Talk:Exstetra

Article name

As demonstrated in the lead, it seems like the game is going by several different English translations, including X Tetra, Ex-Tetra, and Exstetra. I'm open to using any of them, I merely used the one I seemed to be finding the most. I'm open to changing it though if another starts to be used more often, or if one is made official, especially if it is localized for English speaking regions. Sergecross73 msg me 16:04, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

With more sources arising, and the official box art being revealed, it looks like "Exstetra" is the official name. ([1]) I've moved the page accordingly. Sergecross73 msg me 15:56, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

So, I mangled my last edit summary, so I'll explain here. I know the alt spelligs weren't actually used inJapan, but many English sources mistakenly used them for a bit. I'm using them to help people realize that, not actually name it incorrectly. It's just for identification purposes. I don't mind rewording it, but it shouldn't be removed outright. Sergecross73 msg me 14:16, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Box Art

So I noticed the box art was recently changed, and I don't doubt it's legitimacy, I've seen it at video game websites, but is there any story as to why its been changed? Was the old one just tentative? As far as I know, it's still JP-only, right? So its not like a region-specific thing... Sergecross73 msg me 23:49, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it's just a new and updated/final design for the Japanese market. The new source on the file page suggests this new one is the final boxart of the game. DarkToonLink^Heyaah! 23:58, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. Just thought it was strange for it to be so drastically different. Thanks! Sergecross73 msg me 00:17, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I just looked into it a bit further, and it seems they chose this new one because it looked more appealing and also included the protagonist. Most sources (These aren't really completely reliable, but should do for here: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]) refer to it as the 'final' or 'updated' boxart, so the previous one was probably tentative, but that image is still being used in promotional artwork. And yeah, it is definitely official for both platforms, as you can now see it on the official website as well. DarkToonLink^Heyaah! 00:45, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Where did you find the part about being more appealing? I only ask because I think its worth mentioning in the dev section. Sergecross73 msg me 00:56, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

This is probably way too shaky for inclusion in the article sorry, but Google Translate suggests it is "refreshing" and "drawn new". See here. Plus the brighter colour scheme would be generally considered more appealing, but of course that statement by itself is just OR. I'll try and dig up a reliable English source about this. DarkToonLink^Heyaah! 01:04, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Most of the things I'm getting are forum speculation and such, the problem with slightly obscure Japanese games is they tend to get less coverage in major gaming press... DarkToonLink^Heyaah! 01:11, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I definitely get that, I've had to do some serious source searching for some of the obscure jrpg articles I've created. Don't worry about; I was just intrigued because the few websites I saw the box art on just said "hey, here's the boxart." with no explanation. Sergecross73 msg me 01:27, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

It seems there isn't actually an official reason that's been published yet then. I guess we'll just have to wait and see if any more info comes out later. DarkToonLink^Heyaah! 01:33, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good. Sorry, I hope it didn't seem like I was "drilling you for proof" or anything. I just wondered it if there was any reason, whether it be good info for the dev section, or whether it was maybe a hint towards localization or something, etc. Seems like it was just a simple change, probably likely because the devs preferred it and/or thought it better represented the game, with the main character on this one and all. Anyways, if I find out anything about it, I'll add it here too. Thanks! Sergecross73 msg me 01:49, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

No, it didn't come off like that at all; don't worry about it. Unfortunately, nothing suggests the boxart is for localization or any other purpose though. Honestly, I actuall wasn't really thinking about the dev section at all when I updated the boxart, I just saw an article saying 'new boxart!' and decided to update it. But you certainly know more about this game than me! DarkToonLink^Heyaah! 02:00, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

