This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Resident Evil 4 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find video game sources: "Resident Evil 4" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk |
Archives: 1, 2, 3 |
![]() | Resident Evil 4 has been listed as one of the Video games good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||||
![]() | Resident Evil 4 is part of the Capcom Five series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
![]() | The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:
|
I found a few resources that say it's called Valdelobos, but I I'm not certain where exactly it's comes from. So is it unnamed or called so but really rarely? BrandtM113 ( talk) 13:18, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
I was wondering what other editors thought of the revision that reintroduced The Happy Warrior blog and Bounding Into Comics as references in the ports section.
I was responsible for removing those references initially, and I did so because I believe the former violates Wikipedia's rules on user-generated content because it's a substack blog, and the latter violates Wikipedia's rules on bias. More specifically, Bounding into Comics frequently headlines articles with value-laden language, and there's a relatively consistent political slant across their site.
I understand that using a website with a bias/angle isn't inherently grounds for removing a source, but it feels as though the source adds unnecessary weight to information that's already cited by more mainstream outlets, especially when the content itself (censorship in this case) can become politicized and there's no in-text attribution to the source (something like, "the left/right leaning source ___ said ___ of the censorship in Resident Evil 4").
I'm relatively new to editing Wikipedia, so I'm eager to hear other viewpoints on this. Thanks!
-- Conmcdon721 ( talk) 16:26, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
In en:Resident_Evil_4#"Hallucination"_version, I found VG247.com requoated Project Umbrella's Inteview to Yasuhisa Kawamura. But, I couldn't find why it was called "Hallucination" in Project Umbrella's Inteview. Could anyone tell me why or where it is called "Hallucination" ? リトルスター ( talk) 12:45, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
Should we try removing the stylization of the names from other Resident Evil pages since it wasn't needed? 49.151.132.117 ( talk) 09:30, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not moved. WP:SNOW The nominator's understanding of precedence and when to disambiguate is flawed. The Sonic game articles are titled so as not to confuse with the franchise page. The 2005 game is clearly the primary topic, with a hatnote for the remake being appropriate. TarkusAB talk/ contrib 19:53, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
Resident Evil 4 → Resident Evil 4 (2005 video game) – See Sonic the Hedgehog (1991 video game) and Sonic the Hedgehog (2006 video game) for precedent. 100.7.44.80 ( talk) 22:02, 20 April 2023 (UTC) This is a contested technical request ( permalink). ASUKITE 15:10, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
The following was copied from the original move request:
Comment - I am not sure how I fall on this yet. The recent explosion in pageviews for both pages is due to the 2023 remake. On one hand, it might benefit us to have each game at its own dab to better determine which should be the primary topic, but the newer game being a remake of the original might imply there is historical significance for the 2006 game, so this feels like a good chance for a move debate to figure out where we should land. ASUKITE 15:10, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
The redirect
Weapons of resident evil 4 has been listed at
redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the
redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 21 § Weapons of resident evil 4 until a consensus is reached.
Steel1943 (
talk) 20:23, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
Per
MOS:IDIOM, Clichés and idioms are generally to be avoided in favor of direct, literal expressions.
. We should therefore avoid expressions such as "strayed from the series' roots". I removed this and trimmed some other unnecessary elements but was reverted.
Popcornfud (
talk) 14:06, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
The first attempt was directed by Hideki Kamiya, but the Resident Evil creator, Shinji Mikami, felt was too great a departure,is grammatically wrong and unclear. too great a departure from what? -- FMSky ( talk) 15:33, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
The first attempt was directed by Hideki Kamiya, but the Resident Evil creator, Shinji Mikami, felt it was too great a departure from the previous games.Popcornfud ( talk) 15:59, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
so it was spun off as Devil May Cry. "spun off" is jargonistic, and vague — was Devil May Cry a spin-off? Isn't it simpler and clearer to say "this version became Devil May Cry"?
Other versions were scrappedwe don't need to say this, because we say in the same paragraph "Four proposed versions were discarded" (and "scrapped" is further idiomatic/metaphorical language).
