Talk:RPG Maker (series)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Famicom style controller This article is part of WikiProject Computer and video games, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Portal:CVG
 CVG Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale.
CVG To-do:

/Archive 1

Contents

[edit] RPG Maker To Do List

I have composed a to-do list for all of the RPG Maker articles. If we can get cracking on these one at a time, the list will hopefully shrink quickly, and we will have some great articles. Here's what we need:

  • Have a proper screenshot for each different version
  • Each version should have a screenshot of the database, and the Action List (i'm not sure what it's officially called, but it's the one in which you tell events exactly what they do, such as show a Message Box, or move a character)
  • Decide upon the official name for the general series article, and then fix redirects
  • Create an information box, similar to the one at the top-right of Final Fantasy
  • Update the information on every single one of the PlayStation version articles
  • Consider the inclusion of character-set pictures in a couple articles
  • Provide at least two (2) sources on the RPG Maker PlayStation articles (for now).
  • Update the RMXP article, which should be a priority since it is the most recent version, and is in english.

Kopf1988 20:54, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] RPG Maker Series, or series, or simply RPG Maker

So... is "RPG Maker series" the official way to title this article, then, as compared to similar series articles in Wikipedia? Some series articles I see are capitalized, while others aren't. And besides that, I think that now that we have the "This article refers to the whole RPG Maker series. For the first game in the series, also known as 'RPG Maker', please refer to RPG Maker (PlayStation)" at the top of the page, maybe we can rename the article to "RPG Maker." Please put your opinion below, choosing either "RPG Maker", "RPG Maker Series", or "RPG Maker series."

  • RPG Maker Now that we have the reference at the top, using just RPG Maker will be simplest and most convienient. We will have to remember to change the link at the top of the template, and some other redirects. Kopf1988 00:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • RPG Maker vote of NeoChaosX moved from below - Since the term "RPG Maker" in general refers to the series, it is redundant to have "series" in the title. Originally posted 11 November 2006, moved 23 November 2006.
  • RPG Maker vote of Erk moved from below. The rest of the paragraph is now irrelevant. Originally posted 19 November 2006, moved 23 November 2006.
  • Comment Assuming we move the article to "RPG Maker", this will be a tricky move. While RPG Maker is currently a redirect to this article, a look at it's history and the fact that there is a Talk:RPG Maker with existing discussion means it used to be an article about the series. That means someone did a cut-and-paste move over to this name space (a serious Wiki no-no), so we can't move this article to 'RPG Maker' until the current redirect is deleted and it's talk page merged (or archived) into this one. NeoChaosX (he shoots, he scores!) 21:22, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment Well, you see, the RPG Maker Series article was almost a complete rewrite of the RPG Maker article, and it was begun while RPG Maker still existed. We could archive it on this page, then move this page to RPG Maker. Kopf1988 21:30, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Then the only problem would be getting an admin to delete the old article so we can move this one to the 'RPG Maker' namespace, I guess. NeoChaosX (he shoots, he scores!) 02:36, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
User_talk:Valkysas Perhaps... Valk could help :) Kopf1988 02:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RPG Maker Links And Articles

In an apathetic effort to establish independent notability for each article, here are some articles, links, references, what-have-you, to do so. I'm not putting them on the pages at the moment, because I don't have the time to concentrate on finding good places to cite them... but someone can do it. I'll probably get to it sooner than later, but I just have other work to finish outisde of wikipedia first. Kopf1988 20:00, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Gamespot On RPG Maker 1
Gamespot On RPG Maker 2
Gamespot On RPG Maker 3
RM95 On IGN Used
RM95 On GameStats
An interview of a person who made a popular RM2k game Used
GFX Article on RPG Maker 2000 Used
[http://uiv2.com/articles/178 Some article about an RM2K3 game (of unknown importance)
Neoseeker article of RM2K3 Used