So this is sorted now, as it definitely is the final boxart seen everywhere, but I just wanted to mention this, which is however OR at the moment as I don't actually have a source backing this up. But basically the prior boxart may have simply been tentative for promotion, as that image is still being used in places. I just got back from Japan, and for example I saw a poster in Akihabara with that artwork. I also saw the box actually on the shelves, with that original artwork, but it was actually just one of those promotional boxes with the release date on the back. So yeah, I just wanted to put this supporting information here... DarkToonLink^Heyaah! 07:03, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, good to know. (And it's fine that it's technically OR/a personal anecdote, since no one's really contesting it and we're not using the info to add anything to the article. Sergecross73 msg me 13:08, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. This article has actually gotten me interested in the game, so I may end up picking it up. (I just wanted to point out it was OR, because unfortunately there doesn't seem to be any actual info for the dev section like you wanted.) DarkToonLink^Heyaah! 13:14, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad, one of the reasons I enjoy making some of these obscure articles is in hopes that more people will learn/read about them. I know zero Japanese though, and as such, rarely happen to buy JP-only games, so what I can do is pretty limited if they aren't localized and stop getting coverage. That's why I haven't expanded the article too terribly much. I do think there's a little more info out there, in terms of trailers they've release based around characters in the game. Sergecross73 msg me 13:35, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

There's actually some info in Famistu about it - I am currently studying Japanese in high school, so I only know relatively basic stuff, however I may look to see if I can uncover some info from the article, or ways to expand the gameplay section. Hopefully this comes out on the eShop, because importing would be a bit of a hassle. There does seem to be a lot of text, so I'd probably struggle to get though it, but I usually enjoy trying to understand anyway. I'll have to figure out how I can source Famitsu if I do find some good information, but that's a job for tomorrow. Now, I really should be sleeping! Thanks, DarkToonLink^Heyaah! 13:57, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Well I was a bit distracted with this and some other stuff over the past week so didn’t really end up doing anything here, sorry. But I have a couple of discussion points – in regards to the boxart file, I think as an admin you need to delete the old revision because it’s nonfree but not in use. Secondly, the gameplay section should probably mention the visual novel-like story sequences. It assumes the reader knows the Tales series, although Wikipedia is written with people who know nothing about the subject in mind, so this definitely needs to be expanded and clarified. DarkToonLink^Heyaah! 13:03, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Typographical errors or interesting history?

Regarding the apparent edit war between User:Despatche and User:Sergecross73 over the inclusion of apparent typos in sources, let's get a WP:BRD discussion going (since neither of you have started one so far).

It looks like Serge either added or is in favor of preserving cited prose that mentions how this game's name has been misspelled in some of our sources - X-Tetra and Ex-Tetra. Despatche on the other hand believes that prose is unnecessary and trivial.

Okay, there you go. Discuss and form a consensus. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 04:35, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

This is stupid. There are probably a billion guidelines that argue against this very thing, regardless of how irrelevant that may be. That these sources chose to make up a title calls their reputability into question. It also gives rise to suspicion of people like Sergecross for suggesting there is any value in pure errors, outside of being accurate.

At best, this information needs to be in a small section clearly outlining its status as an error (which then needs to be done to as many articles as possible), or as a footnote. It's better to just not mention the info at all, because they're non-existent titles entirely. Despatche (talk) 07:07, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Despatche, you do realize that reliable sources can make mistakes, right? You seem to be assuming a lot of bad faith on both Sergecross's part and those of the sources by saying that sources we have used for years under WP:VG/S are "making up" titles. A careful application of Occam's Razor would seem to say that it's more likely they simply got it wrong.

Now, the way the prose was written most recently did not seem to assert that the presence of typos was a particularly notable thing. That's why I'm asking for clarification on that point below. Nonetheless, you should take a step back and think about it logically - you're WAY too worked up over this. (And given how you got similarly worked up over "made-up" translations in a different discussion, I think you really should give yourself a general attitude check. Mistakes are not signs of malice aforethought.) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:37, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it did; see below. Sergecross has shown that he has never deserved an iota of good faith; he is a lost cause that is incapable of reason (that is not an insult). "Getting titles wrong" is one thing, but allowing those titles to persist when you know better is ignorance, and ignorance is malice.

