Jump to content

Talk:Ace Attorney

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Ace Attorney. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:50, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Ace Attorney/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: ProtoDrake (talk · contribs) 13:01, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]


I'll be back in three days with a full review. --ProtoDrake (talk) 13:01, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Has an appropriate reference section:
    B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

Since I can't see anything in the references or prose to give me pause, I'd say this merits an Instant Pass. --ProtoDrake (talk) 09:23, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.--IDVtalk 09:43, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Ace Attorney. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:01, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Minor Edit - Gameplay

[edit]

The gameplay section stated, in the photo: A cross-examination from the first game. However, it was from Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney Justice for All, which is the second game in the series. It is during the first cross-examination of the first case in said game. I modified it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kid Gamer (talk • contribs) 20:10, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Incorrect. This is from the second cross-examination of the second case of the first game. The exclamation marks are the dead giveaway, as they only appear in the first game. Changed back.TurnaboutDave (talk) 22:03, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Changed text to table - rendering in wrong section

[edit]

Hi,

I've converted text on the releases in the series into two tables to make the data easier to read.

For some unclear reason the second table is rendering in the wrong section even though it is located immediately after the the first table in the wiki mark up in the correct section. Anyone know why?

DomUK (talk) 19:30, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge of The Great Ace Attorney Chronicles into Ace Attorney#Compilations

[edit]
Not merged. (non-admin closure) CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (please mention me on reply) 06:17, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


The article is just redundant to the two games that are in the compilation and the compilation doesn't change much about them. It doesn't need a separate article to describe it per WP:OVERLAP. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:41, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It has its own reception section, in part because it was the first time that the 2nd game was released in the West, so it was reviewed with the compilation.
That said, let me offer an alternative solution: Merge this, Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney Trilogy and the upcoming Apollo Justice: Ace Attorney Trilogy into a new article, "Ace Attorney compilations", so that each compilation can have its own reception section. Masem (t) 03:46, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The reception section of the original Great Ace Attorney: Adventures is nigh non existent, so I think the compilation's reception can be merged there, or split somehow. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:07, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unless reviewers of the compilation have made it very clear what parts of their compilation review apply to which game, it would be OR to make that type of split. Masem (t) 12:17, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Objection! – The article isn't redundant to the other two games. As Masem points out, trying to merge these two would be an WP:OR nightmare, and the article on Chronicles is quite robust and goes into a great amount of depth about the development process of Chronicles specifically. Worthy of arguably more intense consideration, however, is that The Great Ace Attorney Chronicles is the game most English speakers know because neither of the original games were released in English; redirecting would confuse the overwhelming majority of our English-speaking readership while making our coverage of Chronicles worse. I also heavily disagree with Masem's idea to merge all of the compilations into one article. Merging can be of immense use when there's extremely similar subject matter, the articles don't stand well on their own, and the split is likely to simply confuse readers and make editing more difficult. However, the AA Trilogy and Chronicles are compilations for what are essentially different series separated by 20 years, both already have their own robust articles, and I'm worried trying to merge them would result in an unfocused mess. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 17:25, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Objection! (scary prosecutor voice) Honestly, I thought at first this discussion was a rehashed discussion of the Adventures/Resolve merge, but thankfully, that isn't the case. I do not think that this article is inherently not worthwhile, but in its current state, it appears to be mostly content about the component parts. The problem with this article is that English-language sources are not approaching this like they did with Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney Trilogy, where it's a collection of three beloved games. English-language sources treated GAAC as a new entry, because to them, it was. Most everything here is either redundant to the parent articles or, if the content isn't in those articles, it'd be better served there. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 18:03, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The game has entirely separate reception and meets GNG. Splitting the reception up and using the collection's reviews in the individual game articles would be OR. Furthermore, the article also has a completely different Development section! There is no good reason to merge this. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:18, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm a little confused, why is it OR to split the reception up? We can make a conscious determination of what parts of the reception go where, and if appropriate, the same content can be featured in both articles. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 23:35, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      They were reviewing the collection, not the individual games. QuicoleJR (talk) 23:58, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Broad statements can apply to both games. This is not SYNTH, it's just common sense. It's not drawing a conclusion not stated in the source. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:33, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Also if you do not think that this article is inherently not worthwhile, and object to its current state, is that not grounds for keeping under WP:NOTCLEANUP? There is no deadline, after all. QuicoleJR (talk) 00:12, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • I made the point that I support separate collections existing ,but evidence doesn't exist to me that there's coverage comparable to PWAAT. And I'm aware that they're reviewing the collection, but every part of every review to do with the collection and Adventures is relevant to Adventures, and the same is true for Resolve. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 02:03, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Merge alongside the same logic that says that we don't make series articles for "series" that only have 2 entries. It's a barebones collection of 2 games - any content can fit easily into the first or second game. Not opposed to folding this into other articles similar to what Masem was saying. Sergecross73 msg me 14:56, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ace_Attorney&oldid=1243293077"