Template talk:Castlevania series

What does the edit summary here mean? --DocumentN (talk) 03:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MisterMario92 (talk) 06:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I simply don't see any merit in your current changes. You're adding two rows with one item and fail to make any distinction between console and handheld titles. That one is a compilation is largely irrelevant as the compilations stay within the respective sections. The present format is fine. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 06:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think my type of text is better than the atual.MisterMario92 (talk) 07:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Much better :) MisterMario92 (talk) 07:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, simply your opinion isn't going to convince anyone. You need to state reasons beyond what you like and dislike. If you can't state why your version of the template is better, then you have no argument. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 07:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

-

My arguments:

No matter which platform for the game in question was launched, this is the background. Leaving everything mixed this way, the reader is atrapalhado, and não saberá not if the game is a unique history, remake, spin-off. In my template, he will be well informed.

The template are very mixed. We will organize by history:

-- If the story is unique and is:

• Original release: it is in "Original Release"
• Spin-off: it is in "Outhers" or "Spin-off" even
• Re-release: it is in "Re-release"

-- If the story is not unique and is:

• Remake: You will be in "Remakes"

So would this:

-- Original History

• "Original Release"
• "Spin-off"
• "Re-release"

-- Not Original History

• "Remakes"

In my view, the classification by history is more important than of the system. MisterMario92 (talk) 23:06, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your classification by "history" is largely represented in the current template as the games are listed chronologically. Again, your template fails to distinguish between the portable and non-portable Castlevania titles, which was a big jump for the series and an important division. Dividing those two is far more important than dividing the games and the compilations, especially considering how few compilations there are as versus the actual titles. That and you still haven't addressed the problem that your template creates two rows with one item, which is rather nonsensical. In any case, English please for the initial comments. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 23:26, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Hey there Sephiroth BCR. You implied that Castlevania's switch to handled consoles was an important change in the series. "...your template fails to distinguish between the portable and non-portable Castlevania titles, which was a big jump for the series and an important division." I have to disagree. When Castlevania first move to portable consoles (Castlevania:The Adventure for Game Boy) it's game play remained similar to that of it's NES counterparts. So, I have to assume that you are referring primarily to the jump to the Gameboy Advance. However, the vast majority of significant changes in these games (as well as the DS games) first occurred in Castlevania:Symphony of the Night for the Playstation. Thus, I believe that your statement is erroneous and that it dose not support the idea that a template fails to distinguish between portables and non-portables is somehow inferior. Please correct me if I have misinterpreted you. Also, with regards to my previous edits which you reversed, I do not feel that a table being "too big" merits a reversal, especially if it provides more information to the users. Thank you. (Sorry, I originally posted this in the wrong place) Jdhenry (talk) 03:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MisterMario92 (talk) 22:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And? MisterMario92 (talk) 20:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't really said anything to address my points. Also, trying to edit the page anonymously to get your changes done isn't really helping your case either. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 18:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[+]

My mode is much better :-) MisterMario92 (talk) 16:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[+]

What is the error? MisterMario92 (talk) 16:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The two versions of the template that keep flipping back and forth have been fused into one. Done. Any objections? --Bishop2 (talk) 21:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Slightly more platable. I still believe it's unnecessary, but to end this inane conflict, sure. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 21:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MisterMario92 (talk) 08:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't notice this edit war was going on until after I changed it. My main gripe is that even after separating hand held games from console games, everything is still lumped together and not very organized. Furthermore, it seems a bit unfair to separate games into consoles vs. handhelds as this partitioning does not reflect significant differences in game play, graphics, and other areas. For instance the game most similar to Symphony of the Night is Dawn of Sorrow, but the former is on a console (Playstation) and the latter is on a handheld (Nintendo). Also, the current grouping lumps Haunted Castle together with colsole games, which is misleading as it was originally an arcade game. Thanks for your consideration. Jdhenry (talk) 02:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there Sephiroth BCR. You implied that Castlevania's switch to handled consoles was an important change in the series. "...your template fails to distinguish between the portable and non-portable Castlevania titles, which was a big jump for the series and an important division." I have to disagree. When Castlevania first move to portable consoles (Castlevania:The Adventure for Game Boy) it's game play remained similar to that of it's NES counterparts. So, I have to assume that you are referring primarily to the jump to the Gameboy Advance. However, the vast majority of significant changes in these games (as well as the DS games) first occurred in Castlevania:Symphony of the Night for the Playstation. Thus, I believe that your statement is erroneous and that it dose not support the idea that a template fails to distinguish between portables and non-portables is somehow inferior. Please correct me if I have misinterpreted you. Also, with regards to my previous edits which you reversed, I do not feel that a table being "too big" merits a reversal, especially if it provides more information to the users. Thank you. Jdhenry (talk) 03:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

