Talk:Shadow of the Colossus/Archive 2

Layout
Could someone with more knowledge of wikipedia layout fix the top of the article? It looks lame with all that white space up there after the introduction. I tried splicing the synopsis into the intro, but it didn't help. :P It's probably something to do with the table on the right. —ZorkFox 09:52, 28 January 2006 (UTC) —ZorkFox (&#2487;Talk) 20:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I think I put it to how you guys want it but does the layout really look better? Atirage 07:55, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it looks better... except on low-resolution screens. Luckily, I only have to endure that at work.  But if enough people think it should go back, I'm all right with it.

Suggestion: remove extraneous textlinks
I don't think it is very helpful to the understanding of the game to add links in the story synopsis to every single noun that is mentioned. I would propose that these be reduced to a few which actually provide valuable context for the game itself. Ben Kidwell 09:57, 28 January 2006 (UTC) —ZorkFox (&#2487;Talk) 08:59, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Be bold. Feel free.  It's just that it's a huge block of otherwise unrelieved text.  It might be nice to have some screen shots in there, so if you can provide some small images to help break up the narrative instead, that would be great.  I tried to pick items that were in context, which is why I didn't just pick things like sword and crossbow but also dead and spiritual possession and so on. It's easy to look those things up on Wikipedia, sure, but it's even easier still to just click them.  :) —ZorkFox 01:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Done! I thought better of your suggestion and removed some of the links. —ZorkFox 01:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I dumped some more of these the other night because you're right: it looks like crap with so many in there.

Early development
I agree with Psi edit that Nico deserves mention, but I don't think it belongs at the top of the article, so I moved it down near the viral marketing blurb. It's more of the sort of thing you'd find on a DVD's "bonus features" rather than as part of the feature presentation. —ZorkFox 05:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes that was actually my first choice on the location. But it definitely doesnt belong in the "Connections to Ico" section. --Psi edit 06:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * A case could be made. After all, if Shadow of the Colossus (or Nico) had actually become the sequel to Ico, it would definitely be connected.  But we'll leave it alone unless some huge outcry is raised or some concrete evidence comes to light (which seems unlikely). :)  —ZorkFox 01:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Various
I think some rearrangement still needs to be done overall. I feel like the article meanders between gameplay information, story information, and analysis. It should be more structured. I will try to come up with a new scheme in the next few days.

Also, I am seeing warnings when I make changes that the page "may" be too long currently. I am inclined to agree. I think there are sections that could be shortened significantly without losing any real content. The story summary in particular seems much longer than it needs to be. Still, we might want to consider splitting into a subpage.

This talk page is also becoming sort of long. A lot of the text here could probably stand to go as it's no longer relevant / being discussed.

It would be nice to have a reference for the statement about Shadow being a "spiritual successor" to Ico. I see that the phrase is used widely in coverage of the game on gaming sites, so I trust that Ueda really said it, but it seems odd to specifically state that Ueda said this in an interview without mentioning WHAT interview is being referred to.

I linked to the review on InsertCredit by Tim Rogers. In reading his posts to the SotC thread on the IC boards, one learns that he works at Sony and can seemingly wander to Ueda's office to ask him questions whenever he wants to. Because Rogers' review paraphrases Ueda instead of quoting him directly, I felt like I needed to state (in the "sources" at the bottom) that Rogers knows Ueda to justify using his statement about Ueda's intentions. However, this still feels shaky to me, as "he said on a message board that he works at Sony" isn't exactly rigorous. Any advice?

I wasn't sure what the proper way to present a long quote was, so I just indented that text and put quotation marks around it. Is there a style guideline for long quotes?

Oh, in my last edit, I removed references to the subtitles being "English or Japanese". This seemed extraneous, and possibly inaccurate, if the game has been localized into other languages (as I would guess it has, but I don't know). Also, I changed "fictional language" to "constructed language" and wikilinked the first instance of the term.