Do not assume I'm getting "worked up" over this, whatever that means. I'm here because no one else is; they believe that these "minor" facts are unimportant and not worth changing for. But no fact is major or minor... all must be accounted for equally. It is not my fault that you choose to be rigid for the sake of proving how little you care. Despatche (talk) 01:44, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, for your information, Despatche, you are not the sole arbiter of what is right and wrong here on Wikipedia, though you seem to have taken it upon yourself to judge others quite strongly. I've been working with Sergecross for quite a while now, and I've never seen him act in bad faith on any topic. I've disagreed with him a couple of times, but that's how things work here on Wikipedia. Now, if you have some long-standing history you want to point to that says Sergecross is abusive and acting in bad faith, you can bring it up in an RFC/U. If you're not willing to do that, then I will respectfully ask you to pipe down and get back on topic. (This is a warning.) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 03:30, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

For the record, I already started a discussion on this. It's the first section on this talk page called "Article Name". Secondly, I'd like to see some of the "billions" of policies that prohibit this. It's not "misinformation", it's merely saying that some sources initially referred to it as the wrong name. It doesn't claim that the company actually named this, and I'm not proposing we change the name. It's purely for identification purposes, to explain that some sources referred to it under a different name, but that it's still referring to this game. It's extremely common to put a note like that up there to explain the redirects to the article name. It's not misinformation because it clearly states it as such; it makes no claim that "these are real names too" or anything like that. Its definitely necessary; when I created the article, I actually created it under one of the alternate names, because I couldn't tell which one was correct, and all of the sources I was using were deemed reliable at WP:VG/RS. Sergecross73 msg me 10:42, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Also, since Despatche keeps on ignoring WP:BRD and removing the information in question, here is the information I'm proposing. I'm open to alternate wordings, but I feel the alternate spellings, and sources proving they were once used by the respective sources, are necessary.

Serge's info

Exstetra (エクステトラ, Ekusutetora) (initially erroneously translated as Ex-Tetra or X Tetra) is an upcoming Japanese role-playing video game

• Support Inclusion - per my argument above. Sergecross73 msg me 14:53, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
• Question - Do the sources that were used as citations for the typos make a specific point about the game's title being confusing? (In other words, is it notable that the typos exist?) Or are they simply examples of where such typos exist? If the former, then the typos are probably good to note in the prose as specifically causing confusion in the marketplace. If the latter, then I don't think they meet the notability bar and I would vote to oppose their inclusion. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:29, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

• I think he problem boils down to the fact that the name, in both Japanese not in English, is an actual word with any sort of meaning. It's not like translating "Final Fantasy" where the words are words with actual definitions. And that's part of the reason I think its necessary, it's not like a error like spelling "Final" as "Fnal" or something, where it's easy to identify which one is right. All titles here are equally jargon w/o meaning or identity. One version, X Tetra, doesn't even start with the same letter.
• Despatch's main objection seems to be that its misinformation, but that's ridiculous, because they're not being presented as actual titles, and he objects that they are "obvious errors by unreliable sources that don't need explanation" but that's ridiculous because sources like Siliconera or Magic Box are deemed usable by WP:VG and specialize in Japanese video games. As far as unnecessary goes, as I said, I actually created the article in the wrong name initially because so many names were floating around And I'm an experienced editor who has created a ton of these types of obscure Japanese RPG's. If I was unsure at first, how do you expect the "general audiences" Wikipedia is to be written for to figure this out? All I'm requesting is to keep a minor note at the top clarifying this. Sergecross73 msg me 22:37, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

• I'm just applying a general formula to this: Basically, it appears we now have consensus among our sources as to what the correct title is, so the question in my mind is whether there is coverage of genuine confusion about the title, or that there simply are a couple of sources using an incorrect title who haven't gone and corrected it yet. If there's coverage (eg. Official Nintendo Magazine mentions that customers were looking for the game under "X" instead of "E" and couldn't find it), then I think it's appropriate to mention the confusion in the Development or Reception section. But if we simply have a source using the wrong name and there's otherwise no significance to it, then I think it would actually perpetuate the confusion a bit by mentioning it in our article.
• If there's confusion among Wikipedia readers on this (they're looking for "X-Tetra", etc.), we can always create reasonable redirects as a reflection of the misspelling history, without having to explicitly state the misspellings in the article itself. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:04, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

• Also, one other thought I had on this is that it's really not our job to correct our sources. There are countless cases where sources have conflicting info in them, or refer to a title by a slightly different name, etc., but we can all agree that they cover the same topic. So long as the WP article itself is correct and internally consistent, I think we're doing what we need to do, and mentioning the misspellings should only really happen if there's genuine coverage about that aspect of this game. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:08, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