With Love Kopf1988 20:00, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

If the beforementioned RPG Maker Pavilion and RPG Maker Magazine arent allowed (by elonka) to be sources, then neither is gamingw.net (by elonka). I personally support each installment having their own articles, and appreciate what you're trying to do here. Just know that Elonka is going to yell at you for it. As she told Valk, any work done on the other articles is going to be pointless, because she'll just erase it. She's enforcing and taking part in the vandalism of the RPG Maker pages. 75.7.198.245 22:03, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Elonka may be annoying, however she is not breaking the rules (technically not vandalism.), providing proper sources like these can be the only solution. Provide them on their proper pages. SaderBiscut 07:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
And I have sourced a few of them on their proper pages now. I may get to the rest later. Kopf1988 00:36, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 'Illegal' Translations?

There are some issues with this, first the legality has always been debated. Secondly, even if it wasn't there is a difference between an illegally acquired game and an illegal 'translation', which I think it the issue here. Third, it is totally unnessary as a topic title, at best it needs to be a section. Fourth, it instantly throws the article out of neutrality in the wording of it. For this reason, I am changing the section simply to 'illegal distribution' rather than 'illegal translations', frankly I think the section needs a source, but I won't edit it as such, because I don't have one. SaderBiscut 03:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Also Rpg Maker XP is the 'only' offial english version I am aware of, not the 'most notable'. SaderBiscut 03:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm also removing this "Although illegal, such games are widely available on peer to peer networks and file sharing websites." This may or may not be true, however the games are not distributed in an 'illegal fashion', like this implies, I mean to say, while these games use graphics from other games, they are not wares like this article implies. SaderBiscut 03:12, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps that could have said "Although games made by illegally-translated RPG Maker are also illegal, such games can still be found on peer to peer networks and file sharing websites." Although... i don't even know if it's important enough of a statement to keep. Kopf1988 19:38, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RPG Maker Article Titles