-Steve-o 04:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree on just about every point you made. (In no particular order.) —ZorkFox (Talk) 10:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Flow: I think all the story, character, and synopsis information should come first, followed by the basic game play information, followed by the extras, followed by the analysis. One thing I would like to see added to the basic game play data is how to "pray" at shrines and other places.  This information is not in the game manual and, unless my memory is failing me, not discussed in-game, either.  I went through the game the first time without saving anywhere but between fights.  Dormin tells you that shrines can be used to heal your wounds, but his in-character dialog doesn't tell you to press the circle button (for which I'm grateful, as it would ruin my immersion—it's almost too much when he starts describing the items you acquire for completing time attack challenges, but that's neither here nor there).
 * Length: There is a lot of redundancy in the article, and though I've been trying to ferret it out in bits and pieces, I haven't cleared it all out because I haven't been able to devote the necessary time. The story section is a bit long, as it seems to cover almost every in and out of the dialog and cinema scenes, but I would start chopping from the character section first, as it presents a bunch of stuff that's covered in the story section.  You could cut from the story section instead, but I think the information that's repeated is more appropriate to the story section than the charater section.
 * Length (part 2): I like having all the information about the soundtrack, but this (to me) seems like a section that could be made into its own page. The article doesn't have to be long (not all articles are!) but I think there is enough there, including the track list, and possibly with the addition of information from the liner notes (which I can provide if we want to go that in-depth), it could make a healthy addition to Wikipedia.  Then, we could have a short summary in the main article and point to the soundtrack article.
 * Length (part 3): I find the coverage of the extras to be a little verbose. I'm not sure how they could be trimmed, but I feel sure they could stand some pruning.  It's an article about the game, not a list of all its secrets.
 * Quote: I think indenting a long quote is fine. There's no need to make it italic or anything like that.
 * Rogers: If the man is so accessible, ask on the board for a list of games he's helped create (then you can look at the credits on those games to see if he really does work for Sony). Then, if he does, it's a simple matter to approach him (either with a post of your own, or with a private message) asking him if he'd be willing to confirm information for an encyclopedia article.
 * Talk: Not a poor idea. You could archive it.
 * Subtitles: A fine idea. Just because the game is only in English and Japanese now does not mean it will stay that way.  The official site has a bunch of other languages listed (though they are labeled as "coming soon").  Alternately, you could leave the languages in there and mention that "others are planned (as of 2006)."

Another quibble. Is the fictional language used in the game an actual construted language like elvish (from Lord of the Rings) and not like klingon? That is... could one actually learn and use the language in an everyday situation, or is it just something that "sounds good" for dramatic purposes? (It actually sounds a lot like Japanese to me, but my ear is untrained.) If it's not a real, usable language, I think we should go back to the designation "fictional." —ZorkFox (Talk) 10:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The language in the game is definitely not Japanese. I've seen it suggested that it's just Japanese backwards, but that doesn't seem to be the case.  Plus the sounds in the language seem to be quite different from Japanese.  I'm having trouble finding any information about it though, beyond the fact that it's the same language as in ICO. LeeWilson 02:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I spent some time studying the language in the game and comparing it to the English and Japanese subtitles. I'm fairly certain that they did create a specific system of sounds for their language, but then simply made nonsensical words.  It seems like they put some thought into it though, making it sound more like a real language by using proper intonation and so on to fit what would be expected from the corresponding subtitles.  It's quite rare however to find words repeated at all, even in places where you might expect them to be, and when you do hear repeated words, they seem to appear randomly and with no relation to what is being said in the subtitles.

LeeWilson 16:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Speculation references
I think it would be great if people who are adding speculative stuff would link to the discussions they reference, especially if the forums on which the discussions take place have permanent links to old topics. It's all very well to say that people think A or people think B, and some people argue C, but it would be ideal if these bulletin board topics were referenced so others could check. —ZorkFox (&#2487;Talk) 07:51, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

i thinks this falls under the same category; character sections seems to have a few unfounded personal opinions of nameless "fans" such as

"Dormin seems to be a favorite character of fans and many would welcome its return in any forthcoming "spiritual succesors" or sequels."

"Many fans claim that her lines are spoken in English and claim that she is trying in vain to dissuade Wander from continuing his quest to revive her."

while some fans might indeed speculate things of that nature, i don't see the reason for this to be listed in the wiki. also, imho most of the gameplay section can be abbreviated considerably. lengthy entries about getting to mono after Wander is posessed, running across the bridge, riding doves and utterly unsubstantiated speculation about 17th colossus are hardly warranted. any thoughts? Tani unit 23:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


 * i went ahead and removed some of the abovementioned stuff Tani unit 15:55, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Since we're removing speculative connections, I've removed the commentary in "Connections" that states the shadows in SotC are Dormin's power, and removed the 2-3-line commentary about how the "last 2 points more than any other lend themselves to [the prequel theory]." TakeTwo 14:43, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

