Talk:Sword Art Online: Hollow Fragment

The use of quotation toward the end of reception section.

1. Is it really a good way to present the comment toward the subject in this form of quotation?
2. Shouldn't the comment be better concluded by summarizing it?

C933103 (talk) 08:20, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

There is absolutely nothing wrong with using short direct quotes. Your attempts to paraphrase it were either awkward sounding, or so similar to the source material that it should stay as a direct quote. The direct quote more accurately and concisely represents the reviewers thoughts. Sergecross73 msg me 10:45, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Reordering an article's words is neither accurate nor honest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.161.175.4 (talk)

Where exactly, pray tell, were the article's words reordered, and how does the current wording within the page misrepresent the article? --benlisquare_T•C•E 07:31, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to know too. It's a little chopped up, sure, but that's still acceptable as long as it still accurately captures the content and context of what is being said in the review, which as far as I can tell, it does. Sergecross73 msg me 14:03, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Reordering wording and placing it as a single direct quote by an author is incorrect, as it is not what author specifically wrote and removes an element of context. See http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Original_wording

If you want a direct quote from the author, then please include the complete sentences from the article's conclusion as he wrote it:

"Sword Art Online: Hollow Fragment isn’t just a bad game. With its awful story, tedious combat, and inexcusable translation, it’s an out and out insult to anyone who might buy it – fans of the series especially. These are people who can put up with – and even enjoy – the most debased, pandering garbage Japan has to offer, but I have a hard time believing that even they could accept this rushed, broken, and imbecilic excuse for software."

Otherwise summarize his main points without quotes as is done with the cited other games reviews. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.177.228.128 (talk) 20:55, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

1. It is not presented as a single quote though. There's the "..." And separate set of quotes that show breaks in flow.
2. There's still no change in actual meaning, unless you can state otherwise.
3. Direct quotes that large are not acceptable for a multitude of reasons. Sergecross73 msg me 22:39, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Expanding on this, there is nothing wrong with using abridged quotes as long as the implicit meaning of the quote is not changed. Abridged quotations are widely used within academic literature, and lengthy quotes are not acceptable on Wikipedia due to copyright reasons. Taking the Manual of Style out of context here is essentially WP:Policy shopping and nitpicking. --benlisquare_T•C•E 10:26, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

No, it would not be acceptable in scientific academic literature nor in a college course. I personally have seen this issue commented by reviewers in ApJ submissions. comment added by 70.177.228.128 20:37, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

This is not a college course or an academic journal. As shown above, according to Wikipedia policy, it's fine. And you still have defined where exactly the difference in meaning is. Sergecross73 msg me 21:15, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I have explained the difference concerning the author full quote and the difference in style compared with the other reviews, but it seems either of you are not understanding what I am stating. At this point, we either let it go or get third party arbitration from an neutral administrator. Looking at the edit history of the article, I am not the first one to bring up the issue. comment added by 70.177.228.128 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.177.228.128 (talk) 00:27, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

We understand what you're saying, it's just that it's not supported by Wikipedia policy. And no, you still haven't explained the difference in message. What is the difference between the message from the original author, and the quote as it is on the article. What concept exactly is misrepresented? I also wouldn't put much stock in the past people questioning it - "fans" commonly try to remove strongly worded criticisms. Past concerns were more about softening the wording. Sergecross73 msg me 00:55, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Your statements hold zero ground based on Wikipedia policy, that I am 100% certain of. Before you make your next response, make sure that it directly addresses Wikipedia policy, and not what you personally feel is appropriate or inappropriate. For quick pointers on the issues raised earlier, read WP:COPYQUOTE (regarding copyright problems) and WP:ELLIPSIS (regarding the accepted function of ellipses in quotations). As for the usage of the quote, editors in the past who are "fans" of the game have attempted to soften or censor the review, since they cannot bear to hear bad things about a game they like—incorrectly synthesizing and sugarcoating what a citation states is an WP:NPOV issue. --benlisquare_T•C•E 06:34, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

On Bundles

A software bundle is "a package offering related products or services at a single price." The Siliconera reference (No 14 as of this writing) calls it a bundle, while the Bandai Namco marketing page linked from Siliconera calls says it's a Vita download with an "HD version of SAO IM ... included." Two games for one price is a bundle. For an additional example of this, Bayonetta 2 for the Nintendo Switch is a "Bundle Package with both the Bayonetta 2 Game Card and a download code for Bayonetta game." It's my understanding that SAO:HF for the Vita comes with a Vita or PSP version of SAO:IM, making it a bundle. KiTA (talk) 23:26, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

What’s wrong with just using the “included” language though? I don’t understand your insistence on using the word “bundle”. Sergecross73 msg me 00:25, 29 December 2019 (UTC)