Talk:Persona (series)

Move to "Persona (series)"?
I propose this article be moved to Persona (series), because everywhere I read about these games I see it referred to as the Persona series, or as a part of the larger Shin Megami Tensei series, but never as the Shin Megami Tensei: Persona series. --gakon5 (talk / contribs) 01:13, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth appending "Shin Megami Tensei" is just being centric to the North American ports of these games. Which add the super title for name recognition. Seems like a mouth full. I don't know what Wikipedia policy is on this. I think it would be to drop the Super Title if pressed --12.213.80.36 (talk) 06:25, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * EDITED: I think Wikipedia policy is to use the local commercial name --Truth Glass (talk) 10:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The series seems to have dropped the Shin Megami Tensei title after Persona 4. Arena, Golden and upcoming Dancing All Night don't use it. --Mika1h (talk) 18:09, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * However, the recent re-release of SMT:P1 for the iOS maintains the SMT title. I think they're just trying to avoid double colon names with the various Persona 4 spinouts. --M ASEM (t) 18:17, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the best way to determine a move would be if Persona 5 uses the branding in the US. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 02:53, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The official English website for Persona 5 doesn't make any reference to Shin Megami Tensei, nor has any media for it. It's safe to say that Atlus USA dropped the SMT moniker for the series, so I think it should be moved. Sonictrey (talk) 14:07, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking it's time for this, actually. ~ Dissident93  (talk) 20:35, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree. SMT:Persona might be the official name, but Persona is the common name. —Kirt Message 00:38, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Jungian Psychology
Can there be some mention of the role of Jungian Psychology in these series? I think it is a common element that deserves some attention and which seems to be invariably weaved into all the games I'm farmiliar with. Both the 'Shadow' and the 'Persona' are concepts/archetypes widely discussed by Jung, and many of the games seem to deal heavily with the collective unconscious. Some characters draw their names directly from Jungian elements. The name 'Philemon' was a deliberate reference to the name Jung gave his archetypal wise old man. Additional information/sources would be appreciated, and I feel that since these elements persist through all of the games in this series that it would be better mentioned here than in each individual article. 66.253.36.46 (talk) 03:05, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you know of any developer interviews, or website/print articles that explicitly explain the connection? Otherwise you're out of luck on getting it in any article. --gakon5 (talk / contribs) 00:39, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Jungian does not equal Jung. It's a valid description for sure. It's also plainly Lynchian, but that's another section. --12.213.80.36 (talk) 06:27, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Sales
The series has sold 1.65 million just in Japan. Sillent DX (talk) 16:13, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Persona 5 not marketed as Shin Megami Tensei
There's a mention in the article that Persona 5 isn't marketed as an entry in the Shin Megami Tensei series. But as mentioned in the first sentence of the article, the Shin Megami Tensei labeling has always been a western marketing ploy and thus far we basically have no information about its western release. Therefore I would suggest removing it until there is more solid proof that ATLUS isn't planning to market it under the Shin Megami Tensei label internationally. --Hamuko (talk) 21:08, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Persona hasn't had the SMT label since Persona 4 Golden. I don't think 5 will have it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.107.38.201 (talk) 06:28, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Protection edit request on 11 August 2015
To avoid vandalism. — 73.47.37.131 (talk) 22:52, 11 August 2015 (UTC)


 * This is only to be used if the article has had recent and frequent cases of vandalism, which it hasn't, so it's not going to be done. ~ Dissident93  (talk) 00:36, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Padlock-dash2.svg Not done: requests for increases to the page protection level should be made at Requests for page protection. Cannolis (talk) 01:19, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Dancing All Night and Persona Q
With the announcement of Persona 3: Dancing Moon Night and Persona 5: Dancing Star Night, should the Dancing All Night games be categorised as a sub-series now? We've now got three games under that particular format. And with announcement of Persona Q2, if said game was to have another hypothetical entry, would be considered as an Etrian Odyssey series or Persona sub-series? Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 14:03, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't really understand what you're proposing here. Yes, the dance games are of course related to each other - a series, if you want to describe them like that. Persona Q is part of the Persona series, and influenced by Etrian Odyssey. What do you want us to do with this?--IDVtalk 16:19, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I say no, else this would be a sub-series of a sub-series, and just be a confusing mess for any new reader on the subject. What's wrong with just keeping it as a Persona spin-off, with the prose properly explaining what the games are? ~ Dissident93  ( talk ) 16:27, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * What I was proposing here is whether Dancing All Night and Q should be in the spin-off categories in the infobox (not as separate articles). I apologise for not being too clear with that when I started this post, but that's what I wanted to discuss. Is everybody's thoughts still the same with their initial decision? Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 18:29, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see what you mean. I think I'd rather wait until we start seeing sources discussing the "Persona Q series" and "Persona Dancing series", as series.--IDVtalk 18:58, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, wouldn't these need their own article to belong there? Which brings us back to my original comment. ~ Dissident93  ( talk ) 19:59, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Of course, can't believe I forgot that obvious oversight. Unless anyone else can state otherwise, it's been decided that we won't be adding Dancing All Night and Q to the sub-series section of the Persona infobox. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 21:10, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Persona (series). 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/20131111163401/http://atlus.com/forum/showthread.php?t=10001 to http://www.atlus.com/forum/showthread.php?t=10001
 * Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6YieNjeZb?url=http://www.1up.com/news/atlus-announces-persona-3 to http://www.1up.com/news/atlus-announces-persona-3
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150530112552/http://www.atlus.co.jp/2pro/voice/kahashino.html to http://www.atlus.co.jp/2pro/voice/kahashino.html
 * Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6YHVp3gMT?url=http://www.1up.com/features/devil-details to http://www.1up.com/features/devil-details