—ZorkFox (&#2487;Talk) 04:14, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * This was a good idea. Thanks for taking the initiative.  I thought the connection between the shadows and Dormin's power was fairly routine because of the group of shadows that rushes to join Dormin when it possesses Wander.  But it's fine to cut it out, as I don't like that entire section anyway.  :)

Philosophy section
i vote this section of the artcile to be removed. it seems to be entirely pov and speculation. Tani unit 23:23, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah its also redundant. -- Psi edit 01:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. Wikipedia is not the place for original writing, it is a place for reporting what others have already discovered. The contents of the philosophy section have no bearing on the game and are the rampant speculations of an unregistered user.  If 151.188.16.17 wants to discuss his ideas about allegory and philosophy, he can use the talk page or any of a dozen on-line forums. I have removed the section.  —ZorkFox (&#2487;Talk) 01:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Speculation
I think we should make a major effort to rid this article of speculation in all forms. As I've said several times in other talk subjects, Wikipedia is not a place for original writing or a place in which to put forth new ideas. We only report what other people have discovered. If someone can produce an interview with game design personnel that confirms a widely held suspicion, that's fine. Cite the source, link to it, and make additions to the article that explain the features of the confirmed suspicion, but please do not simply add something to the article because it "seems like a good idea at the time." That is not how encyclopedias are written.

I am at work right now, and so cannot devote the evening to any vicious editing, and I would also like to see the opinions of other contributors before I start deleting large sections. If you would like to link to discussions of a speculative nature, or make speculative comments on the talk page, that's fine&mdash;that's what talk pages are for. Feel free! But please leave the poor article alone. It is sad at being so abused. —ZorkFox (&#2487;Talk) 03:13, 13 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe you should make a header on the article. No one is going to the talk on the "talk page" if they dont go there. -- Psi edit 22:11, 13 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure how to go about that. Is there an appropriate template?  I'll ask around.  I think that, once we get the speculation removed (or down to a minimum), we can simply police the article by keeping watch on it and removing anything future editors add. —ZorkFox (&#2487;Talk) 04:02, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I went ahead and removed the 17th Colossus section entirely, and also got rid of section about the wooden board, birds&fish and the bridge. They seem useless and information provided therein is in no way important to the actual game or gameplay.


 * I am tempted to do the same with getting to Mono, climbing the shrine and Garden sections, but i want t' see what you guys have to say first. Tani unit 02:52, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm glad you removed the 17th Colossus section, as it is plainly bogus. And I agree with the suggestion to delete the Getting to Mono section... especially as it's impossible to get to Mono.  I would leave in a tidbit about climbing the temple, as that is definitely a secret and one worth mentioning.  (I haven't been able to do it yet.)  But I would trim it way down, not telling people how to do it, but rather mentioning that it is possible, and perhaps linking to an off-site tutorial (perhaps at GameFAQS.com).  I'm at work now, and can't take the time, but if no one has managed it by the time I'm off, I'll take care of it. —ZorkFox (&#2487;Talk) 04:02, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd argue that some mention of the board would appropriately fit into the "Connections to Ico" section. Rossumcapek 03:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


 * You could argue that, but then you'd have to write a section that links Shadow of the Colossus to every other game that has a bow and/or sword. Or every other game that has a horse, or a disembodied voice, or a "save the girl" motif.  I vote no. —ZorkFox (&#2487;Talk) 04:02, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


 * ditto Tani unit 12:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Excess verbiage
I removed large chunks of the unlockables section as unecessary and overly verbose. In places where I thought the topic had merit, I tried to rewrite for clarity and brevity. I have not yet touched the story speculation section. I feel the article has reached a more appropriate length with the deletion of much of the gameplay section, but I still feel strongly that speculation should be edited out. This may be difficult in the story speculation section, as I believe some of it does have merit (particularly the somewhat obvious stuff about Nimrod and his getting cut up). If someone would like to rewrite that portion of the section into a coherent paragraph or two (instead of a bulleted list), that would be wonderful! Have at it, everyone, and if you think I removed something that really deserves mention, see if you can't work it into another section, rather than adding a new one. The table of contents on this article is quite huge.

