Talk:Ghosts 'n Goblins

Image copyright problem with File:GhostsnGoblins flyer.jpg
The image File:GhostsnGoblins flyer.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --22:29, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Stub?
The article as it stands has virtually nothing except links to the various titles of the game, all of which is already handled by the box for the series. Should this be marked as a stub?76.226.122.8 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:26, 24 November 2009 (UTC).


 * Definitely, series articles should be more than just a bunch of links.71.190.182.22 (talk) 02:29, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Series name?
Does anyone know if the official spelling is "Ghosts 'n Goblins" with the space between Ghosts and "'n" or "Ghosts'n Goblins" minus the space?Flygongengar (talk) 22:47, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Capcom has consistently written it as the latter... I think we should move. 174.111.86.22 (talk) 11:24, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I moved this main page; I want to see if anyone objects before making more changes. Despatche (talk) 11:26, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Despite the appearance of the logo, Capcom has referred to is as "Ghosts 'n Goblins", with a space. And don't move pages unless there is a consensus.  TheStickMan  [✆Talk] 14:57, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Wrong, look again. "Ghosts'n Goblins" is currently printed for at least Gold Knights. The logo isn't ambiguous, either. I understand that the Ultimate Ghosts'n Goblins page has "Ghosts N' Goblins"... wait... hahahahaha... Seriously, try again. Despatche (talk) 19:25, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Notice that I said "despite the appearance of the logo." Let's see... Capcom reps themselves have a space, as well as other reliable sources. Logos can be misleading. Would you call LinkedIn "Linked In"? Call Facebook "facebook"?  TheStickMan  [✆Talk] 19:57, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You have linked to a blog (where official logos are the last thing anyone worries about) and have brought up poor examples (the LinkedIn logo is ambiguous; "facebook" is a stylization so I'm not sure what your point is; overall this logic would have one very strange list of games). I'm looking at the page for Gold Knights, which is the latest game in the series and the most relevant to anyone's interest. The logos are actually the main focus due to that fact that so many different forms of the title are used, even at Capcom... I think I'll stick to the logo and to their most recent offerings. Despatche (talk) 01:07, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It may be a blog, but that's Capcom official blog. It's been accepted as a reliable source. You also can't deny the way reliable sources type it, as well. Now that you mention it, though, I am seeing it without the space in official summaries (Like the Gold Knights iTunes page and the UGnG website). I'm confused, now. The only thing I can think of saying is that with the space, it's grammatically correct.  TheStickMan  [✆Talk] 02:17, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The "grammatically correct" argument is something you want to avoid at all times when it comes to the titles of works, especially in regards to fiction; you cannot ever assume that the title of a Japanese game is simply "Engrish", no matter the proficiency level of whoever came up with it. It is the official title and to change that around is to knowingly confuse. This is why I would rather go by the logo and what Capcom has done recently, as "any given blog" in regards to the official title of a work is a poor source at best and defamatory at worst. Despatche (talk) 13:39, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Which is why I said that I was confused. And note that Unity is not "any given blog". However, I don't see a reason not to move the page anymore. I suppose you can go ahead with it until someone else contests it.  TheStickMan  [✆Talk] 15:24, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * This has nothing to do with "Engrish", as Ghosts 'n Goblins isn't the Japanese title.--Atlan (talk) 19:45, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Given the Capcom Unity blog'll be shut down soon enough, may I throw the Nintendo Switch Online official site in, which uses the unspaced titles, consistent with the NSO app in-app. 69.153.15.106 (talk) 04:30, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Finally moved
Sorry about the brusqueness back then. I'm finally going through these pages, and I've ended up fixing various other problems along the way. Now I need to get these redirects patched up. Despatche (talk) 01:22, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * One thing you need to check is that Ghosts'n Goblins already redirected to the series page, so now all the wiki-links bring you to the series page instead of the first game of the series, whose article is still Ghosts 'n Goblins. Maybe rename this article "Ghosts'n Goblins" proper and rename the first game's article "Ghosts'n Goblins (1985)" or something similar?72.89.142.185 (talk) 05:24, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Translation of Makaimura
I see someone has changed all translations of Makaimura from "Demon World Village" to "Hell Village". While I know "Hell" is technically more correct I've always seen the series' Japanese name traditionally translated in English as "Demon World Village" and most sites I find on Google that mention the Japanese name translate it as such as well. Of course, I realize the usage of "Demon World" might have started specifically to avoid using the word "Hell" in connotation with the game in English, but if there is an agreed upon traditional translation that's been with the series this whole time perhaps we should stick with it? Thoughts? Does anyone know of a time Capcom ever translated the title? 72.89.142.185 (talk) 05:34, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it might be the same idiot who translated Castlevania into Devil's Castle Dracula when Demon Castle Dracula is more correct. Stay free, Wikipedia. 80.220.96.83 (talk) 14:22, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Assume good faith. Calling other editors idiots won't resolve anything, but it will definitely create more pointless talk page drama.


