Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/.hack (video game series)/archive2


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 00:16, 25 December 2010.

.hack (video game series)

 * Nominator(s): Axem Titanium (talk) 08:00, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel the article meets the FA criteria. It is stable, neutral, and comprehensive. It follows the format of many other video game FAs and uses fair use images minimally and, I think, appropriately. I'll let you decide if it's well-written and well-referenced. Axem Titanium (talk) 08:00, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Dab/EL check - no dabs or dead external links. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:33, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: The development section is extremely small, and it doesn't give the impression of comprehensiveness. Surely, there's more to include than that? JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:50, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * As I noted in the first FAC, I've tried my very best to find more sources for the development section but for lesser known games like this one, there simply isn't enough interest in developer interviews, etc. to be published. Dev info is a dime a dozen for blockbuster releases like Halo and Final Fantasy but extremely scarce for games like this. Perhaps there is more info somewhere untranslated but that's not within my capability to discover. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:39, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: I think a lead image more representative of the whole series would be better; as an added bonus, it looks like the logo for the series as a whole may be free. The current rationale on the lead image is a little weak; a "standard" rationale is used for a non-standard usage. J Milburn (talk) 00:40, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean when you say non-standard usage? Also, I think a cover art image is valuable since it also provides images of characters in addition to the game cover itself (see for what the other covers look like, perhaps Vol 2 or 4 might be more appropriate since they are in color and focus on some main characters). I'm not familiar enough with copyright law to determine whether the .hack logo achieves threshold of originality, but if it does, then perhaps a dedicated character image could be added? Axem Titanium (talk) 06:00, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * What I mean by "non-standard usage" is that this is not just a video game cover in the infobox in the article about that video game, which is what the rationale suggests. The logo would not meet the threshold of originality I don't think, and I'm normally pretty conservative in that regard. I disagree with the use of a dedicated character image; one would perhaps belong in list of .hack characters, but there's not really enough discussion of the characters in this article (and no mention of their appearance) to justify one. Note that the main characters discussed in the article are already shown in the gameplay screenshot. J Milburn (talk) 12:06, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I would say that this case is functionally identical to the case of Pokemon where there are multiple versions but the infobox opts to display only one of the cover arts. This article is more specific than the overarching series as a whole and should show the box art of at least one game to help identify it. Axem Titanium (talk) 00:17, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no kind of automatic entitlement to use box art in articles about video game series. This is not the same as Pokémon games, which are effectively a single game released twice, but the same as, say, Age of Empires, which is already featured and opts for the much more sensible logo (which, equally, serves to identify- I would argue more strongly than box art. The logo stays the same, the box art does not.). J Milburn (talk) 13:36, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess that's fair. I'll see to adding the logo to commons. Do you have any comments on the prose? Axem Titanium (talk) 19:11, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I am yet to read the article, I was making a drive-by review of the images. J Milburn (talk) 12:47, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * There is significant discussion regarding the characters in the plot section, and without the cover art, you would only have the screenshot in which to identify them. Which only shows three characters engaged in combat.  The free .hack symbol would work well as a lead image, but I think you would have to put some sort of character artwork in the plot section for people to visualise who's who. - hahnch e n 00:54, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The fact that the characters are discussed does not mean that we need to use non-free images of them. A group shot on the character list page would be appropriate, but the screenshot is more than enough for this article. J Milburn (talk) 12:47, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It does, because visual representations of characters are important in itself. You wouldn't put an image of the main South Park characters in the South Park article?  Or shots of the cast in film articles? - hahnch e n 18:09, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If the "visual representations of characters are important in itself", why is the issue not discussed in the article? Discussing something does not give you the "right" to have a non-free image of it. An author will be discussed in an article about their novel; we don't need a non-free image to show what they look like... J Milburn (talk) 20:44, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You do not have to discuss the visual appearance of characters, because it is best done with images, hence the "important in itself". Video games are a visual medium, like film.  It may not be important for the guy behind the camera to be pictured, but it is to show the characters on screen.  This is an RPG, it's not an gun game, character progression, both in terms of the mechanics of the game, and in the storyline is central.  Featured articles such as Carnivàle and various Stark Trek films show visual representations of the characters because they are important in itself.- hahnch e n 00:08, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - It is not explained how .hack//Fragment is part of this series. The .hack series according to the lead is a series of single player games, fragment looks like a standlone spinoff.  If it is, then it should go into its own article. - hahnch e n 01:01, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I tried to expand the lead, development, and its own section to try to explain this. Fragment is identical in gameplay and story to the main series with the only addition being party members are controlled by other players online, rather than the computer. Axem Titanium (talk) 02:39, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * So what's the Fragment story mode - "where the player's character acts out the plot of the .hack games is available"? How is the plot interlinked? - hahnch e n 18:09, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I made a minor change to clarify this. The plot is identical to the main series, except the player's character replaces Kite. It's not a new story at all. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:32, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If I could read the Japanese sources, I could probably figure it out. But how big is fragment?  