—ZorkFox (&#2487;Talk) 08:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


 * IMHO the unlockables section could be shortened a lot (perhaps removed completely). Wikipedia is not a walktrough/cheatdoc, sections about unlockables and cheats could better be moved to Shadow of the Colossus. Felsir 09:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


 * In general I agree, though it might be fine to leave some mention of them in the article. I don't have an account at Wikibooks and don't know the procedures or policies there.  It seems there is no Shadow of the Colossus book at present.  Feel free to transfer the information if you like, but do try to leave a small paragraph about them and link to the new home. —ZorkFox (&#2487;Talk) 20:39, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I condensed the connections to Nimrod section considerably, and will have a go at the rest later if noone beats me to it. Tani unit 13:02, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Good work on that. It looks much better.  I had a go at cleaning it up (copy editing) and removed a little more body fat. —ZorkFox (&#2487;Talk) 20:39, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

—ZorkFox (&#2487;Talk) 20:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Tani unit&mdash;could you cite a source for the stuff you wrote in the Dormin's character section? We need more sources on the article, especially about things that are slightly unrelated to the game.  I didn't see anything in the Wikipedia article on Nimrod about the sun (or about a bull: a reference made by an anonymous user that I reverted a few minutes ago).

I reverted some small edits to the "Large and small" subsection by Psi edit. —ZorkFox (&#2487;Talk) 02:04, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Referring to colossi by number is kind of a speed bump to reading; all the others are referred to by name. Also, "colossus" and "colossi" should not be capitalized unless they are in use as a proper name.  If someone's military rank is Captain, you would only capitalize it when you call him "Captain Sheridan" or "Captain" but not when referring to "the captain."  Also also, "colossi" is the plural term used in the game to refer to many of the same thing.  The possessive form would be "colossus's," even though it rolls off the tongue in rather an odd way.  :)
 * Removing "of Worship" from "Shrine of Worship" doesn't help the section (which is already pretty small&mdash;removing two small words isn't going to make it take up less space); the Shrine of Worship hasn't been mentioned by its full name in that section, so it doesn't hurt to use the whole thing here.

I have reverted most of the edits made by 69.174.7.9 because they are speculation or quotations from the international Web site, used without permission. The article is not, similar to what Felsir said above, a place to promote the game, but a place to report on it. The quotations he added came from the international Web site, and as such are protected by copyright.

—ZorkFox (&#2487;Talk) 06:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Umm sorry, first I forgot that the Shrine is called the Shrine of worship. I edited the name because people arent going to understand if they dont view the proper name table. The colossi are never named in-game. -- Psi edit 19:02, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Mono as Sister?
The section on Mono speculates that she is Wander's lover. If this is acceptable, would it be bad to somehow (very briefly, obviously) mention the possibility that she's his sister? Unless something explicit has been said to the contrary by the creators, I think this is just as plausible an explanation. Especially in light of the ending: if they are lovers, then their relationship (as such) is effectively destroyed by the ending - which is rather unsatisfying. Whereas if they are brother and sister, they can happily go on being brother and sister despite Wander's infancy, which I think is more pleasing. But this is just my own understanding of the matter, and if everyone else thinks the brother-sister possibility doesn't merit being mentioned, that's fine.


 * I dont think so, I really dont see much of anything pointing that way. Also the infant can also NOT be Wander (I personally dont think its Wander), theres alot of specualtion. -- Psi edit 18:58, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Sure - I didn't expect anyone to agree. But why does the article presume that they are lovers?  That is equally speculative.


 * I think the idea has as much merit as the notion that she is his lover. I had thought to put something in about it, but I couldn't think of a concise means of adding the idea.  I think it is entirely possible that Wander and Mono are siblings, but Psi is correct in that there is no evidence to support it.  Traditional story telling would have them as lovers, I think, so it is all right to leave that bit in.  I can't really think of a way of adding it that doesn't sound like speculation, so let's leave it alone.  (Also, please sign your comments with ~ even if you are not a registered user.  It helps others to keep track of the discussion.  Thanks!)


 * —ZorkFox (&#2487;Talk) 00:14, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Promotional materials asked the question "How far will you go for love?" and the back of the NTSC case calls it a "story of undying love." I personally give weight to promotional materials unless given reason not to within the game itself.