Mikami took directorial duties for what became the final versionis just a wordier way of saying "Mikami directed the final version".
Should I put a link to Resident Evil 5 as a successor to Resident Evil 4. I know that their stories were not related but the gameplay mechanics, enemies, and bosses look so similar to the ones they used in RE4. Even the Resident Evil 5 wiki page considered Resident Evil 4 as their predecessor. DasKlose ( talk) 03:41, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
That line in the legacy section about RE4 inspiring an era of remasters, and specifically remasters of those games, is a generous reading of that article. The article says RE4 was "An early example of the remastering craze" and "ahead of zombie-crawling pack". Saying it "inspired" those other developers feels wrong to me. Maybe just say it was an early example of HD remastering before they became more prevalent? Or just remove the line altogether? Mika1h ( talk) 17:57, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
I'm relatively new to editing, so I thought I'd raise these issues here before making an edit. Hopefully this is the right place to discuss this!
In my opinion, it looks like there are some neutrality and citation issues in the paragraph discussing the 2021 VR release of the game.
The section refers to "censorship of content". In my opinion, this is both vague and not neutral. Censorship is a bit of a loaded term, and it only becomes clear later in the paragraph what exactly is being 'censored'.
I would also question the phrasing of "flirtatious banter". Again this is pretty vague. Would a more specific description, such as "Luis' comments about Ashley's body", be more appropriate?
It also looks like citations are missing at several points in the paragraph. The quote from Ivey to "update the game for a modern audience" is missing a citation. The paragraph goes on to state that "changes were made at the expense of continuity and context in cutscenes essential to the game's plot." This is vague, and does not contain a citation. It would be useful to know what specific changes this sentence is referring to, and what context they provide.
Looking at the overall tone of the paragraph, I think this phrasing would mislead the average reader in thinking that the changes removed important plot-relevant content. I do not think this is a fair or neutral characterisation of the changes made.
Would be interested in hearing what other people think, and what edits would be appropriate. Thanks! Steelrose360 ( talk) 00:16, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Resident Evil 4 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find video game sources: "Resident Evil 4" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk |
Archives: 1, 2, 3 |
![]() | Resident Evil 4 has been listed as one of the Video games good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||||
![]() | Resident Evil 4 is part of the Capcom Five series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:
|
I found a few resources that say it's called Valdelobos, but I I'm not certain where exactly it's comes from. So is it unnamed or called so but really rarely? BrandtM113 ( talk) 13:18, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
I was wondering what other editors thought of the revision that reintroduced The Happy Warrior blog and Bounding Into Comics as references in the ports section.
I was responsible for removing those references initially, and I did so because I believe the former violates Wikipedia's rules on user-generated content because it's a substack blog, and the latter violates Wikipedia's rules on bias. More specifically, Bounding into Comics frequently headlines articles with value-laden language, and there's a relatively consistent political slant across their site.
I understand that using a website with a bias/angle isn't inherently grounds for removing a source, but it feels as though the source adds unnecessary weight to information that's already cited by more mainstream outlets, especially when the content itself (censorship in this case) can become politicized and there's no in-text attribution to the source (something like, "the left/right leaning source ___ said ___ of the censorship in Resident Evil 4").
I'm relatively new to editing Wikipedia, so I'm eager to hear other viewpoints on this. Thanks!
