG/PLOT suggestion of 300 words. That said, I feel like the intro sentences are not really the DLC plot summary but rather just a "shifting gears" set up to not just launch into the DLC plot with no frame beyond the section title (and thus shouldn't count against the limit), so I personally think it's fine.  (And no need to make the DLC plot even more incoherent than it already is.)
 * I know some editors dislike repeated "Journalist Alice B. of Website X said...", but I'm one of those people who disagree, and think that this quickly becomes "invisible" to readers. See WP:ELEVAR, basically - no need to mix up the constructions constantly unless you actually want to draw attention to them, which we don't generally.  I did try to make it so that a specific journalist was only ever quoted once, and if they were used as a reference multiple times the other times would be for stuff that lots of people said.


 * Yeah, let me give it an run through later and I can give some thoughts, but I think it's much improved and much more in the ballpark of GA status now. Sergecross73   msg me  12:42, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The Reception section is quite flowery in places. If it is from specific reviews, it should probably be in quotes. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:30, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * While a quote-heavy style is better than misrepresenting reviewers and/or being an empty section, my understanding is that too many quotes are discouraged in Reception sections. (WP:VG/REC suggests "minimizing direct quotations", albeit right next to the very wrong guidance about "avoid A said B".  Mind you, I think "minimizing" is too strong as well, but I don't think the current reception section is lacking in direct quotes.)  Summarizing a reviewer's views in prose is fine.  (And while flowery, the WaPo article was equally flowery?  I'm just transmitting her spin.  It went on at some length about how the Paralogues were great and accurate, so I think reducing that to the Paralogues being "lovingly recreated" is a fair thing to take if said Paralogues were "some of my favorites" and able to make the reviewer "weepy-eyed with nostalgia".  Clearly the designers did something right.)  SnowFire (talk) 16:27, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:29, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I did a quick skim over, and I think its looking pretty good. If its not at GA level yet, its at that sort of level where working with the reviewer should get you there relatively easily.
 * Agree that some of the "short section/paragraph" just can't really be helped. My only addition to it is, with some slight reframing, we could potentially connect the "4 composers for 4 continents so they have separate vibes" and "Different environment for the 'Fell Xenologue'" as more of a collective "here's how they tried to make different parts of the game unique" type thing. Just a thought.
 * As far as "Dev info for lead" goes, you could mention that its development started at the same time as Three Houses. It could tie in well with the "it wasn't reviewed as well as Three Houses bit.
 * I didn't read the plot/story parts yet, since I haven't played the game yet (but plan on doing so in the coming months so I don't want to spoil it for myself). But I believe sometimes long/story-heavy games are given a little extra lee-way. Same goes for story DLC on top of it. Reviewers wouldn't like it if we were talking about Sonic Frontiers or something, but you might have some extra consideration given to you considering the game we're dealing with.
 * I write reception sections both ways you mention - I vary based on what I have to work with and how easy it is to blend the content. I have no problem with what you've done here. And with quotes: a common philosophy on Wikipedia is, only direct-quote when you've got quotes that just simply can't be paraphrased for the same impact. So if you don't have many quotes, I think that just means you did a good job at paraphrasing, or the source material didn't have a ton content that couldn't be easily paraphrased. Sergecross73   msg me  18:24, 29 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the feedback & edits. Would still like to figure out some way to phrase the WaPo Paralogue bit in a way that's both accurate and succinct (merely recreating maps doesn't say much on its own, it's that it was done well), but it's fine for now I guess.  Went ahead & nominated it, we'll see how it goes.  SnowFire (talk) 21:51, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Plot summary
I do appreciate you taking a look, and I did keep some of your changes. I don't want to be accused of OWNership on the plot section, but in the same way, you could commission 10 good writers to write a plot summary and you'd get back 10 different, valid summaries. So it's not worth dueling too much over stylistic differences - just the stuff that's clearly slackly written or in error. Anyway, to avoid any OWN accusations, to spell out some reasons on why I disagree on the plot summary stuff...

(I've stuck this in a collapsible section as a courtesy for those not interested in plot details, i.e. Sergecross.)


 * We already established dragons live in human form in the preceding paragraph.
 * Sombron "recovering" is better as it's implied Sombron was sorta-dead, not merely drained of strength, but is now at least able to order Hyacinth around. Game is real vague on this point since he apparently needed another dose of power in C10, so we should use something equally vague.
