Talk:Shining Force II

Article expansion?
Added info about charcters and their abilities but found that it was removed; i was merely attempting to make the article more in-depth and imformative, and thought this article had been put forward for expansion anyway? Also, I was not using the game guide as a reference, but my own knowledge. Perhaps a spoilers warning in the character's section should be included, and also their abilities and where to find said characters. It is after all a encyclopedic article and there is onely one vague sentence describing each character. Discussion please Jimd (talk)


 * Wikipedia doesn't use spoiler warnings. There should be as little plot information in the characters section as possible, as having the info in the plot section and then the characters section again is redundant.Mr T (Based) (talk) 21:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Let's expand it. If you look at featured articles like Final Fantasy VI, you'll notice a section for characters.  A basic description of each character would be great but was deleted before.  Why hold the article back?

(Ejoty (talk) 10:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC))

Fair use rationale for Image:Shining Force II.jpg
Image:Shining Force II.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

References or Sources?
I've played the game, and after reading the article, I find most of it to be obvious and in no need of source. Isn't the game a source? I don't really see what the author could have cited. I cited my correction of the rare Japanese word "inishie" (古え), which was mistaken for "koe." What in particular needs citing? (Ejoty (talk) 11:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC))


 * If things were sources for themselves then we wouldn't need any references. Look! A bird eats worms! no source required! Readers should be able to verify the contents of this article without having to play the game. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Er... I thought the whole point of an encyclopedia is so that readers don't have to do their own in-depth investigations just to get basic information on a topic that they only have a minor interest in. And information on things such as gameplay is known to everyone making good faith edits to the game(because they've played the game), so there's hardly any risk that those sections of the article will become littered with false information. I don't see how references for such content serves any purpose beyond making the article look superficially professional.--Martin IIIa (talk) 05:17, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, the plot and to a lesser extent the gameplay can be sourced directly to the game itself. That's not hard. But the kind of information we're really interested in, reception, development, and so forth (see Manual of Style (writing about fiction)) primarily comes from third party sources. The current "translation issues" section, as written, smacks of the kind of fan speculation that should be replaced with genuine research into reliable sources. Nifboy (talk) 06:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, I wouldn't call an obscure translation-induced plothole to be "basic information". If you cut the section down to the basic, citable facts, you get: The English version names Dark Dragon, the final boss of SF1, as a Devil King where the Japanese version names Lucifer, a character who doesn't show up anywhere in the series. I don't understand how that changes anything at all other than a title. Nifboy (talk) 06:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I wasn't referring to the translation issues section; I don't know where you got that idea. The section wasn't even added until months after Ejoty's post. I'm moving the discussion of "translation issues" to a new section, since it doesn't belong in a discussion of unreferenced information.--Martin IIIa (talk) 17:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Translation issues
Continued from "References or sources?"

I'm afraid you've completely misconstrued the information in "translation issues". If you read what you just deleted, you'll find that far from being "fan speculation", it's based on research taken right from the horse's mouth, which is referenced. And to answer your question, "Devil King" is much more than just a title; it's a specific identity, and more importantly, the game gives an extensive history for the three individuals called the Devil Kings. The major implications of Dark Dragon being a Devil King are too numerous to go over them all in a Wikipedia article. Nor is the contradiction created by the mistranslation "obscure". I've been involved in the Shining series fandom for a few years now, and we still see someone come along every few months with a post along the lines of "Wait, wait... So you're telling me Dark Dragon never fought Zeon in Arc Valley? And the war of the Devil Kings might have taken place much longer than 1,000 years before Shining Force I, or much more recently? And we can't be sure that there isn't still a Devil King roaming the world?"--Martin IIIa (talk) 17:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Here, let me list the exact items that are being speculated in that section:
 * The translation team's motivations for changing Lucifer's name (asserted as religious connotations),
 * Why the translation team chose to specifically use Dark Dragon (specifically the assertation that it is "inexplicable"),
 * Whether "Dark Dragon is a creation of the Ancients, not a devil at all," (why not both?)
 * Whether the fact that the Arch Devils are rivals is/is not technically a contradiction with the plot of SF1, and
 * The "Dark Sol"/"Darksol" nonsense, and "most fans of the series had probably already confused the two".
 * And even after all of that, all it really does is change the backstory a little bit; it doesn't have any relevance to the events of any of the games. Right now devoting an entire section to "translation errors" makes it look like the game's translation was a Zero Wing hack job. Nifboy (talk) 19:00, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * First and foremost, a gut feeling that the structure of a Wikipedia article will lead readers to wild conclusions that are completely unsupported by the content is not a justifiable reason for deleting a whole section. Furthermore, I can as easily contend that the lack of a section devoted to translation errors makes it look like the game is a perfectly reliable translation. Or that the existence of a story section makes it look like the game's plot is a Final Fantasy VII epic tale with deep characters and psychological subplots.
 * As for your "speculation":
 * Note the word "apparently" before this statement. And I'm sorry if that gave you the impression that the statement is without basis, but in fact, there is no other plausible explanation for why Lucifer's name was changed(the names are too different for it to have been an honest mistake), and it's well-known that religious references in English language video games were taboo in those times.
 * If you have an explanation, give it. Otherwise, "We have no explanation" is not speculation; it's manifest fact.
 * I repeat: This is information taken straight from the horse's mouth. If you had properly read the section before you deleted it, you would have known this.
 * This is taken from the game script.
 * Just because you don't understand it doesn't make it "speculation".
 * And again, if you were familiar with the games in question, you would know that this mistranslation does a lot more than "change the backstory a little bit."
 * Since it is now apparent that you deleted the section only because you overlooked the reference for it, I'm going to go ahead and revert the change now. For future reference, make sure that you've thoroughly checked for references before deleting something, and do not delete factual information simply because you don't like the structure of the article. If you have an idea for restructuring an article, then suggest the restructure; otherwise, leave it alone. Deleting referenced facts is the sort of behavior that can get you banned from Wikipedia.--Martin IIIa (talk) 15:45, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * My objection to having an entire section is a matter of due weight; right now we don't even have a competent plot summary beyond the first couple of hours of the game. Devoting an entire section to what is in my mind a minor translation/localization error related only to the backstory of the game is overkill. And "Apparently" is a weasel word to be avoided. Nifboy (talk) 18:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The current plot summary is perfectly fine. General policy on video game articles is that the plot summary is supposed to simply explain what the story is about.  Novelizing the game is unnecessary, since the only people who would want to know the whole story are going to play the game anyway.  I'm pretty sure no one's ever searched the web to find out if Zeon gets the Jewel of Evil in end.  Translation information, on the other hand, can't be obtained simply by playing the game.  I'll edit the section to better explain why it's not at all a minor translation error, though.  Your point is taken re: "Apparently"; I'll see about removing that without ruining the flow of the passage.  Ideas?--Martin IIIa (talk) 15:13, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 one external links on Shining Force II. 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/20101129230352/http://shiningforcecentral.com/scripts.php?m=0 to http://www.shiningforcecentral.com/scripts.php?m=0&g=5
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080227001609/http://www.shiningforcecentral.com:80/studies.php?m=0&study=interview&id=1 to http://www.shiningforcecentral.com/studies.php?m=0&study=interview&id=1
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090205171630/http://shiningforcecentral.com:80/scripts.php?m=0&g=7 to http://www.shiningforcecentral.com/scripts.php?m=0&g=7
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100104183919/http://shiningforcecentral.com/scripts.php?m=0&g=2 to http://www.shiningforcecentral.com/scripts.php?m=0&g=2

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 15:16, 11 January 2016 (UTC)