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) 13:54, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 25 March 2018

 * 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 due to overwhelming consensus. (non-admin closure) Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  18:49, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Persona (series) → Persona (franchise) – The lede describes it as a "franchise" and I would be inclined to agree. There are a lot of related works besides the video games. This would be a more accurate title. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 20:17, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The article lede and structure seems to be revolving around the video game series, with the 'related media' being only a footnote near the bottom. Might have to restructure the whole article. DA1 (talk) 03:06, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

^I wasn't feeling so well yesterday. what I meant to say is I don't think Persona is commonly known as a "franchise".Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 15:01, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support but better Persona (video game franchise) or Persona (video game series). Franchise suggests fried chicken as much as series suggests TV series. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:44, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose unless the page gets updated beforehand. As DA1 said, the article revolves around the games, the anime adaptations don't have enough weight to them to really move this page. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 09:12, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I am undecided on what the optimal name for the article would be, but: The Persona franchise is very much focused on the role-playing games. It would not make sense to me to restructure the article to give the anime/manga/stage play adaptations more room than they currently have.--Alexandra IDVtalk 09:29, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * That's pretty much why I opposed it. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 03:13, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Even if you think that the strong focus is on the video games, (franchise) is still an appropriate and common way of describing almsot any collection of connected video games. (series) is inherently unclear as there are other "series" (TV, manga, etc.) based on Persona. -- Netoholic @ 03:26, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * That's true, but I think we have to account for due weight here. The majority of the animes, mangas, and plays are just derivative works of the games, they aren't fully independent and original creations. This isn't really like the Pokemon franchise or whatever. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 03:37, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Right, but for the moment ignore any non-video games named Persona. Wouldn't it still be called a video game (franchise) since there is both the main video game series AND the video game spin-offs? -- Netoholic @  03:56, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * No? They are still video games, and I thought they only become franchises after they cross over into another medium. Which is the case here, but I don't think its enough to move the page currently, per my original reasoning. ~ Dissident93 (talk</b>) 04:02, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, but outside of the main series. Its like when a movie series goes through a reboot or spin-off. Or when a TV show like Idol (franchise) is licensed in several countries. Same media, but different series... that makes it a media franchise aka (franchise). Its more common that a franchise is licensed and developed in other media, but not a requirement. And in this case there are spin-offs both in the same VG media and in other media. -- Netoholic @  05:17, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * "Franchise" for a television series is a different beast than a "franchise" for a video game series. It's a subtle but important distinction. --M asem (t) 05:51, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't see the distinction. Sources talk about video game "franchises" all the time when discussing even simple game series. You could instantly replace all VG (series) names on Wikipedia with (franchise) and to most people it would mean the exact same thing, even for VGs with only one set of linked games. In the case of Persona, its even more clear that there are multiple linked media series. -- Netoholic @  06:56, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - Spot-on application of WP:NCVG due to so many related works in other media. Franchise is WP:CONSISTENT (wikipedia doesn't use (franchise) as disambiguation for restaurants) per WP:NCTV and WP:NCFILM (due to the obvious overlap, all media NCs use the same), so there is no confusion and no need to be unWP:CONCISE by adding words. -- Netoholic @ 11:17, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose; While it certainly has a large amount of additional media, the video games are still the focus of Persona. The rest of the series wouldn't exist without the games. If necessary, the article can be adjusted so its focus is on the games. --ProtoDrake (talk) 11:36, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose The non-video game elements of this series are retellings of the video games rather than wholly original works in the same "universe", so this is not really a franchise. --M asem (t) 03:43, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * There are video game spin-offs that are completely outside the main series, such as Persona mobile games that are 3D dungeon crawlers, puzzle games, etc. rather than the main RPG line. Those alone qualify it to be described as a (franchise). -- Netoholic @ 03:59, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Different gameplay styles and genres still make them video games. See my response above. ~ <b style="color: #660000;">Dissident93</b> (<b style="color: #D18719;">talk</b>) 04:03, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - per Dissident/ProtoDrake/Masem's rationales. The video games are still the main focus by a long shot. Sergecross73   msg me  16:31, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I don't think Persona is known as a video game series. I think everyone else who opposed gave valid reasons too.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 23:15, 28 March 2018 (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.