By the way, how would their relationship be destroyed if they were lovers? Neither of them looks any older than 16. When Wander grows up again they can still procreate just fine. That said, I believe he was in love with her and that either she didn't know it or didn't return those feelings before she was sacrificed (she doens't beam with recognition when she sees Agro, suggesting she doesn't know him). It would still fit with the promotional stuff, and it does tend to be the traditional thing for something like this to be for love. Ryu Kaze 20:34, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Extras
I have been thinking more and more about Felsir's suggestion above: about shortening or removing the gameplay section. I think this is a good idea. We could whittle it down to a summary, say no more than a couple of paragraphs mentioning that the game has unlockable modes and that completing these modes adds new items to the game and involves unconventional methods of solving the how-to-kill-a-colossus problem. What do you all think? —ZorkFox (&#2487;Talk) 00:24, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Also agreed, some part of me is disagreeing with removing it. But I thinkw we should. -- Psi edit 00:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Same, i doubt it's nessesasry here. although i do foresee legions of anonemous users trying to put them back in. Tani unit 03:18, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

—ZorkFox (&#2487;Talk) 08:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * A part of me wanted to keep it, too, but I did not let that part win. I have removed the entire section, despite it being very pretty, and replaced it with a somewhat ugly bulleted list of extras.  I tried for a long time to come up with a paragraph that would describe all the elements without sounding like an extra-boring book report, but couldn't manage it.  If someone sees a way to improve it, please do so and we can take it from there.   I think, once we get this nailed down, we should try submitting the article for featured status.  It's not perfect yet, but it's getting there.  Do we want to shorten the Story section, or maybe avoid revealing every detail?  I confess, I am not so eager to gut that section, as I like it, even though it is long and plagued with spoilers.

I have been having some second thoughts, specifically about the time attack section. I don't want to bring it back in its full form, but does anyone else think, because it is the biggest "extra," that it deserves more mention than a simple blurb in a list?

I would also like to add a section about undocumented maneuvers, such as how to pray and how to do a jump-stab, since these are not mentioned in the manual. —ZorkFox (&#2487;Talk) 00:42, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Ive added a few manuevers. Praying is just saving the game at the shrines (right?). -- Psi edit 20:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

—ZorkFox (&#2487;Talk) 06:36, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's how you save, but praying is also used for entering reminiscence mode and for starting a time attack challenge. The manual does not describe this, nor does the game.  The first time I played through, I didn't save anywhere but at the Shrine of Worship between battles because I didn't know how to pray.  (Actually, the game doesn't even tell you that praying at the temples will let you save, it just says it will heal your wounds.  For the longest time, I thought it meant to just approach the stone and crouch.  Heh!)

Dragosani 23:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I've added a bit to the "Undocumented controls" section, namely about how when you pet agro your Hp and stamina regenerate quite fast for a second. I'm playing a Pal version - does anyone disagree with this? cause someone deleted it before. Everyone think this is in the right place, or should be there at all? Its pretty useful when fighting a colossus with Agro.

—ZorkFox (&#2487;Talk) 07:35, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I was the one who deleted it because I had never noticed the gain, and frankly I find that crouching is much faster to regain health. If enough people agree it is a useful bit of information to leave in, I'm for it.  I'm just going to make a small copy edit to deal with the capitalization errors.

Name of the colossi
Where do you found these names ? 15:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)15:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC) Esurnir


 * I remember hearing that they were mentioned in a Japanese Magazine once. Also how is it that you appear to have an account, but are not logged in? -- Psi edit 18:00, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't have an account. I'm anonymous, but I prefer to sign my message :). Esurnir


 * Why not get an account? They're hassle-free and very useful.  As to the names of the colossi, while I accept that previous contributors did not invent the names, it would be nice to have a reference to put at the end of the article.  If someone knows, please add it. —ZorkFox (&#2487;Talk) 06:56, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I do believe it's in the liner notes of that Nico disc that folks who pre-ordered the Japanese version got. Also, some of the names are wrong. I'm pretty sure this is how they should read:

Designation: Minotaur Colossus | Proper name: Valus | Latin name: Minotaurus Colossus
 * 1-

Designation: Taurus Major | Proper name: Quadratus | Latin name: Taurus Magnus
 * 2-

Designation: Elite War Horse | Proper name: Phaedra | Latin name: Equus Belator Apex
 * 4-

Designation: Bird of Prey | Proper name: Avion | Latin name: Avis Praeda
 * 5-

Designation: Great Beast | Proper name: Barba | Latin name: Belua Maximus
 * 6-

Designation: Sea Dragon | Proper name: Hydrus | Latin name: Draco Marinus
 * 7-

Designation: Great Sea Monster | Proper name: Pelagia | Latin name: Permagnus Pistrix
 * 12-

Designation: Air Sailer | Proper name: Phalanx | Latin name: Aeris Velivolus
 * 13-

Designation: Vigilant Sentinel | Proper name: Argus | Latin name: Praesidium Vigilo
 * 15-

Designation: Grand Superior | Proper name: Malus | Latin name: Grandis Supernus
 * 16-

General notes: The designations are supposed to be English translations of the Latin.