I suggest that the Playstation and Playstation 2 articles not be titled "RPG Maker (Playstation)" and so-on, as the links at the bottom of this article would suggest. The PC Titles are not titled "RPG Maker 2000 (PC)", and some consistency between the articles would be best. No other console game has it's system in the title. The current RPG Maker article could be wiped, and then used for the first Playstation installment, since that's its actual title.Valkysas 15:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but when most people think of "RPG Maker" they aren't thinking about the first playstation game. The words RPG Maker regularly refer to the entire series. Many more people play the PC versions of the games, and don't even know what the heck RPG Maker for the playstation is. But since the PC games don't have (PC) in them, I wouldn't object to put that in there, just for consistency. Kopf1988 19:11, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
There are way too many articles about these RPG Maker games. They should all be merged into one. --Elonka 23:33, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
No there arent. EVERY OTHER game series has seperate pages for each installment. We just seperated them too. It's staying how it is now. each one is different enough to warrant their own articles, even if most arent flesh out much right now. Valkysas 02:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
In order to justify separate articles, there needs to be proof of independent notability, per Wikipedia:Notability. Also, right now the articles are just about the games, but without providing any references like magazine or newspaper articles. This is in violation of the policy at Wikipedia:Verifiability. The articles should be merged. --Elonka 21:20, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
RPG Maker 1 for the PS1 is a 2D sprite based title, that is pretty much an entry level maker. RPG Maker 2 for the PS2 is the first 3D installment in the series, and is so complex it's damn near on the level of a console development system. RPG Maker 3 is also in 3D, but it's editor is more on the level of RPG Maker 1. these are VERY different, and definately don't belong in one article. Every other video game on wikipedia has seperate pages for installments, even individual seasons of TV series have their own pages. What you're doing is completely stupid, and just proving that you know nothing about the things you're trying to lord over. I am SICK of people who dont know a damn thing about RPG Maker telling us that we don't know what we're doing.Valkysas 01:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Hon, it's not about what you know about RPG Maker, it's about what other magazines or newspapers have said about it. Anything you put in an article, needs to be verifiable, preferably from a third-party source. Otherwise it counts as original research, which is against Wikipedia policy. See WP:NOR and WP:V. --Elonka 01:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
So it's not verified by the content of the software itself? The article for the first Mega Man game cites no sources, from anyone. just raw information taken from the game itself. There isnt anything done in the RPG Maker entries that isnt being done in every other video game article, and you aren't pestering a single one of those. Valkysas 02:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Correct, game content alone is not sufficient to confirm notability. And if you give me links to articles that are on Wikipedia without any kind of sources or proof of fame, I'll be happy to pester them.  :) --Elonka 02:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Every video game article on wikipedia does this, so I'm incapable of listing them all for you. Simply type in "video game" in the search box. Until you start demanding the same changes on those pages, I'll simply consider you a common troll who is singling out RPG Maker exclusively, which I believe you are. and I ignore trolls. Everyone else that edits the RPG Maker article does too. So good luck reaching the required general consensus for any changes you propose, "hon".
Just wondering how much you demand for the sources and such. would the software developer and publisher's own website work? The RPG Maker series is largely ignored by the press, outside of a GamesTM magazine article (not online) that I was interviewed for a while back. Being ignored by the press does not mean something is not notable or worth informing people about. Valkysas 02:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I've been trying very hard to assume good faith and see your side of things, but the more you resort to personal attacks and name-calling, the harder it gets. Please read WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, and WP:AGF, and then try again? You may also wish to review Wikipedia:Notability. --Elonka 03:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Hey, I'm not trying to attack you, and I'm sorry if it seems that way. I honestly think you're trolling. You havent touched any other game articles, despite saying you would. you're still here, only picking on RPG Maker. You didnt answer my question either, you completely ignored it. Valkysas 04:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Like I said, point me at some game articles in particular that are unsourced, and I'll be happy to review them, as I have a very low tolerance for spam. BTW, calling people a "troll" here is considered a personal attack. The term should be reserved for real internet trolls, not good faith editors. And which question? --Elonka 04:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Which question? This one: Just wondering how much you demand for the sources and such. would the software developer and publisher's own website work? The RPG Maker series is largely ignored by the press, outside of a GamesTM magazine article (not online) that I was interviewed for a while back. Being ignored by the press does not mean something is not notable or worth informing people about.Valkysas 04:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
We really need more than self-published sources, though the GamesTM article would be useful. You can still cite it per WP:CITE, even if it's not online. Also, you may wish to review WP:AUTO and WP:COI. --Elonka 05:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
There really isnt much coverage outside of "self-published" sources like the official sites, and some major fansites, and even some officially endorsed fansites. This is a problem with a lot of games (agetec's entire release catalog, for one). just because they dont get press attention doesnt mean they arent noteworthy, and definately doesnt mean they shouldnt have entries here so that people may learn more about them. a general consensus will never be reached as far as mergers are concerned, and one is needed to merge the articles, correct? if so, I have nothing to worry about, and there's no reason to continue debating with you. Again, not trying to be rude or insulting. I am extremely passionate about the RPG Maker series, devoting the past six years of my life to it's promotion and expansion. The gaming press has ignored us countless times (GamesTM is the only exception), and now I'm being told by yet another person that the RPG Maker series isnt important enough to have their own articles here, just because the press ignores it. Yes, I'm upset about that. Hopefully through more promotion and education, the series will gain enough popularity where it isnt ignored by the press, and then we can cite some outside sources. Valkysas 05:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

(de-indenting) Please don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that RPG Maker is completely non-notable. I do think it's notable enough to have on article on Wikipedia. I just don't think it makes the case that there should be a separate article for every single version. That's why I recommend merging all of the information from the individual articles here into the "Series" article. --Elonka 06:04, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