 * Corrupted are fought before Elusians, so honor order in-game. The unknown attacker isn't a "mage" (Zephia is the one referred to as a Mage Dragon), we know from later information she's a fell dragon.  This is a setting where even physical-themed Emblems and characters can fire magic beams so Veyle is really not heavily associated with, like, Gandalf tropes.
 * It's worth spending a few extra words than merely say Alear "succeeds" Lumera. This is foreshadowing: Alear is  taking the role of Divine Dragon (even if technically it might not be theirs by blood).  Besides, "succeed" is generally used for political roles, and we hear basically nothing about Lumera's political role as monarch.  It's not incorrect, but the mood is off.
 * I've removed "named / called" myself when it's unneeded, but it's there for a reason here: sentence flow. There's already a comma in Veyle's adjectives so I want to avoid two new commas that slow the sentence down.  In the same way, the comma you added earlier isn't necessary - we're moving from point to point.  (On the Four Hounds, that is a striking enough title that explicitly saying "named" helps.  Don't make the reader do extra work in filling in missing words.)
 * "Converting Emblem Rings" reads strangely: how is that different from any other magic artifact changing hands? I know what you mean, but a casual reader might not.  It's not the taking of rings themselves that the plot considers shocking, but rather the Emblem characters associated with them.
 * Veyle's identity is not a secret anymore when it's revealed, so your phrasing doesn't work. Nor was it ever really intentionally a secret, it turns out evil Veyle was clueless that good Veyle was buddies with Alear.
 * If you compared my version to older versions, I've tried to reduce the amount of "stolen" / "steals" / etc. that presume that Emblems are rightful property of anyone.  Ivy / Zelkov just take / bring them.  My phrasing "two of the Emblem Rings that Elusia had controlled" is trying to hint more directly that the two Emblems they bring are new ones, not two of the six that were just taken.  If we were doing a 1000 word summary then we could just explicitly say they were Lucina & Lyn (and talk about how these were the games that introduced / re-popularized FE in the West, comparable to Marth in Japan), but we're stuck with this.
 * "Split personality" suggests the actual, medical disassociative identity disorder too much. Side rant: we need to create a "Multiple personalities in fiction" article so that we're not distastefully linking to a real-life psychological condition that has very little to do with how it works in fiction.  Two personalities is factual and gets the point across, because Veyle's condition is magically induced.  (If it was portrayed as a psychological issue, even fancifully, then maybe we could call it a split personality, sure.)
 * I don't think it's that relevant to say that Lumera "recruited" Alear or convinced them. The important part is just that past-Alear turned against Sombron.
 * "Veyle's evil side is defeated" sounds like psychological combat. No, it's Veyle herself that is defeated, just while the evil side is in control of her.  I'm very hesitant to call the other Veyle "good" though - she is portrayed as extremely sheltered and naive, and meekly goes along with Zephia earlier.  The reason she defects isn't out of do-gooderism (she could have left long ago if that was the case), but rather out of creepy siscon "Anything for you, brother/sister!" despite only meeting Alear literally one time!  Ick.  (In other words, if, hypothetically, Alear was evil, then Veyle would still follow Alear because Veyle's morality seems to be "whatever Alear wants.")  I think "innocent" gets the point across - she's sheltered and not very savvy, but also not evil.
 * Calling it "Lumera's castle" is rather dated as she's already dead. It's just the castle of Lythos at that point in the game.
 * I don't really agree with your phrasing on the other C21 stuff. I'll chalk this up to stylistic preference.  The general emotional sense of the scene is that Alear is protecting Veyle because something something sibling promises and family above all.  Your version seems focused on the physical sense of the scene by talking about the specifics of blocking a magic beam, which is secondary IMO (especially given that the staging makes 0 sense).  And I don't think "Collecting all 12 rings" flows easily into the next sentence - I much prefer the full stop to separate these, collecting the rings is more associated with killing Alear.
 * You've killed the fun beat on the Fire Emblem reveal! Sorry, this one really is just worse writing.  Why would you reverse the order there?  It's a classic kicker.  Imagine you were giving a lecture or standup comedy - you say "the new thirteenth Emblem" (dramatic beat) "the Fire Emblem" (crowd: "ooh, that's the title of the game!").  Hiding it in the middle of the sentence ruins the effect.
 * Throwing two different terms in a row that don't really matter isn't great. IMO, we might be spending too much time on Sombron's motivation anyway, but I've tried to fit in the details of the two names in context rather than "pausing" to explain them.