There are already redirects in the other names. This was meant to explain why it redirects here. I don't understand how not explaining the redirects could possibly be better, and I don't see how it could be perpetuating the mistakes when it's literally worded as "erroneously translated as". (also, this response was written to your initial comment. It edit conflicted with your revised comment.) Sergecross73 msg me 00:13, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I'd understand the "show sources that there are misunderstandings" approach if I was trying to start up some sort of "Controversy" section on it or something, but I'm definitely not. Just noting other names it's been referred to as. I kinda thought providing the sources I already did was kinda going "above and beyond", since these things usually aren't even sourced at all. All sorts of articles do this, like Nintendo 64, or virtually anything that's ever gone by a nickname. I'm not trying to express anything other than the fact it's been referred to as another title, which the sources support. Sergecross73 msg me 00:44, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I didn't think you were trying to start up a controversy or perpetuate any. That wasn't my point - my point is actually much simpler than that. Do we have any sources that officially name "X-Tetra" and/or "Ex-Tetra" as recognized nicknames for the game? Or is it simply that the sources are misspelling it? Has anyone outside of Wikipedia acknowledged that the different names are causing confusion? Or have people simply converged on the correct title now that the company making the game has made it more widely known?

For a parallel, I had a similar discussion with another editor not too long ago about PIN•BOT (the pinball machine). Sources for that article refer to the game as "PIN•BOT", "PIN BOT", "PIN-BOT", "Pin-Bot", "Pin Bot", "PinBot" and "Pinbot", all with absolutely no acknowledgement of each other's alternate spellings. The title used in the article follows the one deemed the most official: the one from the Williams publicity flyer. But there's been no need to include any of the alternate spellings in that article because they don't serve any specific purpose - specifically because there's no discussion among our sources about disagreements there. What I'm seeing here with "Exstetra/X-Tetra/Ex-Tetra" really looks like the same thing to me. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 03:45, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

To explain the redirects, why not use a hatnote? That way the information about initial translations is still there, as per Sergecross73, but it also isn't its first mention in the lead, as per Despatche. (Also, just to put it out there, "エクステトラ" is actually quite ambiguous to translate, particularily due to the third character and how it connects to the following ones. I myself would have come to "X-Tetra", but they are all plausible translations.) DarkToonLink^Heyaah! 07:00, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

To DarkToonLink - Yes, I'd be open to that approach as well if we can get consensus for it.

To Kiefer - The difference with your example is that that all of those variations have the same spelling, just variations of spacing and dashes. Additionally, they all look like Pinball/robot. Exstetra/Ex-Tetra/X Tetra all have different spellings with no discernible connotations or definitions. My only proof of there being an issue is the sources themselves; when expert sources like Official Nintendo Magazine, or sources that specialize in Japanese gaming, like Siliconera, are getting it wrong, I think its worth clarifying. I think we all forget sometimes that we're not writing for Neogaf or Gamefaqs, we're writing for the general, uninformed person. They type of person who don't realize Xenosaga isn't the same as Xenogears. This sort of clarification helps the general reader, who we're supposed to be writing for. Sergecross73 msg me 12:28, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. I like DarkToonLink's idea of mentioning them in a hatnote/footnote so that people can see the context if they want. Despatche has a point that the wording he was reverting treads a little too close to making it look like the alternate spellings are officially sanctioned, which they don't appear to be. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 15:29, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

That's fine, like I said, I'm open to different ways of presenting it, I wasn't attached to wording or formatting. How would you guys like to word it? Actually, I'll start up a new subsection, this discussion that formed in the middle of the discussion is getting a little difficult to follow, or to have any new input... Sergecross73 msg me 15:43, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, they're being presented as actual titles. "Erroneously translated" means nothing when the titles are double-formatted and placed right next to the correct title, as they're being treated like alternate titles on par with any regional variants. It's clearly written to suggest that these titles are important or worth knowing, when they're pure misinformation that is easily debunked by any official source, and when the actual titles arose from a refusal to do thorough research.