But each installment is so completely different from each other, with the exception of RPG Maker 2000 and 2003, where the only noticable change is a new battle system. RPG Maker XP adds the Ruby Game Scripting System which opens every part of the game engine for editing, and RPG Maker 1 for the PS1 looks like a sega genesis game, and is obscenely simple, and RPG Maker 2 looks more like an N64 game, and has a level of customization that actually scares people away because it's so complex. We had the articles combined for a while, and it was a jumbled mess. the PC RPG Makers got most of the attention, and the console RPG Makers were largely ignored, and info added for them was routinely deleted by vandals. Now that everything is seperate, the vandalism and linkspam has stopped, and we have the chance to put together some really informative stuff.
Look at this screenshot of an RPG Maker 1 game here: http://www.rpgmmag.com/images/site/rpgm/demo/arena_fighter_1.jpg now look at this screenshot of an RPG Maker 3 game here: http://www.rpgmmag.com/images/site/rpgm3/demo/ursus_quest_3.jpg See how different each installment is now? They really don't belong together at all.
Having seperate articles will also allow us to go into in-depth discussion about the scripting systems in the games, the design features, and the game creation engines themselves. if we crammed this information for all the RPG Makers into a single article, it would be obscenely large, and people would immediately propose that the articles be broken up again. Please, try to see where I'm coming from. Valkysas 06:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Believe me, I do.  :) There are many articles on Wikipedia which I'd love to expand based on personal knowledge, but unfortunately, that's just not how Wikipedia works. The only information that's supposed to go into a Wikipedia article, is info that's already been published in some external source. See Wikipedia:No original research. For what you're describing, I really think your best bet is to do it via an external webpage, and not via Wikipedia, which really isn't the best place for this kind of thing because of the Verifiability policy. See also WP:NOT. In terms of the screenshots you supplied though, why not just shrink them down to thumbnails, and include them in the "Series" article? I actually think that makes for a stronger article, since people will be able to see the transition of production values, all in one place. --Elonka 06:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Then please answer me this. Within the PC RPG Maker community, and the Console RPG Maker COmmunity, there are some dedicated RPG Maker sites that everyone within the community knows of and are very reputable. Would these count as external sources, even though they arent "big name" publications known to people outside the community? GamesTM even mentioned some of these sites in their RPG Maker article that ran earlier this year.
The RPG Maker community pretty much thinks of itself as a small game industry, and as such, we have sites that we rely on just as typical gamers would rely on IGN and 1up.com. To us, places like RMXP.org and the RPG Maker Magazine are our main centers for news and information for everything RPG Maker, and are just as (if not more) reliable for information as IGN and 1up.com are for normal gamers.Valkysas 06:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I'll take a look. Are any of these sources notable enough to have their own Wikipedia articles? How wide of a circulation does RPG Maker Magazine have? Also, another link you might want to read, is WP:CRUFT. Not that I think that your games are cruft, but simply because there's some good information there about the difference between "general interest" info on Wikipedia, vs. "Info that's only of interest to fans." --Elonka 20:04, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, the RPG Maker Magazine is an online magazine about the console RPG Maker series and the games made with it. they recently did their first print issue as well, although I dont know how many copies were printed. They're at www.rpgmmag.com. There's also the oldest and largest console RPG Maker site, the RPG Maker Pavilion at www.rpgmpavilion.com. Both have support of Agetec, and