 * It's not even clear if Sombron really wished to destroy the world. DLC Sombron, sure, where he's become a card-carrying villain dedicated to ensuring that even after he dies someone will go crazy and corrupt the world, but Sombron just sounds like he wants to get away and tells Alear to leave him alone.
 * It's not clear at all that Sombron reunited with the Zero Emblem from a simple reading of the game script. It is, at most, undetermined and sequel bait.
 * "It involves" visiting a parallel world? No, it doesn't "involve" it, it just is it.  Involve would imply there are other things afoot.
 * "Reverse Elyos" isn't really clear what it means. My spelling out of "most everything is inverted" is clearer to an audience who isn't sure what "Reverse" as an adjective might mean.
 * Personally, I think the fact that Rafal did this at Nil's request is somewhat relevant here, since Rafal is meant to be sympathetic and join the party. In other words, Rafal wasn't just an imposter for no reason.  (Ideally we'd also add in the nonsensical plot point about "Rafal had been driven insane by a corrupted dragonstone of Sombron for why he randomly played the villain", but I feel we're already capped on words.) SnowFire (talk) 13:30, 1 July 2023 (UTC)


 * From these issues, it is clear you are not in full understanding of the Manual of Style for Wikipedia. Plot summaries have to be dry, emotionless and sound as little like a publicity blurb as possible. It's not editors' job to assist the game with dramatic plot reveals or making things sound cool. So, something like "the thirteenth Emblem - the Fire Emblem" sounds overdramatic, while "the Fire Emblem, the new thirteenth Emblem" is solely explanatory without drama or pathos. This is how it should be.
 * I'm not going to claim my writing is perfect, but some of these changes fixed unencyclopedic statements. "Most everything is inverted" is a generalization. The color of the sky isn't inverted (I think), water isn't green, the planet isn't square, so "everything" is not actually in reverse, and claiming that it is is incorrect.
 * Other changes seem nonsensical. How is Lumera recruiting Alear irrelevant? Turning against someone of your own free will is quite different than being convinced by someone else.
 * Finally, it's disruptive editing to immediately revert WP:GOODFAITH changes simply because you disagree. Discuss them if you must, and I'm fine if there is consensus to roll them back and others agree with these claims, but immediate and unilateral knee jerk reversion was not merited in the slightest. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:50, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * C21 plot beats: It's true that Wikipedia writing is not a magazine... but... you're speaking to somebody who *mostly* edits on boring scholarly stuff these days. I can do dry & detached, sure, but you have to reflect the material, too.  If the material is meant to be heart-tugging or sad or funny or whatever, then honoring the material means presenting it as it is.  It's funny you mention pathos, because my other article up for GA nom - Chapters of 2 Maccabees - has scholarly debates over whether the book was written in the "pathetic" (in the sense of pathos) style, or whether the pathetic style was a thing at all and it's just a term of insult for works that are written in frankly a maudlin way (there's a bit on that at 2_Maccabees).  To play this emotional aspect down or to try to rewrite sections clearly meant to generate an emotional response is to warp the work in the case of 2 Maccabees, and it's the case in quite a lot of dramatic fiction.  Javert doesn't just randomly fall in the water: the dramatic reason is important.  In the same way, if a literary character valiantly sacrifices themselves for another, and the author is very clear that they consider this a key moment, a wonderful expression of love, blah blah blah, then attempting to make it a dry, emotionless moment with "Bob dies when shot by a bullet meant for Alice" is not really reflecting the work.  Anyway, back to Engage... Engage is not subtle about the emotional logic behind that scene.  It is very, very bluntly a maudlin sacrifice, not just the result of combat.  On the nature of the Fire Emblem, it's a stinger in-game, so I'm presenting it as a stinger in text.  I'm just being accurate to the game.
 * "Inverted": The very next sentence makes clear what is meant by everything being inverted. Anyway, your phrasing of "reverse" has exactly the same theoretical problems if a reader is deadset on ignoring the context.  They'll just have to read the next sentence.
 * Who recruited Alear: This is actually the one I feel the least strongly on. I actually agree with you that it would be nice to include that, and I'd absolutely have included it in a 900 word summary.  However, this is a 700 word summary.  Some important facets just aren't gonna make it.  In my version, there just barely isn't room, but if that fact made it into your version, I wouldn't consider it a problem, no.  But this is why cooking by committee can be hard - if we compromise and keep including everything anyone wants, we end up with a 1200 word section instead.