 * Either translation is acceptable, but "Demon World" is more constituent. Broken down, ma and kai translate to demon and place. (or something like place) Some people feel that providing constituent translations is more accurate. Technically, I agree; personally, I don't care. 98.86.122.49 (talk) 05:16, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Ghosts 'n Goblins (series). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120130063027/http://otoya.rocketserver.jp:80/ to http://otoya.rocketserver.jp/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 15:54, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 17 October 2016

 * The following is a closed 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: Moved &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:48, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

– The Ghosts 'n Goblins series seems to meet the following criteria on WP:NCVG:"'...If a video game series has a naming conflict solely with the first game in the series (e.g., Final Fantasy), the series page should reside at the primary name if the series possesses a minimum of 3 video game articles as well as at least one other unrelated video game or related media item. Otherwise, the first game in the series should occupy the primary name, and the series article should be disambiguated with '... (series)'.'"...So, with that being said, should the series page be moved to the base title? Steel1943 (talk) 14:45, 17 October 2016 (UTC) --Relisting.  ©   Tb hotch ™ (en-2.5). 03:40, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Ghosts 'n Goblins (series) → Ghosts 'n Goblins
 * Ghosts 'n Goblins → Ghosts 'n Goblins (video game)
 * Oppose. Two cold reasons. Firstly, because this series isn't such that it has a significant non-video game component, unlike, say, Final Fantasy, or Mega Man, for two examples. Secondly, because I still think the (video game) disambiguation doesn't help when the entire a series are video games. It doesn't disambiguate anything, just like I've always thought. oknazevad (talk) 16:03, 19 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Support per nom. Consensus in WP:VG is to move series article to the base name if there is at least 3 articles in the series. This falls into that category.   Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   09:13, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I know, but I still think the standards for disambiguators are cruddy. oknazevad (talk) 09:22, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Support. The first game isn't the obvious primary topic in terms of page views over the series and other entries with potentially ambiguous names.|Ghosts_%27n_Goblins|Ultimate_Ghosts_%27n_Goblins|Ghosts_%27n_Goblins:_Gold_Knights The series article would seem to be a better fit for the base name as a WP:CONCEPTDAB. My only question is whether "Ghosts 'n Goblins" is the best title for the series over, say, "Ghouls 'n Ghosts".--Cúchullain t/ c 17:56, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * In regard to the last question, only two games in the series, the most recent of which dates to 1991, used "Ghouls N' Ghosts". All games before and since, including the most recent, use "Ghosts N' Goblins"; it's also the official series name per publisher Capcom, so it's definitely the correct choice for the article about the series, whether or not it is disambiguated. oknazevad (talk) 01:27, 8 November 2016 (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.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ghosts 'n Goblins. 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 tag to http://www.next-gen.biz/news/capcom-lifetime-sales-revealed
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110717020712/http://www.atomicgamer.com/articles/306/ultimate-ghosts-goblins-review to http://www.atomicgamer.com/articles/306/ultimate-ghosts-goblins-review

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:13, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 2 February 2017

 * The following is a closed 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: not moved. (non-admin closure) Sky  Warrior  21:08, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Ghosts 'n Goblins → Ghosts'n Goblins – I cannot let this stand. My original move was considered fine until someone randomly reverted it, seemingly ignoring the talk page and saying nothing about it here, and going by the same wrong information IGN and co. have had for years. [https://xkcd.com/978/ The only way to fix this false information elsewhere is to fix it on Wikipedia! This is how Wikipedia has always worked.] Capcom themselves write it as "Ghosts'n Goblins" (or "Ghouls'n Ghosts") in advertising, outside of the logo, with the exception of certain bizarre box permutations and a random mention on a fan-oriented blog. More importantly, Capcom uses this form for the most recent entries in the series. There is nothing vague about how the logo communicates itself to begin with; note the actual space between "'n" and "Goblins", this was always clearly on purpose. We are not talking about capitalization; this has nothing to do with "facebook", a site that clearly writes "Facebook" in print in all cases. Yes, we see that all caps is being used for trademark purposes, and we do the same thing we do with every other instance: turn them into normal caps. There's nothing controversial about this part. Despatche (talk) 20:02, 2 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose – unclear rationale; the space came in in 2013. It's not clear what "original move" nom refers to.  Perhaps ancient history?  If a more clear rationale was presented for why to omit this space in the normal orthography, we could consider it. Dicklyon (talk) 06:39, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Strongly oppose move. MOS:TM clearly applies in this case.  ONR  (talk) 11:21, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The style of writing Ghosts'n Goblins is not how WP:VG/RS'es use it, see the custom Google search engine. I agree that WP:MOSTM applies. soetermans . ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 09:27, 6 February 2017 (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.