are officially endorsed. the webmasters of each site (I'm the current webmaster of the pavilion) were interviewed by GamesTM for their RPG Maker feature a while back as well, so we must be pretty noteworthy to draw the attention of them. Both are also linked to by agetec's own RPG Maker site at rpgmaker.agetec.com Valkysas 20:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Can you point us at any "credible source" numbers? How many copies of RPG Maker are out there, how many people visit the website? And what's the issue/date of the GamesTM article? --Elonka 21:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Agetec has never released sales numbers for the console RPG Maker series. I DO know how many have sold, but it's not public information, so I can't say. I dont know about the magazine's traffic, but the pavilion gets around 3200 unique hits per day on average, although it has gone higher several times, and large amounts of traffic have crashed the site during E3 before. I'll find out the issue number of the GamesTM article and get back to you. Valkysas 21:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I have read wikipedia's guidelines extensively, and have come to the conclusion that the pavilion, magazine, and other high profile, reliable RPG Maker websites are credible "secondary sources" that can be cited as sources within the articles. Thus, I am done discussing this issue with you. Work on the seperate RPG Maker articles will continue, and sources will be cited in accordance to wikipedia's guidelines. If you have any doubts to the reliability of these sites that will be cited as sources, you're free to take it up with the REAL experts on the issue; Agetec, the publisher of the console RPG Maker series, and even Michael French, the man who interviewed me and the webmaster of the RPG Maker Magazine for the GamesTM article (scans of the article are here: http://www.rpgmmag.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=2302), who wouldnt have bothered contacting us if the sites we work for were not reliable and legitimate sources of information. That pretty much wraps it up. Valkysas 02:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Please be sure to read WP:AUTO and WP:COI as well. --Elonka 04:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Already did, and nothing I plan to do will violate any of those. I didnt create the articles, nor will I be their ownly contributor, or use them as a vehicle for self-promotion like you constantly do. Valkysas 05:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
The RPG articles are going to be merged. Since you do not seem concerned with WP:COI, it is my recommendation that if you are concerned about how the merge is done, that you do the merge yourself, and set up the various titles as redirects to RPG Maker Series. Otherwise you are just going to be putting a lot of effort into something that is probably going to end up deleted. --Elonka 05:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Its not your call. a consensus has to be reached. You're only mad because I mentioned how you use wikipedia to promote yourself and your family. I'm not the only one that has taken issue with it either, I saw it come up a lot when you were up for admin consideration. Valkysas 06:09, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Ah, you know what? to hell with it. you constantly beat others into submission with this crap, there's just no winning against an uber-hypocrite like you. I'm done with the RPG Maker article on wikipedia, and will focus instead on the console RPGM communities own wiki. Valkysas 06:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the PS games, and I agree, many RPG Maker's don't need their own article, but all the PC ones from '95 to XP are notable enough to merit their own topic. I would like to point out WP:IAR, not because of lack of sources, but rather due to the difficulty in finding them. "Notable" (assuming the hudreds of forums are not justified as "notable") sources would be significantly hard to find. If we have a Japaneese speaking RPG-Maker user who could find these, then please do. I'm more than certain they exist, however I cannot read Japanese.SaderBiscut 07:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