"N64" is a reasonable shorthand that even Nintendo has used in various situations. "X-Tetra" and the like are completely fabricated titles that have no meaning except when reading the particular articles that use it; someone needs to contact those websites and tell them to get their titles right. 01:37, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

As I said before, if wording, or formatting, is an issue, then change it. My opposition is strictly to the removing of it wholesale, not how exactly it is presented. I've made several attempts to alter how it is presented, but you haven't made a single effort to compromise or come to a solution that isn't 100% your own stance... Sergecross73 msg me 01:42, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Despatche, I'm with Serge on this part of the discussion. You've been taking an all-or-nothing, "my way or the highway" approach to this discussion. There IS room for a middle ground. You haven't shown even an ounce of willingness to do any research on your part either - in fact, one of your edit summaries even stated you don't know the material well enough to do more than simply remove what you disagreed with. You could have at least asked if any of the sources supported what you guys were fighting over (as I did). And you could stop assuming that everyone's out to make your life miserable. Just sayin'.

I purport that the misspellings probably should be removed, not because they're misinformation, but because they aren't proving to be particularly noteworthy. I don't see how this would be all that different from someone misspelling Katamari Damacy as "Catamari Damacy" - if it's a simple matter of a source getting the title wrong, then that source has an incorrect title. But if the fact that the source had it wrong was representative of a major problem that might be affecting people's views of the game, or their ability to find it in stores, etc., then that could be noteworthy and would warrant inclusion in the article. But I haven't seen evidence of that yet. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 03:45, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Hatnote compromise

So, so far, 3 of the 4 people are open to expressing this as a hatnote instead. Sounds good to me. How would you guys propose wording it? I want your guys's support so we can have consensus on this. Thoughts? Sergecross73 msg me 15:45, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

First suggestion that comes to mind: "Some sources translate the title as 'X-Tetra' or 'Ex-Tetra'." Short, to the point, and doesn't attempt to pass judgment on those sources. (The fact that we're using the official title and calling this out separately should be explanation enough about how the alternate spellings are simply incorrect.) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 15:52, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. I'm even open to saying "erroneously translated" or "unofficially translated", or any other sort of qualifier if we need to cast doubt on its authenticity. I don't mind it, I just think it needs to be clarified that those other translations exist. Now, hat-notes don't have sources attached to them, do they? If challenged in the future, will we just point them to the talk page for "proof"? Sergecross73 msg me 16:09, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't think we need to worry about the citations terribly much - those sources are used elsewhere, and people will probably notice the discrepancy. The hatnote should take care of acknowledging the discrepancy in a reasonable manner. I still don't think we need to make a big deal about the alternates being wrong - I'd wager we don't actually know whether the company making the game would consider the alternate names to be acceptable or not.

Also, in my suggestion, perhaps replace 'translate' with 'use' (use the title), or 'refer to the game as'. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 16:43, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. It seems like Despatche objected to the wording involving "translate" at some point, so "refer to the game as" may be optimal. Sergecross73 msg me 16:45, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I was thinking something along the lines of {{About|the game initially erroneously referred to as "X-Tetra" or "Ex-Tetra"}}. This is how redirects are normally explained, however there isn't really another link that would follow here, so that would need to be adjusted. So maybe a footnote right after the first use of Exstetra would be appropriate as well. But I think just keeping it simple and just saying it was initially miscalled those names. DarkToonLink^Heyaah! 07:36, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Looked through WP:HATNOTE and attempted a format that would work here. Feel free to tweak, I changed wording, but it was largely just to meet the confines of the template formatting. Sergecross73 msg me 13:09, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Looks like the redirect templates are designed for use-cases that are just a little too specific - in this case, it assumes you're only accounting for one redirect, so putting two in caused a grammatical error. I just changed it to the generic Hatnote template. Also, I still favor the phrase "use" over "translate" here, since it's still accurate and less prone to argument over correctness. But I'm satisfied with this solution. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 17:32, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Looks good. I'm satisfied with this as well. Sergecross73 msg me 17:44, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Glad we got this sorted. Thanks for taking my suggestion into consideration! The redirect wording is much better than what I suggested just above, I was sort of hasty in writing that as I was on my way to the airport and the About template was the first thing I thought of, although it was the Redirect one which originally gave me the idea, so I of course support this wording! I watched this discussion pan out on my phone, but I was away from my laptop so didn't get to chime in again until now! Thanks again everyone, DarkToonLink^Heyaah! 13:57, 13 October 2013 (UTC)