Requested move 20 November 2017

 * The following is a closed 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: not moved. (non-admin closure) James (talk/contribs) 19:11, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Ghosts 'n Goblins → Ghosts'n Goblins – First, we should go back to the previous move in 2011. This came from a discussion with the end result being that it was moved to what I'm suggesting now with little to no opposition. Next, we go to a sudden move back, two years later, with no mention of it on the talk page at all. We ignore the disambiguation move request from last year for obvious reasons. Finally, we come to the move request from earlier this year, which noted that the previous move back was not mentioned on the talk page at all; this point seemed to be ignored, and opposition that was not there six or even four years ago appeared to turn the request down.

The issue with the space is that, for the most part, Capcom sources and non-Capcom sources are conflicting on this. As it currently stands, Capcom continues to use "Ghosts'n" and "Ghouls'n" in recent releases, with deviation generally being a result of citogenesis (see below). This might be a simple MOS:TM issue, except for two things. First, what's being asked here is not actually covered in MOS:TM. In fact, a specific video game happened to be namedropped on that page which has an identical situation to here, and should probably be changed depending on how this discussion plays out; that game is LittleBigPlanet, which is often spelled with spaces across the internet (specifically webstores), but is impossible to parse out because Google ignores spaces even when you put a phrase in quotes. Something similar happens when you attempt to search for "Ghosts'n Goblins" and any number of additional spaces you might like.

Second, citogenesis. That there's an actual article on it should tell you everything you need to know. Usually only major facts are noted because they're not as common and are more obvious, which means there are countless times where the spelling used in a third-party article is determined by what the Wikipedia article was already using. Wikipedia's large reach and influence means this cannot be simply ignored with ambivalence. There is a point where Wikipedia editors have to take responsibility for even minor cases of citogenesis, instead of looping back into the same policy that was ignored to create the title that is now being protected by that same policy. There needs to be some kind of addendum to the major policies that protects against this sort of thing.

There was an argument made that having the space makes it "more readable", which doesn't really pan out because there's no real rule to contracting the word "and", and a "proper" contraction would actually involve adding another ' after the n to cover the dropped D. Despatche (talk) 15:04, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Comment. This is not a DROPTHESTICK situation, nor is there a need for a speedy close. This is an unclear situation that came as the result of one specific editor (The Stick Man) changing things without explaining them, and an important case of the minor citogenesis that plagues Wikipedia and so much of the internet. Please don't simply look at the fact that there are previous move requests; please read this new request in full.
 * Oppose. Time to drop the stick. oknazevad (talk) 16:38, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - if sources are mixed, (which the nominator concedes above) then per MOS:TM we should stick to our own house style, which is to include a space before the 'n. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 16:49, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose and speedy close. MOS:TM In ictu oculi (talk) 17:43, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Amakuru, I'm not sure what you mean. MOS:TM doesn't really cover situations like this, nor does it provide even a close example other than LittleBigPlanet (and LBP isn't there to cover this, it's there to cover the totally different situation of trademark symbols). Again, LittleBigPlanet should be reexamined as a result of this discussion. Probably the closest thing to a hard and fast rule on MOS:TM is something that is clearly defined as anything but: CamelCasing, and I'm not sure even that really applies here. Perhaps there could be an attempt to clarify that particular section of the policy to cover things like Ghouls'n, but it seems like too much work for something that simply isn't going to come up very often. Despatche (talk) 23:32, 20 November 2017 (UTC) Comment. Thank you. Again, MOS:TM would in theory cover this just fine... except it doesn't, there's nothing on MOS:TM that covers this other than potentially filing it under CamelCase. The original chain of moves, and the possibility of citogenesis, are also concerning. There is even the dizzying amount of common permutations ("Ghosts'n", "Ghosts 'n", "Ghosts n'", "Ghosts 'n'", "Ghosts'n'", any capital variants of these) that are basically impossible to search for, and that show a possibility that the title is simply so "annoying" enough to type properly that there is a need to "police" what end up being typos. Of course, the easiest way to do that is to look at what the creator of the work has to say about it. Remember, we never replace "you" with "u", no matter how endlessly frequent it is, and no matter what the original author of the article wrote their contribution with; something similar might apply here. In fact, there's a similarly "annoying" title that people are confused on, and I'm trying my best to convince the creator of the work to be as consistent as possible, which is difficult to do with things like printed material that can't be easily changed and etc. All of this is what the move request is about. It's a complicated topic with implications across a number of smaller (perhaps neglected) articles, where people Google them, see what Wikipedia calls the subject, and take that for granted. This is not something that should be battered against policy doors just yet, because of its narrow range of effect... and let's be honest, it's always better to try a few articles a certain way and then bring those results before policy as a proof of concept. Despatche (talk) 07:37, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose and speedy close. Yes, MOS:TM does in fact cover situations like this, it's a perfect match for it.  There would need to be an overwhelming preponderance of sources to overrule it.  There isn't.  SnowFire (talk) 23:46, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose move, but do not speedy close. Instead of focusing solely on what MOS:TM says, we should focus on what it is intended to cover - the case where the official trademarked name and the common name differ. In this case, the common name for both has the "'n" as a separate word, so no moves are necessary.  ONR  (talk) 05:04, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment. Per what Amakuru said above, if you admit sources are mixed on this with a dizzying degree of permutations, then that is, in fact, the exact time that MOS:TM steps in and says to use Wikipedia house style. This is about as direct and as simple an application as you can get of it; it's not a hard case at all.  SnowFire (talk) 08:04, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment. But MOS:TM literally does not cover this, please read it very carefully. Simply citing MOS:TM over and over again doesn't work when what I'm supposed to be looking for doesn't actually appear anywhere in it. The closest thing to an example on the entire page is an example of a mostly unrelated point (CamelCase) that also happens to be an example of when we are using the official form (LittleBigPlanet). Again, because this is a video game, the video game guideline concerning unofficial titles once again rears its head, although it means less here for the same reason that MOS:TM is getting invoked here. In fact, I'm not even sure MOS:TM is relevant here. CamelCase, the closest example, is outlined as a YMMV situation that steers more into COMMONNAME territory, likely because it's so hard to actually Google. I have extensively covered COMMONNAME territory in the move request and the comments. Also, I just realized there's yet another example that's gonna need about as much work as this Ghosts'n does.