  • There is no consensus to perform the move. —Mets501 (talk) 20:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
I just want to make a point to the comment made last month: EVERY OTHER game series has seperate pages for each installment. This isn't the case; Dynasty Warriors for example sensibly has the whole series on one page. I'd like to re-propose a merge, not with the whole series, but at least with each platform. Marasmusine 12:15, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
The titles are still far too different even on the same platform. people looking for information on them are better served by each title having it's own page. If we ever wish to cover some of the minor variations out there, like RPG Tsukuru for Mobile, it can go on the RPG Maker 2000 page, because it's just a port of that for cellphones. but everything else is way too different.75.7.207.125 01:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Okay fair enough. Is anyone actively working on these pages? A fair amount of wikification and references are required still. I'd be happy to help but I've only used RPG2000 in the past. Marasmusine 10:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Valkysas is going to do the RPG Maker articles when he has the time. He doesnt have a lot of free time though. 75.7.207.125 18:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
I was the first to split the articles, and I am still working on them to some degree. If you haven't notice, I have added at least one source to the first (3) PC version articles, and a little extra information here and there. I haven't played any of the PlayStation versions, so I can't do too much in those areas. Kopf1988 20:42, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RPG Maker Fansites

Okay, should we have a page for them, or not link to them at all!? Some games DO add to the encyclypedic value of RPG Maker articles! Games from various eras in RPG Maker history can let people see the differences in design, the various possibilities, and the graphics and music that could be used with each RPG Maker. Voice your opinion! (Remember, voting is evil.) 216.159.78.162 15:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC) (Kopf1988)

You mean notable games, not fansites? I dont think they should. as we've seen time and time again, people will add just any random game, even ones that do not yet exist, to the noteworthy games sections. They will take down their competitor's games, or any games they do not like. having a section for them is only going to as for vandalism, regardless of the intent behind the section, or how well written the rules for inclusion are. 75.7.207.125 19:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
I would not venture to add my own site, but as the webmaster of a major RMXP site, I have to say I think the fan sites really need to be represented here. It's kinda stupid not to really. This is a program for amateur game makers, yet the article makes no links to communities of said game makers. Without the game makers and designers, this article exists in limbo. Erk|Talk -- I like traffic lights -- 11:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Then you never saw the page when fansites were allowed on here. The list grew by 2 or 3 every single day, people kept removing the biggest fansite links and replacing them with their personal tripod sites, kept messing with the listing order, and constantly added dutch and spanish links, when those are of no use at all to anyone who would be visiting the english wikipedia page. I am stronly against fansites on this page. If people want to add them to each RPG Maker entry, thats fine as long as the site actually supports that RPG Maker and someone is watching that list every single day. but not here. If anyone wants to find a good site for RPG Maker, they can easily go to google.75.7.207.125 13:16, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I did see the list. I checked these sites fairly regularly when I was setting up rwiki at .org, and I agree it was out of hand. However, other fansite-heavy pages, such as the Avatar: The Last Airbender pages, manage to keep the constant fansite additions to a minimum. They are no different from any other spam: just treat the real, nonvanity content as such, and delete vanity content for obvious reasons. Add an HTML comment if there is not one already. There are a handful of core community sites that are recognised by pretty much everyone involved in the English RPG Maker community, and these should be recognised here. Erk|Talk -- I like traffic lights -- 13:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
And where do you draw the line? How many PC RPG Maker sites? How many console RPG Maker sites? How many PC RPG Maker sites are there worth mentioning that aren't carbon-copies of other sites with a different set of website graphics? 75.7.207.125 20:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

(deindent) I don't see that being particularly problematic, any more than it is problematic to decide whether or not the introduction of any given point is trivial or not. If I entered a line to the article saying "RPG Maker XP uses an orange dragon as its program icon", it would be trivial and could be deleted without any big issue. Why, then, is it problematic to decide if a trivial link should be included? Obviously, a link which 1) adds nothing new to the article, and/or 2) links to a site for the sheer purposes of advertising a site of no valid interest due to its size/professional level/etc can be deleted without question. However, valid large sites like [1] and [2] belong here. Aveyond (amaranth games), for example, is probably the most successful case study of any RPG maker game ever, and certainly the most successful RMXP one, and rmxp.org has one of the most active communities of any RM site (although as I run it, I am a bit biased to think so :p) ... sites along those lines are no-brainers for inclusion, and I think it is a cop-out to keep them out simply because they might make it harder to edit the links list when some 12 year old with a tripod site decides he belongs there more. Erk|Talk -- I like traffic lights -- 03:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The only way I think we should allow fansite links on this page are if the fansites support every RPG Maker, with this being the SERIES page. No sites support every RPG Maker though. They either cater to the PC series, or the console series. This is why they would be best off at their respective RPG Maker's entries.75.7.207.125 23:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia:External links, we should only link to a couple fansites, if any. I would stick with the most notable ones, as judged by quantity of web traffic. If that judgment becomes controversial, then the way that other areas on Wikipedia handle this, is to simply not link to any fansite -- only link to official sources of information. See also WP:CRUFT --Elonka 00:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/p/g/Talk%7ERPG_Maker_%28series%29_3287.html"