Talk:Star Wars: Rogue Squadron/Archive 1

Clean-up
This article as a lot of non-npov, unnecessary detail/plot, incorrect verb tense (i.e. past tense), incorrect POV (i.e. second person), etc. etc. I'm going to whack my way through now and try to clean some of it up. --EEMeltonIV 12:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I cut a whole bunch of extraneous detail from this story. Articles about games/fiction should focus on real-world significance and not delve/obsess over in-universe plot points as the previous iteration did. A detailed list that includes how many lasers the TIE fighter has and the number of levels it appears on is simply too much for Wikipedia; Wookiepedia or game wikis might appreciate that content, though. --EEMeltonIV 12:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Missions
We should write something about the missions! Dagadt
 * It's not a game guide. If by "something about the missions" you mean how they were developed, how they've influenced other games, etc., then sure, great. If, though, you mean just regurgitating what happens in each mission, then no; that's not particularly relevant to Wikipedia. --EEMeltonIV 16:59, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Best hidden code?
Uh, I think this line about the code being the most well hidden secret on a N64 game should be removed. 6 months after the game came out, it was released by the developers. Whereas the codes for Goldeneye were not released to the public until well after the spiritual sequel, Perfect Dark, had been released a number of years later. No one had any idea about the codes until the developers revealed that there were any. So I think that they would be the most well hidden secrets of any N64 game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.216.205.12 (talk) 03:46, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Whether or not you think it is the most well-hidden code doesn't change the fact that is was called the most well hidden code by IGN. -- T orsodo g Talk 05:33, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Easter egg link
This may seem nitpicky, but I'm a big believer in keeping piped links contextual. Recently I de-linked the word "planets" in the last sentence of the second paragraph of the lead. reverted me, and I've removed it again, so I thought I ought to explain just why I did so. Basically it's a matter of WP:EGG, which (wisely) advises to "keep piped links as intuitive as possible" in order to adhere to the principle of least astonishment. Internal links should be set up so that a reader goes where they expect to go, not to somewhere that seems like a "surprise". Here's how the sentence was set up before: The link to List of Star Wars planets is not contextual within the sentence, and therefore shouldn't be there. Torsodog has asked me "How is "planets" not contextual? It is put into the context of 'Set in the fictional Star Wars galaxy'. How is it unexpected to show up at an article about the fictional planets in that fictional galaxy?" Put simply, just because the paragraph begins with "Set in the fictional Star Wars galaxy..." does not lead a reader to assume that a common term like "planets", when linked, refers not to the usual meaning of the term but to a special Star Wars-type meaning. Obviously proper nouns like Luke Skywalker and X-wing refer to specific elements of the Star Wars universe, and a reader shouldn't be surprised that when clicking on the term "X-wing" they arrive at an article about the fictional space fighter. But common sense says that if I click on an ordinary term like "planets", I should be going to the planet article rather than to one specifically about Star Wars planets. Even though the article is about a Star Wars topic, I don't assume that every linked term leads to something Star Wars-specific (just as by cliking on "video game" I would expect to go the video game article, rather than List of Star Wars video games). Though I might be expected to figure it out after a moment ("Oh, how did I get here? Well, I linked here from an article about something Star Wars, so I guess it makes sense that I arrived at another Star Wars article"), there are ways that the link could be set up so as to be less "astonishing" to the reader. For example: By simply adding "Star Wars" to the piped link, we make it clear that it's going to lead the reader to an article about Star Wars planets rather than just planets in general, the same way that linking Star Wars galaxy lets them know that they'll be going to an article about the galaxy of Star Wars, not just galaxies in general. Piping common terms to specialized articles presents a contextual challenge, and often the best practice is to rephrase it so that the link doesn't appear as just a common term (or, failing that, to just leave the link out entirely). That way we comletely avoid potential reader confusion. I hope this helps to explain my edit. I realize it sounds nitpicky, but it's all about context. I should add that this is a very well-written article; kudos to those who worked on it! --IllaZilla (talk) 07:14, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * "As the game progresses, Skywalker and Rogue Squadron fight the Galactic Empire in sixteen missions across various planets."
 * "As the game progresses, Skywalker and Rogue Squadron fight the Galactic Empire in sixteen missions across various Star Wars planets."

Nice!
Well done on this article! Burpelson AFB (talk) 00:55, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It's all the nicer, I think, because it manages to get in so much about the game—business and reception stuff, gameplay and hidden codes, blahblahblah—while still keeping it all crisp prose. The hidden Naboo Starfighter was particularly interesting—I played the game before but never even heard of its presence there until the article (I think) so I got the game later on to see for myself. :)
 * You'll probably like the article on Battle for Naboo as well: same developer, now that they deeply understood the console, used a new game engine and apparently introduced audio commentary to games. The business behind a game can be quite involved sometimes.  --an odd name 02:46, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I'm really proud of this article. As OddName said, it really turned out to be very well-rounded, especially for a video game article. Next on the to-do list is Rogue Squadron II, so keep an eye out for it! -- T orsodo g Talk 05:37, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Definitely didn't expect to see this as Today's FA, well done. Qeee1 (talk) 20:20, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Nostalgia
Oh man, seeing this as the featured article on the front page today brought me here. I played this game so much in my youth. Thanks for the memories. Volatar (talk) 11:42, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I too must say this, "THANK YOU!" Halofanatic333 (talk) 12:03, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Error?
"The first of three games in the Rogue Squadron series, it was published by LucasArts and Nintendo and released for Windows and the Nintendo 64 in December 1998." Does this sentence from the first paragraph sound a little odd to anyone else.. HordeFTL (talk) 19:06, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No? You'll need to be more specific, please. -- T orsodo g Talk 19:12, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty picky with English, but the "it" is named beforehand so that sentence looks fine. It could be something like
 * Star Wars: Rogue Squadron (known as Star Wars: Rogue Squadron 3D on the PC) is an arcade-style action game co-developed by Factor 5 and LucasArts, and the first of three games in the Rogue Squadron series. It was published by LucasArts and Nintendo and released for Windows and the Nintendo 64 in December 1998."
 * but the current one works for me. --an odd name 20:14, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Arcade style
Hi ,

What I meant with that arcade-style isn't mentioned in the article, but you've fixed that already. Thanks for that! soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 07:34, 29 February 2016 (UTC)