Note on #12: "Pistrix" is Latin for basically "sea monster." It's been used in reference to sharks, crocodiles, whales, the Kraken from Greek mythology and any number of other sea creatures. Ryu Kaze 19:51, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

—ZorkFox (&#2487;Talk) 04:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for fixing those names; would you please add a bit to the references to cite your source? The article is, sadly, lacking in that department.


 * You're welcome, and, sure thing, I'll take care of that. Ryu Kaze 18:01, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Anyone's opinion?
I want add a image of one of the Colossi. Which do you think I shoud add? -- Psi edit 04:32, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

—ZorkFox (&#2487;Talk) 06:01, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * If I had to choose, I'd choose Avion (#5) or Gaius (#3). Avion because it is, in my opinion, the most animate and life-like of the animal colossi; Gaius because it is the one I've seen most often identified with the game (except maybe the minotaur from the cover art).


 * Yeah I was thinking of Gaius most of the time I was thinking about the game. Heres all the images I could find:. -- Psi edit 16:43, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * i'd say go with the first one, its a good overall shot and doesn't have any spoilers in regards to slaying the colossus itself. Tani unit 18:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

—ZorkFox (&#2487;Talk) 05:11, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. Use the first one.


 * Alright then. If you two can find better images please show them on this talk page. -- Psi edit 21:20, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion: stop deleting
Stop being deletionists. Seriously. The last time I checked the entry actually had some worthwhile readable content -- now the majority has been removed. And also, I don't see how the note for track 27 was "unecessary verbiage" -- it basically stated it wasn't in the game -- how is that "unecessary verbiage"? Again, stop.


 * Well I dont know about the track listing, however can you cite somemore examples? However one user is deleting the Colossi listing, which is a major parrt of the article, this I dont like. -- Psi edit 07:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * in responce to the top post: if you accuse people of excessive editing, have the guts to sign your messages, for starters.
 * secondly, i suggest you look up the definition of Nazism next time before you decide to use said word. providing some examples rather then making hot-aired accusations would also be nice. Tani unit 17:29, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

—ZorkFox (&#2487;Talk) 04:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I deleted the information about track 27 because it was no longer worthy of note. Once someone came forward with information that the track really is in the game, then the apparent strangeness of it appearing in the list of used-in-the-game tracks became obsolete.  This does not seem "deletionist" to me, but rather a trimming of fat.  Leaving it in would be like having a line from one user that says, "A lot of people think the horse's name is Argo." followed by an edit from another user: "A lot of people think the horse's name is Argo, but it's really Agro."  Better, by far, to simply replace all occurances of "Argo" with "Agro" and cite your source (in this case, the game's credits), with perhaps a note in the edit summary about why you removed it.  Arguably, I could have left a more detailed edit summary&mdash;I apologize for that.

Possible correction
"At this point we learn from Emon that Wander had stolen the sword and used "the forbidden spell" (that is, he killed the colossi using the magic power of the sword)."

I'm pretty sure the "forbidden spell" is the entire ritual of bringing Dormin back together.

—ZorkFox (&#2487;Talk) 05:09, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * As these actions are one and the same, I don't see a need for a change. Killing the colossi with the sword releases the pieces of Dormin's essence/power/soul/whatever, and also causes the resurrection of Mono.  This is, undeniably, a ritual.  Rituals often require sacrifice, especially in fiction.

Time attack
All right, so A Link to the Past doesn't like having the time attack goals in the colossi table; I can understand that. I can even see my way to agreeing with him about removing the Agro column, as it is obvious when you approach a colossus as to whether or not Agro will be available. Great: one more way to keep the article a bit shorter. However, a part of me is still thinking that time attack mode deserves a little more mention than that paragraph I wrote. Does anyone else have an opinion? Am I just in fanboy mode? The items you win in time attack really change the gameplay: I killed Phalanx in only one round of stabs by using the Queen's Sword. Using the magic sword, you have to climb him at least twice. Ideas? —ZorkFox (&#2487;Talk) 05:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I expanded it some, see what you think. Tani unit 14:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

—ZorkFox (&#2487;Talk) 04:08, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * It looks great. I tweaked it up a little to remove some redundancy and to make it (I hope) more clear.