Does it encompass the plot of all 4 single player games? - hahnch e n 00:08, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * From what I understand, it contains the plot of all 4 games, but some cutscenes are rendered in text dialogue boxes to save space, but I don't think this detail is notable enough to mention in the article itself. Axem Titanium (talk) 01:50, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: Can we please have the lead image issue sorted? I know they aren't well loved in these parts, but the NFCC are policy just like anything else, and the use of images that do not meet them is a serious problem in a FA candidate. J Milburn (talk) 20:45, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I replaced the main image. I'd rather not get hung up on image concerns if there are prose/reference issues to address. Do you have any comments on those fronts? Axem Titanium (talk) 04:02, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I'm yet to read it. I have never understood that mentality- "image concerns" are as much (if not more) legitimate concerns as prose/reference concerns... J Milburn (talk) 08:57, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying they're less legitimate, they're just easier to fix than prose concerns. It doesn't take time or thought to replace/remove/add an image but it does to address each specific prose concern. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:48, 6 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: for the image concerns, i would also oppose to using the logo, the logo is used for more than just the game series. it's for the entire franchise. So using the logo wont be best for this particular one. Plus the cover does more good. Other than that, the lead needs some rewriting and I don't think we should link to previous works of the staff, such as Yoshiyuki Sadamoto from Neon Genesis Evangelion or Kazunori Ito from Ghost in the Shell, in fact after loking at the ref, i would say that little bit appears to be original research. Related Media i think needs some work, like instead of merely mentioning that these pieces of media exist, it would be better to mention that they were released too. for example "The first official "sequel" to the games is .hack//Legend of the Twilight" can be written such "On XX-X 20XX, a manga called ".hack//Legend of the Twilight" served as a sequel to the .hack games.Bread Ninja (talk) 18:24, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree that it's original research. The reference clearly states "IGN: Are there games, or even movies or books that also might have served as inspiration for .Hack? / Matsuyama: Because we have creators like Mr. [Kazunori] Ito who worked on Ghost in the Shell and Avalon, and Mr. Yoshiyuki Sadamoto, who was a character designer for [Neon Genesis] Evangelion, so there's a lot of influence from them." If we included the release dates for every single piece of related media, it would bog down the prose and would presumably be redundant to info found in List of .hack media or your User:Bread Ninja/List of .hack chapters. Can you mention any specific recommendations for the lead? Axem Titanium (talk) 18:38, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I missed the second page. sorry about that. despite that, the media section wouldn't be redundant than you think it would be. We would only mention when it was initially released, it wont be nothing like the media section, and my page of .hack chapters, is still in development and see no real reason to mention it here, even if it's just a comparison. It's better than what we have now in it's awkward prose such as the example i gave. Plus more direct media such as the soundtracks and .hack//fragment has release dates. I don't see the problem here. For lead section, i think data transfer for one game to the next can be explained much simpler, and needs some references. I still think .hack//Fragment has a chance of gaining it's own article despite having same story and similar gameplay, but hats up for another time. For now, lead needs more ref and explain things simpler such as data transfer and liminalityBread Ninja (talk) 19:07, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess we can agree to disagree on this point. Whereas music and fragment have their own sections, having a release date in every sentence of the Related media and legacy intro paragraph would be disruptive in my opinion, especially given that they can find this release date information in the dedicated media list(s). I'm not sure what you mean when you say that data transfer and Liminality should be explained more simply. Each only gets a single summary-style sentence which is explained in more detail in the relevant sections (Gameplay, Development). As for references in the lead, there are different schools of thought about redundancy of citations in the lead (see WP:LEADCITE) with the gist being that only controversial claims NEED to be cited. I went the route of avoiding redundancy because the claims are not controversial and they are already cited in their respective sections. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:34, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Not as disruptive as you may think, there's only so little media in the media section not involving Music or fragment. G.U. is a series and be difficult to give an initial a date, so i think that one is allowed to not have a release, but .hack//legend of the twilight has a vague sentence and i would say it needs one just for prose sake. each piece of media holds up to 2 sentences, and mentioning the release can be done casually and be said differently like "On XX-XX-20XX, a manga called .hack//legend of the twilight was released, and served sequel to the .hack games." or "A manga called .hack//Legend of the Twilight was released on XX-XX, 20XX and served as the sequel to the .hack games." I'm still trying to find sources for .hack//Mobile, but it's pretty hard since its a japanese phone game. So if anyone knows a Japanese source or something, maybe you guys can help me out on it.Bread Ninja (talk) 19:56, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * By that logic, all of the media mentioned are series since they contain multiple volumes/books/episodes that were released on different dates. Axem Titanium (talk) 01:50, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Multimedia, probably, such as games, that had released at different times, and obtained large ammount of tie-ins. But something like .hack;;legend of the twilight, it only had adaptations so far. Its not exactly by that logic. You're comment was very "pointy". So i suggest you stick to what we're discussing for this. I only say .hack//legend of the twilight due to it's akward short sentence, so please stick to that.Bread Ninja (talk) 02:02, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Responding logically is POINTy now? I added a date for Legend of the Twilight as a compromise. Axem Titanium (talk) 22:28, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * logically how? you have to meet the exact circumstances first. It's good to mention release dates. i would say the only reason why they don't have release dates is because they link to their own article (which by the way, most of them don't meet the GNG standards).Bread Ninja (talk) 22:41, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Anyways, if anyone cna find anything on .hack//MOBILE. it would be great. if not, then i guess we would have no choice but to remove it, despite it still running>Bread Ninja (talk) 00:53, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't either. If it's alright with you, I'm going to remove it until we can find sources to verify it. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:11, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, there's no way of justifying it, and since we want GA, there is no point in preserving it now. So i wont mind.Bread Ninja (talk) 22:29, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose on sourcing/research :
 * Overreliance on articles from one publisher (IGN) and primary sources; some sources neglected. A basic library search reveals indexed results from journals such as Official US PlayStation Magazine and Electronic Gaming Monthly. Need to take a trip to the library and dig through these to beef up the Development and other sections.