 * If you're throwing "you don't understand the Manual of Style" at me (which is rather unkind, I dare say), I'm gonna throw this one back at you: you aren't familiar with Wikipedia editing standards if you think there's some minimum guaranteed time of keeping a change. I do agree that there is a requirement to discuss, though, which is why per WP:BRD I made sure to include detailed reasoning for why I think some of your changes were unproductive so we can discuss them here.  (And I didn't even strictly "R" in the sense of revert, I kept some of your changes as already noted.)  If you want to sway me on the merits and/or get a consensus that I'm wrong on the other stuff, happy to adjust!  But sell us on the merits in a discussion, then.  I'll be the first to edit it back in if it turns out you have a point.  SnowFire (talk) 19:32, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It is more than a little ironic when last month you went and rewrote the former plot summary, which had consensus to be there, and now argue that changes should not be made without consensus. Anyway, the only way I feel this can be resolved is getting consensus of other users on whether the original plot summary, your plot summary, or the newly edited plot summary is better. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:05, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Re the previous version: The article failed the GA nom before. I'm just trying to get it into a better shape to pass this time.  And yes, this is also why I'm a bit more trigger happy on trying to keep quality up.  SnowFire (talk) 20:48, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * And you've done a great job at it too, the article is far better than when it failed it's first GA nom. Sergecross73   msg me  20:50, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Looking at Talk:Fire Emblem Engage/GA1 I only noted a few fixable problems with the plot summary but nothing on the level of a full rewrite being needed. They could easily be addressed by tweaking a few words and sentences. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:52, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd recommend looking at the page history to see what the article looked looked like at that time. It was a fine start/C class, but definitely a GA quick fail. ( Though why you're going there when your rewrite of the plot section is being challenged is beyond me. Kinda feels like you're just trying to go the contrarian route here... ) Sergecross73   msg me  00:59, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Actually, even the last GA review itself literally concludes with comments like "Looking through the rest of the article, I agree with Sergecross73 that overall the prose is not up to GA standard." and "I recommend shortening the gameplay and plot, and then a getting a copyedit done" so I really have no idea what you're taking about here. Sergecross73   msg me  01:23, 2 July 2023 (UTC)


 * De-indent: Sergecross73, Zxcvbnm wrote a lot of the plot section before, so it's not just being contrary, he just prefers his version. Which I get, but comparing with the old revision, I feel very confident saying that my version is better.  And by that I don't mean I personally think it's better - of course I do, but I'm biased - but rather that if I asked friends to read through both versions and didn't tell them which one I wrote and which one did they like better, that they'd pick mine.  Which, to be clear, I sorta did - I've run the current article past friends in an RPG Discord chat and people gave me the thumbs up.  I think the old version is way too in-universe rather than "experienced as the player does" and also draws out some stuff that is at best implied in the game, and not that important if real.  SnowFire (talk) 01:38, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * If it matters, I fully admit that the gameplay section you wrote is much better then what I originally wrote. QuicoleJR (talk) 04:42, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * And no offense intended to your version earlier. It was fine, just not GA level. Sergecross73   msg me  12:52, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * No opinion on the plot RN though. QuicoleJR (talk) 04:43, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Plot rambles
Mostly talking to myself here, because beats me how to source this. In theory, plot sections are sourced to the game itself, but this can run into issues when the plot has holes parts that are unclear, and this can be accidentally smoothed over in the summary.
 * Currently, the article says "Lythos is a central holy land reserved for the Divine Dragon and their attendants." I'd say that's accurate to the game, given that you see exactly 0 people living in Lythos other than them.  However, there are "Lythos-style" cuisine and clothing, which make of it what you will.  More interestingly, in the manga, there are people living in Lythos.  Were they always there, or is this a manga-only truth?  (Incidentally, if Lythosians really are a thing, then our heroes are real jerks for saying precisely nothing about what would happen to the innocent Lythosians when they abandon Lythos to its fate.  Were they just occupied by Elyos?  Killed by corrupted?  Killed by Gradlon popping up out of nowhere?)
 * For the DLC, the article says "Alear and Sombron are both dead, having killed each other in the war one thousand years earlier". But some of the Alear / Corrupted royal boss conversations suggest that the Corrupted knew their world's Alear, and further, some of the Corrupted royal boss conversations suggest that everyone being turned into Corrupted was a fairly recent phenomenon.  I am inclined to chalk this up to just bad inconsistent writing, but eh, maybe Parallel-Alear did die more recently?  But to what and why, if so?  SnowFire (talk) 20:31, 12 February 2024 (UTC)