-- Conmcdon721 ( talk) 16:26, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
In en:Resident_Evil_4#"Hallucination"_version, I found VG247.com requoated Project Umbrella's Inteview to Yasuhisa Kawamura. But, I couldn't find why it was called "Hallucination" in Project Umbrella's Inteview. Could anyone tell me why or where it is called "Hallucination" ? リトルスター ( talk) 12:45, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
Should we try removing the stylization of the names from other Resident Evil pages since it wasn't needed? 49.151.132.117 ( talk) 09:30, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not moved. WP:SNOW The nominator's understanding of precedence and when to disambiguate is flawed. The Sonic game articles are titled so as not to confuse with the franchise page. The 2005 game is clearly the primary topic, with a hatnote for the remake being appropriate. TarkusAB talk/ contrib 19:53, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
Resident Evil 4 → Resident Evil 4 (2005 video game) – See Sonic the Hedgehog (1991 video game) and Sonic the Hedgehog (2006 video game) for precedent. 100.7.44.80 ( talk) 22:02, 20 April 2023 (UTC) This is a contested technical request ( permalink). ASUKITE 15:10, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
The following was copied from the original move request:
Comment - I am not sure how I fall on this yet. The recent explosion in pageviews for both pages is due to the 2023 remake. On one hand, it might benefit us to have each game at its own dab to better determine which should be the primary topic, but the newer game being a remake of the original might imply there is historical significance for the 2006 game, so this feels like a good chance for a move debate to figure out where we should land. ASUKITE 15:10, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
The redirect
Weapons of resident evil 4 has been listed at
redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the
redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 21 § Weapons of resident evil 4 until a consensus is reached.
Steel1943 (
talk) 20:23, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
Per
MOS:IDIOM, Clichés and idioms are generally to be avoided in favor of direct, literal expressions.
. We should therefore avoid expressions such as "strayed from the series' roots". I removed this and trimmed some other unnecessary elements but was reverted.
Popcornfud (
talk) 14:06, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
The first attempt was directed by Hideki Kamiya, but the Resident Evil creator, Shinji Mikami, felt was too great a departure,is grammatically wrong and unclear. too great a departure from what? -- FMSky ( talk) 15:33, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
The first attempt was directed by Hideki Kamiya, but the Resident Evil creator, Shinji Mikami, felt it was too great a departure from the previous games.Popcornfud ( talk) 15:59, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
so it was spun off as Devil May Cry. "spun off" is jargonistic, and vague — was Devil May Cry a spin-off? Isn't it simpler and clearer to say "this version became Devil May Cry"?
Other versions were scrappedwe don't need to say this, because we say in the same paragraph "Four proposed versions were discarded" (and "scrapped" is further idiomatic/metaphorical language).
Mikami took directorial duties for what became the final versionis just a wordier way of saying "Mikami directed the final version".
Should I put a link to Resident Evil 5 as a successor to Resident Evil 4. I know that their stories were not related but the gameplay mechanics, enemies, and bosses look so similar to the ones they used in RE4. Even the Resident Evil 5 wiki page considered Resident Evil 4 as their predecessor. DasKlose ( talk) 03:41, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
That line in the legacy section about RE4 inspiring an era of remasters, and specifically remasters of those games, is a generous reading of that article. The article says RE4 was "An early example of the remastering craze" and "ahead of zombie-crawling pack". Saying it "inspired" those other developers feels wrong to me. Maybe just say it was an early example of HD remastering before they became more prevalent? Or just remove the line altogether? Mika1h ( talk) 17:57, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
I'm relatively new to editing, so I thought I'd raise these issues here before making an edit. Hopefully this is the right place to discuss this!
In my opinion, it looks like there are some neutrality and citation issues in the paragraph discussing the 2021 VR release of the game.
The section refers to "censorship of content". In my opinion, this is both vague and not neutral. Censorship is a bit of a loaded term, and it only becomes clear later in the paragraph what exactly is being 'censored'.
I would also question the phrasing of "flirtatious banter". Again this is pretty vague. Would a more specific description, such as "Luis' comments about Ashley's body", be more appropriate?
It also looks like citations are missing at several points in the paragraph. The quote from Ivey to "update the game for a modern audience" is missing a citation. The paragraph goes on to state that "changes were made at the expense of continuity and context in cutscenes essential to the game's plot." This is vague, and does not contain a citation. It would be useful to know what specific changes this sentence is referring to, and what context they provide.
Looking at the overall tone of the paragraph, I think this phrasing would mislead the average reader in thinking that the changes removed important plot-relevant content. I do not think this is a fair or neutral characterisation of the changes made.
Would be interested in hearing what other people think, and what edits would be appropriate. Thanks! Steelrose360 ( talk) 00:16, 20 June 2024 (UTC)