Better Screenshots?
The images representing gameplay are terrible in my humble opinion. the top one is too dark and the second one is ok looking but since both images are very similar, hard to distinguish them. I would like Persona 3 battle screenshot and Social Link screenshot. the colors are easier to work with. Unfortunately for me, I only own the PSP version of Persona 3.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 19:05, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia non-free use image usage prefers images to not be in the best quality. Antithesis to actually educating people with images, but that's what it is. ~ <b style="color: #660000;">Dissident93</b> (<b style="color: #D18719;">talk</b>) 21:22, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm still new at this. can you give me the link to that policy? I don't think the images are bad because they're low quality. i dont think they paint a good picture of what modern Persona gameplay is like. I think it would be better if there is two screenshots for the same character. one in battle mode and the other in Social link event. I thought Persona 3 would help more because you get a better layout of the layout. Persona 4's camera angles don't translate well for screenshots in battle mode in my humble opinion.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 21:50, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:IUP. And you mentioned that the first image is dark, which I agree with. But as these policies are overzealous (IMO), it's unlikely that somebody will go ahead and fix/replace them, as somebody else could claim the article overuses non-free images already (and thus have them removed). ~ <b style="color: #660000;">Dissident93</b> (<b style="color: #D18719;">talk</b>) 20:01, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * If they can be replaced that would be great. Something just clearer would do. But if it can't be done, I understand.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 15:39, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * That's what I'm saying. They are just unlikely to be replaced because of how the image rules are. It's better to keep them and hope nobody is overzealous enough to claim they should be removed. ~ <b style="color: #660000;">Dissident93</b> (<b style="color: #D18719;">talk</b>) 22:08, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Inclusion of "Megami Tensei" in the infobox for Persona games
So per my headline, do we really need to include Megami Tensei as a part of the series parameter in the infobox? This very article makes it clear what the connection between the two are, so I think we could get rid of clutter by just including Persona in the parameter, especially as Sega Sammy (Atlus's holding company) now reports sales for the Persona series separately (page 73), meaning even they view it as less of a sub-series and more of its own independent thing. ~ <b style="color: #660000;">Dissident93</b> (<b style="color: #D18719;">talk</b>) 18:58, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * This is kind of tough. I agree that Persona these days, with Persona 5, Persona Q, Persona Dancing, etc, is mostly separate from Megami Tensei, but Persona 1 through 3 are probably not. Do we have any other examples of a series and a sub-series both having articles, and how the game articles for that sub-series handle it?--Alexandra IDVtalk 22:07, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The only other one I can think of is for Fabula Nova Crystallis Final Fantasy games. See Final Fantasy XV for how it's done. ~ <b style="color: #660000;">Dissident93</b> (<b style="color: #D18719;">talk</b>) 23:04, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Any other opinions on this? Pinging series/video game article regulars: ~ <b style="color: #660000;">Dissident93</b> (<b style="color: #D18719;">talk</b>) 18:54, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not familiar with this particular series(ies) of games. -- ferret (talk) 18:56, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I could go either way. Persona by itself would conceptually be okay with me, though I feel it could be far more irritating to maintain. If we remove Megami Tensei, every couple of weeks we’re going to have to deal with passerby editors reverting it back in, or “alerting” us with their “Accccctually Persona is part of MT series” like we weren’t aware of the connection... Sergecross73   msg me  21:35, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The key fact is that Persona is and always has been a subseries of Megami Tensei. While it has grown, that fact remains unchanged. Theoretically you could have just Persona. As noted above, there is a precedent of sorts, but that is based on a situation where Fabula Nova Crystallis was not defined very clearly as a series. On that side, you could remove Megami Tensei from the infobox. But on the whole, I think it should remain due to the two series' intertwined identities. Sorry for the long reply. --ProtoDrake (talk) 10:58, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks everyone, seems like it should be kept (for now). ~ <b style="color: #660000;">Dissident93</b> (<b style="color: #D18719;">talk</b>) 16:53, 18 October 2018 (UTC)