 * Propose minor changes to minor articles and you're told that policy covers them sufficiently, even when it doesn't. You're then told to go take it up with policy, except it's such a minor thing that policy is going to ask you to find or create more examples before going through the effort. You attempt to propose these minor changes to minor articles, and you're told that policy covers them sufficiently and to go take it up with policy. Along the way, the possibility of citogenesis is ignored as something that isn't really possible, even though we have an article for some of the more "popular" examples. This is at least a headache for me if for noone else. I also still want to know why the The Stick Man didn't say a thing about the 2013 move on the talk page, even though there was an entire section for the initial move to Ghosts'n. Despatche (talk) 02:18, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment It is clear that official releases all bare the "Ghost'n" title. This seems to go more towards a iTunes style logic as they are not getting off track in anything I've seen. I don't get why people keep jumping on "Indicating stylizations" thing, when this is a very widespread spelling that official websites support. How about some links proving that "Ghost'n" is used by official websites. Devilmanozzy (talk) 15:03, 30 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Support - Google searching the game you will find the covers all have the "Ghosts'n Goblins" with the spacing as so. Adding to the fire is a link to iTunes store of Capcom selling their recent reissue of the game Ghosts'n Goblins MOBILE. Devilmanozzy (talk) 05:51, 23 November 2017 (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.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ghosts 'n Goblins. 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://web.archive.org/web/20100227181348/http://www.thegamergene.com/industry/capcom-release-lifetime-sales-figures to http://www.thegamergene.com/industry/capcom-release-lifetime-sales-figures/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:13, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Stuff on the space
I really do think it'd be best for the article if we did the move, just as I did all those years ago. Citogenesis is a pain in the rear, and the best thing to do about it is to fight it directly. So, I figure it'd be good to have a section with references on the title. For example, here's the Ghosts'n Goblins arcade manual. The thing to remember is that while Capcom themselves are generally consistent, there is the occasional exception, particularly outside of the arcade games and particularly on packaging that is not necessarily reflected in the game itself; Super Ghouls'n Ghosts comes to mind as an example of both. Despatche (talk) 23:10, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:DROPTHESTICK. At this point continuing to bring this up is disruptive. oknazevad (talk) 00:16, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You know what's actually disruptive? Dropping the same drive-by comment on a discussion you had and continue to have zero interest in. Please go away. Despatche (talk) 04:20, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Reference link
As anon 158 stated earlier, the reference link for GnG being currently eight best-selling Capcom series is outdated. As of this writing Onimusha currently holds that rank.195.178.177.170 (talk) 07:06, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Just a side note
In the Nintendo website, it's mentioned that Ghosts 'n Goblons Resurrection is a reboot, while here, it says it's a sequel. ...? Serouj2000 (talk) 05:10, 11 December 2020 (UTC)