dracula X for SNES is not a direct port of Rondo, it is a different game but with the same back story92.0.45.112 (talk) 19:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I made a new and enhanced template. MisterMario92 (talk) 04:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MisterMario92 (talk) 00:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The actual template need to be changed. It is very confused. I think my template is best. MisterMario92 (talk) 13:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

it is not "confusing", you were told here before why the original template was fine and that it didn't need to be changed. simply your opinion that it is "best" isn't going to convince anyone 92.14.232.201 (talk) 13:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I don't speak english fluently. I hope that you can understand me. You talk as if your opinion is the opinion of the group, but things do not work that way. You must understand that I also want to help and you are not trying to cooperate. You say that "OTHERS" think this or that. But, you need to say that "YOU" think this or that. Before you start a conversation, you need to put in your head that is not correct to generalize your opinion, because it is only "your opinion", and can easily don't represents the views of the group. I just require that you do not generalize the things, bring the conversation to the particular, without involving other people, because the issue is between you and me. Do not say that your opinion represents the views of others simply because you do not have this kind of information! I don't said that my template "IS" best. I said that I "THINK" that my template is best... Man... we are here due the same objective. We need to cooperate, you must understand this. What you think that we need to change in my template? Is best if you say what you appreciate and what you don't appreciate. Remember, this is public, then anyway we need to cooperate. Can you understand this simple fact? MisterMario92 (talk) 03:28, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

not referring to myself, read the past discussion that you deleted 92.15.28.193 (talk) 14:04, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have protected the template to prevent further edit-warring. Please discuss, involve more editors, or use

I'm not entirely sure what those who made the template are implying, but those facts should be figured in.137.222.114.243 (talk) 02:22, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We need other type of template MisterMario92 (talk) 16:56, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i don't think you realize the user was referring to your version of the template —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.13.141 (talk) 18:56, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see looking above that this has been a bone of contention as to the organization of this template. Well, I'm going to have to state flatly that there's no good reason to separate the games in the current fashion. That the 2D GBA and DS games are different in style than the 3D console games (since Castlevania 64) is true, but they certainly have far more in common with Symphony of the Night, a console game, than with the handheld Belmont's Revenge (which itself is more similar to the console original or Dracula's Curse). Frankly, whether the game was released on a handheld or a console has little bearing on the gameplay, and is a mistaken distinction. It's more which of three types of games in the series (straight 2D platformer action, like the original or Bloodlines, for example; 2D action w/ RPG elements, like SotN or Simon's Quest, even; or 3D action like the post-64 console games). Actually separating them out along those lines would be more meaningful, but also mistaken. Truthfully, the games should be in straight chronological order, with no

One additional, policy based thought: placing the handheld games separate marginalizes them, treating them as an afterthought to the console games. Considering that the handheld games are treated as full parts of the series by the producers and most fans, treating the console games full entries and the handheld games as something lesser gives

undue weight to the console games at the expense of full entries in the series.oknazevad (talk) 04:28, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Alright, no one even responded to me, but that didn't stop people from getting into an edit war over the same topic. Aside from fixing grammar on occasion when people made the changes in this edit war, I stayed out of it, but since the page is temporarily protected, I'm hoping that now is a good time for Oknazevad, MegaCyanide666, 92.13.67.77, myself, and any other concerned users to discuss this like reasonable editors. As far as I can tell, there are three different ways that people want to divide the template.

• All of the main games in a single category. People support this because it's unbiased and doesn't risk making any distinctions by in-universe storyline or between handheld and console games. People are against this because it's far too cluttered and makes no effort to organize different groups of games that have been released over the past 25 years, unlike some other long-running video game series articles which are more organized.

• Console games in one category and handheld games in another. People support this because it makes some effort to make the template less cluttered. People are against this because it implies that only the console games are the main series, which they are not, but neither are the handheld games. They are both equal.

• The original series of games in one category and the Lords of Shadow games in another. People support this because it separates this new era of games from the old one. People are against it because it could be considered in-universe commentary.