 * For many of the refs, no publisher is provided.
 * -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  05:04, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but I wasn't aware that diversity of citations was a featured article criterion. If you're referring to WikiProject Video games/Reference library/Online print archive, the sources there are just reviews, not development info, and I have in fact sifted through practically every result on .hack using VG RS search in search of those elusive development sources. If you know of any other places I can look, please refer me. The reason IGN was used so much was because it was the only site with a developer interview and info on Fragment. In fact, of 39 non-primary sources, only 12 were from IGN. The primary sources are only used to cite detailed plot information which cannot be derived from secondary sources. I also believe that every single ref lists a publisher. Axem Titanium (talk) 07:22, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Criterion 1c most certainly requires a diversity of sources if it exists. In this case, it does. I'm pointing out that you've neglected sources. Re: "If you know of any other places I can look, please refer me." I thought I did, above? -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  15:39, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you know of any other library search functions that I can use? I already looked at the VG online print archive. What "indexed results" are you referring to? Axem Titanium (talk) 18:21, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I was searching across several databases but I think EGM and PlayStation magazines are indexed in EBSCOHost MAS Ultra and possibly others. You might need to get a librarian to help you if you're not familiar with searching library databases. Also check out the dispatch on finding reliable sources online. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  19:42, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, as a time-saver, I'll look through these results and see if there's anything new. There's no point in your going to a library just to re-do the same search I did. If there's anything, I'll let you know. In the mean time, can we get publishers in the other refs? -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  20:02, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Laser asked me to look at this, so I searched EBSCO Academic Search Complete, LexisNexis and Proquest. The only worthwhile content I dug up were a pair of reviews from The Independent which I can send along if someone sends me an email. I'll need a little more time to dig through everything with a finer comb and on more databases (this topic sends up way too many false positives.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 20:51, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for helping me out here. I sent an email to David for what he could find. Which refs need publishers, btw? I took a look and they all seem to have the "publisher" parameter filled by one thing or another. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:22, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I'd noticed this issue earlier, but wanted to let the article develop a while, but it's pretty much what Andy says above. I don't believe this article is comprehensive due to the dearth of sourcing.  I do not believe this can be comprehensive without significant work with Japanese sources.  Your Famitsu response comes from an intermediary, and only shows the score.  These games are made primarily for the Japanese market, and for this to be comprehensive, there would have to be more depth from the Japanese side.  For a series which has sold in the millions, there is bound to be more prerelease and development info.  How was fragment received? - hahnch e n 00:00, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hahnchen, are you suggesting the nominator obtain Japanese-language sources? That's not really actionable, unless we get a volunteer to obtain and translate them. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  00:21, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I am. If you're writing an article about a primarily Japanese topic, then you require coverage in its native language.  I've made comments at FAC before, such as at Ninja Gaiden and Final Fantasy Tactics.  Featured Articles should be comprehensive. - hahnch e n 12:11, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Though harsh, I'm afraid that I must agree with this sentiment. If you write about a foreign topic, you should be expected to cite coverage from its original language. Otherwise, the article is simply not comprehensive enough to be featured. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 00:10, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I have plumbed the depths of the Internet to practically double the development section. I hope it is to your liking. I found the Famitsu scores for fragment as well. Axem Titanium (talk) 08:38, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I struck my comment about the Development section. While it's still small, it gives a lot more information than it used to. And I can understand that it would be nearly impossible to find more. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:39, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * A comment in re: to my above comments; I'm unfortunately going to lose my access to our databases soon as I'm going to be traveling and their remote proxies are inoperable at this time, but I wasn't able to find any other meaningful coverage in alt. sources (although I haven't finished all the looking and I was not checking Japanese sources since I wouldn't know what to do with them anyhow.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 22:22, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help in the meantime. Do you have any comments on the article as a whole? Axem Titanium (talk) 07:44, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what's still left after the last FAC; I'll check in later today. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 22:05, 18 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment Striking my opposition above; I'm satisfied that due diligence has been done with respect to research. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  17:01, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've tried contacting hahnchen about the above opposition but haven't heard back yet... Axem Titanium (talk) 11:19, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.