In my personal opinion, I think that option 3 is the best way to go, because it's not simply an in-universe commentary. The Lords of Shadow series isn't just a new storyline, there's been a change in the real life development of the series too. The Lords of Shadow series marks a complete shift to a new development team for the Castlevania series, and more obviously has its own subtitle as its own series, and that's why I think it's worth making the distinction. However, we will have to wait for Lords of Shadow - Mirror of Fate and Lords of Shadow 2 to have their own articles before giving them their own section, anyway. For more of my opinion on the subject, you can read my earlier post at the beginning of this section. Now if everyone would stop edit warring and discuss this here, perhaps even put it to a vote between the three options (or something new), I think we could make a lot of progress on this template. Byakuya Truelight (talk) 07:45, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In my own opinion, I still favor the single group for now, as a Lords of Shadows sub-group would, at this time, be only one item. However, based on the out-of-universe developmental changes you mention, I wouldn't object to a seperate grouping for them once seperate articles for the new games are created, once the games are fr enough along in development to support their own articles (once release dates are announced is, I believe, the video games project's standard). Until then, I say we wait. The splitting of handheld games I strongly object to. Yes, it's objective, but it's an unimportant distinction, as there's no real difference between the console and handheld games in fact of practice; games of all three types (2-D action platformers, 2-D action/RPGs, and 3-D action games) have appeared on both. (Of course, I already said this in the above section.) I am less worried about the perception of "clutter" in a simple chronological list if all the games are together. It's straightforward and basic. oknazevad (talk) 06:00, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I think that waiting for Lords of Shadow - Mirror of Fate and Lords of Shadow 2 to have their own articles before making any changes is the best option. When they have articles, we should put them in their own grouping, but until then, I think that the entire series should be kept in a single grouping. Byakuya Truelight (talk) 11:52, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Who reverted this change? Again, the main Castlevania timeline and Lords of Shadow are completely different things! Jotamide (talk) 05:38, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was an unregistered user who reverted the change. He said that no consensus was reached and that there are only a few members so it wasn't a consensus. First thing is first no user has the right to say a consensus is not valid and then go against the consensus by removing the edit upon which consensus was reached. He can appeal against the consensus but he cannot remove the edit made by a consensus until he himself has a consensus that backs his removal of the edits. This user was also involved in a dispute over this template earlier however he did not participate in the consensus earlier. The worst part instead of discussing about the template with other involved users he keeps on reinserying the edits which he thinks is correct. Next time he removes Lords of Shadow series I am not going to revert his edits. Instead I'm going to straight away complain about him for violating the consensus and not caring about viewsof other involved users (I am not talking about me I am talking aout users who were earlier involved in the consensus on the issue of Lords of Shadow). Also I'll like to request all users to not to get in a dispute over the template and instead discuss things through. KahnJohn27 (talk) 09:20, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow users. I'll like to invite everyone to vote on the issue of whether Lords of Shadow series should have it's own separate section in the Template: Castlevania series. As you know already, the Lords of Shadow series is a reboot and the series not only signifies a shift in creative control since the game is now developed externally by MercurySteam Entertainment rather than Konami. Not only that the gameplay of the series is significantly different from the original series. That's why I think it should have it's own separate section. Also I think that a separate section for the Lords of Shadow series will help non-fans and casual readers to easily distinguish the reboot and the original games. However I agree thinking of other user might be different. So I would like all Wikipedia users to vote on the isse of whether Lords of Shdaow series should have it's own separate section or not. KahnJohn27 (talk) 10:02, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: As already said the Lords of Shadow series is a reboot and the series not only signifies a shift in creative control since the game is now developed externally by MercurySteam Entertainment rather than Konami. Not only that the gameplay of the series is significantly different from the original series. KahnJohn27 (talk) 17:37, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Because of the real world creative changes, I have no objection to splitting them out into a separate group. oknazevad (talk) 14:09, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: For me the defining factor is that the Lords of Shadow saga does not take place in the same continuity of the main Castlevania series. The change in developers, gameplay, and other factors are just observations, but the fact that despite using the same characters as some of the other Castlevanias (Simon Belmont, Alucard, etc) the games do not follow the same storyline makes it clear it should be split into its own subsection. Jotamide (talk) 20:42, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I think that everyone here has pretty much pointed out all of the same reasons that I would. The change in real-world creative control and in the story's continuity, and the fact that the Lords of Shadow games are essentially a trilogy of their own, all make the solution clear. Definitely keep them in their own section. Byakuya Truelight (talk) 03:37, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]